Has Science Ruled Out The Afterlife Or Disproven The Existence Of God?

So I got into this Facebook group about science as I am quite the nerd, and instead of science, about 2/3rds of the posts in the group are about trying to prove that there is no afterlife, the consciousness does not survive the death of the body, that there is no God, or even other ridiculous postulations such as “the earth is the only world in the universe with life on it.”

Now keep in mind that these are not flat earth people like a few of my friends, so postulations like that about the universe aren’t based in anything but conjecture or in other words, it is just crap that people are making up with no basis in reality.  

So I made the post below, we’ll see if they approve it.  I’ll show it to you then discuss some ideas that make impossible things possible just by being a little bit creative.

—Beginning of post—

I got into this group because I am a fan of science, but I see that a good majority of the posts here are not scientific at all, but a series of assumptions by two people who seem to make up a lot of nonsense.

For example, all of the nonsensical ideas related to souls, and the afterlife, and God, and that there is no life in the universe other than earth, etc.   It is a bunch of non scientific bullshit.  No offense.

First of all, you cannot say something like “consciousness ceases to exist with the death of the cells” when there is a current problem in science called “the hard problem of consciousness” which basically in a nutshell says that science has no idea what consciousness even is.

So how do you have a group of people on the one hand who can freely admit that they have “no idea what consciousness even is” – who at the same time try to define what it can and cannot do?  My point is, we are not currently in a place to come up with a set of definitions on what consciousness can and cannot do unless we have the ability to accurately describe what it is, which science cannot do at this moment.  Therefore, all of these statements about the existence of the afterlife are erroneous non scientific assumptions about the universe.  They are nothing but foundationless postulations that are no different than the people on the other hand who make up knowledge and put them in new age pseudoscience as fact.

Then on the other hand, you have these ideas that we are alone in the universe.  This is the same kind of nonsense that results in trying to define consciousness.  How in the world without faster than light travel currently existing and the ability to actually check would a scientist on earth be able to accurately describe whether or not other worlds have life on them that is similar or not to our own?  All we can do at this moment is observe.  Just as easily, you could say something like “actually, everywhere that life has the potential to exist it actually does.”  That statement is as erroneous as the statement that life only exists here.

A scientist would say “we do not know for certain.  Here is the data and postulations that have a foundation on either side.  Here is one fantastic possibility, and there is another.  What can we do to actually find out?”

I can think of multiple different ways that consciousness could exist outside of the body that would not contradict possibilities that exist in current fields of science, but I am not going to come and say my ideas are science, because they are not.  They are theoretical postulations about the nature of the universe. 

All I am trying to say to this group is to question everything.  Do not take a scientist’s word for something and just believe it without checking and thinking of alternative ways of looking at things, because everyone can get into thinking traps that limit our ability to see or create new possibilities.  Because the two scientists this group promote think something, doesn’t mean that they are accurate.  Much of what they talk about, science is nowhere near to proving one way or the other.

You watch, within the next 10 years science will begin understanding consciousness and all sorts of whacky ideas about what happens will begin emerging, and it might take us another 100 years after that to truly begin to understand it’s implications.  Until we actually know and can adequately describe and prove it, your guess is as good as mine as to why when you read this, there is a self aware being inside of you that is conscious.  That’s all it is.  A guess.

My suggestion for a scientist is to not say ludicrous things like “the Large Hadron Collider has disproved the soul”  — no it hasn’t, as the soul would be connected to consciousness and nobody knows what that is, so the Large Hadron Collider currently has nothing to do with the idea of a soul whatsoever and ultimately on something like that, we may or may not be looking in the right universe anyways.

Alright, rant over.  Keep an open mind and do not fixate yourself on something that is just the ideas of another person who just like you, has some truth but is moving in a direction of more truth as each day goes by.  We are all flawed, and limited as human beings.  We are not there yet.

Love ya.

-Dave

——end of post—–

Now, let me talk about some various ideas to help clear some of this up.  The first principle is that science cannot really define the confines of something it has no ability to measure, particularly in fields that are not proven.  So if you try and say for certain something is fact, but the object you are defining is outside of our current framework, this actually is not possible.  It is all just one person’s conjecture over another’s.  Essentially, it is very similar to pseudo science.

No, science cannot disprove the idea of God.

Let me take a couple of examples.  If you take the current concept of the multiverse, which is generally accepted in scientific circles, it states that an unlimited amount of universes can exist and that they can have different laws of physics, as the laws of physics solidified very early after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago.

Well in other universes, there would have solidified different laws, and everything in reality could operate totally differently than this one.  For example, you could have a reality emerge where time does not exist.  In this universe, there is time, in that universe there would not be time.  It is hard for a human being to imagine a universe without time, that at one point also emerged – however, it is entirely possible for a universe to emerge that did manifest in a point in time as it relates to this universe, but after it manifested, it simply has always existed and also never manifested.

We have a hard time imagining this because our minds are locked in time, which exists here, but does not have to exist everywhere.  In this universe, there is decay, evil, death, chaos.  It is entirely possible that another universe exists where none of these things are part of reality.  Or as time passes, instead of more decay, in the other universe matter instead manifests more energy with the passage of time and becomes more powerful with the progress of time, if time would exist there.

So explain to me, why it is not possible that there is another universe with no decay, no death, where there is a being that has all knowledge, and all power over all other universes?  

You cannot explain an idea like that because if there is a multiverse, there would be universes that do exist that have divine beings like that in it that are immortal, and eternal.  In a sea of infinite possibilities it would actually be more strange if something like that did not exist however, we are also in a realm of non provable conjecture, very much the same as trying to say for certain whether there is life on other worlds without being able to check.

As far as the afterlife, it does not matter whether or not the afterlife can be measured with particle physics as perhaps the idea of consciousness has something to do with physics in this universe, and something to do with the relationship that we have here with other parts of reality that are not measurable by particle physics.

For example, someone in this group said that consciousness is a result of protons and electrons, and electricity in the cells and therefore when the body dies and the cells die, so does consciousness.  There are several problems with this idea:

  1. It is a hypothesis, nothing more and nothing less that has no foundational proof.
  2. They are leaving other parts of reality out that could be responsible for consciousness, such as quantum particles and the quantum field.

In this case, let’s say consciousness has something to do with the quantum field.  They entirely missed what it is with their conjecture, making their statement totally erroneous as the quantum universe has different properties than what they are describing. 

Also, if consciousness operates in the quantum field and connects to the brain through quantum mechanical computing in the microtubules of the brain as I have been suggesting since 2017, then there would be some continuance of consciousness as the quantum field will remain after the physical death of the body and simply the connection between the two is severed.

Now let me postulate an idea that brings this all together:

Let’s say we have multiple universes, with different laws of reality and in one universe, you have energetic beings, and in the other, you have physical beings.  Completely plausible.  As the energetic structure of this other universe would exist outside of our own, we would have no way of currently identifying or measuring it’s structure.  However, both would be lower manifestations of consciousness, which would come from the quantum field, and the quantum field would overlap into both realities.

It is then very possible to have the existence of a spiritual entity in one universe that is connected to the quantum field through a particular kind of resonant signature, that then is connected to the physical brain through a signature, and when the physical brain is shut off, the resonant signature in the spiritual realm is intact, and therefore continues to operate and continues, connected with the quantum field.

Can you disprove that idea?  Nope.  Does it contradict with modern physics?  Nope.  Can you prove it?  Well, with the right math and experiments, you could right now prove part  of it.  Which part?  You could prove that the quantum field is consciousness, and interacts with the brain through the micro tubules.  That part, provable for now.  The other part?  Maybe provable with new science that emerges from the first.  

However, if you prove one part, you all of the sudden open up fields of new possibilities for example, if consciousness is measurable and is connected to non local particles (the quantum field is non local) you should be able to eventually build things like a “Consciousness Engine” that could measure what was going on in consciousness in any part of the physical universe, and if there were other beings that were manifesting sentience, you should be able to detect it across any span of space or time, and know what is happening at any point of the physical universe with exactness, regardless of how fast light can or can’t travel.

By accurately defining consciousness, a new universe will emerge as we will begin to be able to build things that interact with our own in a more direct way.  

All of this is here not to convince you to think one way or another, but to take the box off of your mind, because science cannot say “God is not real” anymore than it can say for certain “God is real” because it has no way of defining any of these things.  Let us say that we live in one universe, and God is in another, and he interacts with this universe through a series of principles which exist there, but hide themselves from us in this universe – we would have no way of detecting that or disproving it anyways, and therefore this is relegated to the fields of postulation and faith.

Do not let anyone convince you that science can disprove God.  You do not have a scientist when you have a person claiming such nonsense – you have foolishness disguised as science.  Overall, it would be very good for humanity to be much more creative with the way that they think through ideas and open their minds to possibilities that interact with reality that they don’t currently understand.

If you want to believe in God, then you are having faith in a divine being.  Simple as that.  People who have faith live longer, get less disease, are more healthy, are more fulfilled, have better relationships, and in general their life is better.  So what is more useful – a life of faith?  Or a life where there is no faith?  

I think that faith enhances life and makes it more loving, kind, and better.  What do you think?

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: