Afterlife ~ yes or no?

There probably is

[/quote]
Sorry I didn't respond but I just happened onto this thread again. I would never report a thread just because I find it boring or just because I disagree with an opinion. Simply put, I did not report your thread.
I'm pretty sure I am not your dear I'm positive that you gave no evidence to support the existence of a "life after death." As qwerty_kid said, there is no definite proof either way, simply because there can not be. Life after death is an oxymoron. It's been my experience that when someone forms a belief for which there is no logical reason for having such a belief, it was due to a fantasy. Wishful thinking. I don't have a problem with delusional thinking, which you call faith, if it causes no harm. This doesn't appear to cause anyone harm so I'm fine with it. If it gives you the comfort that you need to get through life then I'm not going to trying to take that from you.
If you also choose to believe that NDE anecdotes are not religious in nature that's fine too.

Descarte gave multiple logical arguments for a god that is capable of creating an afterlife.
- (1) Our idea of God is of a perfect being, (2) it is more perfect to exist than not to exist, (3) therefore, God must exist.
- (1) There must be as much reality in a cause as in an effect, and so, (2) there must be as much formal reality in a cause of an idea as there is objective reality in an idea. Since we have an idea with infinite objective reality (namely, the idea of God), Descartes is able to conclude that there is a being with infinite formal reality who caused this idea. In other words, God exists.

Thomas Aquinas too:
-The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[18]
Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.

-The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.

-Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.

-The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.

Pascal's watch is another argument.

This is just from a quick wiki search.

George, so it's not that people who believe in God and an afterlife are delusional or illogical. There is logic involved. However, logic can be based on false premises. For instant Newton's universal law of gravitation is logical but we now know it is based on false premises. I used Newton for this example because he believed in a god. He believed physics was the way to understand god's mind. Are you to say this empirical man of science who developed optics, worked out gravitation and calculus is delusional and illogical?
A note on explanation. Science answers the how questions, religion and the humanities answers the why questions. If we took a war, and looked at it scientifically all we would see is matter in motion. No where would we see a REASON(justice, equality, devotion) that would have started the war. The same might go for humanities existence. Maybe it was created by an intelligent designer for a reason. If your a scientific man, then by Hume's deductive principle you can't be sure about anything for certain. You may claim it is improbable but that's as far as you can go. Just consider them optimistic.

Let's not throw words around lightly but comment gently. This is a dance not a war.

I believe in an afterlife. I believe in heaven and hell. I fully believe that what we do in this life and how we treat people is our choice as to which of those places we wish to be.

Honestly, what anyone of us chooses to believe, has very little bearing on the truth of the matter. Though I believe an afterlife to be real, I'd also be perfectly content as compost

Irrational may have been a better word to use than illogical The basic premise remains. People can't even agree on one single version of a god or an afterlife. Every major (and probably every lesser) civilization/culture has had religions... deities and an afterlife. The variations in those concepts of deities and afterlives were so great that if all were true there would be great battles in the heavens. So to be a believer we would not only have to believe in something which has absolutely zero evidence of existing, we would have to choose which version to believe. That fits my idea of delusional
Descartes was educated by Catholics. He lived in a time when questioning religion would get you killed. Descartes' concepts of a god were all based on concepts previously put forth by men. Deities and an afterlife are constructs of men.

Reminder: Please limit religious discussions on PC. Thank you!