Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 393
  1. #201
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It absolutely is. I withdrew it and if you’re taking it on then you will have to explain it.
    So you are maintaining that you don't understand the dictionary definition that you forwarded and need it explained to you?

    And what if it isn't explained to you?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, when I pointed out that it was a *perception* you changed it. So clearly you changed it.
    No, I rejected your attempt to use a different definition and maintain the one I always forwarded.

    Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um. I’ve been attacking your poor arguments throughout. Then you whine about being personally attacked! You can’t have it both ways.
    You have attacked my arguments in other posts. But the comment I was responding to does not. Here it is:

    "You’ve lost many points. You’ve withdrawn others. You have failed to make a dent in my OP and you can’t even explain your own point of view fully.

    To me, that’s pretty much a loss!"


    "You can't explain your own point" IS a personal attack. And the rest is just baseless "I win. You lose" malarky that is not worth responding to.

    An attack on an argument is along the lines of "your argument is incorrect because...", not "You lost" or "Your debating is bad". Get it?



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, then your argument just fails on not making much sense. Who knows what you’re talking about?

    Then we are at an impasse because of your refusal. And my OP continues to stand. Thanks for playing.
    You can't claim victory when your arguments are being challenged. And your arguments are being challenged.

    And if you refuse to address those challenges, no matter the reason you want to provide, then the challenges stand. And refusing to debate because you claim the argument was not explained well enough is a refusal to debate, not a path to victory.

    So if you want to defend your arguments against my rebuttals, then do so. If you don't want to or can't, then my rebuttals stand and your OP has been effectively challenged.

    So if you want to make a medal and pin it on your own chest and say "I won", go ahead. But you can't hide the fact that you have not rebutted my argument.

    ---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then you are admitting that your logic isn't support for one over the other.
    Right. They are both possible. To say that it's possible that X is true inherently contains the notion that it's possible that X is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    As I explained, the words themselves are irrelevant - it's the core logical concepts you need to be able to translate correctly. In the jelly-bean jar, you have a dichotomy of even/odd. In the question about whether OBEs are possible, the dichotomy is possible/impossible.
    No, the dichotomy is Exists/Does not exist. The issue is whether OBEs exist or not. If your analogy does not contain the dichotomy of Exists/Does not exist, then it's a flawed analogy.

    So beans = OBEs

    Odd/Even - Exist/Doesn't exist

    And of course the bean analogy is about figuring out the likelihood or the beans being odd/even, just like this debate is about whether souls (OBEs, if genuine, are souls leaving the body) exist or don't exist. And not knowing if it's odd/even justifies saying "maybe" (it's possible), not knowing if OBEs happen justifies saying "maybe" as well.

    It's clear that this is the correct way to use the bean analogy.
    Last edited by mican333; March 8th, 2019 at 12:32 PM.

  2. #202
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, the dichotomy is Exists/Does not exist. The issue is whether OBEs exist or not. If your analogy does not contain the dichotomy of Exists/Does not exist, then it's a flawed analogy.
    While "exists" and "does not exist" is a true dichotomy, your syllogism isn't about the dichotomy of whether OBEs exist, it's about whether OBEs are possible. Again, a dichotomy is X or NOT-X, and the syllogism you presented attempts to argue that "OBEs are possible" (X), while the other option in the dichotomy is "OBEs are impossible" (NOT-X).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So beans = OBEs
    Odd/Even - Exist/Doesn't exist
    Again, the argument you presented is not about OBEs existing. Your argument is "OBEs are possible".
    You do realize there's a difference between "something exists" and "something is possible", right? You even said so yourself in post # 198: "Is" and "Is not" is not the same as "possible" and "Not possible".
    Your syllogism is about the latter, not the former, and the dichotomy is "possible" or "impossible". And since your syllogism argues that something is possible because we don't know that it's impossible, this is an argument from ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And of course the bean analogy is about figuring out the likelihood or the beans being odd/even, just like this debate is about whether souls (OBEs, if genuine, are souls leaving the body) exist or don't exist.
    What we're discussing here is not whether OBEs exist. We're discussing your syllogism which fallaciously attempts to argue that OBEs are possible because we don't know that they're impossible. If you want to argue that they exist, then you need to present a different argument for that. But, you still need to first address the issue with your syllogism which argues that OBEs are possible because we're ignorant of whether they're impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's clear that this is the correct way to use the bean analogy.
    I've already explained that it's nonsense to engage in discussing whether it's possible for a number to be even when we know that numbers can be either even or odd. Again, the analogy for the dichotomy of "OBEs are possible or impossible" (both being possible) is the dichotomy of "the number is even or odd" (again, both being possible). The analogy is not "it's possible for the number to be even or impossible for the number to be even". Please review again the detailed explanation I previously provided with the stripped-down version of a correct dichotomy, below.

