Do you believe in heaven?

I do not see any empirical evidence that there is an afterlife. So I do not believe any such exists.

For comparison sake, I also do not believe in vampires, alien abductions or psychics.

Moreover, I see a lot of holes and absurdities in the idea of an afterlife as most believers explain it. I explained these problems in the form of questions in my thread, Individuality and the Body in a Supposed Afterlife.

There has been scientific, empirical evidence for the afterlife and psi phenomena for about 150 years, your personal dismissal notwithstanding. I will outline some of it below:

William Crooke's Research into mediumship., published in the Quarterly Journal of Science. Crookes was widely regarded as the greatest scientist of his time; his validation of spiritual mediumship (communicating with the dead) cause and uproar in the scientific community.

A couple of his contemporaries said of his and other such research:

SIR WILLIAM BARRETT, (1844-1925) – Professor of physics at the Royal College of Science in Dublin for 37 years, “I’m absolutely convinced of the fact that those who once lived on earth can and do communicate with us. It is hardly possible to convey to the inexperienced an adequate idea of the strength and cumulative force of the evidence (for the afterlife).”

Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) – Co-originator with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory of evolution: " My position is that the phenomena of communicating with those who crossed over - in their entirety do not require further confirmation. They are proved quite as well as facts are proved in other sciences."

NDE research, published in the Lancet.
http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf
An excerpt:

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?

Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this xperience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception. Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

Veritas Research Program http://veritas.arizona.edu/
Mediumship research conducted by the Universtity of Arizona, which produced publications such as:

Beischel J, Schwartz GE. Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing. 2007;3(1):23-27.

and

Schwartz GER, Russek LGS, Nelson LA, Barentsen C. Accuracy and replicability of anomalous after-death communication across highly skilled mediums. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 2001;65(1):1-25.

Schwartz GE (with Simon WL). The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death. New York: Pocket Books (division of Simon and Schuster); 2002.

Abstracts of the 40th Parapsychology Foundation International Conference“The Study of Mediumship: Interdisciplinary Perspectives”

The Scole Experiment http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/

The Windbridge Institute, which has ongoing mediumship research, with many publications including "ANOMALOUS INFORMATION RECEPTION BY RESEARCH MEDIUMS DEMONSTRATED USING A NOVEL TRIPLE-BLIND PROTOCOL."

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena

Excerpt for "Implications and Applications"

PEAR's contribution to this expansion of the scientific worldview has been its accumulation of huge bodies of consciousness-correlated empirical evidence that the subjective/objective dichotomy of Cartesian philosophy is no longer entirely viable.

More comprehensive accommodation of these anomalies within a functional scientific framework will require the explicit inclusion of consciousness as an active agent in the establishment of physical reality, a generalization of the scientific paradigm demanding more courageous theoretical structures than are employed at present, guided by more extensive empirical data than are now available, acquired via more cooperative interdisciplinary collaborations than are currently practiced. It is our hope that by its proposition of a few possible conceptual models PEAR has established productive precedents for such representation of this formidable, but crucial, topical domain.

Our ability to acquire, or to generate tangible, measureable information independent of distance or time challenges the foundation of any reductionistic brain-based model of consciousness that may be invoked. The lack of notable correlations in the data with standard learning curves or other recognizable cognitive patterns, combined with the repeatable and distinct gender-related differences, suggest that these abilities may stem from a more fundamental source than heretofore suspected. Certainly, there is little doubt that integration of these changes in our understanding of ourselves can lead to a substantially superior human ethic, wherein the long-estranged siblings of science and spirit, of analysis and aesthetics, of intellect and intuition, and of many other subjective and objective aspects of human experience can be productively reunited.

There are many publications that PEAR produced during their research, including:

Physical Aspects of Psychic Phenomena (1988). Physics Bulletin, 39, pp. 235-236.

Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems (1989). Foundations of Physics, 19, No. 12, pp.1499-1514.*

Consciousness and Anomalous Physical Phenomena (1995). PEAR Technical Note 95004, May 1995 (32 pages).

