Maybe I should rephrase, his argument is logically faulty as to know if his statement is true it would require proof of what life is and consciousness is. I have not seen such proof given, hence the lack of veritable evidence to substinaiaite the claim.
Going further if the OP is indeed correct, such evidence should be obtainable. The fact that we don’t ahve such proof does not negate it, but does not prove it either.
Here is the whole of the OP:
Please point out where he makes an argument, or even uses the word “proof”.
OK, you got me there.
What you’ve given is a common argument from those who believe in an afterlife: after scientists carefully spend time, money and effort gathering verifiable evidence, and all said evidence points towards a conclusion not favorable towards the believers, the believers then step in and arbitrarily change the word “evidence” to “proof”, saying “You said you could prove that there was no life after death, and you can’t! That means our point of view is absolutely equal to yours!”…which of course is only true if all the evidence is ignored, and fact and blind conjecture are given equal footing.
Now you are changing the subject, I never said nor went into proof of life after death, simply ‘what is life’ is needed to be defined and proven to go any further - and that should be achievable if life is strictly the biological system. Without being able to define life you are going to have a heck of a time defining or negating afterlife.
Also you neglected the OP’s subject in your above retstatment of the OP:
1.And how would we go about “proving” what life was to your satisfaction? At what point would you be satisfied enough that a proper definition could be had?
2. What would it take to prove to you that there is no afterlife?
I’m not following you. The OP is talking about human life. What issue do you have in distinguishing a living human from a dead one that is relevant to this topic?
Not my satisfaction, there should be a scientific method of doing so. So far life is on the same ‘define-ability’ level as autism, we know it exists and we can list signs and symptom of it, but we have no idea of what it is nor can we make a 100% diagnosis. That’s a problem, a really big one.
Well afterlife, is what happens after life, so define what life is.
OK that last one is a bit of a snark - but not really, as afterlife refers to the dieing of the bio-organism, and what happens to that conscientiousness that was there. But still it is incumbent on you to define what life is.
What is human life? If you define it you have either have to prove it or you set a definition based on the conclusion you wish. The former has not been done AFAIK, the latter is a belief.
This goes to the SUBJECT of the OP more then the OP’s opening post.
^ If a loved one left you with the responsibility of taking care of his remains when he died, how difficult of a time would you have in knowing when you should give the okay to bury him?
This definition of “Life” works for me.
Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.
“Afterlife” is the belief that some have that their consciousness continues after death.
Once again I ask you: What would it take to prove to you that there is no “afterlife”?
What definition of life did you give there, I don’t see one 
You didn’t answer my question.
You don’t see the first sentence?
If I chose to bury him that is. But really no issue in that respect we have customs and laws that I would honor.
You’re avoiding answering the question. What changes would happen to your loved one that you would know that it’s okay to bury him?
I see the definition of death and afterlife. Perhaps some ad blocking software is blocking the part where Czarcasm says Life is…
No now you are changing the subject from your original question. My answer remains, I would follow local laws and customs. We have some set of guidelines which Dr’s are trained in, they are not 100% but they work for most cases, and I would use them because that is what we accept absent of really knowing and understanding and perhaps the best we can do at this time.
And I am at peace with that.
:rolleyes: Well, those changes are the changes the OP is talking about. The OP is regarding what happens when a human goes from the former state to the latter. No requirement to define life to your satisfaction that I’m sure you’ll argue with once you figure out how to click on the link you’ve already been provided with is necessary to discuss the OP.
just because it’s likely to elicit a dreary response about someone’s heartfelt religious faith…which would make me want to plug my ears with my fingers- while shouting out the words to Jingle Bells- just to avoid hearing the impending proselytization.
Nevertheless, when I was a kid, I had a “near death experience” that included most of the salient features reported by true believers.
At that time I woke up feeling assured of the existence of god, heaven, and an afterlife.
As an adult I became aware and accepting of the prosaic neurological/asphyxia/dying brain cell explanations, and subsequently gave up all hope of ever dating Janis Joplin in heaven.
Yet the experience I remember still seems like a significant one, and I think that experience (be it a few seconds, or minutes, or an eternity) followed by Bolivia* would be a good enough afterlife.
*when discussing retirement, Mike Tyson opined that he would just fade into Bolivian.