Manuals and instructions for everything

why there is no life after death

A scientist claims there is no life after death because the laws of physics make it impossible. After extensive studies, physicist Sean Carroll says for there to be an afterlife, our consciousness would need to be entirely separated from our physical body в which it is not. No, Donald Trump is not getting shot into the sun at tremendous speed
Consciousness is a series of atoms and electrons which give us our mind, he says. The laws of the universe do not allow these atoms and electrons to continue to operate after our bodies have died. Dr Carroll, a cosmologist and professor at the California Institute of Technology, explained: вClaims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms faces one huge insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. вThereвs no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die,в he wrote in the Scientific American. Thereвs no way information stored in our brains can persist after we die, says Dr Carroll (Picture: Getty) Dr Carroll says that Quantum Field Theory (QFT) suggests there is one field for each type of particle. So all photons in the universe are on one level, all electrons in the universe are on another level and so on.

For life to be able to continue after death, he says tests on the quantum field would have revealed вspirit particlesв and вspirit forcesв в which they have not. вIf itвs really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. вBelieving in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the standard model,в he said. More: Read my Round-1 argument. I established there that the science does not currently acknowledge the existence of a soul; if you wish to introduce one, you will need to provide strong evidence for it first. Without a soul, there is no reason to believe that we will continue to live even after all our organic processes have ceased. The very idea that we are alive because we have some sort of soul, or spirit, or vital spark, or magical energy flowing through us is based on the mistaken assumption that life, or consciousness, is impossible without some special "extra thing" added. But this is not what we observe in nature, either in biology or in the rest of the physical world: the notion of mystical "essences" inhabiting things in order to give them their qualities is thousands of years old, and woefully lacking in actual hard evidence.

To speak of the soul as a scientific, real-world explanation for phenomena is as absurd as appealing to the heart's capacity for reasoning or emotion, in a non-metaphoric sense. The idea that there is some magical soul hiding in us, like the idea that the heart is the seat of reason or feeling, is an ancient relic with no explanatory value and no supporting evidence. We already know what structure in the body houses the mind (including the self, a psychological construct that is often equated with "the soul"): the brain. We know that activity in the brain correlates with activity in the mind, and see no evidence that the mind can continue operating once the brain has died. The fact that we _want_ to continue living after our brain dies doesn't mean that we actually do, I'm afraid. Appealing to the Bible is a dead-end for you, because observation trumps history, where the two conflict. No matter how reliable an authority seems to be, he can never trump the observable world: even if the most reliable, intelligent, well-researched scientist in the world claimed that rain is made of gumdrops, or that we have souls, or that unicorns once existed, we couldn't take him at his word without hard evidence.

In the same way, no matter how credible the authors of the Gospel might be (and I see no reason to believe they are much more credible than any other cultists willing to give their lives for a cause), it is irrational to allow mere human claims to define your beliefs more than the observable world around you. People are fallible (even people claiming to speak for God! ); the world is not. As for the "garments" you refer to, I don't even know what argument you're trying to make there. The fact that clothes existed 2,000 years ago proves that we have souls? Um? Unless the "particles" you speak of were soul-particles, I think you're missing the point. Jesus could very well be the greatest and most wonderful person who ever lived, and none of that would provide evidence for the existence of souls. It's simply a non sequitur. Anyway, I've looked at our universe, and I don't see Heaven. C'mon, don't be coy, gimme a clue? :) And where are these "documents" you speak of, what are their contents? And what is this "unknown energy" you speak of (and what does it have to do with souls)? Simply using the word "scientists" over and over again without actually citing any peer-reviewed papers or names seems suspiciously like hand-waving.

  • Views: 158

why do we fear death so much
why do network solids have high melting points
why were the proton and electron discovered before the neutron
why does helium have 2 valence electrons