🙏 Life after death? ✨

@anil actually, studies have consistently shown that individuals tend to grow and learn about God in their later years! Hence the term, "mid‐life crisis". Because that's often when the selfish ambition reveals itself as vanity. Sadly, even after doing something drastic to try and escape the emptiness of living away from God (like changing jobs or divorcing their spouse), many continue to avoid facing the reality of their existence. Ever busy, distracting and occupying themselves with the next thing.

It's an age-old mental manipulation that plays on our natural dissatisfaction and allows us to endure life's hardships

I find this a humorous statement. People as a whole LOVE doing what they want, and if they are honest, the thought of a righteous God who enacts justice puts a wee bit of damper on that perceived "freedom". I think the modern mindset is an age‐old mental manipulation (effective since the dawn of man😝) that plays on our natural desire for more!

Bacteria, whose existence was unknown before the invention of the microscope, are made of very real matter. It is very difficult for me to conceive of a thinking entity without a material substrate in which all its fundamental characteristics are inscribed

I enjoyed your thought on bacteria, as I use it as an example frequently 🙂 My answer is yes, it is quite difficult to conceive another entity that lives outside of the material substrate/plane we live in, just as it would have been similarly impossible to imagine the microscopic world without the adequate lens for it.
About your Alzheimer questions ‐ if you like reading, I found this article interesting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552152/
And when it comes to AI computing and our brain, I'd say nay. AI is being largely romanticized and exaggerated. It is currently a datastore/social experiment that collects preexisting information. Robot attempts at mimicking human conscience are rudimentary at worst, deceptive at best. Until the day we can confidently understand the intricacies and meticulous design of the human brain (along with creating one ourselves), I'd not be so quick in jumping on the bandwagon of AI getting the moral compass of a human. And if that day by some black magic did come, I would be more concerned with how people would be able to defend against being completely mind controlled by this future "conscious" AI algorithm🧐

I've noticed that young people seem very certain about the existence of an afterlife. I was like them at their age, but now I'm much less sure. I think these young people, so full of conviction, still have plenty of time to learn more and perhaps change their minds.

In my experience, the young are usually quite certain there is no after life and people get surer of the nearer they grow to death. And this clearly isn't a kind of a willing something to be true, because there is no anxious clinging to belief, like there is with false beliefs, there is a serenity. But people can change their minds to either direction, that proves nothing.

I'm also not going to believe anyone who tells me they've met the deceased. If that were to happen to me, my view of death would be changed, but despite my age I have never encountered ghosts, spirits, demons, angels, or even God or the Devil.

Just because you haven't met something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not proof, it's just your reality. A chance exists a person needs a certain sensitivity to actually see everything in the world. Like some people are blind, all they have to go on to prove there is such a thing as sight is that other people have this experience. I think it's the same with ghosts. Not everyone has the sensitivity.

Bacteria, whose existence was unknown before the invention of the microscope, are made of very real matter. It is very difficult for me to conceive of a thinking entity without a material substrate in which all its fundamental characteristics are inscribed. The case of Alzheimer's patients is interesting: Where is the mind when the deteriorating brain no longer remembers entire periods of its life, when one no longer remembers how to perform basic tasks, no longer recognizes loved ones, and ultimately no longer even knows who one is? In this case, where has the soul of this unfortunate person gone? Should we conclude that it still exists, or that it is somewhere but can no longer interact with its own brain, or simply that there is nothing left?

If brain is the thing through which the soul communicates with the world, malfunction in the brain would make that communication very difficult, wouldn't it?

Yes, NDEs are certainly unsettling experiences that could give an idea of ​​a mind separate from the body and of a heaven or a hell. However, they imply that the brain remains physiologically intact, even if it doesn't seem to function. The person having this experience must be able to recount it upon returning from a coma. If the brain is damaged, this is no longer possible.

Yet, like the case I linked, there was brain damage, it wasn't believed he would be able to function in any way, yet did. Medically documented case. At the very least our theory on how brain stuff works is all wrong.

