FredLee

Thought I add my experience going for my retirement extension on 2 december. I arrived at 5 am, when there were 7 seats occupied, the first 3 by agents (or at least their bags) and the remainder with people representing themselves. Had a nice chat with some of the other people who came early, complaining about the need to get up this early as us foreigners are wont to do. The queue started to fill up seriously around 7 am and by 8:30 when the female immigration stepped out to start checking paperwork and handing out queue cards I counted 33 people in the queue. This would indicate that it should be safe to come around 6:30-7:00 and still get served, except during weeks with a lot of holidays (like next week).

I was expecting to receive queue number 9 when the lady told me that I needed to bring my Thai wife to sign a letter an also bring a recent copy of my marriage certificate. Apparently the first time you change from Non-O visa to a retirement visa that is a requirement. It takes a lot of time to get a new copy of my marriage registration and a bit expensive as it has to come from Europe (I cannot get it on-line), then it needs to be certified to be a true copy by the embassy in Bangkok and get translated into Thai. I was told last year that I would have to submit a new certificate every year to extend my marriage visa and that was the main reason for me to switch over to a retirement visa (that and the fact you can get the retirement extension the same day). It was the first time I heard about this requirement, so either I am a lousy reader of various threads on the subject (very likely) or switching visa is not often done and this isn't frequently mentioned.

Anyway, I was turned away but decided to return home, pick up my wife and copies of last years' marriage certificate. On my return after some discussion with the girls outside and pointing out that I couldn't possibly get a new copy of the marriage certificate before my visa expires in 9 days time they told me to have a talk with the retirement officer inside. After my wife's charm offensive she relented and told us to come back at 15:30 to get processed without a queue number.

While waiting from 14:30 onwards I noticed that 2 staff were processing retirement extensions taking 15-20 minutes for each application, they didn't seem to be over-stretched walking around, going out for a while, basically waiting for when they told the next 2 applicants to be present. I got to talk with the last 2 people in the queue that morning who had received number 30. So that day including me at least 32 people were served, probably more as I counted 33 including me. There even was another guy that just walked in around 15:00 and got processed without a queue card number. It seemed a quiet day, except for the tourist visa extensions that also had an incredible long queue in the morning. If one has all the paperwork in order it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to process everything, meaning that with 2 staff they could easily do double than 30 a day if necessary, or process everyone by 12:00...

Individual staff are normally very nice and polite, except for the guy that was manning the re-entry desk that day. Management and planning obviously is a mess, not to speak about the silly 90-day reporting or the unavailability of longer extension periods, foreign retirees clearly are not a priority for Thai politics. In the end I got my retirement extension, still a bit surprised by that, though I have to provide them with an updated marriage certificate for which I have mobilized my elderly sister back in Europe. No need for GT4, didn't even notice if their 'office' was open.

I wasn't going to post any more as no one had any relevant information on how many were getting the extensions in a day.

Thank you very much for the information and experience you had. You are the first person in over 700 shares to give an idea of how many people were getting their extensions in a day. We know they will give out a lot of queue numbers but how many they serve has been a mystery. Thank you once again I now have a ball park answer. I know it will change day to day. But I have an idea.

if you are getting a retirement extension of stay why is your wife involved

When your current extension is based on you supporting your wife and/or children and you want to change that to a retirement extension she needs to sign a declaration (saying something along the lines that she is aware of this and agrees that you will officially no longer support her, at least for extension of stay purposes) and you have to submit proof that you are actually still married. I don't fully understand why this is necessary, but my brother had to do the same several years ago and according to my wife they told her last year at immigration that I would have to do that for my first retirement extension. For my next extension in 2016 it will no longer be necessary and I can just submit the bank letter and copies of my bank book. I thought it worth mentioning because it is something I haven't seen mentioned before.

Yep, same thing happened to me when I changed extension type last year. Here is a link to some of the discussion. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/770148-retirement-visa-required-paperwork/

Here is a link to a web page with very good instructions on setting up an acoustic guitar. Scroll down to the second page and follow the links under instrument setup.

Hope this helps.

http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/pagelist.html

Yeah, don't know what's going on. I am using 3bb, and the problem I have been getting for the last couple of weeks is a failure to connect with the error page that says "the connection has been reset." I usually just hit refresh a couple of times, and then it will connect. I am using the Firefox browser.

If you want to kill it yourself, then kill it yourself. Figure it out, shouldn't be too difficult. If not, tell a local Thai neighbor. They will kill it and eat it.

I am also curious as to how the retirement/marriage extension division between the offices will work out. I am on a retirement extension, and was just yesterday able to get the last appointment (1530) on the last day before my extension expires. I don't really like to cut things that close, so may end up using a visa agent this year.

I think the 12,000 and 9,000 estimates are correct. I have two rooms almost exactly the sizes you have, and these are the size of the split units I have in each of them. I am also in Chiang Mai. I purchased my units from Dragon Air on highway 1001, very near to Theppanya hospital. Their quoted price included the installation, and you can also purchase a one or two year cleaning/maintenance contract from them. I went with the Mitsubishi Slim Econo units. Be sure to bargain with them. When I informed them that I had a slightly lower estimate from another shop, they reduced their price by 1000 baht per unit.

I think it is a local govt issue. In our area they put the restrictions on alcohol and gambling at funerals in place a little over two years ago. People had been complaining about problems, so the local boss (poo yai bahn) held a meeting where most of the residents supported the ban. My brother-in-law's funeral was one of the first affected. They even had a large banner made up that we had to display warning of the ban. There was a lot of complaining by attendees, but we complied with the ban. We provided alcoholic beverages after the cremation, for all those who wished to partake. An enterprising neighbor did set up a large table on her property where some people congregated to drink and play cards, but that was shutdown after the second day.

Try this link.

http://www.lyngsat.com/

I recommend finding a reputable kennel with experience in shipping pets to other countries. That is what I did. They had never shipped one to Thailand, but they conducted all research and communication with the appropriate people to find all the requirements. They also kept my dog for two nights at the kennel to acclimate him to sleeping in the container, and they delivered him to us at the airport three hours before our flight. We entered Thailand at Suvarnabhumi airport, and our dog was delivered directly to the baggage area. We wheeled him over to the animal control checkpoint, paid a small fee of around 100 baht, got his papers stamped and all was done before our luggage arrived. This was over five years ago, so the procedures at the airport may have changed. It was worth the money to the kennel to make sure everything was done properly.

Same thing happened to me back in October. They requested my marriage documents, and talked with my wife. Here is a link to the previous discussion.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/770148-retirement-visa-required-paperwork/

If you are changing from marriage extension to retirement, in addition to the requirements for the retirement extension you will need your wife to be with you and one copy each of her cpr, bluebook, your marriage certificate, and your marriage registration.

They also required a copy of every page of my passport, a copy of my TM6, the completed TM7 with a recent picture attached, and the financial information. This year I used the income certification letter.

I'm not disputing this because I don't know for sure.

However, I wonder what the situation is if you have separated from your wife under less than desirable circumstances and want no contact, surely they can't request or expect the above?

Well, maybe they can expect it but what if you can't get or don't want contact?

Sounds ridiculous to me.

Don't know what they would do in the case of separation, but this is what was required of me yesterday at Chiang Mai Immigration. It caught me by surprise, because I hadn't heard of this before.

One other thing I should mention. Don't go too early if changing from marriage to retirement. On the initial change, the extension will only be good for 365 days from the day you do the change. For example, my marriage ext date was always 24 Oct, even if I extended it early. The retirement one I just did yesterday is only valid until 20 Oct 2015. She explained to me this applies only on the initial change from marriage to retirement, and that on my next ext I can do it early with no problem, the end date will still be 20 Oct.

If you are changing from marriage extension to retirement, in addition to the requirements for the retirement extension you will need your wife to be with you and one copy each of her cpr, bluebook, your marriage certificate, and your marriage registration.

They also required a copy of every page of my passport, a copy of my TM6, the completed TM7 with a recent picture attached, and the financial information. This year I used the income certification letter.

If you obtain a time slot from the online immigration queue for a particular day, I take it you just show up at that time at immigration for your scheduled appt. Is that correct and do you just walk to the front ahead of the throngs of people in line waiting to get a number? I have never been to immigration so am not familiar with the proper procedures. This would be for an extension of stay based on retirement.

