By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I had a strange out of body experience once. Not sure what it was but I did kind of die once. I told my wife about it as soon as I woke up .......... four days later.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 22:18 - Nov 7 by Parlay
You are confusing life after death with resurrection there.
A devilishly confusing barrier to speaking about life after death. There is no correlation between them except in religious beliefs, as with reincarnation. Same barrier.
As part of my rejection of biblical explanations, I do not correlate life after death and resurrection of the body, which I cannot accept. I suspect not everyone does the same, hence part of the problem in this discussion.
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 23:31 - Nov 7 by Davillin
A devilishly confusing barrier to speaking about life after death. There is no correlation between them except in religious beliefs, as with reincarnation. Same barrier.
As part of my rejection of biblical explanations, I do not correlate life after death and resurrection of the body, which I cannot accept. I suspect not everyone does the same, hence part of the problem in this discussion.
Regarding the Biblical explanations , which parts do you reject Dav?
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
0
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 23:37 - Nov 7 with 1228 views
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 23:31 - Nov 7 by Davillin
A devilishly confusing barrier to speaking about life after death. There is no correlation between them except in religious beliefs, as with reincarnation. Same barrier.
As part of my rejection of biblical explanations, I do not correlate life after death and resurrection of the body, which I cannot accept. I suspect not everyone does the same, hence part of the problem in this discussion.
Indeed.
Id imagine the vast majority of people, if not all, that are open to the possibilities of life after death are not referring to resurrecting themselves in their physical human bodies. Thats a pretty easy one to dismiss.
I think those that dismiss life after death may have only thought about it in that sense, hence their shock that some consider it a possibility.
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 23:30 - Nov 7 by Darran
I had a strange out of body experience once. Not sure what it was but I did kind of die once. I told my wife about it as soon as I woke up .......... four days later.
What was it?
The brain does some weird stuff when it is shutting down or parts there of. I watched a documentary on what part of the brain needs to be "switched off" or stimulated in order to give people the same experiences (bright light, tunnel etc).
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 23:37 - Nov 7 by Parlay
Indeed.
Id imagine the vast majority of people, if not all, that are open to the possibilities of life after death are not referring to resurrecting themselves in their physical human bodies. Thats a pretty easy one to dismiss.
I think those that dismiss life after death may have only thought about it in that sense, hence their shock that some consider it a possibility.
Spot on sir. And as you said earlier there is an infinite variety of possibilities.religious beliefs being just one point of view in the whole spectrum.
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 23:20 - Nov 7 by Parlay
Happy for you to disagree, but "guff" it is not, i thought we had got rid of the dross contributions early in the thread.
It would be superb to have a thread where people do not insult and berate each others opinions, especially when the opposite opinion is not forthcoming or indeed attempted to be explained. "Bollox" and "guff" is tantamount to putting ones fingers in ones ears and stamping ones feet.
So back to the debate - what can live without energy? .... And most importantly, what do you consider "life"? To know what it is we are looking for after "death" we must both have the same understanding of the word "life".
[Post edited 7 Nov 2014 23:32]
Stella drives me to stupidity, but here goes.
Your golf ball analogy is flawed as, with this scenario, we have no other information. As to existence in this plane of "reality" we have the, not quite complete, "laws of nature", "Conservation of energy" and all that stuff to give indication to probability. Probability is a mainstay of quantum physics which is proving to be VERY effective at predicting outcomes from what we "know" to be "true".
Using the words "Bollox" and "guff" is NOT tantamount to putting ones fingers in ones ears and stamping ones feet when faced with assertions totally devoid of any evidence or "hard" science to back it up. It is just an inane reaction to an inane assertion.
Back to the debate, which incidentally was not "what can live without energy" and avoiding your get-out clause "we must both have the same understanding of the word "life"...
For there to be life after death it must be a process either driven by "life" or by the overarching" Laws of nature" but the elephant in the room is entropy and the eventual dissolution of everything to the photonic level (and maybe beyond). Get beyond that and then maybe we have a discussion otherwise it's guff and bollucks.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
0
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 00:10 - Nov 8 with 1179 views
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 00:02 - Nov 8 by DJack
Stella drives me to stupidity, but here goes.
Your golf ball analogy is flawed as, with this scenario, we have no other information. As to existence in this plane of "reality" we have the, not quite complete, "laws of nature", "Conservation of energy" and all that stuff to give indication to probability. Probability is a mainstay of quantum physics which is proving to be VERY effective at predicting outcomes from what we "know" to be "true".