The abstract:

Several million experimental trials investigating the ability of human operators to affect the output of various random physical devices have demonstrated small but statistically significant shifts of the distribution means that correlate with operator intention, exhibit repeatable idiosyncratic individual variations, and display consistent patterns of gender dependence, series position development, and internal distribution structure. These effects also appear to be statistically independent of distance and time. In a complementary program of remote perception studies, experimental protocols and analytical scoring methods have been developed to demonstrate and quantify information acquired by individuals about distant geographical locations without the use of normal sensory channels. A wave-mechanical approach to modeling consciousness/environment interactions, based on a metaphorical application of quantum concepts and formalisms, has proven useful in predicting and interpreting the empirical findings and in guiding the development of more incisive experiments.

I agree with meleagar and I was just about to post about the Scole Experiment

On the Internet
The Scole Report is available from the Society for Psychical Research

See the Society’s web site
http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php

“What the Scole Experiment Meant to Me” by Robin Foy
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/foy/ scole.htm
“Reflections on the Scole Experiment” by Alan and Diana Bennett -

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/benn ett/reflections.htm

“The Scole Event” an eyewitness account by Montague Keen, a long time member of the Society for Psychical Research, http://www.scimednet.org/library/articlesN73+/N73K een_Scoleevent.htm

Perspectives of eyewitness Dr Ernst Senkowski
http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/book_04.h

Scole Experiment Update
A new edition of The Scole Experiment (Campion Publishing 2006) contains details of new communications received by the mediums five years after the cessation of the Scole Experiment.


See http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/book_00.htm
A further book The Norfork Experiment is planned.

When most people say that they don't see any evidence for the afterlife or psi, what they mean is that either they don't look for it, or they discount the evidence that is there.

From Nobel prize winnning physicist Brian Josephson:

Detailed analysis of the complete collection of experiments on this type of phenomenon shows that what holds, despite changes in equipment, experimenter, subjects, judges, targets and laboratories, is far greater consistency with the 1 in 3 success rate already mentioned than with the 1 in 4 chance expectation rate. Such consistency is the hallmark of a genuine effect, and this, together with the very low probability of the overall success rate observed occurring by chance, argues strongly for the phenomena being real and not artifactual.

The afterlife - whether one calls it "heaven" or not - has been scientifically evidenced. Whether or not it has been substantively "proven" is up to the purveyor of the evidence to decide. IMO, the evidence for after-death survival is convincing, and it breaks no known physical laws, and it is entirely consonant with various aspects of quantum theory.

British scientist, Ron Pearson:

Since survival can be shown an essential and integral part of physics, the hope must be that the efforts still being made to discredit all evidence of survival will soon come to an end. This theory has achieved publication in Russian conference Proceedings (1&2) of 1991 and 1993 respectively, and in the peer-reviewed scientific journal "Frontier Perspectives"(3) in 1997. Furthermore Prof. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University, supported the theory during a joint broadcast on the American Radio Shows in 2001. (Pearson, 2004).

There is no reason to believe that there is no life after death other than ideology.

[Scott]

Meleagar and Izzy, if you mean to say that there is about as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for alien abductions and cryptids than I agree with you. I would go on to say that I believe the vast majority of self-proclaimed scientists studying these things are actually pseudo-scientists performing pseudo-science and that they are not credible sources. Those claiming to provide evidence of paranormal stuff like aliens, ghosts and Bigfoot are the kind of people whose articles appear in tabloids sold at the supermarket checkout lane rather than credible peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Sure if I see Bigfoot that is evidence he exists. But if I say I see Bigfoot, and you cite me saying that as evidence that he exists, do you really expect others to believe. I could probably find some nutty homeless guy who says he was abducted by aliens. Would you say that is empirical evidence for alien abductions? No, it isn't. Firstly, the source isn't credible and the method used isn't scientific. Remember, reproducibility is essential to a scientific experiment and testability is a requisite of a scientific hypothesis--a valid scientific theory being a tested and confirmed hypothesis.

Remember, paranormal activity by definition lacks scientific evidence. Otherwise, it isn't paranormal.

If you think these things--contact with the dead, alien abductions, Bigfoot, etc.--are believable, then you are using a different and more liberal standard of belief than I am. In that case, you and I agree about how much evidence there is for an afterlife or for ghosts or such. We merely disagree on how much evidence it takes to believe something and what standards of evidence has to meet. And we can discuss that disagreement in the thread I created about standards of belief.

***

Regarding the evidence:

The Encyclopedia Britannica article on spiritualism notes that "...one by one, the Spiritualist mediums were discovered to be engaged in fraud, sometimes employing the techniques of stage magicians in their attempts to convince people of their clairvoyant powers."

According to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, to date, there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead (source).

Meleagar, if you mean to say that there is about as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for alien abductions and cryptids than I agree with you.

Then can you refer me to the peer-reviewed and published papers by leading scientists and mainstream research organizations and universities, such as the ones I listed above, about alien abductions and cryptids?

I would go on to say that I believe the vast majority of self-proclaimed scientists studying these things are actually pseudo-scientists performing pseudo-science and that they are not credible sources.

This is nothing but a baseless, ad hominem attack intended to do nothing but smear reputations and credibility. It has no place in meaningful debate.

Those claiming to provide evidence of paranormal stuff like aliens, ghosts and Bigfoot are the kind of people whose articles appear in tabloids sold at the supermarket checkout lane rather than credible peer-reviewed scientific journals.

More reputation and credibility smearing. Is the Lancet a supermarket tabloid? Did you even bother to read the citations I listed? Princeton? University of Arizona? Quarterly Journal of Science? Physics Bulletin?

Sure if I see Bigfoot that is evidence he exists. But if I say I see Bigfoot, and you cite me saying that as evidence that he exists, do you really expect others to believe. I could probably find some nutty homeless guy who says he was abducted by aliens. Would you say that is empirical evidence for alien abductions? No, it isn't. Firstly, the source isn't credible and the method used isn't scientific. Remember, reproducibility is essential to a scientific experiment and testability is a requisite of a scientific hypothesis--a valid scientific theory being a tested and confirmed hypothesis.

It appears you didn't bother to look any of the evidence over, but rather simply wish to characterize it with prepackaged, dismissive rhetoric. Apparently, you are so convinced that there cannot be legitimate evidence for psi or the afterlife that you feel safe ridiculing the research and personally denigrating the scientists without even investigating the material.

If you had investigated it, you'd find that the research was done by legitimate scientists under the most stringent protocols of both experimentation and interpretation, and was peer reviewed and published.

Remember, paranormal activity by definition lacks scientific evidence. Otherwise, it isn't paranormal.

It has no evidence, so it is paranormal; it is paranormal, because it has no evidence? Circular reasoning there, and an attempt to exclude certain areas of research by definitional fiat.

Just because something is labeled "paranormal" doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomena that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

If you think these things--contact with the dead, alien abductions, Bigfoot, etc.--are believable, then you are using a different and more liberal standard of belief than I am.

How would you know, unless you (1) read all the evidence I provided, and (2) questioned me further about additional evidence I might have?

Since you don't know what evidence I am privvy to (nor have you asked), you have no means by which to meaningfully gauge how liberal or conservative my "come to conclusion" process is, or how I applied it in this particular case (psi and the afterlife). Therefore, your statement that my process is more liberal than yours cannot be based in fact, it can only be based on assumption.

I posit that the reason you assume that my "come to conclusion" methodology cannot be as stringent as yours in this case, without even going through the motions of reading the evidence provided and investigating further my sources of evidence, inference and logic, is because (IMO)you have an a priori belief that no such evidence can exist, beause you believe that psi and the afterlife either do not exist, or can not be evidenced.

Either way, that and the robust smear campaign you started your post with indicate an a priori ideological position on your part. In laymen's terms, you obviously have a closed mind on the subject or else you wouldn't use ad hominem, smear scientists and research you are unfamiliar with and in broad strokes, and you'd be more keen on investigating evidence submitted in response to your earlier statement that you have seen no such evidence.

In that case, you and I agree about how much evidence there is for an afterlife or for ghosts or such. We merely disagree on how much evidence it takes to believe something and what standards of evidence has to meet.

You'd have to know how much evidence I have amassed, and my inferences and argument thereof, before you could even come close to making such an assessment. You did not, revealing your substantial bias.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article on spiritualism notes that "...one by one, the Spiritualist mediums were discovered to be engaged in fraud, sometimes employing the techniques of stage magicians in their attempts to convince people of their clairvoyant powers."

According to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, to date, there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead.

Appealing to authorities that dismiss the evidence, instead of examining the evidence for yourself and engaging in informed debate, is bad form. If you are not willing to investigate the evidence for yourself and make your own arguments thereof, you should simply excuse yourself from the debate.

Further: Since there is considerable legitimate evidence that an afterlife exists, and no evidence that an afterlife does not exist, it is irrational to believe that no afterlife exists.

Although I have some disagreements with the discussion thus far I would like to point out a specific point of contention which has to do with ridicule.

I would like to distinguish the right and ability "People" have to reason and interpret their interactions with eachother in any manner which they deem the most rational accorded to their will or abilities.

I had an experience a few years ago, and although it is not the only such related experience I have had I feel it very profound, relevant and analogous with my previous statement.

I have brothers, and we informally converse on a regular basis at least once a week besides the normal family functions close families are generally committed too. One day I was otherwise engaged and very busy dealing with my personal life, too busy to think about anyone else when I had a sudden, compelling urge to speak to one specific brother. I stopped what I was doing pulled out my cell and called him, immediately asking if he was all right. After some regular brother diversion tactics he informed me he was having some minor chest pain. Despite his protests I commanded him that I was calling an ambulance. The ambulance picked him up and I meet the bus at the hospital learning that the discomfort in his chest had intensified. Long story short, it turned out my younger brother was having a heart attack which required stints and all the other careful considerations heart attack survivors must employ to keep alive.

I will not put a label on this experience, only to say that I am glad it happens and it served its purpose on that day.

Those of us who are connected to spouses or special someones, not of the same blood, often site instances where it seems like mind reading or some other paranormal concept. Of course this can be countered as experienced familiarity. Just knowing the nuances of behavior and character of someone you are close to or live with. But, who can be sure?

The one thing I am sure of is that Man is flawed.
Man is flawed because he does not know everything.
Man is flawed because he does not know what constitutes the realities of his existence.
Man is flawed because he cannot know these things, unless!

We know we use the term, "LOVE", to denote deep affection. This comes in degrees. When I say, "Oh, I love that movie", we know that is different than when I say, "I love my wife". So we know that love exists, although it is intangible, immaterial and variable. Just a word to describe some level or degree of affection. But, love is also a word with transcendent powers. Love is a part of my will that wants me to be connected to my brother, or my wife, or a comrade, or God, without the need of physical, material contact.

So when I say that I love God, I don't mean that immaterial, intangible and variable kind. I mean that transcendent connection. The one that connects me to God through the power of will.

Unless a man recognizes how really alone he is. Once a man recognizes his isolation, then he can begin the journey to understand the things he cannot know and how those things have come to be known. Because, it exists, it is known to exist.

I don't know if Big Foot exists but, I don't care to want Big Foot to exist. I don't know if Aliens exist or if they've ever abducted anyone, but I don't care to want aliens to exist. So I won't be looking for them. Some people care to want too. That's their business, and I wish them luck, they are not hurting anyone. More importantly, if Big Foot or aliens exist how will that knowledge affect or improve my life? How does putting my faith in the existence of Big Foot or aliens complete my journey in this life, weather it is the one and only life I will have or not?

In context with a considered desire to know God and Heaven and the advantage of placing my faith in the knowledge that they exist, and what the existence of God and Heaven does for me, then any exercise which attempts to bring that knowledge closer is an effort of worth which is incomparable to looking for Big Foot or aliens, and I think it is intellectual dishonesty not to recognize that difference and comparing the search for God to Big Foot or aliens is just simple unsophisticated ridicule.

A simple hypothetical exercise;

If you had a choice of one of two maps offered, one leading to Big Foot, and the other leading to God. Which would you choose?

The difference between the two choices being one leads to what you already know and the other leads to what you can know.

Izzy, if you mean to say that there is about as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for alien abductions and cryptids than I agree with you

I have had my own revelations on it, also I am probably one of the largest sceptic`s with stringent methods to rule out what is ..and what is just imaginary..or minds playing tricks..I know there are both the very gullible [in all fields of investigation not just psychic ones] there are also many of reason. With reasoned witnesses attached. Therefore the evidence is abundant not sparse. One could even say empirical.

This does not mean I rate tv shows like Most Haunted [which I think is quackery] however there are places that are in fact haunted, I am pleased to say I don`t live in them lol!

Izzy

Campaign for an English Parliament
http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/

My main thought on life after death is of what the idea of death conjures in people (eternal nothingnes) being the one thing that our world proves cannot be true. There is no such thing as nothing. We only know of nothing because of subjective expectation (i.e. I expect to find 20 dollars in my wallet but discover 'nothing' there. Or, if I expect someone to be at a certain place because I make plans to meet her at a cafe, and then discover on my arrival that she is no where to be found, it isn't that she has vanished from existence. She just happens to be somewhere else at the moment, is all. Or, (last one promise...Stole this one from Jean-Paul Sartre) we look up at the moon and see it is not fully there, being but a crescent. It isn't that the moon is missing part of itself, (the moon is always whole) but only that a portion is visible from the rays of the sun reflecting but that small piece of it).

I understand the theory that is being presented (i.e. the lungs exist after death, but the function of the lungs [breathing] has ceased. Ergo, the brain [for that matter, the entire body itself] is still present, but its function [consciousness] no longer is. So, from what I believe I understand from your view point is that consciousness is nothing but the function of the brain and/or body (nothing more; nothing less).

Understanding this, my best recourse (and I am improvising) would have to submit the concept of free will. Is or can 'free will' be but the function of the mind/body? Can the concept of free will be denied? And, does free will perish along with the function of the mind/body? (On a personal note, I have no religious affiliation. I believe that all religion(s) are one, coming from the 'Poetic Genius' as described by William Blake).

I'm going to stop here and think about what to write in response. I think this is a legitimate arguement, but if anyone disagrees, please refute the above as best you can. (I know you will; that's why I love you guys).

P.S. It's not the alcohol talking, I swear. Besides, I'm not drinking. I'm on pain meds.

[Scott]

This is what I wrote in Meleagar's other thread about questioning the credibility of sources:

I just want to say that it is not an ad hominem fallacy to question the credibility of a source. It is an ad hominem fallacy (and strictly against the forum rules) to question the credibility of or otherwise personally attack a non-authority trying to provide a logical argument since the validity of an argument is not dependent at all on the credibility or character of any person who happens to present it. However, when one uses an alleged authority as a source or citation of a certain alleged fact, then the credibility of that alleged authority is very pertinent to discussion.

Also, rejection by the vast majority of other authorities in the field of a small minority of alleged authorities makes, in my opinion, the small minority of authorities very non-credible as sources. For instance, if 99 out of 100 lawyers tell you a certain act is illegal and 1 tells you it is legal, who are you going to believe? If one cites the one lawyers opinion as the source of a premise in a debate that the action is legal, it is reasonable and not an ad hominem fallacy to point out that 1 lawyer's lack of credibility.

***

Meleagar,

Meleagar, if you mean to say that there is about as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for alien abductions and cryptids than I agree with you.

Then can you refer me to the peer-reviewed and published papers by leading scientists and mainstream research organizations and universities, such as the ones I listed above, about alien abductions and cryptids?

