Can you debunk this theory?

[Cateau]

Based upon NDEs and other "supernatural" evidence - with scientific equipment, there appears to be something. Exactly what it is, I do not know.

I've also thought that this theory may play out as well.

If one is a loving, caring, generous, helpful, etc person, they have a "love light" that shines brightly.

If you are a halfhearted soul, whom just goes through life with anger and/or remorse over many things, this "love light" isn't as bright as another's may be.

The theory is that "God" (for a better name) looks at this level of "light" and respectfully has the "lack-luster" individual restart his/her life again in a new born and has to start all over again.

If you do have a bright light, then you are finished and get to stay in the supernatural world.

True? False? I don't know?

I don't know.....this is just my theory.

Omg.....what a horrible thing to be a literal born again lol, maybe that's where all the deja-vus comes from or a screw came loose, but biblically dead people stay that way minus Lazareth, the Son, and that one little girl. They say that light is bio-luminescence and was the clothing before the fall of man, probably what the sons of god wear and we will get again after the resurrection......plausibly where the author of Twilight stole it, know how they stay in the dark cuz the sun makes them shine lol, and these kind of author state to have spirits give them ideas throughout the making of their books, how serendipitous a lot is not new or made up.

Maybe by love light you mean aura, but since dogs can't see color yet pick up well on a good or bad person (sometimes they are just hateful though) it is likely some people are the same by picking up on hormones and personality traits found to be dispersed in the musk/sweat which some might think they get the vibe off someone just by looking at them but is really because their gut instinct determined it from the air of a person....not that you have to smell anyone but that these aerosols travel and get picked up on by some.

Biblically we can't be saved by works alone, you may be bright, beautiful, generous, kind, loving, ECT but just because you donate a bundle to a charity doesn't mean you will get to the next life, the Son said Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters—[yes] and even his own life also—he cannot be My disciple."

We have to be able to give up every commodity, even break ties with family and friends who would remove us or distract us from the Father, we cannot live lukewarm because He has a place reserved for such people in the lake of fire, who hold hands with good and evil alike, and it's important to remember our enemy is like a lion on the loose waiting to pounce on his prey so we must be strong in our faith. The justices of a person will be forgotten when he sins so what good does it to him to try and earn with works his salvation? Every sin will be forgotten of the wicked when he repenteth... if he repents, it's not easy to say "ok since no good comes of being good I'll be bad and switch before the 2nd coming" lol overall it takes much work to be a follower of the Father (and you arnt always gonna be a happy shiney person from seeing the condition of humanity against god) but you can't love the world and Him at the same time and must be distinct enough for Him to tell if you are a sheep or goat when He starts separating His flock.

 

[notexceling]

I watched the movie discovery and

Hi all... First: SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS THREAD DEALS WITH A MOVIE CALLED "THE DISCOVERY". THIS THREAD WILL RUIN YOUR MOVIE IF YOU READ IT, PLEASE CONTINUE WHILE UNDERSTANDING THAT.

If you haven't seen the movie, I really recommend it. Its quite intriguing.

so I assume if your indeed reading this, you either saw the movie or don't care about spoilers
In a nut shell, the movie presents a very interesting theory that the afterlife is not really an afterlife, rather a person kind of "resets" its life to the most recent point that he regrets the most and so it continues until he finally is able to choose differently. than, he moves to another regret point and thus it continues for many times.

I would love to here a theistic POV regarding this notion of after life and do you see it as a Godly doing or not?

Cheers.

I watched the movie and enjoyed the concept.
In the Quran after death (and before the death of time) we still exist but just not in the human form. We are recreated (not reincarnated) and exist until the final day, where everybody will be put back into their human form

17.49
And they say, "Is it when we are bones and crumbled particles, will we surely (be) resurrected (as) a creation new?"
17.50-17.51(part)
Say, "Be stones or iron. Or a creation of what (is) great in your breasts."

The importance of these ayats is Stone is a gather of earthly materials, Iron is a gather of heavenly materials
And ANYTHING in between
So when it says Stone or Iron, it means earth and heavens and anything in between.

