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 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 389
  1. #361
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I agree there is no more evidence for one over the other but that doesn't necessarily make them = !

    When the positive side of the claim should have verifiable results but doesn't, this is evidence of absence.
    But then it's not supported that the positive claim for the soul should have verifiable results. In fact, I would not expect there to be verifiable results at this time if souls, as described, actually exist.

    If you disagree, please support that is souls exist, we should have verifiable evidence of them and PLEASE provide a bar for "evidence" if you attempt to argue this.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    In general, ok.
    However, when one posits the existence of something, and that something can be identified/detected/measured/etc, it should be able to be identified/etc!
    Souls/ghosts as forwarded would leave "traces" that can be detected.
    Well, people have claimed to have seen ghosts and have claimed to have left their bodies when they were clinically dead (and below I have supported that I am using the correct definition of "clinically dead"). Doesn't that count as "Traces"? IF not, then we are back to the same problem we have regarding your argument regarding "evidence". You haven't defined what constitutes "traces" or "evidence" therefor the claim that neither has been detected is not supported.

    You HAVE to define what IT is before you can say IT does nor does not exist. If we don't know what evidence/traces is, then we don't know if it exists or not.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yes, that is a semantic argument.
    "Clinical" whatever no.
    You know what I mean by dead. Please go for the idea here not the particular term.
    No cellular activity at all. No electrical activity at all. No chemical activity at all (save for the natural breakdown of carbon based tissue). Subject has been this way for some time.
    How about, a coroner pronounces the person dead, and then the person comes back and gives testimony. THAT, would be evidence.
    No testimony exists from a person that has been actually dead. Period.
    Near dead ain't dead dude!
    Near/almost/kinda/sort of/maybe ain't "cutting no mustard" (for MT)
    It IS, by definition, clinical death. Here is the definition of "clinical death".

    "death as judged by the medical observation of cessation of vital functions. It is typically identified with the cessation of heartbeat and respiration"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

    And this semantic argument is an utter waste of time and has nothing to do with the point of discussing NDEs.

    The POINT is some people have claimed to experience what we might expect to experience if the soul exists when they experience clinical death and some people consider it "evidence" of a soul. So depending on what bar you set for "evidence", there IS evidence of the soul.

    And if you reject the bar that some people use to define NDEs as "evidence" (and for the record, I set the bar higher than that), then perhaps you have set the bar so high that we would expect to see nothing that fits your definition of "evidence" on the internet. In fact, I forward that that is the case.

    If you disagree that you have set the bar as high as I think you have, please explain where you have set the bar.

    Now, I have repeated this argument three times know and I don't think you've addressed the issue of "bar of evidence". I don't care to keep hounding you about it so at this point I'm going to consider you argument that we would see evidence of souls on the internet if souls actually existed to be dropped. If you don't drop it, then please support that we should see evidence if souls existed and define what "evidence" is so we can tell if your statement is true or not.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    "Some people" consider that this happens to so few people (since we all die sometime), and what is "seen" by the "dead" person varies by culture is evidence the soul does not exist.
    Not it's not evidence. For one, whatever differences there may be can perhaps be explained by how one interprets an event through their own already existing beliefs.

    And besides that, even if the NDE experience is proven to be complete bunk, that does not equate evidence that the soul does not exist. It just means that it's not evidence that the soul does exist and lack of evidence of existence is not evidence of nonexistence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    More importantly to your point,
    "near" dead, ain't dead, nothing special to see here folks, move along....
    Actually, a semantic argument over the word "Dead" is irrelevant to my point.

  2. #362
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then it's not supported that the positive claim for the soul should have verifiable results.
    Souls are said to interact with our reality, if so, there would be measurable/detectable results. Even a soul, leaving a dead body as Eye has proposed for instance, would be detectable.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, people have claimed to have seen ghosts and have claimed to have left their bodies when they were clinically dead....
    Let me stop you there. I was clear in what I meant by "dead".
    Near dead ain't dead!
    Near pregnant ain't pregnant!

    So again, show me a person that a coroner has pronounced dead, that comes back to life and tells about it and I am ALL ears!
    I nearly won the lottery once, so I know all about it!

