OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Tigbit]

I seem to have missed the point of making this post.

Most people who support science look for "proof". But there is no such thing in science. No other point was intended, nor was the intent to imply that someone here thinks this way.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your assumption: there is a soul.

Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post). But, matter is energy, and energy is matter. All waves of energy have particle-like properties, such as a mass equivalent property, though it is normally infintesimal. All particles of matter have wave-like properties, though those are normally infintesimal (except for very, very fast moving particles, such as electrons, which are particles, but act more like waves than particles). Thoughts are energy on a quantum level, which exist because of the properties of the neural cells in the brain (which are mass). So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value. Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.

There have been cases where humans were weighed as they died; it was found that weight was lost at the instant of death. Does this constitute proof that the soul exists? No - but it does qualify as supporting evidence. The existance of the soul is not an unreasonable assumption; it is impossible to disprove at the present time, and there is some supporting evidence for it.

[Tigbit]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigbit:
concrete evidence is evidence that can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not concrete. Thus mathematical evidence is concrete evidence because it can be tested.

Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?

---

Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?

There is none.

---

Well, that kinda ends the discussion right there, doesn't it?

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Tigbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?

Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.

---

What he said.

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?

There is none.

---

Well, that kinda ends the discussion right there, doesn't it?

---

Maybe.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
There have been cases where humans were weighed as they died; it was found that weight was lost at the instant of death. Does this constitute proof that the soul exists? No - but it does qualify as supporting evidence. The existance of the soul is not an unreasonable assumption; it is impossible to disprove at the present time, and there is some supporting evidence for it.

Assuming that is accurate (which it probably isn't), that is more wishful thinking than actual evidence of a soul. There are many possible explanations for it.

[ August 18, 2003, 03:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[General Woundwort]

[quote]Originally posted by Tigbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?

Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.

---

Such a standard is pretty much a death knell to history as a serious field of study. The standards of scientific experimentation are fine in their intended place (study of physical/energy processes), but when applied to the rest of life (which is *not* a "controlled environment") you end up with very little. That's why positivism died out as a viable philosophy.

[Fyron]

Umm... you asked if historical evidence or eyewitness testimony were valid scientific evidence. They are not. They might (depending on the evidence itself) be valid for historical purposes, but not for scientific ones.