Proof of Heaven

[newnature]

There is a before heaven. Heaven is a structure. A story could be told about how at one point in time in God’s life, he chose to create some kind of structure, separating him from whatever was outside of that structure. To understand heaven, one has to understand this question. God is the light source, but how can God visit the earth and have a relationship with the beings living on that earth and still maintain being the light source of the earth?

 

[PaulJames]

If God didn't exist then why is there even mention of "His" existence?

 

[Sarkus]

If God didn't exist then why is there even mention of "His" existence?

No idea. Perhaps you ought to ask Gandalf, Harry Potter, Buzz Lightyear, Winnie the Pooh, Mary Poppins or Captain Kirk?

 

[PaulJames]

Those are all fictional characters. Creations if you will! But then again perhaps it is possible to create such a being ourselves, maybe with something such as the power of prayer...

 

[wellwisher]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you did have an unusual experience. What convinces you that the experience had anything to do with God, heaven and Christ? (Could you recognize any of those things if you saw them?) Isn't it more likely that the experience was caused by psychiatric problems? Many people report hearing voices in their walls, but that doesn't mean that there are spirits in their walls speaking to them. In other words, why should any of the rest of us believe that what you experienced was objective rather than subjective?

Objective and subjective is not always clear cut.

Say I placed you in a dark room and I ask you to make mental note of anything you feel or imagine. Everyone hour I turn on the lights and you write your observations down. This is being objective in the first person, to data, only you can experience. Another person may record different things that do not match. They are also being objective in the first person.

The scientific method was not designed for singular data, that may not be reproducible. The scientific method was designed to factor this data out so what is left, is objective to all and not just one person.

If I was on a drug that induced hallucinations, even though the visuals may not exist in external reality, one can still be objective to what they see based on how the brain is acting.

I may like chocolate more than vanilla. I infer this by the way each makes me feel. This is being objective in the first person. This first person objectivity may be called subjective to another person, if their first person objectivity, infers differently.

The scientific method is about collective objectivity, and breaks down at individual objectivity.

 

[PaulJames]

 

[DaveC426913]

Spellbound, this thread is entitled Proof of Heaven.

I have a couple of questions that I feel have not been adequately addressed in follow-up posts:

In your OP, you say:

There is proof of heaven among other kinds of proofs.

1] What do you mean when you say 'proof'? Do you really mean it is incontrovertible? Or do you mean simply you have compelling evidence?
2] Is any of this proof (or evidence) available for anyone else to examine if they so choose?

Then you say:

Heaven's verification only came recently however. It simply stood to reason.

3] Does that mean your conclusion is based on your reasoning, as opposed to objective, reproducible evidence?

4] There are lots of believers in God that do not believe in heaven, so it would be a hasty conclusion that 'existence of God' must mean 'existence of heaven'. Do you have proof/evidence of heaven that is independent of proof/evidence of God?

 

[DaveC426913]

Say I placed you in a dark room and I ask you to make mental note of anything you feel or imagine. Everyone hour I turn on the lights and you write your observations down. This is being objective in the first person, to data, only you can experience. Another person may record different things that do not match. They are also being objective in the first person.

To examine the first person's evidence, the second person could (should) create tests that are designed to falsify the first person's evidence. Granted, not easy to do, since things may have changed - such is the nature of subjective phenomena. Nonetheless, only if the first person's observations cannot be falsified should we consider that the experience might merit further investigation.

Unfortunately, since there is no way to test SB's experience, there is also no way to falsify it. Which means an hallucination (or merely an overly-enthusiastic interpretation) cannot be ruled out - by objective observers - as an explanation.

As you point, out, person one could have hallucinated the whole thing. If so, while he may still have experienced things, we would be to rule out an objective existence of such things.

The objective existence of heaven is what were after here, not person one's - or SB's - subjective experience. No one here is challenging that SB thinks he experienced heaven.

 

[Hermann]

Spellbound,

Do you know the book from William Buhlman "Adventures in the Afterlife" (also as Kindle Version available)? This is the best book in this context I ever read. Buhlman is for me the number one expert in OBE and the book describes in its first part by a story of a third person, what he has experienced. You don't have to believe in OBE, but this book makes the description of afterlife very plausible and believing. A main statement is, that after death we will first experience exactly what we expect. That means all beliefs will be confirmed - even atheism and materialism. You have to overcome your belief system in order to grow further. It is like with NDE: Christians may see Jesus, but never Buddha. Buddhists may see Buddha, but never Jesus. This book is highly recommended to everyone.
———
My world view is explained at: http://rational-weltanschauung.blogspot.com.au/

 

[DaveC426913]

If God didn't exist then why is there even mention of "His" existence?

No idea. Perhaps you ought to ask Gandalf, Harry Potter, Buzz Lightyear, Winnie the Pooh, Mary Poppins or Captain Kirk?

Those are all fictional characters.

Precisely.

 

[mtf]

To examine the first person's evidence, the second person could (should) create tests that are designed to falsify the first person's evidence. Granted, not easy to do, since things may have changed - such is the nature of subjective phenomena. Nonetheless, only if the first person's observations cannot be falsified should we consider that the experience might merit further investigation.

Why such a limitation?

The objective existence of heaven is what were after here, not person one's - or SB's - subjective experience. No one here is challenging that SB thinks he experienced heaven.

Heaven is usually talked about in religions (and we're talking here about that kind of heaven). Religions also give specific instructions on how to come to heaven.

Trying to prove or disprove the existence of heaven while distinctly not following those instructions is like asking someone for directions in a city but then ignoring those directions and neverhtless hoping to come to the desired destination.

 

[spidergoat]

A main statement is, that after death we will first experience exactly what we expect.

Ridiculous, the experiencing entity will be non-existent at that point.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why such a limitation?

Because, otherwise, every leprechaun and unicorn sighting would likewise merit further investigation.

Heaven is usually talked about in religions (and we're talking here about that kind of heaven). Religions also give specific instructions on how to come to heaven.

Trying to prove or disprove the existence of heaven...

Agreed.

Yet this thread - as witnessed by its title - is (OK, was) attempting to do precisely that.

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't have to believe in OBE, but this book makes the description of afterlife very plausible and believing.

I'll bet it does.
I've read quite a few fiction books that are plausible and believable. Plausibility and believability are not a substitute evidence.

A main statement is, that after death we will first experience exactly what we expect. That means all beliefs will be confirmed - even atheism and materialism. You have to overcome your belief system in order to grow further. It is like with NDE: Christians may see Jesus, but never Buddha. Buddhists may see Buddha, but never Jesus.

This is the wishful thinking fallacy - a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

 

[mtf]

Because, otherwise, every leprechaun and unicorn sighting would likewise merit further investigation.

That's not the same, given that people usually aren't that interested in leprechauns and such, but they are interested in justice and happiness -- which is what notions of heaven are usually closely linked to.
To dismiss notions of heaven is to dismiss notions of (eternal/universal/absolute) justice and happiness.
Dismissing the notion of leprechauns and such has no such consequences.

This is the wishful thinking fallacy - a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

It's not clear that people can really get past their hopes, wishes, and pleasures -- and it's also not clear whether it is a good idea that they do so to begin with.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's not the same, given that people usually aren't that interested in leprechauns and such, but they are interested in justice and happiness -- which is what notions of heaven are usually closely linked to.
To dismiss notions of heaven is to dismiss notions of (eternal/universal/absolute) justice and happiness.

Only for those who believe in the supernatural. Lots of people out there get by with the justice and happiness right here on Earth.

Dismissing the notion of leprechauns and such has no such consequences.

There are plenty who don't make the distinction between different forms of unfalsifiable ideas.

Would you deny Leprechaunists their right to believe in a pot of gold? Or unicornists their right to believe in ... uh ... whatever it is unicorns have over virgins ?

It's not clear that people can really get past their hopes, wishes, and pleasures -- and it's also not clear whether it is a good idea that they do so to begin with.

It is quite clear to atheists and skeptics that their hopes, wishes and pleasures are right here in the corporeal world.

 

[spidergoat]

That's not the same, given that people usually aren't that interested in leprechauns and such, but they are interested in justice and happiness -- which is what notions of heaven are usually closely linked to.
To dismiss notions of heaven is to dismiss notions of (eternal/universal/absolute) justice and happiness.

In the secular world, you pay for your crimes. In religion, you can repent and be forgiven. So, in that world, a young atheist who has done no other wrong gets burned for eternity, and Hitler goes to heaven. Justice!

 

[mtf]

Lots of people out there get by with the justice and happiness right here on Earth.

... until they can't anymore.

Suppose a driver hits you and escapes; you end up in a wheelchair, the police can't find them. How do you find justice and happiness?
Suppose your child is gang raped and afterwards vegetates in life, never psychologically recovering. How do you find justice and happiness?

There are plenty who don't make the distinction between different forms of unfalsifiable ideas.

Sure. How consistent are these people? Do they also include freedom, democracy, free will, meaning of life in the same category with leprechauns?

Would you deny Leprechaunists their right to believe in a pot of gold? Or unicornists their right to believe in ... uh ... whatever it is unicorns have over virgins ?

??

It is quite clear to atheists and skeptics that their hopes, wishes and pleasures are right here in the corporeal world.

... until these become unavailable, or unsatisfactory. Then what?

 

[DaveC426913]

... until they can't anymore.

So... what then? They should invent a source of justice and happiness that can't be reached?

Suppose a driver hits you and escapes; you end up in a wheelchair, the police can't find them. How do you find justice and happiness?
Suppose your child is gang raped and afterwards vegetates in life, never psychologically recovering. How do you find justice and happiness?

So... what then? They should invent a source of justice and happiness that can't be reached?

Sure. How consistent are these people? Do they also include freedom, democracy, free will, meaning of life in the same category with leprechauns?

As consistent as anybody else.

... until these become unavailable, or unsatisfactory. Then what?

So... what then? They should invent a source of justice and happiness that can't be reached?

 

[mtf]

In the secular world, you pay for your crimes.

Not always, not everyone, not always justly.

In religion, you can repent and be forgiven.

Only if you manage to believe accordingly, and even then, neither repentance nor forgiveness are not certain.

So, in that world, a young atheist who has done no other wrong gets burned for eternity, and Hitler goes to heaven. Justice!

This is what some people believe, but it's not clear whether it actually happens.