    To try and correctly understand why your argument is fallacious, strip away any situation-specific language and focus on the core logical concepts:
    We have an object which possesses one of two properties, X or not-X. We don't know which one it has, but it has to be one of them, since X/not-X is a dichotomy.
    Now, if someone claims that the object has property X because we have no proof that it has property not-X, does actually serve as support that the object has property X? No, because that's an argument from ignorance. We don't know whether the object has property X or property not-X, and the lack of evidence for either one is not evidence for either one.

    Adding the jelly-bean specifics to this, we get:
    We have a number of jelly-beans which is even or odd. We don't know which it is, but it has to be one of them, since even/odd is a dichotomy.
    Claiming that a lack of evidence that the number is odd is evidence that the number is even is an argument from ignorance.

    Adding the OBE possible/impossible specifics to this, we get:
    OBEs are possible or impossible. We don't know which it is, but it has to be one of them, since possible/impossible is a dichotomy.
    Claiming that a lack of evidence that they're impossible is evidence that they're possible is an argument from ignorance.

  3. #203
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If you want to assert that anything which is not proven impossible is possible, then you must also accept the possibility that P1 is false, in which case you cannot claim that it's a truism.
    This is incorrect because P1 is a truism. The claim that you are making as possibly true is "a truism can be false." By definition, a truism cannot be false though, so that statement is shown to be impossible by being logically incoherent.

    The defense offered by Mican of the logical coherence of the concept is a valid rebuttal against a charge of "impossibility" itself offered without support. Now, if someone wants to argue that OBEs are logically incoherent or differ from known facts, that is a valid line of reasoning. But the continued move towards logical coherence not establishing logical possibility isn't productive and should not be continued.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    By "leave", do you mean it actually happens or it is **reported** that it happens? Also, what do you think constitutes "consciousness" ?
    Mican seems to be indicating that he is relying on common parlance definitions of these words, IE the ones found in a dictionary. Thus he has provided enough for you to evaluate his claim. Given that, the next step would seem to be for you to show why you think the idea is incoherent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    For example if it were claimed that we turn into butterflies at night then that I would contend is impossible.

    And you would be wrong. Again, here you are conflating impossible with staggeringly improbable. That we all turn into butterflies each night is stageringly improbably and unlikely. If someone made that claim you'd have good reason to doubt it. But there is nothing logically incoherent about the claim. It isn't as if they are saying we turn into married bachelors or something logically incoherent or self defeating.

    Now, you could show that there is evidence that preculdes that possibility, that would be a valid rebuttal. But simply insisting that it is impossible because it is fantasitic is fallacious.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The non sequitur is the whole idea of NDE or OBE and what it means.

    How is that a non-sequitor? If you are claiming that the concept of an NDE or an OBE are logically incoherent (ie a non-sequitor), you would need to explain why. What, specifically, is internally contradictory?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The claim is akin to saying that the die will land on a point 1000 times. Itís impossible in a normal situation but may be possible in a zero gravity situation.

    But it isn't impossible. You are, again, conflating improbable with impossible. There is nothing in the laws of nature that says such an event cannot happen. There is nothing about the statement that is internally contradictory. Should I believe it actuallly happened based on a claim? Probably not. But that isn't the same thing as saying it cannot have happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Thatís the point. More information is needed.
    Yes, in this case, from you since you are claiming those steps show it to be an incoherent idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I provided a review of the paper that pointed out that the blog peddled in pseudoscience as soon as I read it.

    Thanks, I looked back and found the post. You have offered support that that specific source can offer psuedoscience. Statements to that effect are permissible. I would be cautious though since your link didn't claim that specific article to be psuedoscience nor does Mican rely on that link for defense of his claim that OBEs are possible. Please be judicious in your application of that label.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I used a pseudoscientific blog as a source for my point.

    Mican, I believe I have offered a rulling on this in my point immediately preceeding this one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    So I think we should go for that one since it's much more accurate.
    Wikipedia, like a personal blog is not a valid source on ODN.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #204
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is incorrect because P1 is a truism. The claim that you are making as possibly true is "a truism can be false." By definition, a truism cannot be false though, so that statement is shown to be impossible by being logically incoherent.
    P1 is not a truism, it's an argument from ignorance. Something is not possible just because it hasn't been demonstrated that it's impossible. The lack of a demonstration of impossibility is not support of possibility. One could just as easily state that it's a truism that "except for that which is proven possible, everything must be considered impossible".

  5. #205
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    P1 is not a truism, it's an argument from ignorance. Something is not possible just because it hasn't been demonstrated that it's impossible. The lack of a demonstration of impossibility is not support of possibility. One could just as easily state that it's a truism that "except for that which is proven possible, everything must be considered impossible".

    You misunderstand what a truism is and are confusing discussions on validity with soundness. An argument from ignorance cannot, by definition, apply to an argument about validity.

    That all things are A (possible) which are ~(~) (Not impossible) is a trusim by definition since the categories are MECE.

    Now, you can argue about whether something is A or ~A, but that isn't related to the validity of the truism.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #206
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That all things are A (possible) which are ~(~) (Not impossible)
    I understand that "that which is not impossible is possible" is a truism. But that's not the truism which was offered here, which stated that all things are possible which are not proven impossible. That is clearly not a truism, since following that logic leads to concluding that impossible things are possible, as repeatedly explained. Try again.

  7. #207
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    While "exists" and "does not exist" is a true dichotomy, your syllogism isn't about the dichotomy of whether OBEs exist, it's about whether OBEs are possible.
    True. But the exist/does not exist syllogism IS part of my argument and therefore either it MUST be included in the bean analogy or the bean analogy is a flawed analogy.

    So where does the exist/does not exist dichotomy fit into the bean analogy? If the answer is "nowhere", then analogy is flawed.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What we're discussing here is not whether OBEs exist. We're discussing your syllogism which fallaciously attempts to argue that OBEs are possible because we don't know that they're impossible. If you want to argue that they exist, then you need to present a different argument for that. But, you still need to first address the issue with your syllogism which argues that OBEs are possible because we're ignorant of whether they're impossible.
    I've already done it. But I can repeat my argument.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEsnot been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    I'm unaware of any argument that has defeated this so as far as I know, this argument stands. If you did provide a valid rebuttal, please re-state it. Or forward a new one.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    To try and correctly understand why your argument is fallacious, strip away any situation-specific language and focus on the core logical concepts:
    We have an object which possesses one of two properties, X or not-X. We don't know which one it has, but it has to be one of them, since X/not-X is a dichotomy.
    Now, if someone claims that the object has property X because we have no proof that it has property not-X, does actually serve as support that the object has property X? No, because that's an argument from ignorance. We don't know whether the object has property X or property not-X, and the lack of evidence for either one is not evidence for either one.

    Adding the jelly-bean specifics to this, we get:
    We have a number of jelly-beans which is even or odd. We don't know which it is, but it has to be one of them, since even/odd is a dichotomy.
    Claiming that a lack of evidence that the number is odd is evidence that the number is even is an argument from ignorance.

    Adding the OBE possible/impossible specifics to this, we get:
    OBEs are possible or impossible. We don't know which it is, but it has to be one of them, since possible/impossible is a dichotomy.
    Claiming that a lack of evidence that they're impossible is evidence that they're possible is an argument from ignorance.
    I have already addressed this and you did not respond. So I guess I will repeat it.

    Whether using lack of evidence of not-X is evidence of X is not inherently an argument from ignorance fallacy. Whether it is or is not is dependent on the logical reasoning one uses to reach the conclusion.

    As and example (this part is new to the thread), if I reach in my pocket for a quarter and don't feel a quarter in my pocket, I will use the lack of evidence of there being a quarter to conclude that there are no quarters in my pocket. Now obviously that is not an argument from ignorance fallacy. Therefore, using lack of evidence as evidence is not inherently an argument from ignorance fallacy. So if one uses good logic in a situation where they cite lack of evidence as evidence, then they are not engaging in the fallacy.

    And I pointed out earlier, the logic I am using is:

    TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible

    While you are free to challenge this truism, it is not the basis of the argument from ignorance fallacy. So even if my argument is flawed, it's not due to engaging in the AFI fallacy.

  8. #208
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you are maintaining that you don't understand the dictionary definition that you forwarded and need it explained to you?

    And what if it isn't explained to you?
    Then we will be at an impasse. I can't read your mind and you can't read mine. So the OP will stand.

    And since it hasnít been proven impossible that you are masking that you have a poor underlying argument (much like you claim that all religions equate consciousness to the soul), I have to insist on the details.

    So please state what *you* mean by consciousness and by *it* leaving the body?



    No, I rejected your attempt to use a different definition and maintain the one I always forwarded.

    Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning.
    Well, you should have been more specific about what you meant to avoid such misunderstandings. It's convenient to only be precise when it suits the argument but you have clearly went from something very vague and wide open to something slightly less vague but just as opaque. That you were forced to change, doesn't mask the fact that you did change, no matter what you have meant: for someone who keeps saying that their opponent shouldn't put words in their mouth, you do a good job not doing explaining yourself.



    You have attacked my arguments in other posts. But the comment I was responding to does not. Here it is:

    "Youíve lost many points. Youíve withdrawn others. You have failed to make a dent in my OP and you canít even explain your own point of view fully.

    To me, thatís pretty much a loss!"


    "You can't explain your own point" IS a personal attack. And the rest is just baseless "I win. You lose" malarky that is not worth responding to.

    An attack on an argument is along the lines of "your argument is incorrect because...", not "You lost" or "Your debating is bad". Get it?
    These aren't attacks at you personally, or at least, not your person. However, it is a fact that you have been wrong on many basic points and this needs to be pointed out because it is evidence that you should not be allowed to hide behind vague meanings and hide information.

