• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can Science Prove an Afterlife?

phattonez said:
False. Science can only deal with the material and tangible. If it is immaterial and intangible, then science can say nothing about it.
Click to expand...

You are aware that there are disciplines of science devoted entirely to behavioral patterns, right? And to the methodologies of our thoughts. Now, I wouldn't consider those completely intangible, since thoughts and behavior are certainly based on physical stimuli, but there is nothing that we have ever discovered that is more intangible than thoughts and emotions.

Now, if there were other "immaterial and intangible" things that we couldn't quantify with scientific study, then you'd have a point. So, give me three examples of immaterial and intangible things, that the scientific method tells us nothing about, that do not come from religious theology, and I'll concede the point. But if there is nothing besides your myths that science supposedly fails to address, then there is no corroborating evidence for your assertion, and no reason to presume that it is true. So, give us some evidence.
 
I think science will work on the concept of what time is and go from there. Science cannot study death as it would have to "exist". Science can study ashes of a tree and of a human but that does not study death. There must be first in all fields of study the ability to measure. If one cannot measure a point of some kind it cannot be studied. Besides, the afterlife is pointless. We must understand living things.
 
Paschendale said:
So, give me three examples of immaterial and intangible things, that the scientific method tells us nothing about, that do not come from religious theology, and I'll concede the point.
Click to expand...


Beauty? :shrug:
 
The only afterlife I believe in is influence that goes on. That's easily proven.
 
Jayhawker30 said:
Beauty? :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm sure that we are capable of using studies and observation to determine human standards of beauty, or what parts of our brain a "beautiful" sight/sound/experience are affecting. Most everyone thinks that a sunset is beautiful. I'm sure scientific study can even tell us why.

So, beauty seems rather quantifiable.
 
Such a simple question to answer!

Of course science can prove an afterlife!

The trickier part, is, can the scientists in a position to prove the existence of an afterlife publish their work so that the rest of us can read it?
 
Paschendale said:
You are aware that there are disciplines of science devoted entirely to behavioral patterns, right? And to the methodologies of our thoughts. Now, I wouldn't consider those completely intangible, since thoughts and behavior are certainly based on physical stimuli, but there is nothing that we have ever discovered that is more intangible than thoughts and emotions.

Now, if there were other "immaterial and intangible" things that we couldn't quantify with scientific study, then you'd have a point. So, give me three examples of immaterial and intangible things, that the scientific method tells us nothing about, that do not come from religious theology, and I'll concede the point. But if there is nothing besides your myths that science supposedly fails to address, then there is no corroborating evidence for your assertion, and no reason to presume that it is true. So, give us some evidence.
Click to expand...

Behaviors are measurable. This doesn't respond to my point.

Logically, through causation, the existence of God is unavoidable. If you want to deny causation, then you'll also have to deny science. Take your pick, either science and God or no science and no God.
 
Paschendale said:
I'm sure that we are capable of using studies and observation to determine human standards of beauty, or what parts of our brain a "beautiful" sight/sound/experience are affecting. Most everyone thinks that a sunset is beautiful. I'm sure scientific study can even tell us why.

So, beauty seems rather quantifiable.
Click to expand...

That's weak. You can't quantify beauty. Tell me how I can show that one sunset is 1.5 times more beautiful than another sunset.
 
Oftencold said:
Such a simple question to answer!

Of course science can prove an afterlife!

The trickier part, is, can the scientists in a position to prove the existence of an afterlife publish their work so that the rest of us can read it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I can prove its existence using plain English. Never have I failed to open an eye. Whether willing is the question.
 
phattonez said:
Logically, through causation, the existence of God is unavoidable. If you want to deny causation, then you'll also have to deny science. Take your pick, either science and God or no science and no God.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, work us through that logic. It's just an argument from first cause, isn't it? First you have to show that there was a first cause. Prior to this physical universe, there's no reason to suspect that there was cause and effect. You can't simply infer first cause because our universe operates on cause and effect.

phattonez said:
That's weak. You can't quantify beauty. Tell me how I can show that one sunset is 1.5 times more beautiful than another sunset.
Click to expand...

