# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/321 "2010-12-09T04:56:01Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > If I told you that this I’m tearing up, would that make me pathetic, or you awesome? :\* Pathetic. Because people understood yo, it is just that th discussion you want to have doesn’t make sense unless everyone agrees on the basic definitions. Since you said you were interested in debate and all I mean…maybe by “debate” you meant “mutual admiration society”? ---
**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 9, 2010, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/322 "2010-12-09T04:56:18Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I am capable of (and tempted to) go farther. \ yes yes! Please continue! ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/323 "2010-12-09T05:23:21Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > To the former question I have given my answer: it depends on what you and I and the other participants _mean_ when we say “afterlife”; but if I accept the definition of afterlife as life that continues after life ends, then yeah it’s fair to conclude that there isn’t any. I wish I could be [understood](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246). ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/324 "2010-12-09T05:26:15Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Everyone could believe that this _li_f_e_ is real, except me, but that wouldn’t make my existence any less likely. You’ve got to hook me up with your dealer, man. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/325 "2010-12-09T05:41:35Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > You’ve got to hook me up with your dealer, man. Sorry, no dealer, but after reading your post and looking up thread, I think I realized: [birth and death are horrible controlling influences](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246). I wish there could be understanding. At least in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/326 "2010-12-09T07:13:18Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > What function does consciousness perform that the cosmos doesn’t already perform? The cosmos survives, but consciousness doesn’t? Consciousness, being a part of the natural world, is part of the cosmos by definition, so I don’t quite get your point. And, btw , cogito ergo sum (well, someone had to say it.) The cosmos did fine without any consciousness in it - if you think consciousness can exist without the cosmos, I’m going to need some evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/327 "2010-12-09T07:25:45Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > OK how about Martin Luther King? Does the “spirit of what he stood for” persist in ongoing struggles for equality, parity, fairness? Unlike the board, MLK was an individual. Had an individual self. Those who have been inclined to hero-worship him might say that while he was alive he lived for more than just his individual self; that the “we” sense of identity was more compelling for him than for the typical person. Not that everyone is required to hero-worship him, but he does make a good example, doesn’t he? Self _can be plural_. My reading 900 pages of General Semantics in high school comes through again. Martin Luther King is both a real person and a bunch of tags placed on the real person. Some of the tags are the heroic King - the ones filtering out his real flaws. Back then there were tags for an evil King, created by his enemies. Associated with him are tags for the spirit you mentioned. Even after the real King is dead, all these survive, and the imperfection of biography mean they are all that is left. It is certainly possible that the spirit tag might some day become disconnected from King, and attach itself to an imaginary folk hero. But if this happens, or even the survival of the distorted tags of King, does not mean that King survived death in any way. The real one is gone, the tags associated with him live on. If there was a historic King Arthur, hos "spirit"has become absolutely disconnected from the real person, as another example. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/328 "2010-12-09T07:27:01Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > No! Your consciousness is not a property of the cosmos. Consciousness is a property of the cosmos. > It is not trivial. The cosmos exists and consciousness exists. As there is only one cosmos, so is there only one consciousness. This does not follow. Everything is a property of the cosmos. Hemorrhoids are a property of cosmos. That doesn’t mean there is only one hemorhoid. While it’s true (and philosophically interesting) that consciousness can be said to be a property of the universe itself (and even fairly said that it represents the universe being conscious of itself in a way), each individual human consciousness is still a unique and discrete event. There is no unitive or collective quality to them. No singularity. > [@](#): > > \*Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. \* _Itaque cur pones?_ ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/329 "2010-12-09T07:32:11Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > It’s also a cosmological event. 🆒 Everything in the universe is a cosmological event. That statement doesn’t mean anything, nor does it contradict anything being purely physical. It’s essentiallythe same statement. “Afterlife” beliefs and “souls,” and the like actually posit _]non_-cosmological phenomena. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing that consciousness can’t do that the cosmos doesn’t already do. Right? Consciouness doesn’t _do_ anything. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/330 "2010-12-09T07:35:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The purpose of life is to render inorganic molecules into organic molecules, which expands the presence of life in the Universe and expands the sentience of the Cosmos. When a sufficient proportion of the Universe is organic and sentient, only then can an omnipotent God finally evolve. An omnipotent God being unbound by Time, from the moment of that Incarnation, God will exist and will therefore have always existed. Rendering all religion valid, more or less retroactively. > > Derp, man. Derp. You scored big today, didn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/331 "2010-12-09T07:37:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The cosmos did fine without any consciousness in it - I agree. What about [this scenario](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246)? Back to the beginning. Everything would be fine then, too. Better even. > [@Voyager](#): > > if you think consciousness can exist without the cosmos, I’m going to need some evidence. That is indeed the debate. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/332 "2010-12-09T08:30:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You scored big today, didn’t you? Hey! I’m gonna make you take that back! Soon as I find my shoes! OK, went and got cookies and Funyums, wore them then. Wait…no, its winter, definitely wore the shoes, would have noticed that right away! Came home, took them off, and ate the…Wait, no, no I didn’t. Still have them on! Far out! Oh, \*there’\*s the Funyums! What? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/333 "2010-12-09T10:19:19Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > I wish I could be [understood](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246). Actually, yeah, I’ll ratify that one too. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/334 "2010-12-09T10:38:23Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Your consciousness is not a property of the cosmos. Consciousness is a property of the cosmos. > It is not trivial. The cosmos exists and consciousness exists. As there is only one cosmos, so is there only one consciousness. In the sense that there is only one object (the cosmos in its entirety) except insofar as we, with our minds, chop it up into smaller bits and _treat_ them as separate, there is also only one consciousness. (Although as I said above I actually think the characteristic is something of which consciousness, as we usually think of it, is a subset). Do you feel understood yet? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/335 "2010-12-09T16:48:42Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Do you feel understood yet? 😛 If only someone at the top of the thread had asked us to define our terms before we started using them as though we all shared their meanings…if only…if only… ---
**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 9, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/336 "2010-12-09T17:02:55Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I don’t find any of those assertions to be true without experimental evidence. See **Dawkins, R** for alternate explanations for all of it. I’ve read pretty much everything Dawkins has written. You’ll have to enlighten me as to what assertions you have a problem with. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/337 "2010-12-09T17:07:22Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > In the sense that there is only one object (the cosmos in its entirety) except insofar as we, with our minds, chop it up into smaller bits and _treat_ them as separate, there is also only one consciousness. (Although as I said above I actually think the characteristic is something of which consciousness, as we usually think of it, is a subset). Do you feel understood yet? 😛 Does this include the stuff that got created with our stuff in the Big Bang, but which is now beyond our event horizon? Is that stuff the same as our stuff? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/338 "2010-12-09T17:09:52Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > That is indeed the debate. Well, even if there is a soul, it might be part of the cosmos, and so wouldn’t exist if there was no cosmos. Perhaps souls got created in the Big Bang, after all even materialists think that what passes for souls (personalities) get created in a sense during a little bang. I remember an sf story from a long time ago where there was a finite number of souls, and the increased population meant that we ran out, and new babies were born without them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/339 "2010-12-09T17:14:45Z")
That explains Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/340 "2010-12-09T17:20:48Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I’ve read pretty much everything Dawkins has written. You’ll have to enlighten me as to what assertions you have a problem with. The same assertions I mentioned earlier, that you have presented neither experimental evidence for, nor arguments and experiments that suggest alternate explanations are insufficient. You know, to use the OP’s term, science-y stuff and all. > [@](#): > > Consciousness is necessary for humans and animals to survive. Humans and animals are not necessary for the cosmos to survive. Consciousness is an evolutionary trait some living organisms have developed as a means to ensure their survival on this planet. > > And consciousness provides plenty of functions the cosmos doesn’t on its own. The cosmos doesn’t, by its mere existence, allow me to type this out or pick out food at a supermarket. Consciousness is needed for that. But me typing this or picking food or anything else humans use consciousness to accomplish makes no difference to whether the cosmos exists or not. The cosmos is necessary for our existence; our existence is not necessary for it. What is the question here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=18)