Thread: Share your most legit sources for evidence of life after death.

As the title suggest. Feel free to share your best sources of life after death, that feels most legit to YOU.

This thread is in first hand directed for people who are open-minded enough for the idea that there could be a continuation of our awareness after our physical death. To share whats seems like evidence for an after life to you. And maybe get into discussion of these evidences plus and minus. For them to be a good enough source to question if there might be something like a life after death after all. But really, what ever you belive or not believe. Feel free to join at any point. And if you to wonder about something about this subject. Bring any question feel like, and I will probably try to answear you.

So I would like to start this thread with a interview between Richard Dugan and Bob Olson. which will be perfect for anyone who are curious and new to this kind of subject. And maybe never bothered to dig into this kind of questions with a open-mind before.

So the one who are being interviewd is Bob Olson. Bob Olson is a private investigator who started to take interest to investigate the rumors about life after death. And after being investigate the life after death for over 15 years. He got to some conclutions. And for anyone who are curious enough.





I will of course be posting more things in this thread. But since this interview is kind of long. I think this will be a good starter for this thread. This interview will be well worth it's time if you dare to questioning your current view of reality though. Then sit back, relax and Enjoy!

Casper the Friendly Ghost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't believe that people that die, are still alive (sounds obvious lol)

The evidence that after someone dies, they go into a new life, is based on near death experiences. But what I would put forth is that a near death experience just seems to me to be like a form of out of body experiences. If someone is having an experience in a different dimension, that's like an OBE, but that doesn't mean they have died. Yes scientifically they could have flatlined for an hour or whatever they could be scientifically declared dead, but what if this 'scientific' definition only takes into account the material world, not our soul or spirit part of ourself that is connected to our body that gives it the breath of life. It probaly is the case that you have a chance of still being alive, even in some circumstances where you are declared 'clinically' dead, as it's been known to happen a lot. Which really shows that the definition of death isn't correct, not that you live on afterwards in a constant OBE. I think you need a body to be alive.

Also in scripture it says:
Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing

This to me makes it clear.... the dead don't know anything, because they are dead!

Scripture does not say anything about an afterlife, it only says about a resurrection that Jesus conducts when he seperates the righteous from the wicked.

It does mention 'heaven' but remember there is three kinds of heaven, heavens above the earth, heaven in space, and then the heaven in which God has his throne. It is not to do with an afterall, this is a misconception that both unlearned Christians and atheists have about the theology of the bible.

All cases where there is 'evidence' for an afterlife, to me seems to come from demons trying to trick humans. For example a child or someone who remembers a 'past life' will be given information from a evil spirit. And all ghost sightings, or spirit meduims that claim they a dead person is 'stuck' or haunting some place, seems to come from the deception of these evil spirits, not actual family members that have died.

Matthew 12:43 references these types of spirits as it is written
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

Jesus demonstrated many times where he cast spirits out of people, these are the same evil spirits I believe that come from fallen angels either mixing their DNA with humans in the time of noah, in which the angels that sinned and their offspring, inherited immortality, but still are creating chaos on the earth, though they are binded in some way and they manifest through hauntings, places of suffering, and try to deceive people through whatever they can until their time runs out when Jesus returns. These spirits I have come to know as extremely deceptive and intelligent in that they can make you think you are seeing a person that has died, when really they are just shapeshifting, and they want to create this illusion that there is an afterlife, so people who try to talk to the dead, are actually interacting with them, and then they pretend to be the dead person.

Thank you for your sincere opinion Deanstar! I respect you opinion, and this is what caught my attention about it.

Yes scientifically they could have flatlined for an hour or whatever they could be scientifically declared dead, but what if this 'scientific' definition only takes into account the material world, not our soul or spirit part of ourself that is connected to our body that gives it the breath of life.