    I have no interest in a semantic argument over definitions.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, a semantic argument over the word "Dead" is irrelevant to my point.
    Show it instead of just saying it please.

  3. #363
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Souls are said to interact with our reality, if so, there would be measurable/detectable results.
    Even a soul, leaving a dead body as Eye has proposed for instance, would be detectable.
    How so?

    Has there been a device created for measuring/photographing a soul (if they exist) that has been installed and used in a surgical theater that failed to measure a soul when it allegedly left the body? If not, then we would not expect the soul to have been measured at this time.

    Or if you mean "detectable" as "someone would have claimed to have seen one by now", that HAS happened. As in there are people who have claimed to have seen ghosts (including a friend of mine) and there are people who have experienced souls leaving bodies (those who have experienced NDEs). You are welcome to not be convinced by any of these claims, but you can't deny that they do exist which counts as "detecting".

    Or if you are limiting detecting to measurable scientific realm, I do not expect that they would have detected a soul at this time using their current equipment.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Let me stop you there. I was clear in what I meant by "dead".
    Near dead ain't dead!
    Near pregnant ain't pregnant!

    So again, show me a person that a coroner has pronounced dead, that comes back to life and tells about it and I am ALL ears!
    CLINICICALLY dead? Every instance of NDEs has the person being declared CLINICALLY dead.

    Again, CLINICAL death is:

    "death as judged by the medical observation of cessation of vital functions. It is typically identified with the cessation of heartbeat and respiration"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

    So you cannot say "Nu-uh" that's not "clinically dead". It is, BY DEFINITION, clinically dead. It's right there - quote and support. Supported. End of story.

    And what you are referring to is not "clinically dead" but just "dead" which is different.

    So, beyond ghosts or sceance or past-life memories (assuming those phenomena are genuine), there is no communication after death but there IS coming back after clinical death.

    So I think that's what you are confused about "dead" and "clinically dead" are not the same thing.

    And as I pointed out, the NDEs are a "for example" or a larger point so debating the merits of NDE, let alone the word "death" within it is pretty much off-topic.
    Last edited by mican333; August 3rd, 2019 at 12:03 PM.

  4. #364
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How so?
    If the human eye can see it, it can be detected/confirmed scientifically.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    CLINICICALLY dead? Every instance of NDEs has the person being declared CLINICALLY dead.

    Again, CLINICAL death is:
    ...not dead.

  5. #365
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If the human eye can see it, it can be detected/confirmed scientifically.
    Theoretically, yes.

    But before science can scientifically detect the soul, it needs to attempt to do it. It needs to:

    1. Figure out what a soul actually is if it exists.
    2. Create a device that can scientifically detect a soul if it exists
    3. Use the device where one would expect to detect souls if they exist (such as a location where people die, like around someone's death bed).

    So has this been done yet? Of course not. And until it is done, we cannot expect science to detect/confirm the existence of the soul if it does exist.

    So it is not at all odd that souls have not been scientifically detected if they exist. I would expect that science has not detected a soul even if they exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    ...not dead.
    This semantic debate you keep making is irrelevant to my point regarding NDEs. So semantically, you are correct. So what?

    I was not talking about "Death" but "clinical death". Yes, they are two different things and only ONE of them is relevant to my argument. NDEs occur after clinical death, but not after death. So that's settled. Let's move on from this semantic argument, please.
    Last edited by mican333; August 4th, 2019 at 08:45 AM.

  6. #366
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Theoretically, yes.

    But before science can scientifically detect the soul, it needs to attempt to do it. It needs to:

    Death is pretty common throughout history after all, and who ever gets the first picture of a soul gets a Nobel Prize.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. Figure out what a soul actually is if it exists.
    2. Create a device that can scientifically detect a soul if it exists
    3. Use the device where one would expect to detect souls if they exist (such as a location where people die, like around someone's death bed).