This is a common visual analogy given by the Quran, it can also be seen in
e.g
55.6 And the Stars (heavens), and the trees (earth) both prostrate)

To continue, they ayat then states
17.51
Then they will say, "Who will restore us?" Say, "He Who created you (the) first time." Then they will shake at you their heads and they say, "When (will) it (be)?" Say, "Perhaps that (it) will be soon."

The questions are explained about the first death. This is not to say we don't have one death, merely that the first death determines how you will be recreated
To simplify , your "first" creation that sits the test is human, depending on your + positives and your - negatives (on the moral quality of your human life's actions) you will be recreated accordingly if Allah wills.

Onto another topic. I also believe I have discovered the discovery (of the movie lol). What I mean to say is I can prove quite easily that an afterlife does exist.

The only truth that mankind knows is the universal language of truth, mathematics.

1+1=2

A governing unchanging law from the beginning of time to the end of space.

So I have an equation that answers it all and beyond. It's the theory of absolute infinity and all shown without surpassing any of our governing laws. The beauty of it is in its simplicity.

This is not infinitesimal or infinities within our existing boundaries as I will show.

So starting with the basics and the limits of our mathematics, our governing laws.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....

Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.

Potentially an infinite amount, but in truth only one number does exist

The number "1"

E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

That is because "1" explains itself and every other number. In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1". Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.

For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".

50% =

1/2 =

0.5 OF 1

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete

1 = 100%

In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end. In maths this is signified with brackets ( )

( <------bound, beginning

) <------end, finish

*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)

In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation

e.g

(3+2) x (3+1) = 20

or

(5) x (4) = (20)

One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.

(1) or (100%)

Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction. ANYTHING that can be calculated is. Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).

1 = 100% = everything, hence the answer to theory of everything must be simply (1)

Our current understanding of the Infinite and all the different size infinities that we come to know are merely potential infinities of what number 1 can explain. It's just studying the infinity possibilities within (1). Even if there were multiverses, they would all still be encompassed by another greater (1)

Infinity = ∞

Infinity is a concept and not a number. It is something boundless/endless and unrestricted (beyond the brackets)

If we accept ...

(∞)

...as a true statement then it would literally be the greatest oxymoron to ever exist. How can the unrestricted concept be restricted?

To make matters worse there is also another restriction of the number (1)

That is because by itself can not do much. It needs a medium or a language to communicate.

Multiple, divide, square root etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.

Addition and subtraction

+ -

Just like (1),

(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.

Example

(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)

So inside every (1) we have (+|-).

E.g

Man = (1)

And he has (+|-) within himself.

Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark

We can even say Yin Yang for good measure

All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.

Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction. Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.

(+ -) within (1)

Now to make it interesting..........

Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.

My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.

Hypothetically lets say

everything = (100)

What would be

1 + (100) = ?

It can not be 101

Reason

Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)

Let me rephrase the question

from my brief explanation above what would be

1 + (finite)

1 + (maths)

1 + (1)

1 + (universe)

1 + (everything)

1 + (100%)

1 + (E=mc2)

1 + (+|-)

????

It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)

Our concept of this is called

Absolute (meaning 100%)

Infinity ∞ (meaning beyond any boundaries)

To reiterate ∞ is a concept and not a number so it must be beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"

So in an equation

1 + (1) = ∞

Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)

The theory of Absolute Infinity

1 + (+|-) = ∞

Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.

What so special about this equation?

AGREES WITH SCIENCE:

__________________

Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."

So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.

1 + (1) = ∞

__________________

Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.

Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.

__________________

Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.

The equation covers this aspect quite easily.

A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.

It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.

+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,

And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies

__________________

Cantor actually coined the word "transfinite" in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)

IN RESPONSE TO Pi or other paradoxes

For all those who are going to give the response what about irrational numbers like Pi or other infinity paradoxes, well.....

This equation is explaining the Absolute Infinite beyond any restricting and governing laws.

Pi is restricted to and only potentially infinite.

To explain, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and is restricted to the circle's circumference. It is within a 100% complete and enclosing "circle".

Same goes for every type and size of infinite we know.

For example take the Hilbert hotel paradox, It is still within a hotel.

This infinite is bounded and ended by the governing laws of its confinements. When Time/Space ends, the numbers within it must end with it.

