stephen hawking: the afterlife does not exist

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

See, my interpretation of the laws of physics would rule OUT the possibility of an afterlife. The decaying of the body and eventual return of that energy to the earth would account for any needed transfer. And the body ceases to function, meaning it ceases to take in new supplies of energy.

So that covers only the body? What about the soul; the spark that makes you, you? That's the part I don't think is returned to the earth.

What is this "soul"? What is it about this unseeable, unknowable spark that makes us, us?

Part of the problem with your assertion is that you're applying the laws of physics, which were discovered and confirmed through repeated testing, to something that cannot be tested or confirmed. Besides, if you're going to start applying science to the ethereal plane, why is this "soul" — or even "heaven" and "hell" — exempt from the second law of thermodynamics? You can't go cherry-picking scientific principles and insist that certain systems don't break down over time because they're special.

I don't know what a soul is. Nor do you or anyone else, including Hawking.
But there is something in all of us that makes us unique.
And there is a spark - something (scientific) that creates life - or my more to my belief transfers the energy to generate another life. The spark of life is a fact.
I think that spark is energy, hence my belief in some sort of an afterlife existence. I don't believe in heaven or hell - so it's nothing like that. I don't know what it is, but I don't believe it is nothingness.
And you'll have to explain how the second law of thermodynamics would apply here, 'cause I don't understand.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in a system will increase over time (or, alternatively, nature will proceed from order to disorder). In short, everything — atoms, molecules, cells, living beings, planets, galaxies, even the universe itself — will eventually break down because no transfer of energy is 100 percent efficient.

Please explain, then, why conservation of energy works in your idea of the hereafter but entropy does not.

Where did I say one works and one doesn't it?
I also never stated anything about the conservation of energy, merely it's transfer.

The transfer of energy is not 100 percent efficient. Ok... But that doesn't violate the law regarding the transfer of energy does it? Energy is still transferred? So I guess I am failing to see how the two can not exist. And I don't see how my belief can not exist based on the second law thermodynamics.

I am not trying to be obtuse or anything, but I don't see where you think I'm cherry-picking through the laws of nature.


You and I and Hawking and everybody else with an opinion on the afterlife are on a level field as far as knowledge, because nobody knows for sure. It's all speculation and opinion.

 

[NickMordo]

I already knew this. When your heart stops beating, it's over. All over. Only religious enthusiasts believe otherwise.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Boy, I think I'm logging on to SportsJournalists.com and I find a bunch of people getting stoned during finals week in the dorm!

FWIW, astronauts as a rule have a deep abiding faith in God. "To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible," John Glenn said. So they have found a way to square it with the absense of scientific proof, at least.

 

[BTExpress]

It would be pretty damn depressing a cruel if after I died and I moved on to something else that I did not have any memories of that little girl in my avatar, my wife or my family.

O.K. It's the year 17,051 A.D. You have been dead (from earth) for 15,000 years. Does it make any sense that memories from those brief 70 years would still have significance in whatever form you exist in now?

To believe in an afterlife you pretty much have to separate it from everything you know here. Hard to do, I know, because what we have here is all we know.

But we are talking about an eternity. And it's incredibly naive to think that these 70something years on earth can still hold any weight 10,000 or 50,000 years in the future.

Or what if you or your family fell victim to the Nazis in 1942. Would you still want those memories?

 

[TrooperBari]

I honestly don't think we are meant to understand what the next step to life is. Are we the first? Are we the last?

Why aren't we meant to understand? Who said so? What else are we not meant to know?

In the cosmic equivalent of a microsecond, we've gone from muddling about in caves and merely subsisting to exploring our solar system and wrapping our collective mind around the inner workings of the universe. Saying we're not "meant" to understand something suggests there is some party that does not wish us to know said thing. To whom are you referring?

 

[cranberry]

You and I and Hawking and everybody else with an opinion on the afterlife are on a level field as far as knowledge, because nobody knows for sure. It's all speculation and opinion.

In the absence of empirical knowledge, why is it necessary to invent something to fill the void?

 

[BTExpress]

In the absence of empirical knowledge, why is it necessary to invent something to fill the void?

To keep people sane.

Serial killer butchers your 9-year-old daughter. You damn well are believing "She's in a better place" or you'll condemn yourself to a life of misery and regret and rage.

And frankly, it's one of the paradoxes we deal with every day.