    So has this been done yet? Of course not. And until it is done, we cannot expect science to detect/confirm the existence of the soul if it does exist.
    None of these is necessary for a picture. Once an image (or other evidence) is obtained then the science can begin.
    No evidence, no science.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This semantic debate you keep making is irrelevant to my point regarding NDEs. So semantically, you are correct. So what?
    Another comment like this and our conversation is likely over.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I was not talking about "Death" but "clinical death". Yes, they are two different things and only ONE of them is relevant
    Look "Sig", our exchange started because you were responding to my comment, not the other way around, so don't get the panties all waded up that I was responding to my own points/argument.
    and
    I was very clear about what I meant with the term death (as in a coroner pronounces you dead). It is you once again trying to get wiggle room in your argumentation by semantics. You introduced levels of death, ie "clinical death", which is something like "no heart beat or blood pressure".


    But, ok, let's discuss your point:
    A clinically dead person is no more dead than a almost pregnant person is pregnant.

    Why do think testimony from a still living person discussing what a dead person experiences is strong evidence?

    To me:
    1. They are still alive.
    2. The testimony given varies by culture (IOW, people tend to "see" what they expect).
    3. Most people that are "clinically dead" do not have these experiences.
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 5th, 2019 at 03:53 PM.

  7. #367
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Death is pretty common throughout history after all, and who ever gets the first picture of a soul gets a Nobel Prize.
    But then apparently if the soul exists, it cannot be photographed or recorded by out current technological devices.

    And also, I would imagine that if I took a picture of an actual ghost and posted it right here, you would think it's a trick photograph so even IF someone does take a photo of a soul/ghost it would not be considered evidence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    None of these is necessary for a picture. Once an image (or other evidence) is obtained then the science can begin.
    No evidence, no science.
    Okay. But again, I don't think if souls exist, one can take a picture of them. That doesn't mean that one day we won't invent something that can record a soul (if they exist).



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Another comment like this and our conversation is likely over.
    Okay. So for future reference, how would you prefer I voice the notion that I think your comment is correct but not relevant to my argument?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Look "Sig", our exchange started because you were responding to my comment, not the other way around, so don't get the panties all waded up that I was responding to my own points/argument.
    and
    I was very clear about what I meant with the term death (as in a coroner pronounces you dead). It is you once again trying to get wiggle room in your argumentation by semantics. You introduced levels of death, ie "clinical death", which is something like "no heart beat or blood pressure".
    I think you don't understand why I brought NDEs into the discussion.

    At no point was I attempting to argue that NDEs are real or that they are evidence of the soul. The phenomena was forwarded as a "for example" of a phenomena that some do believe is "evidence" and others do not and we can use to determine what would be considered "evidence" for the soul. Here is the argument cut-and-paste.


    "Okay. So you don't consider NDEs strong enough "evidence" to count as evidence by your criteria. And of course others do consider them evidence of the soul's existence.

    So according to some people, there clearly IS evidence on the internet of the soul. But you are not one of those people. So NDEs are not strong enough evidence to convince you (although it does convince others). So then we come back to the question "What IS the level of evidence that you would accept". And I forward that the strength of evidence to convince you is so high that it's not odd that we can't find it on the internet.

    Now am I right about that or am I wrong? We can't say and therefore we can't say that it's odd that we can't find what you would consider evidence on the internet. Its even possible that your standard of acceptable evidence is so high, there is nothing that could possibly exist on the internet that would convince you.

    So again, we need to establish what constitutes evidence before we can consider how odd it is that we can't find it on the internet."





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But, ok, let's discuss your point:
    A clinically dead person is no more dead than a almost pregnant person is pregnant.
    That's not relevant to my point. The fact that a "clinically dead" person is not technically dead has no relevance to why I was forwarding NDEs that I can think of. Yes, "Death" and NDEs are two different thing. And I'm discussing NDEs and not Death.

    That's why I'm saying that the definition of Death is not relevant. It's not what is being discussed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Why do think testimony from a still living person discussing what a dead person experiences is strong evidence?
    I never argued it was strong evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    To me:
    1. They are still alive.
    2. The testimony given varies by culture (IOW, people tend to "see" what they expect).
    3. Most people that are "clinically dead" do not have these experiences.
    Okay. So getting back to the ACTUAL reason NDEs were forwarded, we established that you don't consider NDEs evidence of a soul and you even explained why you don't. That's great and as I'm not attempting to argue that NDEs are genuine I have no rebuttal to your reasoning for not believing them to be genuine. But my point, as shown above, is that other people will disagree with you and think that they are evidence.

