• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of Life After Death!!

Wow!
It really seems my posts bring life to otherwise boring, common, heterogeneous agreement!

So, let's get into it!

Pixel tells me:

Pixel42 [HILITE said:
The one thing that is clear from this post is that you haven't understood a single thing I've said. I honestly don't think I can say it any more clearly, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you.[/HILITE]
Click to expand...

Excuse me for being so dumb, Lady Pixel; could you point to the things I did not understand in your post?

Lady Pixel; are you "investing" time on me? Are you maybe trying to "save me"? Are you feeling "sorry for me"? It sounds to me like a preacher state of mind! But I DO appreciate it. Please don't worry! I am fine!

Others claim responding to my small challenge to present instances where a skeptic has "twisted his arm", changing his (her) views, and responded " they were 'believers' and became skeptics!" That is not what I asked!

The thesis about skeptics being incapacitated to understand subjects beyond "proof" or "evidence" has not been destroyed. I have seen no EVIDENCE someone understands. Always resorting to the "all-mighty power of science",
skeptics ask for Proof" or "evidence".

I am going to ask humbly: Would you be so kind to explain what kind of evidence you would expect to prove Life After Death? How would this evidence be? What format should it have? How could it be obtained? who would endorse it? What authority level the endorser should have?

The claims for "evidence" are almost a single argument, being hold as a spear, as a shield or as a weapon. But I would then humbly ask:

Where is YOUR evidence? I hear all the time "evidence prove it is not like that"... Is this "evidence" obtained in front of you? Are you guys evidence collectors? Do you have the complete files on every possible evidence of whatever is discussed? Is it not the "evidence" you hold is just the product of speculations, suggestions, inferences, or conclusions, all manifested through publications?

You certainly sound like that!

Your "evidence" is really based on testimonials done by scientists or pseudo-scientists where they say "they found this or that"...
Your "evidence" is always based on "proof" obtained by others, while you systematically reject personal evidence, mainly that which cannot be transmitted to others.

An example: Some of the audience is married. If I ask you: Do you "believe" your spouse is faithful?.... What would be your response?

Remotely possible someone will say "he(she) is not"! Well.... You can prove it with a private investigator! That is externally obtained evidence. You must believe the investigator, right? Belief!

Most will say: "No, of course not!". Then I would immediately say (as a skeptic) prove it! How could you prove it? I suppose you don't need proof. YOU KNOW!.... How do you know? That is internally perceived evidence, suitable only for you. It is not possible to transmit it, to convey it to others!
You then "believe" on the spouses truth and in your perception. Belief!

Or.... Do skeptics always and invariably hire an investigator to check spouses faithfulness?

The same thing is valid for ALL spiritually related subjects. You cannot obtain external evidence. It is something you must perceive inside of you.

Concluding: Millions of people perceive certain internal notions, like I do. I clearly understand why THERE IS AN AFTER LIFE. I clearly understand Consciousness is NOT a ridiculously limited brain function.

Those are things I don't need to prove. I cannot prove it to others either. I don't need acceptance from skeptics to sustain what I clearly understand and know. And most of all: For the same reason I don't want to "convince" or change skeptics with my own experiences.

And you know what? I already know your answers! Maybe that is ESP!

You will say: "What happens is Mike is immersed in self delusions. He does not know the brain can play tricks on him so he is incapable of doing critical thinking...", etc. ! An old song frequently played in skeptic parties!....
 
Last edited:
Agatha:

Dear Agatha:

Thanks for the Latin lesson but what I wrote is right!

Sanctorum" means "highly saint or the holiest of all".

The recent Pope election had a Sanctus (popular Latin) Sanctum (Classic Latin) Sanctorum" ceremony where certain conditions for being a Pope are met by the candidate.
(Actually to verify the Pope's gender!)

Maybe now you will understand the sarcasm in the JREF "Sanctorum" !:blush:
 
MikeAparicio said:
Wow!
It really seems my posts bring life to otherwise boring, common, heterogeneous agreement!

.
Click to expand...

I thought you were leaving. Did you change your mind?

I can't understand what you are talking about most of the time, and you usually don't understand others' arguments, so I will bid you adieu.

Best Regards,

John Jones.
 
I cannot find any instances of the term sanctorum on its own when describing a holy or sacred place, only as a modifier for the noun sanctum as in "sanctum santorum". It wasn't intended as a Latin lesson, but as a hint on English usage.

However, none of this has any bearing on providing evidence for life after death, which is actually what this thread is about.
 
MikeAparicio said:
Wow!
It really seems my posts bring life to otherwise boring, common, heterogeneous agreement!

So, let's get into it!

Pixel tells me:



Excuse me for being so dumb, Lady Pixel; could you point to the things I did not understand in your post?

Lady Pixel; are you "investing" time on me? Are you maybe trying to "save me"? Are you feeling "sorry for me"? It sounds to me like a preacher state of mind! But I DO appreciate it. Please don't worry! I am fine!

Others claim responding to my small challenge to present instances where a skeptic has "twisted his arm", changing his (her) views, and responded " they were 'believers' and became skeptics!" That is not what I asked!

The thesis about skeptics being incapacitated to understand subjects beyond "proof" or "evidence" has not been destroyed. I have seen no EVIDENCE someone understands. Always resorting to the "all-mighty power of science",
skeptics ask for Proof" or "evidence".

I am going to ask humbly: Would you be so kind to explain what kind of evidence you would expect to prove Life After Death? How would this evidence be? What format should it have? How could it be obtained? who would endorse it? What authority level the endorser should have?

The claims for "evidence" are almost a single argument, being hold as a spear, as a shield or as a weapon. But I would then humbly ask:

Where is YOUR evidence? I hear all the time "evidence prove it is not like that"... Is this "evidence" obtained in front of you? Are you guys evidence collectors? Do you have the complete files on every possible evidence of whatever is discussed? Is it not the "evidence" you hold is just the product of speculations, suggestions, inferences, or conclusions, all manifested through publications?

You certainly sound like that!

Your "evidence" is really based on testimonials done by scientists or pseudo-scientists where they say "they found this or that"...
Your "evidence" is always based on "proof" obtained by others, while you systematically reject personal evidence, mainly that which cannot be transmitted to others.

An example: Some of the audience is married. If I ask you: Do you "believe" your spouse is faithful?.... What would be your response?

Remotely possible someone will say "he(she) is not"! Well.... You can prove it with a private investigator! That is externally obtained evidence. You must believe the investigator, right? Belief!

Most will say: "No, of course not!". Then I would immediately say (as a skeptic) prove it! How could you prove it? I suppose you don't need proof. YOU KNOW!.... How do you know? That is internally perceived evidence, suitable only for you. It is not possible to transmit it, to convey it to others!
You then "believe" on the spouses truth and in your perception. Belief!

Or.... Do skeptics always and invariably hire an investigator to check spouses faithfulness?

The same thing is valid for ALL spiritually related subjects. You cannot obtain external evidence. It is something you must perceive inside of you.

Concluding: Millions of people perceive certain internal notions, like I do. I clearly understand why THERE IS AN AFTER LIFE. I clearly understand Consciousness is NOT a ridiculously limited brain function.

Those are things I don't need to prove. I cannot prove it to others either. I don't need acceptance from skeptics to sustain what I clearly understand and know. And most of all: For the same reason I don't want to "convince" or change skeptics with my own experiences.

And you know what? I already know your answers! Maybe that is ESP!

You will say: "What happens is Mike is immersed in self delusions. He does not know the brain can play tricks on him so he is incapable of doing critical thinking...", etc. ! An old song frequently played in skeptic parties!....
Click to expand...

The only sight sadder than seeing someone arguing with himself is seeing him lose the argument.
 
MikeAparicio said:
Dear Agatha:

Thanks for the Latin lesson but what I wrote is right!

Sanctorum" means "highly saint or the holiest of all".

The recent Pope election had a Sanctus (popular Latin) Sanctum (Classic Latin) Sanctorum" ceremony where certain conditions for being a Pope are met by the candidate.
(Actually to verify the Pope's gender!) Maybe now you will understand the sarcasm in the JREF "Sanctorum" !:blush:
Click to expand...

They do a nut check?
 
Probably not, tsig, but hey, let's not let pesky facts get in the way of a good story! From Legends_surrounding_the_papacyWP:
As a consequence, certain traditions stated that popes throughout the medieval period were required to undergo a procedure wherein they sat on a special chair with a hole in the seat. A cardinal would have the task of putting his hand up the hole to check whether the pope had testicles, or doing a visual examination.[citation needed] This procedure is not taken seriously by most historians, and there is no documented instance. It is probably a scurrilous legend based on the existence of two ancient stone chairs with holes in the seats that probably dated from Roman times and may have been used because of their ancient imperial origins. Their original purpose is obscure.
Click to expand...
 
Agatha said:
Probably not, tsig, but hey, let's not let pesky facts get in the way of a good story! From Legends_surrounding_the_papacyWP:
Click to expand...

The myth that I heard (I forget where) was that the 'ceremony' was started because of Pope Joan. Since it is generally held that Pope Joan didn't exist, it's likely that the ceremony doesn't exist.
 
Agatha said:
I cannot find any instances of the term sanctorum on its own when describing a holy or sacred place, only as a modifier for the noun sanctum as in "sanctum santorum". It wasn't intended as a Latin lesson, but as a hint on English usage.

However, none of this has any bearing on providing evidence for life after death, which is actually what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

It is the superlative of "Sanctun", like "Super-Sanctum" !

You see? Agatha proved it again! Skeptics cannot twist their arm!
 
azzthom said:
The myth that I heard (I forget where) was that the 'ceremony' was started because of Pope Joan. Since it is generally held that Pope Joan didn't exist, it's likely that the ceremony doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

No dear AZZthom!

It has to do with Lucrecia Borgia, who found a way to become a pope!

So the Sanctum Sanctorum was established to verify he is a boy!

You see?
 
tsig said:
The only sight sadder than seeing someone arguing with himself is seeing him lose the argument.
Click to expand...

Oh! I lost nothing dear tsig! Actually I won a lot of fun seeing skeptics, denying, denying, denying....:)

There has not been a single one capable of admitting the impossibility of defining how the proof or "evidence" for Life after Death should be!

Common guys! You are experts in evidence!!!

Evasion is a common skeptic practice. Do not evade my questions, PLEASE!
 
John Jones said:
I thought you were leaving. Did you change your mind?

I can't understand what you are talking about most of the time, and you usually don't understand others' arguments, so I will bid you adieu.

Best Regards,

John Jones.
Click to expand...

Right John!

You prove one of my points. Skeptics just CANNOT understand other's arguments. They are always focused in their own.

Such inability to understand is precisely a skeptic feature! Ha,ha,ha:duck:

Hey! Maybe you could tell me: How the evidence for Life after death should be?

P.S. post edit: I forgot: I WAS leaving! But I decided to stay as soon as I found skeptics were happy getting rid of me! From now on it won't be so easy!
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
My parents are dead, yet I am still alive.

I'm not helping, am I?
Click to expand...

Not really! You first need to present evidence you are actually alive!

"We" thrive on proof. "we" need evidence!.... Hummmmm!

You could be a computer playing like a human.....

Or.... Is it me?.... Yea! You need evidence I do exist... How can you be so sure? I am just letters in a post.... Hummmmmm! :(


The fact is: 000011001001010001010011000010100101110001! Deny it!

Evidence please!:rolleyes:
 
MikeAparicio said:
Not really! You first need to present evidence you are actually alive!

"We" thrive on proof. "we" need evidence!.... Hummmmm!

You could be a computer playing like a human.....

Or.... Is it me?.... Yea! You need evidence I do exist... How can you be so sure? I am just letters in a post.... Hummmmmm! :(


The fact is: 000011001001010001010011000010100101110001! Deny it!

Evidence please!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Perhaps you'd care to participate in discussing the subject of this thread. The opening post alleged to have proof of life after death based on an encounter with John Edward, famous fraudster and Greatest Douche Bag in the Universe according to the writers of South Park. So far, there has been no competent evidence for life after death let alone proof.

Would you have anything to offer that might advance the discussion, or are you insufficiently satisfied at this time by your self-stimulation and so will continue with what appears to be amateurish trolling?
 
MikeA, that almost everyone cannot understand your arguments is not actually a point in favour of your debating style.

All the evidence that I can find on the internet suggests that the 'check' on the Pope being male is a myth. There are a couple of uncritical and unreferenced pages repeating it, but they also repeat the debunked myth of Pope Joan, so I do not give them a great deal of credence.

Back on topic:
I think, underneath the emotion, exclamation points and poorly executed sarcasm, you are asking what evidence would be expected if there was "life after death".

I would suggest that the first thing to establish would be a mechanism whereby consciousness could survive the death of the brain, but evidence would probably include such as things as messages which could be verified as coming from the deceased - perhaps a codeword only known to the deceased and the receiver, or information that could not have been obtained in any way such as cold or hot reading.

There would have to be extensive safeguards against cheating before any of these things would be accepted as evidence, and the sort of cold (or even hot) reading that stage psychics/mediums do "I'm getting a name beginning with B...." definitely does not qualify as evidence.
 
MikeAparicio said:
No dear AZZthom!

It has to do with Lucrecia Borgia, who found a way to become a pope!

So the Sanctum Sanctorum was established to verify he is a boy!

You see?
Click to expand...

Lucrezia Borgia was never pope, though her father was (Alexander VI). You're just making stuff up now. You're embarrassing yourself.

Anyway, if you've quite finished derailing the thread, do you have any evidence of Life after Death?
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
MikeA, that almost everyone cannot understand your arguments is not actually a point in favour of your debating style.
Click to expand...


Agatha, I ascribe part of the difficulty of understanding Mike's posts to the possibility that Mike's first language is Spanish. He does a good job of writing in English, despite some Spanish grammatical and vocabulary interference. For instance, this question is a direct translation of Spanish.

"How the evidence for Life after death should be?"

I would say, "What would be the evidence for life after death?"

[...] I would suggest that the first thing to establish would be a mechanism whereby consciousness could survive the death of the brain, but evidence would probably include such as things as messages which could be verified as coming from the deceased - perhaps a codeword only known to the deceased and the receiver, or information that could not have been obtained in any way such as cold or hot reading.

There would have to be extensive safeguards against cheating before any of these things would be accepted as evidence, and the sort of cold (or even hot) reading that stage psychics/mediums do "I'm getting a name beginning with B...." definitely does not qualify as evidence.
Click to expand...

With respect, explaining a mechanism would not be the first thing. Rather, first establish that the effect exists, and only later investigate/theorize/explain/explore the mechanism.

As you say, there would be safeguards, like the ones in the MDC, and without the "I am getting a feeling of cold ... maybe a refrigerator."

ETA:
The best evidence would be information that could not have been known to the recipient, but would have been known to the sender. An example might be the location of a ring lost 40 years prior, or of a safe deposit box that the sender didn't know about, and which contained something of value -- stock shares, or gold bullion, or diamonds.

However, in the second situation, I don't know how to eliminate collusion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom