What happens after we die.

[awein999]

all matter since the big bang has traveled, part of that matter came together to be your consciousness eventually later in the universe's existence That's where we came from. And this is a quote from a famous scientist not me lol.

[cixOclock]

One scientist doesn't just prove evolution completely, now this isn't a topic about evolution, but why should I believe in evolution when even the scientists, the supposed experts don't even agree on it?

[Mollocephalus]

Originally Posted by cixOclock

why should I believe in evolution when even the scientists, the supposed experts don't even agree on it?

why should i believe in pasta when even the most prestigeous chefs cannot agree on the cooking time

[devonin]

As you say this -isn't- a thread about evolution, so lets not get into this thread of the discussion here please. Though cix, I'll point out that quoting a scientist is not the same as concluding either that the one scientist is the only one who believes that, or that one scientist believing something necessarily makes it fact.

[cixOclock]

Well alright, but Dawkins beliefs were more based on emotional-driven results. He wasn't driven by evidence. But thats all I'm going to say on that.

[perfectchaoslemon]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Why are you having so much trouble with this... Of course you can't skip over something that's infinite because that is the point. You don't skip over it, it just keeps going. You are infinity non existent after that point because you have no more brain to observe.

I'll repeat it. There is nothing confusing about a permanent loss of consciousness.

Experiencing nothing for infinity isn't any more complicated then nothing for 1 year or 10 years. It just keeps going. It's not so much experiencing nothing because really you wouldn't be experiencing at all. It's just straight up nothing forever. You will be nothing forever when you die. Assuming you is "you" as a whole. Your atoms will probably be distributed among other things.

yes but the thing is you're not grasping the image at all. When you are unconscious, it feels as if you completely skip over that point. It is a completely non-existent part of your life. You say there's nothing confusing about it, but you don't even understand what I'm trying to get to you, so there's no point to what you just said.

It's kinda like dividing by zero. It's undefined because it would mean dividing it an infinite amount of times until it reaches zero, which it can't, so it's just remained as undefined.

[Reach]

Well, I'm a neuroscientist, which should probably sum up my stance in and of itself, but I will elaborate anyway. Some people here have already taken this stance though, it seems.

The reason we experience anything at all is because of what's happening in our brains. There are no magic processes or spirit within us. Our 'non-physical' minds (i.e. what we experience on a conscious and unconscious level) is just a different manifestation of the physical processes happening in our heads right now.

There are many good reasons to believe this is the case. Consider a drug that alters your perception of reality. How is that possible if experience was something non-physical in nature? It wouldn't be. These drugs work to alter our 'mind' because they alter chemical behavior in our brains which is the same thing as our mind.

Take another example; a paranoid schizophrenic that has auditory hallucinations. Is he 'crazy'? Probably not, since he actually hears those voices. They're caused by unwanted activation of the Broca's area of his brain, which is the same area of the brain activated when he speaks. That is to say, he's talking to himself in a way he can't control.


I could go on, but you probably get the point by now. What's happening in our brain determines our experience. In the absence of a functional brain after death, there cannot be perception. All perception ceases to exist. This is not something you can picture or imagine, because it is the absence of perception. In the same way that you did not exist prior to your birth, you will not exist after your death and reality as you know it will be erased forever without a trace.

(I suppose you could argue nothing ever ceases to exist, because the essence is always preserved; that is, our physical makeup will ultimately live on and be recycled back into the system. This, however, does not mean that we continue to exist after we die though, because the whole of your body is what makes you ...you, not the sum of it's parts).

If one cannot picture nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing

Let me get this straight.

Nothing is the absence of anything. In order to 'picture' something, there must be something there. This means that, by definition, it's not possible to 'picture nothing', because 'picture nothing' is a contradiction.

THEREFORE, there is no such thing as nothing.

You might want to check that logic.

I suppose by that same logic, if I said 'It's bitter sweet!', you would say 'If one cannot bitter sweet, then there is no such thing as sweet!'

[perfectchaoslemon]

Originally Posted by Reach

Well, I'm a neuroscientist, which should probably sum up my stance in and of itself, but I will elaborate anyway. Some people here have already taken this stance though, it seems.

The reason we experience anything at all is because of what's happening in our brains. There are no magic processes or spirit within us. Our 'non-physical' minds (i.e. what we experience on a conscious and unconscious level) is just a different manifestation of the physical processes happening in our heads right now.

There are many good reasons to believe this is the case. Consider a drug that alters your perception of reality. How is that possible if experience was something non-physical in nature? It wouldn't be. These drugs work to alter our 'mind' because they alter chemical behavior in our brains which is the same thing as our mind.

Take another example; a paranoid schizophrenic that has auditory hallucinations. Is he 'crazy'? Probably not, since he actually hears those voices. They're caused by unwanted activation of the Broca's area of his brain, which is the same area of the brain activated when he speaks. That is to say, he's talking to himself in a way he can't control.


I could go on, but you probably get the point by now. What's happening in our brain determines our experience. In the absence of a functional brain after death, there cannot be perception. All perception ceases to exist. This is not something you can picture or imagine, because it is the absence of perception. In the same way that you did not exist prior to your birth, you will not exist after your death and reality as you know it will be erased forever without a trace.

(I suppose you could argue nothing ever ceases to exist, because the essence is always preserved; that is, our physical makeup will ultimately live on and be recycled back into the system. This, however, does not mean that we continue to exist after we die though, because the whole of your body is what makes you ...you, not the sum of it's parts).




Let me get this straight.

Nothing is the absence of anything. In order to 'picture' something, there must be something there. This means that, by definition, it's not possible to 'picture nothing', because 'picture nothing' is a contradiction.

THEREFORE, there is no such thing as nothing.

You might want to check that logic.

I suppose by that same logic, if I said 'It's bitter sweet!', you would say 'If one cannot bitter sweet, then there is no such thing as sweet!'

Now I'd say that this is a pretty good reason to follow, but this is only if the fact that nothing happens after we die is 100% true, which it really isn't. I did mention earlier that I'm listening to people's opinions, so I'm not going to shoot yours down, but I would like to mention that since you have not experienced death yet, you do not have full-proof evidence that nothing happens after we die. I'm not telling you to convert to believing something exists, but be semi-open about it. Even if you can disprove in every possible way the existence of a spiritual power, there are going to be plenty of others who will disprove those theories as well. I'm saying this mostly in response to the "there are no magic processes or spirits within us" quote. There are too many things about humans that science cannot explain.

As for the nothing quote, yeah I wasn't going for that meaning. I kinda wrote it wrong, but I meant that there is no such thing as nothing.

[Izzy]

You are just claiming that you are taking other peoples opinion into consideration and then saying that we aren't 100% correct. No duh, no one is claiming they are absolutely right. If you were just going to come start a thread to shoot everyone down and ultimately never even change your opinion cause you so strongly believe you are right then what was the point?

You are quite annoying sir.

[cixOclock]

I'm pretty sure your not going to get a person to come back from the dead to tell you how it felt.
To simplify it, just look at what the bible has know for thousands of years at John 10:11

He said these things, and after this he said to them: “Laz′a‧rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.” 12*Therefore the disciples said to him: “Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well.” 13*Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14*At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: “Laz′a‧rus has died.

Jesus likened death to sleep, a dreamless sleep. That its. When you die its as if your sleeping.

[Reach]

I would like to mention that since you have not experienced death yet, you do not have full-proof evidence that nothing happens after we die.

There are a few problems here.

1. Experiencing something does not constitute proof, nor does something have to be experienced for you to prove it. There are many things we know for a fact that cannot be experienced (e.g. things happening on the quantum level).

2. My entire point was that death cannot, by definition, ever be experienced, because it is the absence of experience.

3. You've really got the burden of proof backwards here. You've done and said absolutely nothing to convince me that there's life after death, or that there is actually a spirit that exists. However, saying that there is life after death is a 'claim'.

Any claim is subject to the burden of proof; that is, before I should even bother taking you seriously, you should give me evidence and reason as to why you're right.

I know you wouldn't take me seriously if I claimed NASA just discovered a new extrasolar planet that is swarming with blue hedgehogs running around collecting golden rings and trying to foil the plans of a fat genius, especially if I didn't give you any evidence to support this claim.

But that's basically what you're doing here.

I, on the other hand, gave real life neurological examples of why you're wrong.


So really, give me some actual substance to your argument and I'll take you seriously.

