Death is probably permanent with no afterlife

[Copernicus]

My point is that all higher-level brain functioning is the interaction of the sheaths with the physical brain. Without interaction from the higher sheaths the brain can only support a comatose existence.

And my point is that:
1) Anything that interacts with the physical brain is subject to scientific investigation. (Because the domain of science is anything physical)
2) The "soul" interacts with the physical brain. (According to your point)
3) Therefore, the "soul" is subject to scientific investigation.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether you claim "5 sheaths" or "25 sheaths". Science can detect and study any interaction with physical reality. It also doesn't matter who makes the claim or whether it is written in English or Sanskrit. You still carry the burden of proof, if you expect to be taken seriously.

First question: what makes you think this? A lot of sutras that someone composed in ancient times? How would that person come to know any of this?

Do we know what can be known when our mind is completely stilled? Knowledge of the kosha system goes way back and has been sensed and experienced by sages and masters of the east since antiquity. It is their direct experience not theory. The modern gurus I revere and whose wisdom I've come to accept know of these things. It's a basic chapter in Hinduism 102. Plus my study of so-called paranormal subjects leads me to believe the physicalists understanding must be dramatically incomplete.

George, it is possible for anyone to be wrong. That includes me, you, and all the Hindu sages who ever lived. I anticipated that you would point to "sages and masters". So I asked you "How would that person come to know any of this?" Your response was to tell me that you believe them (which we already knew) and that you have done a personal "study" that convinces you. That does not really answer my questions. What is it that makes you believe those "sages and masters"? Is it inconceivable that your trust in them could be misplaced? Not to me. Should I take it on faith that your "study of so-called paranormal subjects" was unflawed? I see no reason to.

Second question: what makes you think that these "sheaths" are undetectable, given that we have clear access to one--the body--which "resonates" with the others? That is exactly the kind of thing that the scientific method is designed to investigate. The failure to find those other "sheaths" does not mean that they don't exist, but we do know we will fail to find them if they don't exist. So the burden of proof is on those who assert that they do exist. What evidence of their existence can you provide?

As I said this subtle matter is beyond what what can be detected with the five senses or physical instruments. The size, vibratory rate and dimensional aspects can not be detected at this time. The evidence I talked about in the previous section. You probably accept none of it so we¡¯ll never come to any agreement here.

Well, it isn't so "subtle" that your "sages and masters" have failed to detect them--in your mind, at least. You talk about "evidence", yet you seem also to claim that there isn't any evidence. There is interaction with what is physical, yet there are no physical traces. And you can't explain why you believe any of this other than that you personally feel compelled to believe it.

I just want to be crystal clear on this point. No. I'm not. You have already admitted that the physical brain "operates in vibrational harmony" with the sheaths above, so we should be able to see the "vibrations" in the physical brain. They are physical, but nobody can detect them. So why is that?

We can't see the vibrations directly but we can see their effect; higher brain functioning.

I'm with you on the claim that we can detect "higher brain functioning". That doesn't mean that your "vibrations" cause that functioning. If they don't exist, that would render them "undetectable", wouldn't it? They aren't necessary to explain higher brain functioning.

George, you can find a lot of such discussions on the internet. Why do you simply accept them uncritically?

Why do you think I would accept anything uncritically. I'll ignore the insult.

Sorry, but that was not intended as an insult. I have the impression that you accept them uncritically, because you are not able to articulate why you find them convincing. You cannot give a reasonable account of how one might go about rejecting belief in them, and that is an essential component of critical thinking. If I tell you that I am convinced you are wrong, that does not convince you that you are wrong. So, if you tell me you are convinced that you are right, that does not convince me that you are right. I need something a little more convincing than personal conviction.

Scientists say stuff all the time that is wrong. The thing is, you can always test their claims for validity. How do you test this kind of claim?

These things cannot be tested the way physical level things can be tested. So at this point in time mainstream science cannot address the hypothesis. I believe it to be true for the reasons stated above.

You tell me that these claims are impervious to scientific investigation, yet you seem to want us to believe that you have given them critical thought. How can you possibly criticize them if there is no way to establish their truth?

I'm not credulous. I take an open-minded skeptical look at things considering all sides.

Maybe so, but you seem capable of presenting only one side. You seem to have arrived at the opinion that your claims are not falsifiable.

Why should we accept that?

You shouldn't just accept it. You should do your own open-minded skeptical investigation of the entire subject from both sides and form your own beliefs.

That's what I am engaged in here. I'm looking for some shred of evidence that your claims are falsifiable. If they are not, then they don't appear credible.

I don't believe that. Can you cite the post where you did that? I've read every post you've made in this thread, and none of them have exposed "fundamental errors" in the OP's points. That's not to say that you didn't say things that you erroneously thought exposed those errors, but they are only errors to those who jump to the same conclusions that you have, based on information that you have decided to accept (apparently) uncritically.

Post #7. There you go with "uncritically" again unlike your thorough evaluation of the kosha system.

Thank you for giving me the specific post, but it does not "expose fundamental errors". It is merely a set of unevidenced assertions that I have been challenging in order to understand how you would defend them. What we have discovered so far is that you simply find them convincing on the basis of your personal beliefs and experiences, which are inaccessible to me. I have nothing against your five "koshas", but they don't really help me to understand how or why you have come to believe the assertions you have made about souls. I take it as a given that you believe souls to be immaterial, undetectable things. However, I have no good reason to credit your belief. If they don't exist, then they would be inherently undetectable. If they do exist and they interact with physical reality, why shouldn't we be able to detect them?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hmm you're quite right that as far as we can tell it's the brain that determines who we are (or at least, sets the foundation for who we will become). I think it's reasonable to assume that if any part of us survives after death it will probably be different if we don't have a brain.
We can make our best guesses about what comes after death. We can study the brain, hold seances, research religious views of the afterlife and even dabble in a little necromancy. Ultimately though we won't know until we're dead and then it's entirely possible we won't know much of anything anyway

I think that some of the comments about the 'Soul' not just being your personality and thoughts has a lot of merit. My thoughts may not be particularly important, but I think my life has value. I don't take murder lightly or death either. The value of my life, be it short and seemingly insignificant, may nevertheless have a value I don't understand. I don't believe that stops when a person dies.

 

[George-ananda]

And my point is that:
1) Anything that interacts with the physical brain is subject to scientific investigation. (Because the domain of science is anything physical)
2) The "soul" interacts with the physical brain. (According to your point)
3) Therefore, the "soul" is subject to scientific investigation.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether you claim "5 sheaths" or "25 sheaths". Science can detect and study any interaction with physical reality. It also doesn't matter who makes the claim or whether it is written in English or Sanskrit. You still carry the burden of proof, if you expect to be taken seriously.


George, it is possible for anyone to be wrong. That includes me, you, and all the Hindu sages who ever lived. I anticipated that you would point to "sages and masters". So I asked you "How would that person come to know any of this?" Your response was to tell me that you believe them (which we already knew) and that you have done a personal "study" that convinces you. That does not really answer my questions. What is it that makes you believe those "sages and masters"? Is it inconceivable that your trust in them could be misplaced? Not to me. Should I take it on faith that your "study of so-called paranormal subjects" was unflawed? I see no reason to.


Well, it isn't so "subtle" that your "sages and masters" have failed to detect them--in your mind, at least. You talk about "evidence", yet you seem also to claim that there isn't any evidence. There is interaction with what is physical, yet there are no physical traces. And you can't explain why you believe any of this other than that you personally feel compelled to believe it.


I'm with you on the claim that we can detect "higher brain functioning". That doesn't mean that your "vibrations" cause that functioning. If they don't exist, that would render them "undetectable", wouldn't it? They aren't necessary to explain higher brain functioning.


