Is man 'programmed' to seek a 'god'?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not even looking for hard evidence for anything, plausible evidence would be a good start.

 

[kochman]

I really haven't seen any peer-reviewed evidence being discussed in this thread at all.

Maybe you can say that on Judgment Day?
"Sorry chap, I wasn't specifically pointed to any peer-reviewed evidence... I know how to google and all that, but really, who has the time for that really?"...

The basic ideas I brought up (empty tomb for example), are not generally contested... so, I am sure you can find an applicable "peer-reviewed" source to back it up.

The holocaust is generally not disputed either, except in the minds of madmen in Iran and some such places (USA too)... Specific prophecies abound in the OT and NT, regarding this and the Diaspora (again, generally not disputed)...

 

[El_Machinae]

The tomb being empty is now in dispute? Really?
It was empty, despite being guarded by Roman sentries... how?
Let's say there are no first hand accounts, which isn't true... if there was, does that make it so you would believe? What if someone lied?
The point is, too many people saw Jesus after the resurrection for it to be false. If you prophesy your own death, not a huge deal... He could feel the heat coming for Him. If you prophesy your resurrection, that's a pretty important, and unique deed.

You have very poor source analysis. There's no real evidence that Roman sentries guarded the tomb. That's a detail added in the gospel of Matthew, which is actually quite removed from any credible account (we have no idea who the author is, and where he got his information he didn't crib from Mark). Additionally, you'll notice that the gospel of Matthew creates narrative for things that he could not have witnessed in order to explain the guards. (Finally, the account of the guards completely does not correlate to the other two narratives (Mark and John)

And, yes, there are no first hand accounts. You'll notice that none of Peter's writings allude to it. Neither do Paul's. It's not even clear if Paul had heard about the story of the empty tomb!

How do you know 'lots' of people saw Jesus? You have one source for that, which is the gospel of Mark (AFAIK). The rest seem to have cribbed off of Mark. We have no idea who wrote Mark, or the source of his information.

You claim that there's a lot of proof for Jesus's resurrection, but what it is actually a compelling narrative that you've been told, in a merged fashion. You've not had it critically presented, or discussed logically.

The whole account is 'friend of a friend' stuff. "My friends says that lots of his friends saw the same thing he did!" It's not even a good secondary source, because we don't know which witnesses told their stories to the authors.

And again, the problem with gospels (other than their anonymous authorship and relationship to the witnesses) is that the authors were happy to report events for which there was no witness.

So, your answer is, if you watch more TV, you will get it better? Ok...

In fact, yes That's the way education works. If you seek out introductory educational material, your knowledge of a topic increases. If you're under the impression that the Big Bang is SWAG, you're very mistaken.

 

[warpus]

True, but i think i have already replied to this before, by saying that in the absence of real proof either way

What do you mean when you say that though? It's impossible to have evidence that the afterlife doesn't exist. All you can do is look around and say "Well, there isn't any evidence, so it's probably not true".

 

[kochman]

You have very poor source analysis. There's no real evidence that Roman sentries guarded the tomb. That's a detail added in the gospel of Matthew, which is actually quite removed from any credible account (we have no idea who the author is, and where he got his information he didn't crib from Mark). Additionally, you'll notice that the gospel of Matthew creates narrative for things that he could not have witnessed in order to explain the guards. (Finally, the account of the guards completely does not correlate to the other two narratives (Mark and John)

And, yes, there are no first hand accounts. You'll notice that none of Peter's writings allude to it. Neither do Paul's. It's not even clear if Paul had heard about the story of the empty tomb!

How do you know 'lots' of people saw Jesus? You have one source for that, which is the gospel of Mark (AFAIK). The rest seem to have cribbed off of Mark. We have no idea who wrote Mark, or the source of his information.

You claim that there's a lot of proof for Jesus's resurrection, but what it is actually a compelling narrative that you've been told, in a merged fashion. You've not had it critically presented, or discussed logically.

The whole account is 'friend of a friend' stuff. "My friends says that lots of his friends saw the same thing he did!" It's not even a good secondary source, because we don't know which witnesses told their stories to the authors.

And again, the problem with gospels (other than their anonymous authorship and relationship to the witnesses) is that the authors were happy to report events for which there was no witness.

In fact, yes That's the way education works. If you seek out introductory educational material, your knowledge of a topic increases. If you're under the impression that the Big Bang is SWAG, you're very mistaken.