Last year I had an appt for an extension of stay. I showed up an hour early and showed my appt printout to the young lady at the front counter. She said to have a seat. I asked her if she needed to keep the appt printout and she said no.

15 minutes after my appt time they still had not called me. I went back to the front counter where a different lady was now manning. She asked to see my appt printout. I showed her, and she collected it and put it in one of the inboxes behind the counter, and told me to have a seat.

40 minutes after my appt time, they still had not called me. I went back to the front counter, and was told again to have a seat. This time I just backed up a few feet from the counter and stood there. After about 5 minutes, the young lady went to the back and brought a young man to the front. He asked me to have a seat and that they would call me. I told him I preferred to stand, since I had been sitting a long time. He went to the back and conversed with a lady at a desk doing paperwork. She looked up at me, and motioned me to come in, and she took care of my extension.

I have an appt this year as well, so I hope it goes quicker than last time. If not, I will start using an agent.

I hope someone might be able to provide advice on a problem I am having.

I have a 2008 Imac running Mavericks.

Everything was running smoothly this afternoon. I stepped away for about 30 minutes, and was surprised to see when I returned that the display was still on. I have the display sleep set to 15 minutes, and the computer sleep set to 45 minutes.

I clicked on the Firefox browser icon in the dock, and the display went crazy. It looked like some sort of weird resolution problem. There were many verticle lines, and the entire display seemed to be vibrating. I could still faintly see all my icons and menu bar, and could still move the mouse pointer. However, nothing I clicked on responded.

I shut down the computer using the power button, and restarted. As soon as it powered on, the video problem was still there. This time it was many green and gray colored verticle lines, but could still see the Apple logo. The rotating spokes that come on during boot up were also visible. Once they stopped, the verticle lines were still there, but changed color and density, and the start up stopped. The Apple logo was still visible.

I shut the computer down again, and disconnected the power cord. After 40 minutes, I powered it back on, with the same results.

I then reset the NVRAM to no avail.

I then restarted in safe mode. All the same display problems were still as described above, but the power up completed. Once the power up completed, the verticle lines changed. Now, there were groups of 6 verticle lines, with each group separated by about 1.5 to 2.0 centimeters. The display colors behind these lines were normal, as were the menu bar items. I opened system preferences, and was able to change resolutions, but the verticle lines were still there. I set the resolution back to "best for display".

I restarted again in normal mode, and it was back to the same problem with the display, and the startup would not complete.

I appreciate any advice from anyone that has seen a similar problem, or advice on a good repair shop. Of course, it may be time to buy a new Imac since this one is already at least 6 years old.

If your tv is not dual voltage I doubt that it will be multi-system. As mentioned before by Chicog, perhaps you can find a pal-ntsc converter.

It appears that OP's farangness was on display.

Yep we have it, we cover the building as well, even though it's rented - Thai law means renter is responsible, if it burns down for example.

Pay about 15k a year to cover all contents and building, including named items away from the property.

Haven't had to make a claim so can't really comment on how good they are, but company is NZI and we found it via aainsure, sponsors of one of the forums here - they were very good.

Does it take care of theft?

My policy covers damage or destruction to the buildings, walls, and contents. Contents are also covered for burglary/theft, but the coverage is restricted. The policy covers theft of furniture, appliances, and other household items, but the restricted items are cash, cameras, phones, laptop computers and musical instruments. There may be some other restricted items, I don't have my policy in front of me right now. The main things I wanted covered against theft are the items that are restricted, but the agent would not even quote me a price for coverage of them.

I applied online five months ago with no problem. Here is the link to their website, with all the information required.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirement/about.htm

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

So your stated proposition that life after death is assumed to be false because it has not yet proven to be true is an argument from ignorance?

I think it is very clear in the above example. You wrote, "I am not trying to have an argument with anyone." Sorry but I think you are. If you really do not understand the principle of argument from ignorance there's not much I can do.

You may want to read, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot"

All of these arguments are 60 or more years old. Anyone attending a university since then would not ask the questions you are asking because they were decided long ago.

I understand it very well. Your statement from above: " There is no life after death, and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise."

