Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Life after death- What’s the evidence?

56 posts in this topic

The idea of immortality lives on in messages from beyond the grave and near-death experiences. What's the evidence?

http://www.aeonmagaz...fe-after-death/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is studies of Raymond Moody on near death experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence, just anecdotes.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence, just anecdotes.

Then compelling witnesses testimony in courtrooms is just "anecdotes" and cannot be used to reach a verdict.

From an early age, James would play with nothing else but planes, his parents say. But when he was 2, they said the planes their son loved began to give him regular nightmares.

"I'd wake him up and he'd be screaming," Andrea told "Primetime Live" co-anchor Chris Cuomo. She said when she asked her son what he was dreaming about, he would say, "Airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out."...

...But as time went by, Andrea began to wonder what to believe. In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check.

Another time, Andrea said, she bought him a toy plane, and pointed out what appeared to be a bomb on its underside. She says James corrected her, and told her it was a drop tank. "I'd never heard of a drop tank," she said. "I didn't know what a drop tank was."...

...Over time, James' parents say he revealed extraordinary details about the life of a former fighter pilot — mostly at bedtime, when he was drowsy.

They say James told them his plane had been hit by the Japanese and crashed. Andrea says James told his father he flew a Corsair, and then told her, "They used to get flat tires all the time."

In fact, historians and pilots agree that the plane's tires took a lot of punishment on landing. But that's a fact that could easily be found in books or on television.

Andrea says James also told his father the name of the boat he took off from — Natoma — and the name of someone he flew with — Jack Larson.

After some research, Bruce discovered both the Natoma and Jack Larson were real. The Natoma Bay was a small aircraft carrier in the Pacific. And Larson is living in Arkansas.

"It was like, holy mackerel," Bruce said. "You could have poured my brains out of my ears. I just couldn't believe it. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Technology/story?id=894217&page=1

Edited by SSilhouette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then compelling witnesses testimony in courtrooms is just "anecdotes" and cannot be used to reach a verdict.

Andrea says this...Andrea says that...heresay all of it.

The Truth: no one knows because no one who has ever been 'dead' has ever come back to life. Near Death Experiences are just that Near Death. Not Death...because Death is the absence of Life and if there is Death there is no Life. No Life equals...we don't/can't know.

But...our fascination with death is such...we just must know...even if we don't we 'believe' something...well some of us...some of us don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then compelling witnesses testimony in courtrooms is just "anecdotes" and cannot be used to reach a verdict.

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Eyewitness Testimony

Innocence Project

There is no scientific evidence of life after death. NONE.

Scientific evidence

There are anecdotes that some individuals accept as evidence. There are "tests" and "studies" that have been proven skewed or flawed that some accept as evidence.

There is no reliable, testable, repeatable or peer-reviewable evidence for life after death.

Pretty straight forward.

Nibs

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Courts of law throughout the US will be very disappointed to hear that. People are sentenced to years behind bars or to death even at just eyewitness accounts. The meat of that boy's story shouldn't be for you to say "eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable." What you should take away from that account is "wow, how did that kid know at a tiny age, all the nuances of the Natoma Bay aircraft carrier and Jack Larson? These were things that had to be pulled out of dusty tomes to be found while a child knew all about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts of law throughout the US will be very disappointed to hear that. People are sentenced to years behind bars or to death even at just eyewitness accounts. The meat of that boy's story shouldn't be for you to say "eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable." What you should take away from that account is "wow, how did that kid know at a tiny age, all the nuances of the Natoma Bay aircraft carrier and Jack Larson? These were things that had to be pulled out of dusty tomes to be found while a child knew all about them.

Yeah, read my links. US courts of law are sorry they used eyewitness testimony all the time.

What I take away from the account is a mom who wants attention. Not to mention there is NO supporting evidence to her story. It's just that. A story.

Nibs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear death and I want there to be an afterlife.

But I don't think there is an evidence.

Sadly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, would knowing for a fact change the way you live?

I imagine for some people It would. Those who otherwise may not, may just decide "Yeah, this life so boring, on to the next..." and simply check out, more often than people do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then compelling witnesses testimony in courtrooms is just "anecdotes" and cannot be used to reach a verdict.

Like I said, if there is no concrete evidence to corroborate the claims then, no.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrea says this...Andrea says that...heresay all of it.

If Andrea is relaying personal testimony it is not hearsay. Hearsay is a secondhand story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, if there is no concrete evidence to corroborate the claims then, no.

