Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Sid Belzberg]

From Quora Digest:


Barry Goldberg
·
Author of the "Common Sense Atheism" series of books Updated Apr 12


Is there any scientific proof that after life, there is no heaven or hell?
Well, yes. In fact, there is a simple and blindingly-obvious proof, but it’s not the sort of proof that many people are willing to accept since it conflicts with their childhood indoctrination and/or conflicts with what they really, really want to be true.

Before I present the proof, however, there are two important things that you need to keep in mind:

1. The complete and utter lack of any consistent, objective evidence for an afterlife is, in and of itself, evidence against an afterlife. Not proof mind, you, but certainly evidence.
2. Seriously, if you don’t have any good evidence for an afterlife in the first place, why would it matter if nobody can prove that there isn’t an afterlife? At best, asking somebody to provide evidence that an afterlife doesn’t exist is an admission that you don’t have any evidence to support your belief in an afterlife in the first place and are relying entirely on wishful thinking.

Still with me? All right, here is your proof:

1. In order for there to be an afterlife, our consciousness must be capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies (call it a “soul” or a “spirit” or what have you).
2. And if our consciousness is capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies, it can’t be generated by or produced by or be wholly dependent on our physical bodies (and certainly not by any one particular part of our bodies). We should, for example, be able to damage or even replace a toe or an arm or a lung or a heart and not have our consciousness be affected (assuming we don’t die in the process).
3. And this is generally what we find to be the case, with one glaring exception — our brains. Every other part of our body can be damaged or even replaced without our consciousness being affected, but not our brain. If our brains are damaged, our entire personality can change. We become, in effect, completely different persons. And, while practically any organ in the body can be replaced without changing who we are (they can even transplant faces now), does anybody imagine that if it were possible to receive a brain transplant that our consciousness with the new brain would match that of the previous brain?
4. Therefore, since it appears that our consciousness is inextricably and indelibly linked to our physical brains, that would indicate that our consciousness cannot exist independent of our bodies and therefore cannot survive the death of our bodies. And if our consciousnesses cannot exist without our bodies, then there cannot be any such thing as an “afterlife.” Q.E.D.

And, there you go! What further proof could you possibly want?

OK, OK, so maybe this isn’t an absolute proof that there is no such thing as an afterlife. After all, I suppose one could come up with all sorts of ridiculous hypotheticals to explain the known facts while still preserving the possibility of an afterlife, such as, oh, I dunno, that our brains are just “receivers” for our consciousness that is being broadcast from some other dimensional plane (whatever the heck that means) and brain damage is like what happens when a radio has a damaged antenna and the signal gets all static-y or something. Or maybe there exists some sort of all-powerful “immaterial pure spirit” (whatever the heck that actually means) that somehow exists “outside of time and space” (whatever the heck that actually means) that for some unknown reason wants to make it seem as though our brains create our consciousness for reasons of its own. You get the idea. But the thing is, if you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to provide for the mere possibility of an afterlife, you’ve already abandoned rationality to such extent that you might as well just throw in the towel and admit defeat anyway.

What Barry Goldberg is not aware of is that the scientific phenomenon of 'entanglement' does raise the possibility of life after death!

Based on recent research into quantum evolution and information patterns, we can consider a more scientifically grounded perspective on consciousness beyond physical death, distinct from traditional religious concepts.

Our work demonstrating deterministic quantum evolution suggests that complex information patterns can emerge and evolve at the quantum level, independent of classical physical structures. Just as we've shown a 67% improvement in quantum algorithms through parameter optimization, we've proven that quantum systems can develop sophisticated organizational patterns that aren't directly observable but have measurable effects.

Think of consciousness like an evolved quantum information pattern, similar to how complex crystalline structures emerge in nature. While we can't "see" subatomic particles, we know they're real physical phenomena. Similarly, consciousness might exist as an organized quantum pattern that interfaces with, but isn't dependent on, the physical brain - much like how modern AI systems could eventually evolve beyond needing keyboards and screens for interface.

