I Know For A Fact There's No Afterlife.

[dr.chimps]

logic. causal chain.  infinitely complex universe, infitely complex constituents of the universe. material substance (mass/energy) that is completely incomprehensible from any angle or view point. and other things.

A good BLT sandwich and a nice pint, if there is any truth to your argument.

[Man of Steel]

I said this on the 1st page. You are never called upon to prove a negative. Its a logical fallacy and a poor way to debate.

I agree.   I sometimes like to listen to William Lane Craig debate atheists, but I've never liked his arguement that requires the atheist to prove atheism exists (something to that effect).  I don't know, if a debate is necessary, I guess it seems a bit more sensible for a theist to bare the burden of proof for the existence of God than an atheist to proof that atheism exists.  Maybe I'm missing the mark.

[dyslexic]

 "I cannot prove with 100% certaintly that there isn't a parallel dimension where fairies and lepricons exist..."

I can. Isn't it called Getbig.com?

[tbombz]

I'm sure it happened, because I know what kind of person you are. But most people out there wouldn't believe it, for various reasons.

For most people, absence of proof = proof of absence. Guess you can never convince everyone out there.

the human brain is very powerful. no matter what you experienced, its possible it was a figment of your imagination, your brain creating a scenario that will cause you to become a more happy person, allow you to live your life without depression or inhibtions stopping you from reproduction, eating, sleeping, being healthy, ect. religious experiences of all sorts can easily be explained and dismissed by a brain defense reaction to unhealthy thoughts about mortality and death that would block you from self sustaining behavior. if time is infinite, and our life definite, then we are so insignificant that our lives are all but meaningless. belief in a god, and thus an afterlife, is something most people will find necessary for happiness.


that is only to say, i dont like it much when people only believe in god because of personal experiences, or when they try to convince other people based on their own personal experiences.  because its faulty argumentation.

use logic instead. and then once the people get it, they can have their own experience(s) as well.

i know that god is real. i came to the realization through logic and science.only after realizing the necessity for God did i try speaking to him, and which point i started coming to believe not just through logic but through experience as well. but thats personal and wont convince anyone, not even me, of God. there needs to be logic invoved as well. 

[che]

i know that god is real. i came to the realization through logic and science.

Hahahaa

[Man of Steel]

I'm sure it happened, because I know what kind of person you are. But most people out there wouldn't believe it, for various reasons.

For most people, absence of proof = proof of absence. Guess you can never convince everyone out there.

It's really other believers in Christ that understand and believe it.  No matter how lucid I am perceived by everyone else the majority of the time that same audience will chalk up my experience to a either a drug-induced moment or state of utter delusion or temporary mental collapse.  It's why I don't share these experiences often unless I really trust that my audience already understands where I'm coming from.

[kiwiol]

the human brain is very powerful. no matter what you experienced, its possible it was a figment of your imagination

No argument there, but in regards to what happened to me, it was of a prolonged duration, left me with a complete personality change, caused a marked change in my behaviour during that time which was witnessed by everyone who knew me, as well as a couple of other things that I won't go into. It was definitely not me just imagining it.

[dr.chimps]

Hahahaa

Hehe. That caught my attention, too. How is it that he hasn't yet been awarded the Nobel Prize for super-duper thinking, I ask you?    

[Deicide]

No argument there, but in regards to what happened to me, it was of a prolonged duration, left me with a complete personality change, caused a marked change in my behaviour during that time which was witnessed by everyone who knew me, as well as a couple of other things that I won't go into. It was definitely not me just imagining it.

All in the brain my friend. Certainly not your imagination but poweerful biochemical changes going on there....

[kiwiol]

It's really other believers in Christ that understand and believe it.  No matter how lucid I am perceived by everyone else the majority of the time that same audience will chalk up my experience to a either a drug-induced moment or state of utter delusion or temporary mental collapse.  It's why I don't share these experiences often unless I really trust that my audience already understands where I'm coming from.

I'm not a Christian or associated with any religion, but I'm a fairly good judge of character, which is why I know you aren't just making it up for whatever reason. But how you interpret what happened to you or what you associate it with (Christianity) isn't for me to judge or endorse.

[Man of Steel]

I'm not a Christian or associated with any religion, but I'm a fairly good judge of character, which is why I know you aren't just making it up for whatever reason. But how you interpret what happened to you or what you associate it with (Christianity) isn't for me to judge or endorse.

No worries, I don't get upset with others if they don't share my beliefs, but as long as they understand what I belief and how I came to belief and how they can do the same if they choose to I'm good.

