Thanks for that reply. I rushing a little here, but one take away I get is that for that to happen, (existence after death), there'd have to be something we are presently unaware of.
And yes, I don't care to speculate too much about things, but in my opinion, in our western dominated notions of medicine and the body, there are things, many things, that have escaped our ability to detect. So, I would speculate that there are a so called causal body, or a subtle body that would be the body that does the crossing over. Now, whether or not some evidence will come to the fore to support this, and other heretofore unexplored (at least by western medicine) such as different pranas, I have no idea. But yes, causal bodies, subtle bodies would be part of my belief system. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Personally, I think it would be cool if there was an afterlife of some description but it's the last thing I'm expecting. For there to be anything it would either have to have evolved (most likely impossible) or there is something fundamental we don't know about the universe which is possible but unlikely in a case like this because the potential for us to escape to another realm would have to have been waiting for us to evolve into it and it didn't happen like that, there was no goal for life to aim for. Unless that's the evidence for god that everyone seems to be looking for, but it's a bit of a hit and miss kind of god and he might have had a very long wait indeed as we needn't have survived this far. This is what makes Hameroff's theory about quantum consciousness being a detachable soul such an attractive proposition, but it isn't one that I thought more than twice about. As far as I know (and it isn't much) quantum stuff couldn't survive either in the brain (too hot) or outside (too much interference) it would need some sort of motive force to hold it together and it's hard to see what that might be as quanta are supposed to be the ultimately small thing, there isn't anything else as far as we know. It sounds like desperate new age thinking to me. Other physicists dismiss it utterly, except people with books or prayers to sell like John Hagelin who talk vast amounts of shit of their own. Someone should draw a chart of unlikely claims made by quantum physicists so we can see just how relatively impossible each thing is. Research into NDEs could give us a clue, people report being outside of their bodies in operating rooms and claim to have heard conversations between doctors that they shouldn't have been able to hear due to being unconscious. To see if it's a real phenomena instead of a shift in consciousness in some way hospitals in England have things placed on high shelves out of the sight of people in the room. So if someone actually leaves their body they should be able to tell us what they saw which would qualify as objective proof of out of the body experiences. And, if it was repeated consistently it would cause a scientific revolution. So far nothing, but NDE's are rare and you just might have other things on your mind than searching shelves for weird stuff. And then, I remember reading a book about it and of the people who meet relatives on the "other" side, a third meet relatives who are still alive! That leaves it dead in the water as a theory about life after death but it's still interesting and one of the few paranormal things we can check. Or maybe when we die we have an NDE because of lack of oxygen or changes in the brain that makes us think we are heading towards an afterlife. That'd be a nice touch. Richard Dawkins is exasperated that people don't leave religions in flocks to join his intellectually superior atheist position. But certain annihilation of the soul at death is rather cold comfort and a bit of a tough call to rally round! So I live in hope, but not expectation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what "you" believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when "anyone" dies? Is it the atheist position that it's "lights out". Options - "expire worthless" Now, I know one might say, "I have no evidence that, that's not the case", but I'd like to know what "you" believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Not as long as you'd think, it's an old one. It originated here: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." I don't get the final "therefore..." I can conceive of fabulous things but nature is under no obligation to create them to satisfy a dubious logical progression. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote: Logician Kurt Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God. (This should keep salyavin808 busy for a while.) Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved: Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. Symbolically:
