OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[dogscoff]

Reconcile the fact that space and time exist but are not made up of energy or matter.

Well, I would argue that space and time are simply abstract terms used as "containers" for matter and energy. They are abstracts defined by the matter and energy that occupy them, and could not exist without them.

Put it this way: There is no such thing as a "forest"- it's an abstract- an entirely human invention. Accepting for argument's sake that there is such a thing as a tree, just giving a bunch of trees the name �forest� does not necessarily mean that there is such a thing as a forest. It's just a container for a bunch of trees.

Of course you can (quite rightly) argue the same thing for the whole of language being a metaphor , (and therefore that there is no "tree" either) but I think when you are talking about physical fundamentals like matter and energy you can get around this and say with confidence that matter and energy are about the only things that definitely do exist whether you have a name for them or not. Space and time are just terms we use to contain them.

BTW, spoons and sporks are an entirely different question.

[Gozra]

Science can explain a lot of things.
I figure by the time Science can explain souls it will be too late. I may not be able to prove I have a Soul but I have Faith that I do and that there is a continuation of my being after my worldly death. We all live by faith. I have faith that the Sun will come up every morning that a seed planted will follow it's design parameters and grow. And I have Faith that politicians will get us into a deeper mess today than we were in yesterday. I have Faith that there is an Afterlife. And Once Science "proves" it Why then I guess I won't need faith then.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Over time, people die and enter Heaven, but no one comes back from Heaven, so the number of souls in Heaven is constantly increasing. Of course, these souls have to be coming from somewhere, otherwise the law of conservation of mass is being violated. Where the souls are coming from is of course Earth. Now the Bible says that the righteous go on to live in the kingdom of God for eternity. Thus, Heaven has an infinite duration. But the Earth has a finite mass and if souls are leaving it at some rate then eventually its mass will be depleted below zero, which is impossible - nothing can have negative mass. Therefore Heaven cannot exist. A similar argument applies to Hell, Gehennom, Elysium, Hades, and any other form of afterlife. (The special case of reincarnation is somewhat more difficult and will not be presented here.)

Note: The preceding paragraph is a work of satire. It contains numerous scientific and mathematical errors. Please do not bother contacting me if you only want to point out these errors. Otherwise, write away!

I just came across this thread and will avoid getting caught up in its many twists and turns.

To answer the original post: the Bible speaks of eternal life and eternal punishment, but does not claim that the physical universe will Last forever (perhaps your proof proves this ). In fact, not even heaven itself is said to be eternal. Matthew 24:35 says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there was no longer any sea." Perhaps the recreation will rebalance the mass/energy equation.

Note that I am not trying to make a scientific proof from the Bible, just showing that the original supposition of the "proof" is inaccurate in that heaven is not said to have infinite duration.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick:
Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.

SJ, nice try , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Slick.

Photons have no rest mass. At rest, they have no energy either and don't exist anymore.

The relativistic mass is a different question.
See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html (University of California site)
Edit: better link

---

Exactly my point. Thanks SJ.

[Slick]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick:
Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.

SJ, nice try , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Slick.

Photons have no rest mass. At rest, they have no energy either and don't exist anymore.

The relativistic mass is a different question.
See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html (University of California site)
Edit: better link

---

Exactly my point. Thanks SJ.

---

*sigh* From that very article:

The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless.

It also says:

If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge-conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have vanishing rest-mass.

Which means that if a photon has mass, we basically are totally wrong about quantum electodynamics, which has been verified by numerous experiments.

Believe what you want. I give up. It no longer "matters" to me if you want to believe it or not. You don't need to attempt to convince me that you are right and I am wrong. I will continue to do my day job testing submarine reactors for the US navy at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I have been doing nuclear engineering for over 13 years and I am very comfortable with my knowledge of physics. I do not have the need to have the Last word on this. I'm out of this discussion.

Slick.

[ August 20, 2003, 01:49: Message edited by: Slick ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by Slick:
A soul may or may not exist. We don't even agree on what it is, much less what it is made of or how to detect it. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to disprove it. As for proof, not enough evidence there either.

This is extremely spurious logic Slick.

First of all, I believe that most reasonable people will agree that if someone A claims that an entity x exists, it is up to A to provide a positive argument that x exists, and not up to a skeptical person B to provide an argument that x does not exist. Most reasonable people will also agree that it is difficult / almost impossible to prove a negative.

Second, the term "soul" is only a nominative label. When people debate the existence of "souls", people are of course really debating the existence of some definable entity which the term "soul" denotes, not the term "soul" itself. So, if person A claims that entity "soul" exists, it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of "soul" and all debate subsequent to that will relate to that particular definition of "soul" and no other.

Of course, I admit that there are other, more subtle considerations (e.g. there is a logical difference between actively asserting the non-existence of an entity and passively denying the existence of an entity due to faulty arguments asserting its existence.)

However, the main point is that I believe that we can safely and quite reasonably say that souls, in the popularly understood sense of the term in Western culture, do not exist because all known arguments for its existence have been conclusively refuted or else are fatally flawed.

[Slick]

Originally posted by deccan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick:
A soul may or may not exist. We don't even agree on what it is, much less what it is made of or how to detect it. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to disprove it. As for proof, not enough evidence there either.

This is extremely spurious logic Slick.

First of all, I believe that most reasonable people will agree that if someone A claims that an entity x exists, it is up to A to provide a positive argument that x exists, and not up to a skeptical person B to provide an argument that x does not exist. Most reasonable people will also agree that it is difficult / almost impossible to prove a negative.

Second, the term "soul" is only a nominative label. When people debate the existence of "souls", people are of course really debating the existence of some definable entity which the term "soul" denotes, not the term "soul" itself. So, if person A claims that entity "soul" exists, it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of "soul" and all debate subsequent to that will relate to that particular definition of "soul" and no other.

Of course, I admit that there are other, more subtle considerations (e.g. there is a logical difference between actively asserting the non-existence of an entity and passively denying the existence of an entity due to faulty arguments asserting its existence.)

However, the main point is that I believe that we can safely and quite reasonably say that souls, in the popularly understood sense of the term in Western culture, do not exist because all known arguments for its existence have been conclusively refuted or else are fatally flawed.

---

Ok, (and this is my very Last word hehee) That argument only works for a logical discussion. Belief (or disbelief) in souls is not a logic question, but a question of faith. By definition, faith is believing without proof. It's a religious thing, not a math thing or a logic thing. So those who believe in souls do so acknowledging that there is no concrete proof. If you are looking for proof of religious beliefs, you can easily reason yourself into not believing in anything; and that may be what is right for you. But not everyone thinks that way.

edit: spelling/grammar

Slick.

[ August 20, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: Slick ]

[Fyron]

Photons have no rest mass, but they have relativistic mass. Hence, mass-like property.

I will continue to do my day job testing submarine reactors for the US navy at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I have been doing nuclear engineering for over 13 years and I am very comfortable with my knowledge of physics.

That means absolutely nothing in any sort of discussion.

[tesco samoa]

ot--- my great uncle discovered their opposite

[ August 20, 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by Slick:
So those who believe in souls do so acknowledging that there is no concrete proof.

Ok, but I'm putting you on notice that I intend to hold you to this statement.

I mean no offense to you in particular. After all, I know you mainly from your great work in keeping the FAQ here updated. But from my personal experience, theists tend to use the faith line when things get tough, but forget about it when it comes to disseminating their beliefs. This is what Carl Sagan called wanting to enjoy the Cachet of scientific respectability without being willing to pay its costs.

Again, to make things perfectly clear: I have no objections whatsoever if anyone says something to the effect that he believes souls exist because it's a personal, religious thing. I do object if anyone says that he believes souls exist and tries to convince others that souls exist due to some logical / scientific argument without properly spelling out that argument or properly defining "soul" in an unambiguous way.