Why The Afterlife is a Fact., page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 05:46 PM by Buddha1098

reply to post by smithjustinb

Your logic is faulty my friend. You Argue that Death and Non-existence are interchangeable I would argue they are not.

Before your birth you were nonexistent potential. Your Parents had you. You're alive, and now you're dead. You aren't non existent anymore you're dead. In the ground or Burned up but dead and your body will be dead for all time.

You can argue that you BELIEVE that consciousness exists after death, but you don't have proof.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 05:53 PM by akushla99

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by smithjustinb

Your logic is faulty my friend. You Argue that Death and Non-existence are interchangeable I would argue they are not.

Before your birth you were nonexistent potential. Your Parents had you. You're alive, and now you're dead. You aren't non existent anymore you're dead. In the ground or Burned up but dead and your body will be dead for all time.

You can argue that you BELIEVE that consciousness exists after death, but you don't have proof.

...and you can argue that you believe that consciousness does not exist after death, but you have no proof.

Akushla

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 05:55 PM by ProudBird

reply to post by Buddha1098

A *star* for you, but only because I am impressed by your bald assertions. Given the user-name you chose....seems a bit contradictory.

Still....on the side of science, the possibility exists that the only *seat* of consciousness resides in the meat of the brain, and the electrical impulses that sustain our "thoughts", and therefore...our "self"....or, whatever euphemism you choose to use.

On the other hand...and, no, no need to insert a religious belief here....there is also the scientific concept of energy, and a consideration that energy cannot be destroyed, only converted to various and different forms. Research the concept of "entropy", for example....though, that science does not address the topic here, it is food for thought.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:06 PM by NewAgeMan

reply to post by Buddha1098

It depends on what we identify ourselves with though, doesn't it? Some of us do not think of ourselves as limited to one physical body, or as a "thing".

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:08 PM by NewAgeMan

Also, some modern scientists are convinced that consciousness, yes individual personal consciousness, is a non-local phenomenon, and is not merely an epiphenomenon of matter, but that instead the brain and nervous system is a channel for consciousness, like a recieving and transmission device, or a node.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:08 PM by RKallisti

reply to post by smithjustinb

May I suggest something?

Life is Alive. Birth and death are merely "gateways" in and out of incarnative experience.

You are alive pre-birth, pos-death and during the incarnation. "Life" is All. You are always alive.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:11 PM by NewAgeMan

reply to post by RKallisti

Precisely. What else is there if there is nothing that "is not". I am not a "thing" but an intrinsic part of the whole process that is life.

What the materialist monists are asking us to believe and accept, is really absurd, particularly within the framework of a monistic idealism (consciousness is primary).

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:24 PM by akushla99

Originally posted by RKallisti
reply to post by smithjustinb

May I suggest something?

Life is Alive. Birth and death are merely "gateways" in and out of incarnative experience.

You are alive pre-birth, pos-death and during the incarnation. "Life" is All. You are always alive.

Akushla

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:26 PM by NewAgeMan

reply to post by akushla99

And the weight lifted by that realization, isn't about the loss of the fear of death, but the beginning of an opportunity, to really live!

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:34 PM by linkedbelts

the burden of proof lies on he who asserts the positive, it is not possible to prove a negative, nor is there any rational demand for such proof. YOU are claiming that life exists after death, so the burden of proof is on you, and you HAVE no such proof, and never will have it, nor will anyone else. So all you have shown is your ignorance.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 06:56 PM by NewAgeMan

reply to post by linkedbelts

NDE's. One lady flew out a window and noticed a tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital, and lo and behold it was there. Other's have reported precise details of their surgery, but they were under, and had no heart or brain activity. NDE's are a type of proof.

But life itself is the greater proof. Like I said before, how can death contain life, that's absurd.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 07:10 PM by akushla99

Originally posted by linkedbelts
the burden of proof lies on he who asserts the positive, it is not possible to prove a negative, nor is there any rational demand for such proof. YOU are claiming that life exists after death, so the burden of proof is on you, and you HAVE no such proof, and never will have it, nor will anyone else. So all you have shown is your ignorance.

