Life after death is impossible

[idea]

The arguments:​

1. Biological Perspective: life is a result of complex biological processes, death marks the irreversible cessation of these processes. Once the brain stops functioning, consciousness and self-awareness cannot persist.
2. Neurological Evidence: near-death experiences are explained by the brain's response to trauma or lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife. These experiences can often be replicated through stimulation of certain brain regions.
3. Conservation of Energy: consciousness is a product of physical processes, and the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. Consciousness cannot exist independently beyond the body's death.
4. Lack of Empirical Evidence: the absence of robust empirical evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife. Claims of encounters with departed souls or supernatural phenomena lack scientific verifiability.
5. Evolutionary Perspective: belief in an afterlife may have evolutionary advantages in promoting social cohesion and cooperation, but this doesn't necessarily mean an afterlife truly exists.
6. Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct than complex ones. Since life after death introduces complex metaphysical concepts, it's considered less likely than explanations rooted in natural processes.
7. Cultural Influences: beliefs in an afterlife are an artifact of culture and groupthink which can cloud objectivity and critical thinking when evaluating the evidence.
8. Mind-Body Relationship: Consciousness arises from the interactions of neurons and brain chemistry. Without these physical processes, consciousness cannot persist.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Yes, life after death is quite literally impossible, but existence is not.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, life after death is quite literally impossible, but existence is not.

Humbly,
Hermit

Very true, the atoms of your body exist after death, in fact the exist for eternity. They are re-used to help existence continue to be existence.

 

[Stevicus]

The arguments:​

1. Biological Perspective: life is a result of complex biological processes, death marks the irreversible cessation of these processes. Once the brain stops functioning, consciousness and self-awareness cannot persist.
2. Neurological Evidence: near-death experiences are explained by the brain's response to trauma or lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife. These experiences can often be replicated through stimulation of certain brain regions.
3. Conservation of Energy: consciousness is a product of physical processes, and the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. Consciousness cannot exist independently beyond the body's death.
4. Lack of Empirical Evidence: the absence of robust empirical evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife. Claims of encounters with departed souls or supernatural phenomena lack scientific verifiability.
5. Evolutionary Perspective: belief in an afterlife may have evolutionary advantages in promoting social cohesion and cooperation, but this doesn't necessarily mean an afterlife truly exists.
6. Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct than complex ones. Since life after death introduces complex metaphysical concepts, it's considered less likely than explanations rooted in natural processes.
7. Cultural Influences: beliefs in an afterlife are an artifact of culture and groupthink which can cloud objectivity and critical thinking when evaluating the evidence.
8. Mind-Body Relationship: Consciousness arises from the interactions of neurons and brain chemistry. Without these physical processes, consciousness cannot persist.

As for item 7, I think it may be rooted in a natural fear of death which might also cloud one's thinking, since the idea of being conscious and then winking out into nothingness is difficult to accept. So, there is some comfort in the idea that our consciousness may go somewhere else (like Heaven) upon death.

 

[Jimmy]

You’re right. That’s why existence itself needs to end when the chosen one dies. Only then is another life possible for us all.

 

[PureX]

All those arguments are based on a very limited perception and understanding of existence. There could very easily be forms of matter and energy that we are completely unaware of, that nevertheless exist as reflections of ourselves. And that can continue to exist after the beings we know disintegrate.

Many things are possible beyond the limits of our current knowledge. Best not to presume limits that we can't actually know to be so.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The arguments:​

1. Biological Perspective: life is a result of complex biological processes, death marks the irreversible cessation of these processes. Once the brain stops functioning, consciousness and self-awareness cannot persist.
2. Neurological Evidence: near-death experiences are explained by the brain's response to trauma or lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife. These experiences can often be replicated through stimulation of certain brain regions.
3. Conservation of Energy: consciousness is a product of physical processes, and the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. Consciousness cannot exist independently beyond the body's death.
4. Lack of Empirical Evidence: the absence of robust empirical evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife. Claims of encounters with departed souls or supernatural phenomena lack scientific verifiability.
5. Evolutionary Perspective: belief in an afterlife may have evolutionary advantages in promoting social cohesion and cooperation, but this doesn't necessarily mean an afterlife truly exists.
6. Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct than complex ones. Since life after death introduces complex metaphysical concepts, it's considered less likely than explanations rooted in natural processes.
7. Cultural Influences: beliefs in an afterlife are an artifact of culture and groupthink which can cloud objectivity and critical thinking when evaluating the evidence.
8. Mind-Body Relationship: Consciousness arises from the interactions of neurons and brain chemistry. Without these physical processes, consciousness cannot persist.

If it was actually impossible, we would not be here. Death is indistinguishable from pre birth to post demise and that hasn't stopped the phenomenon of life.

Life will persist to manifest under proper conditions as it continually does here and the lights came on.

It happened once, proving it isnt impossible and it will happen again just like this time.

 

[blü 2]

It happened once, proving it isnt impossible and it will happen again just like this time.

