(July 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm)padraic Wrote: Argument from incredulity, an ad hominem and incorrect. All we can say with any certainty is that so far there is no evidence for survival after death.There is no positive evidence.Absence of evidence implies (suggests) not,but does not allow an inference (conclusion)
But there is not 'absence of evidence'. We have EVIDENCE for what happens when you die. This 'positive/negative evidence' is just bullshit. Evidence is evidence. Scientifically I can tell you that when you die your brain stops and you rot. That is true is it not? The fact that the evidence scientists have goes in direct contradiction of the argument for 'life after death', I can say with certainty that life after death is not possible (with the current knowledge we have which is what I said). So I don't see how my statement was incorrect in the slightest.
I reject the notion that you must be 'open minded about bullshit' when it goes in direct contradiction to current scientific knowledge.
If scientists turned round and tested and found that we DO have some sort of 'life force' then sure, I'd buy it. But when scientifically speaking, that is not compatible with current understandings of death, I will say with certainty that there is no afterlife. Or at the very least if there is 'an afterlife', it wouldn't be compatible with the current understandings of the word 'life' at all.