Our research shows that quantum states evolve deterministically (respecting special relativity) rather than through mysterious "instant collapse." This suggests consciousness could be more like an evolved quantum structure that uses the brain for interaction with the classical world, rather than being generated by the brain itself.

While this doesn't prove traditional concepts of afterlife, it opens the possibility that consciousness, as an evolved quantum information pattern, might persist independently of biological structures. The brain might be more analogous to an I/O device than the source of consciousness itself.

This isn't mystical - it's based on empirical evidence of quantum evolution, demonstrated through reproducible experiments. Just as subatomic particles are real but not easily observable, consciousness might exist as a genuine physical phenomenon at the quantum level.

Important caveats: This is early theoretical work based on quantum evolution evidence. While it suggests interesting possibilities about consciousness's quantum nature, we need much more research. However, unlike traditional afterlife concepts, this framework is grounded in physical principles and reproducible experimental evidence soon to be published.

We can be cautiously optimistic that consciousness might be more fundamental than previously thought - not supernatural, but natural at a quantum level.

[Pargat Perrer]

From Quora Digest:


Barry Goldberg
·
Author of the "Common Sense Atheism" series of books Updated Apr 12
....

1. In order for there to be an afterlife, our consciousness must be capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies (call it a “soul” or a “spirit” or what have you).
2. And if our consciousness is capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies, it can’t be generated by or produced by or be wholly dependent on our physical bodies (and certainly not by any one particular part of our bodies).

....

The logical error is to think that consciousness (the soul) is "wholly dependent on" the brain for survival.

What is the case is that the consciousness / soul needs the brain and body to interface to this physical realm. Without the functioning brain, the soul evacuates and survives 100%, but cannot interface to the physical realm. This is the message of thousands of NDEs, that at some point the soul leaves the body and in most cases stays around for a while, looking down at the scene of the body's demise. The evacuated soul can see and hear everything that is happening, but cannot be detected, seen, or heard by anyone in the physical realm. It must re-enter the body to be able once again to interface to the physical, and for that to happen, the brain must be brought back to life, as happened to Dr. Eben Alexander and many thousands of others.

[Dilip Panjwani]

From Quora Digest:


Barry Goldberg
·
Author of the "Common Sense Atheism" series of books Updated Apr 12


Is there any scientific proof that after life, there is no heaven or hell?
Well, yes. In fact, there is a simple and blindingly-obvious proof, but it’s not the sort of proof that many people are willing to accept since it conflicts with their childhood indoctrination and/or conflicts with what they really, really want to be true.

Before I present the proof, however, there are two important things that you need to keep in mind:

1. The complete and utter lack of any consistent, objective evidence for an afterlife is, in and of itself, evidence against an afterlife. Not proof mind, you, but certainly evidence.
2. Seriously, if you don’t have any good evidence for an afterlife in the first place, why would it matter if nobody can prove that there isn’t an afterlife? At best, asking somebody to provide evidence that an afterlife doesn’t exist is an admission that you don’t have any evidence to support your belief in an afterlife in the first place and are relying entirely on wishful thinking.

Still with me? All right, here is your proof:

1. In order for there to be an afterlife, our consciousness must be capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies (call it a “soul” or a “spirit” or what have you).
2. And if our consciousness is capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies, it can’t be generated by or produced by or be wholly dependent on our physical bodies (and certainly not by any one particular part of our bodies). We should, for example, be able to damage or even replace a toe or an arm or a lung or a heart and not have our consciousness be affected (assuming we don’t die in the process).
3. And this is generally what we find to be the case, with one glaring exception — our brains. Every other part of our body can be damaged or even replaced without our consciousness being affected, but not our brain. If our brains are damaged, our entire personality can change. We become, in effect, completely different persons. And, while practically any organ in the body can be replaced without changing who we are (they can even transplant faces now), does anybody imagine that if it were possible to receive a brain transplant that our consciousness with the new brain would match that of the previous brain?
4. Therefore, since it appears that our consciousness is inextricably and indelibly linked to our physical brains, that would indicate that our consciousness cannot exist independent of our bodies and therefore cannot survive the death of our bodies. And if our consciousnesses cannot exist without our bodies, then there cannot be any such thing as an “afterlife.” Q.E.D.

