|
Post by newschooled on Nov 13, 2010 23:25:04 GMT -5
What's a 'negative'? (Ah don't get it?)
But here's the other thing - Some things are simply only observable to one person...Or a select few. But they still exist. A perfect example is your own thoughts. I can't see them. But if you tell me you're thinking about a cheeseburger, I can (by your logic) just as easily turn around and say "That's impossible, because I can't see it". Now in context, each one of these accounts were observed by one person at a time. You can't discredit an experience strictly on a self-serving premise.
And again...We still have the evidence of a THIRD PARTY confirming one account without previous knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 13, 2010 23:35:38 GMT -5
What's a 'negative'? (Ah don't get it?) But here's the other thing - Some things are simply only observable to one person...Or a select few. But they still exist. A perfect example is your own thoughts. I can't see them. But if you tell me you're thinking about a cheeseburger, I can (by your logic) just as easily turn around and say "That's impossible, because I can't see it". Now in context, each one of these accounts were observed by one person at a time. You can't discredit an experience strictly on a self-serving premise. And again...We still have the evidence of a THIRD PARTY confirming one account without previous knowledge. No, you're missing the point. You're asserting that something exists. I said that I doubt it exists, and you asked for me to prove it's nonexistence -- you can't do that. If you assert something exists, you can't ask someone else to disprove it. (See Russell's Teapot)
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 13, 2010 23:37:20 GMT -5
AlexC, you're an objective thinker, so you may appreciate this - A little piece Esoteric Philosophy...This mixes a bit of metaphysics, psychology, anthropology and liberal arts. It's an eye opener no matter which side of the spectrum you stand on. If you ever get your hands on a copy either digital, or from a library - Check out a volume called "An encyclopedic outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Philosophy" by Manly P. Hall. It's one book, but can take years to study. This is really interesting stuff, and it could answer a lot of your questions that have to do with "How do you get =x from nothing?" ...It won't prove or disprove any points I'm trying to make, but it's an amazing collection of knowledge into the metaphysical. EDIT: Here's a free online version of the book. books.google.ca/books?id=jjEkEGbyhTEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=an+encyclopedic+outline+of+masonic,+hermetic,+qabbalistic+and+rosicrucian+philosophy&source=bl&ots=P1NlQWb2xu&sig=i3EWzRAXZKXSp5RQNXeL3H-nlO4&hl=en&ei=zmjfTKzRF4G4sQPvzMz7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 13, 2010 23:44:10 GMT -5
Not to be rude or anything, but with all this talk about "contact" with the dead -- the only thing I'm hearing is "I went with my daddy to Sweden this summer to hunt for Crumple Horned Snorkacks"
I mean, I believe in God and everything, but "contact" with the dead is a bit too far fetched for me.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 13, 2010 23:49:11 GMT -5
Not to be rude or anything Well we can always just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 13, 2010 23:49:42 GMT -5
Not to be rude or anything Well we can always just agree to disagree. True.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Nov 13, 2010 23:55:47 GMT -5
Why would there be an afterlife? You would be conscious for all of eternity. And that's not something I'd want to look forward to. Plus it just doesn't make sense. It would mean that we would have literal spirits or something along that line. In which case reincarnation would be just as plausible. Why wouldn't there be an afterlife? So you'd rather not exist at all then to exist as a ghost? What's so bad do you think about being a ghost that makes a complete lack of existence so much better? You don't make sense. How would reincarnation be just as plausible as living on as a ghost? They're two completely different things. Yes, I'd rather not exist than live for ETERNITY (in the case of common religious afterlifes), it would get unbearable, imo. The reason I say reincarnation would be just as plausible is, again when talking about common religious afterlifes like heaven where you exist for the rest of eternity, it would mean that there would be something to send up to the heavens. Yet I'm sure these same people would think reincarnation is absurd. However, all reincarnation needs is some form of consciousness that does not die, like a spirit. So, if reincarnation existed then instead of staying in heaven (or hell) this spirit, for example, might be queued and then just have to wait for a vessel to be born and the cycle continues. The existence of an after life makes just as much sense as the existence of life itself. If we exist then some form of afterlife most also exist. We couldn't come to exist and have this debate in the first place if there wasn't also something after this. No, your logic is backwards. We couldn't exist in an afterlife unless we existed in a first-life, like this one -- it doesn't work the other way around. Just because we exist as we do now does not mean we existed before this, nor does it mean that we will continue to exist when our "vessels" have died.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 14, 2010 1:05:24 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that if it can be scientifically explained, then it's no longer possible? ... ... But how then could a person who had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE to this particular dream describe it to us in exact correct detail? (The fact there was even a dream was not mentioned to this person, let alone the details. But I had told my family days previous, so we all recognized the description, and it was bang on.) You can't say "It doesn't exist" AND THEN look for a reason why it doesn't exist... The above post was in question to AlexC's post which was poorly worded, I think that what AlexC was trying to say in the prior post was that the phenomena that he experiences are scientifically explained, and thus cannot be spirits, and that if there were spirits, then they could not be scientifically explained, only metaphysically or spiritually. While his point was incorrect, I do think that this might have been a fundamental misunderstanding that started your debate. Contact with the deceased would not require a metaphysical or spiritual soul, and could simply be a special type of energy. The