    So that gets us to the question, what is and is not evidence of the existence of the soul? If we just go by whatever you think (like you think NDEs are not evidence), then the criteria is "whatever Belthazor thinks is or is not evidence". And if we accept that standard, then I would venture to guess that it's not at all surprising that we don't see any evidence on the internet because the bar to convince you might be extremely high. And likewise if we go by the judgment of a theist, then there IS evidence of the soul on the internet because there's something that convinces that person.

    And obviously neither standard is a good one so we need to find some kind of neutral standard of evidence before we can judge whether it's strange that we don't see any evidence of souls on the internet.

  8. #368
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then apparently if the soul exists, it cannot be photographed or recorded by out current technological devices.
    The biology of the human eye is fairly well understood, and so to electromagnetics. This speculation is unfounded

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And also, I would imagine that if I took a picture of an actual ghost and posted it right here, you would think it's a trick photograph so even IF someone does take a photo of a soul/ghost it would not be considered evidence.
    Then again, you would be wrong.
    UFO photo's (for instance) can be judged by experts. Pretty hard to tell if one is genuine sure, but a whole lot of fakes have been proven!


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. But again, I don't think if souls exist, one can take a picture of them. That doesn't mean that one day we won't invent something that can record a soul (if they exist).
    Based on what or opinion noted?.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. So for future reference, how would you prefer I voice the notion that I think your comment is correct but not relevant to my argument?
    You and I have history. This is a "push my button" word and you know it.
    Debating with you comes down to definitions and semantics usually and I am trying to discuss ideas. This is why I tend to "say/type/communicate/etc" in my communication hoping that people will not worry so much about a particular word that it overshadows what is being discussed.
    and
    the way you just said it is better or as I say it:
    "you are correct but that is non-sequitur"



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think you don't understand why I brought NDEs into the discussion.

    At no point was I attempting to argue that NDEs are real or that they are evidence of the soul....
    You have not responded to the reasons why I don't think NDE's apply here at all. I don't think rainbows or apple pie apply here either.
    Yes some people consider this evidence, it just doesn't hold a lot of water in and of itself without additional support though.

  9. #369
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The biology of the human eye is fairly well understood, and so to electromagnetics. This speculation is unfounded
    What do you mean?

    Are you arguing that if souls exist, we currently have the technology to record them like with film or video? If so, please support that assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Then again, you would be wrong.
    UFO photo's (for instance) can be judged by experts. Pretty hard to tell if one is genuine sure, but a whole lot of fakes have been proven!
    Okay. But my point remains. If I took a photo of an ACTUAL soul, how would anyone know that it's for real and not a trick? Of if the photo isn't a trick, how would anyone know that the object I photographed was actually a soul?

    In short, there is no way to photograph an actual soul (if such a thing were possible) and have it be evidence (as in something that would convince a naysayer).




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You and I have history. This is a "push my button" word and you know it.
    I did't know it and I suspect that you might have me confused with someone else regarding that (and if you are going to maintain that you did tell me that, please show me the post where you said that to me). But anyway, I'm guess you don't like "So what?". So I'll say instead "But I don't think it's relevant".

    I noticed you called me "Sig" earlier. Do you think I'm Sig under a different name? If so, I'm not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You have not responded to the reasons why I don't think NDE's apply here at all. I don't think rainbows or apple pie apply here either.
    Yes some people consider this evidence, it just doesn't hold a lot of water in and of itself without additional support though.
    And that was not the point of me forwarding NDEs at all. The reason it's forwarded is that SOME people think it's evidence of a soul and SOME people think it's not evidence of a soul. Since you have conceded that that is the case, NDEs totally apply to my argument (something that is or is not evidence based on who is considering it). And you did not respond to the argument this is referring to in my previous post.

    So here it is AGAIN.

    Okay. So getting back to the ACTUAL reason NDEs were forwarded, we established that you don't consider NDEs evidence of a soul and you even explained why you don't. That's great and as I'm not attempting to argue that NDEs are genuine I have no rebuttal to your reasoning for not believing them to be genuine. But my point, as shown above, is that other people will disagree with you and think that they are evidence.