    On the point that "you can't explain your own point" - that was a mistake: what I meant was that "you refuse to explain your own point.", this is also to highlight that you are deliberately withholding information, presumably, because it is likely a very weak position to hold in the first place.

    Also, I haven't claimed any win - I just maintain that my OP still stands solid. If you wish to take that as loss on your part then I accept that.

    And I haven't said that your debating is bad: I am sure you are deliberately with-holding information for your poor position, as you've already stated multiple times. And in that you've been great at stalling and filibustering - making me do all the work to find holes. So how can that be bad, since that's your stated goal?


    You can't claim victory when your arguments are being challenged. And your arguments are being challenged.

    And if you refuse to address those challenges, no matter the reason you want to provide, then the challenges stand. And refusing to debate because you claim the argument was not explained well enough is a refusal to debate, not a path to victory.

    So if you want to defend your arguments against my rebuttals, then do so. If you don't want to or can't, then my rebuttals stand and your OP has been effectively challenged.

    So if you want to make a medal and pin it on your own chest and say "I won", go ahead. But you can't hide the fact that you have not rebutted my argument.
    I literally don't even know what your argument is never mind what specific portion of *my* OP is being challenged! What I do know is that it is a chain of unsupported or incorrect statements such as:

    - the soul = consciousness per EVERY religion [WRONG]
    - consciousness can be disembodied [UNPROVEN SINCE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS]
    - an example of a disembodied consciousness is NDE,OBE and now "consciousnesses leaving their bodies and returning". None of which currently make any sense since you haven't explained what consciousness is nor what exactly you mean by "leaving their bodies".
    - your "truism" is being torn apart as we speak so it is unnecessary for me to take it seriously until this has been resolved.

    So if you have some additional "challenges" that haven't been withdrawn or brought up again, then you literally have nothing.

    I can't help it if you refuse to provide information that may collapse your case but all I am doing is getting you to think about what you're arguing. You clearly just want to "win" by not providing the information but that's on you, not me.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 9th, 2019 at 05:31 AM.

  9. #209
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then we will be at an impasse. I can't read your mind and you can't read mine. So the OP will stand.
    You are partially right.

    You are correct that if the debate reaches an impasse because one party refuses to address an argument, the argument stands.

    But you are incorrect on the argument that stands. I DID address the OP. The impasse is over THIS argument:

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning must be considered possible.

    So until the impasse is ended and this argument is addressed, it stands.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, you should have been more specific about what you meant to avoid such misunderstandings. It's convenient to only be precise when it suits the argument but you have clearly went from something very vague and wide open to something slightly less vague but just as opaque. That you were forced to change, doesn't mask the fact that you did change, no matter what you have meant: for someone who keeps saying that their opponent shouldn't put words in their mouth, you do a good job not doing explaining yourself.
    Incorrect personal comment. Does not forward the debate. Ignored.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    These aren't attacks at you personally, or at least, not your person. However, it is a fact that you have been wrong on many basic points and this needs to be pointed out because it is evidence that you should not be allowed to hide behind vague meanings and hide information.
    Comments on me instead of my argument. Does not forward the debate. Ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    On the point that "you can't explain your own point" - that was a mistake: what I meant was that "you refuse to explain your own point.", this is also to highlight that you are deliberately withholding information, presumably, because it is likely a very weak position to hold in the first place.
    And that is a personal comment. It says that my own personal motivation for withholding information is something in particular. Does not forward the debate. Ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Also, I haven't claimed any win - I just maintain that my OP still stands solid. If you wish to take that as loss on your part then I accept that.
    If the OP stands, then you win. And the OP has been challenged so it doesn't stand.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And I haven't said that your debating is bad: I am sure you are deliberately with-holding information for your poor position, as you've already stated multiple times. And in that you've been great at stalling and filibustering - making me do all the work to find holes. So how can that be bad, since that's your stated goal?
    Personal comment (my debating style). Does not forward the debate. Ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I literally don't even know what your argument is never mind what specific portion of *my* OP is being challenged!
    Here you go, then. That's my argument.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning must be considered possible.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I What I do know is that it is a chain of unsupported or incorrect statements such as:

    - the soul = consciousness per EVERY religion [WRONG]
    Irrelevant to any argument currently under discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    - consciousness can be disembodied [UNPROVEN SINCE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS]
    You claiming to not understand an argument does not constitute a valid rebuttal.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    - an example of a disembodied consciousness is NDE,OBE and now "consciousnesses leaving their bodies and returning". None of which currently make any sense since you haven't explained what consciousness is nor what exactly you mean by "leaving their bodies".
    You claiming to not understand an argument does not constitute a valid rebuttal.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    - your "truism" is being torn apart as we speak so it is unnecessary for me to take it seriously until this has been resolved.
    Your refusal to address my truism, for any reason, does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If you want to sit back and wait until this issue is settled, that's fine. But if you don't address my argument, it stands until you do address it.

    And no, the truism is not being "torn apart". From my assessment, it's pretty much being ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I can't help it if you refuse to provide information that may collapse your case but all I am doing is getting you to think about what you're arguing. You clearly just want to "win" by not providing the information but that's on you, not me.
    Incorrect personal comment. Does not forward the debate. Ignored.

    And I could explain my reasoning for not giving you more information (and I kind of had done it earlier) but then I would be offering my best guess on YOUR motives for offering your arguments regarding this issue (why I refuse is directly tied to what I think your chosen strategy is). And then I would be making personal comments about you. And I won't do that. Even if personal comments weren't a no-no here, I could never prove what I think is going on in your head and therefore couldn't even prove my suspicion and therefore offer nothing to the debate. And likewise your personal comments about my motivation for not explaining further are just as flawed as my statements regarding you would be and therefore are no less a waste of time. The only apparent difference is is that I realize that this is the case and therefore don't bother making such statements.

    And I know your personal comments are generally incorrect because I DO know what I'm thinking and therefore I DO know that your personal statements about me are incorrect and I DO know that they do not forward the debate at all and therefore SHOULD be ignored. I don't always ignore them (although I probably should) but regardless, if you are going to continue to make these unsupportable assessment about me and my debating, be prepared for frequent use the responses like "Incorrect personal comment. Does not forward the debate. Ignored."

    Here's my recommendation. If your statement does not include the phrase "your argument" or addresses the argument itself, it probably does not forward the debate. So instead of saying "You are refusing to explain what you mean", say "Your argument has not been adequately explained". If you say the latter, I will pretty much be forced to respond. If you say the former, I have ample justification in ignoring it and probably wil.
    Last edited by mican333; March 9th, 2019 at 05:50 AM.

  10. #210
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are partially right.

    You are correct that if the debate reaches an impasse because one party refuses to address an argument, the argument stands.

    But you are incorrect on the argument that stands. I DID address the OP. The impasse is over THIS argument:

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning must be considered possible.

    So until the impasse is ended and this argument is addressed, it stands.
    Well, it is also possible that youíre deliberately masking information that goes against your case rather than the filibustering that youíre accusing me of.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - That the argument is incomplete and contains assumptions that prove it false have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, that the argument is incomplete and contains assumptions that prove it false must be considered possible.

    Therefore, in order to resolve this, we need to agree what is meant by ďconsciousnessĒ and how such a thing, whatever you mean by it, can ďleave the bodyĒ.

    And that is a personal comment. It says that my own personal motivation for withholding information is something in particular. Does not forward the debate. Ignored.
    Huh? It is your own words.


    If the OP stands, then you win. And the OP has been challenged so it doesn't stand.
    Yet your challenge is at an impasse because you are refusing to engage in providing information, which I believe goes against your case. To wit, in case you missed it:

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - That the argument is incomplete and contains assumptions that prove it false have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, that the argument is incomplete and contains assumptions that prove it false must be considered possible.

    Until this is resolve, until there is more detail, I cannot say I understand the notions you are claiming make sense.

    Here you go, then. That's my argument.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning must be considered possible.
    The details that NDE and OBE experiences claim, that of hearing and seeing things appears to have been withdrawn. Correct?


    You claiming to not understand an argument does not constitute a valid rebuttal.
    Thatís because itís not a rebuttal! I am seeing to understand *what* is being argued *about*.

    There appears to be some goalpost moving here and therefore, the argument keeps shifting as flaws are discovered. Which is fine, but itís hard to consider that I have been challenged once - itís really been multiple times with different variations and details.


    And I could explain my reasoning for not giving you more information (and I kind of had done it earlier)

    Agreed - you have stated that it would be inconvenient to you to support your own case with more details. That is not in dispute!

    but then I would be offering my best guess on YOUR motives for offering your arguments regarding this issue (why I refuse is directly tied to what I think your chosen strategy is).
    Again, you have already stated that you believe I am being a dishonest debater. I let that slide because I am more interested in the debate rather than personal attacks.

    Here's my recommendation. If your statement does not include the phrase "your argument" or addresses the argument itself, it probably does not forward the debate. So instead of saying "You are refusing to explain what you mean", say "Your argument has not been adequately explained". If you say the latter, I will pretty much be forced to respond. If you say the former, I have ample justification in ignoring it and probably wil.
    Um, since you have actually admitted that you have refused to explain, that is in play! By your own admission, several times, you have stated your own motivations. And that brings it into play.

    And I have stated that your argument has not been adequately explained! I keep asking you for definitions of consciousness and what you mean by ďleavingĒ so that we can explore specifically the phenomena that you are making claims on. Please do so.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 9th, 2019 at 06:39 AM.

  11. #211
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, it is also possible that you’re deliberately masking information that goes against your case rather than the filibustering that you’re accusing me of.
    I didn't accuse you of filibustering.

    But either way, yes, it's POSSIBLE that my motivation is X and it's POSSIBLE that your motivation is Y. And since neither of us can read the other's minds and prove that anyone has any particular motivation, such a discussion is a complete waste of time and therefore not worth discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Therefore, in order to resolve this, we need to agree what is meant by “consciousness” and how such a thing, whatever you mean by it, can “leave the body”.
    As I believe was established in our last exchange, if I don't explain my argument further, you will have no response (impasse) and therefore not have a rebuttal to my argument and therefore it stands. I find that to be an acceptable outcome and therefore choose to not offer more explanation.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Huh? It is your own words.
    What words?




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yet your challenge is at an impasse because you are refusing to engage in providing information, which I believe goes against your case.
    So we are at an impasse because I'm not helping you find a way to defeat my argument???????


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - That the argument is incomplete and contains assumptions that prove it false have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, that the argument is incomplete and contains assumptions that prove it false must be considered possible
    So essentially, you are saying that it's possible that my argument contains assumptions that prove it false. Yes, it's possible.

    And if you want to use those assumptions against me, you will have to find them.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Until this is resolve, until there is more detail, I cannot say I understand the notions you are claiming make sense.
    You claiming to not understand an argument does not constitute a valid rebuttal. Yes, I know "I don't understand" is not a rebuttal. But since it's not a rebuttal, it's pretty much irrelevant to the debate.

    I have no debate burden to explain anything to you. I would say etiquette demands that I give a rudimentary explanation if requested and I have done that.

    So I think you need to accept that you have gotten all you are going to get and either:

    1. Find a way to rebut my argument with what you do have.
    2. Cease addressing my argument.

    Pretty much all other options qualify as spam.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The details that NDE and OBE experiences claim, that of hearing and seeing things appears to have been withdrawn. Correct?
    I don't quite understand what you are saying but I will state that I've withdrawn no claims regarding this issue.

    Is there a specific claim of mine that you are referring to?




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There appears to be some goalpost moving here and therefore, the argument keeps shifting as flaws are discovered. Which is fine, but it’s hard to consider that I have been challenged once - it’s really been multiple times with different variations and details.
    If you are claiming that you have presented an argument that I have failed to rebut, please point out that argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Agreed - you have stated that it would be inconvenient to you to support your own case with more details. That is not in dispute!
    I did not state that it would be merely inconvenient to me. My reasoning is quite different than mere inconvenience.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Again, you have already stated that you believe I am being a dishonest debater. I let that slide because I am more interested in the debate rather than personal attacks.
    I do not believe that I said that you were a dishonest debater. And if you are indeed more interested in debate than personal attacks, then please make sure all future comments are about my argument instead of my debating style.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um, since you have actually admitted that you have refused to explain, that is in play! By your own admission, several times, you have stated your own motivations. And that brings it into play.
    No, it doesn't. It's spam. Why I am making an argument has no bearing on the quality of the argument itself and therefore is an irrelevant issue. Why I'm refusing to provide more information is likewise irrelevant to the quality of my argument.

    If you want to attack my argument for not having more details than it does, that's relevant. If you want to talk about why I'm not providing that detail, that's irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And I have stated that your argument has not been adequately explained![ I keep asking you for definitions of consciousness and what you mean by “leaving” so that we can explore specifically the phenomena that you are making claims on. Please do so.
    But you have not said that the argument itself is flawed due to not being adequately explained (as far as I know anyway) so you aren't attacking the argument by that statement. You just seem to be saying that you can't address it - not that it's flawed.

  12. #212
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    So I think you need to accept that you have gotten all you are going to get and either:

    1. Find a way to rebut my argument with what you do have.
    2. Cease addressing my argument.

    Pretty much all other options qualify as spam.
    We canít move forward if I donít understand your claims and if youíre refusing more information then you donít have an argument to begin with.

    Then I accept your concession from the debate.

    This isnít spam - itís your own reticence thatís causing the impasse.

  13. #213
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    We can’t move forward if I don’t understand your claims and if you’re refusing more information then you don’t have an argument to begin with.

    Then I accept your concession from the debate.
    Question -

    Do you realize that in order for one to accept a concession, a concession must first be offered and therefore you cannot accept my concession because I haven't given one?

    If didn't know before, now you do.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This isn’t spam - it’s your own reticence that’s causing the impasse.
    No, it's your refusal to rebut my argument that's causing the impasse.

    And if an argument is not rebutted then it stands until a rebuttal is given. So why you won't rebut my argument does not alter the fact that it's not rebutted and therefore stands.
    Last edited by mican333; March 9th, 2019 at 08:48 AM.

