Science cannot prove that there is no afterlife.

[Sexton Blake]

That is the whine from religious people who know no science.

 

Using that kind of nonsense, it can be claimed that; Santa Claus, fairies, Superman and other comic book characters, flying elephants, the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, leprechauns, evil spirits, etc could all exist as science does not know everything and science cannot be guaranteed because something new may be discovered tomorrow. Gravity may even vanish.

 

Real world. Science builds on what has been learned before and while just a few things might need a slight "tweak", the rest is solidly grounded and with the rest of the Universe obeying the same laws as Earth, there is nowhere, not even imaginary "dimensions", where the impossible might exist.

 

Pushed on by various religions, science has indeed searched for the soul as have the religions themselves, and no evidence has been found. There was of course the infamous 21 gram experiment:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

 

There is also the Hebrew word nephesh, in the bible:

 

In English, a soul usually refers to the non-material essence of a human that survives after death, but that concept would be entirely foreign to the authors of the Old Testament. Biblically, people don't have a soul—they are a soul. They are a "nephesh," a living, breathing, physical being.

 

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/2-7.htm

 

In the Jesus story, he dies and was in a tomb for three days, then arose and shortly afterwards physically went up to heaven, in the clouds above us. If his spirit went somewhere for 3 days, having left his earthly form behind, why did his earthly form later go up to heaven?

 

I think that the idea of a soul came from dreaming; that people thought they left their physical bodies when asleep and had strange adventures outside it.

 

It is said that religious people are scared of death so invented the soul so they never really die. But looking at various religions, I would be even more scared of an afterlife since who wants to spend eternity being tortured in Hell? How many of us have lived perfect lives, worthy of Heaven/Paradise, etc?

[walterpthefirst]

Christians usually don't understand that empirical science doesn't prove anything.

 

Proofs only exist in mathematics and in logic.

[Joshpantera]

On 2/24/2022 at 1:20 AM, Sexton Blake said:

In the Jesus story, he dies and was in a tomb for three days, then arose and shortly afterwards physically went up to heaven, in the clouds above us. If his spirit went somewhere for 3 days, having left his earthly form behind, why did his earthly form later go up to heaven?

 

I often wondered the same thing. It must be noted that there are similarities between the ancient Egypt religion of resurrection and the next door neighbor to Egypt developing a religion of resurrection following the end of the Egyptian religions some 2,000 year life cycle. The first came to an end, the second sprung into existence. The mummies represent a primitive idea about physical bodies being able to come back to life. The Lazarus myth with mary and martha has been shown to parallel the Osirian myth with Isis and Nepthys. Basically, christianity has ties to the belief in the resurrection of physical bodies. Over the years that has been tweaked. But it's clear that the physical body belief was part of the original thinking. 

 

On 2/24/2022 at 1:20 AM, Sexton Blake said:

I think that the idea of a soul came from dreaming; that people thought they left their physical bodies when asleep and had strange adventures outside it.

 

You could factor in Paul's ideas about going off into the "heavens." There was a belief in a multilayered universe with 7 heavens. And that one could leave the body and travel through these heavens. This is basically out of body experience if we're to try and strip the concept down to bare bones. And here's the thing about out of body experience - it's an issue that has to do with "consciousness" leaving out of a physical body. 

 

If a soul can only be "consciousness" then idealist philosophy comes along shows how consciousness and existence itself cannot be separated. This is the counter apologetic's to christians trying to take an argument in that direction. They are right. It's beyond what science can deal with. Science can only deal with how things work, not why they exist in the first place and it can't say much of anything about the nature of reality. And it can't prove things. 

 

The limitations of science don't matter to this argument. 

 

We can set science aside and spank their asses with philosophy and deeper spiritual insight related to things like "consciousness." If they're right, then the conclusions that they are trying to draw don't follow at all. They can't claim something that will take a non-dual direction and then draw a series of dualistic (heaven and hell / this and that) conclusions and get away with it. 

