Option 12: What Happens After Death?

  • Thread starter alexsok
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Death
In summary, the options above influence our expectations of everlasting life in this world; those options that presume to hold any promise of life beyond death weaken the motivation to seek effective solutions to (1) optimal health, (2) "successful" aging, and (3) dramatic life and health extension.

Death is...

  • Oblivion

    Votes: 66 32.4%
  • A Portal Mystery

    Votes: 6 2.9%
  • A Chance to Roam the Earth

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Another Chance at Reincarnation

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • My Ticket to Nirvana

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • A Gateway to Heaven or Hell

    Votes: 18 8.8%
  • A Transition to Another Simulation

    Votes: 14 6.9%
  • A Bridge to Another Realm

    Votes: 14 6.9%
  • I Honestly Don't Know

    Votes: 55 27.0%
  • I Don't Know and I Don't Care

    Votes: 27 13.2%

  • Total voters
    204
  • #1
alexsok
123
0
Option 11: I'd rather not think about it
Option 12: _________ (fill in the blank)

The options above influence our expectations of everlasting life in this world; those options that presume to hold any promise of life beyond death weaken the motivation to seek effective solutions to (1) optimal health, (2) "successful" aging, and (3) dramatic life and health extension. The assumption of oblivion after we die is, for many, a tough one to swallow. And yet, a belief or conviction in the value of life shaped by this assumption is much stronger for having been shaped by it. If you feel there's another option worthy of mention, please indicate it, but give us a sense of where you think you're going, or what you think will happen, when (or after) you die.

I saw a similar thread on another forum and most people were voting for "oblivion" which is not too surprising, seeing as that is the most natural response once would elicit from himself if he looks deep enough into the mystery...

Let's see how it stacks up here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
is this a continuation of your "why am i here question"?
 
  • #3
I've chosen the option for 'The gateway to another realm' but I believe that we are not living in the reality in this world hence a gateway to the realm...
 
  • #4
option 12: I have an idea and i don't care.
 
  • #5
If you define death as cessation of brain activity then there is nothing after death. After death there is total blackness, just as before we were born. However i do believe in an afterlife. Reincarnation seems believable to me. The world isn't all science, science can't even explain some things such as what started the universe before the big bang and where the universe came from. The original particles couldn't have just been there. Matter can't come from nowhere, it must be created. So either God who is eternal created matter or it was always there so matter is eternal.
 
  • #6
X-43D said:
The world isn't all science
What do you mean by that?
, science can't even explain some things such as what started the universe before the big bang and where the universe came from.
Well, the current models of the universe cannot explain this, no.

Why do you insist on pushing this "afterlife" theory of yours? There's a reason all your threads on it get deleted!
 
  • #7
Since this is a science forum, I'm surprised you didn't include the science answer: an end to life. As X-43D says, it is measured as from where brain activity stops.
 
  • #8
Lucky option 11: "other"
 
  • #9
Death is... Never having to say your sorry.

As an agnostic I lean towards the idea that worm food is what I will be when I die, no soul, no after life.

However it doesn't bother me, it simply teaches me to appreciate the life I have now and make the most of it, because this is the show, and there are no repeat performances :smile:

If anyone's interested in learning the absurdity of meaning of existence and the futility of religion in explaining life and how to cope with the pointlessness that is existence, they should read Camus: The Myth of Sysiphus

Great piece of philosophy, the atheists guide to life and death :smile:

I shall tell you a great secret, my friend. Do not wait for the last judgment, it takes place every day

If there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.

Albert Camus
 
  • #10
Death is...

the Great Equalizer


(well, that's what Houdini told me the other day)
 
  • #11
Currently I hold that life, consciousness and self awareness changes its energy form when we die.
There's currently no agreed upon scientific theory that states that consciousness carries on or that there is something more after death, but I'm not one to say that this means something more than just that, but I'm open for suggestions.

In other words; oblivion.
 
  • #12
I would have voted oblivion- but that isn't possible according to the implications of the Quantum Immortality conjecture and the Simulation Hypothesis- as long as an organism is a finite construct of matter- no matter how complex- it must be archeologically reconstructed eventually in a multiverse or spatially infinite universe- http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131 - and artificial simulations must statistically outnumber 'natural'/accidental worlds http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html- [Broken] so I voted for transition to another simulation- although that is necissarily vague- you might as well say I don't know- except that non-existence is not logically possible unless an observer's state is not a physically realizable state of matter- but then there would be no observer in the first place
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Currently, oblivion. But I believe that if we are smart enough, we may be able to extend our intellectual life beyond our bilogical death. We have to figure out a lot about how the brain works, though, before we can try to figure out how to make "backups" of our individual brains, and how then to give those backups intellectual lifes of their own.

What was the science fiction book that talked about this? Dang, it's been forever since I read it. Don't think I finished it, actually...
 
  • #14
berkeman said:
What was the science fiction book that talked about this? Dang, it's been forever since I read it. Don't think I finished it, actually...

nearly every book/story on this list deals with the many implications of uploading/copies/immortality/augemtation/etc: https://www.amazon.com/post-singularity-space-opera/lm/R1F24YYEVSIZOH/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full/002-5298118-5107202
 
  • #15
setAI said:
nearly every book/story on this list deals with the many implications of uploading/copies/immortality/augemtation/etc: https://www.amazon.com/post-singularity-space-opera/lm/R1F24YYEVSIZOH/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full/002-5298118-5107202

Hmmm. Interesting genre, but not what I was referring to. Now I'm going to have to go look for that book that I started... :blushing:
 
  • #16
I am a careful agnostic, so I will say that I do not know. Believing in the certainty anything is faith; atheism is faith.
 
  • #17
Why isn't there a "scaring the hell out of me" option?
 
  • #18
Werg22 said:
I am a careful agnostic, so I will say that I do not know. Believing in the certainty anything is faith; atheism is faith.
Atheism isn't faith. It's a term made up to label people that don't buy into religion or gods. For exmple, Joe believes invisible creatures roam the planet, I ignore Joe's belief, it doesn't take any faith to ignore something I don't care about.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Werg22 said:
I am a careful agnostic, so I will say that I do not know. Believing in the certainty anything is faith; atheism is faith.

The general definition of agnosticism is that one is sure that 'one can never find out anything about the reality of x'. That, if anything, requires faith. Of course you can label it as 'weak agnosticism' which is basically 'I don't know right now'.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Atheism isn't faith. It's a term made up to label people that don't buy into religion or gods. For exmple, Joe believes invisible creatures roam the planet, I ignore Joe's belief, it doesn't take any faith to ignore something I don't care about.

But an atheist asserts that deities do not exist. The atheist takes a position, just like the believer.
 
  • #21
Moridin said:
The general definition of agnosticism is that one is sure that 'one can never find out anything about the reality of x'. That, if anything, requires faith. Of course you can label it as 'weak agnosticism' which is basically 'I don't know right now'.

I guess it's worth pointing out the nuance; I deem myself as one who dosen't know if any after-life exists nor if it is possible to know.
 
  • #22
Werg22 said:
But an atheist asserts that deities do not exist. The atheist takes a position, just like the believer.

Atheism is Not a Denial of 'God'

Atheism is the lack of faith in deities (or arbitrary thing x), not the denial of deities (or arbitrary thing x).

Just because I have a lack of taste in chocolate ice cream, does not mean that I embrace the taste of vanilla. I could have the lack of taste in both, I could say that I do not care about the flavor or that I like another flavor.
 
  • #23
Werg22 said:
But an atheist asserts that deities do not exist. The atheist takes a position, just like the believer.

Taking a position on something is not equivalent to having faith in it. Having faith in something generally refers to a belief either 'without evidence' or even 'in spite of evidence to the contrary'.

I don't believe in Odin, for lots of reasons. I find that the description of Odin, that is generally given, is so unlikely and so unsupportable, that I have no problem denying that he exits. Odin-belief is ridiculous. That doesn't take faith... if its a matter of examining evidence and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. This is an important distinction, because if new evidence was supplied to me, something so overwhelmingly in support of Odin's existense, then I would need to re-evaluate my position.

If I had faith in the non-existense of Odin, evidence, for or against, wouldn't matter even a bit.

Oh and death is... the last thing I ever want to do.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Moridin said:
Atheism is Not a Denial of 'God'

Atheism is the lack of faith in deities (or arbitrary thing x), not the denial of deities (or arbitrary thing x).

Just because I have a lack of taste in chocolate ice cream, does not mean that I embrace the taste of vanilla. I could have the lack of taste in both, I could say that I do not care about the flavor or that I like another flavor.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=atheism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

According to the Oxford Dictionary, I am going along the correct definition.

JoeDawg said:
Taking a position on something is not equivalent to having faith in it. Having faith in something generally refers to a belief either 'without evidence' or even 'in spite of evidence to the contrary'.

I don't believe in Odin, for lots of reasons. I find that the description of Odin, that is generally given, is so unlikely and so unsupportable, that I have no problem denying that he exits. Odin-belief is ridiculous. That doesn't take faith... if its a matter of examining evidence and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. This is an important distinction, because if new evidence was supplied to me, something so overwhelmingly in support of Odin's existense, then I would need to re-evaluate my position.

If I had faith in the non-existense of Odin, evidence, for or against, wouldn't matter even a bit.

Oh and death is... the last thing I ever want to do.

Disambiguation between faith and the taking of a position is not relevant here. What is relevant is that in many cases they are quite equivalent in terms of lack, or abundance thereof, support. For instance, if I were to invent a religion whose only assertion is God Exists, both acceptance and denial would be ultimately unjustifiable.
 
  • #25
Werg22 said:
Disambiguation between faith and the taking of a position is not relevant here. What is relevant is that in many cases they are quite equivalent in terms of lack, or abundance thereof, support. For instance, if I were to invent a religion whose only assertion is God Exists, both acceptance and denial would be ultimately unjustifiable.

Unless 'God exists' is a contradiction.

If all you say is that 'God exists', you are not really saying much of anything. What is a god? Which god? What makes him God? Where can you find this god? How do you know this is true?

I can say: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists". But to know if its true or not I would have to define it, and then, this is where you would need evidence, or faith.

If you said: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists", but refused to say more, or to justify your statement, its simply an unsubstantiated claim, with no worth, its either just sounds or scribbles.
 
  • #26
According to the Oxford Dictionary, I am going along the correct definition.

According to a few other dictionaries and texts, I am going to correct your faulty definition:

ATheist Myth: Isn’t not believing in any gods the same as believing there are no gods?
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm
Online Dictionary Definitions of Atheism
Reference Book Definitions of Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/freethinkers.htm
Definition of Atheism for Modern Atheists

There is a huge difference between strong and weak atheism.

The word atheist is redundant. No one has ever needed to define themselves as non-astrologer, or non-voodoo priest.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
JoeDawg said:
Unless 'God exists' is a contradiction.

If all you say is that 'God exists', you are not really saying much of anything. What is a god? Which god? What makes him God? Where can you find this god? How do you know this is true?

I can say: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists". But to know if its true or not I would have to define it, and then, this is where you would need evidence, or faith.

If you said: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists", but refused to say more, or to justify your statement, its simply an unsubstantiated claim, with no worth, its either just sounds or scribbles.

This is not my point; I could have defined God however I wanted to make the claim substantial with everything I said still applying.

Moridin said:
According to a few other dictionaries and texts, I am going to correct your faulty definition:

ATheist Myth: Isn’t not believing in any gods the same as believing there are no gods?
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm
Online Dictionary Definitions of Atheism
Reference Book Definitions of Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/freethinkers.htm
Definition of Atheism for Modern Atheists

There is a huge difference between strong and weak atheism.

The word atheist is redundant. No one has ever needed to define themselves as non-astrologer, or non-voodoo priest.

I understand.
 
  • #28
Werg22 said:
This is not my point; I could have defined God however I wanted to make the claim substantial with everything I said still applying.

Then do so. I guarantee your everything will not apply, because I will demand proof that what you attribute to your god is true.
 
  • #29
JoeDawg said:
Then do so. I guarantee your everything will not apply, because I will demand proof that what you attribute to your god is true.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder.
 
  • #30
Werg22 said:
Proof is in the eye of the beholder.

So go ahead, show me what you have. If you can supply a concept of god that is not self-contradicting, many philosophers have tried, and verifiable evidence to support your claim that such a god could and does exist, then your claim does not require faith, otherwise believing in it requires faith by definition - faith is defined as belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Until you support your claim, it requires either faith in the claim or at the very least in your ability to discern the truth of the statement: God exists.

I personally have never encountered a God definition that wasn't self contradicting, vague to the point of uselessness, and completely without evidence.

So now I've stated my biases...
If you have such a conception of god, I'd love to hear it.
 
  • #31
I honestly don't know, although I'd like to believe it's not oblivion. I think it might be something like reincarnation -- either you get reborn as another person/animal or in an entirely different world.
 
  • #32
"I honestly don't know", however if time and/or space (multiverse?) is infinite, then anything with a probability above zero should happen an infinite number of times, including the exact circumstances that lead to my existence.
 
  • #33
VikingF said:
"I honestly don't know", however if time and/or space (multiverse?) is infinite, then anything with a probability above zero should happen an infinite number of times, including the exact circumstances that lead to my existence.

That is a big if. What makes you think that

i.) Multiverse idea is valid?
ii.) The existence of an afterlife is above 0?
 
  • #34
Moridin said:
What makes you think that
i.) Multiverse idea is valid?

One thing is that it has explanatory power. The anthropic principle is a good example of this. It is easier to explain why the universe is as fine-tuned as it is if we accept the multiverse idea to be a possible solution. If our universe is only one of infinitely many, or atleast one amongst a vast amount of universes, and the probability of a universe like our to exist is nonzero, then it would appear somewhere sooner or later, and we would be bound to find ourselves in such a universe. It is also a respected idea which is included in many cosmological models, e.g. inflationary cosmology and LQC.
Moridin said:
ii.) The existence of an afterlife is above 0?

I never said that. The reason why you live today, is because the history of the universe happened the way it did from the beginning of it, and until the moment of your existence, right? And that history must have a nonzero probability of happening, since it actually did happen.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
VikingF said:
One thing is that it has explanatory power. The anthropic principle is a good example of this. It is easier to explain why the universe is as fine-tuned as it is if we accept the multiverse idea to be a possible solution. If our universe is only one of infinitely many, or atleast one amongst a vast amount of universes, and the probability of a universe like our to exist is nonzero, then it would appear somewhere sooner or later, and we would be bound to find ourselves in such a universe. It is also a respected idea which is included in many cosmological models, e.g. inflationary cosmology and LQC.

The problem with this idea is that cause/effect is something we observe in our universe, but as soon as you expand your ideas beyond 'our universe' to some kind of theoretical multiverse, talking about probabilities becomes meaningless, since we really have nothing to compare our universe to. All we can really say is that our universe exists and try and model a theory based on what we observe. As far as I can see the 'multiverse' isn't really any less of a 'cheat', at least with current understanding, than saying 'god did it'. Also note that time is a function of 'this' universe, so infinite time... for our universe to happen... doesn't really make sense, unless time exists outside our universe, which we couldn't possibly know and really, it might have completely different properties even if it did.
 
<h2>1. What happens to our bodies after we die?</h2><p>After death, our bodies go through a process called decomposition. This is when bacteria and other organisms break down our tissues and organs, eventually returning them to the earth.</p><h2>2. Is there any evidence of an afterlife?</h2><p>There is no scientific evidence of an afterlife. While some people may have personal beliefs or experiences that suggest an afterlife, there is no concrete proof that it exists.</p><h2>3. What happens to our consciousness after we die?</h2><p>There is no clear answer to this question. Some people believe that consciousness ceases to exist after death, while others believe in the concept of an afterlife or reincarnation. The scientific community has not been able to definitively answer this question.</p><h2>4. Can we communicate with the dead?</h2><p>There is no scientific evidence to support the idea of communicating with the dead. Many supposed methods of communication, such as mediums or Ouija boards, have been debunked by scientists as being based on trickery or coincidence.</p><h2>5. What do different religions believe about what happens after death?</h2><p>Different religions have varying beliefs about what happens after death. Some believe in an afterlife, while others believe in reincarnation or the concept of a soul. It is important to respect and understand these beliefs, but they are not based on scientific evidence.</p>

1. What happens to our bodies after we die?

After death, our bodies go through a process called decomposition. This is when bacteria and other organisms break down our tissues and organs, eventually returning them to the earth.

2. Is there any evidence of an afterlife?

There is no scientific evidence of an afterlife. While some people may have personal beliefs or experiences that suggest an afterlife, there is no concrete proof that it exists.

3. What happens to our consciousness after we die?

There is no clear answer to this question. Some people believe that consciousness ceases to exist after death, while others believe in the concept of an afterlife or reincarnation. The scientific community has not been able to definitively answer this question.

4. Can we communicate with the dead?

There is no scientific evidence to support the idea of communicating with the dead. Many supposed methods of communication, such as mediums or Ouija boards, have been debunked by scientists as being based on trickery or coincidence.

5. What do different religions believe about what happens after death?

Different religions have varying beliefs about what happens after death. Some believe in an afterlife, while others believe in reincarnation or the concept of a soul. It is important to respect and understand these beliefs, but they are not based on scientific evidence.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
10K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
135
Views
53K
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Back
Top