You're asking for proof of a negative, anyone who argues one way or another, especially someone who tries to get you to believe they have the answers, is full of ****, and likely trying to take advantage of you, either knowingly or unknowingly.
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
-5 points (41.4% liked)
Ask Science
12368 readers
2 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree, but the flipside of that rule is that if someone claims that something exists, then the onus is on them to provide evidence for it.
We do dismiss all kinds of theories all the time due to a lack of evidence. For example, I might claim that there's a pink space unicorn hiding behind Pluto and you really don't need to now put tons of thought into whether that's true, because I have no evidence for it.
As far as I can tell, the afterlife concept doesn't get the same treatment purely because people like the thought of it. But that just isn't scientific...
the afterlife concept doesn't get the same treatment
Once something becomes a shared experience, it 'exists', to a degree. Perhaps some people genuinely believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but it's not comparable to the number of people who have the shared experience of xyz-religious-view.
Why are 'we' asking, "Does God Exist?". Rewind 2000 years and ask that question, and buddy would just point to Jupiter and say "there he fuckin is!" like you're an idiot.
We ask "does god exist", because god must fundamentally supercede our ever evolving understanding. We have disproven the old gods by understanding the forces of nature that ancient "common sense" attributed as evidence for them. As our understanding grows so does our definition of what can constitute a god.
We ask why does god exist because are at a point of knowledge where nothing is apparently god anymore.
Proving negatives is certainly a more philosophical endeavor than a problem to solve with the scientific method. But that doesn't mean we can't apply proper scientific methodology to our philosophical discussions.
by its nature, the theory of an extradimensional afterlife is not disprovable. conversely there is no physical evidence of the existence of an extradimensional afterlife. there is no incentive to study it, and if you tried, there would be nothing to study.
so scientifically it is as valid as any other theory of extradimensional realities.
exactly - this is what Karl Popper called "unfalsifiability" which makes afterlife theories metaphysical rather than scientific, since a good scientific theory must in principle be disprovable through observation or experiment.
"Afterlife" is an ambiguous term with no real consensus on it's definition. To approach it scientifically, you need to define it in such a way that it can be measured.
Once you've done that, you have something that you can reason with and test. Then you can search the literature for whether it is true or false.
So yeah, the first step to proving whether the afterlife exists or not is to give a definition of the afterlife.
Okay, let's say, any situation in which conscious experience continues after the brain, which seems to be the producer of consciousness, is rendered permanently inactive
If you treat the idea of (conscious) life after death as a scientific theory, I'm afraid it wouldn't be a very good one. Good theories provide testable predictions. As far as I'm aware, no theory of an afterlife has ever made such a prediction that was experimentally verified. It it had, there would be headlines everywhere, a new Nobel Prize category, and probably every religion but one would close up over night.
Also, even if you experimentally confirm that NDEs are caused by psychological and physiological factors, and are not related to any sort of afterlife, that doesn't prove there is no afterlife. It just proves you have no evidence and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I've been. Far worse than a tropical all inclusive.
It should be "disproven" so people don't get their hopes up.
I spent most of my life being spiritual and looking forward to the afterlife, as a day when I would become a spirit and one with the cosmic forces of the universe in a literal non-figurative sense.
To know that there is only oblivion is a curse, but damn the false hope for being false. Damn it to the Hell that isn't
Oblivion isn't as scary as one thinks it is. Science actually believes in a reincarnation of sorts, and oblivion would help us easily pass the time in between lifetimes.
Basically, with no ability to experience stimuli or the passage of time, and no way to have any thoughts or experiences whatsoever... the quintillions of years until the end of the universe, and potentially through universes beyond where you don't exist, would pass in what would feel like the blink of an eye to you.
It's thought that after an absolutely ridiculous amount of time, we'll have a Poincaré recurrence of the entire current universe, history and all, and you'll end up being conceived to live your life again. The good news is that once you have died, oblivion would make it so that you don't really have to experience that in-between period at all.