FACTS are merely the framework on which our current existence state is hung. They cannot elucidate what needs no framework.

Priests of science can spout thier own 'internal' laws to prove and disprove whatever they like. That which gets discussed on forums such as this is 'outside' of these 'laws', therefore, they cannot be proven or disproven using an internal logic which addresses this state.

Akushla

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 08:27 PM by theyreadmymind

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.

Now, that doesn't mean that there is a heaven or hell, it simply means there is definitely life after death as before this life, you were dead, or not alive (same thing), and now you're alive. Life after death.
edit on 6-10-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

To put it another way using different words:
There is non-existence before and after life. The fact that non-existence preceded life implies the FACT that life can arise from non-existence. Since this is the case, then the period of non-existence after this life has the opportunity for another life arising. It's simple and it's obvious.
edit on 6-10-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-10-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

Got it. Thank you, friend.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 08:42 PM by smithjustinb

Originally posted by linkedbelts
the burden of proof lies on he who asserts the positive, it is not possible to prove a negative, nor is there any rational demand for such proof. YOU are claiming that life exists after death, so the burden of proof is on you, and you HAVE no such proof, and never will have it, nor will anyone else. So all you have shown is your ignorance.

Death is an action of life. After death is non-existence. Before birth is non-existence. Life arising from non-existence is proof for life after death.

I'll put it to you like this:

1) Non-existence
2) Birth
3) Existence
4) Death
5) Non-existence

Steps 2 and 3 are fleeting moments that happen within the life span that have no relevance to the cycle of existence and non-existence. So I will re-write the steps as follows:

1) Non-existence
2) Existence
3) Non-existence

The fact is, existence came after non-existence, as illustrated above. So, if it can do it once, it can do it again. So your steps really should look like this:

1) Non-existence
2) Existence
3) Non-existence
4) Existence
5) Non-existence
6) Existence
7) Non-existence
8) Existence
9) Non-existence
10) Existence
11) Non-existence
12) Existence
13) Non-existence

Etc.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 08:50 PM by Buford2

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

That was brilliant. I feel the exact same way but I had never quite thought it out. Your words are pure truth to me.

Namaste.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 08:57 PM by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by smithjustinb

Your logic is faulty my friend. You Argue that Death and Non-existence are interchangeable I would argue they are not.

Death is an action that occurs in life. After death is non-existence. After non-existence is existence. This is evident in the fact of birth into existence coming from non-existence.

Before your birth you were nonexistent potential. Your Parents had you. You're alive, and now you're dead. You aren't non existent anymore you're dead. In the ground or Burned up but dead and your body will be dead for all time.

I am "dead" from the perspective of those that are still alive that knew me. But to my own relative perspective, which is always the only relative perspective that has and relevance, I am non-existent. You are wrong to say that I am not non-existent after I die. If that is your argument, then you effectively have positioned yourself in the "I believe in life after death" category, which judging by the content of your reply, I assume you don't want to be. So rethink your statement "You aren't non existent anymore you're dead", because it doesn't really make much sense. Death is an action of life. What happens after that is non-existence. What happens after non-existence is existence.

You can argue that you BELIEVE that consciousness exists after death, but you don't have proof.

Directly after "death" is non-existence. True? Yes.

Directly before "birth" is non-existence. True? Yes.

There's your proof.

reply posted on 6-10-2011 @ 09:42 PM by smithjustinb

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

you were dead, and now you are alive.

Here is where the logic breaks down.

Prove to others that they were dead or existed before birth/conception.

The proof is obvious.

There is death (non-existance) before life. Then you are born and you exist. That is life after death. So that means when you die and are dead, you have the opportunity for life.

No, the only thing obvious is the manipulation of definitions here.

Why do you assume death is a precursor for life? Everyone understands the recycling of matter/energy and how death can't really exist in that sense, but that is not what you are arguing.

Nonexistence is not an attribute of the living, it would be closer defined as a consequence because of aging which leads to a perishing of the symptoms for that living creature. No where does this constitute the opportunity for that living creature to exist again.