  14. #214
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Question -

    Do you realize that in order for one to accept a concession, a concession must first be offered and therefore you cannot accept my concession because I haven't given one?

    If didn't know before, now you do.
    Well, itís possible for you to offer one, so Iím provisionally accepting it.


    No, it's your refusal to rebut my argument that's causing the impasse.

    And if an argument is not rebutted then it stands until a rebuttal is given. So why you won't rebut my argument does not alter the fact that it's not rebutted and therefore stands.
    I canít rebut something I donít understand though. I have my own understandings of what NDEs are and every time I have challenged it, you move the goal posts.

    We began with the argument declaring NDEs are possible, then a more specific NDE, OBEs are possible. Then I wanted to know how in the world does listening and seeing things work in such an experience, and forwarded a definition that points to it being more a perception and it gets changed yet again to exclude those points.

    So I think I have to declare victory since all thatís happening is the definition changes so often. And if you refuse to clarify and only do so when I offer other explanations then Iím really doing all the work to figure out what youíre attempting to describe.

    So your argument doesnít even stand at all. Thanks for playing.

  15. #215
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, it’s possible for you to offer one, so I’m provisionally accepting it.
    Then I provisionally accept your concession as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I can’t rebut something I don’t understand though. I have my own understandings of what NDEs are and every time I have challenged it, you move the goal posts.

    We began with the argument declaring NDEs are possible, then a more specific NDE, OBEs are possible. Then I wanted to know how in the world does listening and seeing things work in such an experience, and forwarded a definition that points to it being more a perception and it gets changed yet again to exclude those points.
    Rejecting your attempt to change definition I already forwarded (Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning) is maintaining the already provided definition, not changing it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So I think I have to declare victory since all that’s happening is the definition changes so often.
    The definition has always been "Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning" so it's not changed.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And if you refuse to clarify and only do so when I offer other explanations then I’m really doing all the work to figure out what you’re attempting to describe.
    If you don't understand what "Consciousnesses leaving their bodies and then returning" means, then I guess you just don't understand the concepts offered in this debate well enough to make a rebuttal and therefore have no rebuttal to offer.

    And if you have no rebuttal to my argument, then my argument stands.

  16. #216
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,512
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Also, the soul as a 'concept', as I've already stated, is not a problem: I don't mind playing pretend.
    Here’s a pretend psychological question:

    If you were in a room, not drunk nor intoxicated in any way, with four other people giving your respects to a friend who has just passed away, and you and three other people in the room clearly observe / directly witness something very similar to this image and you and three of your friends all watch it float away through the wall and upward.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1-703508.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	19.5 KB 
ID:	3807
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...ences-are-REAL

    After you collaborate with the three other people in the room about what you all observed, what questions might this experience raise for you?

    How might this affect your world view if at all?

    Would you doubt what you directly observed?

    What explanations could explain this?

    Would you be more interested in researching the phenomena of OBE?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.Ē --"The Mental UniverseĒ | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  17. #217
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Hereís a pretend psychological question:

    If you were in a room, not drunk nor intoxicated in any way, with four other people giving your respects to a friend who has just passed away, and you and three other people in the room clearly observe / directly witness something very similar to this image and you and three of your friends all watch it float away through the wall and upward.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1-703508.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	19.5 KB 
ID:	3807
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...ences-are-REAL

    After you collaborate with the three other people in the room about what you all observed, what questions might this experience raise for you?

    How might this affect your world view if at all?

    Would you doubt what you directly observed?

    What explanations could explain this?

    Would you be more interested in researching the phenomena of OBE?
    I donít have any dispute about OBEs being a *perception* of leaving the body. This is good science and I have a bunch of similar articles. I donít think that the article has anything to do with the theoretical scenario youíre describing though - itís basically describing an illusion, which I agree is likely what an OBE experience actually is.

    Your theoretical scenario doesnít really have much to do with anything weíre discussing but I would just try and understand it if it really happened - especially since the floating image is wearing the same clothes: it is very odd that - do clothes have OBEs too? Bizarrely too the person looks remarkably similar to the original person - would there be make up and other blemishes too?

    And no one has ever said that OBEs are observable so thatís certainly a new spin on the idea. If I saw it Iíd be surprised how murderers donít see this phenomenon all the time, or people at operating theaters or hospices.

    Iíd most likely draw the conclusion that the idea is a load of bunk and look for alternative explanations that are more in line with my current world view: I would have zero reason to change how I expect reality to work from a single experience alone and would probably assume that my drink was spiked.

    Also, your scenario has too many internal flaws; for example, why would the supposed ďsoulĒ float away right at that moment weíre there - it could have been days ago the person died. By the time we are in the memorial, it has already gone through all the embalming and stuff and if what goes on there doesnít jostle the soul away from the body, I donít know what will!


    @miccan - does this idea of OBEs being visible to others fit in your model?
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 9th, 2019 at 08:02 PM.