If you're referring to the gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, I'm afraid that evidence is of extremely bad quality ─ right at the start, that the purported phenomenon is utterly unbelievable.

Which puts an enormous onus of proof on anyone who claims it as an event in history.

And the evidence is simply not there ─ not one eyewitness account, not one contemporary account, not one independent account.

Plus four "full" and two partial accounts, the four gospels, then Paul and Acts 1, each of which contradict the other five bigtime,

As an event in history, won't fly, can't fly.

 

[1213]

The arguments:​

1. Biological Perspective: life is a result of complex biological processes, death marks the irreversible cessation of these processes. Once the brain stops functioning, consciousness and self-awareness cannot persist.

Or you just don't know how it happens.

1. Neurological Evidence: near-death experiences are explained by the brain's response to trauma or lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife. These experiences can often be replicated through stimulation of certain brain regions.

That someone is able to explain, doesn't mean he is necessary correct.

1. Conservation of Energy: consciousness is a product of physical processes, and the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. Consciousness cannot exist independently beyond the body's death.

But how could anyone know that is true?

1. Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct than complex ones. Since life after death introduces complex metaphysical concepts, it's considered less likely than explanations rooted in natural processes.

And the razor can't be wrong? If it would be correct, life would not exist at all, because it is very complex.

Life after death is impossible

Could you form biological life out of non organic material? If no, does it mean life is impossible?

 

[Alien826]

All those arguments are based on a very limited perception and understanding of existence. There could very easily be forms of matter and energy that we are completely unaware of, that nevertheless exist as reflections of ourselves. And that can continue to exist after the beings we know disintegrate.

Many things are possible beyond the limits of our current knowledge. Best not to presume limits that we can't actually know to be so.

All very true. Perhaps the OP should be prefixed with "given all that we know now ...". But that doesn't mean we should claim any knowledge of what might lie beyond these limits.

 

[Alien826]

If it was actually impossible, we would not be here. Death is indistinguishable from pre birth to post demise and that hasn't stopped the phenomenon of life.

Life will persist to manifest under proper conditions as it continually does here and the lights came on.

It happened once, proving it isnt impossible and it will happen again just like this time.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but the OP is talking about survival, or lack thereof, after death of an individual living entity. Life in general goes on because there is this neat mechanism that produces new entities to replace us when we die. Or if you are talking about the extinction of all life on this planet and it's eventual re-emergence, yes that could happen.

 

[Alien826]

Or you just don't know how it happens.

Actually we don't know IF it happens. We have to establish that before we need to explain HOW it happens.

That someone is able to explain, doesn't mean he is necessary correct.

No, but this does suggest an alternative (natural) explanation. I'll give you that this may be the area that needs more research. The problem for both sides is that the evidence comes a living brain, not a brain that stays dead.

But how could anyone know that is true?

There are lots of reasons to assume that consciousness is a function of the brain. Where consciousness comes from is still disputed though.

And the razor can't be wrong? If it would be correct, life would not exist at all, because it is very complex.

It doesn't claim to determine absolute truth, though many think it does. It just narrows down the list of likely explanations. "If you are on a farm in the USA (not Africa!) and hear hoofbeats, expect horses, not zebras". You'll be right most of the time, but not always.

Could you form biological life out of non organic material? If no, does it mean life is impossible?

Personally, or by scientists in general? So far, no, though progress has been made. Life is not impossible because it exists now, so it must have come about somehow. To connect that to the OP you need to establish that survival after death exists with the same certainty that life before death does. Can you do that?

 

[chris baron]

check out some videos about deathbed lucidity, there is more to consciousness than the brain.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The arguments:​

1. Biological Perspective: life is a result of complex biological processes, death marks the irreversible cessation of these processes. Once the brain stops functioning, consciousness and self-awareness cannot persist.
2. Neurological Evidence: near-death experiences are explained by the brain's response to trauma or lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife. These experiences can often be replicated through stimulation of certain brain regions.
3. Conservation of Energy: consciousness is a product of physical processes, and the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. Consciousness cannot exist independently beyond the body's death.
4. Lack of Empirical Evidence: the absence of robust empirical evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife. Claims of encounters with departed souls or supernatural phenomena lack scientific verifiability.
5. Evolutionary Perspective: belief in an afterlife may have evolutionary advantages in promoting social cohesion and cooperation, but this doesn't necessarily mean an afterlife truly exists.
6. Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct than complex ones. Since life after death introduces complex metaphysical concepts, it's considered less likely than explanations rooted in natural processes.
7. Cultural Influences: beliefs in an afterlife are an artifact of culture and groupthink which can cloud objectivity and critical thinking when evaluating the evidence.
8. Mind-Body Relationship: Consciousness arises from the interactions of neurons and brain chemistry. Without these physical processes, consciousness cannot persist.

I reviewed some of your prior posts relating to the afterlife and spirits, and I see that your beliefs have changed. May I ask what prompted this change?

 

[loverofhumanity]

The arguments:​

1. Biological Perspective: life is a result of complex biological processes, death marks the irreversible cessation of these processes. Once the brain stops functioning, consciousness and self-awareness cannot persist.
2. Neurological Evidence: near-death experiences are explained by the brain's response to trauma or lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife. These experiences can often be replicated through stimulation of certain brain regions.
3. Conservation of Energy: consciousness is a product of physical processes, and the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. Consciousness cannot exist independently beyond the body's death.
4. Lack of Empirical Evidence: the absence of robust empirical evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife. Claims of encounters with departed souls or supernatural phenomena lack scientific verifiability.
5. Evolutionary Perspective: belief in an afterlife may have evolutionary advantages in promoting social cohesion and cooperation, but this doesn't necessarily mean an afterlife truly exists.
6. Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct than complex ones. Since life after death introduces complex metaphysical concepts, it's considered less likely than explanations rooted in natural processes.
7. Cultural Influences: beliefs in an afterlife are an artifact of culture and groupthink which can cloud objectivity and critical thinking when evaluating the evidence.
8. Mind-Body Relationship: Consciousness arises from the interactions of neurons and brain chemistry. Without these physical processes, consciousness cannot persist.

It really comes down to whether God exists or not. If He does and His Messengers all tell us we live on then that would be true. But for those who do not believe they will say these things. But it’s very important the afterlife. It determines how we live here on earth. If we say that we only live once then then we act very differently from those who know they will be brought to account in the next life.

 

[Eli G]

Life after death (like ghostly kind) may be impossible for those or more reasons.

What about resurrection, the real Biblical teaching?

 

[blü 2]

Life after death (like ghostly kind) may be impossible for those or more reasons.

What about resurrection, the real Biblical teaching?

Resurrection necessarily implies that the claimed death was not a true death because the subject's condition was reversible.

Whereas actual death is not reversible.

 

[Eli G]

I thought that atheists believed that cloning was possible.

 

[blü 2]

All those arguments are based on a very limited perception and understanding of existence. There could very easily be forms of matter and energy that we are completely unaware of, that nevertheless exist as reflections of ourselves. And that can continue to exist after the beings we know disintegrate.

Many things are possible beyond the limits of our current knowledge. Best not to presume limits that we can't actually know to be so.

I disagree. They're based on the best possible reasoned understanding of human, indeed biological, existence that there is.

What the case for the alternative requires is examinable evidence ─ and there ain't any. Plenty of stories, zero evidence.

 

[idea]

Yes, life after death is quite literally impossible, but existence is not.

Humbly,
Hermit

There is comfort in the thought our atoms/energy/information get mixed back into the big universal pot along with everyone and everything else. Isn't that heaven - isn't it love? united in all things, mixed together, inseparable?

As for item 7, I think it may be rooted in a natural fear of death which might also cloud one's thinking, since the idea of being conscious and then winking out into nothingness is difficult to accept. So, there is some comfort in the idea that our consciousness may go somewhere else (like Heaven) upon death.

fear of death for ourself, and coping with the death of loved ones, yes. It is a lot easier to get through funerals if telling yourself "they're not gone.

They aren't gone - their memories last. Information cannot be destroyed. We're all part of the eternal cause/effect chain, the ripples from our actions and lives continue to propagate.

If it was actually impossible, we would not be here. Death is indistinguishable from pre birth to post demise and that hasn't stopped the phenomenon of life.

Life will persist to manifest under proper conditions as it continually does here and the lights came on.

It happened once, proving it isnt impossible and it will happen again just like this time.

I should have clarified - a continuation of our own mind/thoughts/independent being. Yes, new life is born and has so far continued - I cannot remember any past lives, can you? New life is, indeed, new.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but the OP is talking about survival, or lack thereof, after death of an individual living entity. Life in general goes on because there is this neat mechanism that produces new entities to replace us when we die. Or if you are talking about the extinction of all life on this planet and it's eventual re-emergence, yes that could happen.

Yes - thanks for clarification, it was meant to be a thread of dust to dust, dying thou shalt surely die. No ghost, no spirit, lights out.

I reviewed some of your prior posts relating to the afterlife and spirits, and I see that your beliefs have changed. May I ask what prompted this change?

Haha, slowly disentangling my mind from prior brainwashing. Real vs. imagined. I find myself appreciating what is real more and more as I get older.

It really comes down to whether God exists or not. If He does and His Messengers all tell us we live on then that would be true. But for those who do not believe they will say these things. But it’s very important the afterlife. It determines how we live here on earth. If we say that we only live once then then we act very differently from those who know they will be brought to account in the next life.

Which god? Allah? Brahma? (India now has the largest population). Religious messengers all disagree with one another.

Do we live for imagined heaven? pretending "god" will take care of things, avoiding responsibility, avoiding reality...
or are we focused, present in the here and now, doing what we can to make the world better now because there is no god to save us? Yes - that does change how we live. accounting is for this life, not the next. there is no savior or forgiveness - each owns their own karma.