Life After Death: The Evidence

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I'm not convinced that very many scientists can define 'The Universe' nevermind non-scientists.

One old way of describing it is as "the sum total of all that exists." This definition, however, would mean that nothing outside the universe could ever exist. By this definition, what we call the universe isn't the entirety of the universe. Usually, the modern definition of universe is "the observable universe." In other words, everything within the Hubble radius from us.

That's an interesting question, isn't it? Does the Universe consist of everything observable, or everything observable by us?

[Tech-gnosis]

His conclusion does not follow from his premise. Its a non sequitur.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

His conclusion does not follow from his premise. Its a non sequitur.

Most all religious arguments are.

[Intangelon]

How does a belief in the multiverse (string theory?) automatically mean that Christianity is right? Bit of a leap there, innit?

[Intangelon]

I'm not convinced that very many scientists can define 'The Universe' nevermind non-scientists.

One old way of describing it is as "the sum total of all that exists." This definition, however, would mean that nothing outside the universe could ever exist. By this definition, what we call the universe isn't the entirety of the universe. Usually, the modern definition of universe is "the observable universe." In other words, everything within the Hubble radius from us.

That's an interesting question, isn't it? Does the Universe consist of everything observable, or everything observable by us?

Since we're the ones doing the observing, and we've not currently got any other way to observe, I'm going with the latter.

[Almajoya]

How does a belief in the multiverse (string theory?) automatically mean that Christianity is right? Bit of a leap there, innit?

The article does not say anything about Christianity. It is about life after death, which is part of many religions, not just Christianity.

As for the evidence- I haven't read the book (obviously), and if I did, I would probably be confused at page two, or whenever he starts discussing quantum physics. But you never know- he might produce actual evidence. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him.

[Gauntleted Fist]

What sayest thou, NSG?

This.

Newsweek covers the presentation of scientific proof of an afterlife in Dinesh D'Souza's book, Life After Death:

lolwut

[Kalibarr]

The Fact that we form bonds with other people is not evidence for religion,it's simply a survival strategy that has evolved. After all if you want your species to survive why not work together?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I might as well plan for a life after death, no point being caught off guard eh?

I might have to atone for all the people i've killed. which currently stands at 4.3498.
although i've saved about 40.923802 lives, so hopefullly i won't get poked in the buttocks by the devil too hard.

[Helgrin]

Are there any other theorys of possible parallel dimensions, appart from string theory? I've read the "His Dark Materials" trilogy and wanted to know if parallel universes were possible, but I can't find anything that says that it is.

[Helgrin]

I might as well plan for a life after death, no point being caught off guard eh?

I might have to atone for all the people i've killed. which currently stands at 4.3498.
although i've saved about 40.923802 lives, so hopefullly i won't get poked in the buttocks by the devil too hard.

I think he only reserves that punnishment for especially evil people. I think we're in the clear.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Are there any other theorys of possible parallel dimensions, appart from string theory? I've read the "His Dark Materials" trilogy and wanted to know if parallel universes were possible, but I can't find anything that says that it is.

i think quantum mechanics allows for multiple universes, although don't quote me on that i'm walking over rough ground here.

[Corsham]

Instead, he looks to the human heart, and finds therein a universal moral code underlying acts of self-sacrifice and charity that appear to run counter to the Darwinian imperative to outcompete thy neighbor.

If this is what he bases his argument on, his argument is wrong.

Precisely my sentiments. Human "moral code" is incredibly flexible throughout various stages in history. And acts of generosity and self-sacrifice have perfectly reasonable scientific explanations. It would be pointless to bring them all up in this thread but check them out if you have doubts.

[Grave_n_idle]

Newsweek covers the presentation of scientific proof of an afterlife in Dinesh D'Souza's book, Life After Death:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/220296?GT1=43002

Ghosts, mediums, and miraculous cures by the intercession of saints play no role in his argument, which draws instead on quantum mechanics, neuroscience, and moral philosophy. Life After Death, along with other recent books including mathematician David Berlinski's The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, physicist Frank J. Tripler's The Physics of Christianity, and The Language of God by the director of the National Institutes of Health, the geneticist Francis S. Collins, constitutes an effort by believers to confront the so-called new atheism on its own intellectual turf, without benefit of scripture or revelation....

The "evidence," of necessity, is indirect: D'Souza doesn't claim to have communicated with anyone who has died, and he doesn't expect to. Instead, he looks to the human heart, and finds therein a universal moral code underlying acts of self-sacrifice and charity that appear to run counter to the Darwinian imperative to outcompete thy neighbor. This is a time-honored argument for the existence of a God who created human beings in his image and imbued them with a moral sense, as well as the free will to follow, or ignore, it....

And if your smart-alecky kid, full of all that Galileo stuff they get in school nowadays, should ask just where this Judgment business takes place, D'Souza provides you with a response. It happens in the multiverse, the infinitely multiplying complex of worlds predicted by some versions of quantum theory. In the multiverse, physical laws can take on different values, and matter itself may have a different form, so "there is nothing in physics to contradict the idea that we can live beyond death in other realms with bodies that are unlike the bodies we now possess."

What sayest thou, NSG?

As for me,

D'Souza provides a checklist of benefits from believing in life after death...believers have better sex.

I'm sold.

What sayest thou? Not impressed so far.

If he bases his assertion on the claim that we are a altruistic creation, and he sees that as an alternative to our evolutionary nature... how does he account for altruism in other creatures? How does he account for the fact that altruism actually increases overall survivability?

Wouldn't altruism, then, be argument for a purely mundane evolutionary principle - rather than for a supernatural spiritual existence?

[Nova Castlemilk]

Are there any other theorys of possible parallel dimensions, appart from string theory? I've read the "His Dark Materials" trilogy and wanted to know if parallel universes were possible, but I can't find anything that says that it is.

i think quantum mechanics allows for multiple universes, although don't quote me on that i'm walking over rough ground here.

Try doing some research about the Omniverse, which itself isn't evem thought to be the entirety of all there is.

[Cameroi]

i'm pretty sure i was dead before i was born. although that was kind of before i had this body too.

[Gift-of-god]

Are there any other theorys of possible parallel dimensions, appart from string theory? I've read the "His Dark Materials" trilogy and wanted to know if parallel universes were possible, but I can't find anything that says that it is.

Unhealthy Truthseeker would give you a more correct answer than mine, but mine will probably be more understandable.

First, there are no 'theories' about multiple universes, as theories (in the scientific sense) are testable and our ideas about multiple universes aren't testable right now.

But that doesn't mean that the ideas aren't scientific. There some testable (and well supported) theories that say we should have multiple universes, according to mathematical calculations.

In other words, the idea of multiple universes is consistent (maybe even necessary) for certain interpretations of scientific theories that we are pretty sure are true, but we have no way of getting evidence for these mulitple universes right now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of this has to do with life after death. It just means that Heaven might be one of these multiple universes. But unless we have a soul, and that soul is capable of going to that particular universe (and somehow avoiding an infinite number of others) then it doesn,tmatter if Heaven exists or not.

[Jordaxia]

Here's my thoughts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjyhKN_ ... re=related

Uh oh, altruism in non-humans? Poor D'souza. Unless his god endowed other animals with similar traits to humanity, which is somewhat counter to how awesome special we're meant to be, right? This is typical of a creationist. Unable to shake their mind from the fact that Evolution isn't a sentient force with plans and goals, they can't comprehend that altruism might be selected for some species, or selected against in others, or it might just stick around just because it has no overall effect on their ability to survive, because it's not working according to anybodys grand plan.

Somewhat more on the principle topic, there is nothing in his argument that even suggests 'and ergo, afterlife'. I mean 'humans are pretty nice guys in general, huh?' is first of all a nonsense argument perpetrated only by those who have relatively comfortable lives where they don't find themselves the subject of abuse by the majority of the populace. I imagine anybody born with the misfortune of being black in 1800 in Western Europe would thoroughly disagree with the assertion that 'on the whole, humans were really nice'. Secondly, even if humans -were- just peachy, how does that mean 'afterlife'? It doesn't even slightly connect.

Also, I frakking love this quote.

constitutes an effort by believers to confront the so-called new atheism on its own intellectual turf, without benefit of scripture or revelation....

I've noticed this increased tactic of trying to engage scientists with science. Amazing how quickly, once they find their scripture brushed aside, they'll abandon it in desperate attempts to convert the other side. Almost kinda like how they don't really find the -scripture- important, (or they'd still be using it) but rather just the desire to govern other peoples lives.

[Almajoya]

The Fact that we form bonds with other people is not evidence for religion,it's simply a survival strategy that has evolved. After all if you want your species to survive why not work together?

Again, this book is only obliquely about religion. Its main topic is life after death, which is not solely a religious concept, but a spiritual concept as well.

[Meridiani Planum]

I am also writing a book on my religion, so be prepared to witness the birth of Objectivism. If that name is already taken, I will have to settle with 'Not Catholic' for our name...

Yes, Objectivism is most definitely already taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I'm not convinced that very many scientists can define 'The Universe' nevermind non-scientists.

One old way of describing it is as "the sum total of all that exists." This definition, however, would mean that nothing outside the universe could ever exist. By this definition, what we call the universe isn't the entirety of the universe. Usually, the modern definition of universe is "the observable universe." In other words, everything within the Hubble radius from us.

That's an interesting question, isn't it? Does the Universe consist of everything observable, or everything observable by us?

Since we're the ones doing the observing, and we've not currently got any other way to observe, I'm going with the latter.

It's pretty tricky though, isn't it? If something has an influence on us, then arguably, it's part of the Universe whether we can observe it or not. Just because we don't know how to observe it yet doesn't mean it isn't observable and therefore part of the Universe. Or does it? See, I personally love that confusion going on in my head. It keeps me humble.

[Risottia]

I find it hard to believe that if someone is arguing that life after death transcends the Universe that he or she can offer scientific evidence of such considering that nothing within the Universe can empirically measure beyond the Universe.

Why do you insist on being logical?

[Risottia]

How does a belief in the multiverse (string theory?) automatically mean that Christianity is right? Bit of a leap there, innit?

By the way, about string theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_the ... ontroversy

[Seraph Down]

I've noticed this increased tactic of trying to engage scientists with science. Amazing how quickly, once they find their scripture brushed aside, they'll abandon it in desperate attempts to convert the other side. Almost kinda like how they don't really find the -scripture- important, (or they'd still be using it) but rather just the desire to govern other peoples lives.

It's not a desperate attempt. When one is constantly attacked for being unreasonable, it follows that one would make an effort to be "reasonable," no?

[Seraph Down]

I am also writing a book on my religion, so be prepared to witness the birth of Objectivism. If that name is already taken, I will have to settle with 'Not Catholic' for our name...

Yes, Objectivism is most definitely already taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

And it's definitely got nothing to do with religion.