Life after death

Rebuttal: There was too much to answer so therefore no numbering or extensive quotes from the previous round. You refer to science to prove the non-physical and that is not possible as you agree here because the non-physical cannot be subjected to scientific testing. I think it is better to say science cannot do it yet, who knows? In the meantime, the way in which to proof the afterlife is based on other types of evidence. That is the point. There is much to question in what you write, but I will point out a few things. No one knows what dark matter is other than it is a present force. Dark matter is not only a force but a non-physical force. Non-physical because no one observed it to such an extent that it is even referred to as a "mystery". "More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery". https://science.nasa.gov... Dark matter leaves open the possibility that other "disembodied" (if you will) forces may exist - In theory of course based on the hypothesis of dark matter. Your argument in this respect against the soul also fails because the soul or consciousness can exist because it is energy. You are assuming things to make sense of your theories. If you disagree then tell me what dark matter is. It is obvious there are things that may exist or can exist for which science do not have an explanation. I have mentioned many times that the non-physical may see, feel, and do whatever using different "matter" when disembodied. By the way, the dead camera was mentioned to show that you do not even have to be "alive" like a human to be able to process light (and only referred to light processing). Your argument using an embryo actually counters what you said before. I would like to point out here that your semantics is baseless. An underdeveloped brain would be the same as no brain because the functionality is missing in both instances. Trying to make a distinction between the similarities is illogical. The only difference is the one is there but not fit to process something and a rotten one is not there and also not fit to process something. A baby can feel pain within 8 weeks of conception. To feel or experience pain requires awareness. Scientific Studies Show Unborn Babies Can Feel Pain as Early as 8 Weeks http://www.lifenews.com... Pain requires awareness and a baby"s brain only starts to function in the 10th week. Therefore the baby experiences awareness or consciousness before the brain is functional. The LEVEL of consciousness is a different matter of course, but the fact is there is consciousness before the brain can function properly. Fetal development timeline - http://www.babycenter.com.... It is true there are many debates around this topic but the main point for this debate is that the baby"s brain is still very underdeveloped by the time they can start to experience awareness. That includes sound, light, pain etc. It therefore follows that awareness do not require a full developed brain and therefore not dependent on it. It is an established fact that we have different LEVELS of consciousness. Saying that a baby cannot do this or that only proves that his/her LEVEL of consciousness is affected and not that it does not exist. A level of consciousness in a very limited state is still consciousness. Pointing out that energy is not destroyed but only changes form you should keep in mind that the rotten brain existed before its decay. Since you also point to the electromagnetic components of thought I see it futile to prove that it is therefore also energy. So let me point this out again, very clearly, so there is no room for misunderstanding. 1. Dark matter exists as a non-physical force. 2. Thoughts etc. (awareness therefore consciousness) has electromagnetic components and is therefore energy. It can therefore not be destroyed according to the law of energy. You ask: please explain to me how someone dead, without a brain could possibly be aware in the afterlife? You keep on referring to the physical and then ask me to explain the non-physical based on physical observations. Yet you agreed in your rebuttal that the non-physical has never been observed. Ok, I will answer your question on one condition; explain to me first why the color blue has no smell. This is the type of reasoning you want to subject me to. I pointed out by using the examples of the animals etc. that consciousness can be experienced although the mechanisms used to do so can differ. It therefore follows that different beings with different structures and complexity can experience awareness differently. That is a fact. Applying that fact hypothetically to the non-physical it is therefore also possible that the physical, when deceased, is not dependent on the old physical requirement to experience awareness. After all it is now NON-NON-NON-PHYSICAL!! It is more probable therefore that a non-physical entity can experience awareness without the physical than not. In case you misunderstand me, I am saying that the consciousness can keep on existing as energy. I am not arguing the shape it takes because that is irrelevant to this debate. To determine what a non-physical entity is capable of you need to isolate the non-physical from the physical as separate modes of existence that can be transitioned into. Do you agree that water which is solid substance can become steam (its physical observable properties changed) and then can become vapor that is not seen (its properties changed again)? If you can then you should agree that it is possible that the same can be said of the physical transitioning into the no-physical. Consciousness has different levels of awareness that impacts perception. Your arguments are based on the awareness being intelligent therefore "normal" as we experience it. In this debate I do have to prove the level of consciousness that is affected in various ways but only that consciousness can exist while the brain is not in a "normal" state or in such a state that it is "normally" not possible for the brain to be the source of consciousness. By doing that I prove that consciousness is not dependent on an organ to exist but uses the organ to fully experience different levels of consciousness. You on the other hand argue that the organ is the source of consciousness and without the organ consciousness cannot exist. You base the majority of your arguments on the level of consciousness that can be experienced under different circumstances without taking into account ALL the different circumstances. You focus on CERTAIN examples not all possibilities. I mentioned before, you keep on expecting to prove what a non-physical entity can do by referring to what it was able to do while being present in a physical state and IGONRING that the subjects properties changed. I just have to point this out, although it has nothing to do with the point I try to make. You say we all derived 3.8 billion years ago? How can you possibly prove that? Are your aware that this number changed significantly over the years? At one stage it was 15 billion years. I guess everyone also stopped believing we came from apes because of the movie "Planet of the Apes". We have to maintain friendly relations just in case they do have advanced evolution right? I would like to challenge you to stop looking to science for all the answers and rather subject it to the utmost scrutiny. You will quickly realize that science has limitations and all the answers scientists can provide OFTEN are speculation. I pointed out that Einstein"s theory of relativity was faulty. Think of how many erroneous theories were based on it while everyone believed it to be true. NDE is a near death experience that is correct. The definition of NDE has two components it refers to. One is to someone who almost died but could still experience something, vital signs present but very faint. The other is to someone who died in that his vitals were not present but came back to life. It is also referred to as NDE because the subject was able to come back although it died so we cannot consider the person as dead anymore. That would be ludicrous. Again, your separation is semantics at best and the NDE cases is valid I referred to because the person was declared dead, and there was no vital signs present to declare the subject as alive. That is the same as a corps, no vital signs, only the physical composition is different. I pointed this out by saying they both went through he same steps of dying. If you took the time to read the references then you probably would not have spent all the time you did on explaining what NEARLY having sex means. The guy died, he did not NEARLY die. Your time argument is illogical. Time exist whether you can observe it or not. And I suggest you read again what you wrote here. Therefore if someone dies then time keeps on existing. Since it can exist it can be observed. Time does not even require our consciousness to exist. It exists whether you are aware of it or not, just like a rock is not aware of it and it still exists. Therefore, a non-physical entity can observe time because it is available to be observed and everything is subjected to it. Time is not depended on the physical or non-physical. And again, like so many times before, you keep on forcing physical properties onto a non-physical entity although you claim you do not. The cases where people were declared dead but still were aware of their surroundings disprove your statement that "When someone dies, their senses disappear as perception cannot take place in the absence of the brain". And how you want to define NDE does not change that. Please consider the following: 1. People in a state of coma or brain dead cannot respond intelligently because consciousness is suppressed. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that consciousness possess intelligent attributes and characteristics. Consciousness is aware, can think and communicate etc. 2. People in a state of coma or brain dead do not display consciousness. However, People in a state of coma or brain dead can be revived and retain their consciousness. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that consciousness is retained but suppressed in a state of coma or brain dead and that the consciousness did not cease to exist. 3. When someone is in coma or brain dead consciousness do not cease to exist although corporeal damage may impair the expression of full consciousness. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that consciousness is not dependent on the corporeal to exist although the corporeal can influence the ability to express consciousness. 4. When someone is in coma or brain dead the body"s biological processes do not stop but continue to function without the direct presence of active consciousness. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the active presence of consciousness is therefore not required for the biological processes to function and therefore it can also be deduced that the two are separate entities within the same body because their functioning is not dependent on each other. 5. An unresponsive state of the body does not eliminate consciousness. It has been observed that some patient"s who experienced death, where their bodily functions were shutdown, could retain their consciousness during the shutdown period although the external observers could not detect any signs of consciousness or bodily functionality. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that consciousness can exist when the body is dead. External lack of observable consciousness is not enough to establish that consciousness ceased to exist. 6. Consciousness causes intelligent action to take place and not the body because the body is intelligently unresponsive when consciousness is suppressed. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that consciousness uses the body as an instrument to function intelligently and not the other way around. The body is dependent on consciousness for intelligent expression. Consciousness causes and directs action using the body. 7. Consciousness is the cause of intelligent action and cannot be annulled by a dead body. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that consciousness can continue existing after the body died.