13 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThose who believe that they can say definitively that a soul does not exist do so without "evidence or any real determination based on facts". Like I said, "based on ignorance".
The default is to not believe something exists unless there is at least significant evidence that it does exist - such as the tooth fairy.
We don't have any real evidence that a soul exists. Those who believe that we have a soul do so on faith, not evidence or any real determination based on facts.
Our understanding of the mind is very incomplete, ot show any significant possibility of a soul that is somehow seperate from the physical body.
Realistically, it's simply an unknown.
13 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe fact is, you can't prove a negative. The onus is on those who claim there is one to provide evidence of there being one.
Those who believe that they can say definitively that a soul does not exist do so without "evidence or any real determination based on facts". Like I said, "based on ignorance".
Realistically, it's simply an unknown.
It's equally "out of ignorance" to claim there is no tooth fairy, santa claus or easter bunny.
People who claim there is no soul do so WITH evidence of how the brain does work. We do have a very limited amount of understanding of the brain, but there is no evidence of it involving a "soul". Especially since the "soul" isn't even defined with any specific definition.
13 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOK, there's little point in debating this with someone who's so firmly entrenched in his faith.
The fact is, you can't prove a negative. The onus is on those who claim there is one to provide evidence of there being one.
It's equally "out of ignorance" to claim there is no tooth fairy, santa claus or easter bunny.
People who claim there is no soul do so WITH evidence of how the brain does work. We do have a very limited amount of understandi ...[text shortened]... a "soul". Especially since the "soul" isn't even defined with any specific definition.
By the way, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid and often more honest position.
13 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm not entrenched in any faith. It's pretty convenient for you to categorize it as such, but I'm not. I'm very open to evidence of a soul, but I'd have to know about it.
OK, there's little point in debating this with someone who's so firmly entrenched in his faith.
By the way, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid and often more honest position.
Do you know of any actual evidence of the soul's existence?
I don't know is a valid response. I'm not saying that I KNOW there is no soul, I never said that.
It is equally as honest to say that there is a tooth fairy as it is to say that there is a soul though because we have equal amount of real evidence that they exist.
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSo what has been the point of your posts?
I'm not entrenched in any faith. It's pretty convenient for you to categorize it as such, but I'm not. I'm very open to evidence of a soul, but I'd have to know about it.
Do you know of any actual evidence of the soul's existence?
I don't know is a valid response. I'm not saying that I KNOW there is no soul, I never said that.
It is equally as h ...[text shortened]... at there is a soul though because we have equal amount of real evidence that they exist.
I'm thinking your tooth fairy comparison is pretty flawed and from your latest post, I'd have to say that you are at least aware of it on a subconcious level.
You say that you're "very open to the evidence of a soul". Are you equally open to evidence of the tooth fairy? Why not?
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am open to evidence of the tooth fairy! Why not?
So what has been the point of your posts?
I'm thinking your tooth fairy comparison is pretty flawed and from your latest post, I'd have to say that you are at least aware of it on a subconcious level.
You say that you're "very open to the evidence of a soul". Are you equally open to evidence of the tooth fairy? Why not?
If someone has evidence that the tooth fairy exists then why shouldn't I be open to it?
I would love it if the tooth fairy existed. Then if I lost a tooth I would be able to get something for it.
Of course there are differences between the tooth fairy and the "soul". Partly, it's because the tooth fairy has a pretty standard definition, the soul does not.
They do have that one thing in common though.
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnNow I know that you're just messing around. See ya.
I am open to evidence of the tooth fairy! Why not?
If someone has evidence that the tooth fairy exists then why shouldn't I be open to it?
I would love it if the tooth fairy existed. Then if I lost a tooth I would be able to get something for it.
Of course there are differences between the tooth fairy and the "soul". Partly, it's because the t ...[text shortened]... ty standard definition, the soul does not.
They do have that one thing in common though.
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm actually not. Honestly, if you lost a tooth, wouldn't you prefer that a fairy would give you money for it rather than just throw it out?
Now I know that you're just messing around. See ya.
Or would you prefer that your tooth be lost for nothing?
I know it sounds funny, but I would quite honestly prefer to get even a quarter for a lost tooth than have it go in the garbage for nothing.
14 Mar 08
1 edit
Nobody likes the tooth fairy/Santa argument because everybody "knows" they don't exist. Due to the fact that they knowingly propagate the lie.
When one applies identical accepted logic to someone's beliefs it can be quite disconcerting.
With regards to the soul in particular. People tend to want to believe in it because it means this isn't it, and also that they might get some answers when they shuffle off the mortal coil as it were.
I'd like to believe in reincarnation as another form I find the Idea pleasing, but I can't help believing that we're all just going to feed worms......
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneRead my post again. I wasn't talking about evidence for the soul, I was talking about being able to explain what it was. Despite numerous attempts on these forums and elsewhere, I am yet to find a Christian who can give a rigorous definition of what he means by the soul. The best attempts have resulted in a definition of a non-conscious entity or at most, an entity that does not continue our consciousness after death.
Oh c'mon. There's no "proof" either way. In my mind it's foolish to make either assertion as definite.
Realistically, the "explanation" is based on ignorance. "This is outside the current understanding of the mind, so it must not be true". The understand of the mind is in its infancy.
It is simply incoherent to talk about the existence or nonexistence of an entity that you have not defined. Its as stupid as the people who go around saying "You cant disprove the existence of God because you don't have infinite knowledge, so God might be somewhere you didn't look." What they are really saying, without realizing it, is that they have not defined God and he might in fact be a little green bunny on a dusty planet on the far side of the universe.
I challenge you, or anyone else who thinks that there is an entity called the soul, to give a definition, at least list some of its properties.
For example:
1. Is it conscious?
2. Is its consciousness separate from ours?
3. If we go mad, does it go mad too?
4. Does its consciousness extend from ours after death?
5. Does it have our memories?
6. If we loose memories, does it loose them too?
7. Without the physical body, can it see, feel, hear etc?
8. Can it experience emotions? Keep in mind here that our emotions are driven at least in part, by the chemistry of the body.
14 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadA explanation you require i can not give but you can not say thier is not as proof, you think therefore you are but your soul is within you and is returned to god on your death, my belief. belief is as it states faith in a god of the living in the world to come. this was my question to all. But as for your they are on a firmer footing i disagree you build on sand we build on solid foundations, from our faith.
He is on much firmer footing because he can explain what he is talking about. Those who believe there is a 'soul' cannot.
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by stokerBut you apparently cannot tell us what that soul that is returned to God actually is, or in fact anything about it except that it is returned to God. You also talk as if the soul is you, which doesn't make any sense at all.
A explanation you require i can not give but you can not say thier is not as proof, you think therefore you are but your soul is within you and is returned to god on your death, my belief. belief is as it states faith in a god of the living in the world to come. this was my question to all. But as for your they are on a firmer footing i disagree you build on sand we build on solid foundations, from our faith.
So please clarify. Do you
1. believe in something that you do not wish to tell us about
or
2 believe in something that you are not able to tell us about due to the extreme complexity involved.
or
3. believe in something you actually do not understand (and therefore cannot tell us about).
14 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadRead MY post again 🙂
Read my post again. I wasn't talking about evidence for the soul, I was talking about being able to explain what it was. Despite numerous attempts on these forums and elsewhere, I am yet to find a Christian who can give a rigorous definition of what he means by the soul. The best attempts have resulted in a definition of a non-conscious entity or at most, p in mind here that our emotions are driven at least in part, by the chemistry of the body.
I was talking about evidence for the soul vs evidence that there isn't a soul.