Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

[Fake Messiah]

There are no arguments to avoid,

Oh, now there are no arguments. Are you blind?

only credentials that are irrelevant to the subject matter. This is called "alluring the public" by one of my professors.

If he's so incompetent then his arguments would be easy to refute, and yet you are avoiding them because you obviously can't refute them, but you rather divert the conversation by using Genetic fallacy - and this is why fallacies exist: ad hominem, well poisoning, genetic fallacy, etc. all used to divert the topic.

[Apollo]

Physics, biology, and chemistry are interrelated disciplines—quantum physics phenomenon like quantum tunneling and entanglement are often used in explaining various characteristics of biological systems including birds brain gps navigation skills, animal olfactory sense, transforming changes in some frogs from tadpole to frog, photosynthesis etc.

Laws of thermodynamics explain the very basis of life phenomenon in terms of energy, oxidative phosphorylation which is what life is at its very basic level involving electrons and proton gradients to produce energy using oxygen.

Fluid dynamics will tell you about blood and other fluids related behavior—effects of gravity on growth, bone density etc.

The list goes on. Underneath everything some law of physics is at play.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If he's so incompetent then his arguments would be easy to refute, and yet you are avoiding them because you obviously can't refute them, but you rather divert the conversation by using Genetic fallacy - and this is why fallacies exist: ad hominem, well poisoning, genetic fallacy, etc. all used to divert the topic.

He's simply speaking way too authoritative and certain for a scientists in any field. Anyone who has opened the first book on consciousness is aware of the sheer number of theories and possibilities that exist. He's not only claiming he knows which one of them is right, but knows how an event like death affects it.

The same applies to definitions of life—there are several and each has blurry boundaries. Death and life are not so far apart that we can say with any certainty that dead things can never be alive again.

[Abaddon_ire]

If he's so incompetent then his arguments would be easy to refute, and yet you are avoiding them because you obviously can't refute them, but you rather divert the conversation by using Genetic fallacy - and this is why fallacies exist: ad hominem, well poisoning, genetic fallacy, etc. all used to divert the topic.

He's simply speaking way too authoritative and certain for a scientists in any field. Anyone who has opened the first book on consciousness is aware of the sheer number of theories and possibilities that exist. He's not only claiming he knows which one of them is right, but knows how an event like death affects it.

The same applies to definitions of life—there are several and each has blurry boundaries. Death and life are not so far apart that we can say with any certainty that dead things can never be alive again.

OK, provide a list of dead people that came back to life in any verifiable way. 

Bet you can't.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You don't have a list of people who have been to Mars, and yet presumably one day you will.

[Nay_Sayer]

You don't have a list of people who have been to Mars, and yet presumably one day you will.

Actually, I do.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The list goes on. Underneath everything some law of physics is at play.

I agree; but at each level of the hierarchy scientists are responsible for more information about the things that precede it, than the previous step in the ladder. In an introductory class to perception we had to begin with the physics of light and lenses, the chemistry inside photoreceptors, the neuroscience of the brain and retina, until we were finally in a position to study the psychology of perception.

Physicists have no need to study biology, consciousness, and behavior to be physicists. I know from sitting in an interdisciplinary classroom with neuroscience students, that even neuroscientists themselves are less familiar with psychology than psychologists are with neuroscience. Likewise neuroscientists are more familiar with biology and chemistry than biologist and chemistry are with neuroscience and psychology. And the gap grows larger the further down you travel.

Sean Carroll is too far down the ladder.

[onlinebiker]

Of COURSE there is life after death.


Just not for the one who croaks....


But everybody else is fine.....

[brewer]

Can you/the religious give a definition of afterlife and provide evidence of existence, ........evidence that most of us will accept?

My denomination doesn't believe in an afterlife—at least not in any stereotypical sense. They believe resurrections are possible, in a physical souless sense. Resurrections seems to be an issue of difficulty not of possibility; I don't know of any falsifying evidence to the contrary.

I can't speak on behalf of other religions. But I do know the psychologist Donald Hoffman and the philosopher Thomas Nagel do offer alternatives to reality in which consciousness (or something like it) comes first and the physical universe second. Hoffman has an interview with Sam and Anaka Harris in which they discuss the implications of death within such a framework. The speculation was very "afterlife-like" minus the continuation of the self.

Alternatives to reality perception is not afterlife. 

Conscious first requires life.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Conscious first requires life.

That's a claim you cannot currently defend; and which many theories of consciousness reject. For example: The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness.