Do you believe in God?

[Atomics]

Don't double post.

And please provide the evidence for God. You'll be the first.

Posts weren't doubles. Just looked like it.

Evidence for God. Hmm. Where to being, there are so many ways to show this. How about why is there anything rather than nothing at all? The answer is, God Blammed it.

More formally,
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause;
2. The Universe had a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

Science and general relativity tell us that when the universe began to exist so did space, time, energy, and matter. So the cause of the universe was a spaceless, timeless, energy-less, object of great power. Sounds like God to me.

 

[Touring Mars]

Evidence for God. Hmm. Where to being, there are so many ways to show this. How about why is there anything rather than nothing at all? The answer is, God Blammed it.

More formally,
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause;
2. The Universe had a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

Science and general relativity tell us that when the universe began to exist so did space, time, energy, and matter. So the cause of the universe was a spaceless, timeless, energy-less, object of great power. Sounds like God to me.

Sounds like you are equating the word 'God' with 'we don't know' to me, and as has been argued repeatedly in threads other than this as well, merely replacing an unknown mechanism with the phrase 'God did it' is utterly devoid of any meaning or importance.

 

[orimarc]

How can something energy-less have power?

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

How about why is there anything rather than nothing at all? The answer is, God Blammed it.

This is called an argument from ignorance.

What happens to you when you die?

What happens to a pig or a tree when it dies?

It is a demonstration of selfishness to think that we are the chosen form of life that will be granted an afterlife.

 

[Dennisch]

Sounds like you are equating the word 'God' with 'we don't know' to me, and as has been argued repeatedly in threads other than this as well, merely replacing an unknown mechanism with the phrase 'God did it' is utterly devoid of any meaning or importance.

This.

 

[Touring Mars]

What happens to a pig when it dies?

Of course, I don't claim to speak for all pigs, but I know atleast one whose moist flesh was sliced up, packaged, sold, grilled, placed on a buttered roll and eaten during the build-up to this afternoon's Italian GP.

OK, I realise this is probably not what you were talking about

 

[homeforsummer]

God does not exsist and evolution does because people told me so and I trust those people and their sources.

Whats the difference?

I'm quite disappointed you even ask that question, given the literally hundreds of times it's been discussed in this thread and the C vs E one. It shows how little you're prepared to open your mind to vast volumes of evidence, yet how much you're prepared to open your mind to something completely intangible.

There is evidence for God and for evolution.

Well, one of those is true*


*Hint: It's not the first one.

 

[Exorcet]

Is it strange I don't believe in God, but I do the afterlife?

They are completely separate things, although they have the same amount of supporting evidence.

I've been considering starting an afterlife thread for a while now.

Hmmm.............
Well that is certainly your prerogative.
Although, you might expand and consider other possibilities in your research.
All that mass of extremely complex and coordinated functionality, with no design or intelligence involved?

Hmmm.............

And some guy is supposed to have made it all by snapping fingers? The evidence only backs up one idea. We've had atom interacting for 13 billion years now, and yet some people still think the world couldn't have been without divine intervention. I don't get it.

God does not exsist and evolution does because people told me so and I trust those people and their sources.


Whats the difference?

Well for one thing, those people who keep talking about evolution are at least able to make predictions with theories and apply their knowledge to further everyone's understanding and quality of life.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Of course, I don't claim to speak for all pigs, but I know atleast one whose moist flesh was sliced up, packaged, sold, grilled, placed on a buttered roll and eaten during the build-up to this afternoon's Italian GP.

A pig's afterlife sounds delicious.

 

[Atomics]

Sounds like you are equating the word 'God' with 'we don't know' to me, and as has been argued repeatedly in threads other than this as well, merely replacing an unknown mechanism with the phrase 'God did it' is utterly devoid of any meaning or importance.

To deal with a philosophical argument, one starts with premises and reasons to a conclusion that follows from the premises. This argument doesn't say we don't know, but instead deduces what some of the properties of the cause of the universe had to be. The dominant theories describing the earliest moments of the big bang show that time space matter and energy all came to existence at that time. One of the most fundamental and obvious facts of science and philosophy first stated by Parmenides is "from nothing, nothing comes".