From your quote on the argument from ignorance: "An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false OR a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

You assert that the proposition that there is life after death is assumed false ("There is no life after death") because it has not yet been proven true ("until someone proves otherwise.").

I think that is pretty straightforward, not much room for misunderstanding.

Before you jump off on some other tangent, please recall that I have not said that life after death is a fact. I have stated more than once that I don't know if there is any existence after physical death, but that as strange as our universe is I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility. I did however dispute your earlier claim that it is a myth by stating that is your belief, not a fact, just as my thought that it can't be ruled out is my belief, not a fact.

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Life after death is a fairy tale, myth or any thing else you want to call something made up. There is no life after death and that is a fact until someone proves otherwise. I didn't kill cock robin and that's a fact until you prove otherwise.

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

So your stated proposition that life after death is assumed to be false because it has not yet proven to be true is an argument from ignorance?

Creationism is not debated by serious scientists anymore. I think that stopped a couple of hundred years ago maybe more.

One theory of creation is not as plausible as the other.

Life after death is a religious myth. I learned this in college 40 years ago and my father 100 years ago and his father 150 years ago.

Who talks about this stuff anymore? Not in any non religious institution of higher learning except as an example of folklore.

Please allow me to respond:

"Creationism is not debated by serious scientists anymore."

Of course it is, if for no other reason than to refute it. Don't take my word for it, do a google search.

"One theory of creation is not as plausible as the other."

Of the two theories I discussed, please explain which is more plausible.

"Life after death is a religious myth. I learned this in college 40 years ago and my father 100 years ago and his father 150 years ago."

It may very well be a myth, but I don't know, and neither do you. You have stated a belief, not a fact.

"Who talks about this stuff anymore?"

Lots of people. Again, do a google search.

1. No credible science teaches creationism as a reasonable cause of anything.

2. Billions are being spent to find details of the beginning of the universe (Higgs boson). 0 is being spent on detailing creationism.

3. Death is not a myth. Death is a fact. Death is not a belief. When you die you are dead. If you want to provide different information feel free to do so. But hurry up because now we are burying or burning dead people.

1. Don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but I never stated anything to the contrary.

2. There is no disagreement that a great deal of money is spent to find details of the beginning of the universe, and I think it is money well spent. I would dispute that 0 is being spent on detailing creationism. I suspect that churches and other religious institutions spend quite a bit on just that. I assume this is in response to my request that you explain which of the two theories of creation I discussed was more plausible. Is the determining factor of plausibility the amount of money spent trying to prove it is true? If not, please explain why one is more plausible than the other.

3. I never said death was a myth. You made the declarative statement that life after death was a myth. I agreed that it may very well be, but that is a belief, not a statement of fact.

I am not trying to have an argument with anyone. The only reason I brought up the creation of the universe in this thread was to point out that with so much unknown about our existence how can we say definitively that there is no existence after physical death. We see a magician make a dove appear out of nowhere. We know this is just an illusion, because it is impossible to create a dove out of nothing. But many of us accept that the entire universe was created out of nothing, whether spontaneously or by a supernatural creator. Gravity was mentioned previously. Yes there is gravity, and we know what it does, but we don't know why. We don't even know why time exists, and there is even dispute that it only goes in one direction. Many scientists support the idea of parallel universes, and some even say there are different times in each universe. Perhaps we continue our existence in one of those universes. As I stated before, I don't know the answers, but I do enjoy thinking about the questions, and discovering others viewpoints.

Thanks for the reply, and for clearing up the remark about thermodynamics, I thought you were saying that existence after physical death would violate one of the laws.

I quoted Hawking, using the same article you linked to and quoted from, to show that even brilliant people sometimes promote ideas that are not proven.

Additionally, I am not making any argument as to whether there is some sort of existence after physical death, or whether or not the universe just appeared on its own. Yes, mathematical constructs have been developed supporting the idea of a big bang or as it is sometimes called now, the big expansion, just as there are mathematical constructs showing nothing could escape from a black hole. I mention the black holes only to show that mathematical constructs are not always correct, as now Mr. Hawking affirms that matter can escape. I am only saying that one is as plausible as the other. The creation of the universe out of nothing defies all physical laws, and no number of mathematical constructs or particle accelerator experiments to date changes that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way, it just means it is unproven, and at least for now, unprovable.

And yes, I do think the idea of existence after death magical, as well as the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing. I am not arguing that either or both are true or not, and compare them only to the extent they both seem magical to me. Just think about the creation of the universe. Out of nothingness, our entire universe came into being. Scientists say that there was a singularity that contained our entire universe. All the billions of galaxies, each with their own billions of stars, all energy, time, and even the empty space itself that are part of our universe was contained in this infinitely dense point in space that had zero volume, and for reasons unknown spontaneously expanded into our universe. No one knows how this singularity came to be in the first place, in fact it is unproven that it even existed at all, yet here we all are. Seems magical to me.

One final note: I try to stay away from religious beliefs when talking about the origins of the universe. I do like to try to make the point that both the scientific explanation and creationist explanation are equally plausible, or implausible if you prefer. Another point I try to bring up is that religious belief is not required to believe in life after death. I realize most religions promote the thought of life after death, but this should not preclude the non-religious from thinking their might be some scientific explanation for an existence after physical death.

Creationism is not debated by serious scientists anymore. I think that stopped a couple of hundred years ago maybe more.

One theory of creation is not as plausible as the other.

Life after death is a religious myth. I learned this in college 40 years ago and my father 100 years ago and his father 150 years ago.

Who talks about this stuff anymore? Not in any non religious institution of higher learning except as an example of folklore.

Please allow me to respond:

"Creationism is not debated by serious scientists anymore."

Of course it is, if for no other reason than to refute it. Don't take my word for it, do a google search.

"One theory of creation is not as plausible as the other."

Of the two theories I discussed, please explain which is more plausible.

"Life after death is a religious myth. I learned this in college 40 years ago and my father 100 years ago and his father 150 years ago."

It may very well be a myth, but I don't know, and neither do you. You have stated a belief, not a fact.

"Who talks about this stuff anymore?"

Lots of people. Again, do a google search.

Why?

Are you calling Stephen Hawking stupid? Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics better than one of the greatest astrophysicists who has ever lived?

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

Interview with Stephen Hawking, 2011 The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

Which law of thermodynamics is being violated by the belief in reincarnation, and how so?

Another quote from Mr. Hawking in the article you linked to is "Scientists predict that many kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing." This is also the consensus of many scientists in the way that our current universe was created. Out of nothing. How is this belief supported by any physical law?

I don't profess to know the answers. Scientist say there was nothing, and then the universe just happened. Believers in a supernatural power say that there was nothing, and then the universe was created by this supernatural power. Why is either more or less believable than the other? Both sound pretty magical to me.

So I see no reason to believe that some sort of existence after physical death is impossible. I can't see that it is any more impossible than the universe spontaneously being created out of nothing.

Briefly: for people who don't really know any science ( one poster believing in reincarnation scathingly asked a sceptic to "read the laws of thermodynamics") the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed leads them instantly to a belief in immortality through some vague verbal association because they don't really understand what it means..

They think somehow they have thought of something, that no-one else has, that shows "the soul" is immortal ( I don't believe in souls but many people do).

I do not think these people would argue that a fire can never go out, or a car can run infinitely on a tank of fuel, "because energy cannot be destroyed", but somehow they think if they refer to souls, it suddenly becomes a great argument. It's nonsense.

I was attempting to point out that a man who probably understands physics better than most people on earth does not even consider that current knowledge hints at immortality or afterlives.

(I do think that quoting people just because they are famous or clever is a bit stupid (including me quoting Hawking) because this is merely quoting "authorities", which is what religious people do when they quote scripture, and has no standing whatsoever. Only evidence has authority. But unlike religious leaders, Hawking is basing what he says on 400 years of accumulated scientific knowledge, so providing this is understood I think it's OK. Hawking is speaking as a man who understands the evidence.)

This leads me to the final point: without a knowledge of the physics involved, arguing that the universe arising from nothing seems just as magical to you as life after death is not really an argument. They both sound the same to you because you haven't examined the physical experimental evidence for each.

