# There is no life after death (and no hell)

JD
Whether we do or whether we don't
there's someone here to say we won't
But yet we must as chatting are we
unless we are not meant to be

If you are there and I am here
then neither has as much to fear
as one who is not here at all
and he is sitting in the next hall

If I ask you to perform an experiment determining whether or not pigs can fly, what what you do? Take some pigs and throw them off a mountain? What if you had to perform the experiment within a closed in room and only a rat, some cheese, and a large maze. Obviously you would learn nothing about pigs from rats and cheese, and the analogy holds true for the existence of God or an afterlife. If such a being exists, then by very definiton he is not bound by space and time, or he wouldnt be God. if something is not bound by space or time, then nothing bound by space and time can have any effect. Formulas, DNA, etc can be used to adequately describe the existence of natural things, but when the laws of physics break down(i.e., heaven) physical laws are no longer adequate enough to explain what will occur. such as 2+2 = 4, and 4 divided by 2 = 2, nothing can be added to equal god, or god would not be god, because if things can add up, then they can be divided. If something can be divided then it is no more than the sum of its parts, and therefore is finite. Bottom line, if God is God, then he is infinite and not bound by space time.

Infinity, obviously derives its defintion from what is infinite to space-time,

I think ur right Jim God is infinite and we cannot get to know him completely. The question was really about life after death. Now i know most of us will never go to schools if we get to know we won't get a job after that. i mean what is the point doing things with no actual profits. u won't eat if u derive ur energy from sun. So why are we alive? Obviously for something that is not known exactly. this is what prevents us from knowing absolute truth. do u not agree that heaven and hell r reward and punishment for our good and bad deeds, respectively? this is all like law and crimes. when u abide by the laws the profit is a smooth life. if u dont then ur road is bumpy and there is fuzz behind you.

As for me, I believe in God. But I am not a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist. God is the term I apply to the physics that operate outside the sphere of our own closed universe...the science of the multiverse...the bubbles, so to speak.

I believe the first few paragraphs of Genesis a highly advanced scientific context, dealing with the creation of the universe. However, the old language and metaphors disguise this very well and seem to render it no more than a fictitious oddity of religion - The Creation.

The rest of the bible, almost in its entirety, I would dismiss as fantasy.

I believe that there was a man named Jesus, and that he did many good things. I don't think he performed any "miracles" per-se, though. That would be unscientific and even unrelated to the nature of the God I believe in.

My God is not a force personified. It is not an old man with a beard. It's not even anything that I can, want, or feel the need to pray to. There is no point in praying to Newton's laws of gravitation; similarly there is no point in praying to God.

Like I said, I apply the term "God" to the physics beyond our closed universe...the region between the multiverse's closed bubbles where "omnipotence, omnipresence" and "timelessness" are all de-facto standards of that region of "space".

So I guess I believe in "The Force". No matter how cliched that sounds. What I believe is in no way (save for a few adjectives describing the "entity") related to the Bible whatsoever.

Believing in God is not about being a good person, doing well to your fellow mankind or having faith in the Bible and all it represents...that's the job of Religion...something I have no time for and also dismiss as a sorry interference in the progress of mankind.

Believing in God believes in the order, the science and the physics of that which determines the actuality of the multiverse and it's dynamics.

My view about the miracles in the bible is harsh...its just the same as Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, etc...It's something for children.

Religion can be a good thing for some people. It can provide comfort to people and give others hope. Others can interpret them differently.

No. I don't believe there is life after death.

Last edited:
I noticed that the definition of God is closed…so I will post it here.

This branch of Physics is that to which I apply the name God.

Quite possibly this is the same flavor of God Einstein and Hawking believe in. It's not an entity, not a man, not a religion, not a faith, not a being. It's just the name given to the most powerful branch of physics.

The branch of physics known as "God" meets all the defining criteria. Timeless.

Coupling Timelessness with the entire matrix of extra dimensions renders this science also Omnipresent by definition.

Coupling Timelessness with Omnipresence by definition must yield Omniscience in a mechanical universe (the only petty and ridiculous thing that anyone can count as 'evidence' against the universe being 100% mechanical is that we're arrogantly frightened enough to think we have un provable and probably nonexistent free will)

Noting that this branch of physics now wields the virtues of Timelessness, Omnipresence and Omniscience to it's armory of characteristics and also that since this science governs the motion of the Membranes, and thus the Strings, it means that "God" DIRECTLY AFFECTS our own universe.

Coupling this affective force with the above 3 characteristics yields, by definition Omnipotence.

This is my definition of "God". No man in white robe in the afterlife with angels telling people to build ships and not to have sex. God, as a science by the numbers, is what I subscribe to.

This is where the ultimately devastating (or unifying) irony in the whole argument lays:

Science is God == God is Science.

As for me, I believe in God. But not in the way you probably think. God is the term I apply to the physics that operate outside the sphere of our own closed universe...the science of the multiverse...the bubbles, so to speak.

I believe the first few paragraphs of Genesis a highly advanced scientific context, dealing with the creation of the universe. However, the old language and metaphors disguise this very well and seem to render it no more than a fictitious oddity of religion - The Creation.

The rest of the bible, almost in its entirety, I would dismiss as fantasy.

I believe that there was a man named Jesus, and that he did many good things. I don't think he performed any "miracles" per-se, though. That would be unscientific and even unrelated to the nature of the God I believe in.

My God is not a force personified. It is not an old man with a beard. It's not even anything that I can, want, or feel the need to pray to. There is no point in praying to Newton's laws of gravitation; similarly there is no point in praying to God.

Like I said, I apply the term "God" to the physics beyond our closed universe...the region between the multiverse's closed bubbles where "omnipotence, omnipresence" and "timelessness" are all de-facto standards of that region of "space".

So I guess I believe in "The Force". No matter how cliched that sounds. What I believe is in no way (save for a few adjectives describing the "entity") related to the Bible whatsoever.

Believing in God is not about being a good person, doing well to your fellow mankind or having faith in the Bible and all it represents...that's the job of Religion...something I have no time for and also dismiss as a sorry interference in the progress of mankind.

Believing in God believes in the order, the science and the physics of that which determines the actuality of the multiverse and it's dynamics.

I thank you for your time.

Jim Beam said:
If I ask you to perform an experiment determining whether or not pigs can fly, what what you do? Take some pigs and throw them off a mountain? What if you had to perform the experiment within a closed in room and only a rat, some cheese, and a large maze. Obviously you would learn nothing about pigs from rats and cheese, and the analogy holds true for the existence of God or an afterlife. If such a being exists, then by very definiton he is not bound by space and time, or he wouldnt be God. if something is not bound by space or time, then nothing bound by space and time can have any effect. Formulas, DNA, etc can be used to adequately describe the existence of natural things, but when the laws of physics break down(i.e., heaven) physical laws are no longer adequate enough to explain what will occur. such as 2+2 = 4, and 4 divided by 2 = 2, nothing can be added to equal god, or god would not be god, because if things can add up, then they can be divided. If something can be divided then it is no more than the sum of its parts, and therefore is finite. Bottom line, if God is God, then he is infinite and not bound by space time.

Infinity, obviously derives its defintion from what is infinite to space-time,
Jim,
You seem to have gone extremely far out of your way to demonstrate your belief that God is infinite, not graspable by the human mind and not testable or disprovable. Given many of the other more well thought out definitions I've heard about him (i.e. the more typical JudeoChristian god), would agree, this isn't a claim I consider unusual.

However, it brings up an interesting question. Just stating what you have brings the question of why anyone would assume he exists, and after that, why any of the many, many other things presented in the bible would also be associated.

If it's based on actions God takes in our universe, that would, by definition be defined as ourside the normal laws of nature and physics, then the pig is indeed inside the room with our rat, cheese, and maze.

If not then the actions taken by such god would have to be hidden from all but one person at a time, i.e. subjective. Since the vast majority of Christian folk I've talked to don't get explicit and detailed communications, such as Joan of Arc did, then how can one attribute the vast details of Christianity and the bible, onto this infinite god? i.e. why would that attribution be a more rational position than such an attributed god, creation, and supernatural system in place (heaven, hell, etc).

We all know that physical causes and processes of many types occur in our universe. We see thousands of examples every day. Examples that are obviously caused by a supernatural entity are not common. While it may be simpler to attribute aspects of creation, et. al. to a supernatural entity rather than some physical process we haven't uncovered yet, we've seen that physical processes exist, we've not seen that a diety exists.

Glenn

Last edited:
It is a fact that there can be no life after death. This is because the soul (if it exists) cannot possibly have a brain. If it has a brain then what about other body parts like heart, lungs etc. And if life actually existed then won't it be a joke to think that little babies who die grown up in hell or heaven. What will they study in heaven? Are there schools in heaven just like earth?? That is impossible.

The question now is the question of origin. What is the origin; not of the universe but of all things including God (if he/she/it exists).

http://www.web_templates.blogspot.com

It is a fact that there can be no life after death. This is because the soul (if it exists) cannot possibly have a brain. If it has a brain then what about other body parts like heart, lungs etc. ... That is impossible.
Invalid logic train. You imply that a brain, lungs, heart, etc are necessary for life. I've never seen one tree with any of those, yet many of them I've seen are alive by most definitions.

You can always redefine life to exclude the afterlife, but it's poor debating technique to use it to try to prove the afterlife doesn't exist. The same could be said about applying purpose and needs of the afterlife to try and disprove any afterlife.

While I may not believe in an afterlife, I am a strong believer in proper debate.

My first post here. Last year I wrote a paper for the Quantum Mind2003 conference about non-local consciousness that has some relevance to this discussion. http://www.dhushara.com/pdf/ruquist.pdf [Broken]

In it I suggest that consciousness may exist in dark matter, especially if a major constituent of dark matter is some very light in mass particle (or particles) like the axion. The paper is a review paper of the published evidence for non-local consciousness and the theories published on the internet that could explain it. Heaven is not mentioned. But the extrapolation is straight forward.

Very light in mass particles, particles that are on the order of one millionth the mass of an electron, form a superfluid at room and even solar surface temperatures. Superfluids and superconductors are known to exist at very low temperatures close to absolute zero. Some semi-conductors are "super" at much higher temperatures, but no where near room temperature. But physical theory predicts any fluid whose particle wave functions sufficiently overlap will be "super". In physics they are called Bose-Einstein condensdates. So a fluid of particles like axions, whose wave functions are global in extent, would have the properties of a superfluid or a superconductor, even at solar surface temperatures. They exist in a state of complete quantum coherence. They do not experience friction. They can move about freely, but interestingly, it turns out that from theory that most axions were created in the Big Bang and they are essentially motionless. That is why they are considered to be the main component of Cold Dark Matter. They are called Cosmic Axions. Solar axions are also constantly produced in the sun and radiate away. It seems that they also contribute to the superfluid. In short, Dark Matter may be a supernatural medium, a amusing coincidence of religious and physics terminology.

Without friction, the medium would correspond to some concepts of heaven as a state of bliss where one neither needs to eat or sleep, although I question the bliss part. My guess is that you can only experience after death what you have already experienced in life. For some that may be like hell. Anyway that is what my religion teaches.

What I suggest in that paper is that your dreams and perhaps even your thinking may exist in the medium of Dark Matter, which BTW pervades the entire galaxy. If so, your consciousness could leave your body both before and perhaps at death. There is evidence that it can happen before death, which I take to be evidence of the supernatural.

So in this case the medium is the message. By the way, what we see is less than 1% of what exists. Dark matter, which we cannot see, is over 99% of the mass universe- room for many rooms. Even so, there now is twice as much (mass-equivatent) Dark Energy than Dark Matter. But at the time of the Big Bang, the amount of Dark Energy was a tiny fraction of the Dark Matter. Also, Dark Energy is needed to make the universe flat in the Euclidean sense, so that plane geometry works. But the price we eventually have to pay is the the universe will blow away, and perhaps even blow up a few billion years from now. Now that's religion...and all based on physics.

Last edited by a moderator:
All I can tell you people is that there is no support for an after life in the Bible. There is only ressurection.