What Proof Is There Of An Afterlife?

[Vookman]

Do witnesses count?  I am one. 

[Mystery Meat]

Do witnesses count?  I am one. 

 

I feel a story coming on! 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Do witnesses count?  I am one. 

I want to hear your story.

[pmccombs1]

I would hope atheists wouldn't want to be right, because nothing is more horrifying than thinking existence ends after death.

 

Why is that horrifying?

[Ahab]

Why is that horrifying?

This is IT !?!?! 

 

80 or maybe 100 or at best 120 or so years and then it's all over for me, and you, and each one of us, individually !?!?!    

 

You know, that kind of thing.  It would be more like really sad to me, if that were true, but I can the horror in the idea.

[mfbukowski]

I love everything that's been said. People who doubt would try to say that what people say was just their brain in that state playing tricks on them like a hallucination.

Here's the problem with that:

What if the "hallucination" lasts forever? Who has come back to tell us that it doesn't?

It is a human experience like all the others we have, and there is no one who can say if it is "real" or not, so each of us gets to examine out own evidence and draw our own conclusions.

Everything you see and experience is a brain-state of some kind, and this is another just like the others, but in this case there is no proof it is an hallucination.

Edited December 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I have left my body before and went to a place that I would call 'the spirit world'. I certainly wasn't dead but I was disjointed between layers or planes of....something?

 

I'm of the belief that we're still in this place, but we have forgotten how to be aware of it.

 

the main issue I find in articulating my view based on a couple of experiences i have had, including the ones when i became detached from my body and entered a different plane, is that words do not describe what I experienced 'there'. words are completely inadequate. almost impossible to articulate what went on.... it was like going to a world where there were no dimensions of space or time.

 

But just because I had some experience that I interpret as my soul going to the spirit world, it does not mean I believe in the existence of an after life.

 

Furthermore, in the mormon context at least, is the soul eternal? If so, what do people say about pre-birth life? Did experience happen then? did we forget it when we were born? Then if there is another existence, what if we forget again? i dunno...

 

Lastly, It should not matter if there is an after-life. this moment right now and the chance to exist is the gift.

I can't disagree with any of this. I also have had unexplainable, indescribable experiences. They do not prove anything, but on the other hand they do not disprove anything either. They just are, and we get to make our own interpretations.

[mfbukowski]

Are you sure you weren't hallucinating? I thought I experienced the afterlife during a hallucination I had because of a bad medication mix.

But that is the difference. You know you had medications.

[mfbukowski]

However, I should point out that the evidence* for your antecedent is of the same quality as the evidence for an afterlife: subjective and anecdotal. That renders your point moot.

 

*By "evidence" I mean that class of discrete things that can be measured and reported in deterministic language by a non-spiritual machine.

And of course this is a question-begging definition of "evidence" so of course you are exactly correct.

Of course there are other definitions.

And what kind of "things" did you have in mind??

Edited December 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

I would hope atheists wouldn't want to be right, because nothing is more horrifying than thinking existence ends after death.

I think an eternity of literal burning in hell would be much worse.

 

Perhaps it is age, but I don't see nonexistence as all that bad.  There may be no joy in it, but there is no pain either.

[mfbukowski]

I would hope atheists wouldn't want to be right, because nothing is more horrifying than thinking existence ends after death.

For all we know rationally we didn't exist before we were born either, and I don't recall that being so bad. 

 

I take naps occasionally and wake up surprised at where I am.  I don't imagine it would be much different.  Of course I have faith and some certainty that there is an afterlife, but I can easily imagine there being none, and don't find it so horrifying at all.

 

But then again I used to be an atheist so maybe I got used to the idea.

Edited December 8, 2013 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Life is just a dream from which we all must wake.

Robert Jordan.

[ERayR]

Just wondering what the proof is of an afterlife. This is one of the reasons my dad won't join the church because he said nobody has ever come back and he doesn't believe in an afterlife. He thinks our souls end when we die.

 

 

Ghosts.

[pmccombs1]

This is IT !?!?! 

 

80 or maybe 100 or at best 120 or so years and then it's all over for me, and you, and each one of us, individually !?!?!    

 

You know, that kind of thing.  It would be more like really sad to me, if that were true, but I can the horror in the idea.

 

Yes, but why? I mean, I understand that people feel horrified at the thought of nothing after this life, but I wonder why that is. Why sadness or even horror?  

 

It seems to me that the possibility of no afterlife would make this life all the more rare and precious. Is the thought that there is only one Mona Lisa sad or horrifying? Or is it the sadness of Mozart's unfinished Requiem? Could it be that people get sad and horrified because, like Mozart, they fear dying with their music still in them? And perhaps they hope that they might finish their masterpiece in some afterlife. 

 

What's the point, really? If there is always a tomorrow in which to do things, why do them at all? What would it mean? We seem to understand that there has to be an opposition in things in order to give them meaning. Because non-existence stands in opposition to existence, it gives meaning to our existence. We say there must be opposition in all things, but we seem to draw the line at existence itself. Perhaps there is even a time and place where God Himself does not exist, and eternity means something entirely surprising and unexpected.

[pmccombs1]

And of course this is a question-begging definition of "evidence" so of course you are exactly correct.

Of course there are other definitions.

And what kind of "things" did you have in mind??

 

When you get down to it, to the bottom of things, it is always begging the question. Ground truth just has to stand on its own, and you can't justify it. 

 

But you know what this is about. Whenever someone asks for proof, it is about justification of power. How far does our evidence justify our beliefs and actions? Are there different classes of evidence that justify on different levels? Where is the ground truth, really? How far down can you go before you aren't allowed to ask anything else?

[Calm]

Yes, but why? I mean, I understand that people feel horrified at the thought of nothing after this life, but I wonder why that is. Why sadness or even horror?  

