Scientiifc Proof of Survival After Death

[tame_deuces]

Did you really just debate against an argument saying we stop existing when our bodies are no more, by claiming that 500B.C and before some people believed we existed before we were born?

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a process. The process takes place in a medium of matter and energy. When the process stops, I die. Matter and energy still exist, unaffected, but my existence is no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this "process" or consciousness is invisible. We are only visible because of our dimension and because of light. Our residual self image is projected from the invisible through our DNA, which is a low emitting laser into what we "see" as visible and experience with our 5 programmed senses.

Makes sense why even a particle not seen by eye holds "us".

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you really just debate against an argument saying we stop existing when our bodies are no more, by claiming that 500B.C and before some people believed we existed before we were born?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll paraphrase my previous posts. If the present scientific thinking remains predominant then one can only come to the conclusion of annihilation at death, never to return.This is not because the thinking is correct but because it contains within itself its own destruction: this destruction is that man is only matter;SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM.Skirting the issue via energy is removing the issue to another site but its still the same. You cannot explain life via the nebulous concepts of modern science, nor should you attempt to do so.It's the SCIENCE OF EARTHLY DEATH(MATERIAL DEGENERATION) not life.

Back to the 500 B.C. and Aristotle. Man has not and will not always be the same throughout ages. Also, because Man thought differently 3000 years ago does justify seeing them as practicing child-like foolishness. Throughout the ancient world the knowledge of reincarnation and karma, body ,soul, spirit was appreciated through imaginative(picture) thinking. The intellect and its offspring(logic,rationality) was just beginning(Aristotle-Logic). The consequences of this "new thought" was the gradual loss of the previously predominant atavistic clairvoyant consciousness. The intellect, at present, is unable to enter these realms but in no way does that make the intellect the final judge of these matters. Of course, if a man only uses the intellect he can be absolutely right in his world but definitely wrong . Tantamount to living in a box or better yet the cave of Plato.Really not a criticism, the intellect is a gift to mankind in which he obtains a sense of self which is that ego referred to previously. But the ego if too self centered dives into destructive tendencies and in this we have egocentricity. If Man enters into the selfless realm the ego ameliorates and in this Man grows while developing his ego.

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a process. The process takes place in a medium of matter and energy. When the process stops, I die. Matter and energy still exist, unaffected, but my existence is no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this "process" or consciousness is invisible. We are only visible because of our dimension and because of light. Our residual self image is projected from the invisible through our DNA, which is a low emitting laser into what we "see" as visible and experience with our 5 programmed senses.

Makes sense why even a particle not seen by eye holds "us".

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you've gotta be just messing with us.

P.S.
The Matrix has you.

[billygrippo]

lol at these type of threads

OP,

we have more than 5 senses. we have like 23 or something, DUCY?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you really just debate against an argument saying we stop existing when our bodies are no more, by claiming that 500B.C and before some people believed we existed before we were born?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll paraphrase my previous posts. If the present scientific thinking remains predominant then one can only come to the conclusion of annihilation at death, never to return.This is not because the thinking is correct but because it contains within itself its own destruction: this destruction is that man is only matter;SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM.Skirting the issue via energy is removing the issue to another site but its still the same. You cannot explain life via the nebulous concepts of modern science, nor should you attempt to do so.It's the SCIENCE OF EARTHLY DEATH(MATERIAL DEGENERATION) not life.

Back to the 500 B.C. and Aristotle. Man has not and will not always be the same throughout ages. Also, because Man thought differently 3000 years ago does justify seeing them as practicing child-like foolishness. Throughout the ancient world the knowledge of reincarnation and karma, body ,soul, spirit was appreciated through imaginative(picture) thinking. The intellect and its offspring(logic,rationality) was just beginning(Aristotle-Logic). The consequences of this "new thought" was the gradual loss of the previously predominant atavistic clairvoyant consciousness. The intellect, at present, is unable to enter these realms but in no way does that make the intellect the final judge of these matters. Of course, if a man only uses the intellect he can be absolutely right in his world but definitely wrong . Tantamount to living in a box or better yet the cave of Plato.Really not a criticism, the intellect is a gift to mankind in which he obtains a sense of self which is that ego referred to previously. But the ego if too self centered dives into destructive tendencies and in this we have egocentricity. If Man enters into the selfless realm the ego ameliorates and in this Man grows while developing his ego.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying the birth of modern logic killed of the human ability to be something non-material outside one's own body/avatar?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
As a lecture, considering the need/desire for the afterlife as considered by modern man this concept appeals to his egocentric nature and the religious denominations appeal to this egocentricity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think that this is sentence makes any sense whatsoever?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying the birth of modern logic killed of the human ability to be something non-material outside one's own body/avatar?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying that there is an evolution in thinking and the intellect developed during the Greco-Roman age of about 600 B.C. to 1500 A.D.During this time the old atavistic consciousness diminished and appropriately so. The intellect has continued its course but it has no support for seeing those realms of supersensible reality. That of soul/spirit. But the future holds for us the ability to enter these realms with the intellect and imaginative thinking combined. The old imaginative consciousness(picture thinking) was not earned by mankind(therefore atavistic or naturally given) but the new combination of intellect/imaginative thinking man will earn as an independent being.

The ancient Greeks really did have an atavistic presentiment of their gods. The idea of a proof would have been ridiculous to the Greek of that time, they were atavistically within that world.
to put it another way. If you allow that mankind was once in the world of supersensibility and gradually "fell' to the consciousness of the external world. This is one aspect of the 'Fall' as noted in the Bible. External matter through the senses became clearer while man lost his original home.Think that at one time the external world appeared as one would see a London street light on a foggy night, not totally clear as we see today.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know there are plenty of crazy people on the internet but how do they end up on a poker chat site?


[/ QUOTE ]

IDIOT

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he's an idiot because he can't see the "truth" that apparently only "carlo" is capable of seeing.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

As a lecture, considering the need/desire for the afterlife as considered by modern man this concept appeals to his egocentric nature and the religious denominations appeal to this egocentricity.



How can you possibly think that this is sentence makes any sense whatsoever?


[/ QUOTE ]

Man wants to know about after death. You may not, but this is what the religions of today appeal to, his desire(on a deeper level) for assuredness of the after life. So we have a heaven of bliss, 1000 maidens, etc.

But the above only speaks to Man's selfish nature. Only me, only me, only me. This is appealing to a persons egocentric nature and in this others are not considered.

A thought out of the selfless, would be that "we are all in this together". This is a poor statement but it may point in the right direction. No man can be content until "all of mankind(us) receives salvation"-guess who?