Is There Life After Death?

1. 56

   Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years ago

   Do you think there is life after death? Or do you think that once you die, that is the end of your existance?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus rose after his "death." Are we not spiritual beings as He was? How can spiritual beings die?
      They cannot.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Science is now proving there are in fact many other dimensions of existence AND that God exists. The scientists who discovered M theory or String Theory are now claiming that God exists due to the sheer weight of mathematical evidence.
      Hence as other dimensions exist and as God exists the argument for the existence of an after life is looking very substantial and not at all fanciful.
      Time for a few local atheists to humbly get on their knees and have a few repentant words to God

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Mathematical evidence proves the existence of a god?  What, 2+2 now equals god? 
         
         Don't be ridiculous.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            As you know M theory is a tad more than 2+2.
            There are atheists on record at HP (no names mentioned of course) who have been claiming for years if science presents more proofs then "of course they will change their beliefs".
            Well the proofs are coming in and the said unmentionable atheists won't even look at it.
            Why? That's a rhetorical question.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               What proofs are coming in?  Certainly not M theory - that has nothing to do with the existence of a god.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  As usual you don't read the news or the latest scientific developments and as usual I won't do your homework.
                  Perhaps you need to spend less time on HP and catch up with developments?
                  
                  http://hubpages.com/education/answer/26 … -existence

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Sorry, but I call BS on that one.  No particle is evidence of a god, regardless of what it does, how it is made or anything else.  You want me to believe that it will most definitely take more than "so and so thinks it is evidence".  I'll even point out that those that answered your "question" agree with my stance.
                     
                     Find a peer review of Kaku's work, with others agreeing.  Find his experimental evidence, and where it has been reproduced.  Find something beyond "I conclude there is a god because natural laws have to have been made by a god".

                     replyreport
                     1. 74

                        Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        It is clear that although you keep saying you'll look at evidence and research, you flatly refuse to. All advanced science is conjectural but you and certain nameless others only treat atheist- turned-believer scientists as no longer authoritative.
                        If you apply the same standards to such "God science" as with ordinary science you would already be a believer. Instead you apply a double standard. "Proof" in your book is when you can see a giant white bearded man in the clouds! This infantile idea seems to be your view of what people are claiming God to be.
                        An objective person would simply by now allow the possibility of God's existence due to M Theory and Kurt Godel's God Theorem.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           What evidence?  You have produced a physicist saying he believes in a god, but without reasons or the mathematics to show the truth.  That is hardly mathematical evidence of anything at all.
                           
                           I asked for peer reviewed work - the exact same thing ALL science requires - and your response is that we don't ask other science for the same thing.
                           
                           Godels Theorem basically says that if we can imagine a god then it has to exist - that is hardly proof of a god, either.  It also proves the FSM and the pink unicorn living under my bed - do you accept those a true, too?
                           
                           But you've also gone from a mathematical proof of a god to the possibility of a god existing - the two are far different and no reasoning person can deny the possibility of an invisible, undetectable god in another universe.  That one doesn't need a mathematical proof; it only needs recognition that we do not know everything there is to know.

                           replyreport
                           1. 74

                              Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Listen to yourself! Sad.
                              Godel's work has been around for decades and has been verified by supercomputers. It also hasn't been flawed by any mathatician. It certainly can't be flawed on HPS.
                              A maths "proof" is a different thing to actual physical proof. Please look up "maths proof" dictionary definition. Stop looking for giants in the sky with white flowing beards and start thinking about intelligent energy.
                              M theory science work has been peer reviewed for years so you are consistently wrong on all counts.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Godels logic (not mathematical analysis) is based on flawed premises.  While the logic is impeccable, it is still built on sand rather than a firm foundation.  And this is well known, and accepted, including by those mathematicians that agree the logic used is not flawed.  Just the axioms used.  Not sure why that is such a hard concept to understand: in "computerese" it has been known for a long time as GIGO and I'm sure you've heard the term.
                                 
                                 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de … ical_proof
                                 
                                 "Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: As with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. This is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof, because it rests on five axioms that are all questionable. The proof does not say that the conclusion has to be correct, but rather that if you accept the axioms, then the conclusion is correct." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
                                 
                                 GIGO, in other words.  Garbage In, Garbage Out regardless of the correctness of the logic.
                                 
                                 "In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement."
                                 
                                 You haven't produced any mathematical statements about god, and neither did Godel.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 74

                                    Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    No bro that's just the emotive atheist view of Godel. His maths is unassailable. Certainly you are in no position to challenge Godel on any logic or math.
                                    The same situation is now occurring with M theory. Garbage too? Only according to emotional atheists.

                                    replyreport
   3. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure how true this is or not, but one of my exes once told me that not only do we exist in other dimensions, to where if one dies they go on to live in another dimension, but apparently in the after life there's like a spirit world where you get counseling before you return to the human realm.  She also said that the reason why you might bump into other people that hate you, for practically no reason at all, is because you allegedly killed that person in another life, so anything you say or do will rub them the wrong way.  Same way with you if you run into someone who somehow  pisses you off just by them being them, as it's because they killed you in a previous life.  Of course, I think she may have been insane though, but there's a lot of things she said that made a lot of sense to where it's kind of scary.

      replyreport
   4. 52

      Setank Setunkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Divine creation: I Believe
      Human spirituality and/or sentience: No Way
      The After life was born of human vanity and self importance. Humankind is a parasite that is consuming the planet to satiate it's lust for pleasure and self gratification.
      Horace said: "Pulvis et umbra sumus".

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think there is a different sort of existence but what that may be is entirely open to conjecture. I'm a fan of the idea that each belief structure has some basis of truth without being entirely accurate. Like reincarnation.
      
      We have ample evidence that some do have memories of lives past that only reincarnation can explain. But they are few and far between. We have some evidence of other worldly beings but, again, testimony is few and far between. Prophets of events to come have come and gone.
      
      I'm inclined to believe that, for the most part, our essences are reabsorbed into the consciousness of the universe with some anomalies existing within that model.

      replyreport
   6. 58

      Shayra jamesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There are two portals through which our souls make existence on earth, one is birth and second is death. It doesn't mean that after death the life is over. What gets over is the motive of living.

      replyreport
2. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Yes, there is life after death but most just go to sleep on the astral plane and wait till next time around. We have one soul, but take on many bodies. Each body and lifetime is completely different from the one before.
   In this sense we only have one life ... and this is it.  Until we try another brand new one ... again and again and again … Fortunately we do not remember past lifetimes. It would be too much of a burden.

   replyreport
3. 75

   cheaptrickposted 7 years ago

   there's no reason to believe that after you die wont be any different than before you were born...remember that?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I had a senior moment about half an hour ago. I still can't remember those few moments. Does that prove they didn't happen?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         cheaptrickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         You remember existing while you had your 'senior' moment or you would not have mentioned it,so it's not the same thing.Do you remember existing before you were born?
         Self awareness is the foundational question we should be discussing;everything else depends on it.Life after death?Does it matter if you have no self awareness?Heaven and hell?Dose it matter without self awareness?Some Really Smart folks are even debating when are you dead!Is it when the body dies...or is it when your self awareness stops?
         Twenty years in a coma;you wake up and remember nothing...did it really happen?We know that reality is subjective;we here from others that it did happen...but that was for them! not you!What are the limits of identity...of self awareness...of experiential confirmation that we need to be sure of anything?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Honestly, I have no recollection of that time so, no, you couldn't say I remember existing during that time. I remember what I was doing prior to that moment and what I was doing when I became aware again but not during that time. I can assume that I did not cease to exist during that time (and that would be a logical assumption) but my point was that simply because we cannot tick off a list of things observed and done at any given moment it does not mean that moment did not happen. That we did not exist.
            
            I am right there with you on much of what you mentioned. However, we aren't talking about this plane of existence. We are pondering others. I have no problem with anyone not believing in heaven or hell. I don't believe that what they attempt to pound into you concerning that is true either. But, babies are born with self awareness. .Few, if any, have any recollection of those years. I see ample evidence from multiple sources to assume that there is more to existence than we can prove scientifically. The lack of scientific evidence cannot negate the possibility of more. It simply means we cannot state, unequivocally, what it entails.
            
            If it makes you feel any better I am not of the opinion that retaining personal self awareness is a consistent part of the 'hereafter'. I think some do. I don't have an opinion as to why other than to say that I do believe we choose to take a part in this existence in the form we do. Whether that means it is an individual choice which culminates into an individual existence after the time here; or it is some type of a collective choice and our consciousness is reabsorbed into that consciousness is just another part of conjecture.

            replyreport
4. 60

   Trichakraposted 7 years ago

   "Thousands of past life regressions via hypnosis have confirmed the existence of past lives"

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      … well, that is interesting but we need proof.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         That would be difficult to prove. Edgar Cayce has never been proven to be a fraud. And there is ample evidence he was the real deal. Although I don't think his readings constitute proof they are certainly compelling.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The only way to prove it is to remember one's past lifetime(s)! Is it possible?
            Yogis say yes.
            I would say certain behavioral tendencies relate to past-life modes of living/being.
            Also, I believe one's astrological chart provides clues to tendencies developed in past lifetimes.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Well, one person 'remembering' wouldn't be proof to anyone but that one person.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep.

                  replyreport