"Pray for X! Pray for X! X is getting better; prayers are working! Oops, X is getting worse; pray for X! X died today. But at least she's in a better place."

If she's in a better place, what exactly were we praying for?

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

"If you really believe that death leads to eternal bliss than why are you wearing a seat belt? Because you're just not sure."

 

[NickMordo]

In the absence of empirical knowledge, why is it necessary to invent something to fill the void?

To keep people sane.

Serial killer butchers your 9-year-old daughter. You damn well are believing "She's in a better place" or you'll condemn yourself to a life of misery and regret and rage.

And frankly, it's one of the paradoxes we deal with every day.

"Pray for X! Pray for X! X is getting better; prayers are working! Oops, X is getting worse; pray for X! X died today. But at least she's in a better place."

If she's in a better place, what exactly were we praying for?

Not every person believes that vitriol, not in the least. Even if you do think it, it doesn't mean you actually believe it.

 

[heyabbott]

If the worst thing organized religion did was sell a belief of an afterlife we would be a lot better off.

I'll take indulgences for $500.00, Pope.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

You and I and Hawking and everybody else with an opinion on the afterlife are on a level field as far as knowledge, because nobody knows for sure. It's all speculation and opinion.

In the absence of empirical knowledge, why is it necessary to invent something to fill the void?

Isn't that a hypothesis?
In the absence of knowledge we strive to learn more.

FWIW: I don't need to fill a void. I'm not a guy who questions his own existence and wonders if my life has a meaning or purpose. I am here I am grateful I am here and will enjoy my time. I don't believe in god or the devil or heaven and hell. But I think there is more to life than my years as a earthly human.
The notion of an afterlife is an intriguing subject and the idea of energy was one that seemed to apply for me.

 

[TrooperBari]

See, my interpretation of the laws of physics would rule OUT the possibility of an afterlife. The decaying of the body and eventual return of that energy to the earth would account for any needed transfer. And the body ceases to function, meaning it ceases to take in new supplies of energy.

So that covers only the body? What about the soul; the spark that makes you, you? That's the part I don't think is returned to the earth.

What is this "soul"? What is it about this unseeable, unknowable spark that makes us, us?

Part of the problem with your assertion is that you're applying the laws of physics, which were discovered and confirmed through repeated testing, to something that cannot be tested or confirmed. Besides, if you're going to start applying science to the ethereal plane, why is this "soul" — or even "heaven" and "hell" — exempt from the second law of thermodynamics? You can't go cherry-picking scientific principles and insist that certain systems don't break down over time because they're special.

I don't know what a soul is. Nor do you or anyone else, including Hawking.
But there is something in all of us that makes us unique.
And there is a spark - something (scientific) that creates life - or my more to my belief transfers the energy to generate another life. The spark of life is a fact.
I think that spark is energy, hence my belief in some sort of an afterlife existence. I don't believe in heaven or hell - so it's nothing like that. I don't know what it is, but I don't believe it is nothingness.
And you'll have to explain how the second law of thermodynamics would apply here, 'cause I don't understand.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in a system will increase over time (or, alternatively, nature will proceed from order to disorder). In short, everything — atoms, molecules, cells, living beings, planets, galaxies, even the universe itself — will eventually break down because no transfer of energy is 100 percent efficient.

Please explain, then, why conservation of energy works in your idea of the hereafter but entropy does not.

Where did I say one works and one doesn't it?
I also never stated anything about the conservation of energy, merely it's transfer.

The transfer of energy is not 100 percent efficient. Ok... But that doesn't violate the law regarding the transfer of energy does it? Energy is still transferred? So I guess I am failing to see how the two can not exist. And I don't see how my belief can not exist based on the second law thermodynamics.

I am not trying to be obtuse or anything, but I don't see where you think I'm cherry-picking through the laws of nature.

You and I and Hawking and everybody else with an opinion on the afterlife are on a level field as far as knowledge, because nobody knows for sure. It's all speculation and opinion.

You said your belief in the afterlife was based on physics. Do you believe this afterlife to be eternal? If so, that does kinda contradict the dominion of the laws of physics in said afterlife.

I brought up the transfer of energy because, in each transfer, some of the energy inevitably gets lost in the form of light and/or heat, thus leaving the system. Given enough time, any system — even the universe, if you're willing to wait a googol years from now — will run out of energy. If this afterlife has always existed and will always exist, it flies in the face of physics.

You are correct that this is all speculation. The difference is that while some people do not believe in religion and all its trappings because of the lack of evidence, others choose to believe in spite of said lack of evidence.

 

[93Devil]

Are Evil and I the only two on here that thinks life goes on after we leave this "life?"

 

[LongTimeListener]

Are Evil and I the only two on here that thinks life goes on after we leave this "life?"

I also believe that, but since I don't have an explanation based on quantum physics I was a bit shy about saying it.

 

[TrooperBari]

Are Evil and I the only two on here that thinks life goes on after we leave this "life?"

Why does this life need quote marks? Is the life you have not good enough?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Are Evil and I the only two on here that thinks life goes on after we leave this "life?"

Um, there's the guy who mentioned about three times that he's Catholic.

 

[Big Circus]

Are Evil and I the only two on here that thinks life goes on after we leave this "life?"

Why does this life need quote marks? Is the life you have not good enough?

Have you MET Devil?

(Kidding, kidding.)

 

[93Devil]

Are Evil and I the only two on here that thinks life goes on after we leave this "life?"

Why does this life need quote marks? Is the life you have not good enough?

Because I was too lazy to type "this phase of our existence."

 

[BTExpress]

Why does this life need quote marks? Is the life you have not good enough?

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

See, my interpretation of the laws of physics would rule OUT the possibility of an afterlife. The decaying of the body and eventual return of that energy to the earth would account for any needed transfer. And the body ceases to function, meaning it ceases to take in new supplies of energy.

So that covers only the body? What about the soul; the spark that makes you, you? That's the part I don't think is returned to the earth.

What is this "soul"? What is it about this unseeable, unknowable spark that makes us, us?

Part of the problem with your assertion is that you're applying the laws of physics, which were discovered and confirmed through repeated testing, to something that cannot be tested or confirmed. Besides, if you're going to start applying science to the ethereal plane, why is this "soul" — or even "heaven" and "hell" — exempt from the second law of thermodynamics? You can't go cherry-picking scientific principles and insist that certain systems don't break down over time because they're special.

I don't know what a soul is. Nor do you or anyone else, including Hawking.
But there is something in all of us that makes us unique.
And there is a spark - something (scientific) that creates life - or my more to my belief transfers the energy to generate another life. The spark of life is a fact.
I think that spark is energy, hence my belief in some sort of an afterlife existence. I don't believe in heaven or hell - so it's nothing like that. I don't know what it is, but I don't believe it is nothingness.
And you'll have to explain how the second law of thermodynamics would apply here, 'cause I don't understand.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in a system will increase over time (or, alternatively, nature will proceed from order to disorder). In short, everything — atoms, molecules, cells, living beings, planets, galaxies, even the universe itself — will eventually break down because no transfer of energy is 100 percent efficient.

Please explain, then, why conservation of energy works in your idea of the hereafter but entropy does not.

Where did I say one works and one doesn't it?
I also never stated anything about the conservation of energy, merely it's transfer.

The transfer of energy is not 100 percent efficient. Ok... But that doesn't violate the law regarding the transfer of energy does it? Energy is still transferred? So I guess I am failing to see how the two can not exist. And I don't see how my belief can not exist based on the second law thermodynamics.

I am not trying to be obtuse or anything, but I don't see where you think I'm cherry-picking through the laws of nature.

You and I and Hawking and everybody else with an opinion on the afterlife are on a level field as far as knowledge, because nobody knows for sure. It's all speculation and opinion.

You said your belief in the afterlife was based on physics. Do you believe this afterlife to be eternal? If so, that does kinda contradict the dominion of the laws of physics in said afterlife.

I brought up the transfer of energy because, in each transfer, some of the energy inevitably gets lost in the form of light and/or heat, thus leaving the system. Given enough time, any system — even the universe, if you're willing to wait a googol years from now — will run out of energy. If this afterlife has always existed and will always exist, it flies in the face of physics.

You are correct that this is all speculation. The difference is that while some people do not believe in religion and all its trappings because of the lack of evidence, others choose to believe in spite of said lack of evidence.

I don't know if I believe if it is eternal or not... Nothing lasts forever, but I think it evolves.
As someone (BTE?) noted earlier it would be kind of arrogant to expect to retain memories of 70 years of human existence for all eternity.