Scientiifc Proof of Survival After Death - Page 3

bunny · #21 10-10-2007, 09:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While the thesis is likely untrue, I'd like to hear you refute it. No offense, but points 1 and 2 sound like ad hominem to this layperson.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think one of the best refutations is that they havent clearly articulated what their thesis is. The closest is "we live on after we die" which they claim hard evidence for based on "complicated equations" (although curiously, they later claim it can be understood by anyone with 6th grade maths).

If they are just saying "I believe in life-after-death as well" then it is just a statement about them. If they want to be taken seriously based on evidence or a theory they have then they need to present that evidence or theory. Instead, they spend most of the site writing about alternately how they're ideas have been suppressed by the scientific establishment and then listing reputable scientists who supposedly agree with them.

The only thing to refute is that, contrary to popular prejudice, science doesnt have an agenda to preserve the status quo. If there is hard data contradicting scientific theories that is relished - it's an opportunity for research and an increase in understanding. It is the non-scientific disciplines which resent challenges to their authority.

MaxWeiss · #22 10-10-2007, 09:25 PM

1. It kept going on about the suppression of the experiment which proved dead people who had once lived came back, without citing any of the study itself. There were all these great quotes about proper science, and then they threw in this thing in the middle of it and did not back it up--or even relate it to all the great science quotes which were arbitrarily surrounding it.

2. Similar to #1, they never mention ways in which an experiment like that could be done. What were the repeatable experiments?? What was the hypothesis and how did they test for it?? What controls were used to ensure it was not a trick???? The only way to confirm a dead person coming back is for said person to cite knowledge about their life currently unknown AND unknowable until some time in the future when it can be known. For example person A puts something in a safe, known only to person A, the safe is on watch 24 hours by 100% trustworthy people, person A dies, comes back and tells us of its contents, and then we verify. Obviously, many steps to ensure the integrity of the experiment must be taken, but it is possible to test.

If you can find me these studies (try starting at the links on the bottom of the page your provided, which I have not bothered looking at), studies which are properly conducted and which show some kind of evidence of people coming back, I will certainly take the idea more seriously.

I feel no need to cite studies which contradict your claim, since the statement that there is life after death (and that it has been proven) must be backed up first (because my claim cannot be proven 100% true but only increases in likelihood every moment you do not present evidence to me and would easily be falsified by your evidence).

onesandzeros · #23 10-10-2007, 09:52 PM

It appears that most didn't read the article, let alone with an open mind. The point to this article isn't life after death.

JayTee · #24 10-10-2007, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that most didn't read the article, let alone with an open mind. The point to this article isn't life after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Open your mind but not so wide that your brain falls out". - Richard Dawkins

onesandzeros · #25 10-10-2007, 10:10 PM

"The great strength of the powerful materialists who control orthodox scientific thinking is that they are banking on the fact that most people are not making an effort to understand even basic subatomic physics. Even a cursory glance at the subject shows that the physical universe is being produced from the invisible - the etheric universe."

Now let me ask those of you who have posted, do you have any knowledge of subatomic physics?

Look forward to the responses...

bunny · #26 10-10-2007, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that most didn't read the article, let alone with an open mind. The point to this article isn't life after death.

[/ QUOTE ]
What was the point? I read a large part of the site and it seemed to be very focussed on their evidence or proof for survival after death.

foal · #27 10-10-2007, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The point to this article isn't life after death.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the title of the thread was a cheap ploy to get us to read that article? That's worse than a rickroll.

onesandzeros · #28 10-10-2007, 10:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Open your mind but not so wide that your brain falls out". - Richard Dawkins

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins must not have been informed that "mind" doesn't know "not".

onesandzeros · #29 10-10-2007, 10:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point to this article isn't life after death.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the title of the thread was a cheap ploy to get us to read that article? That's worse than a rickroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

The name of the thread title is the same as the title of the article.

onesandzeros · #30 10-10-2007, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears that most didn't read the article, let alone with an open mind. The point to this article isn't life after death.

[/ QUOTE ]
What was the point? I read a large part of the site and it seemed to be very focussed on their evidence or proof for survival after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "proof" is in subatomic physics. The point is that energy (and we are pure energy) can't be "created" nor "destroyed". It always has been and always will be. It can only change form (vibration, frequency). Death is nothing more then the end of our experience in this 3rd dimension. Our frequency and vibration changes.