Monday, October 31, 2011

Halloween Post: Live, Die, Repeat (by anon)

It seems that about half of the population believes in ghost stories, while the other half believes that the actuality of ghosts is impossible.  When pondering life after death, the word ‘ghost’ always works its way into the conversation.  Life after death is possible because there are ghosts.  Life after death is not possible and there is no such thing as ghosts.  There is more to the subject of life after death than ghosts. An easy way to summarize reasoning for the possibility is, simply, energy.  Life after death is possible because our souls consist of pure energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

For the record, energy can be measured. It can be detected, weighed, and even seen.  We have proof that energy is not a false premise.  Ghosts are a form of energy.  We can detect their presence by the feel of sudden coldness on our skin, a machine detecting energy shifts in a room, and we can record them on video.  Nevertheless, as previously stated, ghosts are not the only factors of the afterlife, just an easy way to start things off.  So, let’s start from the beginning.

When we’re born, at that moment, we are given a life; a soul.  That soul is the essence of our being.  It doesn’t make us who we are, but it provides us our life.  In the womb we are completely dependent on our mothers to provide nutrients, warmth, and life.  It is not until we’re born that we learn to breathe, shout, and see light for the first time.  That’s when our souls unite with our bodies.  When we experience death is when the soul leaves a body.  A body cannot live forever.  Since a soul is pure energy, it needs somewhere to go. 

This brings in the idea of reincarnation.  After our souls escape our body, they need a new place to be housed.  If something relatively near is being born at that time, then that is where the soul will end up.  Whether this new body is a new baby squirrel, another human, or even a little caterpillar, the energy once housed in our body will take up new residency.  Every animal has a soul; a source of energy.  We may not call it a ‘soul’ per say, but that’s what it truly is.

Some people don’t believe in reincarnation; it’s just not possible.  Going back to the ghost factor, imagine that a body has died.  Assuming there is a soul, it is energy, and it needs to be housed somewhere, what if nothing else around this body is happening?  The soul is trapped, and so it will wonder around that area, forever longing to find another body to be housed in.  Now imagine this person’s life ended tragically, still planning on living at least twenty more years.  That soul may not be able to move on to another being, because the first person’s mind has not died along with it.  The soul, now a spirit, will cling to life and hold on to frustrated feelings held from that life; never ready to move on.

In a way that most people are not used to thinking, yes, there is life after death.  It’s hard to wrap your brain around at first, but it’s really the only logical answer to death in general.  What happens when I die?  That is one of the most pressing questions for most people in life.  Well, if you must know, here is your answer.  There is life after death.  It may not be exactly how one is raised to believe or not to believe.  In short, our souls are made of pure energy, the source of our person’s energy, and because of the fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it must transfer from our bodies as we pass, to another’s. 


  1. I don't understand why some people just can't accept that when you die, you are just dead. That's it. Nothing more. All this wishful thinking makes me want to puke. blaghhagh

  2. 11:40:
    How can you say this kind of understanding of life after death is wishful thinking? You've missed the point entirely! Do you also think it is "wishful thinking" for one to believe in being reincarnated as a caterpillar? Of course not! That is no glorious ride in the sky...
    It's not wishful thinking. It's just saying our life energy has to go somewhere. And you can't deny that we have life energy - for example, you're sitting on a couch, completely motionless, what gives you the ability to think to yourself "I'm going to get up now", and then you actually get up? That's energy of your life. And where shall it go when you die? Who knows? It's not as though the original poster is saying, "Our consciousness goes on", which would make sense then for you to call it "wishful thinking".
    Jeez, make an ARGUMENT against what the original poster is saying. Don't just dub the post as some loony "I wanna live peacefully forever in the sky when I die" kind of thing.
    You're ignorance is SO annoying!

  3. That should be "your", not "you're". Whoops.

  4. Uh, yeah. Wishful thinking. That's all that is going on here. We have a soul that goes to the nearest thing when our body dies? Yeah, how realistic is that?!? Where's the argument for that?? Believing in a soul is like not growing up and believing in Santa Claus. It is being afraid of death and believing in fairies and angels. I'm sorry but someone has to say to you, "Wake up and welcome to the real world."

  5. Everything is subject to subjectivity. Consider the context behind "the real world". The "real world" you experience and the "real world" other people experience are two very different worlds. Generalizations usually have logical flaws in them that detract from the point being made. Right and wrong honestly doesn't exist, so it's hard to be "right" about anything...but before you comment, form an argument. You seem more intelligent that way, and less likely to be subjected to argumentum ad hominem.

  6. 2:21 -
    Well the argument is that energy cannot be created or destroyed... so make a counter argument! Jeez. You can't just sit there and say, "Believing in souls is for children!" without any argument for why the soul does not exist in any way, particularly in the way that the original poster claims.
    So yeah - not only do you not have any kind of straight forward, rational reasoning behind your position, you also just throw out the entire concept of the soul, with no real support for doing so, and I think it's just because you prefer to believe that you have no soul of your own (which wouldn't be because you are just afraid of becoming a caterpillar, would it?).

  7. So what happens when something being born is not near something that has died recently?

  8. I am not going to knock your argument but logically it misses the point. Aristotle even broke with Plato over the notion of the forms and rejected the notion that minds can exist separate from bodies.

    The real problem for the poster is to offer a rational explanation for the existence of consciousness after death, given that it is made possible by the workings of the brain, and the brain perishes with death. So how would it be even possible to know that a soul existed?

    In short, souls are meaningless without personal identity. The idea that souls would sneak into other life forms is just plain silly. Many animals especially the lower life forms function on instinctual urges, developed via evolutionary changes and their behavior does not change radically. Suppose the poster is right, that the soul upon death goes into a worker bee. How is this going to alter the behavior of the bee? How can we ascertain that the human soul is now in the bee? The bee is going to act in accordance with its DNA code. Thus, the poster can say whatever they want, there is no way to confirm that the human soul is now in the bee and thus it is as meaningless as Einstein declared about the existence of the ether.

  9. 2:21

    In science, there are no empirical evidence for the existence of souls. This is not to say that they do not exist, we just cannot form a plausible hypothesis that can be falsified with empirical evidence.

    For example, we can establish a plausible hypothesis that suggests that the universe is expanding and then create experiments to challenge this hypothesis, and if the evidence falsifies the theory we ditch the theory, although a falsified theory can still be useful such as Newtonian physics, falsified by Einstein but still used to get us to the moon. (All of our experiment indicate that the universe is expanding as predicated by Hubble and denied by Einstein, who later change his mind based on the evidence.)

    We cannot do the same with the existence of souls or ghosts. Thus, they do not fall in the realm of science. You may however continue to believe in them.

  10. Oh poo 5:09.. then what's the point of science if it can't even help us answer life's crucial questions?!?!

    Oh woe are we...

    “What we know not, of that our need is dire,/
    And what we know lacks application”
    -Goethe's "Faust" (Faust speaking), ll. 1066-1067

  11. OMG 4:05, I would try and take you seriously, but if you are going to say there is no right or wrong, then why bother? If you want me to sound more intelligent, then I suggest you shrug of that postmodern bullshit and come back to the real world we all inhabit. But if you really think we are possibly living in different "real" worlds, then who knows what you are actually reading when I write this.

    But to play your game, here is my argument.

    (1) Our ONLY way of experiencing reality is through our senses.
    (2) We have more rational justification to believe what we observe than what we do not observe.
    (3) No one has observed, detected, or come up with a way to measure a "soul."
    (4) Certainly no one has ever produced any sensory evidence to show that souls hop around to the closest living being in the event of death.
    (5) Therefore, it is more rational to believe that there are no souls and stick to a more material sense of personal identity.

    The burden of proof is on you to show that there is ANY good reason to believe in souls. I shouldn't have to give an argument. You are the one needing to provide some reason. And the more you complain about me not giving an argument, the more you are stalling on your duty. Now get cracking on some fantastic argument that will turn the world upside down. [But whose world are we talking about? Your world or mine??]

  12. 8:20 -
    Your first point pretty much spoils your entire argument. For one, just because the only way we experience reality is through our senses, doesn't mean that all reality can be experienced through our senses. I can't detect/observe ultraviolet rays just using my senses, yet UV rays are considered a part of physical reality. So, what if we just don't have the instruments necessary to measure something like a "soul" or "life energy", much like how we are capable of measuring UV rays?
    Don't forget that just because we don't have a "good reason" now to believe in souls doesn't mean that some day, we will have a reason (just like in the past, people didn't necessarily have a "good reason" to believe in UV rays, before we had the equipment to detect them).
    So your argument really proves nothing at all (given that we DO accept a "right" and "wrong", I would consider you to be "wrong" because your argument does not rightly prove that there can be no "soul"-like energy that exists).
    What you should really be doing is attempting to dissolve the main argument of the OP which is:
    1) energy cannot be created nor destroyed
    2) human beings possess energy of life
    3) when humans die, their energy cannot be destroyed, so it must be transferred to something else.
    4) therefore, their energy has to end up in some other emerging form of life.
    I'm sure this can easily be dismantled. Why not give it a try? Anyone?

  13. We only know about UV rays because of our senses. We "observe" the output from our measuring devices. EVERYTHING depends on our senses. Give me one, just one, example where that is not the case.

  14. Energy can be thought of simply as the material of the body (E=M*C^2). When the body dies, the material of the body scatters. Why ever suppose some superfluent metaphysical construct?? Simplicity, my friend, is the better way to go. Inventing possible entities to come up with overly troubled explanations never defeats an argument, like you seem to say. If that were the case, then no argument is really worth anything and you might as well save your breath. I'll just come up with the possibility of a spaghetti monster to dismantle what you say.

  15. Well you're talking about using measuring devices... so my question is, just because we don't have a proper measuring device for the "soul", does that mean it must not exist?
    Of course once we measure something like UV rays, we then observe the measurements through our senses, yet it is still our equipment that actually senses the UV rays, and we cannot ever sense them directly on our own. So just because we cannot directly sense the soul, and just because we do not have equipment currently that can act as the means to indirectly sense the soul, does not automatically mean that the soul must not exist.
    And you still have not addressed the actual argument of this poster. At least attempt to give a counter-argument instead of just making one out of scratch as an attempt to prove your own personal belief which happens to be inconsistent with the belief that souls exist. You're just treading water pretty much.

  16. Um, I think you missed my 9:32 comment.

  17. Damn, what a massive level of ignorance. Its useless to even respond. Oh Wow, Oh Wow Oh Wow, the last words uttered by Steve Jobs. Maybe his soul was entering into a fly or bug as he uttered his last words. This is enough evidence for some of you to believe in the soul. Oh Wow!

    Mr. Nut Job.

  18. I am with Mr. nut job

    Oh Wow

  19. So what's the big deal if one believes in a soul, with or without any kind of perceived evidence at all? Is that person automatically an ignorant buffoon or something? Who really cares? What's interesting is that it took so long just for the 9:32 comment to arise. Thank you 9:32! If that was just said right off the bat, I'm sure this entire string of comments would have been reduced to just about 3 or 4. Or maybe the OP will come back with some kind of rebuttal...

  20. Alright now, let's give 9:36 some space to work out a great positive argument for the existence of souls. One cannot cling to unknowable possibilities. Thus, I'm sure this forthcoming argument will be fantastic! I can hardly wait!

  21. No comeback argument for the soul? Nothing? Just like the soul. Nothing.

  22. Ok Anon 9:45/9:47 - I'll respond. Just for the record - I never said I believed in the soul, and I never attempted to argue for the existence of it. The soul is an idea, and I think the idea itself is interesting, and if people want to make arguments for or against it, I'd love to hear what both sides have to say (as long as they actually make somewhat thoughtful arguments that aren't just a fountain of personal opinions that come with no substantial justification).
    The fact that you are so adamant on pushing your belief that there is no soul, and that you belittle those who attempt to even give an argument for why souls do or possibly could exist, shows me that you are just a mean, narrow-minded person who cares way too much about others' personal beliefs which don't even affect you in the first place. So don't judge or ridicule me just because I didn't piss all over this poster's idea about souls, like you did with your thoughtless remarks. And don't forget I actually applauded the comment that did argue against the original poster's argument (even though it emerged AFTER only crude opinions were expressed numerous times).

  23. Someone as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist.

  24. Ok I'll argue for the soul. For something to happen or be real it doesn't need observational proof. Example: the double slit experiment. If you don't know what it is, google it. In a nut shell, on an atomic level particules do whatever they want/no rules when no one is watching but as soon as someone does watch/observe they behave according to the rules or differently. I'm only scratching the surface or a very interesting debate on was is reality or real. Is the moon there when no one is watching? How would you prove it? You get the idea. The soul can exist even though there is no observational proof. BOOM

  25. 11:10

    All ideas exists
    The soul is an idea
    Therefore the soul exists.

    Deductive argument

    From 9:45

    This proves nothing.

  26. Ugh 7:14, of course it proves nothing. But luckily for me, that was not my argument anyway...
    I guess I'd like to side with Anon 7:00 because at least there is an argument for why we simply cannot know for certain whether or not souls exist in reality.
    7:14, you have declared that there is no soul, but your supposed justifications for this claim just can't seal the case. If you haven't noticed, I have not declared whether or not the soul actually exists in reality (and not just as an idea), but I still appreciate any attempt to really argue one way or the other, because I happen to think it is a fascinating topic that is worth putting thought into.
    All you need to do is swallow your pride, dump your investment, and simply admit that you don't really know. The wisest of people are those who can admit that they truly know very little, if anything at all.

  27. The issue is not about knowledge here. The issue is about what is more rationally justified to believe. You are right that one can never prove that the soul does not exist, but you would be committing a disingenuous evasion of the real issue if that is your whole point. The real question is: what rational justification do you have to believe in the existence of souls in light of arguments to contrary?

  28. I stand with Mr.nutjob on this.

  29. First of all, I don't have rational justification to believe souls exist. I also don't have rational justification to believe that they don't, however. Furthermore, what is rational justification to one person may not be rational justification to another. So yeah. I don't get what you're trying to do, other than corner people into believing what you believe for some weird personal agenda. Get over it. Some people believe in things that to you are "rationally unjustified", and unless those beliefs actually impact the lives of others in a negative way or something, there's no reason for people to bully others into believing what they themselves believe, just because they feel their own rationality and belief system is being threatened or something.

  30. How is asking for rational justification bullying? That's like saying that it is bullying to make you think better and have good reasons for the positions you hold. All I'm asking for is one good reason why one should believe in souls. I am not telling "what" you should believe, but "how" you should believe it. Yes, I am telling you that your line of thought right here is not up to snuff. You need reasons to back up your positions, and all you have come up with is that one can believe whatever one wants to, especially if that which the belief is about is beyond the scope of testing and evidence.

    I'm here to say that, yes, one can believe what one wants. It's crazy to think otherwise. But whatever one believes, one should have good reason to believe it. If not, that belief is irrational in the face of contrary reasons. Again, many contrary reasons have been raised here.

    If anything, you are the bully. You are trying to bully us with an untenable relativism that holds no water. In fact, if you really believe in relativism like you suggest in comment 2:20, then I don't know why you are arguing with me, since to argue with me is to presuppose that we share the same structure of rational justification. If we don't share the same rational structure, we couldn't even engage in any form of argumentation. So there is a bit of irony when you tell me to "get over it," for what you want me to "get over" is my insistence on good thinking and argumentation - the very things you are using in your debating with me.

  31. 6:48 -
    If you're the same person who has said a few times definitively that souls do not exist, and if anyone wants to claim otherwise, they must provide good evidence, then that to me is bullying people into certain beliefs.
    And what in the world does it matter to you if someone believes in a soul anyway?
    You're missing the point - I'm not preaching relativism (I never even made a truth claim, as you yourself have).
    I would say that someone who insists that souls exist is just as crazy as someone who insists that souls don't exist. The fact is, we just have no way to really know either way (although it may appear to us that there really is not a soul), so maybe it's meaningless for one to even claim to believe it one way or the other. But it is not meaningless to entertain the idea on both sides of the limit.
    And just because two people may not share the same understanding of "rational justification" when it comes to certain beliefs, doesn't mean that they don't share a rationality that allows them to communicate rationally with one another.
    I totally understand your point of view, and your craving for rational justification, and your requirement of it when it comes to any belief. However, it's just not possible to claim that you have the correct rational justification - in fact, no one can. So no - not relativism... maybe perspectivism?

  32. I see this may be long over, but, I need to say that this isn't how energy works...
    Energy doesn't have a memory, it doesn't have a personality, it doesn't have a self. It's just energy. The energy in your body passing on after you die holds absolutely no part of you. Your brain is what gives you memory and personality, not your energy. When you die, your body rots and all the shit goes back into the earth. Any energy there dissipates into the atmosphere, never to repeat your last actions or to complete some unfinished business.

    Further more, there is no evidence for ghosts and no evidence of a soul, therefore, there is no logical reason to assume such things exist. None. That is all.