The afterlife

Fathom · 01-03-2019 11:12pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Follows the Social Construction of Reality (Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, 1966).

The afterlife is a social construction?

NIMAN · 01-03-2019 11:22pm

When you're done, you're done.

It's my opinion of course, but as far as my brain and knowledge will allow, I can't see anything existing beyond this life.

My borrowed atoms will return to wherever, and I'll only be a memory for my offspring. And someday they will be gone and no-one will remember me actually existing.

Black Swan · 05-03-2019 4:58am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is that the dominant philosophical/theological traditions (at least, that are reasonably familiar to us) which affirm an afterlife all tend to assert that it is unknowable and indescribable (in this life, anyway).

Was walking through our university marketplace and was approached by two university students asking if I might take a minute to answer a couple questions. I said sure, and they then launched into an attempt to convert me to their religious belief system. The afterlife came up as one of a few points made by them (e.g., the end objective), and I suggested that there was no scientific evidence to support their claim that such a thing existed. They contended that there was plenty of evidence, although not scientific. They agreed that theirs was an article of faith, and mine was not. They too asserted "that it is unknowable and indescribable" and being one of the mysteries.

Fathom · 08-03-2019 4:30am

Black Swan wrote: »

and they then launched into an attempt to convert me to their religious belief system.

Dressed in white button down shirts? Black ties? Black pants? I got stopped. They used Pascal's Wager in Pensées to encourage me to wager in favor of the afterlife.

Black Swan · 08-03-2019 11:38am

Fathom wrote: »

Dressed in white button down shirts? Black ties? Black pants?

No, those that approached me were dressed casually and looked like typical university students.

Fathom wrote: »

They used Pascal's Wager in Pensées to encourage me to wager in favor of the afterlife.

Yes, I've heard that one before, which was the more common usage (e.g., Pascal actually had three different wagers in Pensées).

We got bogged down during most of our discussion with Correspondence Theory as a definition of truth; i.e., things are either true or false; whereupon, truth was the conformity with its object per Descartes. One student then slapped the chair he was sitting on asking "Does this chair exist, true or false?"

I countered with the Derridean notion that many things cannot be reduced to the nominal either/or categorisation; and if they were, they may be exhibiting the limitations of a dichotomy, thereby lacking a multiplicity of variables that may be necessary to establish sufficiency (suggesting truth in our natural world). Also added a Derridean caution regarding dichotomies in that they may not be equal either/or choices, rather that they may be subject to a hierarchy, where one (true) is preferred over the other (false), which may subtly influence true-false decision making in unknown ways, and may or may not result in misinformation or spuriousness.

I also noted that attempting to generalise from a single case, which may suffer from being an elaboration of the obvious (chair: true or false?), to something larger and more complex (e.g., is there an afterlife, true or false?), may suffer from an ecological fallacy by leaping from one unit of analysis (individual chair) to a much higher unit of analysis (afterlife, etc.).

Fathom · 09-03-2019 12:33am

Black Swan wrote: »

Yes, I've heard that one before, which was the more common usage (e.g., Pascal actually had three different wagers in Pensées).

Superdominance, Expectation, and Generalized Expectations.

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 5:07pm

Fathom wrote: »

Superdominance, Expectation, and Generalized Expectations.

Indeed.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 5:10pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Was walking through our university marketplace and was approached by two university students asking if I might take a minute to answer a couple questions. I said sure, and they then launched into an attempt to convert me to their religious belief system. The afterlife came up as one of a few points made by them (e.g., the end objective), and I suggested that there was no scientific evidence to support their claim that such a thing existed. They contended that there was plenty of evidence, although not scientific. They agreed that theirs was an article of faith, and mine was not. They too asserted "that it is unknowable and indescribable" and being one of the mysteries.

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it.

Would the person know there's an afterlife?

It seems to me that to deny that the person knows there is an afterlife necessitates deployment of a man-made philosopy regarding what it is to know and which denies this person's knowing as bona fide knowing.

Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly.

And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based.

*where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Fathom · 09-03-2019 7:12pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it. Would the person know there's an afterlife? And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based. *where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Two hypothetical premises for discussion purposes only. We need to agree on the 2 premises made first, before proceeding to the conclusion. I don't agree with either premise (e.g., "there is a God" and "God choses to let someone know"), therefore I cannot proceed to your conclusion. Do others? Further, to move from a position of faith to one of science, your hypothesis needs support of empirical evidence based upon the scientific method.

Tacklebox · 09-03-2019 7:22pm

Fathom wrote: »

Two hypothetical premises for discussion purposes only. We need to agree on the 2 premises made first, before proceeding to the conclusion. I don't agree with either premise (e.g., "there is a God" and "God choses to let someone know"), therefore I cannot proceed to your conclusion. Do others?

Further, to move from a position of faith to one of science, your hypothesis needs support of empirical evidence based upon the scientific method.

There's a lot of interpretation of God's, which one do you refer to?

The Abrahamic one is probably the most popular.

But then there's people who are pagans who don't really belive in a conscious afterlife, but rather going back into the whole recycling process again.

But they worship and appreciate the elements which bind them together.

It's not really a god thing, but more like a purification of acceptance.

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 8:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based.

*where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Raises a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know? In this case, how do we know that the afterlife exists? What evidence exists that would support the existence of the afterlife? Of perhaps more interest, if an afterlife exists, precisely what would be the characteristics of that existence?

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 8:29pm

Fathom wrote: »

Two hypothetical premises for discussion purposes only. We need to agree on the 2 premises made first, before proceeding to the conclusion. I don't agree with either premise (e.g., "there is a God" and "God choses to let someone know"), therefore I cannot proceed to your conclusion.

You don't have to agree with the premise in order to proceed to the conclusion anymore than you have to agree Hitler was a benefit to mankind in order to participate in a debate on the side representing same statement.

Further, to move from a position of faith to one of science, your hypothesis needs support of empirical evidence based upon the scientific method.

That presupposes that empiricism is a) the only way to know b) the supreme way of knowing. Can you demonstrate empiricism supreme, empirically?

The conclusion above needs dealing with on it's own merits, it isn't usurped by leaping to supremacy conclusions about science.

sReq | uTeK · 09-03-2019 8:34pm

Simple really, the majority of people fear death. So easy to create an afterlife to ease the burden.

Secondly, from God manifested religion. A horrible way to try and govern society with a list of rules (commandments) or you were not getting to that after life.

For me you live on in the genes of your kids and from a molecular structure you'll always be around as Energy never truly dies.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 8:43pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Raises a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know?

Indeed. My inclination is to suppose that all the ways in which we support our knowing being knowing are conventions we adopt because they make sense / are acceptable to us.

The decision that this knowledge (or method of concluding knowledge) is indeed knowledge, is a personal one. If we point to the fact that others agree with us in order to add weight to our conclusions, we are merely saying that "I place value on the fact that others agree with my assessment"

Like monkeys, it's personal conclusion all the way down.

In this case, how do we know that the afterlife exists?

That shifts the question to us. The question above asks whether God could make us know (which I'm assuming for the sake of argument, he can, just as he would have inserted all the other attributes we have that allow us to know). And if he does, then don't we know?

What evidence exists that would support the existence of the afterlife?

A verse in the Bible deals with faith in a definitional way: Faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What it implies is that faith is something other than that defined by e.g. Richard Dawkins, a kind of blind, tail on a donkey thing. Rather faith provides the substance for the belief (just as I have substance for the belief that my wife loves me due to the love-activities she engages in), and is the evidence of things that can't be seen (in the empirical sense)

Substantial, evidenced. No more blind that I am looking at this screen.

All that this need mean, is that we can be wired to perceive, evaluate, conclude for things in a way that suits the dimension we are dealing with. We can know empirically, we can know emotionally, we can know spiritually.

Of perhaps more interest, if an afterlife exists, precisely what would be the characteristics of that existence?

Whilst of huge interest, the question lies more in whether we can know about it at all. If so, then this second question comes to the fore.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 8:53pm

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Simple really, the majority of people fear death. So easy to create an afterlife to ease the burden.

Simple really, the world looks flat, so it is flat.

Secondly, from God manifested religion. A horrible way to try and govern society with a list of rules (commandments) or you were not getting to that after life.

As it happens, I bought my son his first (kids) bible today. They simplify the message down for kiddie consumption. Flicking through I came to something like this:

Now there are the rules
And there are the other rules
Supplementary rules
Additional rules
Rules for special occasions
Rules, rules and more rules
The way to keep God on your side is obey the rules

Fooled Ya!

I'd agree that rules based religion gives God a bad rap but hey, you got to talk to rules based religion about that. To be fair to them however, it might also be that you've gotten the wrong end of the stick.

For me you live on in the genes of your kids and from a molecular structure you'll always be around as Energy never truly dies.

A very common faith based view.

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 9:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it.

Would the person know there's an afterlife?

It seems to me that to deny that the person knows there is an afterlife necessitates deployment of a man-made philosopy regarding what it is to know and which denies this person's knowing as bona fide knowing.

Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly.

And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based.

*where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

To what extent is the above argument circular by merely restating one's assumptions using other words later in the discussion for the conclusion? Is it an example of Petitio principii?

Then again to what extent may it be a causal post hoc fallacy? Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Example: "there is a God," and "Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly."

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-03-2019 9:23pm

Suppose a good place to start as any is folks that have had NDEs and presented information on their return.
This neuro-MD lad seems to have one of the best sellers, having documented hundreds of cases including his own.

51K8hp-Pr5L._AC_UL200_SR200,200_.jpg

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 9:29pm

Black Swan wrote: »

To what extent is the above argument circular by merely restating one's assumptions using other words later in the discussion for the conclusion? Is it an example of Petitio principii?

Its not circular by virtue of the fact that the conclusion isn't being stated as hard.

It's an if/then. If God (operating as stated) then certain conclusions can follow

Then again to what extent may it be a causal post hoc fallacy? Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Example: "there is a God," and "Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly."

Hardly indeed. It's "If ...etc"

If God exists, it seems that a man can know there is an afterlife (and anything else such a God chooses him to know). The significance of this is that all rests on the IF being true. If the IF is true, we have removed dependence on man and the philosophies he's inclined to rest upon for deciding that he knows something.

Indeed, man, in his attempting to examine and codify the issue of how we know, would merely dissecting the mechanism of knowledge sowed in him by his creator.

You can imagine that his best efforts in this might well be crude, incomplete... maybe (comparatively) childlike, in fact.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 9:54pm

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Suppose a good place to start as any is folks that have had NDEs and presented information on their return.
This neuro-MD lad seems to have one of the best sellers, having documented hundreds of cases including his own.

Hardly proof. More a body of evidence to be considered. Where evidence doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion it attempts to point to.

It seems to me too, that there is no need to wait until death to know that there is an afterlife.

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-03-2019 10:11pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hardly proof. More a body of evidence to be considered. Where evidence doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion it attempts to point to.

It seems to me too, that there is no need to wait until death to know that there is an afterlife.

Perhaps, only seen a clip of it on tv, podcast or somewhere, haven't read it, but almost every account this chap has gathered (over 300 with 100 featured in the book) alludes to non-explainable evidence returned by the subject.

Documented conscious awareness outside of a 'temporary non-living', or 'medically flat-lined' body is the closest practical thing to the suggestion of an 'afterlife'.

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 10:16pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The decision that this knowledge (or method of concluding knowledge) is indeed knowledge, is a personal one.

Are you suggesting that there is no objective knowledge, only personal subjectively accepted knowledge?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like monkeys, it's personal conclusion all the way down.

To what extent is this (above) statement an ad hominem?

antiskeptic wrote: »

If we point to the fact that others agree with us in order to add weight to our conclusions, we are merely saying that "I place value on the fact that others agree with my assessment"

Intersubjectivity found in scientific literature reviews may suggest or not suggest support for a position (e.g., afterlife). But the scientific method proceeds with caution, only suggesting and not proving, unlike many repetitious affirmations often found in faith-based systems. Where many faith-based systems claim absolutes ("there is a God"), scientific positions must exhibit falsifiability (Karl Popper), suggesting that the preponderance of future evidence may support or erode confidence in a method or position, and if the latter, require revision or rejection. It's an ongoing process as depicted in Wallace's Wheel of Science that tends to favour objective over subjective data.

One of many cautions in method is to test the null (no significance) rather than the research hypothesis (what you believe to be true), and to the extent that the null is rejected, the research hypothesis gains support. But limitations (cautions) are to be reported to the consumer of scientific literature, and such limitations are normally acknowledged to exist in all scientific works (e.g., significance levels and confidence intervals, systematic error, etc.), unlike some faith-based systems that repetitiously affirm absolutes.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 10:18pm

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Perhaps, only seen a clip of it on tv, podcast or somewhere, haven't read it, but almost every account this chap has gathered (over 300 with 100 featured in the book) alludes to non-explainable evidence returned by the subject.

Not trying to be funny, but perchance, any of them dead for three days? What I mean by that is that anything happening in or around the clinical time of death could well be kicked to the not unreasonable touch of "mystery" as to when death occurs precisely.

Witness testimony to a guillotined individual's head supposedly opening it's eyes in response to his name being called.

Far less doubt when all physical systems are well into the rotting stage.

Documented conscious awareness outside of a 'temporary non-living', or 'medically flat-lined' body is the closest practical thing to the suggestion of an 'afterlife'.

If you worship at the alter of empiricism (so to speak), then yes, of course

mrcheez · 09-03-2019 10:23pm

fepper wrote: »

Most of current oldest generation do believe in heaven and lived life as best they could with hopefully they'd be rewarded with a place in heaven when they passed on,great conviction really and most of them lived to die with that aim

I detest this concept of living a good life in order to get a reward later on.

Surely one lives a good moral life because it's for the benefit of all around you as part of a productive future. Not so you get a reward.

Same with the idea of monks/nuns living away in isolation with the aim of living a life that will one day reward them in an afterlife. Such a waste.

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-03-2019 10:28pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not trying to be funny, but perchance, any of them dead for three days? What I mean by that is that anything happening in or around the clinical time of death could well be kicked to the not unreasonable touch of "mystery" as to when death occurs precisely.

Of course wouldn't be a (N)DE, or be able to document from source if they didn't 'return' as such from a (temporary) clinical dead state.

Much of the commonplace evidence gives detailed information from the subject from the near (not the immediate) surroundings, including overheard conversations. Also detailed physical location descriptions not otherwise known and so on.

Then there's information from other 'dimensions as such', usually relatives and so on, offering occasionally verifable information or advice.

Suppose a former neurosurgeon is the ideal chap to explore the subject, hence this book is the best seller of this genre.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 11:20pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there is no objective knowledge, only personal subjectively accepted knowledge?

When it comes to an individual's perception of anything that might objectively (i.e. not reliant on mans determination that it is objective) be the case, then yes. All knowledge is subjective - in that it relies, ultimately, on a personal decision as to what tools constitute a good way to arrive at objectivity. For example, if you conclude (as I do) that science is a good way to arrive at objectivity about a certainty category of things then it is you doing the concluding.

That a number of individuals subjective views align and can be added together says nothing about actual objectivity (they might all share a common perceptive flaw which distorts their perception). What we end up with by adding like perceptions is virtual-objectivity. Which isn't the same thing is actual objectivity.

The decision that such a process (adding together subjective perceptions) increases objectivity is a personal decision, something that folk sign up for.

To what extent is this (above) statement an ad hominem?

To no extent at all. I merely meant to convey the notion that whenever you go digging for objectivization of knowledge you end up at personal-at-root. It's monkeys (personal) all the way down.

Intersubjectivity found in scientific literature reviews may suggest or not suggest support for a position (e.g., afterlife).

The idea that intersubjectively leads to objectivity is a personal (subjective) decision. Since it's a subjective decision, the supposed objectivity is just that, supposed (or virtual as I say above)

But the scientific method proceeds with caution, only suggesting and not proving, unlike many repetitious affirmations often found in faith-based systems. Where many faith-based systems claim absolutes ("there is a God"), scientific positions must exhibit falsifiability (Karl Popper)

Which presumes intersubjectivity-aids-objectivity is falsifiable. Is it falsifiable? Or is it the case that the concept stands outside SciMtd, assumed to be the case from the get go.

I'm not sure why a sensible tenet of science (falsifiabilty) need be assumed to apply across the board of all ways of possible knowing. Isn't that projection of what necessarily works (and is necessary) for the goose works for the gander?

You might deal with the IF statement that got us going - for it might help quicken things. If the IF is true (God exists and chooses to let a person know something) would a person know that thing?

IF God exists then surely the various ways in which we come to know are instituted by him (since he would have created us thus). If one of the ways in which we come to know involve / rely on intersubjectivity then so be it. If they don't then so be it also. We would know anything we know because the Creator enabled the means whereby we come to know. Whether by empiricism or whether by any other means at the Creators disposal.

antiskeptic · 10-03-2019 1:03am

mrcheez wrote: »

I detest this concept of living a good life in order to get a reward later on.

Jesus and Paul (I pick the most obvious examples) would agree with you.

Surely one lives a good moral life because it's for the benefit of all around you as part of a productive future. Not so you get a reward

.

On first sight laudible. But ultimately your doing it for the same reasons that those criticize above. Because it serves what you find desirable.

Same with the idea of monks/nuns living away in isolation with the aim of living a life that will one day reward them in an afterlife. Such a waste.

Such a gross simplification.

antiskeptic · 10-03-2019 1:11am

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Of course wouldn't be a (N)DE, or be able to document from source if they didn't 'return' as such from a (temporary) clinical dead state.

Not sure what you mean here.

Much of the commonplace evidence gives detailed information from the subject from the near (not the immediate) surroundings, including overheard conversations. Also detailed physical location descriptions not otherwise known and so on.

What's the scientific view? If there are sound occasions where someone is able to recount details of something they simply couldn't know from their location on a slab.

Suppose a former neurosurgeon is the ideal chap to explore the subject, hence this book is the best seller of this genre.

I don't see what a neurosurgeon has to do with someone knowing what occurred beyond the realm of neurology. Once it's confined to neurology (we now know a person can hear a lot further than we previously thought) there's only the detail of how that is to be filled in.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-03-2019 4:34pm

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Suppose a good place to start as any is folks that have had NDEs and presented information on their return.

Well not really, because those people did not die. And as was said on the forum once before, an NDE is about as much of an experience of death as walking to a plane but not getting on is an experience of a sun holiday away in Spain.

NDE is interesting for what it can tell us about the brain under duress and stress. It tells us nothing whatsoever about an after life or any possibility that there is one.

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

This neuro-MD lad seems to have one of the best sellers, having documented hundreds of cases including his own.

And if how he documented his own is anything to go by, I am not going to assume he documented the others all that well either.

He made some glaring factual errors in his claims. Alas being a Neurosurgeon gave him the street cred with the lay public to make, and get away with, those errors. Not just the lay public either but a cringe-worthy article in Newsweek which bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense.

But he seemed to know very little about the relevant brain science behind his claims. And sure why would he? He is a neuro SURGEON which is not the same as a neuroscientist. As scientist Mark Cohen points out "Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function."

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Much of the commonplace evidence gives detailed information from the subject from the near (not the immediate) surroundings, including overheard conversations.

I was listening to a Rabbi in some debate I could find if I had to. He was talking about how his autistic son can relay the contents of conversations several rooms away. Which he always found fascinating.

Rather than his son having super human abilities, or people in NDE having out of body experiences where they are obtaining information by means outside of our current knowledge of physics..... I would somewhat expect these people simple lack the filters the rest of us have.

We are constantly getting inputs from our environment through our senses, which also create much secondary activity in our brain. The brain however is constantly filtering much of that input and the resulting secondary activity.

Were those filters to become compromised in some way, either in an autistic child or an NDE experience or a drug trip or anything else, the brain would become awash with information that it would normally not process. Including, perhaps, conversations outside the border of "normal" hearing ranges.

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Also detailed physical location descriptions not otherwise known and so on.

It is interesting that the "evidence" from anecdote for NDE and also reincarnation tend to be the same. That is: It is claimed some subject has obtained information that they otherwise could not have.

Problem is they never seem to show it IS information they otherwise could not have had. They simply assume thing. One guy who ran away from the forum entirely once tried to claim, for example, that a 10ish year old girl speaking a long dead language was evidence of reincarnation. How else could she speak it after all!?!?!

This was his evidence after me asking for his BEST example of evidence for reincarnation. Guess what I found out after 5 minutes of research? The girls father studies that long dead culture, including their language. Amazing coincidence huh? And when she was evaluated by people who actually speak the language, it turns out she was not fluent. She had a cursory and broken childish grasp of the language AT BEST.

As soon as any controls are introduced these anecdotes fall away. Take NDE for example. A believer in the after life Sam Parnia tried to get evidence of OBE during NDE. Patients who claim to have seen objects they otherwise should not have seen from their hospital bed. Anecdotes like that ABOUND in the NDE literature.

Yet as soon as even modest controls were put in, unmissable incongruant objects placed in locations only an OBE person could spot, not a SINGLE RESULT of someone seeing any of them returned.

So not only can we not verify the reversal of the burden of proof..... by showing the information they had could not have been obtained by other means......... when we do put in controls to test that the anecdotes drop to zero. Quelle Suprise huh?

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Suppose a former neurosurgeon is the ideal chap to explore the subject, hence this book is the best seller of this genre.

Unfortunately not, as I said above. He is in fact the perfect chap to get it wrong but to have credentials that make other people think he is getting it right. And that is, judging by the newsweek article written about him and his book, exactly what did happen.

Furthermore people have directly compared the text of his descriptions of his experience with the text people have offered describing experiences on things like MDMA. And it is remarkable how similar they are.

Fathom · 11-03-2019 9:05pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it. Would the person know there's an afterlife? It seems to me that to deny that the person knows there is an afterlife necessitates deployment of a man-made philosopy regarding what it is to know and which denies this person's knowing as bona fide knowing. Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly. And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based. *where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Substitute the name "God" above with the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). Its veracity follows the argument construction (above), if either has veracity. Both have been treated as givens, except FSM has a wiki link imbedded used to add more clarification than the use of "God." Could the word Nature also be substituted and treated as a given and exhibit similar veracity for the argument construction (above)?

fritzelly · 11-03-2019 10:44pm

I believe in something after death everyone and everything is connected to - no afterlife like religion preaches about, not religious in the slightest. Like to think it is more a collective consciousness more than someone knocking on the Pearly Gates asking to be allowed in.
Had a few experiences in my life that tell me there is more than just being born and then you're dead - we live in an impossible universe inside something that doesn't exist until the universe expands in to it. So I think to say there is conclusively nothing after is a misnomer when we really nothing about anything being like little ants on a planet among trillions of planets that we know of.

ps
Had a NDE and it was nothing like the usual bright tunnel - was in fact pitch black, only lasted a minute or so I'm told - maybe I wasn't dead long enough!

The afterlife

Comments