It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why The Afterlife is a Fact.

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The opportunity for existence comes from non-existence and death puts you in non-existence thereby giving you that opprotunity.


I disagree. There is no "you" following death that benefits from opportunity.
If so, you are not non-existent.




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb

The previous me ceases action and existence at death. But life can arise from non-existence.


What happens if we apply extreme circumstances to your theory?

Let's say that a huge object from space strikes the earth and completely disintegrates the planet, thereby destroying all life as we know it. You are now non existent. By what mechanism do you begin to exist again? What happens if there is never a method to exist again? Are we trapped in this afterlife?


Yes. We are trapped. Assuming there is no other life on other planets and our possible existences aren't limited to human existence.

The mechanism that allows for me to exist is sexual intercourse.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The opportunity for existence comes from non-existence and death puts you in non-existence thereby giving you that opprotunity.


I disagree. There is no "you" following death that benefits from opportunity.
If so, you are not non-existent.


True, but it will be a you once you are born.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Yes. We are trapped.


Then we cannot have the quality of non-existence. You assert there exists a "we" that is subject to action "trapped".



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   


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.


Through natural and biological means, though.

And to be honest I genuinely believe we are not "dead" before we are born, since there is no-one to be dead; we are nothing before conception (or whatever biological starting point of choice).

For me, that indescribable nothingness that was before our birth is an example of what it is like to be without any sentience, to be without neural and cognitive functions. Why would it be different in death, when we effectively return to the state of before our birth? (Apart from a pile of bones, or a few ashes that is!)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Yes. We are trapped.


Then we cannot have the quality of non-existence. You assert there exists a "we" that is subject to action "trapped".


Now you're just playing off my words. All I am saying is existence is not possible except through biological reproduction and without biological existence and biological reproduction there will be no existence, only non-existence.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I think your reasoning may hold if you assume some things about existence that may be true, but are not, at this stage, facts.

Namely:

1) that there are an infinite number of parallel Universes
2) everything that is possible, will happen somewhere in that multiverse
3) an exact replica of you generated in a parallel Universe would truly be "you"

If we accept the above as true, which is not ridiculous, then yes, we will exist, and continue to exist, somewhere, for eternity.
edit on 7-10-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Whats wild is many have spoken or felt like they had past lives... ENERGY? See the REAL family ALL universal inhabitants are part of is energy related. Think now do any feel those who have experienced past life feelings had the same FAMILY 3d FAMILY LIKE SAME MOM DAD SIBLINGS 1 doubts that
no it more like if they had awarness they would realize their FAMILY comes from else where non 3D so in your new life you have new 3d families each time seems to be. But overall your still interacting with your non 3d ENERGY/LIGHT/SOUL/SPIRIT FAMILY. Who some may be trapped and being seeked here by their family and others can intentionally travel here aware of AGENDA, find help support non 3d ENERGY/LIGHT/SOUL/SPIRIT FAMILY-get them back home-out of hands of OTHER ENERGY stillpart of interior universal family just maybe BAD CIOUSINS SMH WHO LIKE TO CONTROLL/RULE DECEIVE YOUNGER FAMILY MEMBERS. [color=cyan]Memory wipes assist in not having heavy back logged memories of past 3d family imagine you having memory of them and kept seeking them in 3d totally missing they are in energy still with you.

Be well figured I would add some more. So do any feel they if they can imagine or sense think the same families are laid out thru time or just simular energies from within 3 dimensional home locations. Which helps with attraction soul material body back here on Terra.

[COLOR=CYAN]Its like what some may consider aliens evol et good, humans included in 3d are doing the same things energy recaptured in soul/spirit/energy material but energy from non 3d containment birth pools as well. MANY INSIDE THE UNIVERSE HAVE MUCH IN COMMON WITH THE ULTRA -INTERDIMENSIONAL ASPECT -HUMANS INCLUDED AS YOU DO HAVE WHAT ARE CALLED SOULS/SPIRITS NON 3D YOURSELVES.. HUMANS AND OTHER LIFE FORMS THAT ARE YOUNGER IN CREATION MAY JUST BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE ELDERS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER. SO 1 CAN SEE ALL INTERNAL UNIVERSAL INHABITANTS POSSESSING OTHER NON 3D FORMS THE CRAZY PART IS WHAT IF THESE NON 3D PARTS KNOW OF EACH OTHER OUT THERE AND ARE INTENTIONALLY INTERACTING IN THIS LIL UNIVERSE LIKE A GAME WAR GAME?- K - IM DONE
[/COLOR]


I know right

edit on 10/7/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234



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.


Through natural and biological means, though.

And to be honest I genuinely believe we are not "dead" before we are born, since there is no-one to be dead; we are nothing before conception (or whatever biological starting point of choice).

For me, that indescribable nothingness that was before our birth is an example of what it is like to be without any sentience, to be without neural and cognitive functions. Why would it be different in death, when we effectively return to the state of before our birth? (Apart from a pile of bones, or a few ashes that is!)


It is no different. The state after death is the same as it is before birth. Therefore, after you die, and fade away into non-existence, there is the opportunity for existence again.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
I think your reasoning may hold if you assume some things about existence that may be true, but are not, at this stage, facts.

Namely:

1) that there are an infinite number of parallel Universes
2) everything that is possible, will happen somewhere in that multiverse
3) an exact replica of you generated in a parallel Universe would truly be "you"

If we accept the above as true, which is not ridiculous, then yes, we will exist, and continue to exist, somewhere, for eternity.
edit on 7-10-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


Although I also believe that multiverses are a possibility, I don't see how my reasoning is dependent on them.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

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)

Your logic is flawed.