I assume it is a basic fear of nonexistence...apparently it bothers some people a great deal.

[mfbukowski]

When you get down to it, to the bottom of things, it is always begging the question. Ground truth just has to stand on its own, and you can't justify it. 

 

But you know what this is about. Whenever someone asks for proof, it is about justification of power. How far does our evidence justify our beliefs and actions? Are there different classes of evidence that justify on different levels? Where is the ground truth, really? How far down can you go before you aren't allowed to ask anything else?

Not quite sure what you mean.

[pmccombs1]

Not quite sure what you mean.

 

When someone asks for proof, what are they really asking for? "Proof" is a kind of authority. If I have proof of something, I'm justified in a belief and I'm justified in the actions that the belief authorizes.

 

You wanted to know what kinds of things I had in mind in terms of evidence that might or might not justify belief. Evidence of any kind can be practical and useful on a subjective level. If I feel good about something, or have a dream, or whatever it is, then I'm justified with any interpretation I come up with, so far as I am personally concerned. Now, what about where other people are concerned?  Can I justly exercise authority over them? Or vise versa?

 

Suppose Fred has a dream in which it is revealed that Sally is practicing witchcraft and is responsible for a rash of stomach aches in the neighborhood. Fred gets talking to Mary and they decide that, wow, Mary had a dream a lot like Fred's. How uncanny is that? What are the odds? Fred and Mary are both justified in believing that Sally is a witch! Have they stumbled upon a universal truth? Is the whole neighborhood now justified in prosecuting Sally for witchcraft? It seems that Fred and Sally's evidence can justify their personal beliefs, but is it sufficient to authorize community action against Sally?

 

Justice happens when evidence properly justifies actions. The scales have to be balanced. Do all kinds of evidence weigh the same on those scales? Are dreams, visions, spiritual feelings, and uncanny anecdotes sufficient evidence to justify belief, not only for myself, but also for other people who do not have the same evidence I may possess? Can we write laws based on those things?

 

I contend that any claims of authority must be accompanied by a very reliable quality of evidence, because such claims usually extend beyond the subjective self. You can't have two or three witnesses setting their evidence against the evidence of two or three contrary witnesses. If you have people giving their NDEs in support of an afterlife, and others who give their evidence in support of reincarnation, and still others who give their evidence in support of personal annihilation, how do you measure those things against each other and come up with a practical answer that all people should accept? That's what people who ask for "proof" really want. It can't be done, because we can't discover a deterministic measure for that kind of evidence. It's not like temperature or gravity or wavelength that can at least be experienced and reported fairly reliably, even if still ultimately subjectively.

 

We can look at the thermometer and see that everyone in the household ought to put on a coat before going out in the -9 degree weather. Nearly everyone in the house, except for the odd blind person, agrees that the thing says -9. There's a reliable consensus. Even those whose neurological disorders mean they can't feel the cold would be wise to heed the evidence measured by the thermometer (which is a type of Adam Smith's "Impartial Spectator"). It really is cold outside, with a high degree of certainty, for all concerned. That is a quality of evidence that justifies a claim and authorizes appropriate action that extends beyond a single subject. We could justly write  a rule that says you need to wear a coat when the thermometer measures temperature in a certain range, or you will suffer the consequences. A few people will need faith in that evidence, but most can claim reliable knowledge and accept the law with certainty. There's a good proof to justify it.

 

But all religious proofs and claims, regarding an afterlife or what God wants his people to do and how they ought to do it, are not universally authoritative. Any attempt to position such claims as universal truth would be unjust. That is to say, the authority of these claims arises from the consent of those who adopt them, because the evidence doesn't seem to hold true for everyone. Others contradict them with their own evidence and follow their own songbirds whither they fancy. There is no scale that can settle the question. This is why all Just religion happens from the ground up and not the top down, why religion requires faith and not certainty, and why some mortals will never have satisfactory "proof" of another life beyond this one.

Edited December 9, 2013 by pmccombs1

[djones]

Us Mormon's say "In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses". Well how about in the mouth of 2 or 3 thousand witnesses? Tell your old man to start reading www.nderf.org. Hundreds and thousands of people have near death experiences and we are now just learning how many there are because of the internet. People have always been having them but nobody ever knew.

 

And of course the Book of Mormon is proof. If he thinks that an uneducated, 20 year old kid in the 1800's just made the whole thing up in 60 days, duped thousands of people into believing it too (millions today 200 years later) and then was willing to die for it, then he's got a bigger imagination than JS himself did!

 

If he's looking for "proof", tell him to buy the book "The Case of the Book of Mormon Witnesses" on Amazon. It's an absolutely fascinating book. It takes real quotes by historical figures in JS time and interjects fictional text as if the Book of Mormon was on trial in a court setting to "prove" that what happened really did happen the way JS says it did. It's really cool.

 

Of course at the end of the day, if you've made up your mind that you won't believe regardless, then you just won't believe. But God has already provided plenty of sufficient proof.

[Alvino]

Just wondering what the proof is of an afterlife. This is one of the reasons my dad won't join the church because he said nobody has ever come back and he doesn't believe in an afterlife. He thinks our souls end when we die.

 

May I add that even if there was evidence that there is some type of life after death, that wouldn't mean the life of the 'soul' is eternal or that it won't die as well given a few years or even a few minutes after our bodies fail. Near-death experiences might be true yet still be bad evidence for anything religious people want to show when they bring them up.

 

Someone mentioned that we have as much evidence for saying there is life after death as that we have rights. That's mistaken. I recommend you to take a look at the mass of quality philosophical discussion about rights and compare it with the anemic one (and seldom worth it) on whether we have a soul.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Alvino