Thread: Share your most legit sources for evidence of life after death.

Before we were born, before this whole world was born, we all were nothing. But despite being nothing we, one day, stepped into existence. One day we will have to step out of existence again end return to being nothing. So, if we once managed to change from nothing to something, why shouldn´t we be able to do it again?

I know this is not a scientific source or anything, but this idea is the reason why I believe there could be an afterlife.

Originally Posted by Creation

Before we were born, before this whole world was born, we all were nothing.

This is simply your interpretation. We were atoms and energy scattered around the universe.

Originally Posted by Marvo

This is simply your interpretation. We were atoms and energy scattered around the universe.

My point is that we were not alive the same way we are today. Our human selves did not exist back then, even if the matter of our bodies did.

Originally Posted by Creation

My point is that we were not alive the same way we are today. Our human selves did not exist back then, even if the matter of our bodies did.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe you aren't just talking out of your ass here, because you are making statements about things you could not possibly know. It's one thing to make suggestions and admit that these suggestions were made under a lot of assumptions, but that's not what you are doing. Your stated reason for believing in an afterlife (which is just living as a human again? How is that an afterlife? Simply because it is another life you live after yours?) is rather flimsy and has no basis in fact and relies entirely on assumptions.

Also, I know Deanstar is banned and he's also pretty much just a troll, but citing the Bible as evidence for an afterlife is dubious because I think most of us will agree that it isn't a credible source.

Originally Posted by snoop

I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe you aren't just talking out of your ass here, because you are making statements about things you could not possibly know. It's one thing to make suggestions and admit that these suggestions were made under a lot of assumptions, but that's not what you are doing. Your stated reason for believing in an afterlife (which is just living as a human again? How is that an afterlife? Simply because it is another life you live after yours?) is rather flimsy and has no basis in fact and relies entirely on assumptions.

I´ve already stated in my first post that this idea is by no means scientific.

Originally Posted by snoop

(which is just living as a human again? How is that an afterlife? Simply because it is another life you live after yours?)

Well what is your definition of an afterlife then? The traditional afterlife expectation of having your mind/spirit/soul transferred into another realm where it continues to live does not sound convincing to me. I doubt we´ll have the privilege of keeping our memories after death. But even if we are not the same person anymore, we would still be able to exist as another being (human or not).
Maybe it would be more accurate to call this “another chance for existing” instead of an afterlife.

Originally Posted by snoop

Also, I know Deanstar is banned and he's also pretty much just a troll, but citing the Bible as evidence for an afterlife is dubious because I think most of us will agree that it isn't a credible source.

I never quoted the bible or any religious ideology. Don´t compare my posts to those of bible-thumpers. Being open minded about more spiritual topics and being religious are not the same thing.

This is absolutely not true. Science is fully capable of supporting souls and spirits, because science is just a systematic approach to organizing knowledge. It just so happens that there is no objective way to measure the effects of the spirit or soul and as such it has never been included. The scientific community on the other may oppose such an idea but that's a different story.

Science is just trying to build a world model from which you can accurately determine outcomes. Without the relevant data supporting souls and spirits there is no way to build a model for them. If they exist and their effects are measurable then it could very well be that souls and spirits become a component of science.

Hmm.. this seems a bit tricky doesn't it? I see where you coming from, and I might been a bit to fast to say that science isn't into the soul/spirit part. But your explination seems to contradict it self a bit, but you did only made a short explination of how science approach to this subject is. And I see that. But hey, what conclution could we make out of this in the end.

Either it would be that

If they exist and their effects are measurable then it could very well be that souls and spirits become a component of science.

Or it could be that becomes a part of soul and spirit? It would be all the same in the end, just said in different words.

I actually would like to find more scientific research about if there is an after life or whatever we would call it. But I just havn't been able to found much of it really.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Hmm.. this seems a bit tricky doesn't it? I see where you coming from, and I might been a bit to fast to say that science isn't into the soul/spirit part. But your explination seems to contradict it self a bit, but you did only made a short explination of how science approach to this subject is. And I see that. But hey, what conclution could we make out of this in the end.

Either it would be that

Or it could be that becomes a part of soul and spirit? It would be all the same in the end, just said in different words.

I actually would like to find more scientific research about if there is an after life or whatever we would call it. But I just havn't been able to found much of it really.

The point is that science does not differentiate between ideas, it doesn't hold opinions, just models that are accurate.
The idea of souls and spirits could fit into science if we could measure it's effects. Currently we know of none of these effects and such it can't be included in a world model.

The point is that science does not differentiate between ideas, it doesn't hold opinions, just models that are accurate.
The idea of souls and spirits could fit into science if we could measure it's effects. Currently we know of none of these effects and such it can't be included in a world model.

I totally get what you pointing at. And I would agree that science as a tool, is accurate within itself and how it works. But since science is handled by such an enormous group of people with different belifs and motivations. That's the motivation for me to remain my critical thinking towards scientific studies. And never take them as some pure truth. But rather see scientific studies as a good potential towards some kind of truth. As long as I cant notice any potential flaws with the scientific studies that are made.

This is simply your interpretation. We were atoms and energy scattered around the universe.

And this is simply your interpretation... right?

There has never been any examples that have witstood scrutiny.

For the longest period of time, the cosmos were examples of such. Then Gallelio, Newton and Keplar came along and changed all that.

So just because we believe that sience have the most things figured out, does that mean that the idea of a soul/spirit is beyond possible for you?

Im not trying to debunk science in anyway here. But I just think that you statements that I qouted above, holds the potential for the example of that history of man tend to repeat itself..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

And this is simply your interpretation... right?

No, it's well understood principle of how our universe works.