I'm a skeptic of any afterlife

[ProfWag]

[Craig Browning]

[ProfWag]

Thanks for everyone's input on the definition of logical. Somehow, I got trapped into this conversation about me not believing in the afterlife and how I think it's silly for anyone else to spend their days and nights trying to believe in something they can't see or experience until their are dead and all of a sudden I'm getting beat up over my use of the simple word logic. It's all just so illogical to me.

It appears that people tend to put a lot of emphasis on the meaning of life and what happens afterward. And yes, I know many people do and a lot of people a whole hell of a lot smarter than me believe that way also. It's just that for me, I see LAD in the same light as the flying spaghetti monster--they both could exist, it's just doesn't make any sense (i.e. logic) to me to believe in either one. Of course, I also used to think it was illogical for the British to put their fish and chips in old dirty newspapers, but I'm sure it made sense to them! Personally, I like to put orange juice in my beer, pickles with my peanut butter, and I invested thousands of dollars in Delta after they had lost $100 a share and was down to $1.01, and none of those things may not make any sense to someone else and, quite frankly, I don't really care if you think any of those things are logical or not.

As of this very second, for anyone to believe in the afterlife takes faith. Plain and simple. My view on the afterlife does not take faith.

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[NinjaPuppy]

Hey guys, we seem to have a code problem with the quotes today. Probably some simple glitch, but info may get misconstrued, so keep that in mind.

[ProfWag]

[Randi McSheldrake]

[NinjaPuppy]

Allow me to try to make sense of all of this in my own mind. Does this mean that we create our own reality with our minds? My entire lifetime can be nothing more than how my brain perceives like energy waves or something?

[Arouet]

It may be that not everyone agrees with the conclusions set out above.

[Randi McSheldrake]

[Randi McSheldrake]

May I write an addendum.

It may be that there are physicists on this Forum with the technical knowledge to read Zeilinger's paper and comment on its implications. I would be very interested in their views - provided they can use non-technical language!

The paper in question is:
Groeblacher, Zeilinger et. al.: "An Experimental Test of Non-Local Realism", Nature 446 871, 2007

Non-physicists may like this layman's synopsis: http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/t ... ity_tests/

Note Zeilinger's words: "To give up on realism altogether is certainly wrong. .....to give up realism about the moon, that’s ridiculous. But on the quantum level we do have to give up realism."

Refer back to Prof. Henry's comment that "Zeilinger just can't take it" - i.e. he states that the data show there is no material reality at the quantum level, but then declares - with no justification whatsoever - that material reality somehow (by magic?) pops into existence at the macroscopic level!

This all seems a long way from the start of this thread. But the Original Poster wanted evidence for life after death. If materialism is false, and the universe is entirely mental, then the persistence of consciousness - in some form - seems inevitable. There would be, after all, nothing BUT consciousness!

[ProfWag]

This is all very deep information, but wouldn't it be simpler to think that life is what it is and when you pass, you actually just become bug food? It's actually quite probable that that is what will happen, based on what science has shown so far...

[Randi McSheldrake]

[ProfWag]