Absolute Infinity can not be governed or restricted by numerical properties

Also 3.1415926535... is basically (1)+(1)+(1)

We have "3" individual 100% complete (1)s and we are 0.85840734641021... away from the next complete (1), or the 4th (1)

And for anyone who wants to argue for zero

Then I ask what is 0?

Cause if we mean something was there and then wasn't then it never can be 0 and if it never existed we wouldn't know the 0 of it exists

Something that exist can not "not" exist because it has existed.

If the entity is removed it is the absence of an existence, not uncreated.

Nothing can only exist because it was something.

Something can never become nothing because it was once something and nothing can not be subtracted unless it becomes an additional something.

As soon as we label it nothing, it becomes something even if there is nothing there. The reason is when we identify its nothing, we give a no value (even if its nothing) within mathematical laws.

This doesn't only apply to physical or tangible entities.

For example we can create (or add on) using our imagination. The unique imaginative something that we created exists at a certain time within your space so even if forgotten and never remembered again, it can never become nothing, only the addition it supplied is removed.

However even this imaginative something is still restricted and can only be created because of our experiences.

We can not imagine what someone else imagines nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.

E.g

Say I dreamt of monster in my childhood.

Did that monster ever exist?

Actually yes, even though I just imagined it subconsciously it existed and was definable at that present time, even if none of the details can be remembered or is totally forgotten.

I.e it must be recorded for that particular time of my space

More so, for me just to give the above example I am creating something.

I've defined a nonexistent for example purposes so even if I never had any dreams of a monster in my life, it still exists because of my example.

Hence we can never identify "Absolute Zero" for as soon as we label "it" , "it" becomes the absence of something rather than becoming from nothing.

Anyways I hope this discovery doesn't have the same effect as the movie

∞ bless you

 

[fantome profane]

Hi all... First: SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS THREAD DEALS WITH A MOVIE CALLED "THE DISCOVERY". THIS THREAD WILL RUIN YOUR MOVIE IF YOU READ IT, PLEASE CONTINUE WHILE UNDERSTANDING THAT.


If you haven't seen the movie, I really recommend it. Its quite intriguing.


so I assume if your indeed reading this, you either saw the movie or don't care about spoilers
In a nut shell, the movie presents a very interesting theory that the afterlife is not really an afterlife, rather a person kind of "resets" its life to the most recent point that he regrets the most and so it continues until he finally is able to choose differently. than, he moves to another regret point and thus it continues for many times.

I would love to here a theistic POV regarding this notion of after life and do you see it as a Godly doing or not?

Cheers.

Nowhere Man is absolutely right, this is not a theory. It is a fantastical notion. There is nothing here to debunk. Debunking is when you show that the evidence is flawed or misleading or show a flaw in the reasoning. But you have provided no evidence or any logical reason to consider this idea valid.

 

[Segev Moran]

It's just a story. Fun to contemplate I suppose.

What was striking was that when folks learn that there was something after death, they all started committing suicide. Think that might happen?

I fear such a scenario is very probable.
The only reason people avoid killing themselves today (those who wish it of course), is the unknown.

Imagine you have a terrible life, and you know for a fact that ending them takes you to a new place... the suicide option suddenly becomes much more appealing.

On the other hand, if you have less regrets, it is probable that a suicide is something that doesn't "fit" your agenda

 

[Segev Moran]

"The Subject Is Closed": A priest visits the tavern and goes one-on-one with a chirpsithra alien on the subject of God and life after death.
Is there a Hayflick Limit of other than individual cells that affect sentient species when they come to believe such as is presented in THE DISCOVERY?

Are you asking if the movie discuss this issue? no.

 

[Segev Moran]

Nowhere Man is absolutely right, this is not a theory. It is a fantastical notion. There is nothing here to debunk. Debunking is when you show that the evidence is flawed or misleading or show a flaw in the reasoning. But you have provided no evidence or any logical reason to consider this idea valid.

When I meant "debunk" here, it was meant to theists. not the scientifically debunk

 

[QuestioningMind]

It sounds almost like another Groundhog Day, where the person re-lives the day over and over until it's perfect.

I wonder if the 'reset' in this movie, is in their heads or does it change reality for all involved?

The afterlife that I believe in, is where G-d lays bare all the poor choices that you've made in your life. Each person atones for each of their bad choices and learns what their error was. Once the souls' learning is over, then it goes on to Heaven. It seems a stretch to compare my afterlife belief to this movie plot.

It doesn't sound like such a stretch to me. After all, what better way to have someone atone for their bad choices and learn what their error was than to have them relive the error until it's rectified?

 

[fantome profane]

When I meant "debunk" here, it was meant to theists. not the scientifically debunk

I was not necessarily using "debunk" in the scientific sence, but at least in the sense of a logical argument supported or "debunked" in a logical mannor.

But it seems you just want someone to say to you something like "that's not what it says in my holy book". Is that the kind of "debunk" you are looking for?

 

[fantome profane]

It doesn't sound like such a stretch to me. After all, what better way to have someone atone for their bad choices and learn what their error was than to have them relive the error until it's rectified?

I agree that the idea has some appeal to it. I really do like the idea that I might have an opportunity to correct past mistakes, to make the not have happened. But just because I like an idea as wish it were so is no reason to believe that it is so.

I think it is better that we realise that there are some mistakes that cannot be undone, and hopefully, in realising that we might not be able to fix our mistakes we try even harder to stop making them.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree that the idea has some appeal to it. I really do like the idea that I might have an opportunity to correct past mistakes, to make the not have happened. But just because I like an idea as wish it were so is no reason to believe that it is so.

I think it is better that we realise that there are some mistakes that cannot be undone, and hopefully, in realising that we might not be able to fix our mistakes we try even harder to stop making them.

I'm just saying that if you believe that after you die God gives you the opportunity to atone and learn from your errors, perhaps having you relive such moments until you atone and learn is the process that God uses to achieve this. How else would God go about getting you to atone and learn?

 

[Segev Moran]

It doesn't sound like such a stretch to me. After all, what better way to have someone atone for their bad choices and learn what their error was than to have them relive the error until it's rectified?

Its not a matter of right and wrong, its a matter of regret.

 

[Segev Moran]

I was not necessarily using "debunk" in the scientific seance, but at least in the sense of a logical argument supported or "debunked" in a logical mannor.

But it seems you just want someone to say to you something like "that's not what it says in my holy book". Is that the kind of "debunk" you are looking for?

Nope. "Its not what it says in my holy book" is not a "debunk", its the same as saying this cannot be true because my faith says so.

I'm looking for a valid explanation why this theory is probably not true.

 

[fantome profane]

Nope. "Its not what it says in my holy book" is not a "debunk", its the same as saying this cannot be true because my faith says so.

I'm looking for a valid explanation why this theory is probably not true.

It is probably not true because somebody just made it up.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Its not a matter of right and wrong, its a matter of regret.

I'm assuming that for most people if they regret having made a choice then they perceive that choice as having been wrong. Though I suppose it's possible for someone to regret having made a 'right' choice.

 

[minorwork]

Are you asking if the movie discusses this issue? no.

Wife and I watched it a few hours ago. She liked it and I had only a little trouble explaining the dogma of reincarnation that the movie presupposed for it to hang together. Continuum of existence lacked a good example of a reference in the explanation though.

NO, you're right. THE DISCOVERY provided a reincarnation map that I've not previously seen in movies, though they may be out there. BRAINSTORM tried it pretty creatively, I thought.

 

[Segev Moran]

It is probably not true because somebody just made it up.

Wow.. Thanks..

 

[Segev Moran]

I'm assuming that for most people if they regret having made a choice then they perceive that choice as having been wrong. Though I suppose it's possible for someone to regret having made a 'right' choice.

Indeed

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

Omg.....what a horrible thing to be a literal born again lol, maybe that's where all the deja-vus comes from or a screw came loose, but biblically dead people stay that way minus Lazareth, the Son, and that one little girl. They say that light is bio-luminescence and was the clothing before the fall of man, probably what the sons of god wear and we will get again after the resurrection......plausibly where the author of Twilight stole it, know how they stay in the dark cuz the sun makes them shine lol, and these kind of author state to have spirits give them ideas throughout the making of their books, how serendipitous a lot is not new or made up.

