Re: The Afterlife
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:16 am
>neither falsifiable nor confirmable*
And where is this evidence?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.
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.Cridone wrote:And where is this evidence?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.
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?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.
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.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?
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.Trialtrex21 wrote: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.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?
This would all change, of course, if we could somehow cheat death in order to provide evidence of an afterlife's existence.
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.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.
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.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.