But I'm trans, you mean I have to deal with gender dysphoria AGAIN?
I would say yes, it is an open secret. Totally nuts to think that the self lives somehow after we die. Its much more logical that this is it..there's nothing more but this experience.
Dr. Jim Tucker was Child Psychiatrist and a Bonner -Lawry professor of Child Psychiatry and Neurobehavioural science . He has been researching children who make claims of past lives since 2002, and before that he worked with Ian Stevenson who pioneered this research.
Look up some of his presentations on you tube where he presents his findings.
Something is going on.
Something is going on.
Indeed there is. Children love making up stories, and people love seeing patterns where there are none.
I will confess reincarnation makes the most sense.
I always found it weird have in a universe where nothing is truly ever created or destroyed, but instead changing from one form to another, that consciousness would be the one exception; created at birth, destroyed at death.
But is this something taken seriously or is this like when Deepak Chopra tells me I can opt out of aging by believing I can and saying "Quantum" enough times?
Layman here:
Speculatively speaking; everything we know about our bodies' response to death/trauma indicates that our own bodies do not believe in an afterlife. Everything from flight>fight>freeze to seeing your life flash before your eyes near death.
I believe that "god" or "afterlife" as defined cannot be measured by science. Conversely if we did discover a functional god/afterlife they would not fit the colloquial definitions. Either way they don't exist; as defined.
I'm sorry but what does the body's reaction to trauma have to do with a possible afterlife. I do not see how those are connected.
The body's determination to avoid death indicates that if there is an afterlife, it does not have a physiological connection that our biological bodies can detect.
Fight: The threat of death presents itself > Adrenalin and cortisol spike increasing heart rate and blood pressure to prepare for action.
Flight: The threat cannot be fought. Noradrenaline spikes to engage blood flow in the muscles to assist with fleeling.
Freeze: The threat has overwealmed us. The parasympathetic nervous system slows our heart rate, lowers blood pressure, and contracts blood flow in the extremities; as a last ditch effort to survive the traumatic and potentially fatal incoming damage.
Near Death: Brain activity spikes. It increases production of the protein hamartin, which helps neurons survive oxygen and glucose deprivation. It releases DMT changing the activity in the frontal cortex and in some cases causing memories to be rapidly recalled.
...
The main caveat to this theory is if neuroscience discovers that our brains know something we don't and are uploading/backing-up/doing-something we have no evidence for at this time.
I thought the idea that DMT released during an NDE had been disputed or at least that not enough DMT was released to trip.
Either way. I get your point but do not necessarily agree that the body's reluctance to die disproves an afterlife especially since if the afterlife is real that means the body is not the self.
That said I am not as confident in the afterlife as I used to be.
I had a view that our souls grew overtime with our bodies being like cocoons that gave up the soul after a period of growth...
After a close friend of mine died and I couldn't see his death as anything but a horrible tragedy I became more reluctant to believe in such things.
It's inferred because we see it in animals, but have yet to scientifically observe it in humans for obvious ethical reasons.
I get your point but do not necessarily agree that the body's reluctance to die disproves an afterlife especially since if the afterlife is real that means the body is not the self.
-
So you asked for evidence that the afterlife doesn't exist. As such the mere assumption that the afterlife does exist is not a sufficient refutation of the evidence presented to you. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, just pointing out that the way you're conducting this discussion is inappropriate for a science based community.
-
You actually don't get my point. I'm not saying biology disproves the existence of the afterlife.
I'm saying based on biological behaviour, whatever afterlife might exist, doesn't interact with our biology in a way that our biology is aware of said afterlife's existence.
That's why my caveat regarding NDE is that maybe the brain is uploading your spirit to heaven we just don't have the neurological understanding to observe that currently.
I’m saying based on biological behaviour, whatever afterlife might exist, doesn’t interact with our biology in a way that our biology is aware of said afterlife’s existence.
Ah my apologies, I didn't realize that's what you meant. Sorry you're right I actually did not get your point and am dumb.