The argument I advanced uses scientific facts to deduce that the cause of the universe had to be like. Because there was no matter, energy, time, or space prior to the big bang, the cause of the big bang could not have been something of time, energy, matter, or matter. Clearly, the something that caused the big bang, that un-caused cause, had to have been extremely powerful. The cause of the universe was a timeless, matterless, energyless, spaceless entity of great power. If you disagree with this conclusion, you might question the underlying science or take issue with the reasoning.

 

[Scaff]

What happens to you when you die?

The energy contained within your body returns to the universe. No 'afterlife' exists, we don't get any special treatment we get to go back to what we came from.

Quite why people have such an issue with human beings simply ceasing to be when they die is more than a little perplexing to me, but I guess a great many still need some form of comfort blanket.

Posts weren't doubles. Just looked like it.

Here at GT Planet that's a double post and we don't encourage them at all, regardless of the contents of the posting being different we would ask that you edit the first post rather than simply posting again.

To deal with a philosophical argument, one starts with premises and reasons to a conclusion that follows from the premises. This argument doesn't say we don't know, but instead deduces what some of the properties of the cause of the universe had to be. The dominant theories describing the earliest moments of the big bang show that time space matter and energy all came to existence at that time. One of the most fundamental and obvious facts of science and philosophy first stated by Parmenides is "from nothing, nothing comes".

The argument I advanced uses scientific facts to deduce that the cause of the universe had to be like. Because there was no matter, energy, time, or space prior to the big bang, the cause of the big bang could not have been something of time, energy, matter, or matter. Clearly, the something that caused the big bang, that un-caused cause, had to have been extremely powerful. The cause of the universe was a timeless, matterless, energyless, spaceless entity of great power. If you disagree with this conclusion, you might question the underlying science or take issue with the reasoning.

All of which is a philosophical argument for God creating it, you stated that you had evidence. A philosophical argument is not evidence.

The exact same philosophical argument could be used to claim that TGSM or my cat was the creator, the exact same body of evidence exists to support both of those claims (in the case of my cat slightly more as I can provide evidence he exists).


Out of interest, in what field are you a Reseach Scientist?

 

[Atomics]

All of which is a philosophical argument for God creating it, you stated that you had evidence. A philosophical argument is not evidence.

Not alone, but with data it is. Science is performed using data but data by itself is useless. Without philosophical reasoning and philosophical assumptions science wouldn't be possible. Here is some of the data used to determine that the big bang occurred:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

From this data scientists have extrapolate the movement of cosmic objects back in time to determine that he universe came into existence at a single point. When all the matter in the universe was at that point space, time, matter, and energy came into being. If you oppose these conclusions you are opposing the progress of science.

What came into being at the moment of creation?

The big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist

All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

The exact same philosophical argument could be used to claim that TGSM or my cat was the creator, the exact same body of evidence exists to support both of those claims (in the case of my cat slightly more as I can provide evidence he exists).

No, the argument can't be used to claim your cat was the creator. I don't know what the TGSM is, but I doubt that it is meets the requirements stated.
We are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind

The first cause with the properties described earlier created the physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

In presenting the argument I didn't conclude that the cause was God, I said the the first cause "sounds like God". Any casual agent meeting the requirements I described has god-like qualities.

Out of interest, in what field are you a Reseach Scientist?

Alternate energy production from deep-ocean geothermal sources.

 

[Scaff]

I'm still seeing a massive lack of evidence and a lot of assumption, your assuming that since we don't know the exact cause of the big bang and what existed before it that its evidence for God.

Its no more evidence for God causing it to happen than it is The Great Spaghetti Monster' or my Cat. You can no more prove that my cat didn't cause the Big Bang that I can prove it wasn't God.

Fortunately the burden of proof rests with those proposing the hypothesis, and as such I am yet to see a shred of evidence (that would meet a scientific standard) to back up your claim that evidence exists to prove God and that the Big Bang is part of that evidence.

In presenting the argument I didn't conclude that the cause was God, I said the the first cause "sounds like God". Any casual agent meeting the requirements I described has god-like qualities.