Sorry, but that was not intended as an insult. I have the impression that you accept them uncritically, because you are not able to articulate why you find them convincing. You cannot give a reasonable account of how one might go about rejecting belief in them, and that is an essential component of critical thinking. If I tell you that I am convinced you are wrong, that does not convince you that you are wrong. So, if you tell me you are convinced that you are right, that does not convince me that you are right. I need something a little more convincing than personal conviction.


You tell me that these claims are impervious to scientific investigation, yet you seem to want us to believe that you have given them critical thought. How can you possibly criticize them if there is no way to establish their truth?


Maybe so, but you seem capable of presenting only one side. You seem to have arrived at the opinion that your claims are not falsifiable.


That's what I am engaged in here. I'm looking for some shred of evidence that your claims are falsifiable. If they are not, then they don't appear credible.


Thank you for giving me the specific post, but it does not "expose fundamental errors". It is merely a set of unevidenced assertions that I have been challenging in order to understand how you would defend them. What we have discovered so far is that you simply find them convincing on the basis of your personal beliefs and experiences, which are inaccessible to me. I have nothing against your five "koshas", but they don't really help me to understand how or why you have come to believe the assertions you have made about souls. I take it as a given that you believe souls to be immaterial, undetectable things. However, I have no good reason to credit your belief. If they don't exist, then they would be inherently undetectable. If they do exist and they interact with physical reality, why shouldn't we be able to detect them?

My position starts with my study of the paranormal. This includes the many subfields within that field. This includes witness reports of miracles surrounding certain modern gurus by people I respect. One guru I particularly revere calls the miracles ‘small things’ and refers to them as his ‘calling card’ meaning he understands the logical simple appeal of materialist thinking and needs to get people’s attention. My belief in the so-called ‘paranormal’ is not based on any one event, thing or phenomena but the cumulative weight of all such things. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that things occur that cannot be explained in the materialist’s worldview.

Now, my next step was to ask ‘how’ can these things happen. Are there any theories out there that can explain it. I considered the hypothesis and the vedic eastern system as derived by the sages/master past and present of India provided a theory that was mindboggingly detailed you can spend years studying. Where does this detail come from? The vedic system’s explanatory power makes sense of the out of the ordinary phenomena of the real world.

I see no reasonable competing hypotheses to the Vedic system and hence that is my belief.

Mainstream western science should not accept this system as it cannot be studied physically at this time. Science is only studying the effects, not the cause per Vedic teachings. Technology does not yet exist to study the source. Let’s review this together in three centuries. Consciousness and the mind are still largely a mystery to science.

As to your question how can these sages/masters know these things. Do we know what can be known when the mind is stilled by souls more advanced than us through lifetimes of effort.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Consciousness is less of a mystery than it used to be. Since the mid-60's electrical engineers have been working with psychologists and biologists to develop electrical simulations of nerves and structures in the brain. Now in addition the new field of Computer Science has greatly multiplied these efforts and made the unthinkable into something thinkable. To me it appears likely that there will be a conscious AI. I don't know whether it will be simple, or whether it will be possible to form something more complex. The technology is improving, however; and supporting that technology is a whole new understanding of brain processes. Its true that we don't know what is possible, but we have not yet reached a limit. Neural networks and simulations of biological brain structures continues to improve. There may not be any limit to it.

 

[Copernicus]

My position starts with my study of the paranormal. This includes the many subfields within that field. This includes witness reports of miracles surrounding certain modern gurus by people I respect. One guru I particularly revere calls the miracles ‘small things’ and refers to them as his ‘calling card’ meaning he understands the logical simple appeal of materialist thinking and needs to get people’s attention. My belief in the so-called ‘paranormal’ is not based on any one event, thing or phenomena but the cumulative weight of all such things. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that things occur that cannot be explained in the materialist’s worldview.

