• 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!

Is there life after death?

Do you believe in 'life' after death?


  • Total voters
    45
First of, your argument is just as positive assertion as mine. You are saying, there is no afterlife. I'm saying there is afterlife. That is two different theories, like there is life on other planets or there isn't life on other planets. Or Newtons theories vs Einsteins theories.

Here's a nice quote about the difference between what I'm arguing and what you're arguing:

"[W]hen it comes to using observational evidence to argue for existence (a positive claim) or non-existence (a negative claim), you can't prove a negative, whereas you can prove a positive. (Here I'm using "prove" to mean "establish with certainty".) ... And I think that this is what people typically mean when they state that "you can't prove a negative". I also think that the imbalance in the difficulty of demonstrating non-existence compared to existence is a strong argument that the burden of proof should be on those who claim the existence of something."

- Log base 2: Things that (probably) don't exist

I'm not saying that I'm 100% certain that souls don't exist. There are, after all, only 2 things that I can say with 100% certainty, that I exist (cogito ergo sum, as Descartes put it), and any mathematical proof (i.e. I know with 100% certainty that 2 + 2 = 4, because logic allows no other conclusion). Anything else, I can only say that I'm more or less certain are true or are not true. For practical purposes, then, I am willing to say that something exists if there is compelling evidence that it exists. I'm pretty sure my cat exists because I can see it, touch it, feed it, and get annoyed at it when it wakes me up at 4 in the morning. Am I 100% sure my cat exists? No, because there's an extremely remote possibility that an evil demon is manipulating my mind to trick me into believing my cat exists. But until I'm shown compelling evidence for this, I'm going to continue believing my cat exists because it's the most likely explanation of the meowing that wakes me up at 4 in the morning. To function day to day, we need to make these sorts of assumptions, otherwise, we couldn't be sure of anything, other than mathematical proofs and our own existence.

Now there is some evidence that there is life on other planets, because we know the size of the universe and it's likely it has happened somewhere else because of the size. Let's pretend we didn't and it could range from 100 lightyears to infinite. Then scientifically we would have to say, we don't know if there is inteligent life or not. The fact that there is no evidence for life on other planets doesn't mean there is no life out there.

So your argument about positive assertions is illogical.

Ibid.

How? Neurons fire in our brains and give signals to other parts of the body, who then gives signals back so the brain can do something else. This could in theory make a functioning body, who interacted with it's surroundings. But where is the feeling of existence? Neurons only transmit electrical signals. There has to be something else.



They are not fundementally different persons. It just looks like they are, because they behave differently after the brain damage.

Souls are not the sum of your personality, feeling or ideas. Those are in your brain. Souls are the governing body, it is what gives you the feeling of existence. If you placed my soul into another brain, I would have a completly different personality because I have different ideas and memories. I wouldn't even know that I have been someone else.

Essentially, I'm making an Occum's razor argument here. My feeling of existence is sufficiently explained as the product of neurons firing in a given pattern. It's unnecessary to add a soul. So until I'm shown something that is not sufficiently explicable by the aforementioned neurons, I have no need to add a soul. The fact that you use the term "feeling" of existence suggests exactly that. It's a feeling. And all feelings can be attributed to materialistic explanations.

If you're placed into someone else's body, and consequently have a different personality, different memories, etc., then you are a different person. All that remains of your former self is the "feeling of existence." And again, this, as a feeling, is sufficiently explained by your neural chemistry. There is nothing left that requires an explanation.
 
Here's a nice quote about the difference between what I'm arguing and what you're arguing:

"[W]hen it comes to using observational evidence to argue for existence (a positive claim) or non-existence (a negative claim), you can't prove a negative, whereas you can prove a positive. (Here I'm using "prove" to mean "establish with certainty".) ... And I think that this is what people typically mean when they state that "you can't prove a negative". I also think that the imbalance in the difficulty of demonstrating non-existence compared to existence is a strong argument that the burden of proof should be on those who claim the existence of something."
Not necessarily. For instance my life on other planets example, show clearly that in many cases is wrong. We can't assume there is no life on other planets, even if we didn't know the size of the universe.

Also, I could turn it around and say that you argue that after life there is nothing. That is a positive argument as well.

My take is that we should have at least some evidence that something exist, before we can take up the issue if it exist. But we do have evidence, the feeling of existence.

Essentially, I'm making an Occum's razor argument here. My feeling of existence is sufficiently explained as the product of neurons firing in a given pattern. It's unnecessary to add a soul. So until I'm shown something that is not sufficiently explicable by the aforementioned neurons, I have no need to add a soul. The fact that you use the term "feeling" of existence suggests exactly that. It's a feeling. And all feelings can be attributed to materialistic explanations.

If you're placed into someone else's body, and consequently have a different personality, different memories, etc., then you are a different person. All that remains of your former self is the "feeling of existence." And again, this, as a feeling, is sufficiently explained by your neural chemistry. There is nothing left that requires an explanation.
No, it can't. Electrical impulses doesn't give any feelings of existence and can't explain it. How do neurons explain that you can only see through one brain? It can't explain the feeling at all.

There is nothing wrong with using the word feeling, because that is what it is. Classical science can't explain feeling of existence, that do exist. This suggest that there is something more.

In the last paragraph you assume you are right. If I'm right, then it is something important that stays put. It is still you that see through the eyes. If you change brain, then you will act completely different, but you will control a different body. Also it is still you who see through the brain and that may influence your actions.
 
Last edited:
Essentially, I'm making an Occum's razor argument here. My feeling of existence is sufficiently explained as the product of neurons firing in a given pattern. It's unnecessary to add a soul.
All of these nurons firing, etc... this is all a function of the laws of physics.
To control the result of these nurons firing -- that is, to have free will -- one must have control of the mechanism that creates these firings -- that is, control over the laws of physics.
What gives you that control?
 
Back
Top Bottom