Life after death

I’m a 17y old senior in highschool. I live Belgium.
The following is a rather heavily modified version of an, I’ll call it extended thought I wrote for school. I believe it to be sometimes incomplete and incoherent, so I apology for that.

This is a translation from dutch to english, so it might suck in some parts, or all :stuck_out_tongue:.

People of all cultures and eras have always been wondering about the possiblity of an afterlife.

On one side you have the people who state that life after death is an illusion because science hasn’t proven its existence (yet). The other side comprises the people who assume there has to be ‘something’ after death because a human individual is not capable of grasping the loss of his/her own conscience. The latter includes any kind of worldreligion while the former is probably limited to Western thinkers.
Both conclusions are obviously nonsense and speak of a naïve perception of this idea.
Scientific provability means nothing, since our own imagination and conceptual abilities limit us when in the quest for explanations. The level of these abilities lies much higher for creating ideas than for proving them, or disproving. Man’s proficiency in physics is not comparable with his fantasy; hence we are often unable to proof what we believe to be true.
The assumption that there has to be ‘something’ because the loss of conscience is not comprehensible can be considered naïve because it is merely based on man’s inabilities. Fact is thus, you can neither deny, neither claim the existence of life after death until this time.

Something that bothers me is the fact that people always relate God and afterlife so much to eachother. Belief in an afterlife doesn’t have to go together with belief in God. People need to learn to not see the ‘mystical’ and ‘religion’ so separated from science.
It’s not because something like life after death or the existence of a god seems absurd for a rational approach by the human brain, that it doesn’t exist. An example of this can be found in relativity theory of Einstein, where time is proven to be relative. The non-absoluteness of time is also incomprehensible. This can easily be compared with the former.
The existence of a god and the existence of an afterlife do not necessarily go together.

If we assume that there is an afterlife, it may manifest itself in different shapes. On one hand, if afterlife is something physical, it seems very improbable to me then that it can be found in the fibers of our spacetime; perhaps we travel to another dimension…
On the other hand we can imagine an afterlife as a state of the mind whereby we come in a kind of permanent dream. Of course one can argument against this by saying that we are dead, then how is it possible for our brains to continue functioning?
Who knows, the same can be said about travelling to a physical afterlife; reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one*. I use this quote in the meaning of reality being an illusion in the sense that it only exists because we perceive it. What we perceive as human beings, with our human senses, is what we define as reality. Anything beyond that is hard to understand, although some notable geniuses (may) have managed to do so, which is why they are geniuses, no?

  • Albert Einstein

Not a bad post…I’m impressed with your english vocabulary and find your signature quite amusing. Welcome to ILP and keep posting!

not bad one flaw.

When the body dies there is no energy to sustain the mind. all electrical patterns cease or dissipate as heat energy.

The concept of an afterlife was conceived by human beings who did not like the thought that once they lived their incredibly short life, that was it.

Imagining an afterlife will only hinder your philosophical development.
Persue fact not belief.
It makes life more meaningful.

You say so. It is extremely unlikely to exist, viewed from our claimed knowledge of the world. Since science only desribes our perception of the world, you cannot claim an afterlife is impossible.