My own investigation of the 'paranormal' has only increased my doubts, as it seems impossible to verify any of these claimed miracles. While I have the greatest respect for Indian history and culture (having studied both Sanskrit and Hindi), I am also aware of the fact that India has its share of fake mystics and charlatans, who use the same tricks as charlatans in the West to fool people. Sometimes they are quite talented, but their 'miracles' never seem to stand up under scrutiny, which they usually manage to avoid. Unlike me, you seem to feel that you have found some that do stand up to your scrutiny.

Now, my next step was to ask ‘how’ can these things happen. Are there any theories out there that can explain it. I considered the hypothesis and the vedic eastern system as derived by the sages/master past and present of India provided a theory that was mindboggingly detailed you can spend years studying. Where does this detail come from? The vedic system’s explanatory power makes sense of the out of the ordinary phenomena of the real world.

There is no question that ancient Indian scholars made brilliant discoveries and advances for their time, especially in my own field of linguistics. Modern linguistic theory rests on the foundation of Sanskrit scholars. However, there were flaws in it and insights that were missed. I respect vedic tradition enough to challenge its conclusions. It often takes more intelligence to defend what is false than to defend what is true, and I actually do admire the intelligence of some of your sages and masters, given the complexity and detail that they have brought to the defense of their ideas.

I see no reasonable competing hypotheses to the Vedic system and hence that is my belief.

I see the Western scientific tradition as a reasonable competing hypothesis. After all, it has produced miracles undreamed of by the ancient sages and masters. And the greatest miracle of all was its discovery that its miracles were not really miracles. The only 'miracles' that are real are those that are not real miracles.

Mainstream western science should not accept this system as it cannot be studied physically at this time. Science is only studying the effects, not the cause per Vedic teachings. Technology does not yet exist to study the source. Let’s review this together in three centuries. Consciousness and the mind are still largely a mystery to science.

I've explained to you why the scientific method applies to the study of "souls": because of your admission that souls interact with the physical world. Either you don't get my point or you won't get it, so I'll just stop repeating it now.

As to your question how can these sages/masters know these things. Do we know what can be known when the mind is stilled by souls more advanced than us through lifetimes of effort.

I have no idea, and, if you are honest about it, you'll admit that you don't either. I understand what you mean by "still the mind", because that is a simple yoga exercise. Do we achieve any great knowledge or insight by doing that? I doubt it. What I think we achieve is perhaps a healthier life with less stress, and that makes the exercise worth the trouble.

 

[Leftimies]

I'm reversing a previous position that I used to take. I used to think it was cruel to expose people to the truth of death, but now I think it is for the best.

1. You change as you age, particularly as your brain ages.

2. Brain injuries change your choices and behavior, your mind, your emotions, your soul.

3. Death destroys your brain, therefore it destroys your soul.

4. If the soul were able to thrive without the brain it would be reasonable to believe in an immortal soul, but damaging the brain damages the soul.

5. The soul has a beginning. This is obvious from the way that babies begin life without any knowledge. They gradually learn and adapt. Their personalities also develop and change while they live.

6. The soul has a beginning, so it makes sense for it to have an end.

7. If the soul had any power to live on, people would choose not to die. They would exert the power of their soul to continue existing or to influence events. Particularly mothers who die leaving young children behind do not continue to look after their children and are helpless to affect their lives beyond death.

8. People would choose to continue existing and not to die, yet reports of ghosts are extremely rare while deaths are extremely frequent and numerous. Reports of ghosts also are generally a joke.

Well, that is if we necessarily want to separate 'individuals' from 'surrounding' reality. Truth is, there are no individuals to speak of, only reality. I know I go on about this like a broken record, but thats just the way I am. There is scientific evidence to support the claim that our control over ourselves in certain situation is partially illusion. This unfortunately means effectively less free choice for us.

Reality is One. Your death, or death of any other person, is no permanent state. It is merely phenomena. Your brith, or birth of any other person, is no permanent state. It is merely phenomena. Your death is not the end, nor was your birth the beginning.

