The Afterlife! Is it Possible?

[_Ray A]

Ms. Atwater discusses each of the seven factors separately, substantiating claims from direct quotes from NDEers.

So, given that the above “aftereffects” evidence from the NDEers provides credibility to the claim that what they say happened actually happened, and if one concludes that the NDE phenomena is real, and then projected to validate the afterlife as real, which I believe to be the case, then how does all that imply the existence of “God”? It seems that everyone, religionists and all who believe in an afterlife also believe in some kind of “God”.

I fail to see the connection.

Here is some “straw-man” logic: The afterlife means there is an overall plan, otherwise consciousness would be extinguished along with physical death. An overall plan means some intelligent being had to originate and implement such a plan, ergo, “God!” And, of course, I don’t buy that in the least.

So what are your thoughts regarding the implications of afterlife and "God"?

Hi QW,

Kevin Williams posted this about Atwater on his site, which you may have seen, but I'll re-quote it:

The Realness of God

God is.

God is the one presence, the one power, the one force and source of all. There are no competitors to God, no reality existent outside of God. God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (present everywhere). There is no place where God is not, simply because nothing exists without God.

God is neither a man nor a woman nor a thing.

God is no one's father or mother or benefactor. These terms are used only to help us understand relationships - ours to God - not to establish a more human type of parentage. We use such terms as a matter of convenience or because it is comforting to do so. We call ourselves children of God because we do not know what else to call ourselves, and it seems as good a term as any to use. We are made in the image of God, not in the sense of physical appearance, but with respect to the power of our souls and the potential of our minds. God is the Creator; we are co-creators. It would be more appropriate and more in line with Truth, if we called ourselves extensions of God or, perhaps, thoughts in the Mind of God. It would even be appropriate to use another name for God, like The Force, The One, The All, The Is-ness, The One Mind, The Source, or whatever conveys that sense of deity that is without limitation or boundary, beyond what can be comprehended.

While God is more than any name, protocol, hierarchy, concept, or grandiosity could describe or define; God truly is as near as our next breath - as close as our next thought. We are part of God and existent with God. A belief in separation, that we could possibly exist and have our being apart from God, is the only real sin. This belief is of our own making. God has not decreed separation; this we did ourselves by our own perception that somehow, some way, we could transcend That Which Cannot Be Transcended.

God is not dependent on our belief, for our belief or disbelief in God does not affect God - only us.

God is not a member of any church or religion. It is the churches and the religions that are members within the vastness and the glory that is God. There is no one religion just as there is no "chosen" people or person, nor any single way of regarding what cannot be fully comprehended. We are all "sons" of God in the sense that we are all souls of God's creation, without gender, without form, without nationality, complete and whole and perfect as we explore the never-endingness of God's wonderment. A spark from the essence of All God Is resides in each and every one of us has an unbreakable connection, that thread or cord that ensures we remain a part of That Which We Could Never Leave.

The splendorous joy of recognizing and acknowledging our special-ness, our greatness, as creations of God and as co-creators with God, is akin to being engulfed by overwhelming floodtides of God's Glorious Love......

There is no sense of "crime and punishment" in God's Light, only the clear, complete, and total knowing that you are loved unconditionally and fully - right now and forever more.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts05.html

Most people believe David Hume was atheist, and I'm sure he was atheist to the god of religion (though not the "primary principle" of its belief in God), or man-made gods, but consider these quotes from some of Hume's writtings:

The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind.

(Treatise, 633n)

Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that there, there hath
been Design and Contrivance . . . the same principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect from the Infinite Art and Contrivance which is displayed in the whole fabric of the universe.

(Letters, 25-26)

[Found in Capaldi, see below]

The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . .

Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .

All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is
adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author.

(Natural History of Religion, 1757, ed. H.E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)

I don't know about you, but I see some similarities with what Atwater wrote. I agree with both of them.

This has also been noted of Hume:

Thus we remember Hume for his skepticism about our views on God, our great systems of religious truth, the validity of "objective" ethical systems, even the claims of science to have established an explanation of all life in terms of cause and effect. All this was to Hume mere intellectual humbuggery.

I think you'll look in vain to find Hume positing the view of God Dawkins does, and even Dawkins has said that no one can prove that God does not exist, though he doesn't believe God exists. I heard him say it myself in three recent interviews. So I hold the view nearest to Attwater and Hume.

[_Quantumwave]

Ms. Atwater discusses each of the seven factors separately, substantiating claims from direct quotes from NDEers.