[che]

Nobel Prize for super-duper thinking

 

[kiwiol]

All in the brain my friend. Certainly not your imagination but poweerful biochemical changes going on there....

Firstly, it wasn't just "all in the brain" and secondly, it's not wise of you to conclude that without even knowing what it was that happened to me.

Have you heard of twins having a mental bond where one of them can sense the other one getting hurt even though they weren't in the same proximity? You'd never know what that feels like unless you had a twin yourself, so for you to say that it's simply in their imagination or a result of biochemical changes in their brain would be absurd.

The chemical change in your brain is the physical reaction / manifestation that brings about or is brought about by the experience or phenomenon, but it's not the sole cause or effect of the whole thing - at least not always and absolutely.

2000 years ago, people weren't aware of radio waves, cause they didn't know the science behind it or have the technology to make it palpable, but it was as real back then as it is now - we were just not advanced enough to know about it. Same goes for things like aliens and God and all that - just because you don't see proof of it due to our limited understanding and even more limited technological prowess doesn't mean that those things aren't out there or are possible.

[Deicide]

Firstly, it wasn't just "all in the brain" and secondly, it's not wise of you to conclude that without even knowing what it was that happened to me.

Have you heard of twins having a mental bond where one of them can sense the other one getting hurt even though they weren't in the same proximity? You'd never know what that feels like unless you had a twin yourself, so for you to say that it's simply in their imagination or a result of biochemical changes in their brain would be absurd.

The chemical change in your brain is the physical reaction / manifestation that brings about or is brought about by the experience or phenomenon, but it's not the sole cause or effect of the whole thing - at least not always and absolutely.

200 years ago, people weren't aware of radio waves, cause they didn't know the science behind it or have the technology to make it palpable, but it was as real back then as it is now - we were just not advanced enough to know about it. Same goes for things like aliens and God and all that - just because you don't see proof of it due to our limited understanding and even more limited technological prowess doesn't mean that those things aren't out there or are possible.

What are you trying to say Lord of TEG? God is real?

[James Blunt]

Vivek has a lot of great ideas on what life is. Like man of steel says, many people can't take it seriously because they've never expereinced all of the thoughts that bring a person to such thinking but if you take it for what it's worth you can learn a great deal. (not saying vivek is right on any level, but a lot of what he says is worth thinking about)

[kiwiol]

What are you trying to say Lord of TEG? God is real?

LOL, just that it's stupid to brush something aside simply because it falls outside the boundaries of what you think is possible or real, and that there are things and phenomenon that you haven't experienced or heard about but are very real nevertheless.

You can't believe everything or even need to be concerned about what lies outside the realm of what is acceptable as reality (God, for example), but you can't say for a fact that what you think is possible or not is all there is to it.

[SF1900]

I agree.   I sometimes like to listen to William Lane Craig debate atheists, but I've never liked his arguement that requires the atheist to prove atheism exists (something to that effect).  I don't know, if a debate is necessary, I guess it seems a bit more sensible for a theist to bare the burden of proof for the existence of God than an atheist to proof that atheism exists.  Maybe I'm missing the mark.

No, I think you're spot on. Ann Rynd has said this over and over again in interviews. You are never called upon to prove a negative. Imagine if everyone debated like that? You can never have a logical debate because most things cannot be proven 100%. Its like saying, "can you disprove that little unicorns and leprachauns don't exist in an alternate dimension?" Of course I can't prove that. Who can? Its a stupid way to debate and proves nothing.

If you make a claim (God exists) you have to prove it. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist for the same reason I don't have to prove that unicorns or fairies don't exist. Theists always use that argument and its really pathetic.

[kiwiol]

If you make a claim (God exists) you have to prove it.

Not necessarily, unless he's being militant and asking you to accept it. If he has a reason for thinking God exists and perhaps has even experienced something that makes him think that, he's entitled to that belief. His not being able to prove it to you simply because it's beyond his physical capacity doesn't mean it's not real, though.

To give an example, if I had a dream where I fly like Superman (and I've had lots of those, lol), I can't prove it to you. But I did dream that and can recollect it perfectly, so I know it's true, even though you could never see it for yourself (that I dreamt it).

I don't have to prove God doesn't exist for the same reason I don't have to prove that unicorns or fairies don't exist.

You don't have to, of course, but that doesn't make it proof that it doesn't exist

[Deicide]

LOL, just that it's stupid to brush something aside simply because it falls outside the boundaries of what you think is possible or real, and that there are things and phenomenon that you haven't experienced or heard about but are very real nevertheless.

