Proof of Life After Death!!

[pakeha]

No, but there is quite a lot of proof of death after life. If that helps.

...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.
....

I'll bet this sort of answer goes over well in tertulias but here, comparing proof of life after death with proof of a spouse's fidelity, not so much.

 

[deaman]

You're just making stuff up now. You're embarrassing yourself.

I believe that boat sailed some time ago.

 

[Biscuit]

I would think the person that wants to prove that there is life after death would have the best idea of what the evidence would look like. If you claim there is life after death than state your case and show what you think is evidence.

I am not interested in proving life after death as I have yet to see any evidence but to answer the question a sentient ghost of a relative would go along way in my book.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

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

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!

It's a fact there is no life after death mike

 

[tsig]

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

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!

Zombies.

 

[desertgal]

Zombies.

I like zombies. Especially with cake.

 

[Sideroxylon]

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

It should be a hypothesis that explains a variety of current observations and survives repeated peer-reviewed testing of falsifiable predictions that arise from it. Its power to explain should also be better than existing theories.

 

[pakeha]

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?

Lucrecia Borgia as pope?
No
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks...an-in-the-absence-of-pope-alexander-vi-n02973

Unless you've confused the legends about the Borgias with the medieval legend of st Joan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

The sanctorum? I don't know from what source you derived your crass error, but here's what the phrase sanctus sanctorum means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctum_sanctorum

Do you follow some blog or author that gives out this sort of nonsensical misinformation?
Out of curiosity, do you believe in chupacabras?

 

[jsfisher]

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?

I need to correct a travesty of truth. My attributing John Edward as being the Greatest Douche Bag in the Universe according to the writers of South Park was wrong on two counts.

First, it was the biggest douche in the universe. Second, it was the entire crew of South Park Studios.

Link.

I apologize for these gross misrepresentations and any inconvenience they may have created.

 

[deaman]

I need to correct a travesty of truth. My attributing John Edward as being the Greatest Douche Bag in the Universe according to the writers of South Park was wrong on two counts.

First, it was the biggest douche in the universe. Second, it was the entire crew of South Park Studios.

I apologize for these gross misrepresentations and any inconvenience they may have created.

Thank you, for clearing that up.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Lucrecia Borgia as pope?
No
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks...an-in-the-absence-of-pope-alexander-vi-n02973

Unless you've confused the legends about the Borgias with the medieval legend of st Joan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

The sanctorum? I don't know from what source you derived your crass error, but here's what the phrase sanctus sanctorum means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctum_sanctorum

Do you follow some blog or author that gives out this sort of nonsensical misinformation?
Out of curiosity, do you believe in chupacabras?

Thanks Pakeha!

First answer to your last question: Do you think I am the only one trolling and using sarcasms here? You can tell me things like that, but I cannot even use a slight humor to be immediately qualified as "trolling, ranting, saying stupid things, ignorant, etc.," and other nice gratifications!

About the Sanctorum I used, it was in this sense:
(from Wikipedia The Latin phrase sanctum sanctorum is a Latin translation of the biblical term: "Holy of Holies"

By that I meant, the JREF forums is the "sanctum sanctorum" place for skeptics, and non skeptics are treated like garbage. Agree?

So I did not commit a big mistake....

One I surely did was about the female Pope and I apologize. Agatha clearly explained my error. It was do to my lack of interest in catholic deeds and history and because I've seen the movie by Liv Ullman long time ago, and I mixed up the Borgias Vatican affairs with "Juana la papisa".

So my mistake is real! Bravo!

If feel so ashamed because in this forum the "only one who makes mistakes is me"!

Let's try to get back into topic. Ill do my best.

 

[MikeAparicio]

It's a fact there is no life after death mike

Oh my...

There is a fact? Did you go there and found no one? Then you are the first one and a good proof of Life after Death!

I find your answer totaly against the basic rules of a good skeptic reasoner!

I'll explain better in posts bellow.

 

[MikeAparicio]

I would think the person that wants to prove that there is life after death would have the best idea of what the evidence would look like. If you claim there is life after death than state your case and show what you think is evidence.

I am not interested in proving life after death as I have yet to see any evidence but to answer the question a sentient ghost of a relative would go along way in my book.

Biscuit: You miss my point. If I ask "what" or "how" the LAD evidence should be is because I don't think it is possible to get it EXTERNALLY! By externally I mean proof obtained by experiments, medium sessions, testimonials or kinetic phenomena.

I will explain in another response below.

 

[MikeAparicio]

I believe that boat sailed some time ago.

Deam: I understood embarrassment is always caused by oneself!

Certainly the "boat sailed LONG time ago" since the inception of the JREF forum, because the most frequent audience has made it into a very difficult place for visitors wanting to exchange without the constant trolling received, just like yours and the cited post.

 

[MikeAparicio]

I'll bet this sort of answer goes over well in tertulias but here, comparing proof of life after death with proof of a spouse's fidelity, not so much.

