Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: Quantumorigin7 on 17/06/2008 22:09:50
-
Can anyone provide undeniable(not anecdotal, theoretical) evidence that there is NO afterlife? So far, all I see is theory and close mindedness. Come on!!!
-
The burden of proof is on those who claim there is an afterlife. Can anyone provide undeniable proof that there isn't a goblin under my chair that can't be touched, heard, seen of smelled?
-
The burden of proof is on those who claim there is an afterlife. Can anyone provide undeniable proof that there isn't a goblin under my chair that can't be touched, heard, seen of smelled?
How did you know I was here? :P
-
Any philosopher will tell you (even a freelance dabbler like myself) that it's not possible to prove a negative so there will never be any evidence that this does not exist - especially given it's supposed nature.
-
So, all I got here was unintelligent babble and not the answer. I want to see if anyone can tell me THE answer, if everyone is so smart.
-
They were all perfectly coherent responses. Maybe you'd understand better if you weren't humming loudly with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed.
-
So, all I got here was unintelligent babble and not the answer. I want to see if anyone can tell me THE answer, if everyone is so smart.
Ironically, a very closed minded comment.
-
What is a question like this doing in Naked Scientists anyway - shouldn't you be addressing it to Naked Theologians? [^]
-
So, all I got here was unintelligent babble and not the answer. I want to see if anyone can tell me THE answer, if everyone is so smart.
blakestyger gave you a definitive answer - you cannot prove a negative.
-
So, all I got here was unintelligent babble and not the answer. I want to see if anyone can tell me THE answer, if everyone is so smart.
...Because calling the other person stupid is such a BRILLIANT way at concealing your own weakness! Classy.
-
So, all I got here was unintelligent babble and not the answer. I want to see if anyone can tell me THE answer, if everyone is so smart.
Fact of the matter is you have to die to find out !!**
** This site does not condone dieing to fulfill the answer to the original question !!
-
How can the living give an answer on life/non life after death ?
-
So, all I got here was unintelligent babble and not the answer. I want to see if anyone can tell me THE answer, if everyone is so smart.
blakestyger gave you a definitive answer - you cannot prove a negative.
So who the hell is he that I can't prove a negative? Look, contradiction or not, I want someone to come out of the blue, the cave, the sky, to tell me, since they are so smart, that there is, for sure, NO AFTERLIFE. So far, we get all this circular repetition of theory, thoughts, but there is no definitive answer. Here's mine, ready?
A God, A supernatural being created a black void, a universe smaller than we could imagine. He decided that it would evolve over time, change, gather great intelligence and understanding. SCIENCE took place in this void of space and vast dimensions. The sub-atomic particles created what we know as "reality", but in all reality, it just happened that way. Before the universe, there was nothing, there was no revolving, intersecting 4th., 5th., 6th., or 11th. dimension, it was completely black. Beyond the blackest black was the "Creator", maybe not God, not Buddha, but an eternal source. Scientists will say that it could have always been there(universe) and therefore dismisses the existance of a God, there is no need for one. But....the universe is mortal, finite, of limited origin, it had a beginning. All matter was created, changes form indefinitly, and creates something else. The matter came out from the eternal source, the source of great energy and power and quickly(big bang) made it's way outward in a burst and over billions of years, came to what we know today. If sub-atomic particles can interact with one another, even when billions of miles apart, then they can very well be communicating from various dimensions and can be alike, spanning the entire universe. They were created from nothing as well, they communicate, then more complex life formed and now WE communicate. We live(We don't know of before our lives) and we die. The universe is one with us, it lives and it will eventually die, and the whole process may very well be started all over again. The "God", the eternal source was always creating universes before ours, thus, "Multi-verse" comes into play. The universes CREATED before ours make "memories" into ours and create what we think to be existing multi-verses when in all reality, they did exist, but are now dimished to nothing, as this one will be. When we die, as humans, we gather at the "eternal source" and we either chose to live through life all over again, or we chose to stay there, in eternity.
-
So now, I guess I can say I "proved" existance of an "aftelife" rather than no existance. But to prove of no existance is very deep.
-
So now, I guess I can say I "proved" existence of an "afterlife" rather than no existence. But to prove of no existence is very deep.
No, you can say you told a story. You honestly think that constitutes proof? How about we apply Occam's Razor - the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is likely to be correct.
My assumptions: The human body is a physical thing, the mind the result of neural connections. When the activity ceases in the physical form, that is the end.