Sure, they just hook you up to an EEG and see which one lights up the pleasure centers of your brain more. Beauty is subjective aesthetic appreciation. It's not complicated. You still owe me three examples. Even if beauty counted, it's still only one.
 
Paschendale said:
Go ahead, work us through that logic. It's just an argument from first cause, isn't it? First you have to show that there was a first cause. Prior to this physical universe, there's no reason to suspect that there was cause and effect. You can't simply infer first cause because our universe operates on cause and effect.
Click to expand...

There is a first cause because without it there can be no subsequent causes. Nothing would exist.

Sure, they just hook you up to an EEG and see which one lights up the pleasure centers of your brain more. Beauty is subjective aesthetic appreciation. It's not complicated. You still owe me three examples. Even if beauty counted, it's still only one.
Click to expand...

No, I never conceded to your ridiculous game. Besides, you never gave me an example of something intangible that science could tackle.
 
phattonez said:
There is a first cause because without it there can be no subsequent causes. Nothing would exist.
Click to expand...

This is broken. A first cause, for the same reason you posit it in the first place, would require a cause in of itself, and a cause for that cause, ad infinitum. For nothing to cause that first cause, the first cause cannot exist.
 
phattonez said:
There is a first cause because without it there can be no subsequent causes. Nothing would exist.
Click to expand...

There are causes and effects in our physical universe, not necessarily outside it. However our universe came to be, there is no reason to assume that it needed a cause. You must first demonstrate that such a cause is necessary. That cause and effect is the way this universe operates has no bearing on how things work outside this universe. And cause to preempt other causes in this universe are a part of it, and thus caused by the universe itself.

No, I never conceded to your ridiculous game. Besides, you never gave me an example of something intangible that science could tackle.
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't. Except that you attempted to play it. And failed to win. And I have no such examples, because there is nothing at all that is "intangible" the way you use that word. There is nothing in this universe that is divorced from physical reality. Even human thoughts and emotions are physical phenomena. You cannot offer me three examples because there aren't any. There are, in fact, zero. All things are tangible.

All of these arguments were addressed by philosophers centuries ago. First cause was nonsense before any of us were born. Pascal's wager relied on extreme ethnocentrism when he uttered it. Arguments from beauty and emotion never held any water.

The first mistake of the OP is thinking of science as a thing, rather than a process. It is a process of thinking, and it's merely a formalized version of the normal method by which we address our everyday problems. It just accounts for things like personal bias and limited sample size. When you ask "can science do ____", what you're actually asking is if human thought is capable of reaching a conclusion about something. The answer is yes. It is always yes. The idea that science covers some things and religion covers other things is complete nonsense. Five rabbis sitting around arguing about scripture are employing the scientific method to do it (poorly, because they have no actual data or means to test it, but they're trying). That's how our minds work.

Science is the act of taking data and testing that data to reach conclusions. That's just how people learn and discover things. There's only one alternative to that and it's called making **** up.
 
Concepts are not physical things. Where are my thoughts? Where is mathematics.
 
Jayhawker30 said:
This is broken. A first cause, for the same reason you posit it in the first place, would require a cause in of itself, and a cause for that cause, ad infinitum. For nothing to cause that first cause, the first cause cannot exist.
Click to expand...

If a first cause does not exist then nothing can exist. That is the dilemma, hence the logical necessity of God.
 
Paschendale said:
There are causes and effects in our physical universe, not necessarily outside it. However our universe came to be, there is no reason to assume that it needed a cause. You must first demonstrate that such a cause is necessary. That cause and effect is the way this universe operates has no bearing on how things work outside this universe. And cause to preempt other causes in this universe are a part of it, and thus caused by the universe itself.
Click to expand...

Are you essentially trying to argue that causality works for science, but when you try to use it logically and go back to explain the origins of existence, that then it conveniently doesn't work? That's a cop-out.

Edward Feser said:
And the relevant metaphysics is the Aristotelian kind, which claims precisely to be doing nothing more than extending what we already take ourselves to know in common life. In particular, Aristotelian-Thomistic First Cause arguments attempt to show that the existence of a First Cause is a necessary precondition of there being anything like what common sense understands as “causation” in the first place. So, if for the Humean (or “New Humean”) our “common life” beliefs about causation (a) may well be correct, and (b) are legitimately held by us despite their rationally unjustifiable status, why may we not also accept the conclusion of such First Cause arguments? We are back once again to asking: If science is OK, why not natural theology?
Click to expand...

