The identity remains.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225

Interesting question. Yes, I believe in life after death.

Why? Because our life and the very core of our existence is spiritual and not physical. We are spirits residing in a body. Everything that is created has a cycle. The physical part of our being is just a tiny spec in this universe of existence. The time of our physical existence could be measured by a quick glance in the spectrum of time. Almost meaningless, if you will.

It's a tough question because if we don't understand life and the core of who and what we are, then how would we therefore justify believing in life after death?

Haha, you hid your vote in mine there, now no one is gonna know which person voted which! (kidding)

I ask a question.
If there's another life after death, why do we call the person who kills others a murderer? Why do we try and sentence the murderer? Why don't we reward the person for his "sending others to another world"?

When someone commits murder they are committing an act of physical violence on another being. Chances are the murderer in this case believes that by killing the body, they kill the man. The murderer in essence is only living in the physical and has not spiritually unfolded to know that in killing another man, one kills himself. Murder is not only a physical act of violence but also an immature spiritual act. It's the broken spirit of one man that kills another in the physical sense.

The world we live in is mostly concerned with physical with no realization of the essence of man or of the spirit. So the world imposes consequences for crimes to protect others. These are physical consequences.

This will take some thought to fully respond to so I'll give it a break. Interesting question though.

Thank you, Justin. Now I need not really reply further.

Actually, all of religions believe in life after death, or believe in some superpower like God. Religious people think the world is created and ruled by will, and think things can not exist or change naturally. Mohamed is called the "messenger" of the God, while Newton is called a scientist, for he perceived the universe running naturally. If no life after death, there will be no religions. Religious people think that death is a way from this world to another world.
But the deduction from believing, it's rational.

I ask the second question,

If there's life after death, is body necessary for life?
if not necessary, why does life has a valueless body?
if necessary, how does the body affect life? And can we still believe in life after death?

In response to the poll: I voted "I don't know if there is life after death." I suppose it depends on the definition of life.

Nate, in response to your post (#9), I'd say those are great questions. I wish I knew the answers. If life is defined in a way that ties it directly to the body, the answer would obviously have to be no. But as you asked, is the body necessary for life? I just don't know. It might be that life does not exist after death, but perhaps consciousness continues.

In response to your post (#8), I don't interchange the words "religion" and "spirituality." To me, religion is a set of rules which devolves from an idividual's spirituality, and creates some worldly order (at best.) Spirituality, is to me, the idividual journey which sometimes gives rise to a religion.

I'm not sure religions offer much insight to this question, aside from pointing us in a general direction.

There is absolutly life after death. Death is of the physical body only not the soul. The soul continues to exist and evolve. It is what we do in this life that elevate the soul to the infinit light.

The soul reincarnatesin the physical body and retains all of the spiritual gains from its previous physical existance.


"Open your heart for me slightly, and I'll open the world for you." - The Zohar http://www.kabbalah.info

with out the body how can the "soul" exist. if you were born without senses would you realise your existance?

please could you define what you mean by "soul"

No, I do not.

I believe that the belief in existence after death is a timid denial of the self.

Nice Mr. fight the power. Though just in case, might it not be best to throw the coffin into a volcano with some weight on it? If i was more greedy, that's exactly what I would do (with mine, even though it is physically impossible)

Interpretion of feelings and the feeling of interpretion; both is the other hence the chance of both feelings and interpretion remains when you're dead.

That is a rather unique metaphor, that I am not entirely sure I understand.

Are you asking whether I we should believe and prepare for a life after death just in case I might be wrong, as in Pascal's Wager?



I do not know exactly what to think of this. I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that understanding of sensation and the sensation of understanding are one in the same, but I might make a better judgement if you explained why their commonality would lend them existence after death.

An interpretion is a feeling, interpretion is for granted hence feelings are too. That's my signature right now. To prove it... When you see a red color for instance, if it was not some sort of feeling you would not see it, hence all interpretions are feelings and everything can interpret in some way, wouldn't you agree?

I would agree that interpretation is a feeling. I believe that our interpretations and thoughts are merely events that happen to us, rather than directly caused by us.

I would also agree to a large extent that feeling is an interpretation, that is that the way we process a sensation, ie touching something hot, seeing something scary, is an interpretation as well.

But I would not agree that all feeling is or results in interpretation, nor would I agree that interpretation is granted.

A feeling is a chainreactions, only the change makes a difference. What is that?

I don't get you there, Refus.

So you do not agree with my new signature?