Life after death is impossible

[InChrist]

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 think using those arguments have limitations and of course are influenced by one’s worldview when applied to the possibility of life after death. As for me, I’m confident I will have eternal life in Christ. Nothing is impossible with God, the Creator of heaven and earth, the One Who created life in the first place.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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.

Interestingly, I feel the same way about appreciating reality more as I age, but we hold opposing views regarding the afterlife.

 

[Quintessence]

Yup.

Sure sounds impossible within the limited context of your worldview. You convinced yourself pretty thoroughly there. You're absolutely right for yourself.

Meanwhile, others disagree. Your arguments do a pretty bad job accounting for, say, animistic, nondual, and nonmaterial worldviews for example.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

The essence of religion is for us to act responsibly here as God is not going to come and wave a magic wand and make things right. He sends a Messenger in each age with guidance but it is our choice to use it or not.

For example. For this age God sent Baha’u’llah with the teachings that we need to unite if we want to solve our problems. So today unity of nations, religions and races are needed to be able to fix the environment, solve world poverty and end wars. And He said it needs to be done through consultation not on the battlefield. So we can come together and do this or have WW3 it’s up to us. God won’t interfere apart from offering us guidance. Now it’s up to humanity whether we want war or peace.

With our very limited minds and the never ending universe that we cannot even begin to fathom, it would be rather presumptuous to eliminate the possibility of God existing. Because unless one knows all there is to know and has explored all that exists to be explored none can make such a statement with any true certainty except blind assumption and speculation which is against science and reason.

Even NASA are searching for extraterrestrial life. So can we even conclude that there is no higher intelligence or life form in all of existence higher than ours? And if a higher life form of existence is possible then so is God.

I look to the Great Ones such as Christ, Krishna, Muhammad and others which have no parallel in human history. They were opposed by the most powerful men on earth yet Their Cause triumphed over them to influence the entire planet and civilisation.
They and along with Them great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed in God.

And to just say there is no life after death on the limited, finite and very fallible information we have available to us now is a rush to judgement not allowing for future discoveries.

 

[Raju3v]

I don't know if there is a life after death but I wonder what if our souls switch between multiverse. Like you're dead in his universe and soon as you die you switch to another universe where you're just born? What if the greed of being alive makes us to go through different multiverses. And our current life is actually a after life of previous life? I don't know if this make sense lmao

 

[ChristineM]

I thought that atheists believed that cloning was possible.

Read it and learn. Evidence is a wonderful thing.

Dolly (sheep) - Wikipedia

But not 2000 years ago

 

[PureX]

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

Which has very little to do with the truth of what is or could be. As my old dad would say; " you talk like a big fat-man".

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

What YOU require is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you don't have it. And so cannot make any pronouncements either way. Unimaginable possibilities remain because we cannot eliminate them.

 

[blü 2]

Which has very little to do with the truth of what is or could be.

It has everything to do with what the truth is. As for what could be, if there were no rules to limit them, well, I dare say stories were told round camp fires tens of thousands of years ago, and as far as I can tell have never slowed down. Only rarely and either by craft or accidentally do they relate to what is true,

What's relevant is that you don't have it.

Not just me. You have no credible evidence for the supernatural either. It doesn't even have a definition appropriate to a real category, one of things with objective existence.

And so cannot make any pronouncements either way. Unimaginable possibilities remain because we cannot eliminate them.

I can make the pronouncement about supernatural claims, since it's simply stating the facts.

Sure, the odds are extremely good that we'll come across as-yet-unimagined possibilities. But that can't be evidence to support the reality of any particular possibility, imagined or not. It might be incentive for particular individuals to go hunting, but it isn't evidence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Life =/= existence.

 

[Brian2]

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.

You must mean "IF life is a result of complex biological processes........"

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.

Not all NDE can be explained but things that happen in the brain.

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.

You must mean "IF consciousness is a product of physical processes,,,,,,,,,,,"

1. 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.

Lack of Empirical Evidence is not an argument when science won't even consider the reported experience of the supernatural until the supernatural is shown to exist.
So science throws out the observations of people (which interestingly science is made of) until it finds other evidence.

1. 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.

True, and also is not an argument against an afterlife.

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.

Who is this lazy Occam anyway and why is that an argument for anything? All it is really is trying to find a starting place in evaluating which hypothesis to begin with.

1. Cultural Influences: beliefs in an afterlife are an artifact of culture and groupthink which can cloud objectivity and critical thinking when evaluating the evidence.

Why is that an argument for anything?

1. Mind-Body Relationship: Consciousness arises from the interactions of neurons and brain chemistry. Without these physical processes, consciousness cannot persist.

Again, surely you mean "If consciousness arises from the interaction of neurons and brain chemistry....."

Why accept as scientific truth, things which have not been shown to be true?
I know, it's because you want to.
Sounds like religious type belief to me. Some evidence in science suggests a naturalistic answer and you make a leap of faith and believe the answer to be naturalistic.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Meanwhile, others disagree. Your arguments do a pretty bad job accounting for, say, animistic, nondual, and nonmaterial worldviews for example.

No conflict with my nondual worldview. Once my life is over, it's over. No body, no brain, no life. From my perspective there is no "afterlife."

In fact, if there was one belief I could squash, it would be the belief in an afterlife. Too many, in my experience, are so focused on eternal reward/punishment that they squander away the joys and beauty of the life they're currently living. The sheer odds of merely being alive are astronomical. Yet so many people just take their lives for granted.

 

[PureX]

It has everything to do with what the truth is. As for what could be, if there were no rules to limit them, well, I dare say stories were told round camp fires tens of thousands of years ago, and as far as I can tell have never slowed down. Only rarely and either by craft or accidentally do they relate to what is true,

But we don't know what those rules are, or how many others there are, or if, what, or when there are exceptions. You think we do, but we don't. Because we have no idea how much we still don't know. All we know is that we don't know everything, or even what percentage of everything is left to be revealed.

Not just me. You have no credible evidence for the supernatural either. It doesn't even have a definition appropriate to a real category, one of things with objective existence.

No evidence is just proof of our ignorance. You're taking it as proof of your opinions being right. That very illogical.

I can make the pronouncement about supernatural claims, since it's simply stating the facts.

No one was talking about supernatural claims. We don't even know what "natural" means, or it's limitations, so to debate the "supernatural" is a fool's errand.

Sure, the odds are extremely good that we'll come across as-yet-unimagined possibilities. But that can't be evidence to support the reality of any particular possibility, imagined or not. It might be incentive for particular individuals to go hunting, but it isn't evidence.

It says nothing about any probabilities or particulars either way. All unknown possibilities are equally possible.

 

[Quintessence]

No conflict with my nondual worldview. Once my life is over, it's over. No body, no brain, no life. From my perspective there is no "afterlife."

In fact, if there was one belief I could squash, it would be the belief in an afterlife. Too many, in my experience, are so focused on eternal reward/punishment that they squander away the joys and beauty of the life they're currently living. The sheer odds of merely being alive are astronomical. Yet so many people just take their lives for granted.

By nondual, I was speaking to how the arguments of the OP lean hard into the assumptions of Western (Cartesian) dualism; the rejection of that throws a wrench into most of their arguments.

In any case, don't disagree with your point, though. The dualism that creates the weird reward/punishment thing in some Western religions is straight up bizarre to me too. After life there is... quite obviously more life.

 

[Brian2]

No conflict with my nondual worldview. Once my life is over, it's over. No body, no brain, no life. From my perspective there is no "afterlife."

In fact, if there was one belief I could squash, it would be the belief in an afterlife. Too many, in my experience, are so focused on eternal reward/punishment that they squander away the joys and beauty of the life they're currently living. The sheer odds of merely being alive are astronomical. Yet so many people just take their lives for granted.

In this Christianity has the evidence that philosophy does not. Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In this Christianity has the evidence that philosophy does not. Jesus rose from the dead.

I'll wait right here for you to present the evidence of that.

 

[Brian2]

I'll wait right here for you to present the evidence of that.

The witness reports in the gospels are evidence.

 

[Eli G]

Read it and learn. Evidence is a wonderful thing.

Dolly (sheep) - Wikipedia

But not 2000 years ago

So, yes, atheist believe that cloning is possible. Me too .
If cloning is possible somehow, imagine that someones' memory could be transferred to the clon ... Couldn't that be considered a resurrection?

So why such a scandal for atheists when they learn from the Bible that God is going to raise the dead to give them a chance?

Acts 24:15 And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[ChristineM]

So, yes, atheist believe that cloning is possible. Me too .
If cloning is possible somehow, imagine that someones' memory could be transferred to the clon ... Couldn't that be considered a resurrection?

So why such a scandal for atheists when they learn from the Bible that God is going to raise the dead to give them a chance?

Acts 24:15 And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Memories cannot be transferred. Certainly with current technology the brain is far to complex.

What scandal? I think this is your own making. You may of course believe whatever you want. I would hope your morality extends the same privileged to atheist. But from what I've seen in the last 24 hours i seriously doubt it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The witness reports in the gospels are evidence.

Like witness reports of alien abduction?

Sorry, I didn't want to go there, but don't claim there is evidence of something when there isn't.

 

[Eli G]

Memories cannot be transferred. Certainly with current technology the brain is far to complex.

What scandal? I think this is your own making. You may of course believe whatever you want. ...

Sure, men cann't do it. But they wish they could ... maybe some day they will say that it is possible with new technologies.
God can and he will.

PS: stop your provocations; everyone can notice how you are trying to accuse me of things I didn´t say ... that's how you are in reality. Nice you show yourself how you are and how you act. Kudos for us, believers.