why can't anyone give prove about afterlife ?
84164
The only proof I know of is that Jesus was resurrected. I would say that's as close to afterlife as you can get. So read the bible and there you may find your answer. :)
843860
Philosophers have been asking these questions for thousand of years. Modern science has not helped explain our beliefs, but you could be asking yourself, "if the soul can't be perceived, and no residence has been found, does it actually exist?". Really, a ghost in the machine? It just can't stand up to logic.
598671
Scientists don't know everything, but there must be a math involved to prove the theory or something to see before their eyes (my opinion)to believe it. I know many who believe in the paranormal, many having paranormal experiences themselves, and science and religion go hand in hand which also involves the paranormal\n\nHow can scientists solve the matter about ghosts? For a ghost to be freed they must free the weight their soul carries. I actually wrote about this in my msn group because I have my own theories and experiences relating to the soul and body and soul separation and at times had the deceased come to me. In my experiences these were souls requiring the body of a living entity to do what they can't. Afterall the soul is equivalent to the 0, meaning nothing. It requires something (the 1=body) to do its work, see the riddle, and help them. \nObviously there are bad souls as there are good souls, all those that have come to me are troubled by burdens brought on by others. All but one, my children's great grandmother, she used me to say goodbye to the vital blood that she'd never met. \nI have been blessed by the knowledge of knowing that the troubled soul requires the living to help them, to free them.\nBut first, you must be aware of that, only then can you help them. So, if a ghost is present about you, ask them who they are, ask them how you can help them. Then, if you can....\nhelp them to find their path toward the light.\nThere must be a reason why they chose you, was it because they knew you'd know, see them, be able to help them?
1134652
NO,\n\nThe burden of proof is on those who believe in "GOD".\n\nYou can't make up a person and say that if you can't disprove his existance then he must exist.
587194
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, as well as the others who have died. That's rough.\n\n(We had an incident here a month ago where an 8th grade girl was killed crossing the street at night walking home from a dance. Some of the kids witnessed it, and the community was shaken by the whole thing. It was just so unexpected, and seemingly unfair.)\n\nAs you can see from the earlier answers here, people disagree tremendously on whether an afterlife exists, and what it might be like if it does.\n\nDeath is a hard reality that we all must come to grips with eventually. The fact is simply that, like it or not, we all have to die, and we don't quite know (in any sort of way that can be "proven") what waits for us on the other side until after the fact. \n\nOh, we can firmly believe certain things about life after death, but it's still a matter of faith for everyone concerned.\n\nYour belief about an afterlife really is going to hinge on what you choose to believe about this world, who God is (if you decide he exists), what sort of relationship you could have with him, and how that relationship could come into being. \n\n[Based on my life experience and what I see to make the most sense, I do believe in an afterlife, God, and human souls who will be close to each other after death. Heaven's not a trophy or an amusement park reward like it is often portrayed ("Believe the right thing, and win the big prize!"), it's being close to all the people who have learned how to truly love others and God ahead of themselves... a place where you can be completely open because you know you are safe and accepted.] \n\nI wish I could give you a clear answer. What I can give you instead is a bit of direction: If you're worried about death and whether your loved ones will still be around for you afterwards, I would start with the search for God. The answer to that riddle for you will greatly determine what you believe about death.\n\nDon't be scared to search and explore, and enjoy life as you go in the meanwhile. Death is a hard thing to deal with, true; but when we accept it as simply a reality, we can live life in the moment without worrying about it.
800729
Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:\n\n\nDoes it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question." \nIf it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it. \nIf we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion." \nIf it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction). \nIf there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method. \nThe fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.\nIf life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.\n\n\nI.\nThe first reason for believing in life after death is simply that there is no compelling reason not to, no objection to it that cannot be answered. The two most frequent objections are as follows:\n(a) Since there is no conclusive evidence for life after death, it is as irresponsible to believe it as to believe in UFOs, or alchemy. Perhaps we cannot disprove it; a universal negative always is difficult if not impossible to disprove. But if we cannot prove it either, it is wishful thinking, not evidence, that makes us believe it.\n\nNow this objector either means by 'evidence' merely empirical evidence, or else any kind of evidence. If he means the latter, he ignores all the following proofs for life after death. There is a lot of evidence. If he means the former, he falls victim to the self-contradiction argument just mentioned. There is no empirical evidence that the only kind of evidence we should accept is empirical evidence.\n\nIn most supposedly scientific objections of this type, an impossible demand is made, overtly or covertly-a demand for scientific proof-and then the belief is faulted for not satisfying that demand. This is like arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that "I have not found Him in my test tube," or like the first Soviet cosmonauts' "argument" that they had found no God in outer space. Ex hypothesi, if God exists He is not found in a test tube or in space. That would make Him a chemical or a meteor. A taxi trip through Cleveland disproves quasars as well as a laboratory experiment disproves God, or brain chemistry dispro
826551
Okay....\n\nWhat many people think of as proof that ghosts exists is merely something they've experienced but can't explain in any other way than saying that it was a ghost.\n\nPeople who are unable to sleep for several days because of an illness, for example, might hallucinate and "see" dead relatives while he is still awake. A person who didn't know it was the brain taking time out to "dream" while awake might believe that his dead relatives came back to comfort him in his illness.\n\nPhotographs of ghosts (orbs, etc.) are little more than way-out-of-focus specks of dust or other airborne particles too close to the flash and lens of the camera.\n\nStill other photographs are merely misuse of the camera. A shaky hand can cause blurs. A person who doesn't know how to properly use the "night portait" setting on a camera might see "energy" from distant lights.\n\nWhen people visit a "haunted house" they've usually been told what "ghost" is there and where. That biases the visitor--even subconciously--and the visitor will then "feel" something.\n\nJohn Edward, Sylvia Browne and other "psychics" who claim to talk to the dead are only skilled in an art called "Cold Reading". A major factor in a successful "Cold Reading" is the psychic tossing out very vague references ("I'm seeing water.") and the person being "read" only remembering the "hits"--the vague references the psychic got right--and forgetting the "misses".\n\nThere is always an explaination to a "ghostly experience". It's just that the person who experienced it may not know what it is other than to believe it was a ghost.
198592
Their logic.  How can anyone claim absolute knowledge that there is no absolute being.
855974
neither exist... show me some proof.
785052
there is no evidence or confirmation
490176
You can't tell for sure. Just like God, ghosts can neither be proven nor disproven. It's something many people believe, but there is no verifiable evidence either way.
1043681
Maybe its not about YOU.  Maybe its about God.  If it is, then why would he need to prove anything to you or anyone else, he wouldn't.    FYI, if you didn't create this world or the people of it, than you aren't the person who should be demanding things.  You should be thankful for an existence  \n\nHowever I totally understand your desire to ask why, but keep in mind it might not be about you.  With that said smile they are free.
18057
The existance of an afterlife is something I am so not qualified to answer, since I have only known this one.  I'd hate to burst peoples' bubbles, but i doubt there is a heaven or hell.  So call me a heathen, whatever, I surely believe in some divine creator... But the reason humans invented such ornate tales is to firstly keep people in line.  People do good and hope for reward.  Secondly, they believe so that the loss of a loved one can be comforted.  I feel that people should find their comforts in other ways.  Death is not a tragety really.  People want something to look forward to.  Thirdly, some might say arrogance; that humans are somehow above all other lifeforms and part of them lives for all eternity.  The forth reason people believe in an afterlife is fear.  Death is one of the most feared things, along with pain and failure.  Why is it feared?  Because no one truly knows what happens.  That's why people might cling to religious descriptions, which are also rather vague and hold few actual details.  So, believe whatever you wish my friend, but there's my two cents.
24207
I believe that I will have no afterlife.\n\nOr rather, I believe this: I cannot imagine a god so cruel as to condemn me to an eternally unchanging afterlife. Sure, I can imagine enlightenment that could last a long, long time--it would be interesting to explore the universe and unlock its mysteries, or to reincarnate over and over as different beings, up to a point--but I cannot imagine any existence for eternity without it becoming horrible.\n\nAnd thus, since I cannot believe in a god so cruel, I believe that either there will be no afterlife at all, or there will be no afterlife for the being that I consider to be "me." In other words, if what I become after my death can somehow find fulfillment in an eternal afterlife, then it won't be "me" and therefore not worth worrying about.\n\nI'm young--around 40--but don't see any reason to want an afterlife. I certainly want to not-die in this life, though. I find this life just fine, and would like to experience a lot more of it. I just don't want eternity.
868372
Im an agnostic, I dont think you can prove an afterlife till you are there.  So yes, I live as if this is it and I think that is a much better way to live.  Life is precious.  It does make me sad that one day I will have to leave my children and one day they will also cease to exist, but that just makes my time with them more special.  \nIf everyone believed this though, you would be unlikely to get suicide bombers, as the selfish idiots do it thinking they will be rewarded, or people who waste their time sitting in church or various other pastimes designed to prep for the end of their life.  I feel sad when I see people waste so much time praying, but some people need to feel they have something to go onto, and if that helps them meet their end without fear, i suppose thats good.
1035734
That's the beauty of the human mind.  Many people are able to completely block out logical questions such as this one.\n\nI think that, if you're a good person, you'll wind up with a good afterlife (if such a thing exists).  No one can prove anything conclusively about any religion, so we should just do what makes us happy, as long as it's not harmful to ourselves or others.
1136242
Because no one ever told us to go out and convince other people that there is no god, otherwise they would go to hell forever. Since we don't believe in the consequences of a supernatural afterlife, we have no reason to go out of our way to convince others the same.