Yeah this is pretty much the core question for me. According to sience, there is nothing like a soul or spirit, but merely interacting materia that makes up a living being. But let's say that a person die from a heart attack. The person dies, and we know it because the pulse is completely gone.. So, the overall interaction of the cells in the body does not longer co-operate in a way that would make the person alive. So the energy/the spirit that was there aslong as the whole body was functioning, is instantly gone. But the cells in the body is still functioning, their function as cells are not gone. The cells of the dieing body is now starting to go in a self-destruction mode instead. Which implys that cells havn't died, but just changed their objective.

This to me makes it clear.... the dead don't know anything, because they are dead!

Hmm, if this is it. Then there cant be anything else after our physical death. Because some one who is dead cant know/experiencing anything any more. The only heaven there is then, is where we are now, and nothing more. Do you agree with this thought? And if not, then why?

Thanks!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Yeah this is pretty much the core question for me. According to sience, there is nothing like a soul or spirit, but merely interacting materia that makes up a living being.

This is absolutely not true. Science is fully capable of supporting souls and spirits, because science is just a systematic approach to organizing knowledge. It just so happens that there is no objective way to measure the effects of the spirit or soul and as such it has never been included. The scientific community on the other may oppose such an idea but that's a different story.

Science is just trying to build a world model from which you can accurately determine outcomes. Without the relevant data supporting souls and spirits there is no way to build a model for them. If they exist and their effects are measurable then it could very well be that souls and spirits become a component of science.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

This is absolutely not true. Science is fully capable of supporting souls and spirits, because science is just a systematic approach to organizing knowledge. It just so happens that there is no objective way to measure the effects of the spirit or soul and as such it has never been included. The scientific community on the other may oppose such an idea but that's a different story.

Science is just trying to build a world model from which you can accurately determine outcomes. Without the relevant data supporting souls and spirits there is no way to build a model for them. If they exist and their effects are measurable then it could very well be that souls and spirits become a component of science.

I might also add that there are various reasons to suspect the notion of spirits are bogus. First of all the idea of a soul involve something called irreducable complexity: something with complex behaviour that cannot be broken down into simpler components. There has never been any examples that have witstood scrutiny.

For the longest period of time, the cosmos were examples of such. Then Gallelio, Newton and Keplar came along and changed all that. Then it was life. Lord Kelvin was quoted as saying "life is infinitely beyond the reach of science". Mendeliv came along with the first successful theory explaining gentic inherintence, Hooke discovered the cells that are the building blocks of life and Darwn created a theory that explained the diversity of life.

Now the final frontier of irreducible complexity is the human mind. You can claim that the norm does not necessarily make the rule but there are no good reasons to suspect that our intuition for the existence of an irreducible mental being is true and many good reasons for believing that it is a delusion. If we had a irreducible soul, mental deseases would never exhibit the warping, severing and in extreme cases destruction of the self.

I can not seriously entertain the notion of a world where souls and Alzheimers can co-exist.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Hmm, if this is it. Then there cant be anything else after our physical death. Because some one who is dead cant know/experiencing anything any more. The only heaven there is then, is where we are now, and nothing more. Do you agree with this thought? And if not, then why?

Thanks!

I think when it talks of 'heaven' it is talking about different dimensions rather than afterlife. I believe that God exists in a particular dimension that as fallen man, we can't directly access since we had sinned it seperated like a veil had gone over, and that Jesus Christ the son of God, went down into earth as a man, to re-unite us from our fallen state to redeem us. So I believe that when we die, we will experience a resurrection. Depending on the life lived, we may be resurrected to eternal life, or we will be resurrected to be condemed.

I think this is a critical thing that most christian churches and expecially catholics, will never talk about cause it really seperates real christians from false ones.

John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

This means that there is actually two resurrections, the first is the resurrection of those that believe in Christ. The later second resurrection is for those that didn't believe, but those that didn't believe, they can't overcome death. See that is a very important distinction to make. And it's critical.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

So this verse here makes it clear that everyone that dies, they are going to be resurrected (even in first or second resurrection) and judged according to their life.

Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

This means I believe, that those who are in the second resurrection, who get tested by satan when he is again loose on earth, and if they fail that, they may not be in the book of life, and so when everyone is judged, those that choose lies, are cast into the lake of fire, and not having eternal life, is the place where their soul will actually be destroyed.

That's how I understand the doctrine. The 'evil spirits' who go about posessing people and haunting people, I see those as either the fallen angels or Nephilim, which already have immortality, but that they have the lake of fire as their home. So while humans will resurrected, some of those not in the book of life will be destroyed in lake of fire, and those such as satan, fallen angels, since they already have immortality, they actually have to stay in the lake of fire forever! Unless Jesus somehow reverses their immortality, but since it was granted to them from the beginning, they may have to stay there forever. That's why I believe that adam and eve were not permitted to eat of the tree of life, because if in a sinful state they ate of the tree of life and obtained immortality then if they were not redemmed they would have the same fate as the fallen angels. So the tree of life was protected from them going near it until they overcome sin through Christ.

Revelation 2:7
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Before we were born, before this whole world was born, we all were nothing. But despite being nothing we, one day, stepped into existence. One day we will have to step out of existence again end return to being nothing. So, if we once managed to change from nothing to something, why shouldn´t we be able to do it again?

I know this is not a scientific source or anything, but this idea is the reason why I believe there could be an afterlife.

Originally Posted by Creation

Before we were born, before this whole world was born, we all were nothing.

This is simply your interpretation. We were atoms and energy scattered around the universe.

Originally Posted by Marvo

This is simply your interpretation. We were atoms and energy scattered around the universe.

My point is that we were not alive the same way we are today. Our human selves did not exist back then, even if the matter of our bodies did.

Originally Posted by Creation

My point is that we were not alive the same way we are today. Our human selves did not exist back then, even if the matter of our bodies did.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe you aren't just talking out of your ass here, because you are making statements about things you could not possibly know. It's one thing to make suggestions and admit that these suggestions were made under a lot of assumptions, but that's not what you are doing. Your stated reason for believing in an afterlife (which is just living as a human again? How is that an afterlife? Simply because it is another life you live after yours?) is rather flimsy and has no basis in fact and relies entirely on assumptions.

Also, I know Deanstar is banned and he's also pretty much just a troll, but citing the Bible as evidence for an afterlife is dubious because I think most of us will agree that it isn't a credible source.

Originally Posted by snoop

I'm sorry, but it's hard to believe you aren't just talking out of your ass here, because you are making statements about things you could not possibly know. It's one thing to make suggestions and admit that these suggestions were made under a lot of assumptions, but that's not what you are doing. Your stated reason for believing in an afterlife (which is just living as a human again? How is that an afterlife? Simply because it is another life you live after yours?) is rather flimsy and has no basis in fact and relies entirely on assumptions.

I´ve already stated in my first post that this idea is by no means scientific.

Originally Posted by snoop

(which is just living as a human again? How is that an afterlife? Simply because it is another life you live after yours?)

Well what is your definition of an afterlife then? The traditional afterlife expectation of having your mind/spirit/soul transferred into another realm where it continues to live does not sound convincing to me. I doubt we´ll have the privilege of keeping our memories after death. But even if we are not the same person anymore, we would still be able to exist as another being (human or not).
Maybe it would be more accurate to call this “another chance for existing” instead of an afterlife.

Originally Posted by snoop

Also, I know Deanstar is banned and he's also pretty much just a troll, but citing the Bible as evidence for an afterlife is dubious because I think most of us will agree that it isn't a credible source.

I never quoted the bible or any religious ideology. Don´t compare my posts to those of bible-thumpers. Being open minded about more spiritual topics and being religious are not the same thing.

