Life after death is impossible

[PureX]

When our brain is gone, so are we.

Except that "we" are more than just our brain. But if you are a determined materialist, you will refuse to recognize this.

 

[Alien826]

That is patenty false. If there is no reason to believe something exists, there is no reason to believe anything in regards to it's existence, including that it does not exist. Believing things based on ignorance is illogical, and I would add; dishonest.

I disagree. It's possible to know one thing about something and not another. Let's say we observe a square impression in the ground and we conclude that something made that impression. We know a little about its shape (square) but nothing at all about (say) what color it is. Now if there is no impression in the ground, we can conclude, not with absolute certainty but enough to go on. that nothing was there. We can't deduce any properties of that "nothing", but its existence is the one thing we can reach a conclusion on.

Evidence can and does mislead us as often as it enlightens us. Evidence is not a magic elixir for discerning truth. Nothing is. Which is why skepticism is always called for. Even when the evidence appears overwhelming.

I hope you are not suggesting that there are no degrees of skepticism. If so then we would never be able to decide anything because the possibility of being wrong would be the same in all cases. I'm OK with some degree of uncertainty about everything, but let's not take it too far. The likelihood of unicorns existing is very different from the likelihood of dogs existing.

Not only biased, but quite wrong. You are assuming that to "exist" must mean only what you are choosing it to mean. Unicorns exist as ideas, images, and objects; many millions of them, in fact. Turns out that in this instance, "existence" includes far more than you were aware of. As it true for us all.

Ideas and images of unicorns exist as just that, ideas and images, both of which exist. An actual living breathing unicorn, or even a fossil of one, is another matter.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. It's possible to know one thing about something and not another. Let's say we observe a square impression in the ground and we conclude that something made that impression. We know a little about its shape (square) but nothing at all about (say) what color it is. Now if there is no impression in the ground, we can conclude, not with absolute certainty but enough to go on. that nothing was there. We can't deduce any properties of that "nothing", but its existence is the one thing we can reach a conclusion on.

The only way for a lack of data to imply a lack of "possibility X" is if there is a logical, reasonable expectation of our finding identifiable data in both a specific area and of a specific kind if "possibility X" exists. What specific data are you expecting to find, and where, for the possibility of "life after death", that you are not finding? And how do you logically justify that expectation?

I hope you are not suggesting that there are no degrees of skepticism. If so then we would never be able to decide anything because the possibility of being wrong would be the same in all cases. I'm OK with some degree of uncertainty about everything, but let's not take it too far. The likelihood of unicorns existing is very different from the likelihood of dogs existing.

My argument is with "belief" because belief is the willful dismissal of skepticism. To say "I believe "X" is possible/impossible is to say "I am dismissing my skepticism in regards to the possibility of "X", now, and I am assuming that I am right about "X". Belief is how we step past our skepticism and into surety when we have no logical or honest basis for doing so. .

Ideas and images of unicorns exist as just that, ideas and images, both of which exist. An actual living breathing unicorn, or even a fossil of one, is another matter.

Yes, existent unicorns exist, and non-existent unicorns do not. So the question "do unicorns exist" is an inadequate question that therefor gets a multitude of conflicting and contradicting answers. Yet a great many people will continue to ask it in this way, and then presume that the multiple contradictory of answers proves that "X" must not exist.

So as an example ... "does God exist?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Humbly,
Hermit

Existence of what?

 

[blü 2]

I have presented you with the evidence of logical reasoning in favor of skepticism. And yet because you are a "true believer" in your own illogical materialist position, you have ignored it. So I see no reason to waste any more time, here.

I haven't ignored anything.

I'm a materialist until there comes along a different idea better supported by examinable evidence than materialism is.

Since nothing you're suggesting falls into that latter category, I've simply declined to give weight to your unevidenced imaginings.

But you enjoy them as ideas, so I wish you well of them.

Oh, and I notice you said to @Alien826 ─

The only way for a lack of data to imply a lack of "possibility X" is if there is a logical, reasonable expectation of our finding identifiable data in both a specific area and of a specific kind if "possibility X" exists. What specific data are you expecting to find, and where, for the possibility of "life after death", that you are not finding? And how do you logically justify that expectation?​

What a lack of data can do is make the likelihood of "possibility X" so small that it's completely logical to proceed on the basis that it can be entirely ignored ─ just as you don't check your coffee cup for little interstellar travelers before pouring the coffee.

