Strawman:


Nice question. I'm still wondering why evolution [as it is taught] suddenly decided to pause the moment cameras were invented for us to keep pictorial records of organisms evolving. But I digress

johnydon22 I posted on the first page of this topic sha, you probably didn't see it cos I booked space then replied late. I've posted my answer on the belief being rational and the reason for my answer

I'm looking at it from a different lense. If we are all energy and energy is transmutable, can we say that we evolved? If clay is used to portray different images does it seize to be clay? Can then say that the clay improved? From what to what?

Reyginus:
Can we then say a Foetus is not Human?

We'd then have to have an established definition of "Human" before we categorize. . . Because even as you and i are right now, we are growing and changing but still are humans.

So if a feotus is not human because it changes and grows then at what point do you become human and do you stop changing?

To shoot this, i require a definition of human.

Reyginus:
Not at all. I don't know what is really real anymore. I know the person called me thinks. That's all. Maybe he thinks he thinks.

"Anymore" this implies you used to know what is 'real' or should i say 'believed' you knew?

johnydon22:


Could you break it down a bit?

Okay I will try.

Time and space are not real. The experience of them make them look real. Afterlife is under time,so is the past and future. Time can be manipulated( maybe not now, but will be obvious with man advancing in knowledge everyday). Einstein himself discovered that time is relative, flexible,and an illusion that covers the reality of timelessness. Basically in our real state, we are timeless. Which means before life or after life( past and future) are not possible.

ifenes:


Okay I will try.

Time and space are not real. The experience of them make them look real. Afterlife is under time,so is the past and future. Time can be manipulated( maybe not now, but will be obvious with man advancing in knowledge everyday). Einstein himself discovered that time is relative, flexible,and an illusion that covers the reality of timelessness. Basically in our real state, we are timeless. Which means before life or after life( past and future) are not possible.

Ok like this "one hour ago is in the past and this past no longer exist only now does"

am i right?

johnydon22:


We'd then have to have an established definition of "Human" before we categorize. . . Because even as you and i are right now, we are growing and changing but still are humans.

So if a foetus is not human because it changes and grows then at what point do you become human and do you stop changing?

To shoot this, i require a definition of human.

Does a foetus think? That's a problem. It doesn't. If it doesn't then our foetus doesn't fit into the rhetorics with human form? I don't think it does. And if it doesn't we are back to were left off. Do you agree?

If we expected humans to be in human form, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because we both know what happens to this form when a person dies.

When you describe afterlife, our roles in it, how exactly do you see us in it? I'm not saying you see us in it. I mean how exactly should afterlife look like for us humans without the human bodies we left behind?

johnydon22:


"Anymore" this implies you used to know what is 'real' or should i say 'believed' you knew?

No. I was simply referring to my previous illusion of knowledge of it in the past.

johnydon22:


Ok like this "one hour ago is in the past and this past no longer exist only now does"

am i right?

It still exist. You are only shifting between realities and time-lines. You are pure energy, your mind attracts what you think. That brought the sayings like. "mind leads to matter". "Our thoughts creates what we experience ".

The past and the future co- exists

Reyginus:
Does a foetus think? That's a problem.

I think we can both agree that to this we just don't know.

It doesn't. If it doesn't then our foetus doesn't fit into the rhetorics with human form? I don't think it does. And if it doesn't we are back to we were left off. Do you agree?

This means "Human" is not a form but ability of "thought" . . . If this be so and we for certain ascertain the "thought" abilities in or of other species, does this then make such dstinct specie human?

I think such definition is wanting.

If we expected humans to be in human form, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because we both know what happens to this form when a person dies.

the state after death is not variance with human as a form because a form being distingerated does not mean it wasn't once in that definite form.

so human can can die and cease to be human just like a star dies and ceases to be star.

When you describe afterlife, our roles in it, how exactly do you see us in it? I'm not saying you see us in it. I mean how exactly should afterlife look like for us humans without our human bodies we left behind?

A very valid question : If there is no form only 'thought' in what existential state is such manifestion?

johnydon22:
I think we can both agree that to this we just don't know.



This means "Human" is not a form but ability of "thought" . . . If this be so and we for certain the "thought" abilities in or of other species, does this then make such dstinct specie human?