Please excuse me, but I'm not interested in spending time searching for the relatively small amounts of unconvincing alleged evidence for things I don't believe in like alien abductions and cryptids. If you actually think there is significantly more credible empirical evidence for the afterlife than alien abductions or cryptids, then it makes sense to me that you would believe it even using my standard of belief. I'm willing to agree to disagree about the amount of evidence for the afterlife in relation to alien abductions and cryptids, where I think it's about equal and you think there's significantly more for the former one than the latter two.

I ask you that question about whether you agree it has as about as much evidence as alien abductions and cryptids to figure out whether the disagreement you and I have is in using a different standard of belief or if you actually think there is more evidence for an afterlife than alien abductions or cryptids. I have asked you the question again in your new thread in bold print. So to avoid redundancy, I ask you to answer it in that thread.

Believers in the afterlife may be offended when I say that I think the compellingness of the so-called evidence for the afterlife is as compelling as the so-called evidence for alien abductions and cryptids. Similarly, in a debate about whether people believe in alien abductions, those who do believe in alien abductions may be offended when I compare the believability of alien abductions to ghosts and the afterlife. I don't mean to offend. Nor do I think this type of offense-causing is at all tantamount to an ad hominem fallacy. Nor am I suggesting, as Juice may think, that these things--which I believe have about equal amounts of empirical evidence--are both equally worth seeking out or if true would be equally beneficial to humanity or me personally.

Thanks!
Scott

This is what I wrote in Meleagar's other thread about questioning the credibility of sources:

Rebutted and corrected in the other thread.

Believers in the afterlife may be offended when I say that I think the compellingness of the so-called evidence for the afterlife is as compelling as the so-called evidence for alien abductions and cryptids.

I'm not offended, I'm pointing out that it is irrational to refuse to investigate the level of scientific evidence available in either field and then blindly assert that the evidence for one is "as compelling" as the other. How would you know? You've admitted to not bothering to investigate either.

You said:

Please excuse me, but I'm not interested in spending time searching for the relatively small amounts of unconvincing alleged evidence for things I don't believe in like alien abductions and cryptids.

Note how you assume the amounts of evidence will be small and unconvincing, and so you cannot be bothered to invest time in looking for and examining the evidence; you have admitted here that you have not invested the time to research and investigate the evidence because you don't believe in them (revealing your a priori bias); but even with this admitted lack of investigatory effort into the material in question you feel completely authorized to off-handedly defame and disparage the reputation and research of "the vast majority" of scientists involved.

Similarly, in a debate about whether people believe in alien abductions, those who do believe in alien abductions may be offended when I compare the believability of alien abductions to ghosts and the afterlife. I don't mean to offend. Nor do I think this type of offense-causing is at all tantamount to an ad hominem fallacy.

It is ad hominem when, without a meaningful investigation into the field, you dismiss "the vast majority" of researchers as "self-proclaimed scientists" involved in "pseudo-science", whether it is about the afterlife, bigfoot, alien abductions, or demons.

Just because you personally believe such things as equally unevidenced because you believe them to be equally nonexistent doesn't make it so; refusal to modify your position based on evidence (by refusing to even look the evidence over and debate it) indicates it is an a priori position based on ideology, and not a rational conclusion based on an examination of the actual available evidence.

As I said before, if you are unwilling to even examine the evidence provided in a debate about a subject, why involve yourself in it at all?

Also, please stop throwing in the unrelated red herrings of cryptids, demons, and alien abductions in your transparenta attempts to ridicule by association; you don't have any more legitimate knowledge about the state of evidence of those things than you have about the state of afterlife evidence.

All you are doing is derailing the debate. This debate is about a particular subject; debate that subject and that evidence or not, but please refrain from muddying the water with other subjects as if they are somehow relevant to the debate at hand.

Scott-Thanks for the shout at the end of your last post. It's nice to be noticed by the Boss!

