OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Fyron]

Photons have no rest mass, but they have relativistic mass. Hence, mass-like property.

I will continue to do my day job testing submarine reactors for the US navy at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I have been doing nuclear engineering for over 13 years and I am very comfortable with my knowledge of physics.

That means absolutely nothing in any sort of discussion.

[tesco samoa]

ot--- my great uncle discovered their opposite

[ August 20, 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by Slick:
So those who believe in souls do so acknowledging that there is no concrete proof.

Ok, but I'm putting you on notice that I intend to hold you to this statement.

I mean no offense to you in particular. After all, I know you mainly from your great work in keeping the FAQ here updated. But from my personal experience, theists tend to use the faith line when things get tough, but forget about it when it comes to disseminating their beliefs. This is what Carl Sagan called wanting to enjoy the Cachet of scientific respectability without being willing to pay its costs.

Again, to make things perfectly clear: I have no objections whatsoever if anyone says something to the effect that he believes souls exist because it's a personal, religious thing. I do object if anyone says that he believes souls exist and tries to convince others that souls exist due to some logical / scientific argument without properly spelling out that argument or properly defining "soul" in an unambiguous way.

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the claim for the soul is for a 'substance' of some sort. Information cannot be 'immortal' after all. When the media it resides in is destroyed it goes poof.

Not as obvious as you might think. The idea of the soul being immortal is a relatively late conception. Among most ancient cultures, most notably the Greeks/Romans with Hades, and the Hebrews (grandaddy of christianity, a.k.a. the basis of modern western culture) with their Sheol, the afterlife was a place where souls gradually faded away until they forgot themselves and discorporated. The only thing that would maintain the identity of a dead soul was the devotion of the still living family. This is also the basis of most forms of ancestor worship.

This would imply that souls are stored within (or at least sustained by) the medium of human social memory.

[dogscoff]

This would imply that souls are stored within (or at least sustained by) the medium of human social memory.

If that's what a soul is- a meme- then I don't think any of us (even Fyron) would want to argue against its existence.

Of course it sounds to me (like most of religion does) like a nice, cozy little metaphor that people have taken too literally.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by deccan:
I mean no offense to you in particular. After all, I know you mainly from your great work in keeping the FAQ here updated. But from my personal experience, theists tend to use the faith line when things get tough, but forget about it when it comes to disseminating their beliefs. This is what Carl Sagan called wanting to enjoy the Cachet of scientific respectability without being willing to pay its costs.

What do you mean by that statement? It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically. It is quite another to say "Why is [fill in the blank] happening in my life? And what does God have to do with it, if anything?" The actions of persons, at times, (and if theists are correct, God is a person) is not quantifiable by scientific means.

Again, to make things perfectly clear: I have no objections whatsoever if anyone says something to the effect that he believes souls exist because it's a personal, religious thing. I do object if anyone says that he believes souls exist and tries to convince others that souls exist due to some logical / scientific argument without properly spelling out that argument or properly defining "soul" in an unambiguous way.

May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent? I ask this because the way you keep coming back to "unambiguous" categories. Lots of things, even in scientific discourse, are "ambiguous". What, for example, *is* 'time'?

[dogscoff]

It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically.

I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).