el-half,
The subject matter that you have embarked on is not necessarily something that is worth your time to think about. The “after-life” is something that comes into play in all religions and a most episodes of Scooby doo, and this is exactly where it should stay. From a scientific sort of view there are tremendous problems with a description of the “after-life” far more numerous than matmilne’s “energy sustaining” issue. For instance, what is the cohesive force that keeps the individual mind in its original form? How are memories stored when the electrical energy is separated from the physical housing of the neurons. How does the energy that contains the person’s essence stay in our solar system? What forces act on it and how does it have the “will” to move seem to have direction? Motion is very tied into the perception of time and so what is the perception of time like when certain physical restrictions are swept away? Not only is science no where near proving or disproving the “after-life”, but it is not even close to dealing with the many bizarre ramifications of such a theory. They have enough problems describing dark matter and sub-atomic behavior. So you don’t have to worry about science poking fun at theories concerning life and death. Most serious scientists don’t even care enough to acknowledge the theories.
So do we really want to talk about traveling to different dimensions to live our “after-life”? I only say this because, if you want to come up with some cool sounding theories about what happens to us when we die then do that and then write a fiction novel about it. Don’t bother making it into a philosophy because if you ever write it in a book, I promise I will be there to raise a whole lot of “fun” questions and you had better pack a lunch because it will take a while.
Now we all know that religious people love to talk about the “after-life” and that is fine. Religion can get out of any problem with the simple phrase “God makes it so.” If you are religious el-half, then you can come up with your best idea in accordance to with your religion and duke it out with all the other religions to see who’s right. (Which is something that will ironically be proven as a result of the debate should it get heated enough) But, if you are a philosopher, then do not waste your time with something that does not have any sort of tie to reality. To debate this, what experiences are we suppose to point to? That one time that your uncle Fred’s picture fell down on the anniversary of when he died. The spooky noise you heard one time staying at your brother’s cabin when he told you that the guy he bought it from was poisoned and so now cups are always breaking. This is silly. My point is that we don’t even have a clear idea of what we are talking about when we speak of the “after-life”. You, yourself stated that “if the afterlife is something physical…” and “we can imagine the afterlife as a state of mind…” You see, that is the problem right there. The entire discussion involves a subject that has not been properly defined. Does the “after-life” exist? Who knows, I’m not even sure about what were talking about. And you are not alone in this murky definition, el- half, most who speak of the “after-life” have this sort of subject definition. So my advice is, unless you are religious, let this topic go. I understand the pull of “after-life” questions. It is the same thing that pulls so many to religion. The world is a scary place and it would be nice to know what happens after we die, if anything. I tell you what, if I knew I was going to have an existence after this one I might just start smoking again and learn to ride a motor cycle. But, the “answers” that you get from this train of thought will not be anything other than personal introspection. Good for you, but I will tear them to pieces if you ever try to say “That’s the way it is.”

I am not religious, I’m agnostic/atheist.
Also, of course I realise it is a waste of time thinking about such matters since there is no way to obtain any knowledge about it, at least not by simply reasoning.
I had to write this for school, otherwise I wouldn’t really spend time thinking about the possibility of an afterlife.

el-half,
I understand that you were just writing something for school and I hope that my reply was not too overly aggressive. I just tend to come down hard on certain debates that have been going on forever. To me it is a waste of time. I look forward to reading other posts from you. :slight_smile:

I have always been forced to acknowledge the fact that I am alone in the universe, psychologically speaking. I cannot imagine the external world existing without me. It does not matter to me that others older than I will readily testify that I did not physically exist prior to the the year I was born, nor that history before that year extends far into the dark past. For me, there is and was no other reality than that which I know personally, the only reality I will ever know, the only reality I can acknowledge as truly existing. This is the human condition. If there is no consciousness after I die physically, then the universe dies with me, and nothing will exist from that point on. And I know that people all around me die all the time, and that when they die the universe I know still lives on–but, once again, this is my universe and no one else’s, and I can never prove to myself that the people around me possess a universe of thier own at all, or that they even experience consciousness the same as I do. Unfortunately, I can acknowledge them only as players in the theater of my own universe, my own reality, my own life. Therefore, I can only believe in my own immortality. Just my own thoughts on the subject.

Hmmm…Why would life after death need to solve anything? If there is life after death, why wouldn’t it just necessarily be? There are many things in this universe that simply are without even an ounce of potential to solve anything whatsoever. But, then again, there are many opinions about many things life after death might actually solve. But that would be different topic, I think.

.

Perhaps not a orthodox view of God , but for reincarnation to exist , or an afterlife , I believe there must be somebody to keep it in place , keep it all running smoothly , like any business .

We cant give the universe credit on its own , why would a hurtling piece of rock in space finally cool down , then become the earth , out of pure chance , then develop as it did , but for no reason , and somehow develop a system of punishment and reward for souls who have passed on . Because for an afterlife to work , there has to be a door policy . If just anybody gets in it then the afterlife is nothing special .

If the afterlife were a place where muggers , thiefs , cuthroats and robbers could get into as well , then Im not so keen on this world or the afterlife . What a predicament that would be if it were true , so there would be no escape from tyrants , no peace ?

The earth by itself is not clever enough to punish me for the things I,d rather not be punished for

.