Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It passes. "0)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is death the only way to prove the existance of God?
Shad
Veteran Member
Moody's work has been discredited for decades.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I read I think yesterday or so about dreams. The website (medical one) said that everything in our dreams are things, events, and people in one way or another we have come across throughout our lives. So, even if drinks (dreams not drinks) are mixed up, they are still combination of what already is pilled up in our heads.
With that, I'd assume that near-death experiences that are supposed to prove god would be likewise since everything comes from the mind. I had been in a life and death experience and have never seen god nor felt his experience. It was probably because at the time I never had experience, influenced, or even know other than hear and read about god-like experiences; so, my brain has nothing to create or base images and feelings on.
So (though my second post), to answer, I don't believe death proves the existence of god. If we take out our beliefs and what we were influenced by and live as a clean slate, we would see that there is no "life after death." Think about it, though?
Have you had any experience with death that had no resemblance of anything you have experienced (scene, read, heard, felt, smelt) on earth? Did you have alienated experiences even if they can't be defined they are still part of what we have experienced during this life rather than what we wish or trust to happen in the next?
What is the nature of death that would make anyone believe-on their own-that there is life beyond the ceasing of our bodily function? I mean, we can find comfort in our beliefs but what about facts? I disagree that death is the only way to prove the existence of any god/entity.
If so, how would you prove it outside of experiencing death itself (not near-death)?
With that, I'd assume that near-death experiences that are supposed to prove god would be likewise since everything comes from the mind. I had been in a life and death experience and have never seen god nor felt his experience. It was probably because at the time I never had experience, influenced, or even know other than hear and read about god-like experiences; so, my brain has nothing to create or base images and feelings on.
So (though my second post), to answer, I don't believe death proves the existence of god. If we take out our beliefs and what we were influenced by and live as a clean slate, we would see that there is no "life after death." Think about it, though?
Have you had any experience with death that had no resemblance of anything you have experienced (scene, read, heard, felt, smelt) on earth? Did you have alienated experiences even if they can't be defined they are still part of what we have experienced during this life rather than what we wish or trust to happen in the next?
What is the nature of death that would make anyone believe-on their own-that there is life beyond the ceasing of our bodily function? I mean, we can find comfort in our beliefs but what about facts? I disagree that death is the only way to prove the existence of any god/entity.
If so, how would you prove it outside of experiencing death itself (not near-death)?
Nonsense. He is a senior and highly respected researcher even today.
There of course is no one determiner of credibility for all of us.
Prizebeatz1
New Member
I agree. But the need for objective proof is a hindrance. The mind is trying to find something to hang onto so it can survive. That need in and of itself is a prison, a subtle trap of the personality. Coming to terms with the true identity of the soul involves letting go of all needs, including the need for proof and the need to know answers. Notice how dependent we are on being dependent. There is always something. If there isn't we will just make something up. A thought, a belief, an idea. Something, anything. That is why the personality is the father of lies. Yet no matter how good or how bad we take that something to be it is a hindrance in realizing the infinite freedom, eternal liberation and unconditional value of the soul which is one with God.
JesusBeliever
Active Member
Hi Ran, proving the existence of God to ourselves isn't as hard as providing that same proof to others. It seems that God has made things this way, that if we want to know Him we each have to be willing to seek Him for ourselves. And not give up til we find Him. IMHO waiting for death would be giving up on that search:
"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 NASB
Don't give up Ran
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Fair enough, but this doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. You claimed that self-realization is proof of God's existence. But, it is merely subjective interpretation and/or speculation, which cannot be considered proof of anything.
Prizebeatz1
New Member
I beg to differ. The truth is that God's existence is unconditional, infinite and eternal. He is there whether we have proof or not. The personality often feels the need for evidence because it is insecure about it's own worth. The self-worth for which it seeks is within and the proof is the feeling of infinite and eternal value. When one feels it for oneself it squashes all doubt. The soul being born pure of a virgin points to this guarantee. It is not subjective interpretation at all. It is makes what we take to be reality look like a cartoon. It is reality in itself.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Not the source with your referenced. His book, and its research, are full of flaws, rejection of data which doesn't align with his views, flawed methodology and . In academy his work has no credibility. When actually NDE studies are made the results are due to brain chemistry rather than Moody's anecdotal evidence.
Such is just your own analysis. I find him credible and the website addresses challenges. I believe the overall weight of the evidence strongly suggest something dramatic occurs that is not understood by science and can not be explained within the boarders of materialistic thought.
Last edited:
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Shad
Veteran Member
Not just my own but from academy which reviewed his flawed research.
Academy?? Which one?
Shad
Veteran Member
Pim van Lommel's study for a start. You can also read Susan Blackmore's stduy. Dr. Karl Jansen experiment using ketamine. When scrutinized Moody's book fails on many accounts
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/
That's certainly not an Academy as you claimed. It is just individuals. And I can name individuals. Plus, I am not sure you understand what Lommel and Jansen are really saying. Blackmore is one of the go-to skeptic people that has been out of the Near Death studies business for some time now.