Scientists do not make things up out of thin air. They observe what happens in the physical universe by doing experiments, and by constructing mathematical equations that predict what will happen in certain situations if the equations are correct. They test the predictions of these equations and if they prove to describe accurately what is actually observed at the subatomic level, then those equations are trusted and used to predict other behaviours, which are then also tested. The theories of the creation of nothing out of something are based on observations. They will be abandoned if they cease to be predictive. They are based on facts, including facts that they have spent billions of dollars making particle accelerators to discover.

The statements about afterlives and heavens, including the one above that claimed to know the actual colour of the place souls come from (rose pink was it?) are simply made up and based on nothing. They cannot predict and are are not falsifiable.

Though they sound the same to you, one has no grounding in any methodology, and one is based on painstaking observation, experiment, and mathematical models which can predict what will happen and can be tested.

If I said the place souls hang out is really green, this is a made up untestable statement. If I can experimentally show particles that were not in existence suddenly appearing, this is not.

Thanks for the reply, and for clearing up the remark about thermodynamics, I thought you were saying that existence after physical death would violate one of the laws.

I quoted Hawking, using the same article you linked to and quoted from, to show that even brilliant people sometimes promote ideas that are not proven.

Additionally, I am not making any argument as to whether there is some sort of existence after physical death, or whether or not the universe just appeared on its own. Yes, mathematical constructs have been developed supporting the idea of a big bang or as it is sometimes called now, the big expansion, just as there are mathematical constructs showing nothing could escape from a black hole. I mention the black holes only to show that mathematical constructs are not always correct, as now Mr. Hawking affirms that matter can escape. I am only saying that one is as plausible as the other. The creation of the universe out of nothing defies all physical laws, and no number of mathematical constructs or particle accelerator experiments to date changes that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way, it just means it is unproven, and at least for now, unprovable.

And yes, I do think the idea of existence after death magical, as well as the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing. I am not arguing that either or both are true or not, and compare them only to the extent they both seem magical to me. Just think about the creation of the universe. Out of nothingness, our entire universe came into being. Scientists say that there was a singularity that contained our entire universe. All the billions of galaxies, each with their own billions of stars, all energy, time, and even the empty space itself that are part of our universe was contained in this infinitely dense point in space that had zero volume, and for reasons unknown spontaneously expanded into our universe. No one knows how this singularity came to be in the first place, in fact it is unproven that it even existed at all, yet here we all are. Seems magical to me.

One final note: I try to stay away from religious beliefs when talking about the origins of the universe. I do like to try to make the point that both the scientific explanation and creationist explanation are equally plausible, or implausible if you prefer. Another point I try to bring up is that religious belief is not required to believe in life after death. I realize most religions promote the thought of life after death, but this should not preclude the non-religious from thinking their might be some scientific explanation for an existence after physical death.

Karl Marx was spot on when he described religion as Opium for the masses. I used to believe that belief in reincarnation was harmless but my views have changed over time. There is little doubt that in Thailand both social mobility and social responsibility have been seriously hindered by current interpretation of Budhism.

Belief in reincarnation is harmful?

What a strange thing to say.

I don't belong to any religion but believe in reincarnation.

Why?

Are you calling Stephen Hawking stupid? Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics better than one of the greatest astrophysicists who has ever lived?

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

Interview with Stephen Hawking, 2011 The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

Which law of thermodynamics is being violated by the belief in reincarnation, and how so?

Another quote from Mr. Hawking in the article you linked to is "Scientists predict that many kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing." This is also the consensus of many scientists in the way that our current universe was created. Out of nothing. How is this belief supported by any physical law?

I don't profess to know the answers. Scientist say there was nothing, and then the universe just happened. Believers in a supernatural power say that there was nothing, and then the universe was created by this supernatural power. Why is either more or less believable than the other? Both sound pretty magical to me.

So I see no reason to believe that some sort of existence after physical death is impossible. I can't see that it is any more impossible than the universe spontaneously being created out of nothing.

We believe what we choose to believe. This workings of this universe are strange enough that we can't really discount anything. Renowned scientists argue the case for string theory and parallel universes. If we can imagine that, why not an existence after death? Another thing that strikes me is why it is assumed that a belief in a deity is required for a belief in some sort of life after death?