« Life is a mystery. Afterlife, ditto. | Main | Morality thrives without belief in immortality »

May 13, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, Brian...

Not bad for an hour's worth of research on Google. However, as I tried to point out in your previous post, "a little google is a dangerous thing."

Google essentially is a popularity contest. The more friends your page has, both in visitors and linkbacks, the higher ranking it will receive. So, it's pretty obvious that the pages that come up for the question, "is there persuasive scientific evidence of life after death?" will be the ones that do well in the cyber personality contest.

Also, choosing the word "persuasive" is a reflection of how you believe science works. "Proofs" are really for math.

Real science isn't about "persuading" per se; It's about "revealing" or "discovering."

This blog is about "persuading".

In fact, science can also be about "predictability" or "probability". You can look to the science of economics or epidemiology for examples of that. Science can also be about collective observation (empirical data). History is a science. Yet here we are more than 60 years past WWII , and there are still people debating the Holocaust.

You see, determinism is not necessarily a must have ingredient of scientific discovery. Additionally, absoluteness isn't a measuring stick of scientific validity. Science is a method, not a position. Try wrapping your mind around that truth for a second. It's crucial.

You are, however, very correct in saying that evidence of non-physical consciousness isn't the same as evidence for persistence of a consciousness personality/individuality post cerebral death; it's not.

There are many parapsychologist (do not call it paranormal) who believe that precognition (ESP or presentiment) and telekinesis do exist, but are not convinced at all about "life after death." Dr. Dean Radin is one, and he has been called the Einstein of Psi (the science of non-physical consciousness).

Currently, there are three prevailing theories regarding non-physical consciousness:

1. Survival of Consciousness — there is life after death and some recognizable part of our consciousness goes on to live beyond the body and talk to mediums.

2. Super-Psi — the medium retrieves the information using clairvoyance, precognition, and/or telepathy (collectively called “psi”) with the living.

3. Psychic Reservoir — all information since the beginning of time is stored somehow and somewhere in the universe and mediums are accessing that cosmic store rather than communicating with the deceased.

Anyway, if you are satisfied to answer the most compelling questions of humanity with an hour worth of Google, fine - mission accomplished. However, if you are interested in the philosophy of consciousness studies and the science of consciousness studies, here is a compendium of 4640 free online academic papers on the subject.

Google! Hmmppff!

oops... I forgot the link to the free, online consciousness papers.

Here it is:

This is kind of like asking if there is persuasive evidence of any "idee fixe." I can sometimes feel enraged, but not the way some people report. I have been obsessed with a love interest, but never really had a stalker experience. People tell me that it is possible, but I just don't see it. There are people who claim that they have OCD, and there are doctors who will treat them, but it looks faked to me. Lots of people say they have out-of-body experiences, but there is no proof.

There is no proof of any feeling, persuasive, scientific or otherwise. Yet people persist in talking about how they get "inspired" or "giddy" or "rapt". There are a lot of people who have never reported feeling those things.

So if evidence for humility was as strong as believers in psychology and affective phenomena make it out to be, we'd know about it.

Actually, I made an error of definition. The prevailing ideas regarding psi phenomenon are not theories, they are hypotheses. Theories postulate a mechanism which can be tested or observed, and thus far, psi does not really have a theory for the observed effects.

I would put more faith in the experiences of those who see or saw spirit people for wont of a better word. Is it a ghost, an angel, soul travel, parallel universes, people can quibble over, but there are those who do see spirit people from the 'other' side. Sometimes to have real conversations with.
Sometimes just passing through.

When I read about this kind of thing in a book, like John Edwards the medium, I might wonder if it was being said by someone trying to make money from it, but I have had friends I trust who see or have seen someone from the 'other' side. Some have seen people they knew here before they died. Some have just seen what they call ghosts. None of them have done this in what might be called seances, on demand spirit viewings, but just visions (I'm using assorted words for this as who can prove what they see) that came into their lives without asking. In many cases it was only one such experience. A few routinely see such wherever they go.

If you think people, as in the film 'Sixth Sense,' are making up what they see, then you would dismiss it as malarkey, but if you know the people, trust they have no reason to lie, no benefit to it, then you take it more seriously. Some who have seen such things didn't believe in ghosts. They still aren't sure why they saw what they did nor do they seek to do it again. They just know what they saw.

