jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (81 posts)

Multi-universe.... Really?

  1. A.Villarasa profile image71
    A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago

    Scientists of all stripes, but most specifically physicists (astrophysicists, theoretical physycists, and the ocassional metaphysicists) have posited  that based on  the perplexities and complexities of quantum mechanics, the possibility of not just one,  but multiple universes exist, thus the increasing probability that  our solar system is not the only planetary system where sentient life was created.

    In his book "The proof of Heaven" Dr. Eben Alexander revealed, that while going through a NDE, he was given knowledge of the EXISTENCE of such multiple universes, and  of other sentient beings populating other planetray systems.

    Score another notch for spiritualism ... leaving perhaps empiricism in the dust.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      lol

    2. ChristopherJRex profile image91
      ChristopherJRexposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It’s too bad that a working knowledge of empirical data actually requires people to read…
      ”The scientific evidence suggests that all aspects of the near-death experience have a neurophysiological or psychological basis: the vivid pleasure frequently experienced in near-death experiences may be the result of fear-elicited opioid release, while the life review and REM components of the near-death experience could be attributed to the action of the locus coeruleus- noradrenaline system. Out-of-body experiences and feelings of disconnection with the physical body could arise because of a breakdown in multisensory processes, and the bright lights and tunneling could be the result of a peripheral to fovea breakdown of the visual system through oxygen deprivation. A priori expectations, where the individual makes sense of the situation by believing they will experience the archetypal near-death experience package, may also play a crucial role.”
      http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy. … attNDE.pdf

      1. A.Villarasa profile image71
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        @CJRex:

        Several facts about Dr. Alexander and his book "Proof of Heaven:
          (1) Pre-NDE, he was and would be the first one to question the validity and veracity of NDEs. He, as a Neuro-scientist first and a Neuro-surgeon second,  was extremely skeptical when several of his own patients and patients of his colleagues related their NDEs. He would probably quote the same article you mentioned in your post  as an argument against anything extracorporeal that could explain the close to "uniformity" of these experiences, in terms of theme and content.

           (2) In 2008 Dr. Alexander was afflicted with a most unusual (incidence rate at 1 in 1,000,000 in adults) E.Coli meningirtis, that in its most severe form, could only lead to death, or if the patient survives the initial insult... to a vegetative state. Dr. Alexander's case was most unusual and most severe, and the fact that he survived and came out of his coma, neurologically intact was, to his M.D colleagues, short of a miracle.

           (3) His  memory of  the events during that NDE was so crystal clear that on introspection and soul searching, and an extensive review of his clinical status in the Intensive Care Unit, during those seven days that he was in a coma,  undergirded by  his own background as a neuroscientist, led him to only ONE conclusion: that his NDE was not assuage by his brain malfunctioning i.e that the consciousness of those events was not mediated by his brain's  altered bio-chemical synapses  but by something higher, something extracorporeal.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Only ONE conclusion could be made? That is hilarious. I can think of many conclusions, but it wasn't my brain that was starved of oxygen and consciousness for a lengthy period of time. Does the clarity of a dream make it more less real?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            This guy is not a neuroscientist either. Why do these believers need to lie about this stuff?

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I just did a fast search and found him on wikipedia. It's even more funny then I thought. He claims heaven awaits us with "angels, clouds, and departed relatives, but also including butterflies and beautiful girls in peasant dress". Beautiful girls in peasant dresses? Sounds like a male brain to me.

              I hadn't realized he claimed to have had a OBE as well. Sam Harries (the neuroscientist) suggests Alexander may have had these experiences when coming out of his coma, but Alexander claims "I know that my experience happened within coma because of certain anchors to earth time in memory."

              1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                @RadMan:
                You might want to do a slower and much more extensive/exhaustive  research on Dr. Alexander's background. Aside from being a Neuro-surgeon of significant repute, he is also a well publised clinical researcher on  neuroscience.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  And... Are you saying I have to take his word for it because he's well educated? It's not impossible to be a delusional smart man?

                  I've had dreams that I thought were real, does that make them real?

                  First clue... "angels, clouds, and departed relatives, but also including butterflies and beautiful girls in peasant dress". Are we still objectifying women in heaven? I know I've had a few dreams of beautiful women in peasant dress, that a kind of male thing to do. Not the girls part though, that's disgusting.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                    A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I am not saying you should...what I am suggesting however  is for you to critically read the book in its totality ,  and not judge it or Dr. Alexander, williy-nilly, as what Wilderness had done with his labeling the doctor a "whacko".

              2. A.Villarasa profile image71
                A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                @RadMan:
                I did a long and extensive search on your beloved "neuro-scientist" Sam Harris, and lo and behold, he is not even a practticing neuro-scientist. It's true that he got a PhD at UCLA in neuroscience, and apparently he has just been too busy writing books here, contributing blogs to non-scientific publications like the Huffington Post, and generally becoming the media darling of Atheists all over the world. via TV appearances, lecture circuit etc. Apparently the last time he was in a neuroscience lab was during his student heydays at UCLA.

                Imagine that...a pseudo-neuroscientist... akin to an MD who trained in say Dermatology, and never gets to practice Dermatology because he is just too busy building a cosmetic  empire...HHHmmm.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I really don't care about Sam Harris. I've read about him in the past and found his thoughts a little harsh. Butterflies and girls in peasant dresses? Wake up.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                    A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    @RadMan:

                    Quite a reversal don't you think? One minute, you're quoting Sam Harris as if he is the ultimate and final word on anything and everything neuroscience, then the next minute you are spitting him out into the dustbin   like a hot potato.
                    This analogy might be entirely inappropriate, but the above just reminded me of that biblical passage about Peter denying that he ever had anything to do with  Jesus, on the eve of His crucifixion, nonetheless. Only in Sam Harris' case, there is not going to be a crucifixion, but a coronation, in the media, making him the richest Atheist ever (what with best-selling books, multiiple blogging stints at Huffington Post, TV interviews and oh yes the lecture circuit), leaving  his  millions of enamored fans in the dust and eating his crow.
                    Now where is the fairness or justice in that? WAKE UP!!!!!!

        2. ChristopherJRex profile image91
          ChristopherJRexposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          A.Villarasa: Rad Man brought up some good points, namely how you should really take a look at Sam Harris's article, which discusses Dr. Alexander's experience from a logical, scientific (empirical) perspective: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

          Simply put, let's just think about how an infection in the brain, accompanied by swelling, could affect/damage various parts of the brain in ways that would result in the perception of an "ethereal reality."  It is physically impossible for your brain to "perceive" anything while it is supposedly "nonfunctional."  Additionally, there is no way for a brain to go from 1% "active" to 100% "active" (from comatose to awake) instantaneously, meaning that his "visions" could have easily occurred during that transitional period.  Not surprisingly, even people with their consciousness maintained have experienced such vivid "visions" while under the influence of various drugs.  Also, Dr. Alexander appears to be a functional neurosurgeon, trained and experienced in the physical aspects of the brain (for surgical purposes), not its higher-level functioning (for psychological purposes).  His comments on Psychology should be treated with the same care a Veterinarian would treat surgical suggestions from a Zoologist.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image71
            A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            @CJRex;
            What you just posted is exactly what Dr. Alexander was saying... that is, during his severe E. Coli meningitis, the part of his brain (neo-cortex)that is involved in higher functioning i.e consciousness,  sentience, memory were non-operative, thus his NDE experience could only be explained via the operative functioning of a "higher consciousness"... a concsiousness that is not anchored on the physical and material.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Strange we don't all have this higher consciousness while under anesthesia or brain trauma. Perhaps it was just his stressed brain fantasizing about girls in peasant dresses while his brain was becoming more active, otherwise heaven will not be as pleasant for some. Strange we will maintain our physical appearances, do you think babies will remain babies for eternity an the very old will be stuck being old and decrepit for eternity as well. To bad for them, because I'm going out early while I still have a beautiful body. Do you think I'll at least get my hair back? A few inches taller would be nice as well?