This is absolutely not true. Science is fully capable of supporting souls and spirits, because science is just a systematic approach to organizing knowledge. It just so happens that there is no objective way to measure the effects of the spirit or soul and as such it has never been included. The scientific community on the other may oppose such an idea but that's a different story.

Science is just trying to build a world model from which you can accurately determine outcomes. Without the relevant data supporting souls and spirits there is no way to build a model for them. If they exist and their effects are measurable then it could very well be that souls and spirits become a component of science.

Hmm.. this seems a bit tricky doesn't it? I see where you coming from, and I might been a bit to fast to say that science isn't into the soul/spirit part. But your explination seems to contradict it self a bit, but you did only made a short explination of how science approach to this subject is. And I see that. But hey, what conclution could we make out of this in the end.

Either it would be that

If they exist and their effects are measurable then it could very well be that souls and spirits become a component of science.

Or it could be that becomes a part of soul and spirit? It would be all the same in the end, just said in different words.

I actually would like to find more scientific research about if there is an after life or whatever we would call it. But I just havn't been able to found much of it really.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Hmm.. this seems a bit tricky doesn't it? I see where you coming from, and I might been a bit to fast to say that science isn't into the soul/spirit part. But your explination seems to contradict it self a bit, but you did only made a short explination of how science approach to this subject is. And I see that. But hey, what conclution could we make out of this in the end.

Either it would be that

Or it could be that becomes a part of soul and spirit? It would be all the same in the end, just said in different words.

I actually would like to find more scientific research about if there is an after life or whatever we would call it. But I just havn't been able to found much of it really.

The point is that science does not differentiate between ideas, it doesn't hold opinions, just models that are accurate.
The idea of souls and spirits could fit into science if we could measure it's effects. Currently we know of none of these effects and such it can't be included in a world model.

The point is that science does not differentiate between ideas, it doesn't hold opinions, just models that are accurate.
The idea of souls and spirits could fit into science if we could measure it's effects. Currently we know of none of these effects and such it can't be included in a world model.

I totally get what you pointing at. And I would agree that science as a tool, is accurate within itself and how it works. But since science is handled by such an enormous group of people with different belifs and motivations. That's the motivation for me to remain my critical thinking towards scientific studies. And never take them as some pure truth. But rather see scientific studies as a good potential towards some kind of truth. As long as I cant notice any potential flaws with the scientific studies that are made.

This is simply your interpretation. We were atoms and energy scattered around the universe.

And this is simply your interpretation... right?

There has never been any examples that have witstood scrutiny.

For the longest period of time, the cosmos were examples of such. Then Gallelio, Newton and Keplar came along and changed all that.

So just because we believe that sience have the most things figured out, does that mean that the idea of a soul/spirit is beyond possible for you?

Im not trying to debunk science in anyway here. But I just think that you statements that I qouted above, holds the potential for the example of that history of man tend to repeat itself..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

And this is simply your interpretation... right?

No, it's well understood principle of how our universe works.

First of all, interesting opinions Deanstar. Im kind of foreign to the bible, so I cant say that I was able to follow your thoughts all the way. But it's always interesting to hear about others different points of view, like yours. If the bible wasn't that thick, then I would totally read it, because I bet that there is some golden nuggets in there that could ring true to anyone.

I think when it talks of 'heaven' it is talking about different dimensions rather than afterlife.

It sounds to me like you and I are on the same page here after all. Just that we have a different approach to all this. A different dimension is pretty much the same for me as a "after life". And if there is a heaven, then that's awesome in my book!

No, it's well understood principle of how our universe works.

It's also just a belief. Like everything else that the mind could come up with. It's easy to forget that some times.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

It's also just a belief. Like everything else that the mind could come up with. It's easy to forget that some times.

True it's a belief or a map if you like. There is no such thing as 'right' in science, only that which has not been proven wrong yet. Some theories last for centuries, others do not last a week under scrutiny. However, with every overturned theory, we get a map that closer approximates reality. Think of it as a pyramid with the most primitive theories representing the base with the widest range of values with each successive layer representing predictions of increased precision.

The value of a scientific theory is not in what it can explain but rather in what it cannot explain. If your beliefs could account for all concievable events, then your beliefs have no informational value. However, if your belief will be validated by only a narrow range of possibilities and those possibilities happen time and time again, you have true insight, at least until something happens that contradicts that range and you have to begin anew.

What do you mean? That we can't be certain about anything?

That's right.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

It's also just a belief. Like everything else that the mind could come up with. It's easy to forget that some times.

What do you mean? That we can't be certain about anything? Then why do you want 'legit sources' to prove ghosts exist, when you might as well use 'pink horse rainbows'? Your world becomes meaningless if you are not going to believe in anything. If you believe the PC in front of you is actually doing what it appears to be doing, then by extension you will have to believe pretty much every aspect of science.

Marvo, believing something =/= being certain about something. I believe in the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics yet I would be a fool to express certainty there, not because I think the Copenhagen interpretation has a plausible chance of being true but because there may be other better interpretations that have not been formulated or shared by a human mind yet.

Also this:

If you believe the PC in front of you is actually doing what it appears to be doing, then by extension you will have to believe pretty much every aspect of science.

is a total non-sequiter. If you believe the PC in front of you is actually doing what it appears to be doing, then that only means you have to believe your idea of how a computer works. You could remove all scientific discoveries and theories and you would still have the methodology that arrived at those conclusions in the first place.

I can totally understand your well formulateded explanation of how theories of science works, DevianThinker. And even if I agree with and take interest in what science have provided for us all. I still see things that applys to reality but that science as a whole, wont even take as a serious question. Like an potential "after life" or what ever we feel like calling it. I definitely dont think that every scientist are to blame for the lack of interest of these kind of questions that people all around the world dwell in. But I rather think that this lack of interest, depends on where the invested money of science should go according to the investors.


I have also come to notice that hardcore sceptics of these kind of questions like a "Life after death?" easily appear like a laughing matter for some of them, due to the fact of their feeling of superiority with the comfort that science might provide them with. Science becomes the secure home of the ego for many hardcore belivers in science as I see it. And those scientific theories it's very easy to fall back on if there is a dwelling thought about any aspect of life.

Unfortunately for the minorities that put their thoughts outside the box of the scientific frames, will very soon be put in place by "better" knowing people with their mind and heart in science. the most bizzare thing with this behaviour for me though, is that those who try to impose their scientific believes on others ideas and try to almost auto correct everything back to some kind of "natural explanation" in the name of science. This looks to me like a the exact same approach of acting in the same pattern as any other religious fanatic. It's like every one that try to see beyond the law of physics as we currently know it, are bound to be saved by some science fanatic that will save their poor little confused minds(which of course seem to be the case for some people if they say that they want it).

This kind of heroic rescue mission how ever, is not always a good way to start in a discussion that lies out side the ideas of the scientific theories. People with totally open-minded questions outside the box of reality, will probably not be seeking for some fast truth result. But rather build a theory or unlock deeper questions that comes out of questioning what ever is or have been. So even if anyone feel like they can debunk every new question that questioning reality. That's like bringing back the same old news, that anyone can come to understand if that's what they seek, with the help of science. So for anyone who feel that science is the only real truth out there. Take on the challange to start thinking for yourself sometimes as well. And dont just referring back every question you come up with, back to what you have been reading and think you understand. Every one have a imagination within them self, but sometimes people happen to forget about that part of them selfs.



DeviantThinker, I just want to say that this little rant as I suppose it to be. Is not directed to you personally or at you in any way. I just got some feeling to express my opinion that I believe that many hardcore sceptics out there is missing to grasp. So if anyone feels offended by this, Im truly sorry. It's not supposed to be an attack of people who genuinely loves science. But rather a wake up call for some bias minds out there that never seems to get an glimps of understanding out side their own thought patterns.