Edward Feser: Hume, science, and religion

Of course you didn't. Except that you attempted to play it. And failed to win. And I have no such examples, because there is nothing at all that is "intangible" the way you use that word. There is nothing in this universe that is divorced from physical reality. Even human thoughts and emotions are physical phenomena. You cannot offer me three examples because there aren't any. There are, in fact, zero. All things are tangible.

All of these arguments were addressed by philosophers centuries ago. First cause was nonsense before any of us were born. Pascal's wager relied on extreme ethnocentrism when he uttered it. Arguments from beauty and emotion never held any water.

The first mistake of the OP is thinking of science as a thing, rather than a process. It is a process of thinking, and it's merely a formalized version of the normal method by which we address our everyday problems. It just accounts for things like personal bias and limited sample size. When you ask "can science do ____", what you're actually asking is if human thought is capable of reaching a conclusion about something. The answer is yes. It is always yes. The idea that science covers some things and religion covers other things is complete nonsense. Five rabbis sitting around arguing about scripture are employing the scientific method to do it (poorly, because they have no actual data or means to test it, but they're trying). That's how our minds work.

Science is the act of taking data and testing that data to reach conclusions. That's just how people learn and discover things. There's only one alternative to that and it's called making **** up.
Click to expand...

And using the same principles of science, such as causation, leads us back to the necessity of a first cause. Science only works if causation is real, and if causation is real then you logically must accept a First Cause.
 
Manny said:
Concepts are not physical things. Where are my thoughts? Where is mathematics.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Concepts such as "triangularity" or "cat-ness" are intangible, but they are real. We can think about them.
 
phattonez said:
Are you essentially trying to argue that causality works for science, but when you try to use it logically and go back to explain the origins of existence, that then it conveniently doesn't work? That's a cop-out.

And using the same principles of science, such as causation, leads us back to the necessity of a first cause. Science only works if causation is real, and if causation is real then you logically must accept a First Cause.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that we have no data whatsoever about what, if anything, preceded this physical universe or exists outside of it. It is, therefore, an unfounded assumption to apply any rules of this universe to anything "before" or outside of it, including time or cause and effect. You are applying the rules of the physical universe to a time and place in which time and place are not guaranteed to have existed the way we know them.

The closest thing you'll get to a first cause is the big bang. What caused that? We don't know, because cause might not have been a thing before that. Before might not have been a thing before that. But even if we were to discover some data that suggested a cause outside of this universe that triggered its existence, that would not in any way corroborate the idea that such a cause was intelligent, divine, or knew or cared about human beings. It certainly wouldn't corroborate crazy stories told by ancient people about magic and which ways it's okay to have sex.

You are arguing "we don't know, therefore god", which is moronic. We don't know, therefore we don't know. When we know, we'll know. We can't just make up nonsense to fill in the blank.

phattonez said:
Exactly. Concepts such as "triangularity" or "cat-ness" are intangible, but they are real. We can think about them.
Click to expand...

Made up nonsense like this. "Concepts" are just thoughts. They're electrical impulses in your brain. Neurons talking to each other. And whether or not something is a triangle or a cat is easily resolved through observable data. Every single time you post about this stuff, it just comes out as "I don't understand science, so it must be wrong."
 
God sure can't so if there is one only science can show it to you eventually.
 
Paschendale said:
No, I'm saying that we have no data whatsoever about what, if anything, preceded this physical universe or exists outside of it. It is, therefore, an unfounded assumption to apply any rules of this universe to anything "before" or outside of it, including time or cause and effect. You are applying the rules of the physical universe to a time and place in which time and place are not guaranteed to have existed the way we know them.

The closest thing you'll get to a first cause is the big bang. What caused that? We don't know, because cause might not have been a thing before that. Before might not have been a thing before that. But even if we were to discover some data that suggested a cause outside of this universe that triggered its existence, that would not in any way corroborate the idea that such a cause was intelligent, divine, or knew or cared about human beings. It certainly wouldn't corroborate crazy stories told by ancient people about magic and which ways it's okay to have sex.

