CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Time
Next: "The Einstein Hoax"
From: " SNIP HECLKER>" on 8 Jan 2010 00:48 X-No-Archive: Yes On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:36:35 -0800
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 00:52 On Jan 2, 2:07 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 00:15:50 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > The same goes for Life After Death. If it exists it is a > scientifically explainable phenomena just like everything phenomena -> phenomenon -> fainomenon, you biblical charlatan Farmer. > else that exists, including "God" which has already been > scientifically proven to exist (Hammond 2003, peer reviewed > literature). proven wrong (Everyone 20032009) by everyone who understands relativity and category.
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 00:53 On Jan 2, 5:57 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message > news:h8dvj5djr2hf1fpv2l02n729l3vfsaqtc9(a)4ax.com... > > Hence, if Life After death exists, we certainly CAN prove > > it exists without actually going there and coming back and > > making an eyewitness report. An eyewitness report is NOT > > NECESSARY to scientifically prove it exists. > > And not to worry baby, we're working on it right now! > > (Geopelia) > But what's the point knowing it exists, if we can't come back? > > It's nice to be called baby, at eighty years old. Made my day! Yes it is nescius, but that belongs in nesci.physics.
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 00:56 On Jan 2, 6:37 pm, spiritual energy <solidst...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > An afterlife is pretty much impossible without some sort of higher > physical principle or some sort of a higher fundamental force. Some > may call this higher principle God. Currently there is no evidence for What is hihher? > such a force and there is no evidence for the existence of any God but > since one can never really prove a negative, life after death remains One can so prove anything analýtic negative. I wrote a proof against the three brands of gods on Wikipedia's Humanities help desk, with loghics and maths, and no one could rebut. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 01:07
On Jan 2, 9:13 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:57:06 +1300, "Geopelia" > > <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >(Geopelia) > >But what's the point knowing it [heaven] exists, if we can't come back? > > [Hammond] > First of all, if there is a heaven there is also a hell. > And people who are sent to hell will not be ALLOWED to > leave. Secondly, heaven is basically this same world we Nope, souls go wherever they want--if they're awake. There is no càrmá or doomsday. > are in, you will just see it through different eyes and feel > it through a better body. > But don't for a moment underestimate how different this > world would look if you're resurrected body (a.k.a. > "spiritual body") had a zero growth deficit. Words like; > splendor, magnificence, grandeur don't even begin to > describe the experience of "eternal life" which as you > recall is a "bodily condition" not a "time duration". > As far as "coming back to this world" I have no doubt > that should you be elected to go to heaven you will probably > be making many sorties back to the world you knew. > In fact, while we're on the subject, it is interesting to > conjecture just exactly what heaven must be like. In the > first place my research indicates that it is somewhere > between the ordinary "reality" that we are all familiar > with, and a "dream" meaning a nocturnal dream (albeit one > involving all five senses). It is apt to be a mixture of [snip fantasy] Enouh of your babbling--Vedics and astral projectors already know of heaven (or rather, the heavens) and the planes, which are relativistic--you got one thing wriht--but there's still no damned "God". > Note: Speech recognition software is only 99% accurate at > best and can drop to 95% if you are dictating into an > obscure program. This means that you'll have to correct one > to five words in every 10 lines manually. That's where the > typos come from and the misspellings. Also, I don't bother > to proofread a lot of this stuff and occasionally the It makes up words? |