Is there an after life.

 True i got problem witb read and focus, but we still need more than that for skeptics, science amd the word to know that

To be honest I couldn’t give a toss about convincing skeptics or science.

Personal assessment of the evidence and direct personal experience are possibly the only ways to reach any kind of conviction on the subject of survival as far as I can see. If people aren’t prepared to read widely and think carefully and in an open-minded way about what they read (or can’t), there’s no prospect of developing an opinion with sufficient depth to resist baseless counter arguments (or even understand them properly). The result is an endless to-and-fro at the mercy of people who only want to project their own opinion on the topic (usually ill -informed).i

To be honest I couldn’t give a toss about convincing skeptics or science.

Personal assessment of the evidence and direct personal experience are possibly the only ways to reach any kind of conviction on the subject of survival as far as I can see. If people aren’t prepared to read widely and think carefully and in an open-minded way about what they read (or can’t), there’s no prospect of developing an opinion with sufficient depth to resist baseless counter arguments (or even understand them properly). The result is an endless to-and-fro at the mercy of people who only want to project their own opinion on the topic (usually ill -informed).i

Completely agree, Obiwan !

Michael Tymn has studied this issue of survival and the anxiety regarding it for many years (he is now in his 80s), is an expert on the subject and has a very good blog. He devoted one entry (Dealing with the Fear of Death) to his personal response to a recent scare when he, for a few weeks before final test results were in, appeared to have a good chance of dying of cancer. I think some of his words bear repeating:

"...my recent experience allowed me to further test my conviction that consciousness survives death.  There were many times during those six weeks of anxiety that I examined my views on the subject while mulling over the best evidence in support of survival.  My conviction remained strong at the 98.8 percent certainty level. I frequently went to bed at night thinking it would be best if I transitioned during my sleep and avoided the weeks or months of decay and deterioration.  I reasoned that if I were a bachelor that would be the preferred exit, but I worried about my wife finding my lifeless body upon awakening in the morning.

There were many times over those six weeks that I wondered how I would be dealing with the anxiety if I were a typical nihilist, expecting complete “lights out” when the heart stops pumping. I concluded that contemplating total extinction would be immeasurably more difficult and probably result in difficulty falling asleep each night.  I know that some nihilists claim they are not bothered by the idea of extinction, but, as I have said many times in prior blogs, I tend to sense that such “courage” is mere bravado, or as pioneering psychologist William James suggested, just so much “bosh” and “humbug.”"

Tymn also had some remarks regarding what does it really take to accept something as the absolute truth that is almost unbelievably extraordinary but with a lot of empirical evidence for it. Some personality types can always question ad infinitum no matter how unlikely or ridiculous the alternate explanations:

From Dealing with 'Doubting Thomas' Syndrome:  

"If I were a Doubting Thomas, here are the questions I would have regarding (for example) the documented and multiply witnessed world record eight-foot high jump:

• How come Sotomayor never replicated that world-record jump?
• How come nobody has replicated it in more than a quarter century?
• How do we know the officials weren’t bribed by the Castro regime of Cuba?
• Did each of the officials have proper training in measuring techniques?  Did at least one of them have a Ph.D. in mathematics? 
• How do we know that the officials weren’t drugged and weren’t hallucinating?
• Could the officials have been hypnotized to think they were seeing 96.5 inches on the measuring device? 
• How do we know that the measuring device wasn’t ‘doctored’ beforehand and off a few inches?
• Is the measuring device still available for calibration?  If it is, how can we be sure it is the same one used 26 years ago?
• Was Sotomayor tested for performance-enhancing drugs?  If so, could he have used one of those drugs that defies testing?
• Did anyone check Sotomayor’s shoes for hidden springs?
• Could an illusionist have been employed to make it appear that he cleared the bar when he actually went under it?

Is there anything we can accept as absolute truth?"

Yeah, the "extraordinary evidence" requirement seems to have an infinitely extendable definition. Yet when it comes to their own incredibly unlikely theories, massive odds against seem to be ignored (the appearance of cellular life and DNA, the Cambrian explosion, etc., etc.).

Yeah, the "extraordinary evidence" requirement seems to have an infinitely extendable definition. Yet when it comes to their own incredibly unlikely theories, massive odds against seem to be ignored (the appearance of cellular life and DNA, the Cambrian explosion, etc., etc.).

They alway ask if there is a god then who creat god. But why they never ask who creat the energy that creat big bang :l
 Note: Some how i feel this answer of mine have a logic problem, :l if there is pls tell me.

They alway ask if there is a god then who creat god. But why they never ask who creat the energy that creat big bang :l
 Note: Some how i feel this answer of mine have a logic problem, :l if there is pls tell me.

Whichever way you look at it (either the materialist view or the religious account) there is inevitably the question of what came before. What came before the Big Bang or what created the creator. My philosophical resolution to that conundrum is idealism. To me, mind is primary and not subject to time; time is, like all else, something manifested within mind and therefore subject to the influences of mind, not the other way around. So the question of what came before is redundant.

Whichever way you look at it (either the materialist view or the religious account) there is inevitably the question of what came before. What came before the Big Bang or what created the creator. My philosophical resolution to that conundrum is idealism. To me, mind is primary and not subject to time; time is, like all else, something manifested within mind and therefore subject to the influences of mind, not the other way around. So the question of what came before is redundant.

 The question what does it came from just based on human logic when they want to know how thing from in this universe but if we use that on thing that far beyond i don't think it will work.

They alway ask if there is a god then who creat god. But why they never ask who creat the energy that creat big bang :l
 Note: Some how i feel this answer of mine have a logic problem, :l if there is pls tell me.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It did not need energy to be created. Things like "time" and "energy" are only relevant after the Big Bang, so it is irrelevant to ask "what happened before the Big Bang, or where did the energy come from?"

It is a logic problem to argue against an idea by misunderstanding the idea. This logical fallacy is called a "straw man" or a "fallacy of relevance".

The scientific approach, when you don't know what happened at the point of a singularity, is to say "I don't know", come up with some ideas that can be tested empirically, and follow the clues to see where that leads.

Linda

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It did not need energy to be created. Things like "time" and "energy" are only relevant after the Big Bang, so it is irrelevant to ask "what happened before the Big Bang, or where did the energy come from?"

It is a logic problem to argue against an idea by misunderstanding the idea. This logical fallacy is called a "straw man" or a "fallacy of relevance".

The scientific approach, when you don't know what happened at the point of a singularity, is to say "I don't know", come up with some ideas that can be tested empirically, and follow the clues to see where that leads.

Linda

 Ok so before that we can not say anything, do that mean it the same as god thing both habe logic problem.
 And yeah thank for pointing, i should not use the energy word and before word.
 But as i remember some where i read that we cant tell that is there energy to creat big bang or not.
 :l