Maybe by love light you mean aura, but since dogs can't see color yet pick up well on a good or bad person (sometimes they are just hateful though) it is likely some people are the same by picking up on hormones and personality traits found to be dispersed in the musk/sweat which some might think they get the vibe off someone just by looking at them but is really because their gut instinct determined it from the air of a person....not that you have to smell anyone but that these aerosols travel and get picked up on by some.

Biblically we can't be saved by works alone, you may be bright, beautiful, generous, kind, loving, ECT but just because you donate a bundle to a charity doesn't mean you will get to the next life, the Son said Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters—[yes] and even his own life also—he cannot be My disciple."

We have to be able to give up every commodity, even break ties with family and friends who would remove us or distract us from the Father, we cannot live lukewarm because He has a place reserved for such people in the lake of fire, who hold hands with good and evil alike, and it's important to remember our enemy is like a lion on the loose waiting to pounce on his prey so we must be strong in our faith. The justices of a person will be forgotten when he sins so what good does it to him to try and earn with works his salvation? Every sin will be forgotten of the wicked when he repenteth... if he repents, it's not easy to say "ok since no good comes of being good I'll be bad and switch before the 2nd coming" lol overall it takes much work to be a follower of the Father (and you arnt always gonna be a happy shiney person from seeing the condition of humanity against god) but you can't love the world and Him at the same time and must be distinct enough for Him to tell if you are a sheep or goat when He starts separating His flock.

Why do you promote the Self (things you do) so much. Clearly you express things that can be done without religion or the need to be part of it.

You probably don't even believe in all of what Jesus taught, huh?

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

That's an interesting statement

Can you elaborate?


What is a "love light"?

Idea, not a theory

Hi Segev....I'll try.....hope this helps.

"theory" - it is my theory that our consciousness lives on - through another dimension of time and space. I do not know what or where this place is.....just my 'theory" that it exists. There is evidence available that it does, just not conclusive for mainstream Science to accept.....so they reject it automatically.

"love light" - IMO - this is how we socially interact - is it thru goodness and kindness or is through hateful actions or criminal actions? This viewpoint is what determines the intensity of a person's "Spirit" (love light).
- this intensity - IMO (based upon different studies I've done on different, yet similar topics) determines if reincarnation will occur or not.

No it's not an "ideology" of mine - it is just theory. Ideologies are misconstrued by many, because they really didn't investigate all the components of the theory. Thus, someone may just think that is what someone believes, without actually receiving the clarification of the topic.

What makes my unconfirmed statements an "ideology" and not a theory? Just because I make statements upon a topic, don't automatically think that this is my way of life.....it isn't. Yes, I do investigate these things, but through skepticism, and doubt, I know when to say "I don't know."

Can you?

This is what separates those who have an ideology and those who question a phenomenon. If one doesn't not question a phenomenon and outright rejects it as BS, those individuals have concluded on an ideology in bias and without research of their own. I'm definitely not one of those individuals, because I question everything I encounter.

Christianity is an ideology - an unfounded one at that. Add the other two "big' religions in there and now you have three unfounded ideologies that have overtaken the minds of men.

I hope that helped clarify.
Best regards,

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

Nowhere Man is absolutely right, this is not a theory. It is a fantastical notion. There is nothing here to debunk. Debunking is when you show that the evidence is flawed or misleading or show a flaw in the reasoning. But you have provided no evidence or any logical reason to consider this idea valid.

If you are talking about Christianity in general....there are proven flaws in this belief.

1. They don't accept all of what Jesus taught - no matter where they reside. In fact, the RCC tried to destroy any text that was not approved by the RCC hierarchy.

2. With not doing such as above, they have only accepted what men created, decided and published.

3. They will accept two third generation disciples over what Jesus actually stated in his teachings.

4. Christianity only utilizes less than six of the original Apostles, but will allow two 3rd generations to be more "enlightening"?

5. There is no record of any man actually seeing "God", thus, "fallible men" cannot define "God".

6. There is no declaration by "God" that indicates whom is inspired to write any biblical text or not.

7. There is no declaration by "God" that indicates which texts are considered inspired or not.

8. There is no declaration by "God" that indicates which texts are considered scripture.

9. "God" never declared any specific religion to be "heresy" - only men have.

Oh - there is plenty to show the falseness of the "Abraham religions".....people prefer to believe men over Jesus and "God".

Be AWARE!