Of course, death will cease the cause-and-effect phenomena that is you from existing in that form. No thought process afterwards as 'John' or 'Lindsey'. But it isn't end of the phenomena chain itself, the shape and form simply change. Disintegration and remix. Call it Samsara if you like.

What you call 'soul', in biological context, I see merely as a manifestation of possibility, meaning that its one way reality can portray itself. Stone, while inanimate and dead for all practical purposes, is equally real manifestation of possibility.

What I am trying to say, is that reality itself is your true nature, or at least you are an aspect of it. If you were to become dust after cremation, then that would be your 'afterlife'. Talk about life and death in that regard is silly, imo.


*I realize this rant makes little sense. apologies XD*

 

[George-ananda]

My own investigation of the 'paranormal' has only increased my doubts, as it seems impossible to verify any of these claimed miracles.

I wasn’t referring to just miracles but all so-called seemingly paranormal events that happen to people. Events happen spontaneously and we can debate each event forever as to whether it involved the supernatural or not. But your position must be that ALL alleged seemingly paranormal events are non-supernatural. When there’s been untold thousands/millions reported and unreported stories in the course of the existence of the human species; the chance that all are false becomes astronomically slim when I consider the quality of so many I’ve heard (the proverbial drop in the ocean).

Logic tells me the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Brickjectivity;3469667]
Death is probably permanent with no afterlife

Yeh probably, but who knows for sure

 

[Erebus]

I think that some of the comments about the 'Soul' not just being your personality and thoughts has a lot of merit. My thoughts may not be particularly important, but I think my life has value. I don't take murder lightly or death either. The value of my life, be it short and seemingly insignificant, may nevertheless have a value I don't understand. I don't believe that stops when a person dies.

That actually reminds me of a version of the afterlife which pretty much anybody can believe in without entering the realm of guesswork. You live on through the impressions you've made in others. In this example your soul would be the memory of who you were and whether you are blessed or damned depends on the differences you made in people's lives and thus how they remember you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, that is if we necessarily want to separate 'individuals' from 'surrounding' reality. Truth is, there are no individuals to speak of, only reality. I know I go on about this like a broken record, but thats just the way I am. There is scientific evidence to support the claim that our control over ourselves in certain situation is partially illusion. This unfortunately means effectively less free choice for us.

Reality is One. Your death, or death of any other person, is no permanent state. It is merely phenomena. Your brith, or birth of any other person, is no permanent state. It is merely phenomena. Your death is not the end, nor was your birth the beginning.

Of course, death will cease the cause-and-effect phenomena that is you from existing in that form. No thought process afterwards as 'John' or 'Lindsey'. But it isn't end of the phenomena chain itself, the shape and form simply change. Disintegration and remix. Call it Samsara if you like.

What you call 'soul', in biological context, I see merely as a manifestation of possibility, meaning that its one way reality can portray itself. Stone, while inanimate and dead for all practical purposes, is equally real manifestation of possibility.

What I am trying to say, is that reality itself is your true nature, or at least you are an aspect of it. If you were to become dust after cremation, then that would be your 'afterlife'. Talk about life and death in that regard is silly, imo.

That sounds like String Theory a little bit. Another way I think about it sometimes is that this moment is eternal. Its unique and I can never go back to change it. Rather than saying that time is spent, I might say time is observed. That observation is what we perceive to be our lives.

 

[Leftimies]

That sounds like String Theory a little bit. Another way I think about it sometimes is that this moment is eternal. Its unique and I can never go back to change it. Rather than saying that time is spent, I might say time is observed. That observation is what we perceive to be our lives.

Yes, that too. It would appear plausible that past moment, present moment, as well as future, all exist seamlessly at same time. In that regard, any moment indeed is eternal. Time, after all, is only physical changes caused by phenomena.