Mark was written when people who would have seen Jesus were still alive... or people who could have said, wait, no, the tomb has a body in it still.

People were willing to die for this nascent religion... why? A reasonable theory? They knew it to be true... the man predicted his death and resurrection, people saw him after the resurrection (hundreds of people)... they were willing to die because they knew it was true.

As reasonable a theory as any Big Bang, to say the least.

I know, you can argue against it, millions of minds have and will... just as millions of minds have and will argue against Big Bang, etc... and many of these minds are smarter than ours... so, it comes down to that...

I am not going to convince you... I just ask that those of you who don't believe stop your crusade of making those of us who do believe out to be "idiots" by the way you approach our system of faith and belief and speak down to us... It does little for your case and just offends people who have felt something you haven't. Perhaps look inside yourself and ask why you aren't fortunate enough to have felt something worthy of believing in when so many others have?

I am not going to spend hours here trying to discredit all the holes in your theories... my events happened almost 2000 years ago now, and it is a moot point (for the reason I expressed above, greater minds have already tried and failed)...
You watch all the TV you want, I'll just go with faith, based on what I have felt and knowledge in what I have researched independently.

May I recommend the book "Who Moved The Stone?" for some intense reading on the subject.

 

[kochman]

What do you mean when you say that though? It's impossible to have evidence that the afterlife doesn't exist. All you can do is look around and say "Well, there isn't any evidence, so it's probably not true".

Once again, there is evidence, you just choose to ignore it... that doesn't make it go away.

 

[peter grimes]

OK, so, do you care to address that situation? The missing link?

I'll take this one, to give warpus and Ziggy a break.

First of all this issue is called Abiogenesis. It deals with the explanation for how living matter arose through natural processes. It is not at all related to the Big Bang or Theory of Evolution.

There are several competing theories (think: frameworks) currently. Panspermia, the one you erroneously called 'latest' is NOT a proposed explanation for how non-living matter gave rise to living organisms. Rather, it supposes that very basic life forms seeded Earth and the other planets. Since earth was not completely inhospitable to these life forms, they were able to develop and proliferate. This is the point at which Evolution takes over and explains the diffusion and expansion of life on Earth.

But this theory, as you rightly point out, is very limited in its explanatory power. It doesn't explain how life first arose. For that, we need to look elsewhere. And lucky for me someone made a very good video that sums up the important parts:


Link to video.

This is the idea that I personally find most promising. There are others, but they share the broad outlines of what's explained in the video.

This missing link that you mention is really not an insurmountable problem. It's true that we may never know precisely every single step of the process that happened on Earth 4 billion years ago, but we can already rule out the idea that a supernatural origin is required. Life On Earth: No Gods Necessary.

EDIT:

it just shows that scientists have no idea whatsoever, so they invented something that sounds reasonable...
But has zero evidence to support it... None at all.

Wrong. Science does have a few ideas of how life started. This ideas are based on plausible verifiable processes. As for evidence, I doubt we'll ever find 'the spot' that life started. But each year we find evidence of life earlier and earlier and earlier in Earth's history. I don't doubt that with time a consensus will be reached about how life arose here.

 

[warpus]

Once again, there is evidence, you just choose to ignore it... that doesn't make it go away.

Eh, I still haven't seen you type any, unless you are referring to the Jesus incident.

 

[kochman]

Eh, I still haven't seen you type any, unless you are referring to the Jesus incident.

Then I suggest you re-read several posts.
They are there...

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you mean when you say that though? It's impossible to have evidence that the afterlife doesn't exist. All you can do is look around and say "Well, there isn't any evidence, so it's probably not true".

Since our entire science- and philosophy- is anthropic (human) anyway, one could argue that perhaps (a chance ever increasing by there being no plan for an afterlife) even by pure chance we are unfit to explain the reality of the cosmos and the possible meta-cosmos.
Science is great, but it is, as we have agreed upon before, only human.

 

[warpus]

Since our entire science- and philosophy- is anthropic (human) anyway, one could argue that perhaps (a chance ever increasing by there being no plan for an afterlife) even by pure chance we are unfit to explain the reality of the cosmos and the possible meta-cosmos.
Science is great, but it is, as we have agreed upon before, only human.

Yes, but that doesn't imply that the existence of the afterlife is any more real than the existence of marshmellow dragons.

All it's saying is "We don't know everything yet". To jump from that to "afterlife!" just doesn't work.

