Thread: proof of the after life?

In life and after life we have two stages of existence

D = Dead/not alive
A = Alive

in between Dead & Alive/Alive & Dead we have

B = Birth
DE = Death

so if we go from D to B to A to DE to D or
Dead to Birth to Alive to Death to Dead

why cant we go from DE to D or Dead to Birth a second time?

and in fact if we have an eternity of nothing after death then we go an eternity in the realm of nothing? yet mathematicians have proved that within an eternity everything possible must happen? right, so then the possibility of going from D to B or Death to Birth must happen and we know its possible cause we have already gone from dead or not alive to birth once to prove its possibility. give it a few reads till you can comprehend it, but if you think about it there is no other possibility than another life I dont know how and when, that's all guess work but the possibility of going from not alive to birth must re-emerge from the supposedly nothingness after this life.

Hmm, this belongs to philosophy, at best.

My answer: the cycle holds! Something can go from "not being alive" via a phenomenon that could be called "birth" to being "alive". For instance, plants can grow from compost that once were alive entities. However, I suppose this is not what you are after.

The flaw in your cycle is that you assume that it must be the same individual. You assume that being alive and being concious is the same thing. In order to resolve the paradox, you will have to explain the connection between being alive and being concious or the nature of an individual. At the end of the day, this roots back to the fundamental dilemma between monism and dualism.

to say that D before B, A, and DE is the same as the D after DE is to say that when a being goes from a clump of nonliving organic matter to a lifeform it gains the "thing" that it didn't have before, and that it will loose when it crosses over the point you have designated DE.

in short, you are stating that there is a soul that we can use to distinguish between living and non-living things.

besides the questions dishmaster mentioned, your idea of the soul brings up millions of other questions. can we see this soul? is my sould similar to yours? are they all the same? are they all unique? do they come back into bodies later in their "lifetime" or do they remain in some other place after a being dies? if the former is the case, how do beings gain these souls? if the latter is the case, what makes the souls, we keep seeing more and more new life every few seconds, their souls must come from somewhere.

you can ask a hundred different philosophers and theologians, you might get the same answer from all of them to some questions(even this is not likely), but you will surely get 100 different answers from some of them on some questions. this isn't because they interpret the world differently, it's because they're not even looking at something they can interpret. when i see a cell, i can't tell you if it has a soul or not. if i watch it for long enough i will see that it is undergoing changes. i might then conclude that it is alive. but the case may be that it is decomposing. if i watch even longer i might see it divide, then i know it's alive. before i see demonstrable evidence that it is living, i cannot - and neither can anyone else - tell you if it is alive, not by looking at the cell for a shorter amount of time, not by looking at the molecules within the cell, and not by checking it for a soul that i know little to nothing about.