 

[Copernicus]

I wasn’t referring to just miracles but all so-called seemingly paranormal events that happen to people. Events happen spontaneously and we can debate each event forever as to whether it involved the supernatural or not. But your position must be that ALL alleged seemingly paranormal events are non-supernatural. When there’s been untold thousands/millions reported and unreported stories in the course of the existence of the human species; the chance that all are false becomes astronomically slim when I consider the quality of so many I’ve heard (the proverbial drop in the ocean).

First of all, you are talking in vague generalities that have nothing to do with any specific reports of what you term "paranormal" events. You even count "unreported stories" as somehow validating your position. Superstition and ignorance are rampant in the world's population, and people advance all sorts of nonsense to explain things they didn't understand or misinterpreted. People also make knowingly false claims for various motives. There is no reason to credit any story at all, unless it can be reasonably verified. Your argument basically reduces to a claim that the volume of reports means there must be some truth to them. That kind of faith in hearsay is behind the spread of ignorance and superstition.

Logic tells me the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Your "logic" here appears to be nothing more than appeals to authority and popularity--logical fallacies.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yeah, death is probably permanent for the individual. Even if there was some part that lived on after life, it wouldn't really be the original person without their mind and body. It would just be a shade, like leftover residue.

I believe knowing and accepting that we're going to die and directing natural fear towards positive action is one major step towards forming a more rational society.

 

[George-ananda]

First of all, you are talking in vague generalities that have nothing to do with any specific reports of what you term "paranormal" events.

First I intentionally avoided specific reports because that begins a never-ending debate because we can never have every fact with perfect certainty. My argument was based on probability. ‘Paranormal’ events (for this discussion) are events that seemingly involve phenomena not currently accepted by science (i.e. ghosts, reincarnational memories of details, and about 20 other things).

You even count "unreported stories" as somehow validating your position.

You are not grasping my argument from probability if you say that. That there is an untold number of stories that never reach our ears (99+%) is extremely important in an argument from probability.

Superstition and ignorance are rampant in the world's population, and people advance all sorts of nonsense to explain things they didn't understand or misinterpreted. People also make knowingly false claims for various motives.

That is true and is why we should use critical thinking ourselves in considering things.

There is no reason to credit any story at all, unless it can be reasonably verified.

First point: There is no reason to discredit and dismiss a large bulk of experiences either because verification of fleeting events is inherently impossible. We must use reason and common sense.

Second point: I am aware of parapsychological experiments that show ‘reasonable verification’. But that’s not worth going into detail over because there are debunkers out there whose only interest is to criticize positive findings. And that results in a debate between researcher and debunker. But what is the truth?

Your argument basically reduces to a claim that the volume of reports means there must be some truth to them.

The ‘must’ above should be changed to ‘probably’ and that conclusion was only reached after considering all other possibilities too.

That kind of faith in hearsay is behind the spread of ignorance and superstition.

Not when reason and logic are applied to reach the conclusion. And it’s not ‘faith’, it’s analysis.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I'm reversing a previous position that I used to take. I used to think it was cruel to expose people to the truth of death, but now I think it is for the best.

1. You change as you age, particularly as your brain ages.

2. Brain injuries change your choices and behavior, your mind, your emotions, your soul.

3. Death destroys your brain, therefore it destroys your soul.

4. If the soul were able to thrive without the brain it would be reasonable to believe in an immortal soul, but damaging the brain damages the soul.

5. The soul has a beginning. This is obvious from the way that babies begin life without any knowledge. They gradually learn and adapt. Their personalities also develop and change while they live.

6. The soul has a beginning, so it makes sense for it to have an end.

7. If the soul had any power to live on, people would choose not to die. They would exert the power of their soul to continue existing or to influence events. Particularly mothers who die leaving young children behind do not continue to look after their children and are helpless to affect their lives beyond death.

8. People would choose to continue existing and not to die, yet reports of ghosts are extremely rare while deaths are extremely frequent and numerous. Reports of ghosts also are generally a joke.

1) Granted

2) Conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. Consciousness is insufficiently evidenced to be able to make strong claims the way you are. In point of fact we have some evidence that points to processing taking place outside the brain.

3) Death need not do so, and until we understand the processes behind consciousness better including the results of cell death (there are messages that cells send each other when dying/dead that causes other cells to follow into death).

4) You cannot possibly have any evidence to this effect. The brain could be a complicated radio antennae for consciousness/soul and it would not change our brain damage studies one iota. Defaulting to the null hypothesis is not the same thing as having factual knowledge of what is happening.

5) Its also possible that it takes time to fine tune our consciousness receiver. Just because your position explains a thing does not in fact make it the only explanation. Our investigations into consciousness are so far from complete that holding any strong opinions are frankly absurd. (We wouldn't have a baker's dozen of different theories on how consciousness results if we actually knew what was going on)

6) Why would that make sense? The only hard and fast limiting factor for cells is entropy; it is feasible to make a cell that continues maintenance even into old age. Natural selection favored the young, and so benefits to the elderly simply weren't important enough to warrant selection. Moreover, it is not a warranted assumption to conclude that entropy occurs outside our universe. We do not know enough about things outside our universe to say one way or the other (as in we pretty much know nothing).

7) I'm not exactly sure how that evidences your position in the slightest... Are we to suppose from this that you think the metaphysics of a "hypothetical afterlife" must intrude upon the physics of our world? I sincerely doubt that people remain behind as disembodied spirits/souls, but that doesn't mean that a person's essence or portion thereof can't be somewhere else, and we have nothing available that says otherwise.

8) Mostly granted.

MTF

 

[Copernicus]

First I intentionally avoided specific reports because that begins a never-ending debate because we can never have every fact with perfect certainty. My argument was based on probability. ‘Paranormal’ events (for this discussion) are events that seemingly involve phenomena not currently accepted by science (i.e. ghosts, reincarnational memories of details, and about 20 other things).

You are not grasping my argument from probability if you say that. That there is an untold number of stories that never reach our ears (99+%) is extremely important in an argument from probability.

That is true and is why we should use critical thinking ourselves in considering things.

First point: There is no reason to discredit and dismiss a large bulk of experiences either because verification of fleeting events is inherently impossible. We must use reason and common sense.

Second point: I am aware of parapsychological experiments that show ‘reasonable verification’. But that’s not worth going into detail over because there are debunkers out there whose only interest is to criticize positive findings. And that results in a debate between researcher and debunker. But what is the truth?

The ‘must’ above should be changed to ‘probably’ and that conclusion was only reached after considering all other possibilities too.

Not when reason and logic are applied to reach the conclusion. And it’s not ‘faith’, it’s analysis.

George, thanks for the discussion. I didn't really see anything that struck me as substantive or convincing in this last post. I do not find stories credible because they are popular or widespread. People believe a lot of nonsensical things, and they embellish stories that they pass along by word of mouth. You feel that you have come across stories of ghosts and reincarnation that sound convincing to you. I have not had the same experiences. I think we'll just have to leave it at that.

 

[arcanum]

For those lucky enough to have had an out of body experience, you think very differently afterwards about what exactly constitutes oneself. Having had a number of such experiences, I no longer doubt the reality of some part of myself that is not dependent on the physical body.

 

[The Wizard]

I believe your post basically agrees with what the Bible says. Death would end it all, were it not for the hope of a resurrection, Or a raising again to life. (Acts 24:15) If the soul were immortal, what need would there be of a resurrection?
As the Bible says, when a man dies, "His thoughts perish." (Psalm 146:4) The term "immortal soul" appears nowhere in the Bible.

Right, the resurrection. Well, say we rested in death, yes, that's it, just absolutely dead.. that is until ions later some AI cosmic reduction re-assembly computing quantum machine goes around collecting every faction of data for everyoneeverything who ever lived and existed for a resurrection. I saw a show on Nova about travelling and observing slightly through time due to curvature of space and thought it was VERY interesting concerning this topic. Yes, even atheistically inclined..

If time travel exists...the afterlife is a reality just due to the value and demand that will exist. The only question is whether or not mankind will destroy itself before figuring out its own problems... But, then again... such possibility still has plenty of room considering the others who shall spring forth and carry the torch through seeming eternity..

 

[Bird123]

I'm reversing a previous position that I used to take. I used to think it was cruel to expose people to the truth of death, but now I think it is for the best.

1. You change as you age, particularly as your brain ages.

2. Brain injuries change your choices and behavior, your mind, your emotions, your soul.

3. Death destroys your brain, therefore it destroys your soul.

4. If the soul were able to thrive without the brain it would be reasonable to believe in an immortal soul, but damaging the brain damages the soul.

5. The soul has a beginning. This is obvious from the way that babies begin life without any knowledge. They gradually learn and adapt. Their personalities also develop and change while they live.

6. The soul has a beginning, so it makes sense for it to have an end.

7. If the soul had any power to live on, people would choose not to die. They would exert the power of their soul to continue existing or to influence events. Particularly mothers who die leaving young children behind do not continue to look after their children and are helpless to affect their lives beyond death.

8. People would choose to continue existing and not to die, yet reports of ghosts are extremely rare while deaths are extremely frequent and numerous. Reports of ghosts also are generally a joke.

The body might age but isn't the spirit eternally youthful? We are spiritual beings in our true natures. Don't believe we are? Why do all the old guys chase the young ladies? They do not see themselves as old.

Damage your brain and you will have many complications and issues. Damage your car and won't you have trouble getting around too?? Because our cars are damaged doesn't mean there is something wrong with us.

Do babies really carry no knowledge? Look closer. You are missing so much of the picture. Sure, one must learn to drive their car,learn the languages and customs, however who we are is already there. Want to get a look at God? Souls being born have just left God. See God in them before you see only this world. It's not long before one bends their life to their own will.

Because something has a beginning, can one assume it will have an end? If you base all your knowledge on the physical laws of this universe, that would be a good assumption. Isn't there more than our universe? Aren't the possibilities endless. Look a bit into quantum physics. There is more beyond our little anthill.

There is a good reason the fear of death exists. Running from lessons is like running in circles. The gift keeps many from chasing their tails round and round.

Life is about living. That is what people should choose to do. On the other hand, death is no more than a change. When the time comes, each will be ready.

We are all Spiritual Beings in our own nature. Focus within instead of on all the sensory input of this physical world. Discover who you really are.

Isn't life really all about discovery anyway?? How much time and effort is used to focus on things that really mean very little? Perhaps, it is time for us all to really look at ourselves. We are the ones who choose.

 

[yoda89]

I think that some of the comments about the 'Soul' not just being your personality and thoughts has a lot of merit. My thoughts may not be particularly important, but I think my life has value. I don't take murder lightly or death either. The value of my life, be it short and seemingly insignificant, may nevertheless have a value I don't understand. I don't believe that stops when a person dies.

I have created posts on here about both soul and spirituality. I got a different responses from everybody. Whether they exists or not in your beliefs is up to you. You are correct just because you beliefs change doesn't mean your life is less important. In many ways it becomes more important since you know it's the only one you have. Nor will morality change because if your a kind person you are a kind person. Neither is it insignificant we impact the lives of others and must find a purpose.

Imagine evolution the harsh process in which it takes place. Survival of the fittest including predators, wars, plagues, natural disasters. Many did not survive and are as a result not here. So imagine what sequence of events took place to bring you here. It's awing in its own sense. There is also so much more. There are already theories of what happened before the Big Bang. Carbon nano-tubing, so much to learn. But you may even know about this better than I.

But right now we are in a cosmic sense a very vulnerable species along with the others on the planet. We are in a race between ourselves and once again the survival of our species. It's a pretty important place in time.

But if it helps any I personally view life as a bright beautiful candle burning in the wind and that's how I view death in sense of life and death being so much more.

But that's my two cents.