Some of your assumptions: There is a god, or 'creator'. It is intelligent and desired to create a reality. The universe is mortal, therefore the universe is living. Sub atomic particles communicate. There have been many universes before ours. These previous universes somehow communicate memories into ours. There is an eternal 'source'. There is a 'substance' to a person beyond their physical form. This substance is cognisant. This substance is presented with a choice to return to living form, or stay in eternity. There is an eternity, separate to the multiverses.
So you can see from the above, that if we are to apply Occam's Razor to a sample of 2 ideas, we would accept the 'No afterlife' hypothesis (as it makes the fewest assumptions) and reject the 'Afterlife' story.
However, as people have stated above, attempting to 'prove' a negative is a logical fallacy, and your initial question is invalid.
-
It is biased though, it is close minded. It's like going around saying, "Alright, everybody, there is no life after death, but I have a shot gun and am willing to take you all out and don't care if you know nothing afterward" To have an open mind is to be willing to accept a grand plethora of ideas, theories, and even laws and to be able to arrive at an answer, or at least, a theory, that is unlike others and could very well be THE answer.
-
For this you have to have faith and not proof. It is like asking Jesus to jump off a cliff in order to prove he is the son of god, oh wait didn't the devil already do that during the 40 days and nights. If you are a true member of the god squad, sit quietly with your belief and stop asking people for proof. Trust in your own faith and we will trust in our own, whatever our beliefs. If you believe in God stop being so rude to people it gives Christianity a very bad name.
-
It's not at all biased, applying Occam's Razor should destroy any bias except towards the idea that makes the fewest assumptions! Plus, Do you not feel it's more closed minded to be certain about something which can never be proven or disproven, instead of acknowledging that you can't prove a negative?
What has a shotgun got to do with it?
Do you believe in God? If so, you are more close minded than you realise. Being willing to accept nonsense does not an open mind make. Being willing to reassess your ideas in the light of new evidence is being open minded. Assuming there is a god to fill in the gaps in your knowledge is not.
-
LOL! I probably should change my name. I went through the "God" phase as a kid. I tried to convince everyone that God DID exist, but it was like here, pitchforks and torches scenario.
When I do return, look for username QuantumOrigin7. That will be my new name. I will come back nicer and start from the alpha point.
-
Let's put it this way, I can somewhat accept the existance of no god, a god or just nothing. Look at my arguements on other topics and you'll clearly see that. I kind of contradict myself in a way. I have 2 personalities, the stupid, ignorant, neanderthal mystic and the super genius, mad scientist. Merge them together and you get me.
It's easy to say there is no afterlife, but picture being on your dying bed and saying that, it would be pretty hard. If you have science and hope at the same time, your mind will literally grow in size.
-
Science does grow the mind, that is a good point but you should also look out at the world, looking in and worrying about death stops you from really living.
-
It is our destiny.
For someone(not directing this at you, Makeitlady) to say that I am close minded because I believe in an afterlife and science at the same time, gives me the right to say they are close minded for just believing in science.
If you are that person that says that, then step forward and tell me I am close minded once more and you'll be in for some real hell.
-
LOL! I probably should change my name. I went through the "God" phase as a kid. I tried to convince everyone that God DID exist, but it was like here, pitchforks and torches scenario.
When I do return, look for username QuantumOrigin7. That will be my new name. I will come back nicer and start from the alpha point.
If you go into your profile you can change your name !
God Knows I've thought about changing mine many times !! [;D]
-
Thank you Neilep, did so. [;D]
-
Thank you Neilep, did so. [;D]
Good on ya !!
-
If you are that person that says that, then step forward and tell me I am close minded once more and you'll be in for some real hell.
Are you making threats now?
-
Verbal hell.
-
Ah - that's probably ok because people can choose not to read.
-
There's been a fair amount of tub-thumping going on about this 'subject' but the fact remains that nobody can prove anything in science by merely theorising about it - what is needed is EVIDENCE.
-
Quote "A God, A supernatural being created a black void"
Who made this god and where did this god come from?
What I need to see is the evidence of any existence first before I can try and disprove it.
-
Exactly. Its like if I said something like "I've built a device in my bedroom that provides unlimited energy", and then when evidence and proof was demanded, I simply said "You can't prove I don't have it, so therefore I must have it!" Somehow I think that wouldn't be good enough to get your investment cheques.
-
Perhaps we should postpone further discussion until Quantumorigin7 provides us with proof that he is not a figment of our imaginations or a piece of AI software.
-
Well theres only two ways to find out isnt there?
Death and a spectro-analysis viewer.