So, given that the above “aftereffects” evidence from the NDEers provides credibility to the claim that what they say happened actually happened, and if one concludes that the NDE phenomena is real, and then projected to validate the afterlife as real, which I believe to be the case, then how does all that imply the existence of “God”? It seems that everyone, religionists and all who believe in an afterlife also believe in some kind of “God”.

I fail to see the connection.

Here is some “straw-man” logic: The afterlife means there is an overall plan, otherwise consciousness would be extinguished along with physical death. An overall plan means some intelligent being had to originate and implement such a plan, ergo, “God!” And, of course, I don’t buy that in the least.

So what are your thoughts regarding the implications of afterlife and "God"?

Hi QW,

Kevin Williams posted this about Attwater on his site, which you may have seen, but I'll re-quote it:

The Realness of God

God is.

God is the one presence, the one power, the one force and source of all. There are no competitors to God, no reality existent outside of God. God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (present everywhere). There is no place where God is not, simply because nothing exists without God.

God is neither a man nor a woman nor a thing.

God is no one's father or mother or benefactor. These terms are used only to help us understand relationships - ours to God - not to establish a more human type of parentage. We use such terms as a matter of convenience or because it is comforting to do so. We call ourselves children of God because we do not know what else to call ourselves, and it seems as good a term as any to use. We are made in the image of God, not in the sense of physical appearance, but with respect to the power of our souls and the potential of our minds. God is the Creator; we are co-creators. It would be more appropriate and more in line with Truth, if we called ourselves extensions of God or, perhaps, thoughts in the Mind of God. It would even be appropriate to use another name for God, like The Force, The One, The All, The Is-ness, The One Mind, The Source, or whatever conveys that sense of deity that is without limitation or boundary, beyond what can be comprehended.

While God is more than any name, protocol, hierarchy, concept, or grandiosity could describe or define; God truly is as near as our next breath - as close as our next thought. We are part of God and existent with God. A belief in separation, that we could possibly exist and have our being apart from God, is the only real sin. This belief is of our own making. God has not decreed separation; this we did ourselves by our own perception that somehow, some way, we could transcend That Which Cannot Be Transcended.

God is not dependent on our belief, for our belief or disbelief in God does not affect God - only us.

God is not a member of any church or religion. It is the churches and the religions that are members within the vastness and the glory that is God. There is no one religion just as there is no "chosen" people or person, nor any single way of regarding what cannot be fully comprehended. We are all "sons" of God in the sense that we are all souls of God's creation, without gender, without form, without nationality, complete and whole and perfect as we explore the never-endingness of God's wonderment. A spark from the essence of All God Is resides in each and every one of us has an unbreakable connection, that thread or cord that ensures we remain a part of That Which We Could Never Leave.

The splendorous joy of recognizing and acknowledging our special-ness, our greatness, as creations of God and as co-creators with God, is akin to being engulfed by overwhelming floodtides of God's Glorious Love......

There is no sense of "crime and punishment" in God's Light, only the clear, complete, and total knowing that you are loved unconditionally and fully - right now and forever more.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts05.html

Most people believe David Hume was atheist, and I'm sure he was atheist to the god of religion (though not the "primary principle" of its belief in God), or man-made gods, but consider these quotes from some of Hume's writtings:

The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind.

(Treatise, 633n)

Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that there, there hath
been Design and Contrivance . . . the same principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect from the Infinite Art and Contrivance which is displayed in the whole fabric of the universe.

(Letters, 25-26)

[Found in Capaldi, see below]

The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . .

Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .

All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is
adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author.

(Natural History of Religion, 1757, ed. H.E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)

I don't know about you, but I see some similarities with what Attwater wrote. I agree with both of them.

This has also been noted of Hume:

Thus we remember Hume for his skepticism about our views on God, our great systems of religious truth, the validity of "objective" ethical systems, even the claims of science to have established an explanation of all life in terms of cause and effect. All this was to Hume mere intellectual humbuggery.

I think you'll look in vain to find Hume positing the view of God Dawkins does, and even Dawkins has said that no one can prove that God does not exist, though he doesn't believe God exists. I heard him say it myself in three recent interviews. So I hold the view nearest to Attwater and Hume.

Hi Ray,

No, I haven't seen that information by Atwater, and I thank you AGAIN for the information. It amazes me that you have such quick and ready access to such pertinent information.

I have, however seen this category of "God" and conclude that what is being described is "Nature". That is, WE are a part of God, along with everything else, and WE and everything else in the universe including the afterlife and "multiverses" are intimately connected. I accept that. This may sound trivial, but what I find unacceptable is the very word, "God". I agree where Dr Atwater says,

It would even be appropriate to use another name for God, like The Force, The One, The All, The Is-ness, The One Mind, The Source, or whatever conveys that sense of deity that is without limitation or boundary, beyond what can be comprehended.

I would use the word "Reality", since to me that says it all. The word "God" carries a lot of baggage, the worst of which is the "guy in the sky" and "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" concepts which are absolute nonsense to me.

However, the information provided by Dr Atwater on the link you gave makes a lot of sense to me. Thank You

[_Ray A]

I would use the word "Reality", since to me that says it all. The word "God" carries a lot of baggage, the worst of which is the "guy in the sky" and "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" concepts which are absolute nonsense to me.

However, the information provided by Dr Atwater on the link you gave makes a lot of sense to me. Thank You

QW, I agree. It does have a lot of baggage. I suppose it's like the word "love". You can make it mean whatever you want.

[_MormonMendacity]

Hi, Quantumwave!

These are interesting posts. I consider myself both a "without god" atheist and skeptical of many claims, but I am glad you started this thread and am finding it very interesting.

I think an afterlife is possible but very low in probability since I don't believe a lot of the claims.

I suppose more important to me than is it possible is how I would go about finding it out...short of dying...which I'm hoping to put off for a few years.

I posted another thread about the Three Witnesses and how eyewitness testimony and memories appear to be highly unreliable and I have come to believe a few things from my investigations.

First, my "knowledge", and I use the word broadly, is the result of a lot of sensory inputs and mental manipulations. Scientists say that my memory is formed in bits and pieces and fades with time. I mentioned in the other thread that I have been reading my missionary journal and either made up a lot of stuff I wrote in there or have made up a lot of memories since then because I am amazed at how different my memory is from what I wrote!

Because of the sensory inputs, mental manipulations and memory capabilities, I am pretty sure that what goes on in our heads is not as reliable as we generally think. We live in a world that really only exists for us because we sense it. The light experiements I did in my physics class are quite different for a blind person to do since the observations are non-existent (I'm thinking they are at least...but judging from my recollections about my mission...maybe I've forgotten them!).

So, since blind people can not perform scientific observations using their eyes, they must develop observations that use other senses or only perform the experiments by theoretical analysis (my apologies to both blind people and scientists if I am mutliating your worlds here.)

After all that rambling, what it means to me is three things:

1. I am going to be challenged to observe (via my senses) any evidence that will hint or prove an afterlife.
2. I am going to be challenged to conclude from any evidence that I am able to sense that there is an afterlife.
3. I don't know what I would do with the knowledge that there is an afterlife (I think this has already been touched upon by others.)

I guess I find myself now very "stuck" on what reality is -- and whether I can get a realistic understanding of it, so a lot of the talk about an afterlife seems to be jumping the gun (except that I am finding the discussion and links very interesting...so thanks to all of you posters!)

I hope I've added to the thread with my comments.

[_Roger Morrison]

Q, you say:

So what are your thoughts regarding the implications of afterlife and "God"?

They are not necessarily codependent.

I notice your "God" is like my "God" :-) in "quotation marks" ? Reason?

You tell me yours an' i'll tell ya mine. Roger

[_Quantumwave]

Hi, Quantumwave!

These are interesting posts. I consider myself both a "without god" atheist and skeptical of many claims, but I am glad you started this thread and am finding it very interesting.

I think an afterlife is possible but very low in probability since I don't believe a lot of the claims.

I suppose more important to me than is it possible is how I would go about finding it out...short of dying...which I'm hoping to put off for a few years.

I posted another thread about the Three Witnesses and how eyewitness testimony and memories appear to be highly unreliable and I have come to believe a few things from my investigations.

First, my "knowledge", and I use the word broadly, is the result of a lot of sensory inputs and mental manipulations. Scientists say that my memory is formed in bits and pieces and fades with time. I mentioned in the other thread that I have been reading my missionary journal and either made up a lot of stuff I wrote in there or have made up a lot of memories since then because I am amazed at how different my memory is from what I wrote!

Because of the sensory inputs, mental manipulations and memory capabilities, I am pretty sure that what goes on in our heads is not as reliable as we generally think. We live in a world that really only exists for us because we sense it. The light experiements I did in my physics class are quite different for a blind person to do since the observations are non-existent (I'm thinking they are at least...but judging from my recollections about my mission...maybe I've forgotten them!).