One of my friends was involved in working in a restaurant that was haunted where she saw the beings there. At one point, one of them began to be difficult and the workers there including her did an 'exorcism' to convince the what appeared to be an older woman to move on.

Someone reading this, who doesn't know my friends, can think I am lying or being misled. I would suggest if someone is very interested in this kind of experience, be alert to what others are saying in your groups. You might be surprised that you know people who have seen such, but they don't tell anyone because in our culture it's been taboo.

I myself have only seen one thing I can't explain if I don't count an 'imaginary' playmate that I had as a child and quit seeing when it was pointed out to me that it was nuts. Parents, especially back then, often are quite uncomfortable with this kind of thing in their kids.

I have never asked to see the other side either. I know some that seek out such experiences. For me, it's quite enough to see this side :)

Brian has written:

"To me, there's a difference between (1) life after death and (2) consciousness separate from a body."

"Seemingly brain-dependent consciousness could be capable of perceiving events that aren't known to the bodily senses. I don't know how this would happen, obviously, but extrasensory perception doesn't seem to necessarily imply survival of consciousness after death."

"We don't know what happens after death. That bit of knowledge is worth keeping in mind. So long as we have one."

-- I definitely agree with all of Brian's statements above. It is quite likely, even very probable, that consciousness can and does extend beyond the confines of the body - albeit while one is alive - and is also abe to perceive events that aren't known to the ordinary senses.

However, whether or not consciousness continues after death and goes on to exist completely independent of all physical bodily existence, or re-incarnates into another body, or remains/returns/merges into a unified collective consciousness, remains to be seen... and also remains to be proven.

No amount of speculation or hypothesis or NDEs or ghost stories or psychic mediums are going to equal real proof.

I myself happen to have a strong conviction (which is the result of an array of non-ordinary, paranormal, and supra-physical or otherwise transcendent experiences) that the nature of awareness/consciousness is that it is unborn and so it exists prior to and independent of bodily existence, and therefore remains after the demise of the body... BUT, I cannot prove it.

So until there is proof, I will not join those who say that all their conjectures, hypothesis, imaginations, and/or experiences (while they are still alive mind you) are somehow sufficient evidence and proof.

personally, I don't see why we would want proof one way or the other.

After all, we will face death soon anyway. Why not just wait and find out? Which is basically the only option we have.

Sometimes I am frightened of death, but mostly I am looking forward to it in a curious sort of way.

The more I realize how completely FULL OF CRAP man made society is, I realize that death actually may mean freedom from having to live in the confines of modern, ego-driven society.

Adam wrote:
"I realize that death actually may mean freedom from having to live in the confines of modern, ego-driven society."

Isn't this the greatest piece of self-delusion that has been bandied around for most of recorded time?
Why not just get life right, and enjoy the ride? Why the attempt to self-negotiate some sort of favourable transaction with the death process? In short - why all the fuss of what may be 'over there' for us? What is over the garden wall? Are out of body experiences the same as the death experience? Are NDE's an indication of what actually happens when we die? Will we find flights of pigs in black holes? Do we really need to care about any of this, or are we just passing the time chewing an endless piece of fat?

In the High Temple of Science, on the elevated altar of Truth, stands the concept of 'proof' flanked left and right by the thoughtlings of 'evidence'. It is a wondrous belief system that will lead mankind out of its state of ignorance, and into the promised land of knowledge, where all people will be happy and at peace with each other by the understanding all things.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Greed and its handmaiden, technology will continue to use knowledge to exploit and control, thus sustaining the downward spiral and degradation of the planet and all its natural species. Ultimately the golden goose that has sustained us for so long, will be killed.
IMO science has its useful but limited applications. That's why I give more energy to the exploration of consciousness. My hunch is that it will deliver the goods that science can't.

When Adam says that he is curious.. also that it here, in modern life, is not always nice, doesn't mean that he is not also in the here and now.
Ofcourse one sometimes think... maybe it is better there.
Not as an escape,but there is TRUTH in it THAT we escape from here one day.


When I write about freedom from ego-driven society, I don't mean to paint a glorified, aggrandized version of the afterlife. I simply do not know what happens. But, you said it yourself:

"Greed and its handmaiden, technology will continue to use knowledge to exploit and control, thus sustaining the downward spiral and degradation of the planet and all its natural species. Ultimately the golden goose that has sustained us for so long, will be killed."

If, as tAo claims, awareness is unborn and prior, then death would at least mean freedom from context, and I find increasingly find this earthly context to be hellish. I think the planet is stunningly beautiful, but the soctieties we have created are often controlling and dehumanizing.

On this topic, my husband had an out of body experience while meditating when he was in college. He was meditating with a candle (no drugs) and not trying to go out of body but he said he did, saw the silver cord that connected him back to the body below. He felt it was interesting but nothing he had interest in further pursuing. I do have several friends though who do out of body travel. They can go places, learn things or so they believe. It's the kind of thing that if you know the person who claims it, you believe it, but if you read it somewhere like here, you might doubt.

Although I have used deep meditation for regressions (retrieving past life memories), I haven't yet tried out of body and not sure I want to do so.

In order to say if life after death is proved you have to define your conditions for proof. The web page below provides an overview of the evidence for life after death with links for more information. It also uses the same definition for scientific proof as the origins.org skeptic site uses to prove evolution.


There is ample proof of life after death. But you have to investigate it in order to know that it exists.

From the website mentioned above,

"Science is when you make hypotheses and and test them against empirical evidence. Our hypothesis is that spirits and the afterlife exist and when considered against the evidence the conclusion that they do exist is inescapable."

---your hypothesis is your hypothesis, it is an interesting hypothesis,nothing more. Is there a way that I can experience your evidence, directly? Your theory that you proposed through your hypothesis and evidence can be made escapable. Please discuss an example of your evidence that I can experience directly. Don't play games with scientific proof routine.

I tend to agree with Roger here. There are no shortages of hypotheses trying to explain how consciousness can exist independently of the living and non-living brain.

What we need is a theory. A theory that allows predictions to be made, and experiments to be independently replicated.

Critics have mocked psi as the "science of observing anomalous phenomenon," rather than the science of non-local consciousness."

That said, you can still have evidence and draw untested conclusions from empirical observation.

The real debate is that some skeptics and most debunkers say that the matter has been decided by science, and asking the question " can consciousness exist outside the brain" is both moot and stupid. This is the real fight here.

In my not so humble opinion, science has not resolved a thing. That's why it is important to get behind these questions. So we can finally get to a real theory and then a real test of that theory.

Well-known skeptic, Michael Shermer, wrote an interesting piece in the February 2003 issue of Scientific American called, "Psychic Drift." In the article, he makes several points about where he believes psi research is and where it is headed. There are also grave errors in the article, especially his summation of inconclusive or failed Ganzfeld tests conducted by skeptics, Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman.

However, Shermer's concluding paragraph bears repeating, because it does highlight the reason for the great divide among scientists when it comes to "non-local" consciousness.

"Theory. The deeper reason scientists remain unconvinced of psi is that there is no theory for how psi works. Until psi proponents can elucidate how thoughts generated by neurons in the sender’s brain can pass through the skull and into the brain of the receiver, skepticism is the appropriate response, as it was for continental drift sans plate tectonics. Until psi finds its Darwin, it will continue to drift on the fringes of science."

You can read the full article in PDF format here --> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuascentral.uas.alaska.edu%2Fonlinelib%2FSpring-2008%2FGEOL104-J01%2FScientistsESP_NOT.pdf&ei=0aAsSN73NJm2pgSyh_W5BA&usg=AFQjCNFwXJY_KWjFiYeAhyIyp9LpTHIzIA&sig2=O4pFAywpeDyi_e1wdVZMfA


I agree with Poohbear... This afterlife mumbo jumbo IS definitely a bunch of "self-delusion" that has been bandied around for a hell of a long time... and to no avail.

I also agree that it's a useless debate [ but remember that it's a debate that MARCEL (not Adam) brought to this forum again, and for another rather pointless go-round I might add ], and I agree that we should just get on with life as it is right now and "enjoy the ride". And there really is no "over-there" or "other-side". It's always right here, and right now.

I also agree with Poohbear that "Why all the fuss of what may be 'over there' for us? What is over the garden wall? ... Do we really need to care about any of this, or are we just passing the time chewing an endless piece of fat?" I think its the atter, and I find the old "piece of fat" to taste rather boring.

I certainy hope that "the golden goose that has sustained us for so long" (the planet?), will not be killed. It's much more likely that humans will eliminate themseves.

I agree that "science has its useful but limited applications". And so I too "give more energy to the exploration of consciousness". But science is only as good as the scientists. I think its the scientists need to update their operating systems - their consciousness - and then the scientific and technological advancement will follow along more positive lines.


To Adam,

Fyi Adam, I don't make any such CLAIM that "awareness is unborn and prior"... I simply indicated that I suspect that awareness is. I did not make any firm "claim" that it is.

But Adam I do agreewith you that "the planet is stunningly beautiful, but the soctieties we have created are often controlling and dehumanizing".



[I suspect that "egf24083yt62" is none other than Marcel]

egf24083yt62 first says: "In order to say ..... is proved you have to define your conditions for proof"

Then egf24083yt62 gives some geocities webpage that purports to have "evidence".

-- However, any real hard evidence remains to be seen.

Then egf24083yt62 goes on to say: "There is ample proof of life after death. But you have to investigate it in order to know that it exists."

-- This is a big jump, a leap from supposed "evidence"... to "proof". But unfortunately, "evidence" is NOT proof.

Therefore, this comment by egf24083yt62 is pointing towards just more of the same-old same-old pseudo-science mumbo jumbo.

I have no furthert comment as this subject matter of "after-life" is nothing but conjecture and is downright boring.



Thanks to Roger for pointing out these two quotes:

"Science is when you make hypotheses and and test them against empirical evidence."

"Our hypothesis is that spirits and the afterlife exist..."

-- Because after reading them again, I noticed that in the first quote the author tricked us by attaching the term "empirical" to the word "evidence".

Empirical means: 'Relying on or derived from tangible observation'... and more importantly empirical means: 'Verifiable or PROVABLE by means of direct observation and experiment'. It aso means 'By direct practical results and NOT THEORY'.

So the quotes indicated reveal an attempt to trick us, because there are NO such scientifically proveable tangible results. And of course the second quote confirms that by merely saying "hypothesis" instead of 'proof'.

In addition, Roger was right by saying "your hypothesis is your hypothesis, it is an interesting hypothesis,nothing more."

Roger also rightly says: "Is there a way that I can experience your evidence, directly? ... that you proposed through your hypothesis and evidence ... Please discuss an example of your evidence that I can experience directly. Don't play games with scientific proof routine."

-- In other words, to put it more blunty... Put-up or Shut-up. All these idiots who run around saying that their psychic mumbo-jumbo and hyothesis amounts to real hard evidence and undenible proof.... are a joke. And a stupid joke at that.

This "after-life" crap is really boring. If it keeps up, then I'm moving on to greener pastures. So let's hopefully move on to a more interesting discussion here before I mnove on. There are thousands of other Blogs and Forums out there for all the mediums and after-death freaks to do their goofy dance. So why do we have to wade through all this psychic-medium garbage again and again and again? It just doesn't go anywhere.


If what I suspected is incorrect. If the commenter named "egf24083yt62" is someone different from Marcel... then I stand corrected.

You are incorrect, tao, I am not "egf24083yt62".

ALso, tao, your comment -

"This afterlife mumbo jumbo IS definitely a bunch of "self-delusion" that has been bandied around for a hell of a long time... and to no avail."

is not only biased, baseless BS, it is exactly the kind of "ignorance" science aims to squelch.

How it is that you are a graduate of IV League schools is beyond me. Your constant display of uneducated, attack rhetoric is nothing more than script pulled from any Jerry Springer episode.

Seeing that you have a degree in psychology, what is the actual clinical term for a closed-minded, anger-filled, arrogant know-it-all like yourself?


Fyi... my comment "This afterlife mumbo jumbo IS definitely a bunch of self-delusion" was merey echoing Poohbear's reaction. It is not "biased baseless BS", nor is it is "ignorance" of science. The touting of mere hypotheses as being actual hard evidence and acientific proof IS "self-delusion".

And being a graduate of "Ivy League schools" IS beyond you. It is you who are "uneducated" and in denial of proper scientific method, and my personal opinions, athough contrary to some of yours, are not "attack rhetoric", nor am I a "closed-minded, anger-filled, arrogant know-it-all".

I have evidenced no such "anger", no closed-mindedness, nor any arrogance, and I have certainly never claimed to "know-it-all". At least no one else here seems to think so. I think the probem with you is that you are just frustrated because not everyone around here buys your psychic beliefs, your pseudo-science, and your so-called after-life 'medium' trip. And for some odd reason, you seem to want to polarize yourself against me, and depict me in a way that is far and away from who I actually am.

And btw, this "Jerry Springer episode" thing is apparently where YOU are at, because YOU are the one who conceived of it. I don't pay attention to the garbage that is run on mainstream TV. I've got better things to do with my time. And for you to attempt to demean me in that manner, really shows more what kind of a person you are, and not how I am.

I don't know where you have been for the past many months, but it sure hasn't been around here. It's time for you to catch up to speed.

A few last thoughts on this topic :
I expect to find our existence to be a continuum, not something bookended by birth and death. Whatever my essence is at the moment of death will probably remain that way without a physical body. No sudden enlightment. No universal knowledge descending upon me. Just my continued existence.

If I live a useful, positive life, then all that, is part of the continued evolution of my character. If I was a Buddhist and almost perfected the dharma, then I would probably continue that existence. Put it into any words, but I anticipate death to be a fairly ordinary event. Inevitable, but banal.
As Emily Dickinson so nicely put it in one of her poems: "Because I couldn't stop for death, he kindly stopped for me...."

The point I am making, if not yet clear, is that life is what we have. Now is all we have in this life. And endless speculative debate about what's over the wall, seems to be the antithesis of utilising the now. If existence is a continuum, then I'm happy to tune in to my inner and outer flow, and go with it, without getting my philosophical knickers in a knot.

I agree with you poohbear, except for one thing. It's usually some form of non-physical consciousness that comes calling on us. Not the other way around.

Most peoples's interest in the continuity of life (aside from religious indoctrination) comes from some form of experience or sudden awareness.

There is ample proof of life after death but you have to investigate the evidence in order to know about it.

Individual Cases

The spirit of a grand master chess player plays through a medium at the grand master level in a style characteristic of the time of his life on earth.

A scholar of Asian languages speaks in Chinese with a spirit who successfully explains an ancient Chinese poem that modern scholars did not understand.

Spirits of crew members of a crashed dirigible, R-101, "provided technical details about its design and construction, recollections of test flights, discussions of political pressures and unrealistic deadlines that plagued the project, and a description of the crash itself and its causes" and "the personalities of the dead airmen also came through in recognizable detail".
Also see:

Relatives of a deceased child receive convincing evidence of identity from the spirit of the child.

"Police in Nelson, B.C., have found the body of a young woman who disappeared last March, and they credit a local psychic for pointing them in the right direction."


Reincarnation researcher Ian Stevenson identified children who had verifiable memories of the past lives, and who could converse in a foreign language they spoke in a past life.

Death Bed Visions
From: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/barrett/dbv/contents.htm

Individuals near death have seen the spirit world. Visions have included spirits of individuals the patients did not know were dead. This proves the visions are accurate and not imagined.

Those attending the dying also see the same spirits the dying see.

"A short time before she expired I became aware that two spirit forms were standing by the bedside, one on either side of it. I did not see them enter the room; they were standing by the bedside when they first became visible to me, but I could see them as distinctly as I could any of the human occupants of the room."

Near Death Experiences

People who have briefly died and been revived by doctors have reported seeing deceased loved ones in the spirit world. Some have been able to report information they could not have obtained from their physical senses proving the accuracy of these perceptions and that perception is not limited to the physical body.

Here is one example:
"... He elucidates: ‘You were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that cart, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath, and there you put my teeth.’ I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. It appeared that the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with the CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself."
Also see:

There have been several hypotheses advanced to explain NDE's by means of ordinary biological phenomena. None of these hypotheses account for all the observed phenomena that have been reported to occur during NDE's. For more information see:
Michael Prescott discusses chapter 6 of the book "Irreducible Mind" by Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, et al.
Metgat discusses the section on NDE's in chapter 2 "Where Are You?" in the book "Your Eternal Self" by R. Craig Hogan, Ph.D.
Scientific Theories of the NDE

Crisis Apparitions:

There are many reports of people observing spirits at the time of the spirit's death. Often the observer had no reason to suspect the observed person was near death. This rules out imagination as a source of the vision and proves the accuracy of the observation.

"About fourteen years ago, about 3 o'clock one summer's afternoon, I was passing in front of Trinity Church, Upper King Street, Leicester, when I saw on the opposite side of the street a very old playmate, whom, having left the town to learn some business, I had for some time lost sight of. ... The next week I was informed of his somewhat sudden death at Burton-on-Trent, at about the time I felt certain he was passing in front of me."

Book and Newspaper Tests

A spirit tells the contents of newspaper articles before they are printed.

