Evidence for an Afterlife

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pieman333272

Guest
I was recently asked on another forum how theists have evidence for an afterlife by an atheist. I pointed to the secrets of Fatima, but he countered that they could have been a hallucination or total lie, and even if not that that required faith in both the afterlife and God as a prerequisite to believe in for most people. He said he meant scientific evidence, which I could not give. Is there any scientific evidence for the Catholic Afterlife, preferably not built on a miracle? Sorry if this sounds rude but I would like to be able to counter this in the future.
 
Pieman333272 said:
I was recently asked on another forum how theists have evidence for an afterlife by an atheist. I pointed to the secrets of Fatima, but he countered that they could have been a hallucination or total lie, and even if not that that required faith in both the afterlife and God as a prerequisite to believe in for most people. He said he meant scientific evidence, which I could not give. Is there any scientific evidence for the Catholic Afterlife, preferably not built on a miracle? Sorry if this sounds rude but I would like to be able to counter this in the future.
Click to expand...
You can not offer any evidence that is out of house “scientific” evidence on the question of “secrets of Fatima”
 
The person who asked for Scientific PROOF of the existance of God or Life after death
is Ignorant of what science does and how it operates.

God and the afterlife are Metaphysical ( beyound the physical universe ans NOT subject to the Laws of Phusics).

When we are alive we live in the physical world as do the scientists. There is no way a scientist bound by the physical world and the laws of physics is able to do experiments or make measurements in the realm of the Metaphysical. And that’s a Fact, Jack!

Philosophy and/or Theology can and does speak to the Metaphysica world.

Remember God is the maker of the Seen and the Unseen. There is an unseen.
Didja’ ever hear of Dark Matter?

Meanwhile counter that Atheist by asking him to proove there is Not a silver dollar on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean or to prove there IS NO GOD… He can’t:thumbsup: :eek: 😃 😃
 
I don’t think you can find scientific evidence for proof of an afterlife. It’s something that one HAS to take on faith.
 
To have scientific evidence the scientists would have to kill people. By definition. Science = results of repeatable experiments. They would have to repeatedly kill people under laboratory conditions.

I don’t think we have any of that, but we do have historical evidence. For one, there’s all the reports of “after death experiences.” You know, people die on the operating table and see things and hear things, and then the doctors revive them. Second, there are the reports of rebirths in Buddhist lands. That an “afterlife” too.
 
scottm said:
To have scientific evidence the scientists would have to kill people. By definition. Science = results of repeatable experiments. They would have to repeatedly kill people under laboratory conditions.
Excellent point. Some scientific questions are not worth investigating.
Click to expand...
“After death experiences” can never be proven to be any more than the dying head giving its owner one last sound-and-light show.

And reincarnation really isn’t “life after death.” The original person still stops being; only something from them becomes reborn into another critter (not necessarily human). And that something doesn’t include the preceding individual’s mind; so as far as he or she is concerned, they would still remain dead. “Rebirth” is the same as death without afterlife.

Science can’t address the issue of a human afterlife, even if killing weren’t needed to study human death scientifically. Science deals with physical processes and material bodies. Although we human beings are physical bodies, no part of our physicality moves on from death; every aspect of it is accounted for in the dead body. So whatever becomes of our mind and life beyond death must be nonphysical, as we understand physics. As such, it will be inaccessible to science.
Code: 
                                                                 ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
 
exactly

thats why this concept of afterlife is nonsense

stop smokinhg the herb
 
“After death experiences” can never be proven to be any more than the dying head giving its owner one last sound-and-light show.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was proof as in science. I said it was historical evidence of an afterlife.
And reincarnation really isn’t “life after death.” The original person still stops being; only something from them becomes reborn into another critter (not necessarily human). And that something doesn’t include the preceding individual’s mind; so as far as he or she is concerned, they would still remain dead. “Rebirth” is the same as death without afterlife.
Click to expand...
Um, that’s semantics. A new life after you die = life after death = afterlife.
Science can’t address the issue of a human afterlife, even if killing weren’t needed to study human death scientifically. Science deals with physical processes and material bodies. Although we human beings are physical bodies, no part of our physicality moves on from death; every aspect of it is accounted for in the dead body. So whatever becomes of our mind and life beyond death must be nonphysical, as we understand physics. As such, it will be inaccessible to science.
Click to expand...
True. The best we have are historical accounts.
 
We Know Souls To Be Immortal using Logic; (reposting this)

Immortal souls exist; (Paraphrased from Opus Oxoniense)

First; the A priori proof:

Reffering to de animae; we can see that the soul is “the act of the natural and organised body”. It is also the case that all philosophers assign rational to this function with the exception of Averroes in his commentary on bk III of de animae.

Now; Man Formally and properly understands; therefore the intellective soul is the proper form of man. The antecent is true see de anima & Nicomachean Ethics Bk I. It is simply put: “To know” or “to understand” is taken in a form that is transcendental of sense knowlege.

Firstly; this antecedent is the case because Man knows by an act of knowlege which is not organic; hence he knows in a proper sense. This consequent is true in light of the fact that intellection per se is a trancendental object over sense knowlege. All sensation being sense knowlege; thus organic and vise versa - contradicts a claim that knowlege is organic. The antecedent of this enthymeme is proved from the fact that every organ is determined to a kind of sensible; wheras we can see that the knowlege we have is not limited to a sensible - hence inorganic.

The second proof of the antecedent is the fact that we possess some immaterial knowlege; and no sense knowlege can be immatterial therefore, etc. ;
We posess some knowlege of an object under an aspect it could not have as an object of sense knowlege; therefore, etc - proof of the antecedent; (i) we experience in ourselves that we know the actual universal; (ii) we experience that we know being or quality in a more general notion than that highest characteristic of the primary object of even the highest sense faculty, (iii) we experience that we also know relations that follow from the nature of things, even when the latter are not capable of being perceived by the senses (iv) we experience what we distinguish the whole class of sensible objects from what is not such. (v) we experience that we know conceptual relations, which are second intentions such as that of the universal, the genus, the species etc. (vi) we also experience that we know the very act whereby we know these things and we experience this act within us etc. (vii) we experience that we assent to propositionssuch as first principles without a possibility of error (viii) we also experience that we learn the unknown from the known by means of discursive reasoning, so that we are undable to refuse our assent to the evidence of the reasoning process of to the conclusion that is inferred.

Proof of the consequent; First - If we formally possess such an act, since it is not our substance per se, for it is not always present in us, it follows that this act needs a proper subject.

Second proof; Considering the condition of the object of this act; for if any form inferoir to the intellective form functions, it is always with reference to an object having characteristics the opposite of above; etc.

Third proof; We can prove the same from the second operation characteristic of man - viz. volition (see Bk II, Dist, XXII, XXIII, q iii Opus Oxoniense).

De animae bk II “intellect differs from the rest as what is eternal differs from what is perishable” – Even if someone objects to this; that it is something different and apart only insofar as its operations are concerned; according to de aminae BkI if it can be set apart by reason of it’s operations it can also exist apart.
In Bk III de animae; the senses differ from the intellect; because that shich stimulates the sense excessively impairs it; this is the contrary in the intellect; which is not impaired by function of it’s being; ths it follows that it is imperishable
In metaphysics Bk XIII c.i it flows that the causes that produce motion exist previously wheras those which are the essence, that is the substantial form, can exist simulatneously…
From De Generatione animalium; it remains for the intellect alone to enter from the outside; hence the intellect does not recieve existence by way of generation by reather from an extrnsic cause; consequently it cannot cease to exist by perishing - nor can any inferioir cause corrupt the soul since its existence does not come under the power of any such cause.
Also, as natural desires are never in vain; if the soul has a natural desire to be immortal; then this is not in vain.
In Meraphysics bk Viii matter is that in virtue of which a thing can exist or not exist; therefore whatever has no matter lacks the capacity to not exist ; therein a simple form such as a soul (or God) cannot be made not to exist.
In Nicomachean ethics Bk III an example of heroism shows that immortality can be known by natural reason; no one is obliged or able to seek his complete non existence for the sake of some virtuous good whether that good be something in himself or in another or a good of the community; from Augustine (iii cap. viii) a person cannot desire non existence.
It follows then that what perishes perishes by reason iof its contrary of because it lacks a prequisite for its existence. The intellective soul has no contrary; neither is the existence of the body a necessary prequisite for it’s existence; so as the soul possesses its own per-se existence then the soul cannot be destroyed.
 
docgm said:
exactly

thats why this concept of afterlife is nonsense

stop smokinhg the herb
Click to expand...
…>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<…
** A poster just stated that life after death is nonsense.** That is easy to say Easier than to say that there IS life after death. In this thread that concept is called an “afterlife”.

The Apostles, the Early Fathers and many Christians decided to chose a horrible death rather than to deny the teachings of Jesus Christ. Were they insane or just very stupid?
Were they all mentally ill? From their very writings we have to conclude that they were rational and were very sure that Jesus told them the truth.

Consider the evolution of the various religions. An Engineer will say that if a religion has lasted, essentially unchanged for about two thousand years then most of the “bugs” are gone and that religion might well be the most reliable or the one containing more truth than the others. The only Christian religion in existence for at least fifteen hundred years was the Catholic religion. Many, many of the protesting religions have morphed, split up into new religions so much that it is said there are over 5,000 protestant sects now. I look at the founder of a religion with great interest. Who started the Catholic religion?
  • Now back to the question of an afterlife. Is it rational to say that there is no silver dollar at the North Pole? What’s the evidence? Can a negative be proved?*
    Is it incumbent upon the poster who says there is no afterlife for humans to offer proof of that statement?
** Maybe it is worth looking at historical facts. We know that scientists are confined to the physical world. Angel feathers cannot be measured in a lab! We have no Angel feathers. But we do have thousands of accounts of humans willing to be put to death for their belief in what Jesus said. This was not a one-time series of events. Men with great intellect went to their deaths rather than to deny Jesus’ teachings. This is a fact of the physical world!
So it is an indirect proof that the Metaphysical does exist. Disprove that please ! !**
😃 🙂 🙂 😉 😉
 
Ignatias20 said:
…>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<…
** A poster just stated that life after death is nonsense.** That is easy to say Easier than to say that there IS life after death. In this thread that concept is called an “afterlife”.

The Apostles, the Early Fathers and many Christians decided to chose a horrible death rather than to deny the teachings of Jesus Christ. Were they insane or just very stupid?
Were they all mentally ill? From their very writings we have to conclude that they were rational and were very sure that Jesus told them the truth.

Consider the evolution of the various religions. An Engineer will say that if a religion has lasted, essentially unchanged for about two thousand years then most of the “bugs” are gone and that religion might well be the most reliable or the one containing more truth than the others. The only Christian religion in existence for at least fifteen hundred years was the Catholic religion. Many, many of the protesting religions have morphed, split up into new religions so much that it is said there are over 5,000 protestant sects now. I look at the founder of a religion with great interest. Who started the Catholic religion?
  • Now back to the question of an afterlife. Is it rational to say that there is no silver dollar at the North Pole? What’s the evidence? Can a negative be proved?*
    Is it incumbent upon the poster who says there is no afterlife for humans to offer proof of that statement?
** Maybe it is worth looking at historical facts. We know that scientists are confined to the physical world. Angel feathers cannot be measured in a lab! We have no Angel feathers. But we do have thousands of accounts of humans willing to be put to death for their belief in what Jesus said. This was not a one-time series of events.** Men with great intellect went to their deaths rather than to deny Jesus’ teachings.**** This is a fact from the physical world!
So it is an indirect proof that the Metaphysical does exist. Disprove that please ! !
😃 🙂 🙂 😉 😉
Click to expand...
 
Posting links to the Philosophy forum is anathema. With no personal commentary?
I was expecting so much more than a drive by link.
 
Thanks everyone! @Buffalo - I’ll be sure to check out that book!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top