I wouldn't worry about it too much. Either there is an afterlife. Or. There is nothing to worry about because the moment we kick it. It will all just be over and done.Well I don't want to croak and find there is nothing that would be a total shonk.
People worry. But see things like speculation about an Afterlife are opinion, even when those opinions come from very educated established scientists. It's still an opinion and a biased one at that. If you think about it. Really think about it.I have no doubt there is, as to what it is...well thats another story.
Scientists don't bother me at all, I listened to a webcast by Tibor Molnar, it was great, he nailed the differences in a heartbeat.
I am going to get hammered or ignored by Dr Wu or Castle for this but.....People worry. But see things like speculation about an Afterlife are opinion, even when those opinions come from very educated established scientists. It's still an opinion and a biased one at that. If you think about it. Really think about it.
There are physiological aspects of the human being that simply can't be undone by the process of death.
For instance. If we look at einsteins relativity. E=mc2 Energy is Equal to mass. Mass. Our Mass is Energy. To put it in other terms, We are Energy. our physical matter, Our lives, Our thoughts. Our consciousness, It's all energy.
Science has a little something to say about energy. and how it can not be completely destroyed. Our bodies spend the entirety of our lives processing energy to fuel our consciousness. Our consciousness a physical manifestation of Energy.
I feel like people don't fully grasp this. But. We are (Our physical matter, Already proven to be energy.) something that can not be completely destroyed, Only Transformed into another form of energy. By the scientific Law of Energy conservation. I Can't Say for certain, What's next, in the afterlife. But I can say for certain. That The physiological law of energy conservation. Says our energy, Passes on to something else. It's can't just be destroyed. So it must be transformed into another form of energy.
I will even add to this. Our Minds, A thing we do not fully understand. But Energy is surely part of it Physically and it also fuels us. So, When we are entirely energy beings, That sustain ourselves off of energy we consume. It is foolish to believe that when we die we just cease to exist.
I'm just saying.
I respect Bother Wu And Castle, But as a peer, I would say to you and them, Science Evolves and changes as our understanding evolves. What we believe to be the truth today. May not be the ultimate reality of the issue. The more we learn, The more we find out we don't know.I am going to get hammered or ignored by Dr Wu or Castle for this but.....
In my opinion, Scientists are working almost with a disability.
If they have no empirical data to substantiate an idea. The idea is crap.
The old saying, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But to a scientist...it is off the radar.
However a Philosopher may think of 1000 new ideas in his life, and all are OK.
Most will prove to be nothing, some may prove to be something.
So the question is.
Who has the greater likely hood of a new concept.
the Scientist who refuses anything that he can't quantify,
or
The philosopher who looks at what people have thought for thousands of years in uncountable cultures.
Who is more likely statistically alone, to come up with a truth.
This is why I respect science, but feel very sorry for the scientists.
They miss so many possibilities.
And you should get hammered saying silly things like that about science...... (humor...)I am going to get hammered or ignored by Dr Wu or Castle for this but.....
In my opinion, Scientists are working almost with a disability.
If they have no empirical data to substantiate an idea. The idea is crap.
The old saying, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But to a scientist...it is off the radar.
However a Philosopher may think of 1000 new ideas in his life, and all are OK.
Most will prove to be nothing, some may prove to be something.
So the question is.
Who has the greater likely hood of a new concept.
the Scientist who refuses anything that he can't quantify,
or
The philosopher who looks at what people have thought for thousands of years in uncountable cultures.
Who is more likely statistically alone, to come up with a truth.
This is why I respect science, but feel very sorry for the scientists.
They miss so many possibilities.
So given a scientists need for empirical data, shouldn't all true scientists be agnostic.A...............................Regarding the scientist above....I don't honestly see how he could prove that there is not an afterlife since there would not be any way to do this within the current bounds of objective science. It would be only an opinion from him based on his knowledge of various scientific principles but would not be an actual proof imho...............................
No, because Ultimately there is no empirical Data on this question of an afterlife. It's simply an unattainable answer. So the best answers we will ever have on the subject are opinions.So given a scientists need for empirical data, shouldn't all true scientists be agnostic.
And not believe in any afterlife.
From a strict rationalistic science point of view the agnostic view would certainly make sense for scientists but I can also see atheism being applicable.So given a scientists need for empirical data, shouldn't all true scientists be agnostic.
And not believe in any afterlife.
Dundee is correct in that agnosticism is the most tenable position because there isn't any empirical data ..one way or the other.No, because Ultimately there is no empirical Data on this question of an afterlife. It's simply an unattainable answer. So the best answers we will ever have on the subject are opinions.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Either there is an afterlife. Or. There is nothing to worry about because the moment we kick it. It will all just be over and done.
If there is a silver lining to this whatsoever. It's that if there isn't an afterlife. No one will be around to be disappointed.
Grim. But why worry about a possibility we can not change?
I feel like Agnosticism is an effortless out, for someone who doesn't or can't make up their minds. But hey that's just one man's opinion. I'm just saying, On any topic. the guy who doesn't have an opinion is a lot like an agnostic. How often has the person without an opinion been fruitful for conversation?Dundee is correct in that agnosticism is the most tenable position because there isn't any empirical data ..one way or the other.