 

[El_Machinae]

Mark was written when people who would have seen Jesus were still alive... or people who could have said, wait, no, the tomb has a body in it still.

People were willing to die for this nascent religion... why? A reasonable theory? They knew it to be true... the man predicted his death and resurrection, people saw him after the resurrection (hundreds of people)... they were willing to die because they knew it was true.

The early Christian fervor is the most compelling evidence. What this shows is that people either saw something that amazed them, or believed something that amazed them. I don't think I doubted that. It's a big, big stretch to think that what they think they saw was true (and it's a bigger stretch to assume that what they saw implies a god).

But, again, you don't have hundreds of witnesses. You have a report of hundreds of witnesses, from an anonymous source who's known for describing events no one was witness to.

As reasonable a theory as any Big Bang, to say the least.

No, it's really not. And your posturing doesn't help your case. If intense belief comes about from witnessing event, your idea is that it is very good evidence that their perception implies their implications.

This just doesn't work. Not all theories are equally reasonable.

If I find a dozen people who witnessed a UFO, and these people become convinced that UFOs are benign superbeings ... does it follow that UFOs exist AND that they're benign superbeings? Not really. And it's not the same level of evidence as we have for Jesus rising or the Big Bang. What it IS evidence of is that they saw something amazing. Their further positings (that the UFOs are benign) just doesn't follow, necessarily.

You watch all the TV you want, I'll just go with faith, based on what I have felt and knowledge in what I have researched independently.

You haven't researched it sufficiently if you think it's SWAG. Look, I'm sorry that I recommended 'reputable documentaries'. There're online university cosmology courses that are available, for free. It takes about 22 hours to consume an introduction to cosmology, which would then give someone a beginner's knowledge of the topic.

May I recommend the book "Who Moved The Stone?" for some intense reading on the subject.

Why would I accept your recommendation? Seriously, the book hasn't helped you. Why would I think it would help me? Up thread, you presented the story of the 'guards' as if it was some kind of evidence. This book certainly didn't create a proper understanding of the multiple (conflicting) descriptions of the event, which-author-stated-what, or cause you to know which evidence was reasonable and which was completely disregardable. As I said, you have a compelling narrative that you think is a theory. There's more evidence that there weren't guards than that there were! Why has the book fooled you?

Finally, I'll reiterate that Jesus being supernatural itself is not a sufficient reason to believe in gods. The story of a supernatural Jesus is just as parsimonious with the idea that "there're mischievous djinn that like fooling people" as it is with "god exists". In fact, more of Jesus's life is explained by the "evil genies" theory than "god exists", such as Jesus tricking people into thinking that Moses was real, tricking people into worshiping an evil god, (etc.).

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, but that doesn't imply that the existence of the afterlife is any more real than the existence of marshmellow dragons.

All it's saying is "We don't know everything yet". To jump from that to "afterlife!" just doesn't work.

I did not claim there was any proof of an afterlife, merely some arguments for it, in a similar and not lesser epistemic vein than the ones which exist against it. Your own argument seems to be that we must only think of what is obviously proven to exist (?). But you surely know that if it was like that we would have never discovered phenomena which to people of previous millenia would seem like fairytales as well. Science itself has destroyed large parts of itself while progressing, and there is no reason to claim that this can not happen anymore. It probably will happen again, once a major breakthrough comes about.
But it is somewhat confusing that you on the one hand claim to be an agnostic, on the other utilize hard atheistic positions. Agnostic comes from gnosis, which means wisdom, so means "not knowing". You may phrase your position as "what seems to not exist, probably does not exist" but you appear to have a more austere atheism than mere agnosticism, and it has not had any backing yet. IIRC you even agreed to a point that no evidence can exist against the position that there may be an afterlife, but dismissed it again by claiming that it is by nature of its very form a useless argument to focus on that impossibility. But why do you claim that? In what way exactly do you think it is not (to the degree any symbolism can portray something with accurate parallelisms and other relations) somewhat like what i mentioned, being in an unlit room, and trying to convince the other person that there is reason to actually think something does or does not exist in the shadows. Surely you might go as far as saying "i do not hear any hissing sound, so there must be no snake around", but surely this is just a guess still.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This comes back to: would you believe me if I told you I am God? You have no evidence to the contrary, so you would have to say: well, you might be. Instead, you're reasonable and deem the chance that I really am God as not very credible indeed while acknowledging there is a tiny, slight itty bitty chance I might be God, since you can't prove I'm not.

So: I am God.

Do you believe me? (be honest)

edit: What if I told you I'm David Bowie?

 

[kochman]

Why would I accept your recommendation? Seriously, the book hasn't helped you. Why would I think it would help me? Up thread, you presented the story of the 'guards' as if it was some kind of evidence. This book certainly didn't create a proper understanding of the multiple (conflicting) descriptions of the event, which-author-stated-what, or cause you to know which evidence was reasonable and which was completely disregardable. As I said, you have a compelling narrative that you think is a theory. There's more evidence that there weren't guards than that there were! Why has the book fooled you?

Finally, I'll reiterate that Jesus being supernatural itself is not a sufficient reason to believe in gods. The story of a supernatural Jesus is just as parsimonious with the idea that "there're mischievous djinn that like fooling people" as it is with "god exists". In fact, more of Jesus's life is explained by the "evil genies" theory than "god exists", such as Jesus tricking people into thinking that Moses was real, tricking people into worshiping an evil god, (etc.).

How do you know the book doesn't do that? Have you read it? Or are you just taking my 1/2 to 1/4 ass answers while I multitask as evidence? Don't do that, I have damaged my brain too much over the years to be taken as a great source for a book I read in college...
Try the book, then critique... not critique me, therefore the book must suck.

Again, just because you don't accept things, doesn't make it not true. You read somewhere there might not have been guards... it fits into your preferred theory, so you accept that over the idea that there were guards.
What is the evidence they weren't there? The generally guarded the tombs of politically controversial folks, and we have the Gospel saying it was guarded... What sources say it wasn't? What makes these more reliable than the Gospel? Really?
Only way to know for sure... go back 2000 years.

The only way to know the big bang happened, go back however many billions of years it is supposed to be this time (because that number changes almost as frequently as most people change their bloomers)...

Doesn't matter, it is moot... we aren't changing opinions here.
I don't believe everything I see on TV (nor that I read)... I believe things I have personally experienced though... if you haven't felt that, well, I hope you do!

Jesus claimed He would come back, He did. He claimed to be the Son of God, I believe that as well.


@Ziggy Stardust... I believe you might, in fact, be David Bowie. It is possible... after all...

 

[Kyriakos]

This comes back to: would you believe me if I told you I am God? You have no evidence to the contrary, so you would have to say: well, you might be. Instead, you're reasonable and deem the chance that I really am God as not very credible indeed while acknowledging there is a tiny, slight itty bitty chance I might be God, since you can't prove I'm not.

So: I am God.

Do you believe me? (be honest)

edit: What if I told you I'm David Bowie?

Yes, but in your example the crucial parameter is that i would stand to lose something if i leaned towards accepting you are god (or even david bowie i guess), whereas in the subject of an afterlife i stand to actually gain positivity in my life if i remain agnostic

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Mind I'm just explaining mine (and I suspect Warpus') mindset. Not using this as critique on someone else's.

I don't believe you believe (this is going meta) I am either God or David Bowie. I don't believe you'll change anything in your behaviour towards me. I believe that although there is a theoretical possibility you give very little credit to my claim. I also believe that would someone else actually believe I'm David Bowie and is very adamant about it and told you so, you'd shrug and move on.

I'm heavily projecting here, and basing all these assumptions on: WWZSD. Maybe you disagree. I'm hoping you find some sort of familiarity to this reasoning, so you'll understand a bit about my reasoning.

Insofar no issues.

Now, imagine the person who believes I'm David Bowie says: well, he's called himself Ziggy Stardust, he's an oddball, and does use some weird British Slang from time to time. Of course he's David Bowie. The evidence is clear. Don't think you'd go along, in fact I'd think you'd reason this isn't really a strong case, and in a discussion would argue against it.

Now, only using this to illustrate my mindset. I'm not drawing a parallel between this and the thread and it's arguments.for or against an afterlife.

And again: I am also agnostic. Agnostic doesn't specify which God you have to keep an option open for. Agnostic doesn't refer to an afterlife. Agnostic refers to any God. This is exactly the reason why I am agnostic. If it would have specified the Christian God, I would be off the opinion that the way the Christian God is described it lacks a couple of key elements (which I won't go into, this is not about that) which make me dismiss it as a viable candidate for a possible God. This doesn't mean I can dismiss all forms of God. And there's the kicker.

The oft-used phrase: I content we're both atheist etc, is apt here.