You are arguing "we don't know, therefore god", which is moronic. We don't know, therefore we don't know. When we know, we'll know. We can't just make up nonsense to fill in the blank.
Click to expand...

No, Paschendale, your attempt to portray this as a "god of the gaps" argument is fallacious. This is a logical necessity. Everything in the universe has a cause, thus there must have been a First Cause. Existence did not just pop up out of nowhere. Also, your tangent about things outside of the universe is actually applicable, since God Himself does not have a cause since He is the First Cause.

Made up nonsense like this. "Concepts" are just thoughts. They're electrical impulses in your brain. Neurons talking to each other. And whether or not something is a triangle or a cat is easily resolved through observable data. Every single time you post about this stuff, it just comes out as "I don't understand science, so it must be wrong."
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of basic philosophy is glaring here. Concepts exist whether we think about them or not. "Cat-ness" exists regardless of whether we are thinking about it.
 
phattonez said:
No, Paschendale, your attempt to portray this as a "god of the gaps" argument is fallacious. This is a logical necessity. Everything in the universe has a cause, thus there must have been a First Cause.
Click to expand...

Prove this. Demonstrate any evidence that would support this. Here's a hint, there is none. Zilch.

Existence did not just pop up out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

It very well might have, or from the collapsing of a previous universe, or as a bubble in a multiverse that does not necessarily follow our physical laws like time and cause and effect.

Also, your tangent about things outside of the universe is actually applicable, since God Himself does not have a cause since He is the First Cause.
Click to expand...

So... everything needs a cause... except god. Why is this god exempt, and why are other things not exempt for exactly the same reasons? And what possible reason could you have for thinking that this creature is male?

Your ignorance of basic philosophy is glaring here. Concepts exist whether we think about them or not. "Cat-ness" exists regardless of whether we are thinking about it.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about philosophy. I'm mostly talking about physics and biology. In terms of cats, I'm mostly talking about DNA. The genetic code of a cat is not a concept. It's physical. The "intangible" concepts you were talking about are merely our thoughts (which are physical reactions in our brains) about physical things that we observe. There's nothing mysterious going on there.
 
Paschendale said:
No, I'm saying that we have no data whatsoever about what, if anything, preceded this physical universe or exists outside of it. It is, therefore, an unfounded assumption to apply any rules of this universe to anything "before" or outside of it, including time or cause and effect. You are applying the rules of the physical universe to a time and place in which time and place are not guaranteed to have existed the way we know them.
Click to expand...

It is not unfounded. Theists are simply doing what scientists do- applying the observed logical constants of our known existence to greater things. The time and place before our universe could be something that works in no way similar to our known universe, but for the sake of honest philosophical discussion, theists believe it is necessary to work within the realms of our known existence if we ever hope to understand our origins of existence.

Sure, we can believe there was some alternate state of existence before us that defies everything we could ever know, both scientifically and philosophically, but it wouldn't really get us anywhere in reasonable debate and require just about as much faith as religion.

Paschendale said:
The closest thing you'll get to a first cause is the big bang. What caused that? We don't know, because cause might not have been a thing before that. Before might not have been a thing before that. But even if we were to discover some data that suggested a cause outside of this universe that triggered its existence, that would not in any way corroborate the idea that such a cause was intelligent, divine, or knew or cared about human beings. It certainly wouldn't corroborate crazy stories told by ancient people about magic and which ways it's okay to have sex.
Click to expand...

Tell me about this "before" you speak of.

Paschendale said:
You are arguing "we don't know, therefore god", which is moronic. We don't know, therefore we don't know. When we know, we'll know. We can't just make up nonsense to fill in the blank.
Click to expand...

We're arguing that within the confines of known existence, at our current time, it has to be god (that is, have the properties of God). It is plausibly true to believe that everything in our physical realm of existence has a cause for it's existence, therefore it is plausibly true to believe that our universe, which is existence, has a cause of existence.

We don't know for 100%, but based on what we do know, we can believe that this is the more plausible reasoning to support.
 
reidster said:
It is not unfounded. Theists are simply doing what scientists do- applying the observed logical constants of our known existence to greater things. The time and place before our universe could be something that works in no way similar to our known universe, but for the sake of honest philosophical discussion, theists believe it is necessary to work within the realms of our known existence if we ever hope to understand our origins of existence.
Click to expand...

This is not a philosophical discussion. It's a science discussion. But since we're talking about fairy tales, it's treated as if it were a matter of how you feel about it. You are not applying the scientific method at all. You are taking extremely limited information and reaching far flung conclusions. Applying what we know about space and time to things that happened before space and time existed is like arguing that the sun can't be too hot because it will melt. You are applying human scale and causality to the entire universe. Electrons don't even operate that way. There are particles in the universe that might be in multiple places at the same time. Not only does outside the universe not have to conform to our scale, other parts of this universe don't.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the application of cause and effect on a human scale to the universe as a whole.

Sure, we can believe there was some alternate state of existence before us that defies everything we could ever know, both scientifically and philosophically, but it wouldn't really get us anywhere in reasonable debate and require just about as much faith as religion.
Click to expand...

See, what you're calling "belief" is actually just ignorance. Instead, we have actual information about how the universe operated in its first few seconds and what implications that might have towards its beginning. We also have higher level mathematics that can describe universes that don't function the same way ours does, and can provide insight into how extra-universal things might operate. But we don't even assume that any of these hypotheses are true at this point. There's just not enough information. So we go with the one that is the closest to our observable data, until we find a better one that is even closer. We do not argue that it has to be any known theory. It probably isn't.

Tell me about this "before" you speak of.
Click to expand...

If you were paying attention, you'd understand that time is a factor of mass and energy. Neither of which necessarily exist outside this universe. Therefore, before and after, and thus cause and effect, do not necessarily govern anything outside this universe. There is no evidence to show that it does. So we cannot assume that it does.

We're arguing that within the confines of known existence, at our current time, it has to be god (that is, have the properties of God). It is plausibly true to believe that everything in our physical realm of existence has a cause for it's existence, therefore it is plausibly true to believe that our universe, which is existence, has a cause of existence.

We don't know for 100%, but based on what we do know, we can believe that this is the more plausible reasoning to support.
Click to expand...

And most of what you claim to know is demonstrably wrong. Nor is belief a factor at all. You are literally saying "I don't know, therefore god" even though some of the things you don't know, some other people (mostly physicists) do know. All you or Phattonez are doing is invoking an argument from ignorance.

There is not only no evidence of a "first cause", there is no evidence that such a cause is necessary. There absolutely no evidence that such a cause is intelligent, and no evidence that such a cause does not itself require a cause, because infinite regression is automatically a problem that such a cause must overcome. Simply declaring that your cause is immune to infinite regression solves nothing.
 
No, science can't prove an afterlife. It can't even try to prove an afterlife. The scientific philosophy is based in material reductionism, whose epistemological assertion about the nature of reality is that consciousness cannot be separate from the body.
 
Paschendale said:
Prove this. Demonstrate any evidence that would support this. Here's a hint, there is none. Zilch.
Click to expand...

Science depends on this. No causation, no science.

It very well might have, or from the collapsing of a previous universe, or as a bubble in a multiverse that does not necessarily follow our physical laws like time and cause and effect.
Click to expand...

Then we would have to ask what caused that other universe.

So... everything needs a cause... except god. Why is this god exempt, and why are other things not exempt for exactly the same reasons? And what possible reason could you have for thinking that this creature is male?
Click to expand...

We call Him male for other reasons. God is exempt because you can't regress to infinity. You need an uncaused cause, and that is God.

I'm not talking about philosophy. I'm mostly talking about physics and biology. In terms of cats, I'm mostly talking about DNA. The genetic code of a cat is not a concept. It's physical. The "intangible" concepts you were talking about are merely our thoughts (which are physical reactions in our brains) about physical things that we observe. There's nothing mysterious going on there.
Click to expand...

It's not the genetic code of a cat that defines "cat-ness". It is a concept, it exists, and it is immaterial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom