That’s why I said “There’s hundreds of pages written on proving [the source of consciousness is the brain]”. Go look up any scientific response to the afterlife, like the book “The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death” and they’ll give you dozens of different pieces of neuroscientific evidence that demonstrate every aspect of consciousness can be shown to objectively originate from / be manipulated by physical events in the brain. You thinking the mind is seated in a soul or something non-material is because you don’t understand how the brain produces consciousness, similar to how someone who doesn’t know how computers work couldn’t imagine how a website comes into existence
Consciousness is something that can be closely observed and studied. That is why you can’t compare it to a belief in God, because God can’t be observed unlike consciousness.
Consciousness is one of the biggest unsolved problems that continues to remain an unknown. It's unobservable; you can't look inside someone's skull and determine their real-time conscious state. All of the EEG and fMRI readings won't tell you what the person is consciously experiencing, outside of the superficial (levels of hormones, regions active etc.). It also doesn't matter how many neuroscience papers are written on it wrt to the question of an afterlife. That you're also assuming that I don't know anything about the subject is the sweet cherry on top of this retarded shit cake.
I'll reiterate for you. After that, if you don't get it, it's a skill issue.
The argument is that the question of the afterlife is different from the question of God's existence on the basis that we "know" that the brain is the source of consciousness. This view is anchored in physicalism - the philosophical position that all that there exists is the material world and that anything outside of the physical is not real. From this view, consciousness ceases to exist upon death, so naturally, the question of an afterlife is an open and shut case, since it doesn't appear to persist in any observable (empirical) way. The question of an afterlife in theological traditions, however, is centered primarly on the concept of the soul, which is generally defined as an immaterial, non-physical, non-observable object that persists after death and moves on to another plane of existence where it is incarnated in a heaven or hell.
The question of God is also one of the immaterial and non-physical. By the physicalist position, both of these questions are logically equivalent, since both the soul and any posited god are both in the realm of the non-physical, and thus not observable. It's internally inconsistent and nonsensical to claim (with certainty) that there is no afterlife because we can't observe consciousness beyond the brain, while simultaneously claiming (with uncertainty) that we can't know of the existence of any god because we can't observe such a thing - aka, for the exact same reasons.
Derp.
and requires a nonsense philosophy explanation.
This is the part where you must stfu and educate yourself on the philosophy. If not, go back to getting pegged or whatever it is you cucks like to do.
Uh, no. Resurrection isn’t the same thing as an afterlife.
“The
afterlife or
life after death is a purported existence in which the
essential part of an
individual's stream of consciousness or
identitycontinues to exist after the
death of their physical body”
“
Resurrection or
anastasis is the concept of coming back to life after
death. In a number of religions, a
dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and is resurrected.
Reincarnation is a similar process hypothesized by other religions, which involves the same person or deity coming back to another body. Disappearance of a body is another similar, but distinct, belief in some religions.”
These are all semantics. It doesn't matter how you distinguish these differences. The point is that an afterlife is meant to be something you can't observe and therefore must conclude - as a physicalist - that the claimed phenomenon is in the realm of the non-physical.
