Would you prefer an afterlife, nothingness, or reincarnation after death?

Let's think about the concept of an afterlife scientifically though. Where is it? Why can't we find it? Is the afterlife a parallel universe? A dimension we can't detect? Inside a white hole?

If there is a such thing as a soul, we should be able to quantify and classify it scientifically. If a soul is real, then it must have mass -- or at least energy. Why can't we detect it?

If heaven/hell is real, I would like to think we could discover it someday. But yeah I have no idea how we could verify reincarnation.

 

Does science suppose that all things are detectable?

 

I have a suggestion. You sound like a "seeker," someone who is honestly open and willing to consider things. Here is what I would like you to do. In your mind ask "God" to reveal himself. Something like this: "God if you are real, if you are really there, make yourself known to me…give me a sign, send someone to me to reveal the truth…I am sincere and waiting for you to respond ." See what happens.

 

Nothing, you only live once, make the most out of it.

 

Here's a twist. If you regret things and live in the past, don't you live things over again and again?

Though YOLO is all about no regrets, thoughts of a road less traveled will always hit a person. How would you reconcile against that?

Elaborating more on this, the great insight to science is the ability to forcibly influence how we think and act through deconstruction and reconstruction of our thought processes.

Some people are Christians because of the concept of a universal God that acts through love. But the powerful underpinnings behind Christianity ,such as original sin (Adam choosing to eat the fruit of knowledge) or the continuance of sin despite the open door of choice to do better, tie into everything neuroscience is uncovering. Presumably the afterlife is the domain of the soul (loosely defined). A soul could mean the experiences one collects or an even more permanent abstraction (such as the existence of a soul before birth).

Society punishes criminals because they forcibly did something against the law. We offer leniency through the insanity defense because we understand there are some factors that cause people to do things against their choice and could be treated. But if there were technology to "mind wipe" or "mind reboot", then what does that really mean? If I were to wipe my entire life experiences, total amnesia, what becomes of my Christian afterlife if I were to be hit by a bus a short moment afterwards? Or apply this to downloading the life of a monk or criminal. What becomes of repentance and salvation? What becomes of the meaning of forgiveness by the victim when the criminal has been wiped of any knowledge or behavior of that crim?

So science has a lot to do with our present day philosophical questions since the Western mind is steeped with Judeo-Christian culture. It's a culture that affects our laws, morals, literature, entertainment, and even our scope of reason. A man's word is his bond. Even in a cynical culture, that's still worth something when we testify in a court. Except its proven that eye-witness testimony is flaky. Is it still perjury if I download a sliver of truth and overwrite my experienced truth?

Just apply this to the open concept of the afterlife and it gets really messy.

....Unless you totally eschew these questions and define another unprovable version of Truth.

 

Not necessarily science but logic and reason. Some folks makes claims under the premise that science was used to justify a conclusion but did not really abide by the rules of logic and reason (pseudo science). If something exists in the natural world.. then yes, it is detectable.

 

I frequently say that science and faith are two ways of looking at the universe but the means of one shouldn't be used to prove or disprove the other.

To answer your question if we consider anything possible then perhaps it could be possible to scientifically prove existence of a soul, afterlife or even God but I suspect a truly rigorous experiment would prove fruitless since such things don't work with the scientific method. They can't be falsifiable.

Issues like this are matter of faith which I believe is also an important part of understanding existence as through scientific empiricism.

 

This reads - and mind you I did keep an open mind - like more wistful ramblings over your personal ponderings of the afterlife.... Also, it seems to have misinterpreted my post... or, at least, it reads that way... because I don't see how any of this answers why at it's barest core... Removing the whole "well, it's been here for centuries, and carried a large influence that's permeated the history of man throughout most of his evolution, that it can't help but be considered".... why should science care about religious beliefs... when all they are... are beliefs based on blind faith over something never seen, touched, smelled, observed, let alone been able to be experimented with...? It's all a simple byproduct of the human mind... a psychological crutch to psychological fears... be it of death, or to a simple perceived lack of greater purpose... Science caring enough to include religious/philosophical beliefs in it's approach to the cosmos and mankind's part in it, is like science caring enough to include a rambling lunatics concepts and ideas on the cosmos and mankind's part in it.... They're both just as equally valid as they're both based on simple belief.... One believes there's a god, one believes varied colored aliens with incredible abilities created humanity in a test-tube... You can't prove one over the other, equally, you can't disapprove one over the others.... As neither has left behind any observable, treatable evidence, and both are based strictly on faith and belief....

 

Why...? Why do you feel it's an important part of understanding existence...?

 

I have a hard time reading this and forming a decent response.

 

What exactly is giving you trouble... Is it the structure of the post...? The wording...? The unsettling comparison it made.... or the absurdity of the premise it exposed...?

 

Sentence structure and diction...I get the jist of what you're saying...So I'm fine with disagreeing as it stands...?

 

I can understand having a difficult time with the structure of the post... but, diction...? Perhaps you took exception to some of the dismissive undertones of some of the phrasing on the subject of religion and why it even exists... however, that shouldn't have posed a problem as far as being able to understand the post...

If you wish leave it there, though... I have no problem with that...

 

I like paragraphs or sentences with line breaks.

I'm no English teacher but that post reads like a big mess some high schooler texted that I don't care to tease through.

 

Bro, our science knows so very very little. To discredit anything because we can't measure isn't very sensible imo.

 

paragraphs and line breaks have nothing to do with diction... that pertains to sentence structure... so, you're pretty much posting this in agreement to my previous post..?

 

But to assign credibility to concepts and ideas because we "believe" and have "faith" that it's true... is very sensible... yes...?

 

Uhm. People who believe in reincarnation aren't averse to living in the moment this lifetime, but they do operate within a certain set of boundaries. At the same time they don't treat their own life like a fly on the wall that can end any time. It's the limits and boundaries that separate a man with a moral compass from those who live recklessly and without empathy.

Of course the situation is more important = you can drink drive yolo or you can bungee jump yolo, but a g*d fearing person is doing the latter.

 

There are wise, wise men who can accurately recall what creature or human they were in a past life. Men too smart in all other fields of life to get one part of it so dreadfully wrong.

 

You are an organic problem solving machine. YOU, your consciousness is contained within it's labyrinth, the billions of the interconnected neurons.

When that system stops working and decays, how would YOU be you? If you want to say your energy has just changed states or you re-become stardust that's fine, romantic and true. But, it's not YOU because the system that is YOU no longer exists.

From the standpoint of an individual, the beginning of perception to the end of perception defines all time, the individual's eternity, the same way from the Big Bang to the Big Freeze defines all time for the universes' physical existence.

I've never understood why it's even a question. And yet most of all the people who have ever lived think differently.


A new survey shows that 51 percent of people in the world believe in God. Only 18 percent don’t and 17 percent are undecided.
More than 18,000 people participated in the London-based poll in 23 countries conducted by global research company, Ipsos Social Research Institute. The Ipsos/Reuters poll also found that 51 percent believe that there is an afterlife while 23 percent believe they will just "cease to exist." Around a quarter (26 percent) simply don’t know what will happen after death.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/global-poll-most-believe-in-god-afterlife-49994/