>neither falsifiable nor confirmable*

Silk wrote:The thing is (some would say the bright side) is that the afterlife is not falsifiable, it can only be proven to be true.

And where is this evidence?

Cridone wrote:

Silk wrote:The thing is (some would say the bright side) is that the afterlife is not falsifiable, it can only be proven to be true.

And where is this evidence?

Just to clarify my post, I'm not saying there is evidence (nor am I saying there isn't). I meant that the afterlife cannot be proven to be non-existent, it can however be proven to exist (depending on what you consider to be proof). E.G. If I tell you that there's a dragon in your room with you, it's intangible and invisible, but it can appear to you if it wants, you can't prove it doesn't exist, but if it suddenly appears to you and says hi, that's proof that it does exist. Just like that, we can't prove that the afterlife doesn't exist, but we can confirm that it does with whatever evidence there is.

Silk wrote:Just to clarify my post, I'm not saying there is evidence (nor am I saying there isn't). I meant that the afterlife cannot be proven to be non-existent, it can however be proven to exist (depending on what you consider to be proof). E.G. If I tell you that there's a dragon in your room with you, it's intangible and invisible, but it can appear to you if it wants, you can't prove it doesn't exist, but if it suddenly appears to you and says hi, that's proof that it does exist. Just like that, we can't prove that the afterlife doesn't exist, but we can confirm that it does with whatever evidence there is.

CLgaming wrote:

Silk wrote:Just to clarify my post, I'm not saying there is evidence (nor am I saying there isn't). I meant that the afterlife cannot be proven to be non-existent, it can however be proven to exist (depending on what you consider to be proof). E.G. If I tell you that there's a dragon in your room with you, it's intangible and invisible, but it can appear to you if it wants, you can't prove it doesn't exist, but if it suddenly appears to you and says hi, that's proof that it does exist. Just like that, we can't prove that the afterlife doesn't exist, but we can confirm that it does with whatever evidence there is.

This was just a clarification, you seemed to have understood my previous post, so you don't need it. I noticed you said the afterlife isn't confirmable. What makes you think that?

Silk wrote:This was just a clarification, you seemed to have understood my previous post, so you don't need it. I noticed you said the afterlife isn't confirmable. What makes you think that?

Because there is no way for us to produce evidence for its existence. We cannot bring someone back to life after they are confirmed to be dead, so it is impossible for us to know if they move on to some sort of afterlife. Furthermore, your argument about the invisible dragon does not help to support your assertion. We live in a rational world governed by science. That science is proven to be true due to evidence and studies we have brought forth. The afterlife, much like your invisible dragon scenario, cannot be tested and there is no proof of their existence. Because of this, it is safe to assume that an afterlife does not exist.

This would all change, of course, if we could somehow cheat death in order to provide evidence of an afterlife's existence.

Omniary: fuck you anglerfish can't smell
Dr. Trialtrex21: how you know bitch
Omniary: it probably could smell you though
could probably smell your fucking dank ass nasty powersuit structure gel trog ass enslaved protein bullshit sloshing in your suit from a mile away

Trialtrex21 wrote:

Silk wrote:This was just a clarification, you seemed to have understood my previous post, so you don't need it. I noticed you said the afterlife isn't confirmable. What makes you think that?

Because there is no way for us to produce evidence for its existence. We cannot bring someone back to life after they are confirmed to be dead, so it is impossible for us to know if they move on to some sort of afterlife. Furthermore, your argument about the invisible dragon does not help to support your assertion. We live in a rational world governed by science. That science is proven to be true due to evidence and studies we have brought forth. The afterlife, much like your invisible dragon scenario, cannot be tested and there is no proof of their existence. Because of this, it is safe to assume that an afterlife does not exist.

This would all change, of course, if we could somehow cheat death in order to provide evidence of an afterlife's existence.

I feel like I'm taking a risk defending this, but whatever. I'll give you a couple of things, you were much better at arguing your point than silk was, and you summed up an atheist mindset nicely. Overall your statement is actually pretty valid, however, it is lacking as a refutation to his point.

Let's start with your example. You state how there is no way to procure evidence of the afterlife, then go on to list an exception. Nothing wrong with that but, if I remember correctly, there are plenty of accounts of people near death, or those who were clinically dead for a short amount of time(not sure about that last one), and once revived, told stories about the afterlife. Granted, these accounts are rather questionable, but in regards to this, your wording is poor in accounting for these stories, but even more importantly, show that even the situation you described is not an exception to the impossibility of procuring solid evidence of the afterlife, so in that case, why even bring it up to begin with.

Now the meat of the situation, how it fails to refute silk's point. First, let's talk about what silk's point is. According to them, The afterlife cannot be disproved, but it's possible to have evidence to prove it. The former is just common sense in a situation like this, there can't be evidence of something's non-existence outside of the fact that we don't see it. Meanwhile, he compares procuring evidence of the afterlife to... an invisible dragon in your room... this is what you're making me defend here. Anyway, while the comparison is utterly ridiculous, there is a point to it. We're talking about omnipotent gods, and omnipotent gods are alot like nano-machines, they explain everything. Gods like things to be faith-based, so they hide all solid evidence of their existence.The only way for evidence to show is if the god allows it, much like how the... invisible dragon must decide to leave evidence for you to prove its existence. Now, for how you tackle this point. You pretty much just say that science can't prove it, which has nothing to do with their point. It sounds less like a counter-point and more like "You're wrong because this scenario does not agree with my world view." Yes, with the inability to procure evidence, you might as well say it can't be proven, but silk isn't technically wrong either.

This, in half of a nutshell, is why religious debate is mostly pointless.

Awesomeguy147 wrote:if I remember correctly, there are plenty of accounts of people near death, or those who were clinically dead for a short amount of time(not sure about that last one), and once revived, told stories about the afterlife.

Yes, I sort of expected that this would be brought up. What I meant was someone who was completely dead; no chance of being brought back. In this case it would be impossible to procure evidence that the deceased go somewhere after their brain is dead.

Now onto the topic of near-death experiences. I could be wrong, so don't quote me, but I have read that the brain, at death, releases chemicals that are supposed to calm the subject and make the process more comforting. These chemicals would keep the subject relaxed and therefore, if they were to be brought back from the point of death, they could believe that they experienced some sort of near-afterlife.

As I said, this could be complete bogus.

Awesomeguy147 wrote:It sounds less like a counter-point and more like "You're wrong because this scenario does not agree with my world view." Yes, with the inability to procure evidence, you might as well say it can't be proven, but silk isn't technically wrong either.

This, in half of a nutshell, is why religious debate is mostly pointless.

I'm sure it may seem that I'm attacking Silk's belief in an afterlife, but really I was just trying to answer his question as to why some people may not believe in such a thing. He asked why we believed that an afterlife isn't confirm-able, so I just answered. I believe more in science, so I guess from my perspective an afterlife really wouldn't seem plausible. People are free to believe what they want.

When it comes down to it, as you said, it is impossible to confirm or deny an afterlife because both claims cannot be tested. So yes, religious debates are completely pointless.

Omniary: fuck you anglerfish can't smell
Dr. Trialtrex21: how you know bitch
Omniary: it probably could smell you though
could probably smell your fucking dank ass nasty powersuit structure gel trog ass enslaved protein bullshit sloshing in your suit from a mile away