You may want to check your wording then, as the way I read it you presented the Big Bang as evidence to support the existence of God, which is quite different to "sounds like God". I'd also be interested to understand more by what you mean in 'god-like qualities', as to me that sounds like the actions of singular being, in which case I totally and utterly disagree with you on that point.

Alternate energy production from deep-ocean geothermal sources.

Excellent, are you published?

 

[Dennisch]

Fancy post. Now where is that evidence?

 

[Atomics]

I'm still seeing a massive lack of evidence and a lot of assumption, your assuming that since we don't know the exact cause of the big bang and what existed before it that its evidence for God.

No, what I did was describe scientific data and using logical deductions described the qualities of cause for the big bang. I don't think I made any assumptions, but we may be using the word "assumption" differently. What assumptions did I make?

Its no more evidence for God causing it to happen than it is The Great Spaghetti Monster' or my Cat. You can no more prove that my cat didn't cause the Big Bang that I can prove it wasn't God.

I think you mean Richard Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster. Because time energy space and matter came into existence at the big bang, the flying spaghetti monster and your cat couldn't have be the cause. That's because cats and spaghetti are both made out of matter. Richard Dawkins is a biologist. His grasp of cosmology and logical argument tends to reflect this. I think that's why he avoids being challenged in debate.

Fortunately the burden of proof rests with those proposing the hypothesis, and as such I am yet to see a shred of evidence (that would meet a scientific standard) to back up your claim that evidence exists to prove God and that the Big Bang is part of that evidence.

Nobody can prove God exists or that he doesn't exist. Burden of proof is irrelevant. Also, I didn't draw the conclusion that God exists, I said the cause of the universe had properties that were god-like. Which particular points in the evidence I provided do you dispute?

You may want to check your wording then, as the way I read it you presented the Big Bang as evidence to support the existence of God, which is quite different to "sounds like God". I'd also be interested to understand more by what you mean in 'god-like qualities', as to me that sounds like the actions of singular being, in which case I totally and utterly disagree with you on that point.

OK I see what you are saying. I do think that the requirements for the first cause was God, but in presenting the data and reasoning I tried to leave it open to other causal agents meeting the requirements. The requirements are these:

The big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist

All of these things began to exist at the first moment so the cause of the universe was a spaceless, timeless, energy-less, entity of great power. As I said earlier, this eliminates Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster unless it wasn't made of spaghetti (matter), and it eliminates cats for the same reason.

 

[Exorcet]

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist

Doesn't the Bin Bang Theory say nothing of what occurred before the Big Bang?

Nobody can prove God exists or that he doesn't exist.

This doesn't make burden of proof irrelevant (and it's not irrelevant in the case of God), it simply makes God irrelevant.

All of these things began to exist at the first moment so the cause of the universe was a spaceless, timeless, energy-less, entity of great power. As I said earlier, this eliminates Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster unless it wasn't made of spaghetti (matter), and it eliminates cats for the same reason.

Barring that the FSM or cat simply incarnated themselves as matter post Big Bang, or simply could do anything and exist as matter before there was matter.

 

[niky]

You're missing the point, and are slightly inaccurate.

The Prime Cause was spaceless and timeless, because those properties simply don't exist outside the Universe. This is not to say that the cause had no spatial or time dimensions, merely that those dimensions would be meaningless to us.

Energy-less. That's debatable. There are theories that vacuum energy isn't spontaneously created from nothing, but that it seeps through from somewhere else. That's one very likely false assumption.

And the worst assumption of all. "Entity". You're assuming an entity without proof for one. Such an entity could be anything, if it existed. Vacuum energy is thought to influence universal laws, so if the cause of our Universe were something made of matter and energy, it might be likely that such a thing had laws and properties similar to our own. Perhaps our Universe congealed from a hairball spit into a black hole by a cat. Who knows?

 

[Atomics]

You're missing the point, and are slightly inaccurate.

The Prime Cause was spaceless and timeless, because those properties simply don't exist outside the Universe. This is not to say that the cause had no spatial or time dimensions, merely that those dimensions would be meaningless to us.

Right time and space would have to be meaningless to us if they didn't exist. I'm not seeing an argument here.

Energy-less. That's debatable. There are theories that vacuum energy isn't spontaneously created from nothing, but that it seeps through from somewhere else. That's one very likely false assumption.

I think you are confusing zero energy states and vacuum with non-existence. A vacuum wouldn't exist because the empty space required for the vacuum would not be present.

And the worst assumption of all. "Entity". You're assuming an entity without proof for one. Such an entity could be anything, if it existed.

No, "just anything" could not cause a universe to begin. You're tossing the word "proof" around as if there were proof of much of anything. You can't even prove your mind isn't the only one that exists. What I am presenting is an argument from the know scientific data.

Vacuum energy is thought to influence universal laws, so if the cause of our Universe were something made of matter and energy, it might be likely that such a thing had laws and properties similar to our own. Perhaps our Universe congealed from a hairball spit into a black hole by a cat. Who knows?

As I pointed out, there would be no vacuum, because space didn't exist before the big bang. The hairball and cat are made of matter, and so also couldn't precede the existence of the universe.

 

[Exorcet]

Right time and space would have to be meaningless to us if they didn't exist. I'm not seeing an argument here.

Our time and space does not have to be the only time and space.

As I pointed out that there would be no vacuum, because space didn't exist before the big bang. The hairball and cat are made of matter, and so also couldn't precede the existence of the universe.

As above.

 

[Atomics]

Our time and space does not have to be the only time and space.




As above.

Interesting. I like it. There is, however, a problem with this line of thinking. If the "other" time and space is causally connected to our own, then it isn't a separate universe, but is instead part of our universe. If it is not causally connected, then it is considered completely independently and can't be considered as an agent causing our universe.

 

[Azuremen]

Interesting. I like it. There is, however, a problem with this line of thinking. If the "other" time and space is causally connected to our own, then it isn't a separate universe, but is instead part of our universe. If it is not causally connected, then it is considered completely independently and can't be considered as an agent causing our universe.

This is flawed because you are assuming they couldn't be connected under only special circumstance, and also because you are thinking in a binary sense, which doesn't hold up under quantum mechanics.

 

[Atomics]

This is flawed because you are assuming they couldn't be connected under only special circumstance, and also because you are thinking in a binary sense, which doesn't hold up under quantum mechanics.

No, I made no assumption. I said "causally connected", which has relevance only to to specific event where causation occurred. After that causation, what happens has no real relevance.

If you want to postulate a "mother" universe giving birth to our universe, that universe would just be added to the causal chain and become part of it. We would then traverse the causal chain of universes back to the first, and apply the reasoning to the entire chain.

 

[Exorcet]

Interesting. I like it. There is, however, a problem with this line of thinking. If the "other" time and space is causally connected to our own, then it isn't a separate universe, but is instead part of our universe. If it is not causally connected, then it is considered completely independently and can't be considered as an agent causing our universe.

That basically says that anything that could cause the universe would be part of the universe, which is against the whole idea of the God/God like creation force you reference before.

 

[niky]

Interesting. I like it. There is, however, a problem with this line of thinking. If the "other" time and space is causally connected to our own, then it isn't a separate universe, but is instead part of our universe. If it is not causally connected, then it is considered completely independently and can't be considered as an agent causing our universe.

As Exorcet says:

That basically says that anything that could cause the universe would be part of the universe, which is against the whole idea of the God/God like creation force you reference before.

The very idea that a causally connected entity or thing would have to be part of the Universe to maintain that causal connection negates the idea of an imnmeasurable God.

-

I am not confusing vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, arising from spontaneous generation and annihilation of particles is a very real feature of our Universe. It is thought by some that the nature of the particles that permeate into our Universe may suggest in some way the nature of whatever Universe or Multiverse they originated from, if they originated from somewhere else.

It is also thought that this quantum interaction helps shape the physical laws governing our Universe.

Thus: If this vacuum energy really is energy and matter leaking in from elsewhere, and if the nature of that elsewhere or elsewhom (or whatever) dictates the matter of the vacuum energy, then it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that the source of these is made of matter and energy similar to that which exists here.

Which makes the idea of the Universe being borne of an extra-dimensional cat from another Universe, sitting in an extra-dimensional Scaff's lap entirely plausible. Or at least as plausible as a sentient being calling the Universe into existence with a snap of his/her/its fingers.

