posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 06:03 PM
It is common to assert that one cannot possibly know what occurs after death, and therefor everyone is wrong—well, except for him of course. I must
admit this sort of empirically irresponsible agnosticism nauseates me, especially when it is used to stifle further thinking and discussion about
actual states of affairs. Luckily for us, however, this argument can be discarded as easily as it is promoted, not only because it is fallacious, but
also because it is empirically wrong.
To assert that we cannot know what occurs to a person after death relies on an initial assumption, another case of petitio principii, a
circular attempt at reasoning, namely, that the person who apparently does not nor cannot know what happens to himself after death isn't even a
person at all, but something like a disembodied soul or intellect, and not anything that results in a corpse. In order to believe one cannot know what
occurs after death, he must already assume himself something other than that which dies, for if he were to conclude according to the evidence that he
is that which dies, he would already know. As imagined by him, this disembodied soul can only learn of its fate after death, once the body has left
and the soul has a chance to look around while unfettered to confirm what indeed does happen, and which religion was right all along. The logic that
leads one to the quite common, but ridiculous argument, that one must wait until after death to perform these observations, however, is not logic at
all. In fact, it defies all logic.
As we know, because an argument is fallacious does not mean it is wrong, but by virtue of evidence and reason, it is.
Of course, no such entity or substance or little being living in our heads has ever been found, and given the finite area in which to look, absence of
evidence is evidence of absence in this case. Not only that but every picture, doctors examination, or glance in the mirror, every x-ray, surgery, and
MRI performed on a person, proves the exact opposite. Therefor, any claim that states we cannot know, or any appeal of ignorance in regards to what
happens to a person after death, and the illogical and contradictory assumption that are required to make the invalid claim that the person is
something other than the person we bury, is done so in the unwarranted and empirically irresponsible denial of the basic facts of reality.
We know exactly what occurs after death, simply by referring to the study of taphonomy, or by witnessing a loved one die, or anything die for that
matter. Autolysis and putrefaction, for one, is quite immediate. We bury and cremate our dead, and we visit them from time to time. We do study these
processes in great length and detail in cadaver farms, in hospitals, and we can supply this proof until it buries them.
Why hold out for a theory just in case it is true, when it isn't even possible?
Thank you for reading,