            2. ChristopherJRex profile image91
              ChristopherJRexposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              A.Villarasa: You obviously did not read Sam Harris's article.  I find that particularly interesting since you made fun of Rad Man for not reading Dr. Alexander's book upon your request.  Another great example of a religious hypocrite: do as I say, not as I do.

              Anyways, if you were to read Sam Harris's article, you would find a quote from an actual neuroscientist saying that, "coma does not equate to 'inactivation of the cerebral cortex' or 'higher-order brain functions totally offline' or 'neurons of [my] cortex stunned into complete inactivity.' These describe brain death, a one hundred percent lethal condition. There are many excellent scholarly articles that discuss the definitions of coma."

              1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                @CJRex:

                I just now read Sam Harris's article, and found it unconvincing, coming as it does from someone who is into mightily debunking anything that has spirituality written all over it. His tone was so insultingly condescending towards a fellow neuroscientist ... he seems to think that having been active in the drug scene, psychedelics and such, a good part of  early his life, he now can say  with some certainty, that Dr. Alexander's experience was drug induced.

                Leaving aside the question of Dr. Alexander's credentials as a neuroscientist ( an item in Harris''s article that he  dealt  with some understandable  promiscuity, and inexplicable irrascibility), the fact that he states the obvious i.e science do not and can  have the definitive answer to what, why, how consciousness  exist, is a somewhat backhanded way of saying that yeah... Dr. Alexander is right, we can only explain consciousness via the prism of  the non-material and non-physical.

                The debate on what constitute coma, I leave to neuroscientists. You may believe what your "actual neuroscientists" are saying, and I will believe Dr. Alexancer's take on it, because he deals with it in his daily practice as a neurosurgeon, but most  importantly,  because he experienced it himself.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image71
            A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            @CJRex:

            I am what you might call a functional pediatrician... but calling Dr. Alexander just a functional neuro-surgeon?......come on, give him some credit  where credit is due...He has authored or co-authored more than anyone's share of scientific exposition on neuro-science.

            1. ChristopherJRex profile image91
              ChristopherJRexposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              A.Villarasa: Dr. Alexander focuses on basic physiological functions, as is required by his surgical field, not the higher-level, cognitive functions.  As is expected for an M.D., he has primarily published sections in books, with only 7 out of his 57 publications being peer-reviewed journal articles:  http://www.lifebeyonddeath.net/publications-0

              It is apparent, by the titles of his works and by actually reading some of his articles, that he focuses purely on basic functions, not higher-level brain operations.  Maybe you should consider reading somebody's work before blindly defending them, but then again, that's a lot to ask from a religious person...

              1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                @CJRex:

                Me being a "religious person" (your word, not mine) has nothing to do with  why I take positions on certain issues...and the "blindly defending them"  is as fatuous a statement as Mark  Knowles'  " religion causes so much war and conflict."

                1. Zelkiiro profile image94
                  Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Quick! Identify the cause of the Crusades, which caused the deaths of millions of men, women, and children!

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                    A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Quick! identify thecause of WW I and WW II

                2. Zelkiiro profile image94
                  Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Alternatively: Quick! Identify the cause of every conflict in the Middle East ever!

              2. A.Villarasa profile image71
                A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                @CJrex:
                You googled Dr. Alexander's neuro-scientific papers, I was just wondering if you did the same to Sam Harris's scientific contributions to various books and journals?

          3. A.Villarasa profile image71
            A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            @CJRex:
            Try going to Skeptika.com and click on Alex Tsakiris(Oct. 16, 2012). "Sam Harris won't debate Dr. Eben Alexander on Near-Death Experience Science: Dr Eben Alexander responds to Sam Harris' blog post".

            Quite an eye opener that your  beloved "neuro-scientist" Sam Harris is not even a praticing neuro-scientist and the last time he was in  a neuroscientist lab was during his student heydays at UCLA.
            And what has he been doing all these years, post-draduate?  apparently building a media empire of books blogs, TV appearances etc, etc.
            The believability of your prophet just went down  the tubes, as far as I am concerned.

        3. A.Villarasa profile image71
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          @CJRex:
          Another tantalizing bit of knowledge that Dr. Alexander was given during his NDE was this concept...that what astrophysicists/theoretical physicists call the Big Bang origin of our universe was just some kind of a "fluctuation" in space-time continuum, a continuum  that has always existed and will always exist, thus eternal.
          In an article for Scientific American (Issue Jan 2013), the physicist, Davide Castelvecchi, wrote:"... space itself would consist of discrete units called loops (as in loop quantum gravity) and that its microscopic structure could FLUCTUATE among multiple simultaneous states."  What we commonly call the Big Bang, is now being termed, just a Big Bounce by some physicists, who believe that loop quantum gravity could explain the onset of rapid inflation that then produced the ripples, without which you and I would not be here. The author further explained that the ripples (according to reserachers), "would be the natural outcome of quantum FLUCTUATIONS existing at the time of the Big Bounce."
          Score another point to Dr. Alexander's spiritual journey unhampered by empirical thought and methodology.

          1. ChristopherJRex profile image91
            ChristopherJRexposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            A.Villarasa: You are obviously not a scientist, friend.  Writing a thesis on such a topic in that way would get you nowhere in life.  You draw a conclusion from all the evidence available (regardless of your hypothesis), not pick-and-choose the evidence that supports your personal hypothesis.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image71
              A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              @CJRex:

              I have always wondered why I almost failed Physiology, Pathology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology while in Medical School. You telling me (now 45 years later)  in no uncertain terms that I am not a scientist....just clicked. WOW, stunning revelation, and who is to say that a total complete stranger (who is into serpentology... is there such a word?) would tell me that.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image71
                A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                @CJRex: I did not propose a hypothesis, for how can I?.. as you have so clearly stated I am not a scientist, and  I am  therefore incapable of proposing a hypothesis. What I was doing was report what Dr. Alexander wrote in his book, and to tie the specific word "FLUCTUATION" when  referring  to the  Big Bang, to the same adjective (FLUCTUATION) that an author on Scienticic  American used to describe the Big Bang.... well, which he now labels the  Big Bounce

      2. J-J Jacobs profile image73
        J-J Jacobsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Hey check out the multi-verse in this one thread we all have a perception of reality based on our interpretation. Isn't this a beautiful thing.

    3. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That would be the funniest thing I ever heard if it weren't so disturbing. Some guy wakes up after having a oxygen deprived brain and claims to be have given knowledge during the oxygen deprived brain episode and you buy it hook line and sinker? The disturbing part is that people buy his book. If it wasn't against my principles I tap into the marketing towards the gullible.

    4. paradigmsearch profile image93
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Are you sure you have enough words there...?

    5. Kangaroo_Jase profile image81
      Kangaroo_Jaseposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Scientists of all stripes, but most specifically physicists (astrophysicists, theoretical physycists, and the ocassional metaphysicists)

      ***I am curious about your opening statement, what would geologists or paleontologists be interested about in a theory of a multiverse? Do you correlate Metaphysicists relating to a Multiverse as other wordly dimensions or something different? ***

      have posited  that based on  the perplexities and complexities of quantum mechanics, the possibility of not just one,  but multiple universes exist,

      *** Which published scientific theories do perplexities and complexities of quantum mechanics relate to the theory of multi universes? ***

      thus the increasing probability that  our solar system is not the only planetary system where sentient life was created.

      *** Again, what published scientific theory correlates a potential increase in sentient life in other star systems, due to a potential for other universes apart from our own? ***


      In his book "The proof of Heaven" Dr. Eben Alexander revealed, that while going through a NDE, he was given knowledge of the EXISTENCE of such multiple universes, and  of other sentient beings populating other planetray systems.

      *** If Dr Eben Alexander was given knowledge, who or what provided such? What defines a sentient being and which planetary system are being populated with the specific sentient beings? ***

      Score another notch for spiritualism ... leaving perhaps empiricism in the dust.

      *** What does spiritualism have to do with the outlined theories as above, and products facts on how this leaves empiricism in the dust.? Empiricism in science is the foundation of the validity of over thousands of facts found out of theories in many diverse scientific fields ****

      1. A.Villarasa profile image71
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        @Kangaroo Jace:

        (1) I am not sure what geologist or paleontologist would think about the concept/theory  of  multi-verse or e ven if they are interested in that subject matter at this time. Maybe, when thay are actually out there in the field  examining the "terra firma" of these other planetary system that have evolved sentient entities, would they  be  intensely interested in its historical topography. I added the word "metaphysicists"  as a spiritual afterthought.

        (2) In the Jan 2013 issue of Scientific American , the author/scientist Davide Castelvecchi discussed the emerging theory that what we call the Big Bang, should now be called the Big Bounce, which he defines as the
        quantum "FLUCTUATION" that produced the ripples during the rapid expansion of our universe.  It would seem that what he is proposing is that Time-Space continuum has no beginning and no end, and what we think as the beginning (the Big Bang= Big Bounce) of TIME/Space in this  our  own particular universe is just a "FLUCTUATION" in that eternal Space-Time continuum.
        (3) Interesting that in his book "The Proof of Heaven", Dr,. Eben Alexander relates, that during the period of his 7 day coma( resulting from an unusual and severe E. Coli meningitis), he had a NDE in which he was revealed  knowledge of this and others (i.e. the existence of multiple other universes  and the existence of other sentient beings  in other planetary systems in these other universes) by his heavenly host... he specifically used the word "FLUCTUATION" to describe the BIg Bang. You might want to read his book, if you have not already done so.

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    Gotta go with Mark on this one. It is very easy to make claims. Without proof, the claim is about as solid as fantasy. I do think the multiverse is probable. I don't believe some NDE gave some guy proof of its existence.

  3. wilderness profile image98
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    Like others, I was interested right up to the point that some whacko claims he was given knowledge in a NDE.  The hallucinations of a dying brain just don't indicate "knowledge" to me.

    On the other hand, astronomers think there may be a "gathering" of galaxies at one side of the universe.  The concentration of galaxies might be heavier in that location.  If true (and there is no positive proof yet) it could in theory indicate the possibility of another galaxy close to or touching ours, with gravity drawing those galaxies towards the other universe. 

    Please note the frequency of words such as "possible", "may", "theory" and "think" - at this point it is all pure imagination, letting the mind roam free conjuring up ideas with little more proof than that of of a NDE. On the other hand, it might be testable; at least we can try to see if there actually is a high concentration of galaxies anywhere.

  4. J-J Jacobs profile image73
    J-J Jacobsposted 4 years ago

    I guess it would depend on your definition of death, uni-verse and the like.  I always believed that a universe was one and everything is in it. But if our world represents the others then a multiverse exists in the universe. Some one on the other side of the world is living a life galaxies away from me. Yet we are still in the same universe.
    How can we know if your not already dead. What if to be resurrected and live and t be dead as defined by the limitations of our programming was a imperfect one. Incomplete. The interpretation becomes limited.

    1. galleryofgrace profile image83
      galleryofgraceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ok so where did you all come from, where are you going and why are you here?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I came from my parents. I am headed back to oblivion and I am here because I am here.

  5. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    Someone had to mix the potion that led to the big-bang.
    And, I would surmise that they did  not want to be in the middle of it when it occurred.
    So, where is George Jetson when you need him.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And why did someone need to mix the potion that led to the big-bang? That is a very big assumption.

  6. kess profile image60
    kessposted 4 years ago

    The day and night skies tell the true nature of the universe.
    Day is is Light, which means understanding
    Night is dark which means misunderstanding

    In the Day the sky is bright with one point of Light
    This mean that all is in total harmony thus united and seen as one.
    This is reason for the  UNI  in the term universe

    The night sky is dark with many points of light
    This show the individuality of each star as they are separated from each other.
    Thus we see a division which causes the appearance of multitude and variability.
    This is the reason for the  VERSE in the term universe.

    Since the sky is one while  representative of two natures
    The tern universe was coined the show this.

    The modern man because of his misunderstanding of these things
    And with their confusion coined the phrase multi-verse,
    Not realizing that the original term UNIVERSE is complete  as it is.

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That is a nice explanation for ancient man around the campfire and very young kids today; who are incapable of understanding little else. I don't think we have approached a level of misunderstanding and confusion so much as a desire for higher knowledge. To imply otherwise is, IMO, self serving. It accomplishes little more than a warm fuzzy feeling of being one with the universe.

      1. kess profile image60
        kessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        After leaving simplistic understanding of all things(Truth) for the sake of higher learning,
        where did you go?

        After Having left the comfort of the assurance being one with universe (peace),
        where did you go?

        And you still ask Why is there so much War and hate in the world which rejected both of the above?

        So you wade through the multitude of varied conflicting inconclusive writings,
        agreeing here disagreeing there, hoping to accomplish what?

        Is it to alleviate or perpetuate the confusion?

        But then again all this is way to simplistic to be accepted,
        So carry on then even that is good

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I suppose I could agree that ignorance is bliss. But I won't.

          1. kess profile image60
            kessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            is that your way of saying "whatever"?

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              On the contrary. Accepting one's connection to, and place in, the universe does not prohibit curiosity on the makeup of that universe.

              You appear to have your understanding all figured out at a level you feel comfortable with. You have the answers you sought. Which is a good thing. For you. That doesn't mean that your understanding is right for everyone. Some need more, others less. If one answer were ultimately correct we'd all have the same answer.

              1. kess profile image60
                kessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                And this is why there is a UNIVERSE...
                All must be ONE for it to be....

                Otherwise what we get is what we see here.

                Can you imagine what might be the case if there are multiple universes at war with each other?
                Actually you dont even need to imaging ....
                Just take look around for in this world where people insist
                of their having was despite being contrary to their neighbors.


                The way which the universe exist and perpetuate itself is where all have their way without infringing on the freedom of no one.

                This was is called LIFE in all its purity and it dictates you love your neighbor as your self.

  7. paradigmsearch profile image93
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    And all else...

    1. A.Villarasa profile image71
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It is not too surprising though that a lot of  folks who have no use for such " nonsense"  (their word, not mine) as the spiritual world, would come to  a negative  conclusion about it,  not based on  any empiric  formulation or methodology , but on some preconceived notion that since the material world is all they could infer from, via their 5 senses and their brains interpretation of it, then anything beyond it is also beyond their capacity to conceptualize, intellectualize, perceptualize.... and realize. For what is "reality" but the subjective interpretation of the sentient entity observing that "reality".

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Are you suggesting you have a 6th sense that other do not and this 6th sense allows you to see what's beyond our reality?

        1. A.Villarasa profile image71
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          @RadMan:
          What I am suggesting is quite obvious...you are an Objectivist, and I am a Subjectivist. Being a subjectivist does not involve having a 6th sense.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Forgive me, I'm just trying to understand. Because of your personal feeling, tastes or opinions you've come to the right conclusion regarding the afterlife. You acknowledge you have no more information than I, but your feeling tell you I'm wrong. How again are you able to conceptualize, intellectualize, perceptualize.... and realize more then I if as you say the difference between you and I is that you form opinions based on feeling, while I form opinions based on the material world?

  8. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    Rad man brings up a valid point. It's always beautiful girls in heaven. Doesn't the fact that there aren't gorgeous guys in these NDEs strike anyone else as suspicious? Seriously. What's in it for the other half of humanity? We like eye candy too.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Eye Canday... And that is where I come in. LOL.

      I think I've heard it all now. It's like the muslims saying they will get a bunch of virgins in heaven. Like they still have bodies and like no one questions why the 72 virgins are being punished by having to share one guy.

  9. MissJamieD profile image75
    MissJamieDposted 4 years ago

    I'm not nearly as intelligent as some of the hubbers that have replied to this query, but why is it so difficult to believe that we're not the only planet in the eternal universe that exists? Just because we do not currently possess the physical ability to travel any further into space than we already have, does that mean it's not a viable possibility?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What does that have to do with pink fluffy clouds and girls in peasant dresses in heaven?

  10. profile image67
    logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago

    What we don't know is much greater than what we do know by many powers of ten.

 
working