"When Thomas asked his father how he was able to obtain information from newspapers not yet typeset, the father ... referred to it as some kind of "etheric foreshadowing." He likened it to seeing the shadow of a man around the corner before actually seeing the man. "Now the things I see are frequently but the spiritual counterparts of things which are about to take form; some of my tests from the Times might be called shadows of a substance," the discarnate Thomas explained."

Cross Correspondences

In cross correspondence experiments, spirits provide parts of a message through different mediums. Only when the parts are pieced together do they provide the complete message. This proves that mediums are communicating with intelligent beings rather than using their own psychic powers to provide information about the deceased.

Instrumental Trans Communication (ITC)

Electronic devices have allowed interactive conversations with spirits that anyone can hear. A demonstration was given live on Radio Luxembourg.
Koenig installed his equipment under the watchful eyes of the Radio's own engineers and the presenter of the program, Herr Rainer Holbe. One of the Radio's staff asked if a voice could come through in direct response to his requests. Almost immediately a voice replied:

'We hear your voice' and 'Otto Koenig makes wireless with the dead' (Fuller 1981:339).
Also see: http://www.thesurvivalfiles.com/Top-40/case17_ghosts-machines.pdf

The Scole Experiments

During the Scole experiments the voices of spirits were heard, objects materialized, and "images were imprinted on unopened rolls of film". These experiments were observed by a number of scientists and a professional stage-magician with more than fifty years experience in psychic research who wrote "I discovered no signs of trickery, and in my opinion such conjuring tricks were not possible, for the type of phenomena witnessed, under the conditions applied."

Eminent Researchers

Brian David Josephson recipient of the the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics wrote:
"What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect? These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope."

Charles Robert Richet winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine conducted his own investigations into the afterlife and wrote:
The "guide" of the medium (i.e., the new personality that appears) then seems to be a genuinely extraneous intelligence. These phenomena can rightly be called metapsychic because, taking them all in all, the normal intelligence of the sensitive is quite insufficient to explain the strange and potent cryptesthesia.

Sir William Crookes, discoverer of the element thallium and inventor the cathode-ray tube started out as a skeptic but after examining the medium D.D. Home for himself came to believe:
"Of all persons endowed with a powerful development of this Psychic Force, Mr. Daniel Dunglas Home is the most remarkable and it is mainly owing to the many opportunities I have had of carrying on my investigation in his presence that I am enabled to affirm so conclusively the existence of this force."
Gary Schwartz has published numerous research articles demonstrating the accuracy of mediums in scientific experiments including a triple-blind experiment in which the medium has no contact with the person getting the reading. This eliminates cold reading or the use of previous knowledge as an explanation for mental mediumship.

Anomalous Information Reception By Research Mediums Demonstrated Using A Novel Triple -Blind Protocol

A Definition of Scientific Proof

The following passages are taken from "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method" by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. This is part of the FAQ for one of the foremost communities of skeptics on the internet. Interestingly, much of what is written about the theory of scientific proof that is used to justify the theory of evolution by natural selection also applies to belief in the afterlife.
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly.
In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix.
The validity of a hypothesis does not stand or fall based on just a few confirmations or contradictions, but on the totality of the evidence.
In scientific practice, a superior and well-supported hypothesis will be regarded as a theory. A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact.

the way i see it is there either is or there isnt aint really any point getting worried over it all if you die and continue on GREAT but if you dont and your time is limited why waste it on trying to prove something we do not know anything atall about?

Scoot, I couldn't agree more. Even a religious believer should have this sort of accepting faith: that whatever happens when we die, that's the way it is supposed to be.

Maybe God is in charge; maybe the laws of nature are in charge; maybe the Cookie Monster is in charge. Regardless, we aren't. That seems pretty clear. So flowing with whatever happens at death isn't a choice. It's what will happen.

ty brian. and even if theres no after life we aint going to give a crap once were dead


Will there is a lot on here about life after death, A lot of hear say weather these life after death experiences are for real or are just the mind playing tricks on us, The only guy to say that he was from the other side with any ounce of credibility is Jesus Christ maybe we need to be finding out if what he said and did was indeed true did he indeed die and come back to life on the third day there seems to be a huge amount of evidence that he did not Just from Biblical accounts either I think that this is the only way we are going to settle the age old question of life after death is reserah weather this account of Jesus is true, differently has to be the top of the list with credible evidence .

Cheers kevin

p.s after many years of reserch I am more than convienced thats its beyound resonable doupt

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.