Now what do you feel being an agnostic grants you in case there is an afterlife and the only way to get in is to believe in God? What good does your agnostic stance do you? Do you assume that because you didn't dismiss the afterlife, you will be welcomed there? Maybe everyone is welcomed there. Maybe only the very zealous like monks are, and everyone who just goes to church every Sunday and pray before dinner just don't cut it.

It's very like Pascal's Wager. Sure I'd like to keep my options open, but the number of religions and the number of Gods I'd have to appease to make my chance of getting into an afterlife are so many, and time so limited, I dismiss chasing this dream as impractical. And so does everyone. Either they stake their eternal life on one God/Religion, or not at all. And since we've discussed that we should always keep the possibility of God open, being agnostic and all, people who believe in God could be believing in a non-existing God, while the real God is seething with fury over the blasphemy.

My take on it is you're (universal you, not you specifically) only increasing your chances of an afterlife by a tiny margin by staking your claim on one possibility out of many. In the same way, stating that it's not possible to know whether God exists or not (which is what an agnostic does, and my position technically as well) only slightly increases your chances, since it needs a God for whom that clinches the deal whether you'll go to an afterlife.

 

[timtofly]

If you had a choice would you choose life or death? Why?

 

[Kyriakos]

Mind I'm just explaining mine (and I suspect Warpus') mindset. Not using this as critique on someone else's.

I don't believe you believe (this is going meta) I am either God or David Bowie. I don't believe you'll change anything in your behaviour towards me. I believe that although there is a theoretical possibility you give very little credit to my claim. I also believe that would someone else actually believe I'm David Bowie and is very adamant about it and told you so, you'd shrug and move on.

I'm heavily projecting here, and basing all these assumptions on: WWZSD. Maybe you disagree. I'm hoping you find some sort of familiarity to this reasoning, so you'll understand a bit about my reasoning.

Insofar no issues.

Now, imagine the person who believes I'm David Bowie says: well, he's called himself Ziggy Stardust, he's an oddball, and does use some weird British Slang from time to time. Of course he's David Bowie. The evidence is clear. Don't think you'd go along, in fact I'd think you'd reason this isn't really a strong case, and in a discussion would argue against it.

Now, only using this to illustrate my mindset. I'm not drawing a parallel between this and the thread and it's arguments.for or against an afterlife.

And again: I am also agnostic. Agnostic doesn't specify which God you have to keep an option open for. Agnostic doesn't refer to an afterlife. Agnostic refers to any God. This is exactly the reason why I am agnostic. If it would have specified the Christian God, I would be off the opinion that the way the Christian God is described it lacks a couple of key elements (which I won't go into, this is not about that) which make me dismiss it as a viable candidate for a possible God. This doesn't mean I can dismiss all forms of God. And there's the kicker.

The oft-used phrase: I content we're both atheist etc, is apt here.

Now what do you feel being an agnostic grants you in case there is an afterlife and the only way to get in is to believe in God? What good does your agnostic stance do you? Do you assume that because you didn't dismiss the afterlife, you will be welcomed there? Maybe everyone is welcomed there. Maybe only the very zealous like monks are, and everyone who just goes to church every Sunday and pray before dinner just don't cut it.

It's very like Pascal's Wager. Sure I'd like to keep my options open, but the number of religions and the number of Gods I'd have to appease to make my chance of getting into an afterlife are so many, and time so limited, I dismiss chasing this dream as impractical. And so does everyone. Either they stake their eternal life on one God/Religion, or not at all. And since we've discussed that we should always keep the possibility of God open, being agnostic and all, people who believe in God could be believing in a non-existing God, while the real God is seething with fury over the blasphemy.

My take on it is you're (universal you, not you specifically) only increasing your chances of an afterlife by a tiny margin by staking your claim on one possibility out of many. In the same way, stating that it's not possible to know whether God exists or not (which is what an agnostic does, and my position technically as well) only slightly increases your chances, since it needs a God for whom that clinches the deal whether you'll go to an afterlife.

I agree with your claim that it is not at all productive beyond doubt that being agnostic will grant something in return in another life. For all we know there may exist a god who is a psycho and only grants an afterlife to those not believing in it, just for kicks
But still i mentioned that being agnostic is productive in this life, that is it helps to have the view open that there may exist some afterlife, since you gain in positivity for your work here.