There are different forms of evidence and "concrete evidence" is not one of them. Testimony is a form of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is vast abundance of evidence that testimony is unreliable and more often wrong than right. Only under cross-examination can testimony on the most mundane of things be tolerated. Anything the least outre and it is useless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Andrea is relaying personal testimony it is not hearsay. Hearsay is a secondhand story.

What? Andrea is telling someone what someone else said...please!

Okay, let me make this really simple for you...Do you know anyone who has died and then come back to life? No, you don't...because if they were dead...they would still be dead. End of story.

Edited by joc
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Eyewitness Testimony

Innocence Project

There is no scientific evidence of life after death. NONE.

Scientific evidence

There are anecdotes that some individuals accept as evidence. There are "tests" and "studies" that have been proven skewed or flawed that some accept as evidence.

There is no reliable, testable, repeatable or peer-reviewable evidence for life after death.

Pretty straight forward.

Nibs

Just because it may be unreliable does not make it always unreliable. All testimony has to be vetted and weighed. Just throwing it out wholesale is foolish. Everyone posting here accepts personal testimony in their day to day lives all the time. Everyone posting here, if called to act as a Juror, would be held responsible to seriously consider testimony, and would do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Andrea is telling someone what someone else said...please!

Okay, let me make this really simple for you...Do you know anyone who has died and then come back to life? No, you don't...because if they were dead...they would still be dead. End of story.

Andrea and her husband were the ones that investigated the validity of the events. She participated in finding out if what she heard was extraordinary. She was relating her experience.

For example, If an undercover agent testifies that a person confessed to him his testimony is not hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is vast abundance of evidence that testimony is unreliable and more often wrong than right. Only under cross-examination can testimony on the most mundane of things be tolerated. Anything the least outre and it is useless.

Cross examination is simply a procedural artifact of our adversarial system. Either, party in our adversarial system may decline to cross examine and the testimony still stands as evidence and remains for the jury to consider as evidence. In other words, the cross examination is part of the vetting process, which I said above needs to be done. The testimony remains as evidence to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because it may be unreliable does not make it always unreliable. All testimony has to be vetted and weighed. Just throwing it out wholesale is foolish. Everyone posting here accepts personal testimony in their day to day lives all the time. Everyone posting here, if called to act as a Juror, would be held responsible to seriously consider testimony, and would do so.

You do throw it out wholesale if you are at all sensible. Consider the problems with it. No good cross examination of such "evidence" is possible, and way too many people have delusions, lie, exaggerate, make mistakes, and so on.

Evidence of a crime or an accident is one thing, evidence of someone coming back from the dead is another. The more extreme the claim the greater abundance and quality of evidence one must have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross examination is simply a procedural artifact of our adversarial system. Either, party in our adversarial system may decline to cross examine and the testimony still stands as evidence and remains for the jury to consider as evidence. In other words, the cross examination is part of the vetting process, which I said above needs to be done. The testimony remains as evidence to be considered.

You need to study the history of pious fraud in Christianity.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of a crime or an accident is one thing, evidence of someone coming back from the dead is another. The more extreme the claim the greater abundance and quality of evidence one must have.

Such a position is simply begging the question. Testimony involving the supernatural is materially the same as any form of evidence. Our mind is the same in both cases. Fraud does occur but just because it may happens does not mean every case if fraud.

Edit: I edited to more closely address your point about the supernatural.

Edited by OrdinaryClay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't reading what is posted at all carefully; finding only what you want to find. Such discussion is useless. The defense of testimony for supernatural things is just stupid and those gullible people who defend it are worse.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct evidence what will follow is not, but some things can be experimentally verified.

Mental and astral traveling, evocation of higher spiritual beings and some other practices show the more subtle forms of existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a religious movement here in Vietnam (Caodaism -- if interested look it up) that in its early days relied on spiritual "séances" for divine revelations from a number of deities, including those of the Chinese and native Vietnamese and Buddhist pantheons, and Jesus.

Those around who participated in these affairs back before the war are diminishing but still were there and strongly believe in the truth of what went on, that mediums did indeed have direct contact with these gods as well as with dead historical figures.

I tell this story to make the point that large numbers of people testifying to the same thing and personally believing it strongly does not make it true. (I expect few Christians would accept most of the results of these revelations, which of course included revelations on how corrupt Christianity had become).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medically there are indications to call a person dead. In the studies of raymond moody, in multiple cases, those people who are called dead returned back to life with similar experiences. Those of you interested might read. Most of those people involved in the cases and told stories werent into newage stuff or when those studies were made NDEs were not that much known so that people would lie about having them. I find that type of studies interesting. because this is the only way to search possible life beyond death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.