Pakeha: I was NOT comparing the proof as you say above. Last paragraph in my post says: "The same thing is valid for ALL spiritually related subjects. You cannot obtain external evidence. It is something you must perceive inside of you."

I was comparing the lack of possible evidence (within certain parameters) for both situations. The proof can only be personal, subjective, internal and not something you can share or demonstrate to others. I used the fidelity example as it can be seen parabolic to the Life after Death (LAD) question.

 

[Daylightstar]

... The proof can only be personal, subjective, internal and not something you can share or demonstrate to others. I used the fidelity example as it can be seen parabolic to the Life after Death (LAD) question.

Well then, on what do you base your apparent belief in the afterlife, hmm?

 

[John Jones]

Biscuit: You miss my point. If I ask "what" or "how" the LAD evidence should be is because I don't think it is possible to get it EXTERNALLY! By externally I mean proof obtained by experiments, medium sessions, testimonials or kinetic phenomena.

I will explain in another response below.

So if evidence of life after death is unobtainable, why should anyone accept it as a reality?

 

[MikeAparicio]

Well then, on what do you base your apparent belief in the afterlife, hmm?

John Jones : So if evidence of life after death is unobtainable, why should anyone accept it as a reality?

Fine folks. We are now getting into it. I had almost done my reply when I accidentally hit the tab on top and all my typing was gone!

Recalling what I was writing:

Although it is not a rule, people, specially skeptic minds, consider the exterior world as the only means to acquire understanding, knowledge and information.

Based on such notion, it is assumed proof or evidence must come from an exterior perception, physically demonstrable.

There are also different ways people consider Life after Death (call it LAD for short) and also different ways people understand the spiritual world.

(I am trying to use short phrases do to my poor English. Forgive me for that)

Consequently, skeptics demand physical proof of a totally spiritual conception, probably biased because of the so many "psychics, mediums, ghost hunters, etc." which try to demonstrate or prove the existence of LAD by such means.

I don't think, as other fellows of mine do not as well, consider the "world beyond" of the same nature as our local, living world. If there is "beyond space" it has nothing to do with our space and both worlds do not permeate, either spatially or in time.

If "making noises, dragging chains, casting shadows, pushing people, throwing things, or getting messages with physical details from our world" is required as proof, such proof has nothing to do with the realm I am talking about.

The assumption of an interconnection between worlds is what causes the whole misunderstanding, the confusion and the rejection.

Precisely because such lack of interconnection, there is no possible way to obtain physical proof of the "world beyond", or in the survival of pure Consciousness and consequently for Life after Death.

In my perception, LAD has nothing to do with personality, profession, merits, human relations, family, or any of our earthly deeds. That is why it is called the world "beyond" and there is nothing "near" in something that is beyond reach, beyond physical contact, beyond kinematics.

LAD is a transcendental departure from our World Life.

How then can it be proven? Not externally. Not in a communication form. It belongs to a total personal experience. It is the fruit of a great discipline, inner observation, mental quietness and effort. It is only a personal proof.

Not satisfying to all? I understand.

But it will be very satisfying individually when obtained.

We can go further into this if I am allowed.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks Pakeha!

First answer to your last question: Do you think I am the only one trolling and using sarcasms here? You can tell me things like that, but I cannot even use a slight humor to be immediately qualified as "trolling, ranting, saying stupid things, ignorant, etc.," and other nice gratifications!

About the Sanctorum I used, it was in this sense:
(from Wikipedia The Latin phrase sanctum sanctorum is a Latin translation of the biblical term: "Holy of Holies"

By that I meant, the JREF forums is the "sanctum sanctorum" place for skeptics, and non skeptics are treated like garbage. Agree?

So I did not commit a big mistake....

One I surely did was about the female Pope and I apologize. Agatha clearly explained my error. It was do to my lack of interest in catholic deeds and history and because I've seen the movie by Liv Ullman long time ago, and I mixed up the Borgias Vatican affairs with "Juana la papisa".

So my mistake is real! Bravo!

If feel so ashamed because in this forum the "only one who makes mistakes is me"!

Let's try to get back into topic. Ill do my best.

So. No chupacabras, then?

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?

I find your efforts to downplay your dismal slander against a lady unable to defend herself not particularly amusing, Mike.
Still, we've established you're liable to confuse Hollywood productions with history.

...I was comparing the lack of possible evidence (within certain parameters) for both situations. The proof can only be personal, subjective, internal and not something you can share or demonstrate to others. I used the fidelity example as it can be seen parabolic to the Life after Death (LAD) question.

That's an interesting idea, Mike. Why do you compare a spouse's fidelity with LAD?

Please keep in mind, Mike, no matter how we disagree, I am truly concerned about your health and wish you all the best.

 

[Daylightstar]

Well then, on what do you base your apparent belief in the afterlife, hmm?

... It belongs to a total personal experience. It is the fruit of a great discipline, inner observation, mental quietness and effort. It is only a personal proof. ...

So that would be constructed wishful thinking?