I think such definition is wanting.

the state after death is not variance with human as a form because a form being distingerated does not mean it wasn't once in that definite form.

so human can can die and cease to be human just like a star dies and ceases to be star.


A very valid question : If there is no form only 'thought' in what existential state is such manifestion?

Let me get this straight before we proceed. When you say 'human is not a form but ability of thought' what exactly do you mean?

ifenes:


It still exist. You are only shifting between realities and time-lines. You are pure energy, your mind attracts what you think. That brought the sayings like. "mind leads to matter". "Our thoughts creates what we experience ".

The past and the future co- exists

If the past and the future co-exists and now is the bridge that moves you between the timelines.

then Afterlife as a future event is a possibility in our timeline?

Reyginus:
Let me get this straight before we proceed. When you say 'human is not a form but ability of thought' what exactly do you mean?

I was simply referring to your post of ruling out babies as humans if they don't think

It doesn't. If it doesn't then our foetus doesn't fit into the rhetorics with
human form? I don't think it does.

unless i misunderstood??

johnydon22:
If the past and the future co-exists and now is the bridge that moves you between the timelines.

then Afterlife as a future event is a possibility in our timeline?

Yes it is, just like a tv cable can show different programs at the same time. But you can only watch one with one tv. You an switch between channel but one at a time. All experience of future and past are as a result of time. Once time is eradicated, everything stops. Space and time is a matrix on its own.

The future cannot exist without time.

johnydon22:


I was simply referring to your post of ruling out babies as humans if they don't think



unless i misunderstood??

Seems I understand where the problem is coming from. My response to your argument on human form. Enough of the complications.

In simple terms, if we die pur bodies are buried. They decay and sometimes nourish our earth to spring up some life saving minerals.

Honestly speaking, if we don't address what life really is, or more directly what a human really is, then I don't know what we are expecting in the afterlife.

If my body is my human form, and my human form me, and I die then any argument about afterlife is not rational. In that case, what makes human human?

Is not an easy one but it is the first step if we must get close to the answer. I think that's the only way I will provide an answer.

johnydon22:


Ok you are basically saying: if it makes you feel all warm and cozy and provides a means for you to escape the cold dread of death [if you see death like so] then it is rational to concieve such thoughts for comfort?

I think the topic is based on if such ideas are objectively true [but since it is unprovable and uncertain therefore within the confines of belief] is it rational to hold such belief?

Well one could say that there is 'internally rational' and 'externally rational'. I'd argue that believing in life after death is 'internally rational' because it reduces anxiety; however it lacks 'external rationality'. I've borrowed this from the scientific principles of internal and external validity.

An analogy to make my point: a crazy person takes off all their clothes and walks in the street naked. We've all seen this before. It is not rational to the people around him because social codes do not permit nudity and he brings shame upon himself, therefore it is externally irrational. However, when asked why he is naked, he says that his clothing burns his skin and therefore he cannot wear them. This is internally rational because this would be proper behavior to the individual doing the act because it is what you should do if you are in contact with something that burns.

This is what I mean. Believing in an afterlife with zero proof may seem irrational to the skeptic, but if it reduces stress for the individual then it is rational.

Reyginus:
Seems I understand where the problem is coming from. My response to your argument on human form. Enough of the complications.

In simple terms, if we die pur bodies are buried. They decay and sometimes nourish our earth to spring up some life saving minerals.

Honestly speaking, if we don't address what life really is, or more directly what a human really is, then I don't know what we are expecting in the afterlife.

If my body is my human form, and my human form me, and I die then any argument about afterlife is not rational. In that case, what makes human human?

Is not an easy one but it is the first step if we must get close to the answer. I think that's the only way I will provide an answer.

So in order to derive basis for afterlife we must define 'human' to be more than the numerous cosmological effects we observe called 'life'?

Isn't that some what of an egoistic upliftment, wont it be another attempt to place 'human' at the center of universal effect because we must assume we are more than every other species we know of and we are somehow the pinnacle of creation and not just an intricate part of it.

But the apex of creation that deserves more life after the one we've got?

onetrack:


Well one could say that there is 'internally rational' and 'externally rational'. I'd argue that believing in life after death is 'internally rational' because it reduces anxiety; however it lacks 'external rationality'. I've borrowed this from the scientific principles of internal and external validity.

I remember of a quote that says "Hurt me with the truth, never comfort me with a lie" so is it rational to always lie to ourselves just to derive comfort...

[even though i don't find death any bad as people who fear it does- lets leave it for now]

An analogy to make my point: a crazy person takes off all their clothes and walks in the street naked. We've all seen this before. It is not rational to the people around him because social codes do not permit nudity and he brings shame upon himself, therefore it is externally irrational. However, when asked why he is naked, he says that his clothing burns his skin and therefore he cannot wear them. This is internally rational because this would be proper behavior to the individual doing the act because it is what you should do if you are in contact with something that burns.

This is what I mean. Believing in an afterlife with zero proof may seem irrational to the skeptic, but if it reduces stress for the individual then it is rational.

So what ever makes us feel good is rational to concieve even though it is a lie?

johnydon22:


So in order to derive basis for afterlife we must define 'human' to be more than the numerous cosmological effects we observe called 'life'?

Isn't that some what of an egoistic upliftment, wont it be another attempt to place 'human' at the center of universal effect because we must assume we are more than every other species we know of and we are somehow the pinnacle of creation and not just an intricate part of it.

But the apex of creation that deserves more life after the one we've got?

No, I think it is the making of the op. To be clear on this, whose or what afterlife are we talking about? I thought we were concentrating on humans?

Strawman:
(@johnydon22 I was late but I booked space earlier)

It is rational to believe in an afterlife.

*Studies have shown that even Quantum Physics proves that our consciousness continues after our physical body dies. A lot of quantum physicists support this.

Hhmmmm really? that sounds curious.

Please mention these studies in quantum physics that is about continious consciousness after death?

*There are even philosophical theories that entail that this universe is some sort of "virtual reality"...all for plausible reasons.

Philosophy is boundless and unlimited and can through mind speculations derive any idea - it is not a determinant of objective reality.

*Consciousness exists outside our body..so far that is fact

This is untrue and this is not a FACT.

No human study have ever being able to severe consciousness from the neurological networks.

For the sake of the discussion lets ask : Please how did you arrive at the conclusion? [possibly i'm sure NDE's - i will address that]

Whichever form that our consciousness continues to exist is obviously a different manifestation of energy (soul) from that of the body, since it is functioning beyond the brain that we attribute it to.

consciousness is a process, so if you take away this human form.

tell me in what form a consciousness manifests, in what way? does it become s a formless needless conscious nothingness?

And whatever realm/dimension is accommodating this our "manifestation of energy" to exist is clearly metaphysical because it is beyond physics as we know it; being able to work independent from the body.

There have not being any established study that says consciousness is independent of the body - As long as the brain is still getting even a little oxygen any illusionary projection is possible.

And the thought of a different dimension/realm/universe existing within ours that works different from our laws of physics is not too far-fetched. We have theories of multiverses, theories of events from alternate universes affecting our own in one way or another, research/studies (fact) that prove our consciousness is beyond our physical body etc.

It doesn't, theories of parallel and multiverses even though mathematical speculatons can only be proof of themselves if confirmed not an afterlife

so let's stretch this again: Please how does a multiverse theory support an afterlife?

[b]Before anyone turns my statements to another argument entirely, I am just addressing the question of the belief in an afterlife being rational or not.

They are curious audacious and brilliant thoughts but seem more so like incorrect affiliations.

"Like multiverse proves afterlife" even though a multiverse has not been proven yet, i wonder how it can prove something else when the hypothesis itself is unproven.

if a multiverse is confirmed it can only proof of itself which in fact is a physical value [not metaphysical as you implied thoughts would exist solo]

nice statements they are but mostly naive affiliations - i have asked for expatiation on this statements, let me hope you can clarify them.

As long as something is backed up with reasoning, is logically sound and not totally absurd, then it is rational. And my reason for pointing out my aforementioned points is that they were backed up with logic, facts, research and reasoning. Therefore the belief in an afterlife is rational[/b]

Nice direction this conclusion is derived.

We live in a world where strange and unexplainable things have happened throughout the course of history. Many people have reported very specific ghost sightings, miracles and other paranormal activities. Now there are about 7 billion people in this world, lemme even be generous to the skeptics and say only about half of the world's population (about 3,500,000,000 people) have claimed to have witnessed something supernatural of some sort, it would be very absurd to believe that ALL 3,500,000,000 people were lying or hallucinating.

All 3,500,000,000 may not necessarily be lying but all can be mistaken, just because everyone believes something does not make it true.

Rathe mysteries are just things waiting to be known - why not vy to find out these mysteries and not explain them with a dose of superstition...

Reyginus:
No, I think it is the making of the op. To be clear on this, whose or what afterlife are we talking about? I thought we were concentrating on humans?

Every concept of afterlife and as far as i know only humans have such ideas yet.

johnydon22:


Every concept of afterlife and as far as i know only humans have such ideas yet.

You are saying this afterlife is for every life that dies but only humans have the ability to conceive the idea yet. Am I correct?

Reyginus:
You are saying this afterlife is for every life that dies but only humans have the ability to conceive the idea yet. Am I correct?

"Afterlife" is another life, so what ever your idea of who gets it is still is within the confines of 'Afterlife'..

Strawman:
(@johnydon22 I was late but I booked space earlier)

It is rational to believe in an afterlife.

*Studies have shown that even Quantum Physics proves that our consciousness continues after our physical body dies. A lot of quantum physicists support this.

*There are even philosophical theories that entail that this universe is some sort of "virtual reality"...all for plausible reasons.

*Consciousness exists outside our body..so far that is fact

Whichever form that our consciousness continues to exist is obviously a different manifestation of energy (soul) from that of the body, since it is functioning beyond the brain that we attribute it to. And whatever realm/dimension is accommodating this our "manifestation of energy" to exist is clearly metaphysical because it is beyond physics as we know it; being able to work independent from the body.

And the thought of a different dimension/realm/universe existing within ours that works different from our laws of physics is not too far-fetched. We have theories of multiverses, theories of events from alternate universes affecting our own in one way or another, research/studies (fact) that prove our consciousness is beyond our physical body etc.

Before anyone turns my statements to another argument entirely, I am just addressing the question of the belief in an afterlife being rational or not.

As long as something is backed up with reasoning, is logically sound and not totally absurd, then it is rational. And my reason for pointing out my aforementioned points is that they were backed up with logic, facts, research and reasoning. Therefore the belief in an afterlife is rational

We live in a world where strange and unexplainable things have happened throughout the course of history. Many people have reported very specific ghost sightings, miracles and other paranormal activities. Now there are about 7 billion people in this world, lemme even be generous to the skeptics and say only about half of the world's population (about 3,500,000,000 people) have claimed to have witnessed something supernatural of some sort, it would be very absurd to believe that ALL 3,500,000,000 people were lying or hallucinating.

taaa please stop it how can you say half of the people on earth have experience supernatural event
please lets use nairaland as a yardstick out of 1 million only about 100,000 has experience that abeg

johnydon22:


"Afterlife" is another life, so what ever your idea of who gets it is still is within the confines of 'Afterlife'..

I don't want to be misunderstood. I believe when you say 'another life' you simply mean 'a life after a life' and not just the coming into life of a different organism in a specie or any other phylum. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In that case, I don't see how it's an egoistic upliftment to focus on what makes one. You can show me otherwise considering the above. We can also search for afterlife in any other living matter but our focus here, I believe is humans. Do you agree?

joseph1013:
[b]Let's start by rephrasing the question: Is it rational to believe this world is all there is? A good answer to that would also answer the intital question. And the answer is that we do not have enough information to know if this is all there is to life.

I agree that an afterlive is a very important thing to a lot of people, but sometimes simple analogies help us to put things into perspective. Most of us would think it wrong for a child who has not left the boundaries of this country to say that his father has the biggest house. If asked if his father's house is the biggest in the world, we expect that the right answer would be that he does not know.

So why do a lot of people believe in the afterlife? FEAR

I would argue that fear is the primary reason. The emotion of fear. The fear of our own death. Or perhaps the fear of never being able to see a loved one again. Or the fear that our lives have no meaning or purpose. People long for answers and they would be depressed to hear that this is all there is to it.

For many, a belief in an afterlife can alleviate these fears. Specifically, a happy afterlife in which many of reality's loose-ends finally come around full circle, purposefully wrapping up the story of one's life. This vision of the future can bring a strong sense of meaning to a mortal's present way of living.

