Demonstration of existence after death:

The great problem,as it has always been,is that the survival of some sort of being after bodily death cannot at the present time be measured and quantified,by "hard science", it is not repeatable in a lab,we really have to take on board the fact that not everything that can be repeated,to order,does,nt have validity,the universe itself may have a random quirkiness ,this in itself raises the strong possibilty of an intelligence,the anacdotal evidence is pretty overwhelming ,case after case ,from N.D.E.s to apparitions,suggest that we survive death in some form

I think the logical proof is pretty simple:

We have energy within us, technically we ARE energy. Based on the law of physics, energy can not be created nor destroyed...only transformed. Therefore that energy that WE ARE must be transformed into something else after we die.

Simple physics. Although many people discard that theory...it is the best we can use, based on current "scientific" knowledge.

if i may,

it is well known in psychological circles that the subconscious mind produces an exact replica of sensory experience, to include the memory of "selfhood". This is what is accessed during deep hypnosis, to the point in which stunning detail can be gleaned from patients recollection of events that took place decades prior.

This is in the form of pure electrical impulses. when we die, the like elements of the body assimilate with the like elements of the surrounding environment. The process of decomposition. If you think of a radio wave and a radio, the radio waves because they exist at a particular wavelength, travel through space and are picked up by the receiver, ie the radio. The body likewise is a receiver. At the cessation of life, there exists no receiver, and no aspect of the surrounding environment that exists at the precise frequency of the subconscious memories that have been stored. Like the radio waves because they are distinct, they do not simply vanish into the air.

Like oil and water, they simply cannot assimilate.

you couldnt die if you wanted to.

[GentleStrength]

Originally Posted by Iskandar

your body is transformed and broken down into basic elements to nurture a new generation of life.

Exactly! And my consciousness expands out of physical reality back to a spiritual existence once again.

Love and Light

Suzan Carroll's site, multidimensions.com has 100s of pages of information about the nuances of how our nonphysical energies are organized.

Originally Posted by Thrare

The question then becomes whether the soul and spirit die along with the body. My answer is no on both counts. After someone dies, I continue to experience emotions, so the shared part of me that allows me to experience emotions, the spirit, does not suddenly cease to be on anyone's death, including my own.

I don't understand this step. How do you get from "after someone dies, I continue to experience emotions" to "including my own [death]"?

The spirit-capacities allow the soul to flourish, completely independent of the body. The soul, or uniqueness, is in no way dependent on the body, shown in how if I get a heart transplant I suddenly don't wake up with emotions of the donor, for example.

That doesn't really follow. Emotions are associated primarily with the brain. There would be no reason for you to wake up with the emotions of a heart donor.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Originally Posted by HBuck72

Atheists contend that life came out of the rich primordial soup of our early planet, perhaps by a lightning strike.

This is not the most current theory. Even so, it was not specifically meant to belong to atheists. It was a working theory that biologists came up with during their sincere efforts to understand more about the possible physical realities of the first life on earth. Atheists refer to it a lot, but it was not made for them. And it was a step along the way to finding a better working theory, which is also a sincere effort to learn more about life and not something they specifically made for atheist apologists.

This is important to me, because I am not an atheist, but I have a sincere interest in knowing more about the physical realities of the first life on earth and how it developed. I follow this research, understand it, and value it. If someone asks me about the process of how life first formed, I will be talking about deep sea hydrothermal vents and describing how a step-by-step process could lead to this, not saying god did it. I believe in an omnipresent deity whose existence is not threatened by this theory. Not everyone who says life could have evolved naturally is atheist.

Furthermore, it is basically statistically impossible that a lightning strike or other fluke event would be able to arrange the delicate cell structures and internal organs of even the simplest bacteria.

Biologists do not say that a fully functioning single-celled organism with all the different parts included came into existence instantly in one fluke event. The theory is that it happened in a step-by-step process, one part added at a time, each one making the next stage more likely to survive than the last. This is not statistically impossible. It is statistically probable. Where life can happen, it most likely will due to the way each step in the process that leads to life is more likely to continue to exist until the next step and so on. It is a natural process that does not require an intelligent engineer. This does not disprove that a conscious omnipresent deity could exist. It is possible to recognise this and also believe in a monotheistic deity without any cognitive dissonance.