  18. #218
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,512
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your theoretical scenario doesnít really have much to do with anything weíre discussing
    The premise of your thread is about the soul not existing and you stated earlier that you are willing to play pretend. The image I posted was just a visual example. I did not reference the subject of the article in my post except to show where I got the image.

    And no one has ever said that OBEs are observable so thatís certainly a new spin
    Yes, a soul leaving the human body is sometimes observable:

    Hereís just one example
    Hospital security footage captures the haunting moment SOUL leaves a body
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...fe-after-death

    If I saw it Iíd be surprised how murderers donít see this phenomenon all the time,
    For people not to see a soul leave the body when it occurs (though many do claim they have witnessed their loved ones leave the body) may be better understood if/once we understand the process better.

    Iíd most likely draw the conclusion that the idea is a load of bunk
    Why would it be total bunk if you and your friends directly observed the phenomena a few minutes after your friend passed away and not raise questions?

    Also, your scenario has too many internal flaws; for example, why would the supposed ďsoulĒ float away right at that moment weíre there.
    Youíre in a hospital room and the person has recently passed away while you are visiting with your friends.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.Ē --"The Mental UniverseĒ | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  19. #219
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The premise of your thread is about the soul not existing and you stated earlier that you are willing to play pretend. The image I posted was just a visual example. I did not reference the subject of the article in my post except to show where I got the image.
    Itís odd that all the sources for OBE have been either pseudoscience blogs or articles pointing to scientific experiments that show that these experiences are delusions.

    And itís also interesting that when this is pointed out the poster takes great pains to claim that *only* the portion that *isnít* the science is in play.

    There surely canít be any willful ignorance that this whole thing is a delusion!

    _______________________


    Not sure where I said I would play pretend, but Iíll go along with it for a moment since, pretending souls exist is the main premise of the OP.


    Yes, a soul leaving the human body is sometimes observable:

    Hereís just one example
    Hospital security footage captures the haunting moment SOUL leaves a body
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...fe-after-death
    That is more likely a security tape thatís been used multiple times - the ďsoulĒ is going out of the door for heavenís sake it totally looks like a ghost image from a previous recording!



    For people not to see a soul leave the body when it occurs (though many do claim they have witnessed their loved ones leave the body) may be better understood if/once we understand the process better.
    Yes. We should understand why people have delusions since this is the simpler explanation. Why should we ever take people at face value on these claims is baffling.

    At least in the OBE area, there have been a great many discoveries pointing to that direction; including your own source that isnít even really about OBE but how our visual cues can override our perception of ourselves in the world. Itís basically about VR.


    Why would it be total bunk if you and your friends directly observed the phenomena a few minutes after your friend passed away and not raise questions?

    Youíre in a hospital room and the person has recently passed away while you are visiting with your friends.
    Youíre right. If we saw what was in the image you posted that changes things. A floating body, *fully clothed, with painted toenails* flying away like Superman would indeed change my perspective on things.

    Such accuracy and detail would more likely point to me living inside a simulation when such details could be reproduced so easily in such fine detail. I would still think that souls are bunk but maybe form a religion around humans being controlled by machines like in the Matrix or androids like in Avatar.

    And since it is so incredibly rare despite people dying ALL the time and en masse without this phenomena I would conclude that it is a glitch in the matrix and that I must be possessing special powers to see this. I might even start working on it to understand if we are indeed living in a simulation.

    Iíd still think the idea of souls are bunk.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 10th, 2019 at 08:23 AM.

  20. #220
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Mican, since the issue we're discussing has been escalated to red and purple text, I'm going to hold off on responding to your entire post for now until Squatch responds to the issue I've pointed out with your "truism":
    While "something is either X or not-X" is a truism as per the law of excluded middle, the proposition that "something is either X or proven to be not-X" is not a valid truism, since something which is not proven to be not-X could still actually be either X or not-X.

    However, I'm going to highlight some statements from your post that are concerning and which I'll be addressing once that takes place.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    using lack of evidence of not-X is evidence of X is not inherently an argument from ignorance fallacy
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    if I reach in my pocket for a quarter and don't feel a quarter in my pocket, I will use the lack of evidence of there being a quarter to conclude that there are no quarters in my pocket. Now obviously that is not an argument from ignorance fallacy. Therefore, using lack of evidence as evidence is not inherently an argument from ignorance fallacy. So if one uses good logic in a situation where they cite lack of evidence as evidence, then they are not engaging in the fallacy.

 

 
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is the 'soul' ? do you have one?
    By isaone in forum Religion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 11th, 2008, 08:07 AM
  2. Soul To Soul
    By Vivacious Brat in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 04:30 PM
  3. The Soul
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: July 15th, 2007, 11:21 PM
  4. What is the soul?
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 09:31 AM
  5. What is a soul, and do we have one?
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: September 29th, 2004, 11:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •