tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post4609927799903312381..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: What Would be Evidence for Life After Death?Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1545695245789717102015-10-08T01:40:06.866-07:002015-10-08T01:40:06.866-07:00This is just a rubbish article. you are not giving...This is just a rubbish article. you are not giving any proof that soul does not exist. just denying on no basis . Many things which we do not see that does not mean that does not exist like radiowave , x-rays etc but they exist <br />Like the same soul is more subtle than these waves even most subtle .you need to enquire and research about it . we say our mind ,ego ,inteligence , have you seen them , No. but still they exist ,you can not see them because they are subtle that is not visible to our eyes<br />. If there is no soul then can you produce life within your lab? you cannt .for that living entity is required . That is Life comes from Life .and Life mean the soul is thereRKMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279360249892993419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-37627163958117095132009-07-12T22:35:35.771-07:002009-07-12T22:35:35.771-07:00Thank you for this post!
I really dislike Raymond ...Thank you for this post!<br />I really dislike Raymond Moody's book "Life after Life" and this has helped me understand the problems with his arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2161858219675050012007-03-18T20:14:00.000-07:002007-03-18T20:14:00.000-07:00One more thing on 'life after death'-Is the statem...One more thing on 'life after death'-<BR/><BR/>Is the statement, 'life after death', a logical contradiction?<BR/><BR/>You cannot exist and not exist at the same time, nor can you be a married bachelor, since being a bachelor implies that you are not married. So then does 'death' entail the end of 'life' for good, meaning that it's logically impossible for one to live after death? Or does death just mean the end of one's life, Being (A), on Earth (not the universe), such that Being (A) can never exist on Earth as the same life form because it has already died? (Is this a question of whether or not 'life after death' is possible on Earth, or are we talking about in the universe, or both?) Or can Being (A) exist as a different life form on Earth? Of course, then, it would no longer be Being (A), and in this case, if it can exist as a different form, we're presupposing 'life after death' anyway, so that point is moot.<BR/><BR/>If death means the end of life, which I take it to mean, then having life once again makes 'death' not ACTUALLY death, since death, here, doesn't entail the impossibility of further life. So perhaps the semantics of the statement is what's problematic. Of course, in a general, holistic interpretation of the phrase, life goes on after death; if I die, human kind remains, so there IS life after death in that sense. That was never the issue, though. <BR/><BR/>So the real question with the phrase 'life after death', and what we need to establish first before asking if the phrase 'life after death' is logically impossible, is this: does the word 'death' imply that there can never be life again after this particular life (Boy B dies and Boy B can never live again as Boy B)? Or does 'death' simply mean the end of one life (Boy B's on Earth) but doesn't entail that there can't ever be new life after it (Boy B as another life form in another world)?<BR/><BR/>Or does living (in some way or another) after death have nothing to do with being logically impossible, and rather, it's more of a question of simply what we mean by 'life', 'after', and 'death'? I'm thinking it's the latter.<BR/><BR/>Now it's a linguistic issue.jhcadjihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00989079912564734505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52316534622697358032007-03-18T12:23:00.000-07:002007-03-18T12:23:00.000-07:00"Interesting take on 'life after death.' I find it..."Interesting take on 'life after death.' <BR/><BR/>I find it funny that philosophy tends to presuppose the existence of the soul, even though there is no evidence for or against it. It seems like the soul has sneaked itself into the 'existence' category, while god can't catch a break. The soul can hardly be instantiated; at least god has the scriptures, which has to count for something. Life after death seems to hinge on the soul or spirit leaving the body and taking form in another life form in another world. But first we must find out if the soul actually exists, and if it does, it must then survive the death of the body it inhabited to move on. A lot of criteria to be met.<BR/><BR/>I personally believe in life after death. Life isn't all that we see and hear and sense in general. We can't see Ultra Violet or Infrared, nor can we hear certain pitches of noise that animals can hear. So what makes us think we can sense god or even our own soul (basic argument for god)? What makes us think that because we can comprehend math, language and time-space, we can comprehend everything, including ethereal, divine beings? You almost have to accept the theory that the external, physical world is the only reality that can exist, if you deny god, that is. You're saying that the only stuff that exists as reality is the stuff that is able to be sensed by human beings, and god doesn't fulfill this able-to-be-sensed requirement. Maybe that's strong, but it just popped into my head. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, your blog makes for good morning reading while eating a bowl of cereal. Keep it up!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com