# GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876 "2010-12-03T23:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/201 "2010-12-07T23:58:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > N > Look, the only reason you are arguing for a soul is that you really, really, want one. Can you point to a single thing I have said in this thread that leads you to this conclusion, given that I have repeatedly made very clear that I have no dog in this fight, and that the ways in which I have suggested for souls to exist hardly lend themselves to anything worth “wanting” at all? If in fact the soul operates as I believe it is more likely to, if in fact it exists at all, there’s certainly no payoff for the earthly Stoid that I am busy being - she will be dead. You are just operating from your own prejudice that this conversation cannot possibly be interesting to anyone independent of an agenda that involves a particular answer or outcome, and you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/202 "2010-12-08T00:03:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No. You are suggesting that something that flies in the face of the evidence that we do have. You are doing it with no evidence. That’s simply a worthless argument. And you still missed the best part: **"Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. "** And that’s this thread from top to bottom, and my argument is against _that_, more than anything else. Which makes sense, given my OP…which you _might_ want to _read_. (hint: it’s not “There IS an afterlife and souls DO exist!”) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/203 "2010-12-08T00:06:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Can you point to a single thing I have said in this thread that leads you to this conclusion, given that I have repeatedly made very clear that I have no dog in this fight, and that the ways in which I have suggested for souls to exist hardly lend themselves to anything worth “wanting” at all? If in fact the soul operates as I believe it is more likely to, if in fact it exists at all, there’s certainly no payoff for the earthly Stoid that I am busy being - she will be dead. But something will live on. If you aren’t arguing based on wishful thinking I’d like to know why you are suggesting that something that there is no evidence for and there is much evidence against is real. Do you believe that an invisible zombie hovers behind you when no one is looking? Why don’t you? Someday we’ll have the evidence to prove the invisible zombie is there! Why are you suggesting that it isn’t real? You can’t know it isn’t real! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You are just operating from your own prejudice that this conversation cannot possibly be interesting to anyone independent of an agenda that involves a particular answer or outcome, and you are wrong. My prejudice is against people arguing rubbish. If you are staking a claim that souls exist based on a neutral stance, well that’s even worse than just doing it because you are religious. At least those people are working to save their delusions. Your argument without that is simply sloppy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/204 "2010-12-08T00:10:31Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And you still missed the best part: > > **"Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. "** > > And that’s this thread from top to bottom, and my argument is against _that_, more than anything else. Which makes sense, given my OP…which you _might_ want to _read_. (hint: it’s not “There IS an afterlife and souls DO exist!”) I got it. But you are the one postulating something with no evidence. And something that goes against the evidence we do have. Your argument is exactly as persuasive as saying, “Dragons are real, and someday we’ll have the technology to penetrate their cloaking magic.” Don’t you see how meaningless that argument is? Offer evidence or relegate the idea to the trash heap. If we someday find the dragon decloaking particle, well then it will be reasonable to believe in it. Until then it’s simply wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/205 "2010-12-08T00:19:38Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > But something will live on. If you aren’t arguing based on wishful thinking I’d like to know why you are suggesting that something that there is no evidence for and there is much evidence against is real. Your questions are answered by reading the OP (and opening your mind). I recognize that many people need to have an agenda, a side, a purpose for arguing things, being interested in things, but I’m not one of them. I am often motivated by nothing except curiosity and a desire to know and understand more. Because of this, I am immediately skeptical of arguments (especially those lacking citations to reputable evidence!) that are offered as absolutes without room for error or further possibility. (See my prior post, hello.) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/206 "2010-12-08T00:26:01Z")
Regarding citations: it’s very interesting to me the number of people coming into this thread to announce that it has been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven, with absolutely no room for error or modification, that souls do not exist, there is no afterlife, and every other thing associated with such ideas is absolute fantasy - to the same extent that say, the existence of gravity has been proven. Because it seems pretty obvious that if it had been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven with no room for error or modification, there would be at least one or two solid, reputable, well known and respected citations readily available - after all, that’s pretty big news to be keeping under wraps. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/207 "2010-12-08T00:27:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Suggesting that _maybe_, \*somehow \*we will \*someday \*have the technology to explain the thing _you have no evidence for_ is beyond weak. Somehow we will someday have the technology to explain the cosmos. > [@Lobohan](#): > > I suspect the only reason you are arguing for a soul is that you really, really, want one. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests that one exists. Your wants and reality bear no necessary overlap. I really, really want a Dark Angel era Jessica Alba love robot, should I argue that one exists? I wouldn’t go there. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Sometimes you need to just accept that what you really, really want isn’t the way the universe works. It sucks to face a universe with no immortality, but wanting it isn’t enough a reason to pretend it exists. What is the relation between me and the cosmos? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/208 "2010-12-08T00:30:07Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And you still missed the best part: **"Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. "** What does “logically impossible, given the science of the day” mean? If your cite said it was _physically_ impossible given the science of the day, it would make sense, but as it stands it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/209 "2010-12-08T00:37:19Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Somehow we will someday have the technology to explain the cosmos. Maybe. There doesn’t need to be a reason. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t go there. I should hope not. She is my love robot. > [@](#): > > What is the relation between me and the cosmos? You are the wreckage of one or more supernovae. Glad I could help. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/210 "2010-12-08T00:40:12Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Regarding citations: it’s very interesting to me the number of people coming into this thread to announce that it has been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven, with absolutely no room for error or modification, that souls do not exist, there is no afterlife, and every other thing associated with such ideas is absolute fantasy - to the same extent that say, the existence of gravity has been proven. > > Because it seems pretty obvious that if it had been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven with no room for error or modification, there would be at least one or two solid, reputable, well known and respected citations readily available - after all, that’s pretty big news to be keeping under wraps. There are no cites disproving Dragons. I trust you think Dragons are equally likely as an afterlife? You believe in every possible thing in the universe, right? Unicorns. Wizards. Trolls. The Tron Universe. The X-Men. Grape Ape. You believe in all those things just as much as the afterlife, right? They are all possible, right? Can’t disprove them, can you? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/211 "2010-12-08T00:46:25Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Regarding citations: it’s very interesting to me the number of people coming into this thread to announce that it has been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven, with absolutely no room for error or modification, that souls do not exist, there is no afterlife, and every other thing associated with such ideas is absolute fantasy - to the same extent that say, the existence of gravity has been proven. Because it seems pretty obvious that if it had been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven with no room for error or modification, there would be at least one or two solid, reputable, well known and respected citations readily available - after all, that’s pretty big news to be keeping under wraps. It’s being claimed that souls cannot exist, and this has been demonstrated logically in this thread repeatedly. Whilst a physical afterlife is theoretically possible, it has never been observed to happen, and if it has, it’s up to the observer to provide a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/212 "2010-12-08T01:08:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s being claimed that souls cannot exist, and this has been demonstrated logically in this thread repeatedly. Whilst a physical afterlife is theoretically possible, it has never been observed to happen, and if it has, it’s up to the observer to provide a cite. If someone wrote that an invisible dragon standing behind you cannot exist, would you be as vehement concerning proof of the claim? How much time would you spend arguing that we just can’t know that an invisible dragon is hovering right behind you? How much time would you waste even _considering_ the possibility that an invisible dragon is hovering right behind you? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/213 "2010-12-08T01:16:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If someone wrote that an invisible dragon standing behind you cannot exist, would you be as vehement concerning proof of the claim? How much time would you spend arguing that we just can’t know that an invisible dragon is hovering right behind you? How much time would you waste even _considering_ the possibility that an invisible dragon is hovering right behind you? Did you mean to quote me? I’m saying that the invisible soul dragon cannot exist. I do, however, thing Invisible Soul Dragon would make an awesome band name. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/214 "2010-12-08T01:17:42Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What does “logically impossible, given the science of the day” mean? If your cite said it was _physically_ impossible given the science of the day, it would make sense, but as it stands it doesn’t. Read the page I quoted from, he explains it better than I can. Although I think it speaks for itself - you are arguing from knowledge only of “the science of the day”, without any allowance that science will continue to advance, and that advance might lead to new information and understanding, exactly the way it has previously. I covered this in the OP…this IS the damn OP, for god’s sake! ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/215 "2010-12-08T01:20:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > There are no cites disproving Dragons. > > I trust you think Dragons are equally likely as an afterlife? You believe in every possible thing in the universe, right? Unicorns. Wizards. Trolls. The Tron Universe. The X-Men. Grape Ape. > > You believe in all those things just as much as the afterlife, right? They are all possible, right? Can’t disprove them, can you? As long as you demonstrate that you are not actually paying attention to what I’m actually saying, I really can’t have a discussion with you. If YOUR agenda is to come in and “prove” that there is no afterlife, okay. Done. Bye. But the PURPOSE OF THE THREAD is to DISCUSS HOW WE DECIDE WHAT RATES AS PROOF OF ANYTHING, including dragons, souls and an afterlife. Obviously just about everyone has found this a cripplingly subtle distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/216 "2010-12-08T01:23:44Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s being claimed that souls cannot exist, and this has been demonstrated logically in this thread repeatedly. Whilst a physical afterlife is theoretically possible, it has never been observed to happen, and if it has, it’s up to the observer to provide a cite. I disagree. I’m coming from possibility, you are coming from rigid certainty. I think the first one who has the responsibility to cite is the one making rigidly certain assertions. If you disagree, I’m open to an argument for your disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/217 "2010-12-08T01:27:21Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > As long as you demonstrate that you are not actually paying attention to what I’m actually saying, I really can’t have a discussion with you. If YOUR agenda is to come in and “prove” that there is no afterlife, okay. Done. Bye. I’m not here to prove anything. > [@](#): > > But the PURPOSE OF THE THREAD is to DISCUSS HOW WE DECIDE WHAT RATES AS PROOF OF ANYTHING, including dragons, souls and an afterlife. You know what rates as proof? Evidence. Got any? > [@](#): > > Obviously just about everyone has found this a cripplingly subtle distinction. No, I think I get it. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/218 "2010-12-08T01:28:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If someone wrote that an invisible dragon standing behind you cannot exist, would you be as vehement concerning proof of the claim? How much time would you spend arguing that we just can’t know that an invisible dragon is hovering right behind you? If _someone_ said, “I don’t exist and neither do you; only the cosmos exists” - what would you say to that? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/219 "2010-12-08T01:29:27Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > If _someone_ said, “I don’t exist and neither do you; only the cosmos exists” - what would you say to that? I guess I’d say, “Who said that?” I have no idea what you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/220 "2010-12-08T01:30:58Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > If _someone_ said, “I don’t exist and neither do you; only the cosmos exists” - what would you say to that? I know you didn’t ask me, but I’d tell that person that he’s high and should lie down. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=12)