My theory
 

The other night I was on a mind altering substance and I came up with a very good theory of what happens when we die. I was having an out of body experience, and I realized that when we die, our body ceases to exist, along with our ability to hear and see and feel.

We enter a void, yet we can still think.

After an eternity of thinking, one gets pretty damn bored, so the person will start creating things in the void, using his or her imagination. The catch is that whatever is "created" is permanent, to an extent. This is where heaven or hell comes from. If you create something good in your void, you are in a heaven. If you create something negative, it becomes your own personal hell.

Anyhow, after an eternity of creating, the person creates his or her own universe! You become a sort of god.

This is how our universe could have been made. It keeps expanding, right? All the theories about our existance being a figment of someone's imagination is probably true, and the expansion of the universe is just the expansion of the thoughts of our creator!

But, why then can we create our own universes? Is it because the owner of our universe is more powerful than us, and can grant life? Tell me your theories about how this works.

well einstein said that the energy that makes up our body is neither created or destroyed so this does allow for existance beyond this existance

the fact that we all have a perception of reality, kind says we create our own universe. we are all part of the universe. did we create it or did we create it or was it cause and effect

I don't understand why people are so attached to these concepts of heaven and hell.

I'm not supporting the biblical view of heaven or hell, I'm just saying that an "evil" person may end up building his own chaos when he dies, and a good person can create a paradise for himself.

... it sure would be a waste to live for however long we get, then die and cease to exist. I think an afterlife makes more sense than the absence of it.

Death assumes an absolute reference frame for time. Thus, there is no death. But why am I experiencing this moment and not some other? Because I am the experience of this moment. But what about now? I thought I was the experience of that moment, but now I am the experience of this moment. Yes, the feeling of I exists in the experience of both moments, and the memory of another moment exists in the experience of other moments. That's how it works.

//I'm just saying that an "evil" person may end up building his own chaos when he dies, and a good person can create a paradise for himself.//

An evil person builds their own chaos in life, and a good person builds their own paradise. You don't have to wait till after you're dead for heaven and hell.

And, in any case, humans necessarily have a body, so can't exist in a disembodied state.

That's all I need to know.

But being conscious doesn't entail having a body.

Well, no, but I'm assuming we're all humans here...

So then in the original scenario the person would cease to be a human when he or she died, but would still be conscious, and capable of creating her own heaven and hell.

But yea, I agree that the same happens in life, except evil people don't neccessarily live in their own hell, nor the good in heaven. That is why people need the ideas of heaven and hell. We don't understand good and evil in themselves, and need to attach them to pains and pleasures, which we do understand. Which reminds me of a Tool lyric: "Black then white are all I see in my infancy."

No, the person would be dead. We don't have some sort of 'soul' that can be separated from our body. How would this thing be conscious? We use our brains to think; what would this ghost use to think? We use our eyes to see; would this disembodied stuff be blind?

Ok, so you do think having a body is neccessary for consciousness, which is not what you just said. Besides, I wasn't saying that that is the way it is, just that that is what the original poster believes. In his scenario the thing is blind, but it uses it's imagination to see. I don't believe his or her theory anyway. I was just trying to clear it up.

You raise the question of how this thing would be conscious. How are we conscious?

Actually, I don't think having a body is necessary for consciousness; I think it's necessary for human consciousness (in analogy to the statement that eyes are necessary for human visual perception -- some creatures have visual perception, but don't have eyes).

In brief answer to your second question, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, kinda like wetness is an emergent property of water.

Conciousness is not predicated on a functioning brain, hence all the accurate reports from people having NDE's and seeing things around them that they had no line of sight to.

So, what do we do? Dunno. I think we live on, and that we go back to God, but many disagree.

Honestly, I don't believe in what I wrote, it is just an interesting theory I made up. I haven't heard of anything like it, so I decided to post it. If this has already been thought of, and is in a religion, I would like to know so that I can see what that religion says about this theory.

I think before we go into any of the said topics in this thread, some major questions need to be addressed:

"the person will start creating things in the void, using his or her imagination"
Create things how?
"If you create something good in your void,"
How do you define good?

While a very interesting idea, it seems your idea is lacking in foundation. I realize the specifics of your example aren't as important as the concept of self-creation, but I thought that should be addressed. As for your speculation, there's a problem of infinite regress. Say that we are part of a universe created from the "eternity of creating" of a more powerful being. In turn, we take part in the eternity of creating, and within our created universe emerges other sentient beings. In turn they partake in an eternity of creating.
You can see where this is going. Nothing is proven. I believe it is a generally accepted view that such logical patterns are not worth following. You can believe it, but it's not useful in argumentation.