Religious people believe that this life is merely a test organized by God to select the most virtuous souls, who will thus have the eternal happiness of living with Him in a wondrous Paradise. But woe to those who do not respect God's commandments. They will suffer for eternity the worst possible pain. I tend to think that Hell is probably more populated than Heaven. It would be better for many if there were nothing after our biological life.

Hell is here, I think. This world is so fucked up it is a pure hellscape. Wouldn't have to be, of course. It's the collective idiocy of human kind which makes this a hell. But Christianity's view on what happens in afterlife is far from only one and it is entirely possible, in fact likely, that no religion has it right.

How did you come to the conclusion that there must be a creator?

You think a lot. I like that😊

Agnostic, eh... I suppose that's what I would've called myself 6 years ago (had I been familiar with the term).

Well to start, I realized it would be a bit intellectually dishonest for anyone to say they only have faith in what they've observed "in real life", or the tangible world. You have faith in the information that you read about, microorganisms (invisible to the human eye), you (might) have faith in the news and weather reports ‐ the question is not whether or we believe something, rather WHY we believe it, and whether it is true.

I answered this somewhat in my first post, but I'll share a little more of my perspective...this is how it is to me, after doing my due research and knowing what I know now:

Do you believe in History? Much of what we understand of the past is neither observable or tangible phenomena💭

Say I told you George Washington wasn't President. And when you try giving me the historical and verified letters he sent, records of war, interactions, and I make every excuse not to actually look into whether he was, with things like "it's just a made‐up story" and "I don't care that a bunch of people said they witnessed him".

I heard a funny example once by a guy who said something to the effect of: "What's your favorite book? Oh, I hate that. Never really read it, but I've developed a strong opinion on it."😂 the Bible is the one book in this scenario that often gets a free pass!

Someday perhaps, if you wish still, I can tell you the full story, friend.

I pray all searching will find what they seek. And may it be nothing less than the Truth♥

It may not be intellectually honest to believe only what one has actually observed, but at least in that case, one is referring to something real. It is, however, completely dishonest to claim that a supposedly sacred book full of perfectly verifiable errors and horrors is the truth, words inspired by God. This is the case with the Bible, which most Christians nevertheless consider to be the only word of truth capable of leading humanity to salvation. For my part, I had to wait many years to truly read this book objectively. There, the nonsense is clearly written in black and white, yet we continue to believe it, or ignore it, or simply refuse to see it.

In any case, the worst example of intellectual dishonesty is to assert extraordinary things and justify oneself by saying, "Prove me wrong." It seems to me that it's up to the person putting forward theories to prove what they say, and their evidence must be all the more serious the less credible what they say is. You like to talk about truth, Follower-of-Christ, yet the Bible contains many things that are absolutely false. Personally, when a book contains passages that are completely false, I become very suspicious of the rest of it. It discredits everything else.

@anil you have read it? Then please, pray tell! I would like to hear these "errors" you have encountered in your reading.

but at least in that case, one is referring to something real

While I respect your position (since I myself used to be a great skeptic) and your desire that all beliefs we hold to might be observable ‐ this, as you well know, is simply impossible in our lifetime.

Many things you and I believe are not observable. Many of them take faith. And many more are both neither observable, nor fully understood.

Science is not coextensive with rationality. History, literature, linguistics, languages, art, culture, morality and philosophy all fall outside of the natural sciences.

If I asked you what consciousness or energy is, the correct answer given would be that we do not know.

Yet we know of their existence via their tangible effects...the same is so with love, justice, emotion, reason/rationality, etc..

I, right now, am communicating with a person (you) dwelling within an awesome, God‐given body, of whom I cannot see. Your conscience, mind, emotions and thoughts remain unobserved and unseen. Still we know, believe, and have faith that they are indeed real and true.

the worst example of intellectual dishonesty is to assert extraordinary things and justify oneself by saying, "Prove me wrong."