And, there you go! What further proof could you possibly want?

OK, OK, so maybe this isn’t an absolute proof that there is no such thing as an afterlife. After all, I suppose one could come up with all sorts of ridiculous hypotheticals to explain the known facts while still preserving the possibility of an afterlife, such as, oh, I dunno, that our brains are just “receivers” for our consciousness that is being broadcast from some other dimensional plane (whatever the heck that means) and brain damage is like what happens when a radio has a damaged antenna and the signal gets all static-y or something. Or maybe there exists some sort of all-powerful “immaterial pure spirit” (whatever the heck that actually means) that somehow exists “outside of time and space” (whatever the heck that actually means) that for some unknown reason wants to make it seem as though our brains create our consciousness for reasons of its own. You get the idea. But the thing is, if you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to provide for the mere possibility of an afterlife, you’ve already abandoned rationality to such extent that you might as well just throw in the towel and admit defeat anyway.

What Barry Goldberg is not aware of is that the scientific phenomenon of 'entanglement' does raise the possibility of life after death!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Pargat:

Nice post with greater elaboration.....there are a number of your statements that I agree with.......I'll specify, since I fundamentally don't accept your "Soul Plan/Suffering" Theology, but wish to get your package right.

I'm playing a weekend chess tournament this weekend, out of Toronto.

I'll respond some time next week.......I find our discussion of your theology most interesting......from lack of comments, except Dilip's somewhat rote atheist responses, though, I'm not sure any other CT'ers care....there comes hence only "crickets" (= silence).

Bob A (Theist)

Bob,
For you, truth lies only in theism, which itself is based on 'dogmatic faith' in blind assumptions... hence your search is doomed from the start.
May you someday realize this and get closer to Truth...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Nice post with greater elaboration.....there are a number of your statements that I agree with.......I'll specify, since I fundamentally don't accept your "Soul Plan/Suffering" Theology, but wish to get your package right.

I'm playing a weekend chess tournament this weekend, out of Toronto.

I'll respond some time next week.......I find our discussion of your theology most interesting......from lack of comments, except Dilip's somewhat rote atheist responses, though, I'm not sure any other CT'ers care....there comes hence only "crickets" (= silence).

Bob A (Theist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Well, Bob A,
As has been said, though God may not exist, as far as you or me can confidently say, he needs to be invented for those of us who need to cling onto something promising us heavenly bliss, in order to live a contended life. But like opium, this leads to addiction, as we see in various faith-based fanaticisms, and history is full of examples of the harm thereby caused...

Rather than needing God to cling onto, we need God to rationalize the existence of evil. Even in the book of Genesis, the forbidden fruit came from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The animal kingdom doesn't know anything about good and evil. Only humans know of it.

What you attribute to addiction is actually coming from dogma. When a religion starts making God to be like humans in having jealousy and wrath and choosing one people over all others dividing humanity into those favored by God and those not favored by God, that religion deviates from the truth and becomes dogmatic. Since many religions do this, it is inevitable that they clash with each other in wars and crusades.

[Pargat Perrer]

The Non-Material, Spiritual Realm of Existence

Description

....

Source

....
c. Life IS suffering, though we are entitled to our moments of joy and happiness. It seems to me that this as a total plan (All is over when we die) seems flawed. It seems somewhat limited to create intelligent and emotive individuals, who's full reality is that they suffer more than be happy. The Creator is all-loving and omnipotent. It seems that a plan more consistent with His/Her/Its Being would be one where the Created at some point, at least experience more happiness than suffering. This leads to there being an evolution of the human being from this life, to a "better one".
....
Bob A (Theist)

Thank you Bob A. for that very well-written post. I have only included in this reply what I consider the most important part to talk with you about. Keep in mind I have no goal of "converting" anyone to my way of thinking, and I do not believe any of us get "brownie points" from God for convincing anyone to believe in the Soul Plan "theology" ... just wanted to make that very clear. There may be many aspects of the Soul Plan that I do not even have straight myself ... the part about the Hitlers, Stalins etc. is something I added myself, as a way of rationalizing why a soul would feel the need to concoct such life plans.

Now about your point (c) above under your Source section...

Nobody's full reality is that they suffer more than they be happy ... in the overall scheme of things. You have to put Earth suffering in total context: even if you live a 100-year life on Earth, it is NOTHING compared to eternity on the Other Side.

Earth suffering is actually a GIFT. Often (I have read in many Soul Plan books) when a soul is planning it's next incarnation on Earth, they feel they can endure and survive maximum suffering. The eternal soul knows it is invincible, created to endure forever.

There is a council of "Elders" who must approve a Soul Plan before it is allowed to go ahead ... and almost always, they reject the first draft as too ambitious. "You are sure to end this life plan early via suicide" is the usual reason. "It must be scaled back."

Suicide is the worst result of an incarnation, as it always is a failure to accomplish the objective. And in fact, many suicides will have the returning soul are encouraged to plan another life similar to the one they just tried, but less ambitious, in order to complete their objective. But it should be noted that no suicide is a complete and total loss, i.e. a disaster. Even though it is desired to avoid all suicides, no suicide can break down the overall plans of the Creator in its creation of this physical realm. In other words, all suicides can be integrated and adjusted for.

So Bob you should see Earth suffering as a gift from the Creator. Yes, you as a soul could stay in the spiritual realm, never incarnating, and always enjoying bliss ... but only via suffering do you really UNDERSTAND the bliss. If all you ever knew was sunny weather, every single day, you would never understand a rainy day. This is why souls incarnate, to more fully understand the many gifts of the eternal life in spirit.

I again use the University example ... our motivation on Earth to go through the difficulty of a 4year University program is that we will get better jobs and opportunities afterwards. In the spirit realm, the motivation to incarnate is that we will far better understand all the wonderful things that we have been given by the Creator. Most souls WANT to do that.


and for the Creator ... this part is my own interpretation. Yes, I suppose the Creator, being of infinite power and creativity, could have existed alone and merely imagined all the gazillions of lifetimes that his various creations would live ...

but I liken this to someone having every DVD that will ever exist, and watching them all endlessly ... but knowing that all the characters they are seeing do not really exist, are figments of imagination. Shut off the DVD player, and you are once again all alone as you were the entire time.

The Creator is powered by love and doesn't WANT to be alone. So rather than imagine all these lifetimes, he actually CREATES the souls and allows them to LIVE the lifetimes and add their total experiences to the record ... I think it is called the "Akashic Record" or something like that, I may have the spelling wrong. But no soul is REQUIRED to incarnate ... the Creator is so loving that he makes this a choice of free will.

And this ties in perfectly with the notion of Infinity. If the Creator is truly infinity (imo), then s/he must be always learning. Infinity is never a static value. It is always, forever, growing.

To say as some do that the Creator already knows all, exists outside of time, is to misunderstand the nature of infinity. Like fractals, they can zoom in or zoom out eternally, without end and without ever repeating or cycling.

And since the Creator, being infinite, must always be learning more and more and more, we his/her Creations are his/her agents of learning, We will continue to exist and to incarnate endlessly into the future, although I am not clear on whether the Creator is endlessly creating more souls. Given the theories of the multi-verse, I tend to think souls are endlessly being added.

Further ... no created soul aspires to become as all-powerful as the Creator. Here on Earth, dogs love being dogs and being loved by their human master. No dog has ambitions to become human and be as powerful as its Master. Similarly, we souls are totally content (once in the spirit realm) to always be souls and to never have the infinite power and creativity of the Creator. Although I believe we can access the Akashic Records, we know we can never know everything in the way the Creator does .. and we are content with that. We are totally 100% happy to be souls.

Thus the concept of "fallen Angels" led by Lucifer, an Angel who aspires to be God, is total fiction. Likewise the idea of Hell, which was taken by Roman Catholic Christianity from other, older religions, incorporated in order to better control the masses and make them obedient and fearful.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Well, Bob A,
As has been said, though God may not exist, as far as you or me can confidently say, he needs to be invented for those of us who need to cling onto something promising us heavenly bliss, in order to live a contented life. But like opium, this leads to addiction, as we see in various faith-based fanaticisms, and history is full of examples of the harm thereby caused...

[Bob Armstrong]

The Non-Material, Spiritual Realm of Existence

Description

I hold it to be a fact of being......it exists......."being" can be either material, spiritual, or can being can exist in a partnership of the two modes (Human: the vitality of a Spirit with the life force of an avatar).

I am at a loss as to the nature of this realm. I have not yet found sufficient evidence of various descriptions available to be convinced of their veracity.

For example - the alleged spiritual realms of heaven, purgatory and hell.......I am not sure of their factual 'being".

My Statement: When the avatar (material) can no longer support life, then the Spirit (Non-material) is freed-up to go through the door that appears before it into this spiritual realm.

I am very uncertain of what is on the other side of the door when the Spirit goes through. These are my strongest thoughts:

a. There will exist there with the new Spirit, other Spirits, and the Supra-Natural Creator.
b. There will be interlocking relationships between these spirits which will be joyful. As well there will be a relationship between the Creator and the Created, with love coursing in both directions.
c. I am very unsure of the allegation that this spiritual realm is multi-faceted, having a realm of eternal suffering (Hell), temporary purification suffering (Purgatory) on the way to Heaven, as well as the realm of eternal peace and happiness (Heaven). I do not use the term "Heaven" for my spiritual realm, because it is intimately tied religiously into the existence of a Hell, and maybe a Purgatory. To avoid confusion that arises from all the baggage that comes along with "Heaven", I refuse to label my spiritual realm with any traditional concepts/language.

This is what I am able to verify - simple and minimalist.

Source

a. According to a world survey I once saw, 80% of humans believe that the Supra-Natural exists in as a non-material, spiritual Being of some type. I do not believe, we as a species, are delusional.
b. I do not have a problem with the fact that scientific instruments, that measure material reality, have not been able to measure in any way spiritual reality. Of course it can't.
c. Life IS suffering, though we are entitled to our moments of joy and happiness. It seems to me that this as a total plan (All is over when we die) seems flawed. It seems somewhat limited to create intelligent and emotive individuals, who's full reality is that they suffer more than be happy. The Creator is all-loving and omnipotent. It seems that a plan more consistent with His/Her/Its Being would be one where the Created at some point, at least experience more happiness than suffering. This leads to there being an evolution of the human being from this life, to a "better one".
d. Anecdotally, there is the testimony of individuals claiming NDE experience of some transition, temporarily, into some actual non-material realm (Which they claim is not dying-related hallucination). Like for UAP's/UFO's, myriad's of ordinary people testimonials cannot just be dismissed as "mass hallucination".

Bob A (Theist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Thanks for the link, Dilip.

It seems there is enough going on in the NDE area to keep it in the limelight, and to have those alleging observations/insight while on the other side to be not only accurately recounting their observations/experience, but describing some factual, non-material, spiritual REALITY.

I would like to be clear that I, personally, am non-committal about NDE.

But I firmly accept, based on what I call my circumstantial evidence, that there is a factual, non-material, spiritual existence for Spirits after "death", and this Spirit joins a realm of existence with other Spirits and the Supra-Natural.

It is interesting in terms of statistics, that in the last world survey I saw, when humans were asked if there was a non-material, spiritual force (That I call the Supra-Natural) that created all, 80 % of those surveyed said "Yes".

The answer to this of atheists is that it is a fantasy from earliest times of humans, and evolution to correct and eliminate it has been very slow. The majority of mankind is just not very discerning.

This answer I find very unsatisfying, as well as elitist, and dismissive of a huge majority concurrence on a "fact" with respect to "being".

Bob A (Theist)

Bob, very interesting ... do you have any way of describing this "realm of existence with other spirits and the Supra-Natural" ? and maybe would you disclose your sources (you can pm me if you do not want to post that here, and if you do pm me, I will keep it private).

[Pargat Perrer]

Hey Mr. Theist,
Why has someone from this almost half a century old group, or anyone who has himself experienced or knows someone who has very recently (and hence verifiably) experienced NDE, not claimed 'The Amazing Randi's prize' for proof of any supernatural phenomenon? Randi offered it for decades, the amount of the prize increasing over the years. Randi retired, but his organization chose to keep the challenge available: The James Randi Educational Foundation - http://web.randi.org/ .
And it had not been difficult to claim it: they would just have had to demonstrate that anything objectively mystical they have said about NDE (and a lot of such stuff was mentioned in the link you provided) is factual and not made-up... The purely subjective aspects of NDE can be scientifically explained by hallucinations (or lying), and the link you provided tries to fraudulently explain that they cannot be due to hallucinations.
Not a single person has ever been able to win this prize by proving anything supernatural !! They may have discontinued this prize after having proven their point. Says a lot about the blind faith claims which have existed around us for centuries, doesn't it?

This challenge had absolutely NOTHING to do with NDEs. It had to do with psychic predictions and powers. The two are not related at all.

In fact, I would submit that in this world, just as we cannot remember where we came from (our eternal home) nor why we are here, we cannot also prove any psychic powers to a scientific degree. That is consistent, that we must always have doubts about the spiritual realm while we are here on Earth. It again gets to the aspect of faith -- but unlike Christianity, faith is NOT a prerequisite in order to be admitted "through the Pearly Gates" LOL

Faith is ONLY pertinent to our time on Earth. NDEs represent our best evidence of our true nature and existence ... but absolute 100% concrete proof of that is not in keeping with why this physical realm was brought into existence. THIS PHYSICAL REALM MUST ALWAYS DENY US CONCRETE PROOF OF OUR TRUE NATURE AS SPIRUTUAL BEINGS. We must resort to faith while here on Earth.

One of the great quotations of the Bible ... "let those with eyes to see and ears to hear" .... which those of Dilip's materialist ilk cannot ever hope to achieve .....because they think physical eyes and physical ears ... they don't understand the context of that quote ....

VERY FEW have the eyes to see and the ears to hear .... that was part of the message of that quote. I think those that do have these special eyes and ears are part of a small minority of souls that are allowed special experiences and abilities in order to give the rest of us help in our life plans.

[Bob Armstrong]

Thanks for the link, Dilip.

It seems there is enough going on in the NDE area to keep it in the limelight, and to have those alleging observations/insight while on the other side to be not only accurately recounting their observations/experience, but describing some factual, non-material, spiritual REALITY.

I would like to be clear that I, personally, am non-committal about NDE.

But I firmly accept, based on what I call my circumstantial evidence, that there is a factual, non-material, spiritual existence for Spirits after "death", and this Spirit joins a realm of existence with other Spirits and the Supra-Natural.

It is interesting in terms of statistics, that in the last world survey I saw, when humans were asked if there was a non-material, spiritual force (That I call the Supra-Natural) that created all, 80 % of those surveyed said "Yes".

The answer to this of atheists is that it is a fantasy from earliest times of humans, and evolution to correct and eliminate it has been very slow. The majority of mankind is just not very discerning.

This answer I find very unsatisfying, as well as elitist, and dismissive of a huge majority concurrence on a "fact" with respect to "being".

Bob A (Theist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

NDE (Near Death Experience)

"In 1978, five independent medical doctors and scientists—John Audette, who has a master of science degree; Dr. Bruce Greyson; Dr. Raymond Moody; Ken Ring, who has a doctorate in social psychology; and Dr. Michael Sabom—co-established the International Association for Near-Death Studies, paving the way for exploring these extraordinary experiences through scientific lenses.

People who reported near-death experiences were often dismissed by the scientific community as delusional or religiously influenced until a significant shift in perspective over the past few decades."