Taken as a whole it proves the existence of at least some sort of divine hand

What was meant to be taken as a whole there was not accurate. Even if it were, saying we don't know the answer to something so that means god did it is not positive proof. All it means is that the answer is not yet known. Some questions like this, that used to be used as if they were evidence of god, have scientific answers now. This is not a reliable foundation for faith.

I can reason out from my own experiences how there is something eternal that makes up what we are, what everything is made of, and what the omnipresent deity is. I believe in it and value the belief. But this is not proof, with empirical evidence that is objectively verifiable. And that is okay. Faith doesn’t need proof and it doesn’t need unanswered questions.

Even if scientists find a way to create life from scratch in a lab and can explain the exact process, this would have no affect on the likelihood of my deity's existence or my belief in the eternal energy that everything is made of. No matter how many scientific answers are found by humans, the consciousness of all of existence is still there like it always has been and always will be. That is what we are, and what is eternal both before you were born and after you die.

Originally Posted by GentleStrength

One simple logic proof of existence after death is, "You exist, therefore you will ALWAYS exist".

Many schools of thought postulate that you, indeed, do not exist. These spiritual traditions, Buddhism being the most prominent, vehemently contend that there is no person, no soul, no entity, etc.

Originally Posted by GentleStrength

Standard physics law of nothing being able to be created or destroyed, just transformed. Apparently the laws of physics mimic the laws of spirit!

Yes, but the question is: Does awareness remain constant throughout the process of transformation and flow continuously into the latest form? The dead body becomes delicious food for worms and insects and will eventually turn into rich soil which will provide a growing medium and store of nutrients for plant growth.

From empirical observation, your body will become dirt.

The question I have is this: Will the awareness that I seem to be or have, always be aware?

This is hard to put in words, so please bear with me.

Awareness itself seems to dependent, and thus is likely not permanent, irreducible, or autonomous in any way, as it's often purported to be. Awareness is contingent upon perspective. Perspective (not to be confused with opinion) is likewise dependent upon some form of individuation.

People often talk about "infinite awareness" or "cosmic consciousness" as though this is something that can be experienced. Infinite awareness is tantamount to no awareness at all because there would be nothing to be aware of. If awareness is spread out infinitely (an infinity of perspectives simultaneously) there is no contrast and no "movement", so to speak. In this state, awareness wouldn't be aware of anything, including itself. Awareness that is not aware of anything would be, in practice, the same that no awareness. This is essentially death. Nothingness. Awareness is dependent upon individuation to even generate a contrast between awareness itself and that of which it is aware. We can call this individuated perspective a point-of-awareness. This point-of-awareness is what you call "I". Unless awareness exists as a "point", individuated from all "objects of awareness", it cannot be aware (even of itself). Awareness can only be aware of itself through the process of being aware of objects of awareness. It if is not individuated then there are nothing to be aware of, if there is nothing to be aware of, awareness cannot even be aware of itself. It can only be aware of itself through the process of being aware of "objects of awareness." Thus, in a sense, the phenomenon of being aware of awareness is an emergent phenomenon, once again totally dependent upon the individuation of awareness and not an autonomously existing phenomenon.

What does this individuation of awareness entail? Well, here's where things get tricky. "Your" awareness is not "my" awareness. I am not aware of that which you are aware and you are not aware of that which I am aware . Your experience (i.e., the flow of "your" awareness) is not my experience and vice versa. I cannot experience "you". Your awareness could be completely extinguished and I would never be aware of/experience this. So clearly, we have distinct awarenesses or, to put it differently, we have distinct points-of-awareness. Your point-of-awareness is what you call yourself and mine is what I call myself.

To get back to the crux of the question: How do I know that "my" experience or point-of-awareness continues? I fully understand that awareness will have to be individuated for experience to continue but it doesn't necessarily mean that "I" will experience that next individuation, just as I'm not experiencing yours.

Now remember, when referring to this "I", I'm not alluding to my body, personality, preferences, world-view, etc but ONLY to that point-of-awareness which I seem to have or be.