 

On 2/24/2022 at 6:31 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Christians usually don't understand that empirical science doesn't prove anything.

 

Proofs only exist in mathematics and in logic.

 

On 2/24/2022 at 1:20 AM, Sexton Blake said:

It is said that religious people are scared of death so invented the soul so they never really die. But looking at various religions, I would be even more scared of an afterlife since who wants to spend eternity being tortured in Hell? How many of us have lived perfect lives, worthy of Heaven/Paradise, etc?

 

They are scared of death, that's a given. I think it's safe to say that for any reason we live on after death, you can count on it being something that no myths say it is. Why? Because they aren't literally true. And the reward / punishment format is demonstrably the work of religious politics, not any type of deep mystical, or spiritual insight. The spiritual stuff goes in the opposite direction towards unity, interconnection, wholeness, and such. And essentially breaks down to non-dual levels of contemplation if you don't stop short along the path. 

 

Altogether the concept of reward / punishment is horse shit for myriad reasons - ranging from philosophical, mystical, spiritual, and scientific reasons. 

[midniterider]

Science has never proven a thing. 

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I often wondered the same thing. It must be noted that there are similarities between the ancient Egypt religion of resurrection and the next door neighbor to Egypt developing a religion of resurrection following the end of the Egyptian religions some 2,000 year life cycle. The first came to an end, the second sprung into existence. The mummies represent a primitive idea about physical bodies being able to come back to life. The Lazarus myth with mary and martha has been shown to parallel the Osirian myth with Isis and Nepthys. Basically, christianity has ties to the belief in the resurrection of physical bodies. Over the years that has been tweaked. But it's clear that the physical body belief was part of the original thinking. 

 

 

You could factor in Paul's ideas about going off into the "heavens." There was a belief in a multilayered universe with 7 heavens. And that one could leave the body and travel through these heavens. This is basically out of body experience if we're to try and strip the concept down to bare bones. And here's the thing about out of body experience - it's an issue that has to do with "consciousness" leaving out of a physical body. 

 

If a soul can only be "consciousness" then idealist philosophy comes along shows how consciousness and existence itself cannot be separated. This is the counter apologetic's to christians trying to take an argument in that direction. They are right. It's beyond what science can deal with. Science can only deal with how things work, not why they exist in the first place and it can't say much of anything about the nature of reality. And it can't prove things. 

 

The limitations of science don't matter to this argument. 

 

We can set science aside and spank their asses with philosophy and deeper spiritual insight related to things like "consciousness." If they're right, then the conclusions that they are trying to draw don't follow at all. They can't claim something that will take a non-dual direction and then draw a series of dualistic (heaven and hell / this and that) conclusions and get away with it. 

 

 

 

They are scared of death, that's a given. I think it's safe to say that for any reason we live on after death, you can count on it being something that no myths say it is. Why? Because they aren't literally true. And the reward / punishment format is demonstrably the work of religious politics, not any type of deep mystical, or spiritual insight. The spiritual stuff goes in the opposite direction towards unity, interconnection, wholeness, and such. And essentially breaks down to non-dual levels of contemplation if you don't stop short along the path. 

 

Altogether the concept of reward / punishment is horse shit for myriad reasons - ranging from philosophical, mystical, spiritual, and scientific reasons. 

 

If non-duality is true then no, there is no soul. I was never alive and therefore can never die. There is only awareness. 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, midniterider said:

Science has never proven a thing. 

 

The science of mathematics uses proofs.

 

But, all other branches of the sciences have never proven a thing.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The science of mathematics uses proofs.

 

But, all other branches of the sciences have never proven a thing.

 

I stand corrected. So does the science of math use the scientific method?

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

If non-duality is true then no, there is no soul. I was never alive and therefore can never die. There is only awareness. 

 

The concept of body (one thing) and also soul (another thing) does equal dualistic thinking. These christians have nothing against this type of counter apologetics, and I've been out there on social media groups rubbing their noses in it lately. They want so badly to claim a win for christianity when physicalism is found lacking. But there's no win to be found. Only another depth of certain failure for dualists. 

 

The thing is that christianity relies on a faulty foundation. It's not possible to ever recover from its foundation in judaic tribal thinking. Even if we grant something like Buddhist influence, it's still a situation where Buddhists would have tried to syncretize judaism with eastern thinking and it just creates further contradiction. Especially where non-dual, fundamental awareness like Brahman is concerned. They cannot possibly get away from this issue. 

 

If their god really is omnipresent, then it's a pantheistic, and ultimately impersonal god! It has to be.

 

Otherwise, we're merely looking at a self-contradiction and cognitive dissonance.

 

This is what can happen if we place science aside entirely and fight them from a strictly philosophical and spiritual angle. Models are ever changing. Not static. And technically not considered "truth."

 

I think of Bruce Lee's philosophy of being like water and changing and conforming to whatever. Where there is way (one fixed fighting style), there is limitation. So having no way, is having no limitation. He could fight against any style that way, locate the limitation, and defeat it. 

 

Cross reference back to religion. Religions have limitations. No religion, no limitations of religion. Meanwhile, the religious will always be limited to the limitations of the given religion. A fluid counter apologist can fight multidisciplinary from any given number of fronts. 

 

Christians have an impossible situation before them when going up against strong philosophical discourse at the helm of everything else. 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

11 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I stand corrected. So does the science of math use the scientific method?

 

No, it doesn't midniterider.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

If you look at this diagram...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#/media/File:The_Scientific_Method.svg  ...something physical is being observed, researched, hypothesized about, tested by experiment, analysed and reported on.   But number (integers) are not physical.  They are abstract symbols created by us.

 

Mathematics itself doesn't use the scientific method because you can't observe the number 2 in it's natural habitat.  It's an abstract concept, not something physical.  Nor can you measure the amount of multiplication in the X symbol.  In the same way, you can't experiment with the number 839 by putting it under a microscope.  The amount of 'sixness' in the number 6 can't be observed or measured by any instrument humans can make.  You get the picture?

 

The formula 2 + 2 = 4 tells us nothing about the physical world.  All it tells us is how these abstract symbols relate to each other.

 

So, because observing or experimenting with an abstract symbol is impossible, it follows that you can't research any prior observations or experiments about any number.  With no observations to go on you can't make any kind of meaningful hypothesis about any number, because you need observed data to do that.  With no data you can't analyse anything and lastly, if you have none of the above, then you can't report your conclusions about any number.  That's all all six steps of the scientific method, as shown in the Wiki diagram.

 

In a nutshell, mathematics is a tool that the empirical sciences (botany, geology, chemistry, etc.) use to go through the six stages of the scientific method.  But math itself cannot use this method, for the reasons discussed above. 

 

Does that help?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[midniterider]

Yes it does. Thanks Walter.  

 

Math is an abstraction. Math doesn't use the scientific method. Just logic. 

 

What is your feeling about how much weight to assign to a thought experiment? 

[walterpthefirst]

12 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Yes it does. Thanks Walter.  

 

Math is an abstraction. Math doesn't use the scientific method. Just logic. 

 

What is your feeling about how much weight to assign to a thought experiment? 

 

Hmmm... that would depend, midniterider.

 

The problem with thought experiments is that sometimes there is no way of empirically testing them.  Then you can never really know if they are truly helpful or meaningful.

 

This is one of the prime arguments against some of the predictions of Inflationary theory in cosmology.  The math of inflationary theory indicates that once inflation begins, it never ends.  So, even though it clearly ended in our part of the universe (the observable part) if we follow the math then inflation must be continuing elsewhere, far beyond the limits of our observable universe. 

 

But how could we ever observe this happening?  The simple answer is that we can't.  So, it's a prediction that can never be tested or verified.  Some cosmologists refer to this prediction as metaphysics and not physics.  They say that it isn't science at all.  If something cannot be tested, then it's beyond the remit of science.

 

Having said that...

 

Albert Einstein's thought experiments about the speed of light can be empirically tested.  And have been, many times over.  That's because we have instruments that can observe and measure light to extreme degrees of precision.  What he thought of in the quiet of his mind has been tested and found to be correct.

 

I suppose it all depends on just what kind of thought experiment you had in mind, midniterider.

 

But if you were to elaborate, that might mean taking this thread off-topic.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

I dont want to head off topic. Something is percolating in my head so maybe I'll start another thread.

 

Thanks for the info on thought experiments.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

I dont want to head off topic. Something is percolating in my head so maybe I'll start another thread.

 

Thanks for the info on thought experiments.

 

No problem. 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing the result of your percolation.

 

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

Don't get your hopes up. (haha) It's the standard drivel I post. 

[Joshpantera]

Main point, christian's saying that science cannot prove that there is no afterlife is a meaningless venture whichever way it's taken. It has zero value. Christians can't prove that if there is an afterlife, it's the christian one! Proofs aren't taking place on either side. And at the end of the day the nature of reality is a complete unknown by both science and religion. Everyone has assumptions. None of which are established as absolute and concrete. 

 

What if there is some type of afterlife and no one alive has any idea what it is until they're completely dead??? Not near death, not close to death, but completely gone without the ability to come back and talk about it and report anything. 

 

What if there isn't any afterlife whatsoever??? Seems like a conservative position to take. But we have no way of knowing for certain if it's correct based only on assumptions from the perspective of being alive now. And trying to reason that we should expect nothing. 

 

Guesses, assumptions, logic based on guesses and assumptions. It could be anything. Could be nothing. Could be a transition to some experience of being everything all at once. Who knows? 

 

I think that getting past caring too much one way or another what the afterlife may or may not be is the key to being free of the whole thing. Letting the fear of it go. That requires not being afraid of the unknown. And learning to be comfortable in a reality where uncertainty reigns supreme...

[walterpthefirst]

On 2/28/2022 at 1:34 AM, Joshpantera said:

Main point, christian's saying that science cannot prove that there is no afterlife is a meaningless venture whichever way it's taken. It has zero value. Christians can't prove that if there is an afterlife, it's the christian one! Proofs aren't taking place on either side. And at the end of the day the nature of reality is a complete unknown by both science and religion. Everyone has assumptions. None of which are established as absolute and concrete. 

 

What if there is some type of afterlife and no one alive has any idea what it is until they're completely dead??? Not near death, not close to death, but completely gone without the ability to come back and talk about it and report anything. 

 

What if there isn't any afterlife whatsoever??? Seems like a conservative position to take. But we have no way of knowing for certain if it's correct based only on assumptions from the perspective of being alive now. And trying to reason that we should expect nothing. 

 

Guesses, assumptions, logic based on guesses and assumptions. It could be anything. Could be nothing. Could be a transition to some experience of being everything all at once. Who knows? 

 

I think that getting past caring too much one way or another what the afterlife may or may not be is the key to being free of the whole thing. Letting the fear of it go. That requires not being afraid of the unknown. And learning to be comfortable in a reality where uncertainty reigns supreme...

 

I think you haven't noticed the great big elephant in this particular room, Josh.

 

What you call proof is not what most Christians would call proof.

 

For them, the fact that they feel that there is an afterlife is proof enough for them that there is one.

 

And since other Christians of their particular denomination/sect/cult feel the same way, this is an additional proof that there is an afterlife.

 

And since other Christians of other denominations/sects/cults feel the same way, this is an additional proof that there is an afterlife.

 

And since other people of other religious faiths feel the same way, even though they are heretics, this is another proof that there is an afterlife.

 

This is not about rationality, logical argument or intellectual rigor or evidence, this is about innermost feelings.

 

And feelings can never be defeated by even the most persuasive arguments or a body of undeniable evidence.

 

So, on their own, emotional terms, Christians can prove that there is an afterlife.

 

Their terms being what they feel is true.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, on their own, emotional terms, Christians can prove that there is an afterlife.

 

Their terms being what they feel is true.

 

This is why they have to be challenged. 

 

If someone feels that Santa is real, is that proof that Santa is real? We have to force them into a corner. They either have to start trying to employ logic or basically shut down and stop responding. The Lion's den is full of such examples. If people feel that Mohammad and Allah are truth, does that prove it? These are the usual responses to christians appealing to emotions and feelings as proof. 

 

There's not much they can do with it. Dig their heels in the sand and refuse to go any further. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

50 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is why they have to be challenged. 

 

If someone feels that Santa is real, is that proof that Santa is real?  We have to force them into a corner. They either have to start trying to employ logic or basically shut down and stop responding. The Lion's den is full of such examples. If people feel that Mohammad and Allah are truth, does that prove it? These are the usual responses to christians appealing to emotions and feelings as proof. 

 

There's not much they can do with it. Dig their heels in the sand and refuse to go any further. 

 

 

 

Oh I agree entirely, Josh.

 

But you know the story. 

 

We Ex-Christians know deep down that the Christians have the proof and the truth in their hearts.

 

But, we won't admit it.

 

Because we love to sin.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Ignorance is bliss, until it isn't. 

 

It makes me reflect on how mad I was at the atheist who I couldn't beat in an argument. I was certain he was wrong. Until it became more and more obvious that he was right. People did make up the gods mainly out of fear of their own mortality. That was the summer of 91'.

 

Applied my first real logic, 

down in a mechanics shop,

Tried to beat an atheist,

but I hit a big roadblock!

 

Youth pastor had bad apologies, 

He told me we would live forever,

And when I had the choice, 

My judgement seemed to get much better,

 

Those where the rough days of my life! 

 

Back in the summer of 91' 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 2/23/2022 at 10:20 PM, Sexton Blake said:

That is the whine from religious people who know no science.

 

Using that kind of nonsense, it can be claimed that; Santa Claus, fairies, Superman and other comic book characters, flying elephants, the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, leprechauns, evil spirits, etc could all exist as science does not know everything and science cannot be guaranteed because something new may be discovered tomorrow. Gravity may even vanish.

 

Real world. Science builds on what has been learned before and while just a few things might need a slight "tweak", the rest is solidly grounded and with the rest of the Universe obeying the same laws as Earth, there is nowhere, not even imaginary "dimensions", where the impossible might exist.

 

Pushed on by various religions, science has indeed searched for the soul as have the religions themselves, and no evidence has been found. There was of course the infamous 21 gram experiment:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

 

There is also the Hebrew word nephesh, in the bible:

 

In English, a soul usually refers to the non-material essence of a human that survives after death, but that concept would be entirely foreign to the authors of the Old Testament. Biblically, people don't have a soul—they are a soul. They are a "nephesh," a living, breathing, physical being.

 

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/2-7.htm

 

In the Jesus story, he dies and was in a tomb for three days, then arose and shortly afterwards physically went up to heaven, in the clouds above us. If his spirit went somewhere for 3 days, having left his earthly form behind, why did his earthly form later go up to heaven?

 

I think that the idea of a soul came from dreaming; that people thought they left their physical bodies when asleep and had strange adventures outside it.

 

It is said that religious people are scared of death so invented the soul so they never really die. But looking at various religions, I would be even more scared of an afterlife since who wants to spend eternity being tortured in Hell? How many of us have lived perfect lives, worthy of Heaven/Paradise, etc?

 

Science cannot prove that there is no afterlife.

 

Of course it can't, as you imply. It never even addresses spiritual ideas of any kind since they're not science.