Write4U:
Being unconscious renders you oblivious to everything, but when you die, i.e. being unconscious, allows you to experience heaven?
If there's a soul that's separate from the body, yes. That's how it supposedly works.
Of course you can't know that.
Then we agree?
But when you are conscious, you just admitted that now you do know from experience that when you are unconscious you are oblivious to everything. Therefore, when you are unconscious (brain dead), you will be oblivious to everything, including heaven, even if it existed.
I've never had the experience of being dead. Have you? If not, how could you possibly know you'll be oblivious to everything when you die?
As Anil Seth observed: "When you die, there is nothing to worry about, nothing at all.
Who cares what Anil Seth said? This is just another assertion, which he can't prove any more than you can.
Does the soul have a brain? If not, how can it experience anything?
As I understand them, souls are non-material things. Who can say how they experience things? What makes you think they need to obey the physical laws that apply to physical things?
Going to heaven is supposed to be an experiential journey and without a brain there is no experience.
Unless the thing going to heaven is a soul that doesn't require a physical brain. Get it? Come on, this isn't hard.
Any other argument is meaningless.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. You keep misusing the word "meaningless".
But when we return from anesthetic oblivion, there are no memories of a "heaven".
Did you die when you were under an anesthetic?
Clearly, our physical bodies are not immortal. How could you possibly know that a non-physical soul is not immortal?
Like all things there is only change, "from dust to dust". And that is in fact a proven scientific statement, albeit crudely posed.
Science has no law that says there is "only change".
Oh and in Islam when you die there are 70 virgins waiting to entertain you! Who exactly is talking nonsense?
That's not nonsensical. You really need to find out what words like "nonsense" and "meaningless" mean.
The statement "we don't know" is not sufficient to make any kind of unearthly "speculation", when we have a pretty good idea how it all works.
You have
zero idea about how souls work (if they exist), apparently. And yet, a lot of stuff has been written about them.
Next, you'll be telling me that mythology might all be true after all.
Some parts of it might be true. Myths are sometimes based in fact.
Explain, as scientist, how an undefined heaven can be accessed by an undefined soul of a defined dead person.
Who could possibly explain an
undefined thing? Why do you ask the impossible? Get real. Ask about something that might be possible.
If anybody (like me) came up with a proposition that an undefined concept interacted with another undefined concept a certain defined result might be possible, you'd laugh me out of the room.
Yes. It makes no sense to try to talk about undefined things.
My support of Tegmark on a well defined and scientifically supportable concept has been ridiculed ad nauseam, but we must respect the concept of God and heaven, because a lot of people believe in different versions of ......????
You should recognise that concepts of God and heaven are often very well defined, contrary to your claims. Until you do that, you can't even begin to have a sensible discussion about them.
That's why I observed, that a religious universal heaven is given more "imaginary" credence than some "functional" scientific mathematical universal hypothesis, such as MUH.
By whom?
AFAIK, religion and worship of the unknown has never accurately predicted or produced anything except prayer and death, whereas the mathematics of science has accurately predicted and demonstrably produced everything creative and destructive process by chemical and biochemical physics.
Nobody worships the unknown or the undefined.
Note that all the great houses of worship rest on the mathematics of science.
What are you on about?
The "soul" is nothing more than the person's memory left for posterity.
You don't get to define the word "soul" to suit yourself. You need to consider how
other people use the word.
Mere contradiction is not an argument for your position.