You can't believe everything or even need to be concerned about what lies outside the realm of what is acceptable as reality (God, for example), but you can't say for a fact that what you think is possible or not is all there is to it.

Sure. But that doesn't bar the possibility that there could be rational explanations for what happened to you, just as it is possible (though unlikely) there is magic at work (magic here being a substitute for the inexplicable...as yet).

[kiwiol]

Sure. But that doesn't bar the possibility that there could be rational explanations for what happened to you, just as it is possible (though unlikely) there is magic at work (magic here being a substitute for the inexplicable...as yet).

No doubt. Just bear in mind that rationality has a limit and is constrained by the amount of knowledge we have, as well as the limitations of our conciousness, which I don't have to tell you is neither infinite nor omniscient.

I'm all for finding a rational explanation for everything I see and experience, which is why I admit that there are things / phenomenon and possibilities beyond our understanding and capacity to conceptualize.

If this was 2000 years ago and I had some quirky medical condition that made my brain sensitive to radio waves, it's a bit like me saying I experienced something and you saying it's just my imagination and that there could be a rational explanation for it. What was "magic / inexplicable" back then is common knowledge now and the same could be true for things like aliens and even concepts like God. Who knows?

[SF1900]

Not necessarily, unless he's being militant and asking you to accept it. If he has a reason for thinking God exists and perhaps has even experienced something that makes him think that, he's entitled to that belief. His not being able to prove it to you simply because it's beyond his physical capacity doesn't mean it's not real, though.

To give an example, if I had a dream where I fly like Superman (and I've had lots of those, lol), I can't prove it to you. But I did dream that and can recollect it perfectly, so I know it's true, even though you could never see it for yourself (that I dreamt it).

No, he doesn't have to prove it. However, his own subjective experience does not mean its an objective fact. He can believe ALL he wants to believe. Fine with me. I just don't like the fact that theists use their subjective experience to try and prove an objective fact. That is my problem. It is purely subjective and that's all it is. It is real to him on a subjective plane. And that's all. And if he wants to believe that, its fine with me.

You don't have to, of course, but that doesn't make it proof that it doesn't exist

Of course it doesn't. And like I said, I can't prove for a 100% certainty that it doesn't exist. It can exist. However, I have my logic and reason and I have certain tools to make an educated guess on whether or not something exists. The higher the probability of something not existing, the better.

and like I said, asking someone to prove a negative is a poor way to debate someone.

[kiwiol]

No, he doesn't have to prove it. However, his own subjective experience does not mean its an objective fact.

Yes it does. If you have a dream and are able to recollect it with a fair degree of certainty (not the details, but the fact that you did have that dream), the dream is a FACT. But it's not provable due to the physical limitations.

The experience is subjective, but the actual concept or incident is objective, because it did happen - it just wasn't witnessed by anyone else. Which is why it's hard or impossible for you to accept, which is fully in your right to do, of course. What I'm saying is, don't dismiss the claim as a lie or bullshit for that same reason.

[James Blunt]

If my spore prints come out jet black i'm going to see god next saturday 

[suckmymuscle]

Great post - very well put.

  Lmao, no, terrible post. He is equating having dreams with being in a parallel dimension. I can close my eyes and imagine that I am floating in outer space or create an imaginary world that works completely differently from ours. The mind is capable of imagination. When you dream your mind is active and creating the images you see. Can you prove that you go to an alternate reality while you sleep? Until then, a priori we must assume that the images you see while you sleep are products of the mind.

  And near-death experiences are called near death experiences and not death experiences because you are not dead. What you see in near-death experiences cannot be considered being dead because you are not dead. The brain is still active and the hallucinations are most likely caused by anoxic states. For these experiences being valid true death followed by resurrection would be necessary and this has never ever happened. True death is defined as follows:

  - All brain activity ceases.

  - The heart must also cease working for more than about 10 minutes because otherwise, even if all brain activity ceases, the brain will keep receiving oxygen-rich blood and survive in a latent state.

  There has never been a single case of brain and heart death where the heart stopped pumping for more than 5 minutes and the person was brought back. Ok??

SUCKMYMUSCLE


 

[kiwiol]

He is equating having dreams with being in a parallel dimension.

He is not equating, just drawing a parallel. What I read from his post is that he thinks it is possible for the conciousness to depart from the body and still exist in some way or form, which is beyond our capacity to know. I agree with you about the definition of death and what it entails.