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health...KETnjTk3YZM%3D

Bob A (Theist)

Hey Mr. Theist,
Why has someone from this almost half a century old group, or anyone who has himself experienced or knows someone who has very recently (and hence verifiably) experienced NDE, not claimed 'The Amazing Randi's prize' for proof of any supernatural phenomenon? Randi offered it for decades, the amount of the prize increasing over the years. Randi retired, but his organization chose to keep the challenge available: The James Randi Educational Foundation - http://web.randi.org/ .
And it had not been difficult to claim it: they would just have had to demonstrate that anything objectively mystical they have said about NDE (and a lot of such stuff was mentioned in the link you provided) is factual and not made-up... The purely subjective aspects of NDE can be scientifically explained by hallucinations (or lying), and the link you provided tries to fraudulently explain that they cannot be due to hallucinations.
Not a single person has ever been able to win this prize by proving anything supernatural !! They may have discontinued this prize after having proven their point. Says a lot about the blind faith claims which have existed around us for centuries, doesn't it?

[Bob Armstrong]

NDE (Near Death Experience)

"In 1978, five independent medical doctors and scientists—John Audette, who has a master of science degree; Dr. Bruce Greyson; Dr. Raymond Moody; Ken Ring, who has a doctorate in social psychology; and Dr. Michael Sabom—co-established the International Association for Near-Death Studies, paving the way for exploring these extraordinary experiences through scientific lenses.

People who reported near-death experiences were often dismissed by the scientific community as delusional or religiously influenced until a significant shift in perspective over the past few decades."

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health...KETnjTk3YZM%3D

Bob A (Theist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Dilip:

I am trying to sort out what I would call your "Atheism" (Correct me if I am mislabelling your belief system) from your post # 193 above (24/10/17):

Atheism

1. The existing mass and energy itself of the multi-verse has always existed in some form or the other (There is no God/Creator).

2. There are no immaterial Spirits/Souls (Based on the findings of science).

3. If there were a Creator, for S/He/It to have created immaterial souls to offer these souls suffering in a material world for their own spiritual advancement (The Soul Plan/Suffering Theology), would be cruel. But both are false.

4. This alleged Creator postulated by The Soul Plan/Suffering Theology has created "chaos" since the elements are:

a. Suffering by material disintegration;

b. Suffering in needing certain elements to sustain life;

c. Suffering by needing to provide ourselves that which meets Maslow's basic needs;

d. Suffering by having “wants” beyond basic needs, which we try to acquire.

e. Suffering due to certain individuals in society pursuing lives of pure evil.

5. Death is the simple end of life and needs. There is no evolution to some “Spiritual Realm”.


[Compiled from comments on ChessTalk by Dilip Panjwani (24/10/17); formal approval by Dilip is pending.]

Let me know where I may have gotten it wrong.....I've inserted a few elements that seem to me required to make your system seamless, but have used some of your words verbatim.

I'd be interested in what other CT'ers think of this as a "Life Explanation"!

Bob A

I have to respond to this because you are referring to Dilip's comments about the Soul Plan theology, if we can call it a theology.

re:
"3. If there were a Creator, for S/He/It to have created immaterial souls to offer these souls suffering in a material world for their own spiritual advancement (The Soul Plan/Suffering Theology), would be cruel."

This is the opinion of someone who does not understand. First, the Creator does not ORDER anyone to suffer on Earth.

But far more important, the suffering is necessary for advancement in the spiritual realm and all the souls in that realm KNOW AND REALIZE THIS. That is why so many -- over 8 billion now -- have chosen to come here and suffer.

It would be like saying that choosing 4 years of University -- having to juggle classes with part-time work and having to study hard and write exams -- is subjecting ourselves to cruelty. Most who choose to go to University do so with a sense of excitement, not a foreboding of cruel treatmen, although we anticipate it will be difficult going.

This also addresses point 4. The suffering is something we must endure to understand and advance ... and our Creator is generous, providing Earth with many ingredients to make our task easier ... ingredients like music, art, literature, social life ... things we can use to better handle the suffering.

Dilip is not capable of this kind of understanding. He is going through life with blinders on. But ... this is ok. It is his chosen path and he is at a different level than anyone else, we are all at different levels and no one is better or worse than another. For some reason, I feel it necessary to respond to his simplistic and unworkable notions of political Libertarianism; we must have pre-arranged this back and forth on the other side while planning our incarnations.