[cixOclock]

The soul surviving death is not a christian belief... In ancient Greece Socrates and Plato held that a soul inside a person survives death, and never dies.Its a false Greek practice that penetrated true christian beliefs.
For instance in Ezekiel 18:3

‘As I am alive,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘it will no more continue to be YOURS to express this proverbial saying in Israel. 4*Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

[cixOclock]

don't spoil the suprise guyzz

That life emerged by accident. That through a series of unlikely, random events, that the human race was formed, produced with all of its emotional, intellect, and spiritual capacities.
That we all come from a common ancestor.

In a sense we would be an orphan. We would have no source of a superior wisdom to consult, no one to help us solve our problems.
Evolution is the theory that various mutations occured and changed into our genetic code, a scientific impossibility. And the creatures that could not survive died out.

Holy cow, man. Did you even look into it? Just because science can tell you why there's light doesn't mean they can tell you why its there. Just about everything is torn apart and spit back together by atheists.

I take the world as it is logically. Now I haven't gone to no, fancy college or go to grad school. But have you ever thought that bacteria doesn't change?
A sunflower for instance, it's seeds are arranged in a perfect golden spiral.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by cixOclock

The soul surviving death is not a christian belief... In ancient Greece Socrates and Plato held that a soul inside a person survives death, and never dies.Its a false Greek practice that penetrated true christian beliefs.
For instance in Ezekiel 18:3

‘As I am alive,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘it will no more continue to be YOURS to express this proverbial saying in Israel. 4*Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

Please keep your religion out of the forum. If you're going to go as far as say one belief is wrong and yours is write which I suggest you think, I'm going to go as far to say that the Christian belief of heaven and hell is a false one that penetrates scientific belief. I studied the Bible, I took courses about it. I think The Bible is completely false, and there is no evidence supporting it so please, don't use them in an argument where you must prove your facts. The Bible is not a credible source. I'm not saying don't believe in it, just don't use it as proof.

[cixOclock]

Don't use it as proof? Okay then don't use google for your proof.

[Izzy]

Way to just kill any shred of credibility you will ever have.

Ps: Google isn't a source, it's a search engine.

[cixOclock]

Yes its a search engine. But when you search for something on there chances are you'll get something so biased it doesn't have any credibility.
This seems like religous question. And so from a biblical standpoint, death is death.
Why am I the bad guy when suddenly I bring out one of the most accurate books in the world and you quote a scientist?

I answered the question from the bible. And thats all I needed to do here.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by cixOclock

Well alright, but Dawkins beliefs were more based on emotional-driven results. He wasn't driven by evidence. But thats all I'm going to say on that.

This is TOTALLY untrue, by the way. His entire stance is PURELY evidence-driven. Otherwise, give me an example to support your claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

Are you going to tell me all of his examples/believes are based on emotion? They're based purely on the merits of evidence. If anything, a belief in God, for many, is an emotional one!

Of course you're going to end your statement up there with "But that's all I'm going to say on that" -- there's nothing you can really add to substantiate that claim, as it's a false one.

[cixOclock]

Evolution has more holes in it then any other belief.
Where's my proof of a God? Where's my hope that I have?
I base my claim on logic, not emotion.
Have you ever actually looked at the Earth? Have you examined water molecules and how they stick together?
Or have you even looked at the Golden Spiral of the galaxy?

Or the variety and the colors. Have you even considered the wings of a luminecent butterfly? Or how its ridges are so intricate to disprove evolution?
Don't tell me I have no proof when I have the Earth as proof.

If the Earth was tilted in just the wrong way, or rotated at just the wrong speed. We would all be dead. If we were just a hundred miles closer to the sun or further, we would be dead.
This world is my proof, along with the universe.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by cixOclock

One scientist doesn't just prove evolution completely, now this isn't a topic about evolution, but why should I believe in evolution when even the scientists, the supposed experts don't even agree on it?

This is also incorrect. Evolution is a very well-understood process, and it is factual. Scientists may not agree on certain specific details of form origins, but the process of evolution and natural selection is well-substantiated by mountains of evidence. The only people who disagree with it are typically those who misunderstand it or are unaware of the evidence. Now, if you're getting into abiogenesis, I'd agree that many people are unsure/may disagree because it's not as well-supported. But, as stated in the metaphysics thread, a belief in evolution doesn't mean you have to believe in abiogenesis. Evolution simply describes how lifeforms change assuming there is life to begin with. Abiogenesis is a theory for how that life may have originated in the first place.

Explain to me your understanding of what evolution and natural selection is, please, and why you do not believe in it.