Hello Daniel,

My book has 320 sources, all of which contain data that are falsifiable. I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're referring to the generalization that we're eternal beings, we can't prove that until we locate someone who's lived forever. Of course, we can't do that.

Science formulates explanations that account for as much of the data as possible using the simplest explanation. The explanations often are not falsifiable, but they work until more data are available. In the case of matter and energy, we can't say they always existed, but that conclusion seems the simplest explanation for them, and no other explanation accounts for the data and is as simple. The same is true of consciousness.

If you're wondering whether any of the data in the book are true, you have to look at the studies. If you're wondering whether the generalizations based on the data are true, you have to come up with a simpler explanation that accounts for as much of the data as possible. What accounts for the data pointing to the survival of consciousness without end better (meaning accommodating more of the data and in a simpler manner) than the eternal life hypothesis?

Love and peace, Craig