thing is, we have not scientifically been able to find such type of energy, so it is impossible to call it that currently. In the future, we might find that dying leaves trace residue energy that could hypothetically manifest and contact us. While this scenario is scientifically doubtable, it is not an impossibility. Also, it is possible to prove a negative, just exceptionally difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 14, 2010 1:12:46 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that if it can be scientifically explained, then it's no longer possible? ... ... But how then could a person who had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE to this particular dream describe it to us in exact correct detail? (The fact there was even a dream was not mentioned to this person, let alone the details. But I had told my family days previous, so we all recognized the description, and it was bang on.) You can't say "It doesn't exist" AND THEN look for a reason why it doesn't exist... The above post was in question to AlexC's post which was poorly worded, I think that what AlexC was trying to say in the prior post was that the phenomena that he experiences are scientifically explained, and thus cannot be spirits, and that if there were spirits, then they could not be scientifically explained, only metaphysically or spiritually. Yeah. I actually forgot where the heck I was going with my post. I was actually going to mention that, for centuries, things like sleep paralysis were considered supernatural. In Japanese culture, for instance, it's known as kanashibari -- meaning to be bound down by metal. In Greek culture, it's when a monstrous spirit known as a Mora sits on your chest. My point was that, while these have metaphysical explanations, they are culturally relevant and not scientific.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 14, 2010 3:50:26 GMT -5
The most common recurring point I'm noticing in the argument against the afterlife pretty much boils down to:
"I can't observe it. So it's not real."
K, so I know that sounds really passive aggressive toward the argument, but isn't that pretty much it? As in, people who have said they have no reason to believe in the afterlife? Granted, it's fair enough - I've never seen the FSM - But that doesn't mean I have to believe in it for real. But I think the most basic black and white sides of the argument can be divided into 3 parts: Those who believe something that they can't observe can't exist, those who believe through means of faith, and those who have had personal experiences relative to the afterlife.
As for the sleep paralysis thing - That's actually a really common after affect of astral projection. I've only ever had sleep paralysis once, but it was (oddly enough) after an experience that was very much like the common description of astral projection. Which to me suggests that it boils down to some sort of temporary rift between the mind and body in the stages immediately following REM sleep. Which...Actually makes a bit of sense, physiologically speaking. (When the parts of the brain that are active during REM are shutting down) Which would likely be a big indicator of why most people experience sleep paralysis when they wake up, as opposed to when they're falling asleep.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 14, 2010 4:31:25 GMT -5
at least not other than our death bodies serving as nutrients to other life-forms That is both disturbing and not how I want my life to end. Of course there isn't much I can do with the body after it's gone that doesn't evolve my body being mutilated in some way by some thing. But sense I'll have no feeling anymore I guess it doesn't matter. I just hope I get buried in whatever I died in... and don't die naked... or at least have a girl to dress me if I do die naked. Yes, I'd rather not exist than live for ETERNITY (in the case of common religious afterlifes), it would get unbearable, imo. Why do you keep mentioning common religious afterlifes? I'm Atheist, I don't believe in Heaven, Hell, or Reincarnation. I'm speaking from a scientific point of view not a religious one. And why would an afterlife be unbearable? Presumably all the pain of this life felt by nerve endings in our bodies would not carrey over into the next life. There's plenty evidence to support the existence of Ghosts, you only need to stop thinking of them as being religiously or magically connected and start thinking of scientific explanations for how a person might be able to live beyond the death of it's body. One theory for this is the idea of the electrical impulses continuing to exist outside the body. This may not be the right answer but it could be an answer. Every Vessel would presumably have it's own spirit develop so the idea that a person who already existed taking it over would be kinda like using an organ donner except you're taking their entire body and essentially killing the person who was meant to be there. Or If the theory that the soul outgrows it's vessel is accurate then there would be no way for a soul to re-enter a new body once it had moved on unless that new body was bigger than the one they just came out of. And if that were the case then each time someone was reincarnated they'd always have to come back as something bigger than they were the last time. And simply proving that some kind of soul does exist seems allot more likely than proving Heaven and Hell actually exist. That logic seems flawed and contradicting. You first said that in order for an afterlife to exist that there would have to be this life first but this life is not proof of an after life which may or may not be accurate but lets say it is. So if an afterlife actually did exist simply having one would be proof of this life we're in now. You then go on to say that this life we're in now is not proof that there was a life before this one. I don't know how that even became part of the argument no one said there was a life before this but sense you brought it up according to your logic of the first part this life is proof that we have lived before this but I don't see how existing as we do now is any such proof of any kind of life happening before this life sense we have no such memories of any life before now. My logic is simply that some kind of energy we don't fully understand leaves our bodies when we die but the energy itself does not die. There's no flaw in that. Your logic on the other hand seems to be based in illogical and irrational belief systems. Not trying to offend anyone but as an Atheist that's how I view religion as illogical and irrational sorry, I can't help that.
|
|
earth
Moon
the awesome
Posts: 245
|
Post by earth on Nov 14, 2010 12:42:53 GMT -5
meh. i don't believe in one. no real need for one in my beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 14, 2010 13:19:20 GMT -5
As for the sleep paralysis thing - That's actually a really common after affect of astral projection. I've only ever had sleep paralysis once, but it was (oddly enough) after an experience that was very much like the common description of astral projection. Which to me suggests that it boils down to some sort of temporary rift between the mind and body in the stages immediately following REM sleep. Which...Actually makes a bit of sense, physiologically speaking. (When the parts of the brain that are active during REM are shutting down) Which would likely be a big indicator of why most people experience sleep paralysis when they wake up, as opposed to when they're falling asleep. Once again, you're mixing science fiction with science fact -- the explained and the unexplained. Unless there's a proven scientific connection, I doubt it exists.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Nov 14, 2010 14:54:39 GMT -5
@rial Disturbing, mutilated? ... I'm not sure I made myself clear xP. I just meant that the only thing that I see happening after we die is our bodies serving as nutrients for other life forms (maggots, plants, and other life-forms that get their food from rotten and dead stuff). Why, or more importantly, how could electric impulses function outside a body to support the energy needed for said impulses. To compare, take a computer or machines or even robots for example, they have plenty of information and can function and have energy an all. But once you shut them down, or even if you destroy the body, this electrical energy and all the information it had goes with the body/recipient. I know you said it may not be an answer, but you are not giving many answers so I decided to take on this one... *reads more* Oh wait '-': Being that it is kind of a vague statement, you are right, it's hard to find a flaw in that. Anyways, you are right, there are energies on our bodies, like chemical energies, electrochemicals energies, electrical energies, heat, kinetic energy, etc, etc, and since we know about the law of conservation of energy, we know this energy doesn't just disappear when the body dies. But it can be transformed into the heat our bodies produce when they rot, or to the energy plants and other lifeforms will use after obtaining our nutrients. newschooled Actually, many out-of-body experiences can be exaplained with dreams too. Take lucid dreams and super-real dreams, for example, you could dream about astral projection if you wanted (not necessarily knowing you are dreaming) and it would feel like if it were real. Dreams are really powerful.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 14, 2010 17:09:47 GMT -5
Disturbing, mutilated? ... I'm not sure I made myself clear xP. I just meant that the only thing that I see happening after we die is our bodies serving as nutrients for other life forms (maggots, plants, and other life-forms that get their food from rotten and dead stuff). I knew what you meant but how is that not disturbing to you? And yes decay is a form of body mutilation of course there's nothing you can do about it because when your body dies it has no way of healing itself not that you would actually need it too. Lighting exists outside a container and coils can be used to channel electrical currents in the air so there's no reason any form of electricity actually needs a vessel. The vessel runs on the power not the other way around. Ok again... that's creeping me out... can we not talk about body rot anymore. Anyway, our bodies give off heat when we're alive, dead bodies are cold.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 14, 2010 17:11:56 GMT -5
...But you said you believe in God.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 14, 2010 17:24:13 GMT -5
...But you said you believe in God. That's different. It's not like I'm implying creationism or anything.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 14, 2010 17:37:00 GMT -5
^^^K Srsly?
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Nov 14, 2010 17:46:36 GMT -5
Because, I don't really see it as somehitng disturbing, it's a natural thing, and also:
Well, you are right xD. I was thinking more about nerve impulses, but you missed an important part. You are right, electric energy does not need a vessel (I suppose it needs conductors and a place to form, in the case of lighting clouds and soil, I think, but whatever), but it needs something to support its creation and permanence.
That was necessary =/. I'm just trying to say that you are right. And also, that there is a law of conservation of energy that implies that energy doesn't "die" (just transform), but there is no reason to jump from that and say that "some kind of some sort of a type of energy that we don't really understand leaves our bodies when we die" and create this uknown energy and then use this uknown energy to explain after-life, when natural processes and not-so-cryptic-energies can explain what happens with our bodies and their energy when we die.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 14, 2010 17:51:06 GMT -5
Because, I don't really see it as somehitng disturbing, it's a natural thing, and also: I agree. I think it depends on how you were raised with these things. It really creeps my wife out, but then again - She was raised fundamentalist Christian with this romanticized vision of the afterlife being fluffy clouds and roads paved of gold leading to a caucasian bearded man with wings. Whereas I on the other hand have grown up around people who have always told me their stories of experiences/encounters in a much more literal sense, without any sugar coating. Either way, it's nothing to be intimidated or frightened by...In my opinion.
|
|