There are really three possible scenarios as I see it:

1. Extinction/obliteration
2. Transference
3. Continuation

The extinction/obliteration of awareness at death would obviously result in the permanent and irrevocable end of experience/awareness.

If awareness does indeed continue on, there is no way of saying that I will continue to experience it, just as I'm not experiencing yours and your not experiencing mine. This awareness that I seem to be/have may transfer into someone else (not talking about personalities) and I would not experience it.
This would also mark the end of awareness/experience.

The first two scenarios are what is commonly thought of death- the eternal end awareness/experience.

The third scenario involves the continuation of this point-of-perception that I call "I". In this scenario, "my" point-of-awareness would continue and therefore my experience would continue. I would become a completely different being, but I would experience becoming that different being.

Now, if this awareness that I seem to be/have becomes temporarily absorbed into infinity/non-individuation (oneness) at death, there would inevitably be a corresponding suspension of awareness/experience. Of course, it would seem like no time elapsed from the perspective of a continued point-of-awareness. Time is only a convention the mind uses to "measure" change. To be aware of change, one must be aware of something changing. To be aware of something changing, awareness must be individuated so that the necessary relationship between awareness and that of which it is aware can operate. Thus, no time will elapse for non-individuated awareness even if billions of years went by from the perspective of individuated awareness.

But, the question remains in this scenario as well: would the point-of-awareness that emerged out of the "void" continue to be my experience or would it, like the experience that you are having, be something that I am not aware of? Would the awareness that I had/was disintegrate when immersed into the potential infinity of non-individuation and never reemerge? An eternally discontinued point-of-awareness? The end of your awareness for ever?

In terms of the third scenario (that of continuation) we also have to contend with memory dissolution. Even if "my" awareness will continue, will it be as though there is a continuation of experience? Will "my" awareness continue even through the seemingly inevitable process of memory dissolution. People that develop severe amnesia obviously still have experience and an intact sense of "I" although they have no story or history to go along with it, so this may be a possibility.

Originally Posted by LIFE

Will the awareness that I seem to be or have, always be aware?

The awareness that you seem to be is not always aware. Even during human life, before you die, it is not always aware. Individual conscious awareness of things comes and goes and constantly changes.

Awareness is contingent upon perspective.

That's why it always changes. One minute you're annoyed by the car alarm that's going off, the next you spill coffee on yourself and though the car alarm is still going off it is no longer in your conscious awareness's focus because all your focus is on the pain in your skin. One minute you're falling through the air to your death, the next you see a pink unicorn flying next to you and realize it is a dream, or you wake up and realize it was a dream. Throughout all of this, there seems to be a continuation of consciousness. The person you wake up as every morning seems to be a continuation of the same consciousness you had the day before. This continuation of consciousness during life is possible because it is not dependent upon maintaining the same perspective or awareness. This is what could continue after physical death.

Perspective (not to be confused with opinion) is likewise dependent upon some form of individuation.

We perceive having an individual, separate consciousness, but some come to realize that this separateness is an illusion. It is possible to be aware on some level to some extent that this perception of separateness is an illusion of the ego while still perceiving the illusion it as we go through our daily lives. It is also possible to see from the perspective of not being separate.

People often talk about "infinite awareness" or "cosmic consciousness" as though this is something that can be experienced.

It can be. Some have experienced this. This is the perspective of not being separate. During that experience it becomes apparent to the experiencer that individuation is an illusion. We are not really separate. It just seems that way because of the way the ego works.

Awareness is dependent upon individuation to even generate a contrast between awareness itself and that of which it is aware.

People are able to be aware of being themselves without dissociating. This conscious awareness of being conscious awareness is the opposite of dissociating. Contrast is not necessary, and is just an illusion. It is possible to be consciously aware of being one with the consciousness of the universe. This is what we are. We’re just not always aware of it because of the illusions of the ego. Some have done this and retain some of that awareness that separateness is an illusion even while they perceive the illusion. If a consciousness could not be aware of being itself while being itself (not separate from itself) no one would experience consciousness. Because that is what consciousness is. Consciousness means there is something that it is like to be the entity in question.