If you are a scientist who believes in life after death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science cannot explain many things.

Can science explain what causes all cancers? No.

Can science explain the etiology of an idiopathic diagnosis? No.

Do things exist that we cannot see, hear, smell, or feel? Cannot photo or video? Yes, oxygen in the air.

You know the stupidity of this argument, right?

We can demonstrate, easily and in many ways, the existence of oxygen "in the air". There was a time when we could not.

Can you demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural? Anything, any one thing. You pick it. Then get your many prizes and awards and millions of dollars and be known as the world's greatest scientist and prophet, both at the same time, as the rest of us skeptics will immediately believe.

We'll wait.

NP - This is an interesting discussion. Why do you have to be mean?

This poster is exactly why a real conversation cannot be had on this topic. Non believers are so condescendingly hateful, it's impossible not to go on the defense and want to stop engaging. They want to play a game of gotcha, not really understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

People - including some Christian people - used to believe in witchcraft -- but no one wants to "explore that possibility" anymore.

Just because lots of people believe something doesn't mean it's worthy of scientific exploration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

There are also Billions of people who don't believe, and don't care.
I'm satisfied neuroscientists have tried to detect whether any substance leaves the body at death (like a soul), and have been unable to detect it. So if you believe, that's fine. But there is no support whatsoever for your belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science cannot explain many things.

Can science explain what causes all cancers? No.

Can science explain the etiology of an idiopathic diagnosis? No.

Do things exist that we cannot see, hear, smell, or feel? Cannot photo or video? Yes, oxygen in the air.

You know the stupidity of this argument, right?

We can demonstrate, easily and in many ways, the existence of oxygen "in the air". There was a time when we could not.

Can you demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural? Anything, any one thing. You pick it. Then get your many prizes and awards and millions of dollars and be known as the world's greatest scientist and prophet, both at the same time, as the rest of us skeptics will immediately believe.

We'll wait.

NP - This is an interesting discussion. Why do you have to be mean?

This poster is exactly why a real conversation cannot be had on this topic. Non believers are so condescendingly hateful, it's impossible not to go on the defense and want to stop engaging. They want to play a game of gotcha, not really understand.

Actually, the "We'll Wait" poster wasn't being mean - just realistic.

It's not a game of gotcha - it's a matter of not pretending to believe something that does not make sense to the person responding.

it is well known that people don't share the same beliefs about religion.

If you don't like something you read here, consider just ignoring it and responding only to comments that you find interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a mathematician and now computer scientist so I’m not sure if I qualify but I believe Energy never dies and we have energy. It’s neither created nor does it die.

I don’t think I can explain my thoughts so I found this article that somewhat explains my thoughts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/amp

Energy never dies? Energy was never alive to begin with. Energy cannot cease to exist. But that in no way, shape or form means consciousness is immortal.

Why limit afterlife to consciousness? Energy never Ceases to exist. I am Energy. I am not a body. My body will die but my energy Will live on or exist forever.

Where it will land or exist I do not know, but I can’t wait to find out.

^Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After all these pages, it seems like we have not found a scientist who believes in an afterlife. So there you go.

Which is ironic given the title of the thread….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After all these pages, it seems like we have not found a scientist who believes in an afterlife. So there you go.

Which is ironic given the title of the thread….

Maybe one will show up. There are scientists who believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself agnostic or atheist. Really probably the latter. I do take solace in what someone else wrote above, and I have thought myself, that energy never dies. It is a constant. In that way, if a person has a "soul" it has touched many other people and things in this world. That vibration continues. The world is forever different because they lived. Now that they are dead, their soul does not exist, but its impact remains and reverberates forever -- more so if they really did a lot when they were alive, good or bad. One thing that living has taught me -- heaven and hell are on Earth, and it's pretty random which one you get to experience. Enjoy life and try to make things better for people stuck in hell. Also, luck changes and is random, so carpe diem.

Beautifully put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science cannot explain many things.

Can science explain what causes all cancers? No.

Can science explain the etiology of an idiopathic diagnosis? No.

Do things exist that we cannot see, hear, smell, or feel? Cannot photo or video? Yes, oxygen in the air.

You know the stupidity of this argument, right?

We can demonstrate, easily and in many ways, the existence of oxygen "in the air". There was a time when we could not.

Can you demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural? Anything, any one thing. You pick it. Then get your many prizes and awards and millions of dollars and be known as the world's greatest scientist and prophet, both at the same time, as the rest of us skeptics will immediately believe.

We'll wait.

NP - This is an interesting discussion. Why do you have to be mean?

This poster is exactly why a real conversation cannot be had on this topic. Non believers are so condescendingly hateful, it's impossible not to go on the defense and want to stop engaging. They want to play a game of gotcha, not really understand.

According to believers: "condescendingly hateful" = do not agree with my beliefs

[Anonymous]

I believe in heaven and God. And I hope I am reconciled with my loved ones after I die ~~~ whatever that may mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the soul just disappears when the brain’s on propofol, where could the soul possibly be when the brain’s dead?

Answer: there is no soul. Consciousness ("soul") stops with brain activity.

I agree, but the question was whether there are any scientists who believe in life after death. I'd like to hear from them, and hear why they think that.

Francis Collins suddenly started believing in life after death as an adult, right around the time his job prospects started benefiting from what Republicans thought of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

There are also Billions of people who don't believe, and don't care.
I'm satisfied neuroscientists have tried to detect whether any substance leaves the body at death (like a soul), and have been unable to detect it. So if you believe, that's fine. But there is no support whatsoever for your belief.

I don't believe a soul leaves the body. Thus, nothing to detect! Adventist.

[Anonymous]

There will be plenty detected when this world ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself agnostic or atheist. Really probably the latter. I do take solace in what someone else wrote above, and I have thought myself, that energy never dies. It is a constant. In that way, if a person has a "soul" it has touched many other people and things in this world. That vibration continues. The world is forever different because they lived. Now that they are dead, their soul does not exist, but its impact remains and reverberates forever -- more so if they really did a lot when they were alive, good or bad. One thing that living has taught me -- heaven and hell are on Earth, and it's pretty random which one you get to experience. Enjoy life and try to make things better for people stuck in hell. Also, luck changes and is random, so carpe diem.

Beautifully put.

It’s interesting that some find that philosophy beautiful. Personally as a (occasionally doubting but) overall religious person I find it tragic to imagine that there is no ultimate justice and that this is it.