 

[Alien826]

The only way for a lack of data to imply a lack of "possibility X" is if there is a logical, reasonable expectation of our finding identifiable data in both a specific area and of a specific kind if "possibility X" exists. What specific data are you expecting to find, and where, for the possibility of "life after death", that you are not finding? And how do you logically justify that expectation?

That's the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" isn't it? It may not be a proof that something doesn't exist, but when we have no evidence to support the existence of something, don't we act as if it doesn't exist until some such evidence appears? There's good reason for that, because otherwise we would be chasing moonbeams all the time.

What specific data? That's difficult, no knowing what I'm looking for. First we need a definition then some way to look for it. My own investigations have shown that people like mediums are honest and well meaning generally, but deluded (no offense intended, I could be wrong).

My argument is with "belief" because belief is the willful dismissal of skepticism. To say "I believe "X" is possible/impossible is to say "I am dismissing my skepticism in regards to the possibility of "X", now, and I am assuming that I am right about "X". Belief is how we step past our skepticism and into surety when we have no logical or honest basis for doing so. .

Agreed, but I don't do that. Would "I think the most likely thing is ..." be better?

Yes, existent unicorns exist, and non-existent unicorns do not. So the question "do unicorns exist" is an inadequate question that therefor gets a multitude of conflicting and contradicting answers. Yet a great many people will continue to ask it in this way, and then presume that the multiple contradictory of answers proves that "X" must not exist.

So as an example ... "does God exist?"

In both cases, what is lacking is a more detailed description. How about "horse like creatures with a single horn in the middle of their heads" for unicorns? Or a god as described by a particular religion, or sub-sect of one?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

It also depends on which God is the Most High God. There is only one Most High. Genesis 14:18 is only one instance of speaking of this "Most High God." "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God." (There can't be more than one "Most High.") So i depends on which god a person is considering.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

That's why they call it a resurrection, why we have a word and concept for something that doesn't happen as things should happen.

 

[idea]

Yes we are humans and consist of a body and spirit. The spirit is joined to the body and experiences the world through the body.
If the body is broken the spirit is not automatically able to experience the world as if the body is not broken.

If the body is broken, the spirit is unable to experience -

No sight, no smell, no sound, no touch, no taste - no life - no experience - no existence

 

[blü 2]

That's why they call it a resurrection, why we have a word and concept for something that doesn't happen as things should happen.

The problem is that if X can be resurrected when apparently dead, then X's "death" is reversible hence does not fit the definition of "death" which is irreversible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem is that if X can be resurrected when apparently dead, then X's "death" is reversible hence does not fit the definition of "death" which is irreversible.

resurrection

rĕz″ə-rĕk′shən

noun​

1. The act of restoring a dead person, for example, to life.
2. The condition of having been restored to life.

Notice the definition of resurrection does depend upon death.
death

dĕth

noun​

1. The act of dying; termination of life.
2. The state of being dead.

There is no issue or problem here.

 

[Ella S.]

I would make the important qualification that life after death is nomologically impossible, for reasons 1 (Biological Perspective), 2 (Neurological Evidence), and 8 (Mind-Body Relationship). Nomological impossibility is the weakest kind of impossibility because it only holds so long as our understanding of the laws of nature hold to be true. While it is highly, highly unlikely that the laws of nature might be so different from our current understanding that an afterlife exists, it is still logically possible that we might completely overturn everything we think we know about the universe.

That is not a correction, but a qualification. It is still perfectly valid to say that an afterlife is impossible. Logic dictates that I agree with you on that.

3 (conservation of energy) might be decent supporting evidence, when considered with the other points. However, this law applies only to closed systems. Afterlife beliefs normally posit that the natural universe itself is an open system which overlaps with the supernaturally transcendent or posit the existence of advanced technology that is, while implausible from our current understanding, often not technically impossible. So this can be a good point against specific concepts, but I think it falls short of general application.

4 (Lack of Empirical Evidence), 5 (Evolutionary Perspective), 6 (Occam's Razor), and 7 (Cultural Influences) all give strong reasons to doubt afterlife beliefs. This does not quite make life after death impossible, though. These are maybe not relevant to your main thesis here and their inclusion might weaken your overall argument.

I think you could have cut those out and filled that space with an elaboration on arguments which elaborate upon and substantiate points 1, 2, and 8. While I agree with the claims you make within these points, and I furthermore agree that they demand we conclude that an afterlife is impossible, I think it is worth noting that many people here have not done the same legwork on these topics. It is easier to have a productive debate over a particular argument rather than over a particular claim or conclusion, so it might be useful if you elaborated upon why you came to the conclusions that you have in the OP.

I think many of these claims might be better suited to separate threads devoted to your strongest arguments for each one. For instance, the claim "near-death experiences are explained by the brain's response to trauma or lack of oxygen, rather than evidence of an afterlife" could use citations and would probably work best as a separate thread from "[near-death] experiences can often be replicated through stimulation of certain brain regions" which would require its own separate evidence and argument.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

I think, if I believed in an afterlife, I would embrace experiences more. I would be more willing to take risks and to put myself out there with the knowledge that everything is going to work out in the end.

Instead, I spend quite a bit of my time stressing over how little of it I have left. It is not very Stoic of me, admittedly. I should be content to live every day as if it were my last. I am concerned about not being able to do enough for the world as a whole while I am alive. At least in many afterlife accounts, I could become a saint or a Bodhisattva or a minor god and continue helping people from a blissful plane of existence.

It would probably make all of the death and cruelty I've seen, which I am powerless to do anything about myself, easier to stomach, too, knowing that the victims and perpetrators would be able to find some kind of ultimate justice.

I could see the practical benefit that afterlife beliefs could have on one's lifetime happiness. Honestly, I wish there was an afterlife and that I knew about it enough to confidently believe in it. I don't fear oblivion, but I recognize the limits it places on my life by comparison.

 

[blü 2]

resurrection

rĕz″ə-rĕk′shən

noun​

1. The act of restoring a dead person, for example, to life.
2. The condition of having been restored to life.

Notice the definition of resurrection does depend upon death.
death

dĕth

noun​

1. The act of dying; termination of life.
2. The state of being dead.

There is no issue or problem here.

As for the definition of "death", which is implicit in the verb "to die", if your condition is "absence of vital signs" but you can be resuscitated, then you're not in fact dead. You're not dead till your condition is irreversible.

So I'd say a resurrection is a whole nother thing from a resuscitation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am concerned about not being able to do enough for the world as a whole while I am alive. At least in many afterlife accounts, I could become a saint or a Bodhisattva or a minor god and continue helping people from a blissful plane of existence.

I draw a distinction between afterlife and rebirth. Afterlife, to me, is a life after this one in a different realm where one is rewarded or punished for their actions in this current life; a one shot at a new life in either paradise or torment. Rebirth, on the other hand, is a natural cycle that is connected to karma in samsara where one is bound until their karmic account is resolved.

There is nothing in my views that conflicts with one's desire to be reborn as a bodhisattva or jivanmukta. Based on your aspirations, it's plausible that this could be your dharma.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'll find life after death credible as an aspect of reality when there's hard evidence of it.

There is actually hard evidence.

Your own birth.

You were not alive prior.

 

[PureX]

That's the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" isn't it? It may not be a proof that something doesn't exist, but when we have no evidence to support the existence of something, don't we act as if it doesn't exist until some such evidence appears? There's good reason for that, because otherwise we would be chasing moonbeams all the time.

This is, of course, quite wrong. As we humans very often "act as if" when we have no proof that doing so will result in the desired outcome. And in fact, it is a reasonable and logical course of action to choose when the necessary evidence is not available for us to presume to know the outcome in advance. Wouldn't you say that scientific experimentation based on an unproven theory is "acting as if"? Or engaging in a specific course of behavioral changes the hope that it will benefit us in some as yet only "dreamed of" way?

What specific data? That's difficult, no knowing what I'm looking for. First we need a definition then some way to look for it. My own investigations have shown that people like mediums are honest and well meaning generally, but deluded (no offense intended, I could be wrong).

But that's my whole point. We don't have that specific definition, because the possibility itself is unknown. Does "God" exist"? What is "God"? Exist how? How would we even know? If "God" were hovering in the air right in front of me, now, in a "blaze of glory" (whatever that entails) how could I verify that it is God? As opposed to some clever magician's trick, or the advanced technology of some visiting space alien, or even an illusion within my own mind?

Because we don't know what God is, we can't know how to test that question. And of we cannot test the question, we cannot answer it IN ANY WAY except by our own preferred bias.

The same goes for a lot of these kinds of imagined possibilities. We know that body dies, and the physical brain stops functioning. But we don;t know exactly what a human being IS. We do witness that we are more than just the physical body and brain. We are also a metaphysical being that exists in not only our own minds (apart from the brain) but in the minds of everyone that "knows of" us. So already, we exist after we die, in that sense. And because we do not know the limitations of physics, and especially of metaphysics, we imagine the possibility of our continuing to exist in ways that we simply do not currently know. And it's not an unreasonable probability.

Agreed, but I don't do that. Would "I think the most likely thing is ..." be better?

There is no logical reason for you to be assessing probability to a possibility that you have no way of knowing the nature or existence of. This is what you continue to deny/ignore, here. Yes, the realm of possibilities that we do not know to be possible is endless. But most of those simply do not matter to us (flying pink elephants in a solar system far away) so we have no reason to consider them. But our continued existence after death does matter to most of us, and therefor does earn our consideration. And more then that, because it cannot be verified nor dismissed, logically, we can choose to accept or reject based on the effect of our doing so on our current experience of existence. Which is why a lot of people do choose to accept the possibility as being valid. And they are not being foolish or illogical in doing so as long as they don't presume to KNOW it to be so.

In both cases, what is lacking is a more detailed description. How about "horse like creatures with a single horn in the middle of their heads" for unicorns? Or a god as described by a particular religion, or sub-sect of one?

What is lacking is the human capability of understanding the fullness of "existence", and thereby it's possibilities and limitations. What is lacking is omniscience. And that we are never going to have. So we need to learn how to live honestly and effective with our ignorance. And not just blindly presume to know things that wasn't and will never know.

 

[blü 2]

There is actually hard evidence.

Your own birth.

You were not alive prior.

I was conceived in the usual human way. I agree that there was no entity "I" until then. I was the result of the spontaneous evolution of the self-replicating cell say 3.5 bn years ago or more. As I speak, all my direct ancestors are dead. On the positive side, my grandchildren are alive and kicking.

My birth is not an example of my life after my death, for the simple reason I've never undergone my death. (I will, but I'm in no hurry.) So I regret I have no idea of the point you're trying to make.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was conceived in the usual human way. I agree that there was no entity "I" until then. I was the result of the spontaneous evolution of the self-replicating cell say 3.5 bn years ago or more. As I speak, all my direct ancestors are dead. On the positive side, my grandchildren are alive and kicking.

My birth is not an example of my life after my death, for the simple reason I've never undergone my death. (I will, but I'm in no hurry.) So I regret I have no idea of the point you're trying to make.

I was just pointing out the ability of nature to produce living matter, of which the possibility of recurring lives is established as a solid 1 in ?.

Effectively negating any impossibility for life itself to erupt in the same way as it did with our own births producing yet another "I" that can be experienced at some point along an infinite timeline, and infinitely repeats whenever conditions and circumstances allow.

 

[Alien826]

This is, of course, quite wrong. As we humans very often "act as if" when we have no proof that doing so will result in the desired outcome. And in fact, it is a reasonable and logical course of action to choose when the necessary evidence is not available for us to presume to know the outcome in advance. Wouldn't you say that scientific experimentation based on an unproven theory is "acting as if"? Or engaging in a specific course of behavioral changes the hope that it will benefit us in some as yet only "dreamed of" way?

I've been trying to understand your point of view, and I think I sort of get it.

What you might be overlooking, is the principle that can be summed up by noting that things tend to go on as they have before. In the physical world an action, if accurately repeated tends to give the same result. An object in motion continues to move unless acted on by some external force. Just two examples but I hope sufficient to make the point. Even when exceptions are known, we apply this to our everyday lives. We know that car brakes sometimes fail, but we still press the bake pedal when we want to slow down, relying on our experience that it works most of the time.

OK, now let's apply this to survival after death. We observe that physical death is final in all cases that we observe. It's not so easy to observe the lack of spirits, and there is evidence presented that if verified would support survival, but one would think that with all the people desperately hoping that their deceased relatives have survived, lots of testable evidence would have arisen. (To me this is the worst example, because I do think there is enough evidence of a subjective nature to allow a reasonable possibility).

I won't go on in detail, because I'm just after a general approach. My point is that previous experience (or the lack thereof) is a perfectly reasonable way to predict future events. Why? Because it works most of the time, and that's about all we can hope for in a very complicated world. I'll agree that built into this should be a readiness to consider contradictory evidence, which covers your demand for an open mind, I think.

I really don't see how we don't agree on this. Most of what you say is what I am saying, then you veer off to claim something different.

I'll just wait for you to tell me I'm wrong again, then move on.