At the end we cant win against nature right.

>>17695449
Is my logic faulty?

Highly selective Memory.

Maybe you are dying right now so how are you alife?
When memory dies then you die and that's that.
Consciousness is the same everywhere. Like water, if it's in a tree or in you it makes no difference in that direction.

So maybe you are already there you just don't know it yet. Then seamless cuts can be made.
What you call "I" is an image of memories. That will die when memory is gone. The real I is already there.
It all happens now.

>>17695461
Can you dumb this down for me please?

I see what you mean, but what is the force behind it all that would make us come back, even after x-near-infinite amount of years? What is powering the revival instead of natural entropy just ending things and leaving it at that?

Every incarnation is the incarnation of "I".
Therefor I have said you are already there.

Memory however will be lost once its container is lost.
Everyone working with computer memory will tell you, that memory works only when it is contained.
Once released then memory is gone.

At the same time this memory can leave an imprint on something. Sort of like a negative.
Maybe you are aware of this "water memory" phenomenon.

The only thing that could reincarnate already did.
Memory is of a different question. It can be transported but this is a lifelong task which cannot be broken at any point.

So bottom line is, this next life you think of there is already happening, you are the current stage of this. Question is, will memory carry over or not?
This depends on the quality of your work.

>>17695438
> if we were dead for billions of years, then all of the sudden we came into existence
You have to exist before you can die, so that right there is wrong.

If you mean "we," as in individual people, as in "do we just get reincarnated after we're dead for a while," no, that's dumb. Or rather, there's nothing to support that concept; it's completely hypothetical.

If you mean humanity as a whole: Humans weren't dead for billions of years, they simply didn't exist. What ever eventually evolved into what evolved into the things that (etc) evolved into humans were there at least several million years ago, just not humans as we know them today.

Now, if you mean all life on earth then there's no real answer for what caused the first micro-organism to start reacting consciously/reflexively to the world around them on a level more involved than the base chemical reactions. However, if this is what you mean there's the loose possibility that, long after the heat death of the universe (and I mean said gogolplex of years long) that whatever matter is still within even the most minuscule gravitational range of each other will eventually pull it's self back together. Now, if that happens, then there's an equally minuscule chance that all that long dead matter may collide with enough force to spark something. Should it then successfully begin a domino-effect of however much thermal energy it may muster, that much matter may be able to recreate something similar to a lesser big-bang and re-start some tiny spray of lesser cosmic existence.

But, even after all of that hypothetical improbability that all of that stuff happens, the odds that another planet with all of the exact conditions earth had would come into existence around one of those new suns is all but literally a billion-billion to one.

Possible? Maybe, but it's infinitely improbable and completely hypothetical; the definition of preposterous.

> TL;DR
Nah, u silly.

Your components have been here since the creation of earth and heaven.....and will exist until the destruction of the two your conscious mind is only here for just a bit ....

>>17695438
>Correct my logic if I'm wrong somewhere or it's faulty.
we weren't "dead" for billions of years. we were non-existent. and when we die we will be non-existent again.

i agree that it probably makes sense that "we" have lived before and "we" will live again because of the nature of infinity but there is no reason to believe that we will have a continuous consciousness that will ever allow us to be aware of this.

>>17695479
>near infinite

ur a funny guy

This is my hope for the afterlife. After eons and eons of death, I and all my loved ones will come to out if the vacuum of space into paradise, with the same brain patterns we had at the moment of death, all our memories and experiences intact. Philosophically, experientially, it may not actually be "me" who is resurrected but how can I even be sure it's "'me" who wakes up every mornin? This resurrection is more than enough for me.

Give enough time, anything that could possibly happen must happen.

>>17695438
How would you factor in the fact that you must also be THE sperm, out of possibly hundreds of ejaculations and millions of other sperm contenders?

You don't understand how consciousness works. There is only one cosmic consciousness. We are all the same consciousness. We are god. Our ego makes us think we are independent but in reality we are everything in the universe. Ego death gives you a glimpse of the cosmic consciousness.

So your atom patterns have nothing to do with your specific consciousness attaching to it. Your ego will be gone forever when you die.

>>17698195
Death means L'ego my ego?

>>17695438
>infinite universe
That's making an assumption. If the universe satisfies the no-boundary condition, every axis of spacetime would be curved-- and if time is a circle, might it not just return to the same state eventually?