That is not to say there isn't life outside what we experience now, or that we have/have not lived other lives, in similar or other forms before or after this one - just that your "evidence" for it is illogical.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by VelvetSplash

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)

Your logic is flawed.

That is not to say there isn't life outside what we experience now, or that we have/have not lived other lives, in similar or other forms before or after this one - just that your "evidence" for it is illogical.


I think the misconceptions lie in the wording of the original post. Please review the last couple of pages for clarity.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Your post above helped clarify what you're trying to say. It's interesting, and I must admit it has me thinking.

I'm thinking your theory is perhaps based on a misconception on what it means to be "you". It is definitely implying some sort of soul, since you are suggesting that "I" had a chance of existing before I was born. In the strict materialistic view of the Universe, "I" don't have a chance to exist before birth, because "I" is a meaningless description, as it is inherently tied in to our material body and the exact configuration of our brain. "I" will become meaningless after I am dead, too.

The problem is that we don't understand what consciousness really is, yet, so we don't really understand what "I" means.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Socretes made a compelling logical argument that there is an afterlife when he was about to take his poison



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Non-existence is the quality of their being no quality


The quality of there being no quality? Excuse me?



and even disclusive to that quality.


What is "disclusive"?



Before you were born, unless there is an intermediate existence between lives, you were non-existent, and after you die, you will be non-existent. How is that logic flawed?


Because you don't know either one for a fact. We may have been VERY MUCH alive before coming here. Maybe on another planet or in a different form. No one know, see? So making an argument on an unknown is just a guess, not logic and not "fact".


.
edit on 10/7/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TechUnique
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


I don't understand how your OP proves afterlife is a fact but I do know what does prove an afterlife of some form. We release energy from our bodies when we die, this cannot be destroyed but instead infuses with the surroundings somehow.

If we are buried we nourish the surrounding environment in some way.

Regardless of all that personally I believe we do have a soul of some kind and I believe we experience a lot more than this one lifetime.


This is what confuses me about people... I don't personally care if maggots triumph in the soil of my rotting corpse and mice get warmed up by the energy. That's not what I consider 'life after death.' Why have people started describing life after death as the activity in the remnants of your rotting body? I thought it used to be about YOU waking up conscious again.

As for the OP... I too once wondered whether your existance before your birth was 'death.' But I know now it was not, cos you did not have consciousness before your birth, therefore you did not exist other than in the minds of your parents, and even they didn't think particularly of you, but just a child. If you existed before your birth, that would mean every single atom movement and neurological function going on is pre-determined.

I do hold it possible that once our consciousness gives birth, it could possibly go on as some sort of neuro-electric phenomena... I really have no clue. I think there's no life after death, but I'd like to believe there is.
edit on 7-10-2011 by Jonas86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Your post above helped clarify what you're trying to say. It's interesting, and I must admit it has me thinking.

I'm thinking your theory is perhaps based on a misconception on what it means to be "you". It is definitely implying some sort of soul, since you are suggesting that "I" had a chance of existing before I was born. In the strict materialistic view of the Universe, "I" don't have a chance to exist before birth, because "I" is a meaningless description, as it is inherently tied in to our material body and the exact configuration of our brain. "I" will become meaningless after I am dead, too.

The problem is that we don't understand what consciousness really is, yet, so we don't really understand what "I" means.


I don't know why people keep saying that I'm thinking that identity transcends death, because that's not the message I'm trying to convey. I am saying that you have an identity in existence, and then you die, and your identity dies as well. But from non-existence comes the opportunity for another existence which allows for the development of a new "you".



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
'You' are a culmination of experiences/memories stored in the brain, when the brain dies due to lack of oxygen so do you. It is not a difficult concept to understand, and even if there was some sort of afterlife the above is still true so it would not be 'you' experiencing it....

Afterlife in the traditional sense is nonsense though...you die, decompose and nourish other forms of life just as other forms of life have nourished you. No need to make up fancy tales.
edit on 7-10-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Your post above helped clarify what you're trying to say. It's interesting, and I must admit it has me thinking.

I'm thinking your theory is perhaps based on a misconception on what it means to be "you". It is definitely implying some sort of soul, since you are suggesting that "I" had a chance of existing before I was born. In the strict materialistic view of the Universe, "I" don't have a chance to exist before birth, because "I" is a meaningless description, as it is inherently tied in to our material body and the exact configuration of our brain. "I" will become meaningless after I am dead, too.

The problem is that we don't understand what consciousness really is, yet, so we don't really understand what "I" means.


I don't know why people keep saying that I'm thinking that identity transcends death, because that's not the message I'm trying to convey. I am saying that you have an identity in existence, and then you die, and your identity dies as well. But from non-existence comes the opportunity for another existence which allows for the development of a new "you".


Let's say we both die, we are waiting to exist again, and a new baby is about to be born.

What differentiates whether that baby will be me, or you, or someone else?

You are treating "me" and "my identity" as separate things, when according to mainstream thought, they are one and the same.
edit on 7-10-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   


It is no different. The state after death is the same as it is before birth. Therefore, after you die, and fade away into non-existence, there is the opportunity for existence again.


But how is your unique individual consciousness going to reemerge in a new body?

Once you are dead, people being conceived afterwards will already have their own unique consciousness, just as you had yours. Obviously you can't just push theirs aside and have yourself birthed in a new body, so what about being in control of an entirely different consciousness?

Once your physical body is dead, so are the physical electrical patterns that simulate a "soul" and give rise to sentience; the synapses, neurons etc. The uniqueness of them gave them your own uniqueness and individuality.

Hence, a whole new body and brain would not be controlled by the same unique "viewpoint", IMHO.




top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join