What are the chances of there being an afterlife (of any kind) IYO? I'd say about 51%

[Helm]

When you have no concrete objective evidence of any description either way between two opposing claims it has to be 50% if you're being entirely unbiased. People do have near death and out of body experiences however, they could easily be hallucinations as from what I've heard they can be brought on artficially in someone who is very much alive with hallucinogenic drugs, but I still find those and other paranormal claims to be interesting enough to be worth the extra 1%, you have to be at least a little open minded.

[xcorps]

Actually, if you happen to be a Christian-the odds are 100%. If you happen to be an Atheist, the odds are--Zero.

[Helm]

Actually, if you happen to be a Christian-the odds are 100%. If you happen to be an Atheist, the odds are--Zero.

Atheism doesn't necessarily exclude some kind of afterlife even if it doesn't promise one. With Christianity I suppose it depends how much faith you have in it,so even a Christian won't necessarily be 100% sure, I would guess most aren't.

[xcorps]

Atheism doesn't necessarily exclude some kind of afterlife even if it doesn't promise one. With Christianity I suppose it depends how much faith you have in it,so even a Christian won't necessarily be 100% sure, I would guess most aren't.

If you belive..maybe...then you don't believe.

[Helm]

If you belive..maybe...then you don't believe.

There's always room for reasonable doubt, not everyone is a fanatic.

[nasher168]

Actually, if you happen to be a Christian-the odds are 100%. If you happen to be an Atheist, the odds are--Zero.

Whether you're an atheist or Christian doesn't make a difference. The universe doesn't care what you believe and believing won't make it any more or less true.

Since there is no evidence in favour of the hypothesis, it can be dismissed without negative evidence until positive evidence is brought to light. This is the foundation of modern science.

[Helm]

Since there is no evidence in favour of the hypothesis, it can be dismissed without negative evidence until positive evidence is brought to light. This is the foundation of modern science.

This is assuming that no afterlife is somehow the default standard, but we don't actually know this. There's nothing to base this assumption upon.

[Himster]

This is assuming that no afterlife is somehow the default standard, but we don't actually know this. There's nothing to base this assumption upon.

Eh no. The perception of reality is determined by evidence, without evidence no determination may be made, abstaining from assumtion is always the best option.

I however have subjective reasons for believing in an afterlife.

[Helm]

Eh no. The perception of reality is determined by evidence, without evidence no determination may be made, abstaining from assumtion is always the best option.

But there's no (objective) evidence either way, either for nor against. In fact the concept of there not being an afterlife in terms of the entire history of homo sapiens was a somewhat recent idea, it came about during the axial age of theological development, I think it's an idea that has a great deal going for it for don't get me wrong.

[xcorps]

Whether you're an atheist or Christian doesn't make a difference. The universe doesn't care what you believe and believing won't make it any more or less true.

Since there is no evidence in favour of the hypothesis, it can be dismissed without negative evidence until positive evidence is brought to light. This is the foundation of modern science.

What does science have to do with spiritual faith?

[Invictus XII]

Whether you're an atheist or Christian doesn't make a difference. The universe doesn't care what you believe and believing won't make it any more or less true.

Since there is no evidence in favour of the hypothesis, it can be dismissed without negative evidence until positive evidence is brought to light. This is the foundation of modern science.

So you presume that you just perish after death, thats the total end of your mind. Sure we can't prove what happens after death and never will, but there is more going for a life after death than just nothing at all.

[Helm]

but there is more going for a life after death than just nothing at all.

The good thing about that claim is that at least you will never find out if you're wrong.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

So you presume that you just perish after death, thats the total end of your mind. Sure we can't prove what happens after death and never will, but there is more going for a life after death than just nothing at all.

What makes you say that? The claim certainly isn't backed up by anything that could remotely be considered evidence.

[Helm]

What makes you say that? The claim certainly isn't backed up by anything that could remotely be considered evidence.

You can't back up the claim that there isn't an afterlife either, so it will have to depend on what you yourself would like to happen, unless like me you go for a 50/50. Most people seem to be a bit more polarised to the extremes of total belief or total nonbelief though for some reason, well actually they're both equally beliefs.

[Sphere]

When you have no concrete objective evidence of any description either way between two opposing claims it has to be 50% if you're being entirely unbiased.

Ummm....No. This is certainly not the correct way to look at it. The absence of evidence does not convey a 50% chance of the proposition being true. It only allows one to say the possiblity of it being true isn't 0%. I could propose that elephants exist on someother planet somewhere out in the universe, without any "concrete objective evidence" to back it up, but that doesn't mean my proposition has a 50% chance of being true. Even though it is an either-or proposition, it doesn't mean both options are equally likely to be true.

[Helm]

Ummm....No. This is certainly not the correct way to look at it. The absence of evidence does not convey a 50% chance of the proposition being true. It only allows one to say the possiblity of it being true isn't 0%. I could propose that elephants exist on someother planet somewhere out in the universe, without any "concrete objective evidence" to back it up, but that doesn't mean my proposition has a 50% chance of being true. Even though it is an either-or proposition, it doesn't mean both options are equally likely to be true.

In this instance we have an example of an elephant and an explanation as to why you won't likely find elephants on other planets as evolution just doesn't work that way. With the concept of the afterlife all we have really have to go on if you discount all the paranormal claims is the concept, there's no reason why there has to be an afterlife and there's no reason why there can't be an afterlife either. So that works out at a straight 50/50 split.

[Sphere]

In this instance we have an example of an elephant and an explanation as to why you won't likely find elephants on other planets as evolution just doesn't work that way. With the concept of the afterlife all we have really have to go on if you discount all the paranormal claims is the concept, there's no reason why there has to be an afterlife and there's no reason why there can't be an afterlife either. So that works out at a straight 50/50 split.

Again no. If we are discounting the paranormal/religous (i.e. working on the basis that there exists no "concrete objective evidence" in favor of the preposition), the best you can do is say the possibility isn't 0%. Let me use another example since my elephant one doesn't satisfy you;

I propose that when a star explodes that exact same star is re-created in another seperate universe, I can show no mechanism that causes it, no evidence of this ever happening, nor even any evidence that other universes exist. Now one cannot say that this proposition has a 0% chance of being true, but on what ground can you say it has a 50% chance of being true?

[Helm]

I propose that when a star explodes that exact same star is re-created in another seperate universe, I can show no mechanism that causes it, no evidence of this ever happening, nor even any evidence that other universes exist. Now one cannot say that this proposition has a 0% chance of being true, but on what ground can you say it has a 50% chance of being true?

Nothing would have been removed from existence when the star exploded though, the star just scattered itself across space. If a human is scattered across space then something would be removed from existence if there is no continuation of the self, so it's a fundamentally different issue.

[Sphere]

Nothing would have been removed from existence when the star exploded though, the star just scattered itself across space. If a human is scattered across space then something would be removed from existence if there is no continuation of the self, so it's a fundamentally different issue.

Last time I checked, when a person dies you can keep track of all the physical stuff that made up that human. If a human body just disapeared at death into nothing, I could somewhat see where you are coming from but that is not the case. Perhaps I could modify my prepostion slightly to better sideline any critisism.

I propose that when a star explodes the "esssence" of this star is re-created in another seperate universe. I cannot show any evidence that the stars "essence" exists, I can show no mechanism that causes this event, no evidence of this ever happening, nor even any evidence that other universes exist. Now one cannot say that this proposition has a 0% chance of being true, but on what ground can you say it has a 50% chance of being true?

[Helm]

Last time I checked, when a person dies you can keep track of all the physical stuff that made up that human. If a human body just disapeared at death into nothing, I could somewhat see where you are coming from but that is not the case. Perhaps I could modify my prepostion slightly to better sideline any critisism.

But that's only physical stuff it has nothing to do with you at all once scattered, no doubt all the matter and energy will be used to make something else. Though we're scattering our matter and energy into the universe right now you don't have to be dead to do that, the only thing death seems to do is remove the "self", perhaps to a new level of existence or it's a complete removal from existence altogether but I wouldn't know. I can 50/50 it though, that seems reasonable.