Scientific possibility of an afterlife? ...of somesort

hinault

robindch wrote: »

No offence and I can't think of a polite way to say it, but I find it close to impossible to believe that adults genuinely appear to believe this stuff.

Behold the power of memetic selection.

No offence taken.

Zubeneschamali

smacl wrote: »

Apparently so, according to Wikipedia, and you Christians are in for an even bigger roasting than us atheists;

I think you do Islam an injustice: atheists are in a worse neighbourhood of Hell than bad Jews and Christians (in fact even Shaytan gets a nicer gaff than us), but some Christians and Jews may get into the shabbier bits of Heaven.

At least we are better off than pagans, polytheists and worst of all, hypocrites.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

At least we are better off than pagans, polytheists and worst of all, hypocrites.

That's you.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

That's you.

Did you just call me a hypocrite and damn me to the worst circle of Hell?

How rude. What will Jesus say? :eek:

robindch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What will Jesus say?

Bugger all, as Jesus is dead.

shane9689

robindch wrote: »

As you haven't requested posters to avoid stating religious views -- and that's isn't really appropriate in a forum where discussion of religious views is normal -- then it's absolutely fine for absolutely anybody to post whatever they feel is relevant to the discussion. Though I do suspect last night's drive-by is unlikely to return to defend the thesis.

yes but i did state in the title "Scientific possibility" and i also asked the opinion of scientists as I stated at the end
"so if anyone here knows about chemistry or physics, any thoughts?"

....I don't mind the odd religious view but isn't it pretty clear by my entire post that I was looking for scientific evidence or theories and not religious ones?

i just want to keep the debate on track so people can keep adding to it, arguing about who's going to hell doesn't really add to the debate does it?

Jesusaves

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God Psalm 14 v1.

magicbastarder

i'd love to know if the surname Aves exists in spain or mexico. or argentina.

magicbastarder

what's a God Psalm anyway?

Jesusaves

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd love to know if the surname Aves exists in spain or mexico. or argentina.

Hi, it's not a surname at all, just a slight abbreviation for Jesus saves

Jesusaves

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's a God Psalm anyway?

Copy and paste mistake!

Zubeneschamali

Jesusaves wrote: »

There is no God Psalm 14 v1.

No-one ever wants to talk about v1.

God Psalm 14 v4.2 is the one you want.

Brian Shanahan

hinault wrote: »

Science hasn't been able to explain many aspects of this life therefore it is no wonder that science has not reached the capacity of proving, or disproving, whether or not there is an afterlife!

While science hasn't yet cracked everything (though what aspects of life do you refer to?), I would put my house on it that it will disprove an afterlife (which is highly conditional on the mind-body dualism fallacy being not a fallacy) a hell of a long time before the religious all realise they have backed the wrong dog at this particular horse race.

Call Me Jimmy

I'm not a spiritual person but that's the understatement of the century 'science hasn't cracked everything'! I do think though that science is chasing a carrot on a stick in the context of trying to understand reality and will be infinitely fruitless. The more we learn the more there is to learn. And what we do learn is within very specific parameters. The things that exist outside our current parameters will make rubbish of what we know now. As has happened since the beginning of science.

tommy2bad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

While science hasn't yet cracked everything (though what aspects of life do you refer to?), I would put my house on it that it will disprove an afterlife (which is highly conditional on the mind-body dualism fallacy being not a fallacy) a hell of a long time before the religious all realise they have backed the wrong dog at this particular horse race.

Well in fairness the religious haven't put their shirt on the mind/body dualism fallacy. The're betting on God.
It's the nub of it though, if mind and body can exist separate from each other then life after the death of the body is possible, if not then it's just a matter of replacing the body with a similar receptical.
I'm not even sure which would be easier to solve, a mind that is the product of the body or a mind that is carried in a body.
It looks increasing like the religious have this one nailed; leave it up to God, it's beyond us. God may be the only dog in the race.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

Actually Christianity makes no such claim, what happens non Christians is none of our business in classical christian understanding. It's up to God to deal with them as He see fit. If that means burning them for all eternity we take no pleasure in that fact.:P

Yet it is explicitly stated in the bible, the "holy book" that all christians are supposed to take as completely true in all aspects remember, that it is only through becoming a christian and following Jebus that a person can be saved and go to heaven, otherwise they are damned to hell.

Brian Shanahan

Jesusaves wrote: »

God said ' after death comes judgement' Hebrews 9v 27. Heaven and Hell are real. You'd want to make sure you know where you're going when you die. Jesus died so we could life eternally in Heaven. Got questions? Look up this website:
Got questions.org
I pray whoever reads this will be saved. It's a great peace to know where you are going when you die. May God bless you all.

I have one question, how can you (personally) believe in something which is proven not to exist (by its own holy book no less)?

MRnotlob606

There is life after death for those that want it.

Brian Shanahan

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I'm not a spiritual person but that's the understatement of the century 'science hasn't cracked everything'! I do think though that science is chasing a carrot on a stick in the context of trying to understand reality and will be infinitely fruitless. The more we learn the more there is to learn. And what we do learn is within very specific parameters. The things that exist outside our current parameters will make rubbish of what we know now. As has happened since the beginning of science.

Your whole post is made of nonsensical deepity. Congratulations.

Oh, and you claim to be not spiritual, but your denunciation of science is that it doesn't take into account spiritual woo ("things that exist out of our current parameters"); either you are not serious in your claim or not serious in your denunciation. I would like clarification on this.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well in fairness the religious haven't put their shirt on the mind/body dualism fallacy.

So religions have finally gotten round to the rejection of the existence of a soul then?

No I thought not either. They are still deeply mired in the mind/body fallacy.

tommy2bad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So religions have finally gotten round to the rejection of the existence of a soul then?

No I thought not either. They are still deeply mired in the mind/body fallacy.

Yeah it a little bit of Plato that crept in, not very useful in my opinion.
Either way, having a soul or being a soul makes no difference to the christian understanding of the afterlife, it depends on God raising us from the dead on the last day (the're a bit wolly on the exact timing of the last day, some say a specific day in the future, some the day you die.) So my point stands, the bet is on Gods existence not the souls existence.
This whole thread proves the point, we cant discuss an afterlife without resorting to god as the deciding factor. No one mentioned the ability of information to cross a chaotic event which I thought would be pertinent to the notion that our personality could survive death. Oh, maybe I mentioned it but anyway I'm mentioning it again now.

Call Me Jimmy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Your whole post is made of nonsensical deepity. Congratulations.

Oh, and you claim to be not spiritual, but your denunciation of science is that it doesn't take into account spiritual woo ("things that exist out of our current parameters"); either you are not serious in your claim or not serious in your denunciation. I would like clarification on this.

Outside of our current parameters meant things we cannot detect now, too big too small. When we just had knowledge of this planet the things we knew were within those parameters. Unless science proves there is nothing smaller to be detected or nothing further away than the furthest thing we can detect? Don't know where ye got spiritual from that.

I'm not denouncing science, I just think there's a fairly recurrent pattern that tends toward infinity as we can see it and trying to look at the universe using our perceptions or biological capabilities might be impossible in trying to understand ultimate reality.

Thank you for congratulating me.

swampgas

Jesusaves wrote: »

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God Psalm 14 v1.

A fool can be right some of the time too.

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

A fool can be right some of the time too.

Uh, a stopped clock is right twice a day?

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

Uh, a stopped clock is right twice a day?

I was thinking of the Ad Hominem fallacy ... (a fool believes it so it must be false ) - assuming I've got my fallacies right

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

Nature has already accomplished this, the primary reason pantheists believe that nature and God are two words for the same thing.

So what... you are telling us pantheists can not use a dictionary or just make words mean whatever they wish them to? Exactly how are these two very distinct words the same thing?

As usual with pantheists you are making the word "god" mean so much that in the end it means nothing. And as usual when reading the tripe written by such people.... I can discern no reason for you doing so other than an unwarranted fetishism for the word "god".

It seems that the world is waking up slowly to the simple fact that no one has a single shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there is a "god" of any kind and so a fetish cohort of which you appear to be a member are doing all and sundry.... mostly in the form of linguistic gymnastics.... to simply hold on to the word..... usually by applying the word to things we already have words FOR.

We have a word for nature. It is "nature". We have a word for everything. It is "everything". We have a word for the universe. It is "universe".

Stop trying to append your love of your pet three letters on to the end of everything just for the sake of satisfying a fetish.

nagirrac wrote: »

Everything we know of is filtered through our brain

That is one of your meaningless truisms that you often trot out. What Daniel Dennett would call a "deepity". Something that sounds meaningful and informative on the surface but in essence means nothing. It is an over simplification and is only correct at a pedantic level. Much of what we know comes to us via measurement tools and methodologies that are external to the brain. When one, for examples, measures the PH of a substance using litimus paper.... to say that this knowledge is filtered through the brain is pedantically correct but in essence meaningless.

nagirrac wrote: »

We will likely make huge progress with AI, but I think consciousness as we experience it will remain elusive.

You tell us you have reached this conclusion simply because of the world view you subscribe to. So in essence you are not discussing the conclusion but asserting it. Can you substantiate it in ANY way at all however? Or are we to accept it as nothing more than a consequence of your equally unsubstantiated and asserted base world view? A layer cake of assertion all the way down?