When we speak of life after death, we confront a phenomenon that appears to lie beyond the domain of direct human experience. It is in this context that the metaphor of the fish and flight gains epistemological significance.
A fish is a creature whose entire existence is shaped by water; its senses, movements, and perceptions are calibrated to an aquatic environment. Attempting to explain the concept of flight to such a being presents a cognitive impasse: it has no experience of the sky, nor any apparatus to comprehend it. Even if it were to witness a bird, it would interpret the event through the lens of its aquatic conceptual framework.
Similarly, human beings inhabit a specific biological and mental framework — one that ceases with death. If life after death does exist, it may manifest in a form entirely distinct from our current mode of consciousness, a form for which we possess neither experiential access nor linguistic tools for description. Thus, the endeavor to understand it prior to death is akin to a fish attempting to grasp the notion of flight: not due to intellectual deficiency, but because of the structural limitations inherent in our epistemic condition.
I am studying the question about aterlife fate in Abrahamic religions. It all depends on confession teaching. The only obvious fact is that Life is eternal, even after physical death. Otherwise it has no aim at all.
Religious afterlife if it presupposes mythological being, makes discovery an oxymoron. If afterlife is just the possibility of real life, religious dogma falls short on proof, so isn’t that why it cannot provide a scientifically valid explanation of consciousness?