Using the words "Bollox" and "guff" is NOT tantamount to putting ones fingers in ones ears and stamping ones feet when faced with assertions totally devoid of any evidence or "hard" science to back it up. It is just an inane reaction to an inane assertion.
Back to the debate, which incidentally was not "what can live without energy" and avoiding your get-out clause "we must both have the same understanding of the word "life"...
For there to be life after death it must be a process either driven by "life" or by the overarching" Laws of nature" but the elephant in the room is entropy and the eventual dissolution of everything to the photonic level (and maybe beyond). Get beyond that and then maybe we have a discussion otherwise it's guff and bollucks.
It is clear you are thinking very narrowly here. Are you suggesting that a clarification of the very basis of the debate "life after death" is a get out of jail card (whatever that means in this instance). Thats an amazing assertion. Surely the first thing we need to establish is "what is life" otherwise what i consider to be life after death and what you consider to be life after death are two completely differing things.
From what i understand of your opinion, you are saying you don't think there is life after death (as of yet you still have not defined what your perimeters are regarding this) due to probability? Surely thats a flawed argument in itself and is not quantifiable. To make a probability calculation then you must have all the information, in this instance we have literally no information. Nobody knows.
The issue we have here is that you are thinking in one way, which seems a very narrow paradigm to the untrained eye I must say. Then you cast everyone else's opinions or thesis as "guff" or "bollox" and that is the issue. If i am looking at one pane of glass and its yellow, you are looking from the other side and its orange - we are looking at the same object from different perspectives. For one person to stoop to using the words guff or bollocks is indeed highly ignorant and tantamount to the example i gave.
You have given nothing in your post that even remotely backs up the bluster you gave in your opening throw away remarks, in fact it only highlighted WHY you resorted to throw away remarks. You are not grasping it from the level we are looking at.
There is a constant level of energy in the world, it cannot be created nor destroyed, it cannot die. This energy gives us what we call life, without it we would be in many peoples understanding, dead. So if energy gives life and without it we are dead, isn't energy life? Upon "death" (again using the term loosely) our energy will be transferred into another form - thats a fact.
So again, i am not saying this IS life after death. Im saying this is ONE of an infinite amount of possibilities how ones being can go on living. This is based on the grain of sand of knowledge man has gained in a universe sized beach of sand. To think so limited is unfathomable.
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 00:32 - Nov 8 by Lord_Bony
Oh ffs...lighten up is it?
Mate, I'm chilled/pissed/light. It's just that I wasn't sure whether you were in your happy don't give a fick mood or in your pulpit mood.
I often disagree with your post but you are always willing to argue your point without rancour (or RANCOUR) and you avoid slinging offence but you can, occasionally, thump the pulpit as you see no merit in the arguement of others.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
0
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 01:19 - Nov 8 with 1119 views
Ha ha.. no fire and brimstone from the pulpit tonight me old mucker...just happy,i got a bottle of firewater and coke and ice and am enjoying playing the game on my PC the new release Call of Duty ...Advance Warfare...awesome...
And yes none of us are any closer to the truth yet....that awaits us all my friend ....DOnt Fear the REaper...
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 00:13 - Nov 8 by Parlay
It is clear you are thinking very narrowly here. Are you suggesting that a clarification of the very basis of the debate "life after death" is a get out of jail card (whatever that means in this instance). Thats an amazing assertion. Surely the first thing we need to establish is "what is life" otherwise what i consider to be life after death and what you consider to be life after death are two completely differing things.
From what i understand of your opinion, you are saying you don't think there is life after death (as of yet you still have not defined what your perimeters are regarding this) due to probability? Surely thats a flawed argument in itself and is not quantifiable. To make a probability calculation then you must have all the information, in this instance we have literally no information. Nobody knows.
The issue we have here is that you are thinking in one way, which seems a very narrow paradigm to the untrained eye I must say. Then you cast everyone else's opinions or thesis as "guff" or "bollox" and that is the issue. If i am looking at one pane of glass and its yellow, you are looking from the other side and its orange - we are looking at the same object from different perspectives. For one person to stoop to using the words guff or bollocks is indeed highly ignorant and tantamount to the example i gave.
You have given nothing in your post that even remotely backs up the bluster you gave in your opening throw away remarks, in fact it only highlighted WHY you resorted to throw away remarks. You are not grasping it from the level we are looking at.
There is a constant level of energy in the world, it cannot be created nor destroyed, it cannot die. This energy gives us what we call life, without it we would be in many peoples understanding, dead. So if energy gives life and without it we are dead, isn't energy life? Upon "death" (again using the term loosely) our energy will be transferred into another form - thats a fact.
So again, i am not saying this IS life after death. Im saying this is ONE of an infinite amount of possibilities how ones being can go on living. This is based on the grain of sand of knowledge man has gained in a universe sized beach of sand. To think so limited is unfathomable.
[Post edited 8 Nov 2014 0:19]
Firstly, Oh dear what a car crash.
I did not state, as well you know, that the debate "life after death" is a get out of jail card. I questioned the following STATEMENT from you " we must both have the same understanding of the word "life" which you referred to again and here we both know there is no "proper answer". As to establishing what life is , we don't need to as ENTROPY tells us what death is.
HAHA Opinion on death...and moving on to probability we both know that we don't need to " have all the information" to give probability as that is part of the answer.
Narrow paradigm , guff, a different way of viewing..blah,blah, blah just words and no FACTS.
Bluster... I just called your bluster and stated the most up to date quantifiable facts and just because you are "looking at it from a different level" doesn't mean that your not talking a load of rubbish.
Yes, the energy in "our system" is a constant but there is NOTHING to state that this causes the perpetual or recurrent life that you speak of. Nowhere is the statement (except in your world) that energy=life.
To use the infinite possibilities postulation to justify your argument is disingenuous (spelling - auto-correct). You implied a life after death and argued it's case then used the "grain of sand" bullshit argument. If that's the best you can do with a bloke that is rat-arsed then I suggest you give up.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
0
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 09:18 - Nov 8 with 1068 views
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 22:18 - Nov 7 by Parlay
You are confusing life after death with resurrection there.
And you are thinking way to deep and writing way to long posts trying to find way`s of there maybe something after death all speculation of course, but if it helps you to get over your fears of reality then good for you, personally i`ll stick with what i see and only believe something when it`s proven to me.
0
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 09:46 - Nov 8 with 1053 views
Shingle makes a good point; maybe we should be concerned as to what we see, do, hear and live on earth rather than worry too much about the "possible" after life
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 10:57 - Nov 8 by DJack
Energy less useful each time?!... Energy is energy, it may become less ordered but it does not decay and you should know better.
Errr. Try reading the link.
The second law may seem a little less happy to some. It describes the aftermath of every energy change that makes something happen. The second law says that each time energy gets transferred or transformed, some of it, and eventually all of it, gets less useful. That's the truth. It gets less useful, until finally, it becomes mostly useless (at least as far as its ability to make things happen is concerned).
So it seems I do know better , than you anyway.
[Post edited 8 Nov 2014 11:01]
Its just a ride...
0
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 11:12 - Nov 8 with 992 views
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 10:58 - Nov 8 by Shonky
Errr. Try reading the link.
The second law may seem a little less happy to some. It describes the aftermath of every energy change that makes something happen. The second law says that each time energy gets transferred or transformed, some of it, and eventually all of it, gets less useful. That's the truth. It gets less useful, until finally, it becomes mostly useless (at least as far as its ability to make things happen is concerned).
So it seems I do know better , than you anyway.
[Post edited 8 Nov 2014 11:01]
Err try putting up a post without having to edit and place in aforementioned link. When I started to reply the link was missing, unlike your ever present ego.
Ultimately "less useful" is only correct from an ordered universe view.
As you know more than me you can then accurately and efficiently consume faeces and expire. No link or edit required.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
0
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 11:28 - Nov 8 with 982 views
iS tHERE lIFE aFTER dEATH on 23:37 - Nov 7 by Parlay
Indeed.
Id imagine the vast majority of people, if not all, that are open to the possibilities of life after death are not referring to resurrecting themselves in their physical human bodies. Thats a pretty easy one to dismiss.
I think those that dismiss life after death may have only thought about it in that sense, hence their shock that some consider it a possibility.
Correct. I was speaking to a Russian Orthodox monk priest about this and he told me "when Christ rose again nobody recognised him straight away as he rose as his transfigured body, the body that Adam and Eve threw away when the succumbed to the temptation of the devil and their bodies became corrupt and mortal". So that is the Orthodox and Catholic interpretation - and I suppose if you go back to the Gospel Christ himself says "the flesh passeth away..... ". So he himself is hinting that the spirit lives on.
Cue some more atheistic rage.....
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
