What is the best proof there is an afterlife?

[Birdpreacher]

Because I am already (as are you) living life eternal. The condition will be changed, as it changed for you from your mother’s womb to the open air and the outside world.

what does living life eternal mean?

So you have a beginning (conception) but no end? Doesn’t that seem a tad bit too good to be true. I mean who wouldn’t want to live forever into infinity.

 

[triumphguy]

Hello, allow me to clarify. Blind Faith in Church Teachings and Papal Authority.

The story of doubting thomas promotes the value of believing without seeing. How is that not blind faith?

I am not sure what scientific age you are talking about, but much of our knowledge can be traced to people of numerous faiths (Muslims preserving Classical Philopshical Writings and developing Algebra while Christians were in dark ages) and people of no faith (various Enlightenment thinkers) To say that this scientific age only exists thanks to Chrisitians is a bit inflated. Christians have contributed greatly to science but are not the bringers of science to the world.

Hello back at you.

Science did not develop in these other cultures. It stagnated and was kept in the preserves of an elite few. The Catholic approach to science was, er… Catholic.

And it was the Catholic Church, for instance that took the work of muslim scholars (who preserved, but did not push forward the work of the classicists) and created (through Thomas Aquinas) a new scientific system of looking at the world.

Thus, while scientific endeavour always existed where there were humans it is very true to say that the Church brought science TO the world.

BTW This is St. Anselm on the proof of God (The Monologion):

If anyone does not know, either because he has not heard or because he does not believe, that there is one nature, supreme among all existing things, who alone is self-sufficient in his eternal happiness, who through his omnipotent goodness grants and brings it about that all other things exist or have any sort of well-being, and a great many other things that we must believe about God or his creation, I think he could at least convince himself of most of these things by reason alone, if he is even moderately intelligent.

As to blind faith in papal and Church teachings… haven’t you read at ANY of the other subforums on this site? Do you see a lot of blind faith?

 

[triumphguy]

what does living life eternal mean?

So you have a beginning (conception) but no end? Doesn’t that seem a tad bit too good to be true. I mean who wouldn’t want to live forever into infinity.

Too good to be true, or too good to be deserved?

It’s a gift, as is all life.

Do you want to live for ever in infinity?

 

[Birdpreacher]

Hello back at you.

Science did not develop in these other cultures. It stagnated and was kept in the preserves of an elite few.

You cannot be serious.

There is nothing special about Christianity in regards to sceince. Being Christian does not make one a better scientist. The Idea that the muslim, hindu, or even the Chinnesse civilizations did not develop science is dead wrong.

I will agree that in the last 300 years the Christians of Western Europe achieved remarkable breakthroughs in science, mostly in the areas of killing people. The Christian West’s legacy of weapons development and colonization of other cultures is something I can not deny.

And education has always been in the hands of the elite few. In history one can even find the Catholic Church enjoying this position as an elite by condoning (or motivating depending who you ask) european govenments suppression of religions or views of the bible viewed to be heretical

 

[estesbob]

1. I am glad your religion gives you joy. People should have the right to live their lives in a way that maximizes personal fulfillment
2. How is the premise flawed? The uncertainty of death stresses out everyone. People want a place of supreme happiness where the troubles of this world will no longer vex them and they want this happiness to last for eternity.
3. I like the doubting Thomas story because it is used in many faiths throughout history. The story operates as a tool. The story teaches that we ought not to doubt and that blind faith in whatever the religion preaches is commendable. Moreso that the all loving God will love you and bless you more the less you question the religion. Many holy books have excerpts that call for complete submission to its tenants at the expense of critical thought.

The uncertainty of death does not stress me out nor do I know anyone in my family of faith community that is stressed out about it. I guess if one believe death was the end it would be stressful, but I believe it is just the beginning. Like a caterpillar coming out of its cocoon as a butterfly.

Thomas’s experience is not a 'story" or a “tool” Its an event in his life that took place some 2,000 years ago. We have first hand accounts of the resurrection of Jesus and his appearances after his death.

 

[DCNBILL]

My personal feelings while looking at my mother in her coffin.

This resonates with my belief in an afterlife. Love, to love it takes the lover and the beloved. I have numerous relatives and friends whom I loved on earth and continue to love. If the beloved does not exist any longer then how could my love for them continue to exist?

 

[DCNBILL]

This resonates with my belief in an afterlife. Love, to love it takes the lover and the beloved. I have numerous relatives and friends whom I loved on earth and continue to love. If the beloved does not exist any longer then how could my love for them continue to exist?

OK, that and a vision that my wife and I shared once.

 

[triumphguy]

You cannot be serious.

There is nothing special about Christianity in regards to sceince. Being Christian does not make one a better scientist. The Idea that the muslim, hindu, or even the Chinnesse civilizations did not develop science is dead wrong.

I will agree that in the last 300 years the Christians of Western Europe achieved remarkable breakthroughs in science, mostly in the areas of killing people. The Christian West’s legacy of weapons development and colonization of other cultures is something I can not deny.

And education has always been in the hands of the elite few. In history one can even find the Catholic Church enjoying this position as an elite by condoning (or motivating depending who you ask) european govenments suppression of religions or views of the bible viewed to be heretical

Of course I’m serious.

Where did science go in the Islamic and the Asian world? Ultimately they went to dead ends - building fancy water fountains, or firework displays, because there was no sense the knowledge belongs to all people.

And while being a Catholic does not make one a scientist, the Catholic milieu certainly encourages reason and discovery.

And you are wrong to say that most scientific breakthroughs have been to do with killing people. If that was true our population would have dwindled to nothing.

Our most important breakthroughs, like medical hygiene, vaccinations, penicillin, insulin, have been to save life.

 

[multitude]

Off topic, but technically, when the Jesuits wanted to evangelize China in the 17th century, it wasn’t as if they didn’t recognize that the Chinese were not exactly a bunch of savages in dire need of science. Catholicism is growing like wildfire in China nowadays, especially among the highly educated youth, and it isn’t really because of “science!” or “logic!”.

Sometimes faith just rules, because rationalism and empiricism has its limits.

 

[triumphguy]

BTW - here;s a great video about the Irish monks by the BBC presenter Dan Snow who goes out of his way at the beginning of the documentary to tell us how much of an atheist he is, only to be blown away by the scientific acumen of the monks of the first few centuries after Christ.

It’s 58 minutes but well worth the watch!

youtube.com/watch?v=FxzM_Y0cYJA

Off topic? Not really, since the discussion is about proof, and if a people are merely superstitious and live by blind faith how can anything they say, or any proofs they give, be credible?

It also blows another myth out of the water - that Catholicism in northern Europe merely supplanted a benign nature loving pagan cult.

 

[multitude]

It’s alright, I don’t wish to be credible. You can only recycle Pascal’s wager, ontological argument, Marian apparitions, scientifically improbable medical miracles, so many times. I’ll bow out.

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s alright, I don’t wish to be credible. You can only recycle Pascal’s wager, ontological argument, Marian apparitions, scientifically improbable medical miracles, so many times. I’ll bow out.

Pascal’s wager is not a solid proof of the afterlife - it is a bet that there is such.

 

[estesbob]

It’s alright, I don’t wish to be credible. You can only recycle Pascal’s wager, ontological argument, Marian apparitions, scientifically improbable medical miracles, so many times. I’ll bow out.

And of course science itself relies on blind faith as to the origins of everything. Basically they say" give me one miracle and Ill explain everything else"

 

[JimR-OCDS]

SolemnSister;

What is the best proof or arguments you’ve seen, heard, or read, proving that there is an afterlife?

Dr Eben Alexander is the most recent that I’ve read and heard who has a science background.

youtube.com/watch?v=xYZoX4N5_YQ

Death is a mystery to mankind, and always will be.

However, it’s through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the light, which gives us hope to be in eternal happiness in the next life after we die.

There are accounts of visions of the Blessed Mother and Jesus from the saints, but these are private revelations and only help us to hope, but don’t provide empirical proof.

The best advice is to pray.

Go to the source of faith, Jesus Christ and allow Him to answer your question.

Jim

 

[Tomdstone]

Croc don’t have a soul, mate!

The argument given is the same for the corpse of a dead crocodile: Here is his argument, but with man replaced by crocodile:
The difference between a corpse of a crocodile and a living crocodile. In the morning a crocodile is alive, but by the evening he may be a corpse. Now what is the difference between the two? It’s not a difference of material. There is no chemical you could add to the corpse of the crocodile that would make it alive again, nothing material could do that. But there is a difference. Therefore, there is a nonmaterial element without which the crocodile is a corpse, and which disconnects from the body at death.

 

[schaeffer]

I won’t go as far as calling it proof, but the pervasive belief in life after death, ghosts, etc throughout history is hard to simply discount. That being said, the variety of beliefs, their lack of cohesion, etc leads me to believe there is not one afterlife for everyone.

I think there are many possible outcomes, including no afterlife at all for some people.

 

[Cathoholic]

Birdpreacher.

After all the criticism from you on this post about religious people not having “evidence” concerning the afterlife, in post 17 you appeal to . . . . your feelings.

QUOTE (bold mine):

Do you remember anything about existing the million of years before your conception??

I have a feeling death will be a similar blankness. . . .

 

[multitude]

I won’t go as far as calling it proof, but the pervasive belief in life after death, ghosts, etc throughout history is hard to simply discount. That being said, the variety of beliefs, their lack of cohesion, etc leads me to believe there is not one afterlife for everyone.

I think there are many possible outcomes, including no afterlife at all for some people.

Marian apparitions are reported from all around the world, in Europe, Asia, the Americas, Middle East, if you’re asking for some sort of cohesion.

 

[mommy_k]

The outcome of prayers to impossible situations…I have had a few and there is no way that this could have been even remotely possible with out God. Also, that Jesus died to open the gates of heaven for us…to deny afterlife is to deny Jesus.

That’s my answer.

For non-Catholics it may be quantum mechanics and quantum physics.

 

[GEddie]

The argument given is the same for the corpse of a dead crocodile: Here is his argument, but with man replaced by crocodile:
The difference between a corpse of a crocodile and a living crocodile. In the morning a crocodile is alive, but by the evening he may be a corpse. Now what is the difference between the two? It’s not a difference of material. There is no chemical you could add to the corpse of the crocodile that would make it alive again, nothing material could do that. But there is a difference. Therefore, there is a nonmaterial element without which the crocodile is a corpse, and which disconnects from the body at death.

Crocodiles and other animals do have souls. That is what makes them **animals: **beings possessing **anima, **soul.

The presence of soul or anima does not, in itself, establish transcendence of death.

ICXC NIKA