Is there proof of the afterlife?

no and no

There is a very good book concerning the scientific studies that have been done regarding the afterlife. Its called "Spook" by Mary Roach. I highly recommend it.

Strictly speaking, in objective, empirical, legitimate sense, no. There is neither proof of the existence of afterlife or of the soul nor is there disproof.

Persuasive, even compelling, argument may be made either way. However there exists no evidence - as the term "evidence is most precisely defined - but rather the issue, however approached, is surrounded by only conjecture, assumption, preference, prejudice, anecdote, and unsubstantiable claim.


Which, of course, precisely is why theology became divorced from philosophy.

It also is why religionists who at root sense the weakness of arguments for whatever religionist argument they happen to endorse so strongly dispute, reject, and attack science; unlike matters religious, science has evidence - in fact, science is nothing but being all about the best available evidence, the more of it the better, and the more discussion, even dispute, pertainining thereto, the better.

Science encourages, depends on, derives from, IS the practice and discipline of actively seeking empirically derived, independently verifiable, readilly reproducible answers through the asking of questions.

Religion, on the other hand, mostly (there are exceptions - sorta) claims to BE "The Answer", immune to question, citing for authority its own claim to authority.

To find proof of an afterlife is an oxymoron. All one can do is believe or not believe in it.

sold.

I'm agnostic

I accept that I 'really don't know'
And that there is only one way to find out

Agree. And I am in no hurry to find out!

Then what happens when you die and find out that you've been living of a life of delusion, but in fact there is an afterlife - will you just accept your doomed fate? Why not prepare for this before death comes upon you and you will have no means of denial?

Raul, what you present is naught but a variant of the absurdity known popularly as "Pascal's Wager". While Pascal proposed 3 distinct theophilosophic wagers, the particular postulate you offer (essentially that the potential gain for believing in god - generally the Abrahamic God - sufficiently outweighs any potential loss as to render disbelief untenable) has become singularly identified in the public mind as "Pascal's Wager". Less known outside logic disciplines is that Pascal's Wager proceeds from an illicit premise via at least 3 classic formal logical fallacies; false dichotomy, undistributed middle, and begging the question. While it presents to the unsophisticated a plausible argument, and has great currency among religious apologists, especially those given to endorsing religions descendent from the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, when subjected to logical, objective, empirical, critical examination, Pascal's Wager is revealed to constitute an absurdity, amounting not to the argument for faith it purports to be, but rather constituting a mere declaration of faith.

Re: Is there proof of the afterlife?


There is, but it's to be found in history books rather than physics books, and you have to dig more than a little bit. One thing you might want to look at would be Rupert Sheldrake's website, which is not concerned with the future world but which nonetheless offers conclusive evidence of the reality of things which science has no real hand on.

Sheldrake is a former director of studies for cell biology at Cambridge University who has taken to investigating things normally termed paranormal, using good experimental design and statistical methodology. He has demonstrated to a statistical certainty that certain kinds of paranormal things do exist.

http://www.sheldrake.org

Even knowing that there is no evidence people still ask this question, or wish to discuss this subject. I think maybe they may want to bring it up so they can, again, refute it.

sunlover, I don't think it's because they want to refute it. Many ask the question, because they are tyring to seek an answer for something there is no answer to be provided.

I would think any individual that seeks to answer this question is based on some religious belief.

The fact of the matter is, they'll never find the answer for this particular question, so they must seek other answers in order to satisfy the ultimate one.

No creator or God would allow something as glorious as me to disappear from existence after only 80 or 90 years.

What about those babies that die at birth, or those of all ages that are killed by natural disasters like tsunamis/earthquakes?

What? Were you not a drop of sperm and God gave you life? This is easy for God and yet you're arrogant as ever. You're nothing more than a mortal, of which many of you came and passed away.

Natural disasters are nothing more than warnings Allah sends to mankind.

Do you feel secure against Him Who is in heaven causing the earth to swallow you up when suddenly it rocks from side to side? Or do you feel secure against Him Who is in heaven releasing against you a sudden squall of stones, so that you will know how true My warning was? Those before them also denied but then how great was My denial! (Surat al-Mulk: 16-18)

"Warnings?" What exactly is god trying to prove with earthquakes, tsunamis, and other disasters? If it's "warnings," he's wasting it. I thought when jesus was crucified, that gave all 'men' a chance at eternity? You are talking about the "loving" god, aren't you?

gungasnake

A direct challenge to Sheldrake's "soul as animator" comes in Fritjof Capra's "The Web of Life". Capra cites Prigogine's work on spontaneous emergence of complex (life-like) structures as evidence that no vitalism factor is required to explain "life" but instead a "systems view" of "reality" in which transcendence of individual structures may allow for an impersonal "spirituality". This implies that "life" is nothing special....everything is "life" (things require thingers) and that a search for "evidence of an afterlife" is a non-starter.

Sheldrake is not about "vitalism". HIs ideas about "morphogenic fields" basically amount to a claim that information is maintained in the cosmos, but he is mainly about testing as to whether any sort of statistical reality can be demonstrated for paranormal thins, e.g. his test for the little dog which knows when his mistress first turns and heads for home. In other words, putting the paranormal on solid scientific footing.

A number of the stories in the bible are basically tales of the paranormal. There are at least three stories about communication with people who had died in the bible, the tale of Saul and Samuel being at least as interesting as that of Christ himself.

gungasnake

There are two aspects to Sheldrake which we need to separate.

The first..that of "alternative paradigm" (Khun) is a perfectly legitimate position from which to examine what is usually deemed "paranormal". The second....that of his reconversion to Christianity from atheism tends to colour his chosen paradigms such as "morhogenic fields" with an "a priori" angle evoking "a deity" as isomorphic to "cosmic consciousness". This a priorism is in essence a move towards "epistemological closure" whereas Capra's "system approach" follows Piagets exapanding spiral of "genetic epistemology" involving an infinite regress of open nested systems. From Capra's viewpoint, Sheldrake's religious leanings underpin the latter's comments on "soul".