It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Where Is The Proof That There Is "Nothing" After Death?

page: 12
25
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:22 PM

All I will say in response is I agree

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:30 PM

originally posted by: artistpoet

All I will say in response is I agree

Likewise, cheers my friend.

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:10 AM

I can't prove that there is something after death but I am personally convinced that my brother in law, uncle, mother and my late wife are alive and well over there so that's all I need to know and feel. If I ever come up with a way to prove they still exist, I'll share that with the world. Go see a good psychic and you will get all the proof you need that many of your dearest people are still alive and well over there.
good luck,
jim

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:15 AM

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I see people say "there is no proof that there is anything after death" all the time on these boards and even in real life. So where is the proof that there is nothing after death?

My proof that there is something after death is right here and now within this something we have always experienced.

Please clarify, 3NL1GHT3N3D1. What's your proof that THERE IS "something" of our psyche still ticking after we die?

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 07:36 AM
Let's give the question a simple equation:

a + b = c

If 'a' is birth and 'b' is death and 'c' is afterlife, it is incumbent upon those who profess an expectation in 'c' to prove how 'c' becomes a justified expectation.

An alternative simple equation could be:

a + b = c

If 'a' is birth and 'b' is death and 'c' is utter extinction, it is incumbent upon those who profess an expectation in 'c' to prove how 'c' becomes a justified expectation.

The left side of the equals sign is answerable by both camps, because the undeniable evidence exists and is proven by each of our own individual life experience, thus birth and death are real.

The right-side of the equation is only answerable in the 2nd equation, because the absence of evidence of 'c' in the 1st equation truly is evidence of absence, and points an affirmed answer for the 2nd equation only. For the 2nd equation to be fully answered, there just needs to be no evidence for the 'c' in the first equation.

The 1st equation can only give a negative answer of zero, which is not expected; whereas the 2nd equation expects there to be a positive answer of zero.
edit on 6/9/16 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 08:01 AM

The mainstream consensus seems to wildly favour one side though.

Don't you think?

top topics

25