Is there any evidence we dont live on in some way after death

[Darwinian]

You're on the wrong forum/website!

[Faith No More]

Secondly, this argument about "well I cant prove a unicorn doesn't exist blah blah blah." It has no relation to a life after death issue. There is no reason to believe in unicorns, because we have not found a fossil. We might one day, and then we will know that some horse in the past had a horn. This is quite possible.

Actually they are very much related. Just like we have never found a unicorn fossil, we have never found any concrete evidence of an afterlife, therefore there is no reason to believe in it. Until evidence is found for either, there is no reason to believe they exist.

But the fact that there is a force or an energy, or something that animates a being, this is real, and we dont know how to measure it. We dont know why life suddenly leaves a body. There is a missing piece of the puzzle here.

We know life leaves the body when the machinery (the body) fails. Death is the cessation of the functions of the body.

If a body has no such force, then why cant we make a living being and give it life. The closest we have, our robots, need a power supply. They need an external energy source to make it go. So do we. So the question is, what is that energy source, and where does it go when we die?

Just like a robot, the human body needs energy to function. Why are you so inclined to believe that the energy needed for a human is any different? In fact, we know that the body functions using electrical impulses, just as a robot would. A dead human is merely a machine that is beyond repair and ceases to output.

[The Grand Nudger]

You appear to be confusing some sort of mystical concept with scientific observations. Let's see if we could perhaps devise some tests of your theory.

1: We could show the stage at which this force begins in human beings. Difficult, since everything you are is already "alive" before it even becomes "you", but hey if it were easy you'd be here presenting actual evidence right?

2: We could show evidence for the requirements of a soul and afterlife...sight without eyes, sound without ears, thought without brain function. There are plenty of cadavers around, we could just start asking them questions about the afterlife no?

3: Well maybe we're asking too much of cadavers, perhaps we should ask toddlers questions about their pre-lives (if you'll let the children have pre-lives to go with their after-lives of course....and remember, it's for the children), Obviously, their stories will differ wildly, imaginative lot, but if we canvass enough, and similarities between narratives with no explanation in cultural pressure would definitely give us something to work with.

4: We could disprove a few laws of thermodynamics, turn biology on its head, and then, from sciences weakened position we could assert ours as an alternative....of course we'd still only had proof that science was wrong, not so much that the afterlife exists.

Go forth and discover!

[Welsh cake]

Secondly, this argument about "well I cant prove a unicorn doesn't exist blah blah blah." It has no relation to a life after death issue. There is no reason to believe in unicorns, because we have not found a fossil. We might one day, and then we will know that some horse in the past had a horn. This is quite possible.

As far as I know and believe there is only the here and the now; I was not alive nor did I have any perception before I came into existence as a living being, and further more I will not be alive or self aware after I'm dead and all biological processes have terminated.

Is that enough of a direct answer for you?

But the fact that there is a force or an energy, or something that animates a being, this is real, and we dont know how to measure it. We dont know why life suddenly leaves a body. There is a missing piece of the puzzle here.

1. The word you're looking for is Metabolism.
2. Once you've read up on metabolism you'll have an appreciation we can measure the amount of daily energy expended by us by applying the study of Basal metabolic rate.
3. Death is understood. It is the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism, your consciousness being one of said functions. Look it up.
4. Proper understanding of points 1 to 3 mean there is no metaphorical puzzle, retrospectively speaking, it was a lack of knowledge or lack of desire for knowledge that was the problem.

[The Grand Nudger]

Incoming

[Napoléon]

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.

[Epimethean]

Chiming in with what Cake said regarding metabolism in answer to your, "gee, why can't we make a human live again after it dies:" Unlike a broken escalator or towmotor, as soon as metabolic activity ceases, breakdown of tissue accelerates at a rapid rate, many systems failing concomitantly and catastrophically one after another as the brain stops functioning and begins to degenerate. It isn't just a matter of repairing a pneumatic line and filling the machine back up-but this is zero evidence for your pet theory of life after death. It has no bearing on such.

[Spectrum]

This is simple. Afterlife only works when you believe in the correct afterlife, especially in Christianity and Islam. Otherwise, you enter hell of some sort -- that is the only part we fear. The fact is that hell and such things are merely scare tactics. How the fuck could anyone understand supernatural regions of afterlife, without the specific faiths that speak of afterlife? Afterlife is just another method of control by religion, or it is a coping mechanism. Anyhow, death does not care about the living, and the living should not care about death. Afterlife is a paradox.

[Anomalocaris]

No nerve has been hit, other than there are quite a few posters on here that think they are superior or extra intelligent. As I mentioned, anyone on here that isn't at the level of Tesla, Kaku, etc. etc., you are not that smart. Let me ask you guys this: Are the views that you are fighting for in this thread your own, or are you just regurgitating what you have heard?

We are that smart compare to you, boy, and don't presume that from the unfathamable abyss of your wish-thinking ignorance, you could possibly look up far enough to disceren which of us might be even further out of your league than the rest.

[xonage]

No nerve has been hit, other than there are quite a few posters on here that think they are superior or extra intelligent. As I mentioned, anyone on here that isn't at the level of Tesla, Kaku, etc. etc., you are not that smart. Let me ask you guys this: Are the views that you are fighting for in this thread your own, or are you just regurgitating what you have heard?

We are that smart compare to you, boy, and don't presume that from the unfathamable abyss of your wish-thinking ignorance, you could possibly look up far enough to disceren which of us might be even further out of your league than the rest.

Depends how you define smart upChuck. If by smart you mean regurgitating other peoples ideas that you have memorized, then perhaps you are smarter than me. But as I asked before, who hear has any original ideas that command respect. Further more, what if a brilliant scientist was opened t the idea of an after life, would that make him stupid chucky. I think a lot of you guys here have tunnel vision awareness. Maybe in your limited field of perception you know a lot.....hmmm. A few posts have been impressive and I respect those.

The funny thing here is I am not convinced of a life after death. I have no idea. You guys are fighting tooth and nail, and I am not even disagreeing with your view point. But sorry, for me, observing a dead body doesn't quite prove it for me. There is too much we dont understand. Obviously no one in this forum is on the cutting edge of discovering anything. Most forums are for people with little or no social life, who play on the computer too much, and barf out the little tidbits of knowledge they suck up from actual smart people. I dont see this place as much of an exception.