You mean like the atheistic assertion that life comes from nothing? In

*In the late Stephen Hawking's words: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

I find this quite extraordinary! To me, that is the equivalent of picking up français, learning a sentence, then assuming one can know where the language came from by learning French grammar laws!

Forgive me, but if this is what atheists believe, I do not have enough faith to be one😆

Hellooo everybody!! 🙋‍♀️ In the forum Guessing things i asked if anybody maybe had a question for the list. And i think a really good question was asked by @Follower-of-Christ:

➡️ Do you think there is life after death? Why, or why not? Bonus critical thinking challenge: Give the reasons/evidences you trust your belief over others.

I thought maybe it is nicer to have a separate forum about the question instead that it is ONLY in the list of the other forum. ⭐🌈🌞🏆 I hope that maybe people who like to comment do so below and tell what they think and that everybody is respectful even if you dont agree or think differently about the question and the answer. Thank you very much anybody who posts what they think and believe!!! 🤗🥰🥰

Everything we currently know from neuroscience points to the idea that our thoughts, memories, identity, and awareness are closely tied to brain activity. When that activity is disrupted—by injury, disease, or anesthesia—our sense of self changes or disappears, which strongly suggests that consciousness depends on the brain rather than existing separately from it , Ideas about an afterlife

When that activity is disrupted—by injury, disease, or anesthesia—our sense of self changes or disappears

@niss_melodious, I think you might find that evidence suggests otherwise!

Here is an interesting read I recommended to the person before you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552152/

And I'm not sure if you are aware, but the human brain is not well‐understood at all ‐ in fact, consciousness cannot be limited to a location in the brain, as is with nearly every other thought process. More fascinating reads that are too horrendous to share involve attempts at controlling the mind (one you may recognize as the "lobotomy", which failed due to the "unpredictability" of the brain, or rather because the will/soul of the person resides separate from the body). If we could simplify our existence to robotic processes and mechanisms, we would be a whole lot more predictable/programmable. But no, all attempts at mind control must be reduced to clever deception, because every man knows in the deepest depth of their soul that they have the unalienable right, and "burden" of freewill.

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." ‐ Joshua 24:15

To me it does not matter which religion - if any - may be yours. It could be that you believe in a Divine Creator, it may be that you find the spirit of Genghis Khan appealing and follow his footsteps under the Great Blue Sky or you may be lucky to meet the Valkyries as personal guides to the Great Hall. The only thing I care about is that people behave in a moral and respectful manner whatever your beliefs are as long as your feet touch the soil of the Earth. This also means that divergent views and personal beliefs should be tolerated - not just as an easy banner; but in word and action.

Personally, I do not believe in any given form of afterlife upon the occurrence of death and I have not read any statement or evidence above which convinces me to believe otherwise. Naturally, this may be different for others and this is perfectly fine. What may constitute “evidence” for some may not compel the heart and soul - and in my case particularly: my mind - of others. As a lawyer I realize that actual evidence inherently carries an undeniable nature which is not subject to a personal belief. A different matter is whether any given statement, interpretation, phenomenon or anything else constitutes such evidence or whether it is actually based on thin air. Everybody’s take on this should be respected “as is”. That is the true nature of freedom of religion.

As should be clear by now, I do not intend to persuade anybody to vacate any beliefs which are rightfully theirs. It is currently my annual leave abroad with my family and a limited screen time does not only apply to your tiny minions - I mean the yellow innocent creatures as a reference; not some devilish aids. 😉

Yes, it's entirely one thing to say "i don't believe in afterlife" than to say to someone who does that "you are wrong, you should not believe that".

I'm perfectly fine with someone saying they don't believe in afterlife even if their reasons for doing so is simply because they find the thought uncomfortable and wish there was no afterlife. They are entitled to their belief.

But when someone comes around saying I'm wrong or that science proves something it plainly does not, then they had better buckle up and start providing hard evidence to back up their claim.

