I have been trying to search for the truth as to whether the materialists are right in saying that death is final or if it is instead the people who believe in the afterlife who are right. I am still undecided and I still don't see the answer here. But I am really hoping there is an eternal blissful afterlife because I see nothing good at all about the materialistic worldview. Some people claim it is an inspiring worldview that gives more meaning to one's life. But that's all fine and dandy for those who are able to live full healthy lives.
But what about those people out there who are very unfortunate who are suicidal since they have treatment resistant depression that cripples their lives or what about those who go through horrible suffering only to live very short lives and die in the first few months or even days of their birth? How is that anything good? How is that anything to celebrate?
It is for this very reason why I really hope that death being final is not true. But at the same time, I hope religions such as Christianity aren't true either since we are talking here a God who would send you to hell for not believing in him and for not obeying him. That's an even worse worldview than materialism because if I had the choice to either die and that be the end of me or to go to hell, I would obviously choose to die and that be it for me. So I am going to present to you 3 questions here for you to answer:
1.) There is a remarkable overlap of nde (near death experience) features and those features presented during seizures and drug induced states. People who have seizures and take drugs report that they have experienced an entire reiteration of their life in which they experience all their memories. This is a feature that overlaps with the life review in ndes.
There is also ego loss during seizures and drug induced states as well as ndes. There are many more features of drug induced states and seizures that have a remarkable overlap with ndes. If ndes were truly a mind separate from body phenomenon, then one should not expect such a remarkable overlap of features.
Therefore, you can search deep into the nde literature all you want and point out all the presumed implications of a soul persisting after death, but doesn't the fact that there is such a remarkable overlap already negate any opposing stance to the materialistic interpretation of ndes?
I would personally imagine this to be the case because there should be little, if any, overlapping features if ndes were truly the soul separate from the brain. Sure, the features are not exactly the same because, as Steven Novella pointed out in a debate with Alex Tsakaris, the features are not going to be the same; but the fact that they overlap sort of tells me here that materialism might be the correct worldview here when it comes to ndes.
2.) I have watched the "Death is not Final" debate between Steven Novella/Sean Carroll and Eben Alexander/Raymond Moody. It was pointed out in the debate by Steve and Sean that we know that death is final even though we don't know how the brain produces consciousness since we have empirical evidence to support the finality of death.
But I wonder if those skeptics are actually right and that if Eben and Moody continued to debate with them with no time limit, that Eben and Moody would eventually "get it." The very fact that there was a time limit of approximately one hour for the debate still leaves a lot of questions and unresolved issues that I think could of otherwise been answered and resolved if the debate carried all the way to the very end with no time limit.
It would be no different than a situation where we have a set of people who think the Earth is flat while the other side has the known facts that the Earth is a sphere. If these two sides of the debate were to continue on debating the whole way through with no time limit, then the Flat Earthers should finally "get it." They should finally see how they were wrong the entire time.
But when it comes to this whole debate on the afterlife, I am not sure which side is wrong or if we actually don't know which side is right or wrong. What if those skeptics have some knowledge of death being final that we are simply unaware of and that if we were to inquire more and more into such knowledge, that we would finally be aware of death being final? Or what if the skeptics are wrong and that if they were to inquire more and more into our knowledge, that they would realize how they are wrong?
3.) If this is truly a spiritual universe and we are all here for a spiritual purpose, then why is it that some people are born in situations of extreme suffering only to die within the first few months or days upon their very birth? Some spiritual purpose that was! Also, why is it then that many good people suffer while many evil people have nice happy lives and nothing bad seems to happen to them in order to make them grow, develop, and change?
This tells me that this is not a spiritual universe. Instead, it would have to be a universe that came about through pure luck. A universe that came about through pure luck would yield such results I've mentioned that are dependent upon luck. Some people are lucky while others are not and it doesn't matter who you are. Such a thing would be expected only from a purely naturalistic universe.
But what about those people out there who are very unfortunate who are suicidal since they have treatment resistant depression that cripples their lives or what about those who go through horrible suffering only to live very short lives and die in the first few months or even days of their birth? How is that anything good? How is that anything to celebrate?
It is for this very reason why I really hope that death being final is not true. But at the same time, I hope religions such as Christianity aren't true either since we are talking here a God who would send you to hell for not believing in him and for not obeying him. That's an even worse worldview than materialism because if I had the choice to either die and that be the end of me or to go to hell, I would obviously choose to die and that be it for me. So I am going to present to you 3 questions here for you to answer:
1.) There is a remarkable overlap of nde (near death experience) features and those features presented during seizures and drug induced states. People who have seizures and take drugs report that they have experienced an entire reiteration of their life in which they experience all their memories. This is a feature that overlaps with the life review in ndes.
There is also ego loss during seizures and drug induced states as well as ndes. There are many more features of drug induced states and seizures that have a remarkable overlap with ndes. If ndes were truly a mind separate from body phenomenon, then one should not expect such a remarkable overlap of features.
Therefore, you can search deep into the nde literature all you want and point out all the presumed implications of a soul persisting after death, but doesn't the fact that there is such a remarkable overlap already negate any opposing stance to the materialistic interpretation of ndes?
I would personally imagine this to be the case because there should be little, if any, overlapping features if ndes were truly the soul separate from the brain. Sure, the features are not exactly the same because, as Steven Novella pointed out in a debate with Alex Tsakaris, the features are not going to be the same; but the fact that they overlap sort of tells me here that materialism might be the correct worldview here when it comes to ndes.
2.) I have watched the "Death is not Final" debate between Steven Novella/Sean Carroll and Eben Alexander/Raymond Moody. It was pointed out in the debate by Steve and Sean that we know that death is final even though we don't know how the brain produces consciousness since we have empirical evidence to support the finality of death.
But I wonder if those skeptics are actually right and that if Eben and Moody continued to debate with them with no time limit, that Eben and Moody would eventually "get it." The very fact that there was a time limit of approximately one hour for the debate still leaves a lot of questions and unresolved issues that I think could of otherwise been answered and resolved if the debate carried all the way to the very end with no time limit.
It would be no different than a situation where we have a set of people who think the Earth is flat while the other side has the known facts that the Earth is a sphere. If these two sides of the debate were to continue on debating the whole way through with no time limit, then the Flat Earthers should finally "get it." They should finally see how they were wrong the entire time.
But when it comes to this whole debate on the afterlife, I am not sure which side is wrong or if we actually don't know which side is right or wrong. What if those skeptics have some knowledge of death being final that we are simply unaware of and that if we were to inquire more and more into such knowledge, that we would finally be aware of death being final? Or what if the skeptics are wrong and that if they were to inquire more and more into our knowledge, that they would realize how they are wrong?
3.) If this is truly a spiritual universe and we are all here for a spiritual purpose, then why is it that some people are born in situations of extreme suffering only to die within the first few months or days upon their very birth? Some spiritual purpose that was! Also, why is it then that many good people suffer while many evil people have nice happy lives and nothing bad seems to happen to them in order to make them grow, develop, and change?
This tells me that this is not a spiritual universe. Instead, it would have to be a universe that came about through pure luck. A universe that came about through pure luck would yield such results I've mentioned that are dependent upon luck. Some people are lucky while others are not and it doesn't matter who you are. Such a thing would be expected only from a purely naturalistic universe.
Last edited: