£1m to prove an afterlife.

[iCraig]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070622/tuk-proving-afterlife-will-make-man-1m-dba1618.html

No chance, I say.

I haven't seen any scrap of evidence to say that there's an afterlife, and before someone jumps on my back; a picture of a dishcloth looking like your dead Granddad's face doesn't count. Nor does objects falling off your shelves or it mysteriously getting cold as you enter a cellar.

Seriously though, does anyone believe we can prove it? I'm not asking if it does or does not exist, I believe we won't know until we die ourselves, but I'm asking your opinions on if it's scientifically possible to prove an afterlife?

 

[iCraig]

Science doesn't seek to prove anything. Those who believe that are misguided.

 

[iCraig]

What about binary star systems? Do atoms have two nuclei?

 

[iCraig]

none of us remotely understand what's going on

Talk for yourself.

Oh so you *know* what happens when we die then?

He's perfectly right in saying that nobody knows what goes on when we die. It's one of mankind's great unanswered questions. Science assumes nothing happens due to logical medical data. However this doesn't conclusively prove an after life doesn't exist. Science doesn't even seek to prove anything, it just draws up a model based on the available data and predicts an outcome. In this case, it speculates and predicts that when we die, we cease to exist. Complete and utter oblivion. Is science going around proclaiming that is the *true* answer? No. Only misguided people like you who think science works like that do.

Remember, how can you conclusively prove an absence of something, when you don't even know how to measure and observe that something in the first place? A famous mantra sums that up perfectly: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

One final point to consider is scientific advancement. Back in Roman times, radiation existed. However the Romans were completely oblivious to it. They lacked the ability to measure and observe it, but it was still there. Fast forward to today's age. We now possess the knowledge and technology to measure and observe radiation. Think about it, science hasn't reached a crux on what we can understand. In a few thousand years, who knows what science will have uncovered, quite possibly something that no scientist around today has even conceived.

 

[iCraig]

*double post*

 

[iCraig]

There's only one post...

*head asplode*

 

[iCraig]

I don't know what you're trying to say with that, are you claiming that I'm wrong and you already know for a fact what happens when we die?

 

[iCraig]

OK, just curious because you quoted a specific sentence about me explaining why it's impossible to know for sure.

I agree that we observe within constructs. The critical factor is that constructs change. Science is too ambiguous to pin a definite answer on anything, the human race changes. In 3000 years we could have discovered anything.