 

[Atomics]

As Exorcet says:

The very idea that a causally connected entity or thing would have to be part of the Universe to maintain that causal connection negates the idea of an imnmeasurable God.

-

I am not confusing vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, arising from spontaneous generation and annihilation of particles is a very real feature of our Universe. It is thought by some that the nature of the particles that permeate into our Universe may suggest in some way the nature of whatever Universe or Multiverse they originated from, if they originated from somewhere else.

It is also thought that this quantum interaction helps shape the physical laws governing our Universe.

Thus: If this vacuum energy really is energy and matter leaking in from elsewhere, and if the nature of that elsewhere or elsewhom (or whatever) dictates the matter of the vacuum energy, then it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that the source of these is made of matter and energy similar to that which exists here.

Which makes the idea of the Universe being borne of an extra-dimensional cat from another Universe, sitting in an extra-dimensional Scaff's lap entirely plausible. Or at least as plausible as a sentient being calling the Universe into existence with a snap of his/her/its fingers.

The arguments you are presenting now are wandering away from the general consensus of scientific findings. Vacuum energy can't exist where there is nothing, not even empty space in which to have a vacuum. Recall that the gravitational fields of the universe as a near singularity are so curved by gravitational forces around that point of origin that literally nothing, not even empty space or time, exists beyond. Nothing can be "leaking in from elsewhere" because there is no elsewhere from which to leak.

With the reasoning I've presented, a cat, it's owner, or a sentient being with snap-able fingers would not pass the immaterial test, and are not candidates for the un-caused cause of the universe. Sorry.

 

[niky]

The arguments you are presenting now are wandering away from the general consensus of scientific findings. Vacuum energy can't exist where there is nothing, not even empty space in which to have a vacuum. Recall that the gravitational fields of the universe as a near singularity are so curved by gravitational forces around that point of origin that literally nothing, not even empty space or time, exists beyond. Nothing can be "leaking in from elsewhere" because there is no elsewhere from which to leak.

With the reasoning I've presented, a cat, it's owner, or a sentient being with snap-able fingers would not pass the immaterial test, and are not candidates for the un-caused cause of the universe. Sorry.

You don't get it.

We're not talking about vacuum energy existing outside the Universe, durh. We're talking about where that energy actually comes from. A topic that is still up for debate.

 

[Scaff]

No, what I did was describe scientific data and using logical deductions described the qualities of cause for the big bang. I don't think I made any assumptions, but we may be using the word "assumption" differently. What assumptions did I make?

Right now quite a few, but these two stand out:

• Assigning unproven characteristics to God
• That becasue the Big Bang Occuered its evidence for God's existance

I think you mean Richard Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster. Because time energy space and matter came into existence at the big bang, the flying spaghetti monster and your cat couldn't have be the cause. That's because cats and spaghetti are both made out of matter. Richard Dawkins is a biologist. His grasp of cosmology and logical argument tends to reflect this. I think that's why he avoids being challenged in debate.

No I mean Bobby Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster, which has nothing at all to do with Dawkins (and a two second google would show that - which makes it look a lot like you are simply trying to take a dig at Dawkin's).

As for that ruling out the FSM (or my cat for that matter), to do so you are making a lot of assumptions (unproven ones) about the make up of God, the FSM (and my Cat).

No more evidence exists for it being God over the FSM.

Nobody can prove God exists or that he doesn't exist. Burden of proof is irrelevant. Also, I didn't draw the conclusion that God exists, I said the cause of the universe had properties that were god-like. Which particular points in the evidence I provided do you dispute?

Burden of proof is most certainly relevant.

As for points of evidence I dispute, you seem to have miss-read me, my point is that you have provided no evidence to be disputed. You have made a philosophical argument for God being the cause of the Big Bang, that falls a long way short of evidence.

OK I see what you are saying. I do think that the requirements for the first cause was God, but in presenting the data and reasoning I tried to leave it open to other causal agents meeting the requirements. The requirements are these:

The big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist

All of these things began to exist at the first moment so the cause of the universe was a spaceless, timeless, energy-less, entity of great power. As I said earlier, this eliminates Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster unless it wasn't made of spaghetti (matter), and it eliminates cats for the same reason.

