Is the afterlife even possible?

[Piscean]

You people have such egos. If-you-cannot-observe-the-process-in-action-then-there-is-nothing-to-empirically-study. That's not a tough idea.

You have quite an ego to not accept what I myslelf, and many others have expirienced. Expiriences ARE life! Wheather science has caught up yet or not.

[davedes]

Quote by: Jack My attitude is best summed up in the following citation; parapsychological phenomenon -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

I'm rather confused as to what your attitude is. I suppose you mean the last paragraph in particular?

"Discussion about parapsychological phenomena has sometimes assumed emotional overtones, unsuitable to scientific discipline, and outspoken but contradictory opinions are still frequently voiced."
How does this differ from any other recent field of study? String theory? Quantum physics?

"Believers and nonbelievers in psi may base their belief or disbelief on what they consider to be the scientific evidence, on their personal experiences, or on some larger system of attitudes and values into which ESP does or does not fit."
This, albeit somewhat biased, says nothing on the subject of whether it exists or not. It simplifies to "it may or may not exist," as is the case with any other recent field of study (string theory, quantum physics, etc).

"When such extreme and contradictory views are widely held, it is almost certain that the evidence is not conclusive either way and that confident conclusions are unlikely to be supported by a survey of all the known facts."
And somehow, from all that, they conclude that the hundreds of parapsychological institutes, as well as all of their scientific studies, are totally inconclusive, and deserve no further attention.

Extreme and contradictory views are very common in emerging fields of study, especially so in fields that are not yet backed by mainstream science. The early years of quantum physics were not much different -- emotional undertones and contradictory theories were prevalent. This does not justify calling the field forever inconclusive, nor does it justify ignoring the more recent developments in the field (which the article does).

Jack, I'm still pondering how this relates to my quote of veridical perception. You completely avoided the question of verifiable evidence, and you retorted with a summary of psychic phenomenon (one that is outdated, mind you).

[Morality Games]

You have quite an ego to not accept what I myslelf, and many others have expirienced. Expiriences ARE life! Wheather science has caught up yet or not.

So, because I won't unconditionally accept your poorly supported assertions as complete truth, my ego is oversized? How fair of you.

This bit of irrationality reminds me of someone I knew from a different message board. He insisted a friend of mine was going to hell for being mean to him and not accepting his psychic powers, then ran crying to the far corners of the Internet.

[Flip Jackson]

First of all, the initial post makes a huge assumption; that we can only be living as long as we have the five senses to perceive that we live. This is already a wrong point of view since many people are quite alive though they may ony have 3 or 4 functioning senses. Blind people do not need sight to be alive. deaf peole do not need to hear. Paralyzed people don't need to feel everything. Let alone the poor people who have more than one physical impairment.

Second, this idea assumes that our five senses assumes that we are capable of senses everything that exists, which is also wrong. There are a number of forms of energy that we cannot register withut the help of equipment. We cannot see infrared, feel gravity (unless we are falling), detect electrmagnetic waves, or even smell scents that are common for animals.

Why must we assume that if an afterlife exists, it would be detectable by our few, and rather limited, senses? This is sillyness. Assuming that no afterlife is possible just because we don't know how to explain that it could exist, is flawed reasoning. We are far from explaining exactly how our body works, especially when it comes to the brain.

Is an afterlife possible? Yeah, since there are all kinds of energy that we can't detect, why isn't it "possible" that one of them could exist in us and continues once we physically die?

I won't attempt the "probability" or details of such an afterlife here, but the possibilty is obviosly there.

[Morality Games]

I'm not arguing against the logical possibility of an afterlife, just the realism of the inferences derived from that possibility.

[Flip Jackson]

I merely addressed the thread starter's concern, which did seem to be questioning the logical possibility. There is a logical possiblity, even if someone feels that possibility is low.

The realism of inferences of possible afterlife depends on many things. It would heavily depend on the details of the state of an afterlife. Simple heaven and hell ideas are only one type of many afterlife possibilities. And our state in such an afterlife, whether it be as some form of energy, spirit, or matter, would have to come into question too.

I won't attempt the realism of such things in this thread. That would be pretty complicated. But by all means, an afterlife is possible.

[Piscean]

So, because I won't unconditionally accept your poorly supported assertions as complete truth, my ego is oversized? How fair of you. This bit of irrationality reminds me of someone I knew from a different message board. He insisted a friend of mine was going to hell for being mean to him and not accepting his psychic powers, then ran crying to the far corners of the Internet.

Well I'm not running anywhere. Life is what you expirience, there is no expirience in death according to your own logic. So you cant be dead and expiriencing life at the same time, get it?

[Kuldeep]

You would never experience death since, you do not die in reality. You die for others and not for yourself.

It is something like you are going out of your house but, with out your body

[smartcode]

There must be a life after death .
Why?
If there is no life after death then It would be opression for the people who died without getting their rights.
God has made the afterlife to judge people and give everyone his right from those who took it from him
many many people all over the world lived in oppression.

[davedes]

What do you mean by "getting their rights"?

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: smartcode There must be a life after death . Why? If there is no life after death then It would be opression for the people who died without getting their rights.

I put it in other words. For every action there has to be some reaction. Till our death, we are not getting reactions of all the actions we perform till death. So to get the effects of balance actions (reactions), we must be existing after our death or coming back as reincarnated ones.

God has made the afterlife to judge people and give everyone his right from those who took it from him

God has not role to play in after death life business. Moreover, we are not even aware whether God does exists anywhere. Our own inner mind (Individual Consciousness) is powerful enough to fix its programme of enjoying balance reactions of own actions done in the past; what you have termed as RIGHTS.

many many people all over the world lived in oppression.

Not many many but ALL of them !

What do you mean by "getting their rights"?

I do not know about smartcode but what I mean by Rights, is what is given above as "Balanced reactions of actions done till death."