Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife

reply to post by Serdgiam

"Quantum particles, it seems to me, are below the 1st dimension of "a point", and exist in a negative dimension, as do our thoughts."

I love that you say "negative dimension," and this is much along the same lines as my thoughts lead me. Not in the sense that it doesnt "exist," but more that it is an inverse function that is directly tied to the "positive," or what I see as the medium of space-time.

Can you explain this more clearly? I'm intrigued and very interested to follow you where you're going with this...

As to the rest of your post, exactly what composes this material that is to space-time as air is to water? I'm having difficulty keeping up as I've barely located where you are starting from. Like a flyover that disappeared into a maze of canyons. But I'm trying. I want to understand.

reply to post by wildtimes


I'm somewhat the same,

I have a very skeptical type mind, I need to research things from all angles,

I have studied comparative religion and the various philosophies and religions of the world extensively, and I've found there are tidbits of Truth scattered in and around each and every one of them, I personally have found my own path, and that which I believe to the be the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth in the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christian Church, the Tradition of the Church combined with the Scripture teaching Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life is tremendously powerful to my spirit,

I do love certain teachings of other religions, for example, Zoroastrianisim teaches salvation is obtained by living a life of "good deeds, good words and good thoughts", and I love using that mantra, good deeds, good words, good thoughts,

Anyways, you know the Spirit Realm is true, and in my mind, I believe it's only a matter of time before Science can actually PROVE God exists and so does the Afterlife, as well as Angels, demons, etc,

Wildtimes, I have a website you may find interesting, check this out: www.PleaseConvinceMe.com...

It's a website written about "the Christian worldview, from a detectives perspective", there are several people who have professions in the legal world, attorneys, prosectuors, D.A.s, etc, and also professional degrees, ThD's, PhD.s, M.A.s, M.D.s, etc, and they pick apart and put together a circumstancial evidential case for the Christian Worldview and for mainstream Orthodox Christian Theology,

Anyways, I could go on and on and I find myself rambling somehwat, lol, sorry for the misspellings but I'm tired and too lazy right now to spell check :p

God bless and keep an open mind and search, dig and seek for Truth, and deny ignorance at all costs!

reply to post by godlover25

Anyways, you know the Spirit Realm is true, and in my mind, I believe it's only a matter of time before Science can actually PROVE God exists and so does the Afterlife, as well as Angels, demons, etc,

I hear it's a detriment to religion if it is found to be based on fact and not faith.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I don't understand your question. The tetrahedron is a phase of the evolution of creation. The picture you've posted skips some steps.

reply to post by windword


A phase of the evolution of creation, you say. And yet your previous response appears to reflect a belief that all of those forms reflect the same phase of evolution. I asked how the tetrahedron changes to reflect the fifth dimension. The dimension directly beyond the ones with which we are familiar.

The picture I posted is an amalgamation of all possible dimensions within this universe. Just as white light is an amalgamation of the full spectrum.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Not sure what you are trying to say,

Faith in facts or Facts of faith are subjective experiences,

To me Jesus Christ resurrection, ascension and Sonship in the Godhead is a fact,

I believe it is fact based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence coupled with many hundreds of personal, subjective experiences and anomalous happenings,

God bless

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well then, I guess you answered your own question!

reply to post by godlover25


Hmm...more discrepancy. I feel, yet again, as though Christians rhyme for the sake of rhyming, and not because it actually adds anything to what they are saying, so to speak. It just makes them happier with what they are saying. Which would be fine, if they could actually agree on what constitutes as rhyming and the excuses they have for doing so.

It disappoints me. I guess that's my whole point in being here. Someday, I hope to look at the world and not be disappointed. Disappointed by what we could have been, what we could have done, and what we chose to be or do instead. And why we chose that. Maybe that's why so many want an afterlife to exist. We forgot how to live and don't know how to remember.

godlover25
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Not sure what you are trying to say,

Faith in facts or Facts of faith are subjective experiences,

To me Jesus Christ resurrection, ascension and Sonship in the Godhead is a fact,

I believe it is fact based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence coupled with many hundreds of personal, subjective experiences and anomalous happenings,

God bless

How is this any diferent from people who believe in ghosts or aliens based on their expereinces and on "an abundance of circumstantial evidence coupled with many hundreds of personal, subjective experiences and anomalous happenings"?

AfterInfinity
Can you explain this more clearly? I'm intrigued and very interested to follow you where you're going with this...

I think a couple of things to understand first;

One is that all of this is representative of a mathematical model that me, and a couple of others, have been working on for a few years. In that, I am not openly sharing the incomplete mathematical model. Even more so, I am leaving out several different very important points that give a more complete picture. Those points, however, I do not feel are necessary to understand the overall concept, regardless of how important they are to the actual model (as well as the inventions that come from it).

I am essentially working through the math through thought experiments, and the contributions from others on what doesnt make sense, what needs to be clarified, etc forces me to better understand the model in a verbal function rather than purely mathematical. Its very important to me, and very appreciated that others will even take the time to help in the endeavor!

In other words, thank you.

edit on 7-11-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

"Quantum particles, it seems to me, are below the 1st dimension of "a point", and exist in a negative dimension, as do our thoughts."

I love that you say "negative dimension," and this is much along the same lines as my thoughts lead me. Not in the sense that it doesnt "exist," but more that it is an inverse function that is directly tied to the "positive," or what I see as the medium of space-time.

Can you explain this more clearly? I'm intrigued and very interested to follow you where you're going with this...

I think a couple of things to understand first;

One is that all of this is representative of a mathematical model that me, and a couple of others, have been working on for a few years. In that, I am not openly sharing the incomplete mathematical model. Even more so, I am leaving out several different very important points that give a more complete picture. Those points, however, I do not feel are necessary to understand the overall concept, regardless of how important they are to the actual model (as well as the inventions that come from it).

I am essentially working through the math through thought experiments, and the contributions from others on what doesnt make sense, what needs to be clarified, etc forces me to better understand the model in a verbal function rather than purely mathematical. Its very important to me, and very appreciated that others will even take the time to help in the endeavor!

In other words, thank you.

 

When a ripple happens in water (I use this analogy because I think it is visually the most impactful), it radiates out from a point of impact. These ripples will actually allow the surface of the water to rise above the flat line of the calm surface. Perhaps think of it in terms of a graph. If you draw a straight line, this is representative of the water surface at rest. When an energetic exchange happens (frequently an impact), a wave is created. The peaks of that wave will rise above the original level of the line. In this way, the water temporarily takes place of the air that was previously laying at rest where the surfaces meet. Inversely, the bottom of the waves go below where the original line/surface was at rest. Here, the air temporarily takes the place of where water was previously at rest. This happens over-time, meaning that the waves continue until they dissipate and return to the "at rest" straight line. There are a lot of variables that determine the exact manifestation, but that describes the overall process.

The website is just eating my posts

Thats a whole lot of time down the drain...

Ill have to revisit this tomorrow, AI. That is extremely frustrating.

edit: Ok, this is what I was able to salvage, though it doesnt even come close to what I had originally tried to post. I think I need to take a break for the day. From now on I will definitely make any post with lots of effort in a format I can just copy/paste to ATS... Ill get to the good parts tomorrow.

I think a couple of things to understand first;

One is that all of this is representative of a mathematical model that me, and a couple of others, have been working on for a few years. In that, I am not openly sharing the incomplete mathematical model. Even more so, I am leaving out several different very important points that give a more complete picture. Those points, however, I do not feel are necessary to understand the overall concept, regardless of how important they are to the actual model (as well as the inventions that come from it).

I am essentially working through the math through thought experiments, and the contributions from others on what doesnt make sense, what needs to be clarified, etc forces me to better understand the model in a verbal function rather than purely mathematical. Its very important to me, and very appreciated that others will even take the time to help in the endeavor!

In other words, thank you.

When a ripple happens in water (I use this analogy because I think it is visually the most impactful), it radiates out from a point of impact. These ripples will actually allow the surface of the water to rise above the flat line of the calm surface. Perhaps think of it in terms of a graph. If you draw a straight line, this is representative of the water surface at rest. When an energetic exchange happens (frequently an impact), a wave is created. The peaks of that wave will rise above the original level of the line. In this way, the water temporarily takes place of the air that was previously laying at rest where the surfaces meet. Inversely, the bottom of the waves go below where the original line/surface was at rest. Here, the air temporarily takes the place of where water was previously at rest. This happens over-time, meaning that the waves continue until they dissipate and return to the "at rest" straight line. There are a lot of variables that determine the exact manifestation, but that describes the overall process.

reply to post by Serdgiam


And how does that ripple tie in to what we're discussing here?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yeah, that was explained in the rest of the post that ATS decided to devour. Ill get back to it tomorrow.

Basically, its how that ripple acts differently when at the boundary of space-time, and how we go into a different part of our perspective that is generally discarded regardless of its presence. Essentially, the ripple (NSEW, or the points of the base of the triangle) has an inverse correlary (the "upside down" triangle in a stellated octahedron) that is tied together through a transverse wave-like function (the top/bottom of the two pyramids).

Ill get back to it, dont have enough time at this point.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Don't bother to explain it until you can explain it properly. I can wait.

WarminIndy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I think nenothtu and I seem to see things relatively the same way, which is why I will ask this...

Is the sky blue because we see it as blue? Is the water blue because we see it as blue?

How many of you have been in an airplane and once you have gotten into the sky, did you notice it is not blue? And if you hold ocean water in your hand, why is it not blue?

Blue is the reflection, now whether blue in the sky is the reflection from the water back to the sky or the water is blue because of the reflection of the ozone layer, one thing is certain, neither the water or the sky are blue in actuality.

So what causes blue? As neither the sky nor the water are blue, then where does it come from that we perceive it as blue? Light refraction? Colors are colors simply because of how much light an object does not absorb. Color theory teaches us that. The hours I spent in art school drawing spheres and contrast of black and white shadowing....

The point is this, as an object can only show a color because of light absorption or reflection, then we cannot truly say an object is that color. If the perception of our eyes say something is real because we see it with our natural eyes, then we have been deceived by our natural perception. The sky is not blue, we only think it is.

Next time you fly, look out your window and see what I mean. And since natural life is merely the processes of something natural, is it really only natural? Our senses don't tell us the whole story. Where does the blue begin in the sky? Where does the blue begin in the water?

From space our planet is blue and green, but we know water and earth are tangible, but the blue and green are not. We only perceive it as tangible. And since blue and green are merely a trick of light, then why dismiss the supernatural based on natural perspective?

The sky is "blue" because of the wavelength of reflected, scattered light that is received at our eyes. We all receive that same wavelength, but our interpretation of what we receive may be vastly different. My "blue" may be your "red", and vice versa, but since every time you point at something and call it "blue", and I see the same shade of "red", we agree on what we see, even though our perceptions of it may be different - in other words, since we are interpreting the same wavelengths of light each time, we think we each see what the other sees, when we may not.

wildtimes

Those who have 'tasted' the "other side", whether through TM, NDEs, OBEs, or whatever - don't retain the 'sensation' for very long. Inevitably we are cast back into 'this realm' to continue our processing; if we were constantly engaged with the other side, we'd neglect taking care of business on THIS side, which, when accomplished, will allow us to enter the other permanently.

VERY true, and not just in the context of NDE's, OOBE's, etc.

Where I'm from is predominantly "Christian", with a few other things thrown in here and there. There is a certain class of "Christian" of whom it is said there "They're so other-worldly minded that they ain't no Earthly good." They concentrate so much on their next world that they neglect their tasks in this one.

There is more to that thought, bu it's jumbled up at the moment, and I'm unable to write it out. I suppose you can run with it to the logical conclusion, though.

reply to post by nenothtu

"They're so other-worldly minded that they ain't no Earthly good." They concentrate so much on their next world that they neglect their tasks in this one.

Exactly. Yes, there's more there, but I see where you are coming from. It infuriates me that so many are apathetic about what's happening "here" and "now", which is really all we have. Truly.

reply to post by nenothtu

"They're so other-worldly minded that they ain't no Earthly good."

Best phrasing I've read yet. A star for you!