I do not agree that being agnostic has only to refer on a god. I am stronger atheist on that, although still agnostic. You can be agnostic on any issue, such as if Italy will default or not, if Greece will liberate Constantinople, if aliens will land on Thessalonike naming it "Hellas terra on earth" etc. It just means having "no (strong) view"

 

[warpus]

I did not claim there was any proof of an afterlife, merely some arguments for it

An argument means nothing unless it is supported by something substantial. It's easy to come up with an argument.. What's a bit more challenging is defending that argument when it is examined and scrutinized. This involves referencing available evidence, past arguments, and/or some other peer-reviewed work that's lead to the conclusions which support your argument.

Your own argument seems to be that we must only think of what is obviously proven to exist (?)

Not at all, I am not really that strict. If you think of all statements (or non-scientific theorems, or whatever) laid out on a scale starting with 0 (no evidence, no reason to think that it is true, absolutely nothing) to 10 (100% shown to be correct), the afterlife would lie at the very end of the scale - right at the 0.

What you said is incorrect because you paint the picture as one of two extremes (0 or 10). There is plenty of stuff in between though, and stuff that falls in that category (say a 6 or a 7) would not get a "hey, let's see some proof!" reaction from me.

Example? Hmm.. Say my friend Mario tells me that he took a train to Chicago and had a great time. I know that Chicago exists because I've been there, so I don't ask for proof of its existence. I don't ask for proof that Mario exists, because I am relatively convinced that he does. Trains exist as well and I do know that it is possible to take a train from this city to Chicago.. I also know that Mario had a week off work, and that he was planning some sort of a trip to Chicago. Now, he's also been known to make stuff up, so I'm not 100% certain. A picture or two of him hanging out in Chicago would be enough to satisfy my needs for evidence.

But you surely know that if it was like that we would have never discovered phenomena which to people of previous millenia would seem like fairytales as well. Science itself has destroyed large parts of itself while progressing, and there is no reason to claim that this can not happen anymore. It probably will happen again, once a major breakthrough comes about.

Yeah, I realize that humans have imaginations, capable of dreaming up very crazy ideas (like an afterlife). Sometimes these imaginations can lead us to amazing discoveries, and sometimes nothing at all. Some of the stuff we think up exists, some doesn't.

How do we figure out which is which? We perform experiments. Have any experiments been performed attempting to find evidence of the existence of any form of an afterlife? I don't know of any myself, but I'm sure people have tried this. I am also pretty sure that they didn't get any sort of positive result.. not even a hint that an afterlife might exist.

When there is no evidence of something.. and not even a hint of it maybe being true.. and it is a production of the human imagination.. Let's put it in the "probably not true" category until we get SOMETHING that can be used as a "hey maybe it is true!" base.

That's just how science is done.. A very reasonable way of determining what is real and what isn't.

But it is somewhat confusing that you on the one hand claim to be an agnostic, on the other utilize hard atheistic positions.

I do? I am an atheist as well, but not a strong one. I don't think there are any hard atheistic positions there, but maybe you are right? Could be just reflection of my atheism that you are seeing...

IIRC you even agreed to a point that no evidence can exist against the position that there may be an afterlife, but dismissed it again by claiming that it is by nature of its very form a useless argument to focus on that impossibility. But why do you claim that?

Because it is impossible to prove that things do not exist, unless you define them very very specifically, such as "Warpus in my pants". If you look in your pants and don't see a warpus, there, boom, proved.

How would you prove that the afterlife doesn't exist? Kill someone and.. hmmm.. can you think of one test that could be done to disprove it? It's just impossible to do... It's impossible to prove many negatives, such as "God doesn't exist"

In what way exactly do you think it is not (to the degree any symbolism can portray something with accurate parallelisms and other relations) somewhat like what i mentioned, being in an unlit room, and trying to convince the other person that there is reason to actually think something does or does not exist in the shadows. Surely you might go as far as saying "i do not hear any hissing sound, so there must be no snake around", but surely this is just a guess still.

Sure, there might be something in the shadows that we can't quite see with the technology at our disposal, or whatever, but here's the thing.. What does that have to do with the afterlife? Just because we haven't figured out everything about the world, that doesn't give any credence at all to the afterlife hypothesis.

Why would it? "We don't know everything yet" -> "invisible ants live in your bum" is just as a big of a leap of logic as "We don't know anything yet" -> "The afterlife!"

That's why my main thing here is looking for some sort of a base.. that would make the afterlife stand out as a hypothesis, from all the other hypotheses (such as the ants one). ANYTHING.. But there's nothing..