GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff

Great Debates
61

That’s great. Now can you tell us how you calculated these probabilities? After all this is GD, and you just declared the likelihood of something. So you must have some calculations that allowed you to assess these probabilities.

And I know you *must *have calculations to support the assertion, because you just told me that you don’t just *think *its unlikely based on the evidence.

The problem is that we both know this is exactly what you did. You looked at the evidence and formed a subjective opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, but you can’t possibly think it is rational to say “I have an opinions based on a subjective interpretation of the facts, so the opinions can be declared a fact.”

Of course the simplest way to quash this argument is simply to point out the converse:

The vast majority of the world’s population believes that an afterlife’s existence, based on all the available evidence (which does exist), is so incredibly likely that you might as well declare its existence a fact.

So where does that put your argument?

Come now, you know this is nonsense. You know damn well there is evidence of an afterlife. You and I think it’s pretty damn flimsy evidence, but blanket declarations that there is no evidence is beneath you.

Please just concede this point and let us move on. Don’t force me to bury you in testimonials on near death experiences, ghosts,past lives etc. We both know those testimonies exist. It’s pretty damn weak evidence, but it is evidence all the same.

Precisely. So what people think and their subjective beliefs don’t signify squat in issues of fact. And that includes your opinion and mine

Nor did I ask you to.

You declared that people had looked for such evidence and failed to find it. I asked you to support that claim.

And it is indeed your job to provide evidence for the extraordinary claims that you have made.

Riiiight. And… :confused:

What is your point? Nobody here has ever claimed to have proof of an afterlife or even claimed that it exists, so this is a blatant strawman.

The only claims of fact made in this thread have been made by people, yourself included, that there is not an afterlife.

You are the one claiming that it is a fact that people have looked for the afterlife and failed to find evidence. IOW you are the one claiming to have seen a ghost.

So where is your evidence for that claim? The evidence for your claim that people have looked for the afterlife and failed to find it? Can you tell us where exactly people have looked for, say, the Hindu afterlife? Bonus points if you can explain what methodology they used and why that methodology is considered valid. More bonus points if you can explain why it is more valid the methods people used to look for it that confirmed the existence of the afterlife.

I agree entirely. It is indeed your job to provide evidence for your claim that people have looked for the afterlife and failed to find it.

I am sure that it is indeed a pain in the ass since it appears to have been a baseless claim.

But them’s the breaks.

62

The reason one can accurately say that everyone who’s looked for an afterlife has failed is that an afterlife is impossible. Consciousness cannot survive the destruction of the brain, and dead bodies are not mysteriously disappearing before the brain decays.
Anyone who wishes to claim that there is a soul needs to say what it is, in terms of matter and/or energy, how it is able to leave the body undetected, and how it can travel to this afterlife.

63

So AClockworkMelon knows for a fact that the afterlife is impossible, because people have looked for it and failed.

And you know for a fact that everyone who’s looked for an afterlife has failed, because an afterlife is impossible.

Well, that is a compelling argument. Colour me convinced. The two of you are clearly too clever for me.

Now perhaps you can tell me who’s on first?

64

I assume you’ll at least agree that if an afterlife is impossible, then anyone looking for it will fail? So, explain to me how an afterlife is possible. I’m not asking for any proof of existence, just that it could exist.

65

Yes, of course. And what is your point?

Why should I do that? *You *are the one making the statements of emphatic fact. *You *are the one who needs to pony up *your *evidence.

So please do so.

66

What, exactly, do you want me to provide evidence of? I can’t provide evidence of a negative, obviously. What I can do, and have, done, is show that an afterlife is impossible. I’ll do so again. Consciousness is an emergent property of the complex system that is the brain. An emergent property only exists while the system it emerges from exists. Therefore, no brain no consciousness. Death inevitably entails the destruction of the brain. Therefore, no consciousness after death. If you have a different meaning to “afterlife” than consciousness after death, please let me know.

67

Yikes. I’ve done a few of these type threads, Stoid and they never end well.

What I’ve learned is that there are different types of answers to these types of questions depending on the mindset of the people answering.

Scientific Absolutist: “Yes / No” answers that are based primarily on fact driven evidence. While they may be technically correct on a negative stance, I call this the “Argument from Laziness”. Generally the line goes something like: " There is no proof of it existing, so it doesn’t. If it were even remotely possible someone else would have done it by now. Evidence can’t exist for this because of its nature."

Negative Inquirist: “There is no convincing or reproducible evidence to date addressing this issue. Therefore, we shall operate as if it does not exist. Any supposed evidence should be held to an extremely critical standard before going further.”

Inquirist : “There is no convincing or reproducible evidence to date addressing this issue. Therefore, we shall operate as if it does not exist. However, since it cannot be ruled out categorically, should someone come forth with convincing evidence, we should take another look at the question.”

Inquiristic Believer:“There is no convincing or reproducible evidence to date addressing this issue. However, it is harmless, safer, or societally beneficial to assume the positive. Should evidence come to light in favor of this idea, we should strongly pursue it. More research should be conducted in this area, and I strongly support the same.”

Believer: " Blank exists. I make this assertion on faith, which needs no evidence to back up it’s veracity. Since you cannot disprove it, then you must assume the positive. "

Most scientific people I know, (including myself), generally fall into the range somewhere between Negative Inquirists and Inquirists. There is a growing number of the more strident Scientific Absolutists though; particularly on this board. While they may well be factually correct in their position on a certain issue, I think their mindset is counterproductive to driving new discoveries; a process that is driven by innovation and experimentation rather than referring to rote knowledge as unassailable truth.

68

So you stated something as a fact in GD, and when called on it you are unable to produce any evidence at all.

That really tells us all we need to know about your position, obviously.

69

I’m claiming a negative. Do you not understand that one doesn’t produce positive evidence for a negative? For example, I state as fact that there are no unicorns. I have no evidence, obviously. The reason I claim it is that there is no evidence for them existing. The major difference between unicorns and the afterlife is that unicorns are theoretically possible. I’ve explained, several times, why the afterlife isn’t and you have yet to comment on that. It’s not me that’s arguing in bad faith here.

70

What is your position on Santa Claus?

71

Simple question: do you have evidence to support your claim or not?

72

My claim? I just asked a question.

73

Sure. A = B, where A is the amount of evidence for the existence of an afterlife and B is the likelyhood of it existing. Glad I could clear that up.

Kindly point out all that evidence. Not just to me, but to a peer-reviewed publication so that guys in white lab coats can study your findings.

What? Have you scanned my brain? Do you have paranormal mind-reading powers? Did you just form a subjective belief and declare it to be truth? Scandal!

They can be recreated in controlled conditions.

By all means, blow me and the rest of the world away with evidence of the existence of ghosts.

lol

Cite that I claimed that people had looked for such evidence.

Again, please point out where I claimed that people had looked for the afterlife and failed to find it.

I’m not exactly sure what the point of your argument is. I’m not a scientist. All I can do is base my conclusions on the work done by more qualified people. And until more qualified people say “oh, what do you know, this evidence has merit” there’s absolutely no reason for me to think that there’s an afterlife or a God or whatever. You can argue that an afterlife can’t be proven to not exist until the cows come home. I’m not disagreeing with you. But until someone proves it to exist the default is that it doesn’t. People don’t believe in the Horn-nosed Swaddledonkey and they wouldn’t until I proved that it was real. The fact that the Horn-nosed Swaddledonkey is a magical creature that turns invisible whenever anyone looks at it isn’t their problem, it’s mine.

74

I heard a team of researchers scoured the North Pole on the 24th of December and ruled out that Santa Clause existed in a visible state above ground at the North Pole from 12:01 AM to midnight the evening of the 24th. Now all they have to do is scour every other location on Earth and indeed, in the universe, at all other points in time, including the past.

One step closer to proving the nonexistence of Santa!

75

I guess that until then, we are just going to have to keep an open mind about Santa Claus.
And the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy, and all other fairies, and brownies, and pixies, and jackalopes, and the Loch Ness Monster, and magic beans, and other dimensions that contain the DC and/or Marvel superheroes, and Doctor Who etc. etc. etc.

76

If you consider lack of evidence for a positive as evidence for a negative, then yes I do. As I’ve repeatedly stated.
If you consider a demonstration that something is impossible as evidence that it doesn’t exist, them yes I do. As I’ve repeatedly stated.
However, one is not expected to provide evidence of a negative, which is why neither of there things are usually considered “evidence”. As I’ve repeatedly stated.
So, Blake, do you understand what I’m saying? If it needs any more clarifying I’ll try to do so. But stop ignoring what I’m actually saying, and asking questions I’ve repeatedly answered.

77

Steophan, I understand what you’re saying, but what I don’t understand is what your basis is for asserting that the “soul” must be measurable in this world in order to exist at all. Certainly you can insist upon it as a condition of you personally considering the possibility of its existence, that’s a given. But it strikes me that your condition sort misses the whole point of supernatural states. That’s what “supernatural” means.

You’re kinda doing the same thing that CC did that started all this. You’re saying you personally believe that in order for something to exist, certain criteria must be met, and if they aren’t, it is proof that that thing in question does not, in fact, exist. but what it really means is that your opinion is that it does not exist, based on the dearth of evidence for it. As you define evidence, within your definition of what’s necessary. It’s all opinion. No evidence, no proofs on either side, no fact.

But I coulda missed something, I’ve been busy and I gotta rush back…interesting stuff, though.

78

If something exists, it can at least theoretically be observed, if not necessarily measured. That’s what existence is.

79

This is not a line of reasoning used by scientists.

In the case of “afterlife” beliefs, it’s not just lack of evidence, but actual proof of impossibility. We can prove consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, therefore it can’t exist without a brain. QED. The question is answered, the hypotheses (which never had an evidentiary basis in the first place) now has no explanatory purpose either, and no compatibility with the physical universe. The insistence on continuing to argue from absence at this point (“you still can’t REALLY prove there’s no magic, non-material spirit living inside the body”) is no more rational or convincing than arguing that we can’t prove that trees don’t have cookie making elves inside them. “Souls” are no more rational a hypthesis than elves.

80

Because that’s the definition of “existence.” If it has no material existence it doesn’t exist. What’s the difference between non-materiality and non-existence?