As I stated I would be hard pressed to put a label on my experience with my bother that day, (post #21),which can be differently interpreted, by anyone, as, that is, a product of their own free abilities, according to thier own actionable will. As are you entitled to apply any degree of validity to my experience according to your own free actionable will and experiences. I can also express my interpretation of my experience and have others agree or disagree with my interpretation according to their own rational will.

I submit that any action or expression employed by any Human Being, equally able to act according to thier will, which does not intend to apply any physical or mental force, in any way shape or form, to any other human being of propotional ability, is rational.

I agree that questioning the credibility of a source is not an ad hominem fallacy, I contend that comparison analogies are.

Terms are constructed differently so as to distinguish and separate concepts, ideas and intentions from eachother to facilitate understanding, and impart concepts, ideas and intentions between individuals of reasonable similar capacity. An analogy uses terms with similar features, like apples and oranges, or planes, trains and automobiles. The similarities between these examples fall under specific categories, fruits and transportation respectively. If I make an analogy between killing and murder we understand that both have to with death, but killing is an action and murder a subjective judgement based on the legal forensics possible in the act of killing.

Analogies are fine when used properly in argument and debate when they are clearly defined and/or understood. I can make an analogy between foot and hand, water and earth, men and women, as long as those analogies are defined and/or can be understood by the direction and content of the debate. Foot and hand are analogous parts of the body with similar structures, and with two completely different functions so if I say that a foot is like a woman and a hand is like a man I am going to get several interpretations, some of which may be violent. And I couldn't blame anyone unless I made the purpose of the analogy clear and when this is done within the context of argument and/or debate then the presenter commits an ad hominem fallacy in comparison analogies. Sometimes this is done to redirect the debate or simply because the presenter has no reasoned argument.

I believe in God according to one, established, definition of God which comports with my beliefs as a Christian. This definition is not analogous to the definitions of Big Foot or Aliens. I understand that many people believe that God, Big Foot and aliens fall within the category of the supernatural, but such an analogy should be clearly defined when presented in an argument and/or debate instead of taking it for granted that one possible analogous perspective, concept or idea is universally accepted or even categorically "TRUE".

Evidence may be abundant, but so are conclusions.

I agree that questioning the credibility of a source is not an ad hominem fallacy, I contend that comparison analogies are.

He didn't "question the credibility" of a source; he deliberately smeared the credibility and reputation of "the vast majority" of scientists and research sight unseen and with no intent to investigate.

That is pure ad hominem.

Meleagar said;

He didn't "question the credibility" of a source; he deliberately smeared the credibility and reputation of "the vast majority" of scientists and research sight unseen and with no intent to investigate.

That is pure ad hominem.

Yes, I agree. My comment directed that individual properly investigated and then critique(able) sources are not ad hominem.

Scott said,

...the compellingness of the so-called evidence for the afterlife is as compelling as the so-called evidence for alien abductions and cryptids.

I agree!!

Scott-Thanks for the shout at the end of your last post. It's nice to be noticed by the Boss!

Juice, you really are a military man. That comment proves it.

Juice wrote:
Scott-Thanks for the shout at the end of your last post. It's nice to be noticed by the Boss!

Algol quipped;

Juice, you really are a military man. That comment proves it.

Sir, (or Ma'AM) I don't know if you mean that as a compliment or not, but I will take it as such, SIR, (or MA'AM).

From a Christian perspective, I do not believe that there is, or can be, any material way to empirically prove the existence of heaven. Although, I can see how it would be possible to "infer" from natural physical phenomenon the continuation of the "self" after biological death. In this I do not mean in the manifestation of a ghost or some such ethereal projection observable on this plain of existence. But, possibly in an intra-dimensional, or inter-dimensional reality which co-exists simultaneously with the reality of my current existence. There could be some Biblical interpretations to support that, and through interpretations of quantum physics. This would also require discussions on causal time and relative time, as I believe that there are possibilities for variable types of time relative to different dimensional realities in which concepts of the eternal and the infinite are more intimately explorable.