There is Evidence for an Afterlife

[paulm50]

My Gran used to have a gay dog. There's no way he went to heaven!

All male dogs mount other males it's a domination thing. Unless he's actually performing sodomy. LOL

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The evidence is interpetation. Everything's an interpretation. No, wait. Not everything. Everything except success. In the context of the afterlife, this does not mean try harder. That would be failure. So we're back to square one. Life.

 

[quatona]

I feel all these people who believe in a higher power and Heaven can't be wrong. There are billions and billions of people who believe in a higher power.

There are also billions of people who think they have a fair chance of winning the lottery.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

All though I do not know if Jesus was divine or if we have an immortal soul, I still feel it is better to have hope for Heaven nd fear Hell. That is better than not believing at all. I find the christian faith to be comforting. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, still doesn't mean necessarily there is nothing to it other than mythology. I feel religion is mostly man made,but it is made in a way that connects people to God in an inspirational way.

Although billions of people believe they have a fair chance at the lottery which is a false belief, there could be a magical power from the Holy Spirit that can help people to have faith even in an age of science and a world suffering from the evils of over population and Global Warming. I hope at some point Jesus come back and saves the planet from turning into a giant steam bath, especially if it turns out we can't do it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

All though I do not know if Jesus was divine or if we have an immortal soul, I still feel it is better to have hope for Heaven nd fear Hell. That is better than not believing at all. I find the christian faith to be comforting.

That's fine for you personally.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, still doesn't mean necessarily there is nothing to it other than mythology.

It's not that it doesn't "make sense" to me, but that I have no reason to think that it is true. We can just as easily say that the goddess Inanna might have something to her. Pick a deity, any deity. Or none at all.

I'd rather form my views intelligently, based on evidence and good argument, than to play a card game.

I feel religion is mostly man made,but it is made in a way that connects people to God in an inspirational way.

If it comforts you to believe, go right ahead. But don't expect others to agree that you are on the right track.

Although billions of people believe they have a fair chance at the lottery which is a false belief, there could be a magical power from the Holy Spirit that can help people to have faith even in an age of science and a world suffering from the evils of over population and Global Warming. I hope at some point Jesus come back and saves the planet from turning into a giant steam bath, especially if it turns out we can't do it.

I personally am a lukewarmist who doesn't fear runaway global warming, but I would not be counting on any magical powers to save humanity if there really is a grave global warming problem. The worst thing that we could do would be to rely on a magical savior. We need science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ViaCrucis]

More than different, the Christian church says we go to Heaven or Hell. No knowledge of it saying reincarnation.

More specifically the historic, orthodox Christian position (whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant) is that there is a resurrection of the body. Since, the body is intrinsically part of who we are as persons and the future hope is not life as a disembodied soul/spirit floating up in a place called "Heaven" strumming harps but is instead in the resurrection of the body in the world to come; the concept of reincarnation really doesn't fit in Christian eschatology.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[ViaCrucis]

Question: Where do non-humans go then?

Historically the Christian religion has taught that the end means a restoration of all things, that is, the restoration and renewal of all creation. Not that there are these two ethereal planes "souls" go forever called heaven and hell; but that God is going to make all things new, the earth, the universe, everything. So that would include our various furry, scaly, slimy, and feathered cohabitants of this beautiful blue planet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SkyWriting]

But the analytical part of brain of my tells me that all these ideas of an afterlife are just wishful thinking.

Other analytical people have come to the opposite conclusion.
It's not logical that yours is better at analysis than others.

 

[SkyWriting]

The worst thing that we could do would be to rely on a magical savior. We need science.

Sinners generally do not turn to science to save them.
A few do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sinners generally do not turn to science to save them.

I was talking about such challenges as overcoming or avoiding ecological disasters, not trying to wash away sin and/or to get into heaven. Science applies to the former, and I agree that it doesn't apply to the latter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Science is good. But can only flourish given certain pre-existent social conditions. Ok the Chinese seem to have an atheist tradition where science can thrive, but that is not anautomatic if we try it in adifferent cultural scenario. Even if "I am an atheist" feels fine for you, and feels fine for China, theres the logic of hasty generalisaiton toponder.

 

[Larniavc]

So what are your thoughts on this?

This is either deception or false memory syndrome. Memories are so redacted every time they are accessed and people are so likely to lie to people please that I see no reason to suspect that people have more than one turn on the wheel.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

I understand why one would not want to play a card game, but it is part of a good argument to consider probability, especially when it comes to creation. To understand what I am saying consider the odds that would have to play out for us to come into existence by merely natural processes and there being no creator. I think those odds are somewhere near a billion to the billion. So there could be a creator and it could be Jesus Christ, who knows? It could have happened, it is possible. Keep hope alive!

The christian story could be a true story, we weren't there, it is like a crime scene, maybe when Christ came for a visit, he concealed a lot of the evidence for some reason we will never know for sure why, but it is a least possible.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Unless our remains are completely and perpetually sealed off from the environment, the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and other elements comprising our bodies might eventually be recycled into other plants or animals. Other than that, I can't imagine any kind of life after death. And certainly not any sentient life that would retain our sense of self. I realize I can't prove this. But the analytical part of brain of my tells me that all these ideas of an afterlife are just wishful thinking.

The soul and spirit our not on the same plane as the mortal realm. Rather, the body is a conduit which displays a sort of reflection of them. The eyes and blood of a person contain the soul, which is why you can read into eyes. Or, be humiliated by your blood outside of your body, which is the nakedness of the soul.

 

[Dave RP]

I feel it is important to acknowledge the possibility of an afterlife. Here is some evidence that I am aware of, you may be interested and care to share what you have heard of over the years.

