Philosophy The possibility of an afterlife

[Blobbenstein]

You're free to believe what you want

and you too, feel free to believe whatever you want.

People can't force themselves to believe stuff. It is good that people just arrive at their own conclusions.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Why is there no reason to be sure that everything can be measured scientifically?

It is just an assumption.

Take the idea of ghosts for example. If they are intelligent, and they don't want to be studied by scientists, how could you study them, and measure their properties? If all a ghost has to do is float off at the approach of a scientist and his equipment, how can the ghost be studied?

 

[Envy]

It is just an assumption.

Take the idea of ghosts for example. If they are intelligent, and they don't want to be studied by scientists, how could you study them, and measure their properties? If all a ghost has to do is float off at the approach of a scientist and his equipment, how can the ghost be studied?

In which it can be said that they don't exist.

and you too, feel free to believe whatever you want.

People can't force themselves to believe stuff. It is good that people just arrive at their own conclusions.

I'd be hard pressed to say that I "believe" in gravity.

Some things "are" as opposed to "being perceived".

 

[KLS52]

 

[Blobbenstein]

In which it can be said that they don't exist.

well, can you really say they don't exist just because, if they existed, they might choose not to be studied?

 

[Second Summer]

As of now, there is no scientific evidence for an afterlife, a soul, or anything of that sort.

What would be acceptable evidence for something immaterial?

According to scientific principles, there is an order to the Universe, and everything, with enough time and experimentation, can be uncovered, or at least rationalized.

It was my understanding that at least on the quantum level, the current thinking is that the universe is indeterministic / probabilistic. I'm not sure that is exactly what I would call order.

 

[Envy]

well, can you really say they don't exist just because, if they existed, they might choose not to be studied?

Obviously.

Unless something that makes their existence probable can be found.

 

[Dedalus]

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.

- joseph Campbell

 

[Blobbenstein]

not like he cold be real or anything..

 

[SummerRain]

Mod post: As requested, discussion on personal matters has been moved to The sad news for and about members thread.

 

[Tom L.]

I want there to be an afterlife, but I'm not sure there's evidence that there is such a thing.

Some things that make the death of our animal companions harder to deal with than it would be otherwise: their deaths (hell, their lives too, usually!) are trivialized by most people- and by the natural world too, in the sense that it does not appear to function for the wellbeing of sentient individuals much of the time. The idea that an animal might have an immortal soul is often dismissed as a quaint, harmless but silly idea.

 

[das_nut]

I wish there was an afterlife, but I don't think there is.

 

[Clueless Git]

I sometimes look at animals, like the squirrel, and think about its afterlife. Like will it jump around trees for eternity looking for nuts?

I'm not sure. If it is happy doing that, I suppose it might.

There are no trees in squirrel heaven, just a giant nut bowl.

 

[Clueless Git]

I wish there was an afterlife, but I don't think there is.

I expect there to be life after my death.

Not my life though.

 

[FortyTwo]

What would be acceptable evidence for something immaterial?

If something is truly immaterial and undetectable then there would be no evidence for it. Thus, we treat it as if it did not exist, instead of assuming that it does. This is similar, to me at least, to how we scientifically discount any potential pre-Universe conditions, because it is impossible to observe them or consider them in any way we comprehend and they do not affect how the Universe works now.

It was my understanding that at least on the quantum level, the current thinking is that the universe is indeterministic / probabilistic. I'm not sure that is exactly what I would call order.

Yeah, this is definitely true, but you also have to remember that we simply call it disorder because our instruments have no way of detecting things accurately on that level and at those speeds. There may very well be an order at that level, as the natural laws that govern every other part of the Universe indicate - except we are simply not equipped to comprehend it, and thus use mathematics to form a sort of patchwork of partial theories that can output the most accurate answer that is possible for us, even if it's only a half-answer, as the Uncertainty Principle dictates.