Our existential fears often drive us to stand up and live, in one way or another.

But is it rational? We have to go to the dictionary to define that term

"rational
ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic."

No...there is no reason and logic to believe in the afterlife at this moment since there is no sufficient evidence either way.[/b]

When I factor in we are energy the whole argument becomes unnecessary to me. If we(energy) can never be destroyed but only transformed then we cannot logically be arguing afterlife.

Okay. Yes I'm energy. I'm a living body. I die. I decay. But energy is still around. If the building block of our local pots are clay where larger sculptures have more in aesthetics and more complexity, where this sculptures are destroyed, can we speak of a continual existence of this sculpture if we accepted the sculpture is nothing but clay? Wouldn't it be an irrational question to ask?

Reyginus:
I don't want to be misunderstood. I believe when you say 'another life' you simply mean 'a life after a life' and not just the coming into life of a different organism in a specie or any other phylum. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes a life after a life.

In that case, I don't see how it's an egoistic upliftment to focus on what makes one. You can show me otherwise considering the above. We can also search for afterlife in any other living matter but our focus here, I believe is humans. Do you agree?

Yes

johnydon22:


Your reasons brother..

If by afterlife you mean an immaterial part of us that survives our death, then my answer is a resounding no.
But if the prospect of a resurrection is included in your meaning of afterlife, then my answer is yes.

Whichever view one holds is dependent on whether we believe in God's absolute justice and morality. If we don't, we will just be talking at each other instead of to each other.
This is why I think that it would have been better if the debate was framed in such a way as to assumes that God exist while questioning the morality and justice of creating immortal souls, hellfire, resurrection, reincarnation, etc

dorox:

If by afterlife you mean an immaterial part of us that survives our death, then my answer is a resounding no.

I want to know your reasons for this?

But if the prospect of a resurrection is included in your meaning of afterlife, then my answer is yes.

I do not think i included resurrection but this is still a good perspective. . . anyway address the first question above bro..

Let me also add another for this ressurrection theory.

-If we die we die and when we resurrect every part of us becomes replaced and the processes responsible for our consciousness starts again thus birthing that our initial conscious self again?

Whichever view one holds is dependent on whether we believe in God's absolute justice and morality. If we don't, we will just be talking at each other instead of to each other.
This is why I think that it would have been better if the debate was framed in such a way as to assumes that God exist while questioning the morality and justice of creating immortal souls, hellfire, resurrection, reincarnation, etc

Belief in afterlife can be independent of God(s) existing or orchestrating the circle, so from which ever angle you derive your basis for a belief you can discuss from there but it's not a benchmark that defines the totality of such belief.

So we need not assume God in the picture to infer an afterlife that possibly would digress.

But you may also present an argument from any direction or belief.

johnydon22:
Yes a life after a life.



Yes

The question now is, what are we? I believe you know our bodies die when life leaves us and I also believe you know, logically, any afterlife that should follow would be in a different body or any other thing but not with that carcass we left. You can signal me if you disagree.

Still on energy. If everything is energy, and we are energy, when we leave that container we call body can we ever talk about an afterlife? There's still life except we want to talk about the form which is illogical considering the evidence the carcass presents.

Though the life is still there but where is the human or what we've come to understand as human? Gone. I can then say that human life ends after death. That's human life. But is there more to a person than his Human life?

johnydon22:


That would be replicating the biological wiring of a neurological network in a mechanical system.

That if it happens will i think put to rest once and for all and confirm that "thought [consciousness]" is a product of matter...

If that is the case, then it means brain signals of people long dead are still wavering around the planet. Being a theist, my view is quite different from other theists as regards the "after-life" but that would be another discussion. So, as regards the after-life, I must admit, it would be impossible for me to give a precise formular to its workings. I have just learnt to accept things the way they are. When I am dead, which is inevitable, then I can deduce the "way of the afterlife" but for now, I remain an ignorant infant.

johnydon22:


Ok like this "one hour ago is in the past and this past no longer exist only now does"

am i right?

I think what ifenes is trying to say is that for there to be an afterlife, it should be in a dimension in which time is not a necessity and thus "death" which works under "cause and effect" is not functional. This would be "infinitesimal" as aging is a cause of time. So the afterlife which is meant to be a transition from death would therefore exist in a plane in which time is "nothing".