Just this spring on NBC news with Lester Holt, He reported on finding a doctor who is making a record of people with past life experiences. He reported about one boy who claims in a previous life he used to be an actor I believe from the 1920's. The doctor checked him out and found he knew 55 different things about this actor. Including how old was the actor when he died.

There are a whole bunch of other hard to explain events that definitely leave me wondering and hoping for the divinity of Jesus Christ. Can really all these people in this day and age be totally wrong about at least the possibility that something that was hard to explain really happened 2000 years ago?

So what are your thoughts on this?

I would say that in my opinion past life experiences are just a result of a fertile imagination.

Mt own opinion of an afterlife is that it is just wishful thinking and hoping beyond hope that this short life we have is not all that there is. If there is an afterlife when all decent Christians (or Muslims if Christians are unlucky) and the body is resurrected, what age are you when resurrected. If you're that age you were when you die, then they'll be a lot of old people meandering around. Do dead babies come back as babies then grow up? Of course some will say that hell will be populated by unbelievers of the winning faith - eternal damnation, so you're resurrected and then condemned to eternity in hell, again what age are you when down there?

Historically, when most people died young after a tough life, the afterlife was an important belief, just because life was awful and the belief that there is something better was easy to place into the collective psyche.

 

[Lukamu]

According to the best science we have, there is no afterlife and no possibility of it. See 'The Higgs Boson & the Fundamental Nature of Reality' (below). The whole lecture is worth watching, but I skipped to the relevant part):

While you are enthusiastic about the scientific proof regarding the afterlife, the video clearly states that this is a theory which has yet to be proved.

"That is the importance of the finding of the Higgs boson - it completes a theory that is a complete theory of the everyday world." (at 33:22)

Later in the video, the lecturer explains further...

"Of course there's plenty we don't understand: turbulence, weather... consciousness... (at 43:47)"

I can't prove the afterlife exists either, but consider the consequences if this theory which you have faith in turns out to be incorrect.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can't prove the afterlife exists either, but consider the consequences if this theory which you have faith in turns out to be incorrect.

That's true. The true God might hate people who believe in an afterlife with an eternal vengeance (moochers!), and grant eternal life to nonbelievers.

Can you take the chance on that? Can you?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

While you are enthusiastic about the scientific proof regarding the afterlife, the video clearly states that this is a theory which has yet to be proved.

Please don't try to read my mind. I'm not enthusiastic about scientific proof because there is no such thing; proof is for mathematics and logic. Science doesn't prove things, it provides consistent naturalistic explanations that have predictive power (although you may feel some scientific evidence is strong enough to be proof). There is a difference between a 'scientific theory' and the colloquial meaning of 'theory'. In science, what is colloquially called a theory is generally called an 'hypothesis' or 'informed speculation' - an idea for an explanation that is more or less plausible but is untested. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." <wikipedia>

Later in the video, the lecturer explains further...
"Of course there's plenty we don't understand: turbulence, weather... consciousness... (at 43:47)"

None of which is relevant to claims of an afterlife. Consciousness is a biological process, a certain type of brain activity; we may not understand all the details of it, but we know enough to be sure that when the brain stops functioning, so does consciousness.

I can't prove the afterlife exists either, but consider the consequences if this theory which you have faith in turns out to be incorrect.

Don't forget that scientific theories are not absolute and abstract claims about reality; they are models that explain our observations of consistencies in the world. They are effectively saying, "The world behaves exactly as if it is constrained by certain rules. Using these rules, we can model and predict its behaviour." When the model has been repeatedly tested by comparing it with our observations of the world, and it matches our observations and also makes predictions that match what we find when we test them, it qualifies as a scientific theory. The best scientific theory is the one with the most explanatory and predictive power.

Most scientific theories have limits or constraints on their applicability - the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection requires populations with heritable variation; Newtonian Mechanics (Newton's Laws of Motion) is an approximation, accurate enough for everyday use, but increasingly inaccurate at speeds approaching a significant fraction of the speed of light. An important point is that although Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, it's a sufficiently good approximation that you can use it to send men to the moon and probes around the solar system; it doesn't suddenly break down in everyday life.

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the most accurate, best tested theory we've ever had; it has made many predictions, some very strange and unexpected, which have all turned out to be accurate when tested. Like Newtonian Mechanics, QFT might be wrong, an approximation to some deeper or more subtle explanation, but like Newtonian Mechanics, we know its range of applicability and accuracy within that range. That range easily encompasses human scales; so in the same way that Newtonian Mechanics allows us to predict with confidence that if you run your car head on into a brick wall at 70 mph you will write it off, QFT allows us to say with confidence that the only matter particles relevant to everyday life at human scales are protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the only fields are gravity and electromagnetism. As Carroll explains, this immediately rules out a whole bunch of paranormal and supernatural ideas (as it the Laws of Thermodynamics didn't already), and also explains why there is no plausible or demonstrable evidence for them.

I'm sure it's extremely disturbing to people who believe in magic, or ghosts, or life after death, or astrology, or spirits, etc., but it's clear that they're entirely mental constructions, no more likely to exist than you are to drive your car away from that 70 mph crash. (Also, experimental psychology and neurology have given us some useful understanding of how these beliefs are established and maintained).

Of course, despite this dampening blanket explanation for the absence of evidence for the paranormal and supernatural, people's beliefs are unlikely to change, and what with the theory and its evidence being rather opaque to the man in the street, and human nature being what it is, these things will continue to be argued and debated on an individual basis.

 

[Lukamu]

The best scientific theory is the one with the most explanatory and predictive power.

I would say that the best scientific theory is the one that's 100% correct.

 

[Lukamu]

That's true. The true God might hate people who believe in an afterlife with an eternal vengeance (moochers!), and grant eternal life to nonbelievers.

Can you take the chance on that? Can you?

So you're saying there's an afterlife?