A philosophy-of-science proof of the afterlife


Matt Springer has a nice (and very confused) take on the problem of scientific proof. Following him I have devised this amazing scientific proof to the existence of an afterlife:

There are two possibilities:

  1. Proposition 1: There is no after-life. I do not exist after my death.
  2. Proposition 2: There is an after-life. I would still exist after I die.

As Matt rightly spots, Proposition 1 is unverifiable. If you don’t exist after you die, then you cannot know it.
Hence, it is disqualified under the pretense of being unscientific.
Proposition 2, however, is verifiable, because if it were true, then I would clearly know that when I discover I have died and retain my existence. But if proposition 2 was false, then proposition 1, which is unscientific, would be true. But if truth is only scientific truth, then proposition 1 cannot be true.

Q.E.D.

Can you spot the errors?

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “A philosophy-of-science proof of the afterlife

  1. mehdi

    1 the verifiability of second proposition is depends on its truth so it s not verifiable independently (the first unicorn which will be found can tell us about its corn)
    2 however unverifiable proposition is not scientific but can be true (we can argue that weather truth is only scientific truth).

    Reply
  2. mousomer Post author

    indeed:
    “the verifiability of second proposition is depends on its truth so…”

    The first commandment of logic: thou shalt always remember Tarksi’s Theorem. If the truth value of a proposition depended on it’s verifiability, then… We got a liar paradox and we can prove anything!

    I think this is the logical equivalent of division by zero: you can get numerous paradoxes and bogus proofs this way.

    Reply
  3. mehdi

    it seems that i was right
    by the way Thanks for late saying welcome 😉 i left islam about 7 years ago.
    i haven’t written any thing in that blog for 2 years. i just left the address to left a track.
    Muslims and Jews despite their struggle have many bad similarities…!

    Reply
  4. William Pennat

    Proposition One is FALSIFIABLE. That is the real criterion (Karl Popper) for scientific validity. And it is falsifiable precisely by the process of our surviving death for which there is literally a ton of evidence, a good deal of which is more or less scientifically respectable (approached with an open mind). Read the actual evidentiary (and extensive) literature instead of all the pontification pro and con based on abstract “arguments”. To me, this respectable evidence (which I won’t go into) is way more than sufficient to stand up in a court of law. And I do plan personally to falsify Proposition One though hopefully not for quite some time. (Why hopefully? Well, though I believe in an afterlife, that’s about as far as it goes. I have no clue what awaits me there while I’m at least more or less comfortable in my life here….)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s