That’s the idea that you will always exist in the universe where you somehow escaped death, right?
Which means that in all likelihood you’ll live forever paralyzed, blind, deaf, etc… as a result of the numerous deaths you barely escaped. And will keep living alone long after the extinction of the human race. Well…hmmm…sorry for you, then.
Sadly, no one knows. There IS no unified theory as to why XT posts, since there never seems to be much point to it. In this particular universe, XT is a few monkeys short of the million required to make sense out of what he writes, so it’s mostly gibberish.
panache45’s wager?
Hypotheses are testable by definition, and the claim that there is an afterlife is the one with the burden of proof.
Would you say that the claim “there is an afterlife” is testable?
Certainly, to a degree; it’s just that all the tests come back negative and people don’t want to hear that.
Aye, “to a degree,” and all depending on the exact details of the claim.
The claim that “there is an afterlife - all corpses come alive again after five days in the grave” is clearly testable.
But the claim that “there is an afterlife - but it takes place on a meta-empirical realm,” however - how’d you go about testing that?
But once you get to that point any fantastical claim can be made, and how can you tell which ones are worth testing at all? When you have limited time and funds, but a seemingly unlimited number of descriptions of “otherworlds”, by what scientific method do you choose which one to spend your time and funds on? Also remember that, even if you choose one to go after, there is no way in the end you can finally show that whatever you are looking for doesn’t exist.
I like to think my consciousness exists in a universe where we’ll develop immortality, or perhaps I’ll become a superhero-like cyborg, which would be awesome.
Or maybe in MY universe, there IS an afterlife. Could be I’m an atheist in the one out of a zillion universes where that’s the wrong opinion. Huh.
You don’t, which is why the idea was invented. But I see no reason to take seriously an idea that was clearly just made up for the purpose of avoiding scientific disproof, and requires ignoring everything we know about how the brain works.
Whether such claims would be worth testing is a separate question.
Whether such claims are worth taking seriously is also a separate question.
I was only arguing that such claims are untestable. Looks like we all agree on that point.
Of course. It’s a scam*; scams are often designed to be untestable. That’s to be expected whether it’s a perpetual motion device or claims about an afterlife, all that changes are the techniques used to make it so.
*Admittedly, a scam created mostly by people to fool themselves, rather than others.
So, to be clear here, you are saying that if something is untestable that it’s a ‘scam’, correct? And that there are no scientific theories that deal with what might happen after you, DT, dies? Is that a good summation of your position on this?
Scientific theories on what happens after we die? There’s just one so far, but it’s pretty well known.
Only one? Man, you are SO limited.
Which gets back to the crux of the thread. No one REALLY knows what happens after death. Perhaps when DT finally shuffles off this mortal coil he simply ceases to exist. Perhaps there are an infinite number of copies of him in parallel universes, some who have died, some who continue to live in his mothers basement, and some who have converted to Christianity and become a rabid Republican. 
You don’t have to be a theist or believe in God/gods or heaven/hell to consider that there might be other possibilities out there besides the dreary ‘you die, rot and that’s it’. I know that the more rabid atheist types on this board get this, and don’t want to discuss it because it smacks of theism (or something), but there really is no way to know what happens to someone (DT for instance) when they die. We might never know the actual answer to that, since we might never be able to prove the parallel universes exist, or anything else that might shed light on this. That doesn’t make it a ‘scam’ though…unless you are just wanting to bust on religion, like DT wants to do.
None of those are scientific theories of what happens to us after we die.
Ah, semantics! No, it’s the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics (one of many such theories that could tangentially discuss aspects of this topic) and is not specifically about what happens to us after we die. Since I’m fairly sure you know as much or more about it as I do, and since I’m sure you see the actual point, I’ll leave it there since your reply was a bit silly.
Yes, your link had nothing to do with the afterlife(the topic of conversation), but that’s only half the reason why your response was wrong.
No, the topic of the conversation is what happens after you die. And the link provides a scientific theory that discusses what MIGHT happen to ‘you’ after you die (in this universe). You pretty much knew when you posted ‘Scientific theories on what happens after we die?’ what I’d say, and figured you’d nitpick because it’s not specifically about that. shrug
What’s the other half of why I’m wrong, btw, since I’m not seeing the first half as being more than a silly nitpick on your part?
Your repeated misuse of the term “scientific theory”.