A Scientifically Supported Heaven (and Hell)

[McBell]

I'm not interested in debating the reality of the natural afterlife. I've already "been there, done that" often enough. Moreover, hundreds of psychology and philosophy scholars have now reviewed the journal article I reference and have yet to find any flaws in the NEC theory--i.e., in its logical deduction or the psychological principles upon which this deduction is based--which are what need be specifically addressed if one wishes to denigrate the theory, e.g., call it "pure speculation," or denigrate its publishing journal. They also need to address the given testing scenario.

One must understand that the natural afterlife is an illusion that only occurs with death. I believe the article does the best job I can do in explaining this illusion, but it needs to be read closely with an open mind. (Many replies here indicate a lack of understanding of the essence of the natural afterlife, likely because the article was just "looked at.") Admittedly, the natural afterlife's timeless and relativistic aspects make it hard to grasp and appreciate. Think about getting someone to accept the existence of another illusion, a rainbow, and to appreciate it if they've never experienced this phenomenon.

While others can respond to those who want to question the theory (or rather what they believe to be the theory) and/or who perhaps want to cling to Orthodoxy 1 (as defined in the article), I will only respond here to those who are willing to discuss the potential impact of the natural afterlife on religion and society, i.e., discuss the questions I pose.

As I get older I find that I am more often forgetting my glasses and sometimes even my wallet.
So I have no intentions of "opening my mind" to the point of it falling out in order to have a "serious" discussion with you on this topic.

 

[Bryon Ehlmann]

If the theory makes no predictions of what observations can be expected, to enable it to be tested, then it is not science.

If theories in psychology can be accepted in spite of not being science, then that tells us something about the discipline of psychology.

What you say is true but irrelevant to the discussion. Read the referenced article, especially the testing scenario that it outlines. There can also be other means of testing the NEC theory as the NEC occurs before death, not after, and the phenomenon is not unlike that which occurs numerous times in life when our last conscious moment before entering a period of timelessness remains the present moment until we awaken to a new present moment.

 

[exchemist]

What you say is true but irrelevant to the discussion. Read the referenced article, especially the testing scenario that it outlines. There can also be other means of testing the NEC theory as the NEC occurs before death, not after, and the phenomenon is not unlike that which occurs numerous times in life when our last conscious moment before a entering a period of timelessness remains the present moment until we awaken to a new present moment.

All I can see is the abstract, which refers only to thought experiments, not observations.

What means of testing is proposed?

 

[Bryon Ehlmann]

All I can see is the abstract, which refers only to thought experiments, not observations.

What means of testing is proposed?

You must read the article. ResearchGate.net allows access to and even download of the entire article. Perhaps you just need to scroll down?

 

[exchemist]

You must read the article. ResearchGate.net allows access to and even download of the entire article. Perhaps you just need to scroll down?

OK, yes I've looked. I cannot see any observations described that make any sense. All you get is a series of measurements showing declining brain activity, until they reach zero. That won't tell you that the last perception would seem to persist eternally, for that subject.

 

[Bryon Ehlmann]

It's obvious you've "looked," but you haven't read! The article must be read carefully with an open mind. You cannot do this in just a few minutes, and if you haven't done so, your response is not worth a reply.

 

[exchemist]

It's obvious you've "looked," but you haven't read! The article must be read carefully with an open mind. You cannot do this in just a few minutes, and if you haven't done so, your response is not worth a reply.

Suit yourself.

 

[Bryon Ehlmann]

I posted questions regarding the impact of the natural afterlife on religion to get some feedback for an upcoming article I had planned to write. I have now written this article and in it answered the questions I posed. A preprint copy of my article, "Death’s New Reality: Challenging Orthodoxy and Dealing With Our End-of-Life Illusion of Immortality" can be accessed on ResearchGate by clicking on its title.

 

[gnostic]

I recently had an article published in the Journal of Mind and Behavior. It reveals, describes, and establishes that a natural, i.e., scientifically supported, heaven (and hell) actually exists. “Yeah, sure.” you may be thinking. But to check it out for yourself, just click on the article’s title given below. Be forewarned, however, the heaven that the article describes is likely not all of what you may have been envisioning. Though it can be an eternity of optimal real love and happiness in the presence of God, it’s spiritual, meaning you’re not there in body, and its timeless, meaning no events occur. Also, it’s psychological, meaning “it’s all in your mind.” As such, in Christian terms, it lends even more credence to Luke 17: 21, “… the Kingdom of God is within you.”

A postprint copy of the article, “The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife,” is posted on ResearchGate. (Note that you can skip through some of the more technical parts of the article if you wish. Also posted is a shorter, overview article, “Your Natural Afterlife: the Non-Supernatural Alternative to Nothingness.”)

I believe that, with an open mind, the natural afterlife can be viewed as compatible with most religions. But what do you think? I also believe that it forces everyone to answer the question: “What do I believe determines the content of my last experience and conscious moment in life: me, random chance, the causality of nature, or a God? Again, what do you think?

For something, like a concept, explanation or claim to be considered “scientific”, you would need EVIDENCE to support them.

The more evidence you have, the better you can verify if the statements are true.

And to date, evidence have only been able verify nature and the physical world, and verify the natural (or physical) processes or mechanisms.

Things like afterlife, resurrection, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, spirits, etc, are anything but natural...hence the supernatural - and there have never been any evidence to support the supernatural.

Without evidence, the whole spirits, heaven and hell, are nothing more than baseless speculation, unsubstantiated superstitions, and certainly not “scientific”.

 

[Bryon Ehlmann]

For something, like a concept, explanation or claim to be considered “scientific”, you would need EVIDENCE to support them.

The more evidence you have, the better you can verify if the statements are true.

And to date, evidence have only been able verify nature and the physical world, and verify the natural (or physical) processes or mechanisms.

Things like afterlife, resurrection, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory, spirits, etc, are anything but natural...hence the supernatural - and there have never been any evidence to support the supernatural.

Without evidence, the whole spirits, heaven and hell, are nothing more than baseless speculation, unsubstantiated superstitions, and certainly not “scientific”.

Based on your comment, you have seemingly not read any of the articles I have referenced about the natural afterlife, not the one referenced in my post (which you quoted) or the one I just referenced in the last posted comment on this thread. It is truly amazing to me how many people on these forums are willing to spout out their views on something without first making an effort to first educate themselves on that something. If you fail to address any of the specifics about the natural afterlife in making your comment, I cannot take it seriously and so it is irrelevant to me.

 

[gnostic]

Based on your comment, you have seemingly not read any of the articles I have referenced about the natural afterlife, not the one referenced in my post (which you quoted) or the one I just referenced in the last posted comment on this thread. It is truly amazing to me how many people on these forums are willing to spout out their views on something without first making an effort to first educate themselves on that something. If you fail to address any of the specifics about the natural afterlife in making your comment, I cannot take it seriously and so it is irrelevant to me.

The only thing NATURAL is that we are born, we lived, and then we died.

Everything that it is you - your personality, your mind, your consciousness, your memory - will all cease to exist, when you die and your brain cease all function.

The only thing that might survive after your death, is part of your DNA, which your children and descendants (that if you have any) might have inherited.

In any case, you would need EVIDENCE to support a concept. Without the evidence, IT ISN’T “SCIENTIFIC”.

 

[Bryon Ehlmann]

The only thing NATURAL is that we are born, we lived, and then we died.

Everything that it is you - your personality, your mind, your consciousness, your memory - will all cease to exist, when you die and your brain cease all function.

The only thing that might survive after your death, is part of your DNA, which your children and descendants (that if you have any) might have inherited.

There you go again!

 

[joelr]

I recently had an article published in the Journal of Mind and Behavior. It reveals, describes, and establishes that a natural, i.e., scientifically supported, heaven (and hell) actually exists. “Yeah, sure.” you may be thinking. But to check it out for yourself, just click on the article’s title given below. Be forewarned, however, the heaven that the article describes is likely not all of what you may have been envisioning. Though it can be an eternity of optimal real love and happiness in the presence of God, it’s spiritual, meaning you’re not there in body, and its timeless, meaning no events occur. Also, it’s psychological, meaning “it’s all in your mind.” As such, in Christian terms, it lends even more credence to Luke 17: 21, “… the Kingdom of God is within you.”

A postprint copy of the article, “The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife,” is posted on ResearchGate. (Note that you can skip through some of the more technical parts of the article if you wish. Also posted is a shorter, overview article, “Your Natural Afterlife: the Non-Supernatural Alternative to Nothingness.”)

I believe that, with an open mind, the natural afterlife can be viewed as compatible with most religions. But what do you think? I also believe that it forces everyone to answer the question: “What do I believe determines the content of my last experience and conscious moment in life: me, random chance, the causality of nature, or a God? Again, what do you think?

In a recent talk Bart Ehrman explained why heaven and hell are not really taught in scripture. English translations put hell where it's often supposed to be Gehenna a place where bodies were buried. There was a Jewish apoctalyiptic movement and resurrection at the end of the world is a Jewish concept. But he explains the concepts of an actual afterlife where you go are not really taught in scripture. The "Kingdom of God" was supposed to be on Earth.
He gives his explanations and then answers questions.

 

[Bryon Ehlmann]

In a recent talk Bart Ehrman explained why heaven and hell are not really taught in scripture. English translations put hell where it's often supposed to be Gehenna a place where bodies were buried. There was a Jewish apoctalyiptic movement and resurrection at the end of the world is a Jewish concept. But he explains the concepts of an actual afterlife where you go are not really taught in scripture. The "Kingdom of God" was supposed to be on Earth.
He gives his explanations and then answers questions.

Yes, I read Ehrman's book "Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife" and in fact posted a review of it on Amazon. I also cited it in my most recent article "Death’s New Reality: Challenging Orthodoxy and Dealing With Our End-of-Life Illusion of Immortality," which discusses Jewish teachings on the afterlife.

 

[Audie]

Based on your comment, you have seemingly not read any of the articles I have referenced about the natural afterlife, not the one referenced in my post (which you quoted) or the one I just referenced in the last posted comment on this thread. It is truly amazing to me how many people on these forums are willing to spout out their views on something without first making an effort to first educate themselves on that something. If you fail to address any of the specifics about the natural afterlife in making your comment, I cannot take it seriously and so it is irrelevant to me.

Your so called evidence meets none of the criteria for science.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, science has already created "hell" of arsenal weapons for the humanity, it is just a question of time when all of it is in the loose and the little "heaven" it has afforded gets vanished away.
Isn't it enough, please?

regards