There are wonderful, good and king, tolerant people with high empathy in all faiths and in every philosophy, but just like that, there are horrible, selfish, entitled people who only seek to use others. So it's important to look at the deeds, not whatever tag they put on their world view. We will all die one day and find out what happens after, but until then, it's important to learn to treat others with respect. One part of that is understanding that if someone has a deeply held belief, then bashing it without providing evidence is just a dick move. There needs to be some kind of logical argument or hard proof for that and even so, namecalling etc. is out

I don't believe I've insulted anyone. If some felt that way, I apologize. I even feel a little remorse if I make them doubt their expectation of a heavenly afterlife that brings them so much happiness. I have nothing to offer in its place.
Cite errors in the Bible? I wouldn't have time to list them all. Quite simply, from the very beginning, Genesis recounts the creation of the world. To summarize: 6 days of work for God and then a well-deserved day of rest for our creator. Science refutes this absurd legend: Since the Big Bang, it's estimated that it took approximately 14 billion years to arrive at the world as we know it today. Quite a difference, don't you think? But all of this is just a nice story, even if it's absurd compared to the horrors that will follow.
Which version of creation do you believe in, Follower-of-Christ: Instantaneous or immensely long? The question is actually quite simple.
What I find disturbing about the idea of ​​life after death is that, if I believe religious books, which supposedly all tell the truth, those who don't believe in the right religion (that is, their own) are condemned to Hell. Logically, this implies that almost everyone who has ever lived on Earth is burning for eternity. Perhaps God isn't so merciful after all.

➡️ Do you think there is life after death? Why, or why not? Bonus critical thinking challenge: Give the reasons/evidences you trust your belief over others.

I tend to subscribe to the idea of Big Bounce and believe that the course of events would repeat the exact same way, leading us to live again everything cyclically. Scientifically though, it faces a certain amount of serious problems; so tthis is only a belief 🙂

Thinking of it though, I'm not sure whether I like it or not. I suppose I would have to reach the end of my lifetime to decide how worth is it.

The only thing I care about is that people behave in a moral and respectful manner whatever your beliefs are as long as your feet touch the soil of the Earth.

Made me think of Marcus Aurelius' "wager" vs Pascal's wager a little.

from the very beginning, Genesis recounts the creation of the world. To summarize: 6 days of work for God and then a well-deserved day of rest for our creator.

Yes, and you want to know something amazing? We are made in His image: One day of rest is scientifically proven to be vital for the overworked and burned‐out😊

Which version of creation do you believe in, Follower-of-Christ: Instantaneous or immensely long? The question is actually quite simple.

Obviously I do not expect to change your perspective (only God can do that), but if you truly did read the Bible and its entirety, you would find that God does not experience time in the way we do.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

‐ 2 Peter 3:8

However, my personal opinion (since you've asked for it), based on the research I have done, does support the instantaneous. I'm fairly certain that is remains the general understanding of how the universe started, even within the atheistic religion.

God bless you and give you peace. I pray knowledge and wisdom never escape you. In Jesus' name. Amen♥

It seems that we agree on treating each other decently and with respect as regards different personal beliefs and convictions Azryffel. No further additions needed on that part.

One possible erratum: I have never said or suggested that I do not believe in an afterlife because I find the thought uncomfortable. I just do not believe in an afterlife and find any evidence presented for that narrative - including as stated in this forum chain - unconvincing. That is my personal belief which may naturally differ from that of others. See further my previous note for background and context.

Whether science has proven the absence or existence of an afterlife is a highly contentious matter. I do not believe that there is at this stage - also noting science is not static but is evolving and will likely continue to share that characteristic as long as the human race roams the Earth - a communis opinion or even a prevailing view on this matter. For anybody who wishes to engage that topic: there is a lot available in scientific discourse which is impossible to replicate or properly summarize in a single forum thread of a penpal site. This is not to suggest that anybody who makes an effort does so in vain - quite the opposite - but I choose to spend my sparse time on holiday on our itinerary for tomorrow.

Having said that I will at some point in time read the sources mentioned by you in one of the posts above and will do so with a willing mind. However, I must admit that I have several other works on top of my reading list - including a unique work of a chap named Dante who had some heartache to voice over his ‘second deity’ in life: Beatrice - the flight back home should provide sufficient time!

One possible erratum: I have never said or suggested that I do not believe in an afterlife because I find the thought uncomfortable.

I didn't mean that as being you, that was just a general example. Sorry if that didn't come out clearly

Having said that I will at some point in time read the sources mentioned by you in one of the posts above and will do so with a willing mind. However, I must admit that I have several other works on top of my reading list - including a unique work of a chap named Dante who had some heartache to voice over his ‘second deity’ in life: Beatrice - the flight back home should provide sufficient time!

Reading time is limited, I know that it's fine even if one never gets around to it. But if one doesn't take the time to read, then one can't make claims based on the text either

Science of course, if it works properly, changes its views and theories as new information becomes available. That said, it is entirely possible that no matter how long science continues, some questions might never have a definitive answer. And that's fine too. Yet, while there is no definitive answer - and we can also argue if it is possible to have such a thing as a definitive answer - all theories hold equal footing. =)

No need to apologize! You've been one of the more respectful of the bunch, @Azryffel. I've appreciated your honest exchanges here.

But to the point of "science" (a term often used willynilly), I think it may be helpful for some to grasp the true definitions of things.

The scientific method consists of 7 steps: observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, analysis, and conclusion.

If all works properly, we will come to an accurate conclusion. Whereas improper/inaccurate "science" results in flawed theory and views, meaning the approach in understanding a process must change. The more advanced the question, the more often scientists are wrong, but there are indeed definitive truths ‐ it is simply a matter of discovering them.

And of course all humans who hold theories are respected, but even the very phrase "hold equal footing" implies there are better locations to rest our feet😊

Love y'all! And so does Jesus Christ🤗

Azryffel: in our family reading time takes a prominent spot. Limitation in time can be a problem, but the bigger issue is consistency of allotting daily when submerging yourself in any volume. After finishing La Vita Nuova I will first - finally - turn my attention to The Buddenbrooks. That should be an interesting classic for May. Hopefully, you have some time available this month to find some time to read a book that appeals to you.

Follower of Christ, your faith is certainly very strong, but I have the impression that it prevents you from reasoning soundly. Taking the Bible as a scientific reference doesn't seem like a good idea; fortunately, you don't seem dangerous. I'm going to disappoint you by telling you once again that no, God did not create the world in six days. Even saying that for God, a day is equivalent to a thousand years is still insufficient to grasp the timescale of the creation of the Universe. Six days would therefore be equivalent to only six thousand years for God? We are still very far from fourteen billion years. So, if you believe in Genesis, the rest of the absurdities and falsehoods written there are, for you, the truth. This means that for you, God decrees that there must be light after creating the earth and the heavens, separating the waters above and below, and creating celestial bodies to determine days and years. Of course, after creating living species without regard for evolution, he creates man from clay and gives him a wife made from a rib of the first man. I conclude that you also believe that a single couple could have generated humanity? That's obviously false. Yets millions of people believe that. Religion is a powerful means of stupefying people. Some Christians interpret this at least as a parable, but you see it as absolute truth, even though this nonsense has long been debunked. That's why I can't take such a book seriously. Why would the promises of eternal life in paradise be any more true than anything else? The most logical conclusion is that after our life on Earth, we will be where we were before, which is to say, nowhere. Perhaps some vestiges of our existence will remain, but in a few billion years, even the Earth will disappear, and a few billion billion years later, the entire Universe will too. All for nothing? Unfortunately, this remains a possibility, but you never know; perhaps a superior intelligence behind all this has something in store for us? But in any case, it cannot be as ignorant as the God of the Bible.

