Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read an interesting theory about life after death in a novel, https://www.goodreads.com/sv/book/show/24984. This theory as presented in the novel actually makes sense to me and goes something like this:
The brain survives for about six minutes after the rest of the body dies*. In that six minutes, the brain often does not accept what is happening to the body and it goes into some kind of survival mode, and it conjures up thoughts, feelings, pictures of whatever the person expects to encounter after death; and that is why different people have different accounts of their NDEs -- why a Christian might see a vision of Jesus, a Catholic might see a vision of Mary, an atheist might not even have an NDE and therefore would not experience anything, and those who want to be reunited with their deceased loved ones might "see" those people. (The whole "tunnel of light" might be due to a physiological cause.) Also explored is the idea that time loses its "linearity" (if there is such a word) so that one minute of time as we know it might seem like hours -- or maybe even -- my own thought -- even days or even years??
*Of course, if a brain dies before or at the same time as the body dies, due to some kind of major "crush" injury, for example, there would be no NDE. Also note that I do not know how long a brain can live after body death, but that is what the writer of the novel claimed.
There is also the theory that the NDE is a post event invention of a conscious mind trying to evaluate something we usually do not experience.
As for the tunnel of light, a friend of mine told me about the time he was suffering from lack of oxygen and he experienced the tunnel effect. It would be easy to include a memory like this in an invented experience based on a cultural background.
You kids are all way over my head here. Really, why does it matter? It is, or isn’t, what it is. Knock yourselves out analyzing it. In the end it doesn’t matter.
In the end it may not matter, but there are people today literally selling an afterlife as a future, not because they have some secret knowledge, but because they know others will pay money for something they want to be true.
The author's argument is based on an assumed premise that may well be false. Everything he said pertains to the mind as supported by the physical brain. We know nothing of the non-physical universe, so making that leap to an assumption that only the physical can support thought and being, is a potentially false assumption.
True, it may be false, but it is not a presumption, it is based on evidence we have at the moment. The idea of an afterlife is the presumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
This would be like me seeing only fish-based aquatic life in the ocean and saying that land-based life is impossible since all life I observe requires water and the ability to extract oxygen from water. Since land is dry, it is "impossible" for life to exist on land since there is no salt water from which to extract oxygen.
Your analogy would only be valid if your alternative non-physical universe actually existed. If naturalism is all there is, your analogy fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
His is an absurd premise that presumes that the physical world is a be-all and end-all. We simply don't know that.
Science does not even have the tools to test the existence of a non-physical universe. In that regard, it is circular logic -- "since we can only observe what is physical, we conclude there is nothing that is non-physical".
It is patently absurd. It is a wildly speculative premise.
No, it is a balance of evidence. We know a physical world exists, and it provides a mechanism for life. But what is the mechanism for the wildly speculative premise of a life after death?
True, it may be false, but it is not a presumption, it is based on evidence we have at the moment. The idea of an afterlife is the presumption.
Your analogy would only be valid if your alternative non-physical universe actually existed. If naturalism is all there is, your analogy fails.
No, it is a balance of evidence. We know a physical world exists, and it provides a mechanism for life. But what is the mechanism for the wildly speculative premise of a life after death?
His mistake is to say that an afterlife is "impossible". I agree we have no evidence for an afterlife, and that all observable life on earth requires an animal body or at the very least a single cell, but then he leaps to the absurd claim that it is "impossible" and tries to support that absolute claim with circular logic.
If he claimed a theory that life requres a physical body, that is one thing. To then leap to the assertion that our physical observatoins on earth make life outside a physical body "impossible", is absurd and laughable. He does not and he cannot prove that assertion.
His mistake is to say that an afterlife is "impossible". I agree we have no evidence for an afterlife, and that all observable life on earth requires an animal body or at the very least a single cell, but then he leaps to the absurd claim that it is "impossible" and tries to support that absolute claim with circular logic.
If he claimed a theory that life requres a physical body, that is one thing. To then leap to the assertion that our physical observatoins on earth make life outside a physical body "impossible", is absurd and laughable. He does not and he cannot prove that assertion.
yup.
it shows a lack of logic, and absence of critical thinking.
His mistake is to say that an afterlife is "impossible". I agree we have no evidence for an afterlife, and that all observable life on earth requires an animal body or at the very least a single cell, but then he leaps to the absurd claim that it is "impossible" and tries to support that absolute claim with circular logic.
If he claimed a theory that life requres a physical body, that is one thing. To then leap to the assertion that our physical observatoins on earth make life outside a physical body "impossible", is absurd and laughable. He does not and he cannot prove that assertion.
You kids are all way over my head here. Really, why does it matter? It is, or isn’t, what it is. Knock yourselves out analyzing it. In the end it doesn’t matter.
It actually does matter because of a thing called karma. If one lived an evil life, then that person wouldn't or shouldn't end up in a nice place, on the other hand the opposite is true. I have been to the spirit world during a past life regression in Dr. Brian Weiss' office. www.brianweiss.com
There is another life we need to live in order to learn our lessons that are part of human existence, although we don't have an actual manual, people who have a higher level of understanding, know this as part of our nature. This life isn't it and we should take this life seriously and live our lives with the understanding KARMA is real and there is always justice, perhaps it doesn't take place in this lifetime. People are obviously free to disagree, but my experience is not the same as someone's conjecture.
It actually does matter because of a thing called karma. If one lived an evil life, then that person wouldn't or shouldn't end up in a nice place, on the other hand the opposite is true. I have been to the spirit world during a past life regression in Dr. Brian Weiss' office. www.brianweiss.com
There is another life we need to live in order to learn our lessons that are part of human existence, although we don't have an actual manual, people who have a higher level of understanding, know this as part of our nature. This life isn't it and we should take this life seriously and live our lives with the understanding KARMA is real and there is always justice, perhaps it doesn't take place in this lifetime. People are obviously free to disagree, but my experience is not the same as someone's conjecture.
In my view, as a Buddhist, you have the wrong understanding of karma.
His mistake is to say that an afterlife is "impossible". I agree we have no evidence for an afterlife, and that all observable life on earth requires an animal body or at the very least a single cell, but then he leaps to the absurd claim that it is "impossible" and tries to support that absolute claim with circular logic.
If he claimed a theory that life requres a physical body, that is one thing. To then leap to the assertion that our physical observatoins on earth make life outside a physical body "impossible", is absurd and laughable. He does not and he cannot prove that assertion.
I agree, he falsely made an absolute claim. My points were that 1) he was presumably using evidence we have and not making circular arguments, and 2) you were implying the 2 competing ideas are equally valid based on what we do not know. The odds change when we look at what we do know.
yup.
it shows a lack of logic, and absence of critical thinking.
No, it shows overconfidence. You really need to stop simply dismissing things as a lack of logic, and absence of critical thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