So, since blind people can not perform scientific observations using their eyes, they must develop observations that use other senses or only perform the experiments by theoretical analysis (my apologies to both blind people and scientists if I am mutliating your worlds here.)

After all that rambling, what it means to me is three things:

1. I am going to be challenged to observe (via my senses) any evidence that will hint or prove an afterlife.
2. I am going to be challenged to conclude from any evidence that I am able to sense that there is an afterlife.
3. I don't know what I would do with the knowledge that there is an afterlife (I think this has already been touched upon by others.)

I guess I find myself now very "stuck" on what reality is -- and whether I can get a realistic understanding of it, so a lot of the talk about an afterlife seems to be jumping the gun (except that I am finding the discussion and links very interesting...so thanks to all of you posters!)

I hope I've added to the thread with my comments.

Hi MM,

What I conclude from your thoughts is that you have yet to detect anything with your 5 senses that would indicate to you that an afterlife exists.

I am in that same situation. I have never seen anyone, previously deceaced walking around, or had conversations with the deceased. My propensity to accept the afterlife hypothesis comes from testimonies of those that claim they have. The reason I tend to believe some of these people is due to the amount of evidence they give, albeit anecdotal, and, as I have stated before the integrity of the people involved makes the evidence compelling.

I don't expect I'll ever have an experience impressed on my own 5 senses, but then I rely on the testimonies of others for most of what I "know".

When the day is done, if my consciousness is extinguished when my physical body expires, I won't care. And as far as I know, that may happen.

[_Quantumwave]

Q, you say:

So what are your thoughts regarding the implications of afterlife and "God"?

They are not necessarily codependent.

I notice your "God" is like my "God" :-) in "quotation marks" ? Reason?

You tell me yours an' i'll tell ya mine. Roger

Hi Roger,

Mine is very simple. I don't believe in "God", and the reason for the quotes is I have found as many definitions of "God" as there are people giving definitions. As I stated in a previous post,

I have, however seen this category of "God" and conclude that what is being described is "Nature". That is, WE are a part of God, along with everything else, and WE and everything else in the universe including the afterlife and "multiverses" are intimately connected. I accept that. This may sound trivial, but what I find unacceptable is the very word, "God". I agree where Dr Atwater says,

It would even be appropriate to use another name for God, like The Force, The One, The All, The Is-ness, The One Mind, The Source, or whatever conveys that sense of deity that is without limitation or boundary, beyond what can be comprehended.

I would use the word "Reality", since to me that says it all. The word "God" carries a lot of baggage, the worst of which is the "guy in the sky" and "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" concepts which are absolute nonsense to me.

But then "Reality" is not really a "God" as most people view the term. I interpret most religionists to veiw "God" as I did, sort of a guy in the sky, as for some time I bought into the anthropomorphic Mormon God living near the star Kolob.

Quantum physicists have a theorem called Bell's theorem which has a mathematical proof which states, "reality is non-local". This is an outgrowth of the Copenhagen Interpretation long championed by Neils Bohr, and a subject of years of debate between Bohr and Albert Einstein.

Does Bell's theorem have anything to do with the afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. What it does is provide scientific evidence that there is a lot more to reality than we perceive with our five senses.

[_Ray A]

Here is a clip of a lady who had an NDE. Make your own judgement. Go to this site: http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5646116

And click on to the story near the top left: "Back From The Dead: Woman Says She Visited Heaven's Doorstep."

[_Quantumwave]

Here is a clip of a lady who had an NDE. Make your own judgement. Go to this site: http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5646116

And click on to the story near the top left: "Back From The Dead: Woman Says She Visited Heaven's Doorstep."

This seems to be a good example of many NDE accounts...the tunnel, light, feelings of intense love and such.

Three things in the description I found interesting are the door, the vivid colors and the extreme reluctance to come back. The door, which she said she "knew" if she passed through, she could not return is an event some of the accounts I have read also experienced. It was not always a door, but something symbolic of "passing" through or over. To me, this is not something one would come up with if they were simply hallucinating. The vivid, or vibrant colors is charactristic of many of the reports. This could be drug-induced, but her memory was so clear, it all but eliminates the possibility she was drug-induced. The extreme reluctance to come back due to the intense feeling of love is another characteristic of many NDE reports. This is interesting since other than NDE reports of afterlife conditions include this same concept of intense love.

That's "my own judgement".

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

When I die and come back I will post my experiences to you all so you know my opinion because you
will know it is my opinion and nothing more

I will also brings gifts back for each one of you

I am taking requests what would you all like

I am bringing back really really good music. not hate music