@anil, I realize the days are far spent...I do not hold all the time as God does. Even so, I cannot but speak of the things which I have seen and heard! Oh, how a part of me wishes the thing people demand ‐ more evidence, more miracles, etc. would convince the world of the truth. But as Jesus said, and as you may have witnessed yourself, people choose to believe the things they do, and so often in spite of truth, because we have been sold the lie, "do what thou will" (satanic motto).

he creates man from clay

Dirt, to be precise: "God formed Man out of dirt from the ground". All scientific data appears to be in agreement here : ‐ )

My response to the people who say we are related to apes is, we are a 90% match to worms, and pigs, too. Just because two things are made up of the same material, doesn't make them the origin of eachother. If I make a cup and a plate from the same clay, telling me the cup made the plate would be rather absurd!

and gives him a wife made from a rib of the first man.

I sincerely pray you research it yourself, but a resounding🇾‌🇪‌🇸! Scientists have discovered that the rib is home to a rare population of Sox9+ messenger cells that are responsible for the rib's unique regenerative properties. In fact, for surgeries requiring bone grafts, doctors frequently use ribs now as they have the ability to grow back when taken out.

I conclude that you also believe that a single couple could have generated humanity?

Population growth statistics and mathematical models show that two people can reach billions in just a few thousand years ‐ to boot, the generations actually line up perfectly with the first couple !

The sad truth about the atheist religion is that it cannot be logically and rationally lived out. If we were just blobs of primordial soup, then morality shouldn't matter, and we shouldn't pay any mind to the wickedness of eugenics because, "it's evolution, survival of the fittest, baybee!" When we see crime, we cannot sit idly by and say with a straight face that the evil guy is doing what his natural urges tell him to do. We have standards, morals, a conscience (AKA God's Law written on our hearts), obviously whacking a watermelon is different than whacking a human, so we throw his rear in prison because he knew this moral law just as we do.

Dear friend, I believe you have a sound mind. I believe you are intelligent and capable of reason. I believe your questions are neither "gotcha" or vain. That is the reason I've decided to take the time to write this. Because I love you, and want you too to experience the love of God.

I will address your billion year old earth belief briefly with a few more points:

• I do ɴᴏᴛ think the world was created in 7 human days

• the Bible verse I shared as an ᴇxᴀᴍᴘʟᴇ of how time is to God

• I ᴅᴏ think the earth is younger than even one million years

Why? To tell you the truth, there are too many reasons to count! Dating (carbon in particular) is hilariously unreliable and dependent on ideal conditions (funny "fact" they used to tell us back in the day: stalactites and stalagmites taking millions of years...meanwhile our 100 year ol' reclining Abe memorial has already accrued several), the lack of adequate "in‐between" fossils (evolution over kabillions of years leaves more than enough material, and yet, no cat‐dogs, bull‐deer or bird‐lizards. No animal kind can breed with another because they are not from each other), genetic corruption (proof we are NOT evolving for the better, rather we are cursed to death by our sin), layers within massive craters like the Grand Canyon do not need millions of years to form (happens on impact and water erosion), manmade diamonds with simple heat and pressure (HPHT) disprove the billion‐year requirement, evidence of micro rather than macro evolution (animals adapting, not morphing into another animal kingdom‐ hence you won't find a monke or dog doing your taxes), etc.

Whoops! I could go on, but that'd make this ramble a whole lot ramblier😂

I suppose the takeaway is both of our conclusions about Creation are theories, and you may trust your books over The Book, however if I knew about it as a skeptic, I would be inclined to lend an ear to the world's bestseller of all time!

perhaps a superior intelligence behind all this has something in store for us? But in any case, it cannot be as ignorant as the God of the Bible.

There is much hatred in the world for the Christian God, but the Bible speaks of a different ignorance ‐ another god:

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." ‐ Corinthians 4:4

May the Lord Jesus Christ grant you a new heart with new desires that love goodness and light rather than darkness. Amen.