Life After Death

[nolanrh]

How could someone prove that their NDE really happened so that true skeptics believed it to be true? I dont think they can.

If you told someone hundreds of years ago that the whole universe was made of little building blocks on the scale of atoms and that we could one day see these individual atoms using a special instrument, even scientists of the day wouldn't have believed you.

Scientific methods/technology used for collecting evidence and analyzing data are constantly improving. Who knows, eventually we may be able to prove what happens during a NDE.

Take my grandma for example. It happened to her, she told those close to her of her experience and because of who my grandma was (a loving, practical and no-nonsense type of woman), I believe what she experienced and saw was indeed very real. Was it important for her to prove it to us, no.

I believe her experience was real. I also believe that there is no basis for attributing it to a spiritual experience. Few people doubt crazy people hear voices, that doesn't mean someone is actually talking.

Nolan

[zzontar]

I sometimes wonder if everyone who hears voices is actually crazy. I watched a show recently (a series on true accounts of hauntings, can't remember the name... a haunting?) anyway there was a lady who since a child, could see ghosts and hear their voices... she finally decided to have the information, names, etc. she heard written down, and then when it was investigated, these "ghosts" and what they said were deemed to be true and the events had happened when they were alive. She was relieved that she wasn't actually crazy, but if this did happen, then it would be substancial proof of life after death

And this site http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html seems to prove life after death in a SCIENTIFIC manner. Once it can be scientifically proven that we have spirits or souls, then one would have to give more credibility to other "supernatural" religious statements.

[CoffeeCanuck]

Scientific methods/technology used for collecting evidence and analyzing data are constantly improving. Who knows, eventually we may be able to prove what happens during a NDE.

That would be interesting, however I dont know if I'd want to see scientific proof. Something to be said about mysteries of the unknown. With proof, we would have no faith either.

ZZ, you been watching Ghost Whisperer?

~D

[AlanH]

I sometimes wonder if everyone who hears voices is actually crazy. I watched a show recently (a series on true accounts of hauntings, can't remember the name... a haunting?) anyway there was a lady who since a child, could see ghosts and hear their voices... she finally decided to have the information, names, etc. she heard written down, and then when it was investigated, these "ghosts" and what they said were deemed to be true and the events had happened when they were alive. She was relieved that she wasn't actually crazy, but if this did happen, then it would be substancial proof of life after death

And this site http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html seems to prove life after death in a SCIENTIFIC manner. Once it can be scientifically proven that we have spirits or souls, then one would have to give more credibility to other "supernatural" religious statements.

Or proof of Schizophrenia? Jus' saying...

[CoffeeCanuck]

I found this from a post waaaay back, it's very interesting:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Lots of links in there zz. I'm slowly reading through them...interesting stuff.

~D

[Urbane]

Fascinating topic. We're probably not meant to understand the framework of our existence. Our minds can't fathom the fact that there was always something, that there never was a beginning. Within our scheme of things that is impossible. But then imagine there being absolutely nothing anywhere and life suddenly appearing. That doesn't cut it either. I voted yes but I really don't know. I certainly like to think that we all continue in some way beyond our present lives. But as I say, we're just not meant to understand the framework of our existence.

[zzontar]

I found this from a post waaaay back, it's very interesting:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Lots of links in there zz. I'm slowly reading through them...interesting stuff.

~D

I find it strange that the's so much evidence proving life after death, yet people still question it as if there's none... I think a lot of people would be scared to admit it, because to have proof souls or spirits exist would mean an increase in the probability of heaven and hell and God existing.

[zzontar]

Fascinating topic. We're probably not meant to understand the framework of our existence. Our minds can't fathom the fact that there was always something, that there never was a beginning. Within our scheme of things that is impossible. But then imagine there being absolutely nothing anywhere and life suddenly appearing. That doesn't cut it either. I voted yes but I really don't know. I certainly like to think that we all continue in some way beyond our present lives. But as I say, we're just not meant to understand the framework of our existence.

It is definitely mind blowing... for now anyway... the fact that you can't have the universe materializing from nothing means the elements must have existed forever and had no beginning, however the solution might be much simpler than expected... you could spend a lifetime trying to figure out a David Copperfield trick and still never get it, yet if were explained to you, you would probably be amazed at it's simpicity.

[AlanH]

I found this from a post waaaay back, it's very interesting:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Lots of links in there zz. I'm slowly reading through them...interesting stuff.

~D

I find it strange that the's so much evidence proving life after death, yet people still question it as if there's none... I think a lot of people would be scared to admit it, because to have proof souls or spirits exist would mean an increase in the probability of heaven and hell and God existing.

Please show this evidence. Scientific method shows no such evidence, to my knowledge, the experiences rank right up there with UFO sightings... hundreds, if not thousands of stories, with little, or no proof. If Souls, and or Spirits existed, and was shown to be scientifically proven as such, what would there to be scared of? Do you not think the thought of an afterlife, with a heaven wouldn't be a grand discovery for anyone in the Scientific community? What would be the reasoning behind not proving it exists? It could very well be the biggest discovery ever, in the history of mankind.

You need to understand the Scientific Method, to understand why so many Scientists labour to dis-prove as many theories as possible, it is how they draw as close as possible to explaining why a theory is feasible. They never stop considering new twists on old theory, when new technology is invented to study/test, they keep on attempting to narrow down the data to the most minute detail. If a Scientist has a theory, that theory is peer reviewed, and accepted as a theory only after intensive study of the data presented. This is generally their job... to disprove a theory.

The Bible is written, as is.... it is not open to change, review, nor rewrites (At least, not since the Trial of Nicea anyhow) It is considered by some to be error free, in it's entirety, or the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Word of God. **usually a disclaimer of most English speaking churches state the bible in it's original forms of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, are to be considered infallible... any translations, after the fact are completely sufficient concerning all matters of belief and living.

So when I read this:

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.
— Proverbs 18.15

It makes me wonder why we, as Mankind shouldn't follow the Scientific Method... Heck, is it so far a stretch to think that just maybe, Evolution could have been one of God's method of Creation? I prefer staying Agnostic.... at least I sit on the fence, but certainly lean far to the Scientific side.... until further evidence presents itself.

[zzontar]

AlanH wrote:

Please show this evidence.

There seems to be lots in the link I posted.

[AlanH]

AlanH wrote:

Please show this evidence.

There seems to be lots in the link I posted.

My bad for missing that link.. looks like a weeks work... I was only reading the words of your quote... For punishment.. I will now begin reading... Thank you.

[Mr Danksworth]

*Censored for critical thought*

[AlanH]

The Bible is written, as is.... it is not open to change, review, nor rewrites (At least, not since the Trial of Nicea anyhow) It is considered by some to be error free, in it's entirety, or the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Word of God. **usually a disclaimer of most English speaking churches state the bible in it's original forms of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, are to be considered infallible... any translations, after the fact are completely sufficient concerning all matters of belief and living.

Research your facts. You're on the right path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

You consider translations as changes? They do not throw out sections during the translation process... And they certainly do edit mis-translations... But that is not even close to fact checking... in a scientific method.

You are directing me on a path I have followed... Although it certainly had nothing to do with Wikipedia...

[CoffeeCanuck]

I would appreciate this thread staying on topic please.

~D

[Jo]

Off-topic posts will be deleted.