You are making the massive assumption that Bobby Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster is made from matter, on what do you base this assumption? I could just as easily dismiss God on the grounds that he/she is depicted as an old bloke with a beard.

I could just as easily state that my Cat is in fact the messiah and a form of holy cat trinity and this is the form he current resides on earth in (you know like its claimed with Jesus). I can provide mo more proof for either of these that you can to state the same for God (which is why the burden of proof is rather important).

I can provide no more proof around the claims for my Cat (God and messiah form included) or the FSM than you can for God, which is why so far you have not provided the evidence you clearly stated exists.

There is evidence for God and for evolution.

Evidence for God. Hmm. Where to being, there are so many ways to show this. How about why is there anything rather than nothing at all? The answer is, God Blammed it.

Assumption of God, not evidence.

More formally,
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause;
2. The Universe had a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

Assumption of God, not evidence.

Science and general relativity tell us that when the universe began to exist so did space, time, energy, and matter. So the cause of the universe was a spaceless, timeless, energy-less, object of great power. Sounds like God to me.

Assumption of God, not evidence.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The energy contained within your body returns to the universe. No 'afterlife' exists, we don't get any special treatment we get to go back to what we came from.

Quite why people have such an issue with human beings simply ceasing to be when they die is more than a little perplexing to me, but I guess a great many still need some form of comfort blanket.

Talk about assumptions, it doesn't get any more classic than this.

How many times have you died and then returned to actually test your assumption?

The only evidence regaurding this, save one informal experiment, is from those who have done just that, being clinically dead and were resuscitated.

Their testimonies estimated at now over a million, are consistent with the Biblical explanation, that we are living souls.

When their spirits left the body they were still cognizant, but in a altered state of exsistence, and invisible to those in the physical.
Having re-entered their bodies, they were able to relate the experience.
The similarities are very consistent among them, in spite of diversity of beliefs.

There is a comfort blanket being clung to, all right, but not on the life after death side.

 

[Famine]

evidence ... testimonies

One of these things is not like the other.

Incidentally, the same testimonies have been reported from people at no risk of death undergoing high-g centrifuge experiments (you know, in experimental conditions) indicating that surreal visions are a symptom of anoxia rather than death. And no-one's yet been able to say what's on top of the cupboards in the long-standing out-of-body experience experiment.

 

[Scaff]

Talk about assumptions, it doesn't get any more classic than this.

How many times have you died and then returned to actually test your assumption?

Personally never, I do have one friend who was unfortunate enough to be in that situation. His total experience was of nothing. However from a proof point of view its meaningless.

You will also notice that I have not claimed the existence of anything, no assumption has been made be me at all. The energy contained within your body can't be destroyed and as such returns to the universe at large upon your death (that I'm sure you will not dispute).

Now if you have actual evidence for an afterlife feel free to provide it.

The only evidence regaurding this, save one informal experiment, is from those who have done just that, being clinically dead and were resuscitated.

Their testimonies estimated at now over a million, are consistent with the Biblical explanation, that we are living souls.

Not evidence at all, but does have a scientific explanation.

When their spirits left the body they were still cognizant, but in a altered state of exsistence, and invisible to those in the physical.
Having re-entered their bodies, they were able to relate the experience.
The similarities are very consistent among them, in spite of diversity of beliefs.

As I said scientific explinations:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peace-of-mind-near-death

It also makes it a lot less mystical when the exact same occurances can be experienced without being close to death at all, but rather with the aid of 'substances', something that is well documented and pre-dates Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Teachings_of_Don_Juan

There is a comfort blanket being clung to, all right, but not on the life after death side.

Explain. As I don't see a lot of atheists committing acts of a horrific nature to ensure they are doing 'insert deity' work and end up in 'insert afterlife'.

I will take my own morality and the need to be accountable for my own actions right here and now over those imposed by an unproved being and a desire to live in the clouds with him/her. No comfort blanket exists if I have to be accountable for all my actions, a bloody big one exists if I can rationalise it into 'going to' heaven if I make God happy.