I think this is premature as it was science that gave us the question, and only in the last few decades at that - it's not like we have yet exhausted all avenues of research here.
The notion of time, and what 'exists' outside of time, was posited long before any organized, scientific theory generated it. Whether you ask the question consistent with the Standard Model (what was occurring at t=0), or philosophically, "What exists outside of time," you are still asking the same general (abstracted) question. Even if we assume an oscillating Universe, expanding and contracting infinitely, each time potentially producing different physics, there is still an instant when time does not exist (t=0) and this begs the question, "What is occuring when t=0?". What or how can something occur? Does something necessarily have to occur when t=0, and how does something 'exist' when t=0. When Constantine answered the question regarding God and Time (and why God does not necessarily require a cause of Himself), he conjectured that God is eternal and exists outside of space and time. Obviously, this does not have any scientific value, however, science was not the first paradigm to generate an inquiry into the questions related to time and existence.
It is really only in the last few decades that complex and mathematically elegant theories have generated
answers for what preceded the Universe (such as other Universes), and what was occuring (and whether or not that question has value), however, some of the 'answers' to these questions are seemingly impossible to verify (and possibly to falsify depending on the theory) and will only provide us with mere correlates (although probably one day very strong correlates).
This presents a problem to those who do not choose to accept the pressuppositions and assumptions required to accept a scientific solution to these questions. There are also many people who cannot accept the possibility that there does not necessarily need to be a reason or solution to some of these questions (such as those who accept that our consciousness is responsible for wondering why we are here, or why the Universe exists and that the question does not exist outside of our minds) - these people will likely seek religion for answers.
It can give a fairly thorough accounting of the biodegration of the human body. There is not any evidence for anything else so far as we can tell despite plentiful whishful thinking to the contrary.
I cannot imagine a way to empirically verify what occurs post-mortem, other than biologically and chemically. I suppose if one could construct an empirically verified model of phenomenal consciousness, then we could induce what occurs post-morterm. The problem with that assumption, is that it implicitly contains an additional assumption that we could ever observe the subjective experiences of another consciousness.
This is another problem that science attempts to answer (and certainly will require much more time to determine whether it is possible to answer), and that some people choose not to accept and therefore likely seek religion.
That's more philosophy than science but i for one have no problems deriving an ethical outlook on life in terms of good and evil from first principles without requiring religion or spirituality.
The notion that the question itself is more philosophy than science, is precisely the reason he presented it. It is a question that science cannot answer, and yet, it is a question that has been asked since the moment man's consciousness became aware of it. Another reason why people likely seek religion.
don't know much about that one.
My understanding of ontology is limited as well, however, from the limited reading I have done, this is my understanding:
Ontology is the philosophical inquiry into the substance of reality. Two major ontologies are known as 'substance ontology' and 'process ontology'. Substance ontology is the ontological paradigm that sciences presupposes. The presupposition is that the whole of reality can be deconstructed into its constituent parts (people into matter, matter into atoms, atoms into particles, etc., or that reality is an extension or creation of God). Western religions all presuppose a substance ontology. A process ontology is one in which reality oscilliates between states of being and non being (this is a simple description). It is more of an eastern perspective (Taoism, Buddhism), and for me at least (because I have always just pressupposed a substance ontology although I didn't know that of course), it is difficult to really apprehend.
Some very basic examples that I can think of are:
A mountain cannot exist without a valley, and a valley cannot exist without a mountain.
A room cannot exist without space between its four sides, and four sides do not exist without space between them.
I do think some languages (e.g. romantic and germanic languages), already imply a substance ontology and makes it difficult to transform our thought process into one capable of really understanding what it even means for reality to exist without any kind of "building blocks" or constituent parts (especially with the advancements in science).
