Replies

Thus far, no one has presented evidence that the human consciousness survives brain death.

But we all know absence of evidence is not proof of anything.

The burden of proof is upon someone asserting as much to demonstrate that this is true.

My point exactly. You asserted no one will be meeting up with Darwin (in the after life) so the burden of proof is on you.

Until then, it's not unreasonable to assume that human consciousnes ends when the object that produces it -- the human brain -- no longer functions.

And it is fallacious logic to claim the absence of life after death is a fact - it is merely your belief.

BTW: you position is impossible to prove because it is impossible to prove a negative.

But we all know absence of evidence is not proof of anything.

Right. I also have no evidence that invisible space pixies don't have a plan that will make me rich. However, because no evidence has surfaced that such things exist, I try not to waste my time worrying about them.

You asserted no one will be meeting up with Darwin (in the after life) so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong, but this isn't surprising from you. The assertion was made that people will be meeting up with Darwin sometime in the future. I was stating the negation of that assertion, and I based that negation on several known facts.

And it is fallacious logic to claim the absence of life after death is a fact - it is merely your belief.

You're just trying to make an argument, asserting that any position -- no matter what it is -- is "faith-based" because it cannot be proven to 100% certainty. Your method of "reasoning" would have us assuming absolutely anything, because one person's assumption is no better than another. I don't think that you actually live your life that way, however, because I suspect that you only present this point of view in order to troll for replies.

Mind you, I can't prove that about you. It's just an observation based upon evidence. Don't assume that I'm stating it as a fact.