    So that gets us to the question, what is and is not evidence of the existence of the soul? If we just go by whatever you think (like you think NDEs are not evidence), then the criteria is "whatever Belthazor thinks is or is not evidence". And if we accept that standard, then I would venture to guess that it's not at all surprising that we don't see any evidence on the internet because the bar to convince you might be extremely high. And likewise if we go by the judgment of a theist, then there IS evidence of the soul on the internet because there's something that convinces that person.

    And obviously neither standard is a good one so we need to find some kind of neutral standard of evidence before we can judge whether it's strange that we don't see any evidence of souls on the internet. If we don't establish criteria for what is and is not evidence, then it cannot be said that it's strange that we don't see evidence of the soul on the internet.


    The bolded part is my conclusion that is supported by what's come before. If the conclusion is not rebutted, then my argument stands and it's established that we can't say it's odd that we don't see evidence on the internet.
    Last edited by mican333; August 5th, 2019 at 06:05 PM.

  10. #370
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What do you mean?

    Are you arguing that if souls exist, we currently have the technology to record them like with film or video? If so, please support that assertion.
    Again, if something can be seen with the human eye, we currently have the technology to "observe" it.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. But my point remains. If I took a photo of an ACTUAL soul, how would anyone know that it's for real and not a trick?
    Again, only a picture probably would not confirm conclusively that souls exist in and of itself, but forensic experts are getting pretty good at identifying fakes. Once a picture was taken and couldn't be proven a fake though, other people would try to replicate/disprove it (you know, the scientific method).
    Again, a Nobel Prize and history awaits


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In short, there is no way to photograph an actual soul (if such a thing were possible) and have it be evidence (as in something that would convince a naysayer).
    I don't think you can support that with more than opinion.

    It would be evidence that could be studied and quite possibly be replicated/disproven.
    So far science has virtually nothing to study



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I did't know it and I suspect that you might have me confused with someone else regarding that (and if you are going to maintain that you did tell me that, please show me the post where you said that to me).
    No, I am not confusing you with anyone else. We have talked on a number threads over the last few yrs.
    You asked to delete several of the posts where we discussed this so it's really a better topic for a PM, as I did make a comment to you I shouldn't have back then on an open forum.

    For that indiscretion I apologize

    and I have tried to up my standards of discourse on ODN.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I noticed you called me "Sig" earlier. Do you think I'm Sig under a different name? If so, I'm not.

    No, I called you "Sig" because he and I were having the same issue (as we are on this thread) on the gun control thread. I thought maybe you read the thread and would get the reference.
    I meant no offense



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And that was not the point of me forwarding NDEs at all. The reason it's forwarded is that SOME people think it's evidence of a soul and SOME people think it's not evidence of a soul. Since you have conceded that that is the case, NDEs totally apply to my argument (something that is or is not evidence based on who is considering it). And you did not respond to the argument this is referring to in my previous post.
    I felt I had dealt with it sufficiently, but ok, I will go a bit further.

    Some people think that there is evidence that the N Pole has an opening to inner Earth (a US admiral gave testimony to that effect ya know) or that the Earth is flat.
    Should we give all claims equal weight? I think not, some can be dismissed logically, some because of conflicting evidence exist, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [I]Okay. So getting back to the ACTUAL reason NDEs were forwarded, we established that you don't consider NDEs evidence of a soul and you even explained why you don't. That's great and as I'm not attempting to argue that NDEs are genuine I have no rebuttal to your reasoning for not believing them to be genuine.
    This seems like progress


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But my point, as shown above, is that other people will disagree with you and think that they are evidence.
    As with most any subject...


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And obviously neither standard is a good one so we need to find some kind of neutral standard of evidence before we can judge whether it's strange that we don't see any evidence of souls on the internet.
    Actually, the evidence could easily be judged on a case by case basis with no issue at all using existing standards of science. If not, why not?

    The problem is:
    there is virtually no evidence to judge and that is the odd part
    (should souls exist in the manner forwarded by being able to "see them leave a body as it dies).

  11. #371
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Again, if something can be seen with the human eye, we currently have the technology to "observe" it.
    That is not necessarily true (for example, a psychic allegedly can see with his/her mind so maybe all soul sightings are done with the mind more than the eye).

    And even if it is true that what is seen by man can be technologically observed, it's by no means true that even if souls exist, anyone has ever seen one and therefore souls can never be seen with the human eye and therefore we would not expect for them to be technologically observed.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Again, only a picture probably would not confirm conclusively that souls exist in and of itself, but forensic experts are getting pretty good at identifying fakes. Once a picture was taken and couldn't be proven a fake though, other people would try to replicate/disprove it (you know, the scientific method).
    Again, a Nobel Prize and history awaits
    But then it's entirely feasible that if souls exist, they are not able to be captured on film or video so there is no "starting point" for an investigation at this time even if souls exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I don't think you can support that with more than opinion.

    It would be evidence that could be studied and quite possibly be replicated/disproven.
    So far science has virtually nothing to study
    I agree with that. Science has not studied whether souls exist or not and therefore has no answer to the question either way.

    Science has no evidence that souls exist and science has no evidence that souls do not exist.

    So the evidence for either proposition is equal (zero equals zero)

    And I reject the notion that if souls exist, science should have found evidence of it by now (more on that at the bottom).



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    No, I am not confusing you with anyone else. We have talked on a number threads over the last few yrs.
    You asked to delete several of the posts where we discussed this so it's really a better topic for a PM, as I did make a comment to you I shouldn't have back then on an open forum.

    For that indiscretion I apologize

    and I have tried to up my standards of discourse on ODN.
    We previously discussed you taking offense as me saying "so what?"? I don't recall that so either you had that conservation with someone else or we had that conversation (a long time ago apparently) and I forgot about it. But either way, this is an irrelevant issue that we need not discuss further. I am now aware that you don't want me saying "so what?" as a response so either way, we are set on this point.

    And I do think you've raised your standards. This debate seems to be going pretty well.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I felt I had dealt with it sufficiently, but ok, I will go a bit further.

    Some people think that there is evidence that the N Pole has an opening to inner Earth (a US admiral gave testimony to that effect ya know) or that the Earth is flat.
    Should we give all claims equal weight? I think not, some can be dismissed logically, some because of conflicting evidence exist, etc.
    I agree. We have evidence that the Earth is not hollow and we have evidence that the Earth is round so we have good reason to think those claims are more likely to be false than true.

    But this does not apply to the soul. There is no evidence that the soul does not exist nor does the proposition contradict things that we do know.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Actually, the evidence could easily be judged on a case by case basis with no issue at all using existing standards of science. If not, why not?

    The problem is:
    there is virtually no evidence to judge and that is the odd part
    (should souls exist in the manner forwarded by being able to "see them leave a body as it dies).
    And I see nothing in the definition or concept of the soul that shows that we should be able to see it as it leaves the body and I see nothing in current scientific knowledge that indicates that we should be able to scientifically detect the soul if it exists.

    So it's not odd that we don't have evidence yet. That is exactly what I would expect given the nature of the soul as described and current scientific knowledge/technology as I understand it.

    So I reject the notion that it's odds that we don't have evidence of the soul if it exists and maintain that it's expected that we would not have evidence of the soul if it exists.

    This assumes that we are using a scientific standard for "evidence". I never got you to specify what constitutes evidence but the context of the debate makes it pretty clear that we are using a pretty high scientific bar for "evidence". And using that bar, I would expect that we would have no evidence for the soul even if it does exist so it's not odd that we don't have evidence yet.
    Last edited by mican333; August 7th, 2019 at 08:18 AM.

  12. #372
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That is not necessarily true (for example, a psychic allegedly can see with his/her mind so maybe all soul sightings are done with the mind more than the eye).
    This would definitely require support. After all, I could say leprechauns exists because some people have "seen" them and the existence of unicorns supports the existence of leprechauns.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And even if it is true that what is seen by man can be technologically observed, it's by no means true that even if souls exist, anyone has ever seen one and therefore souls can never be seen with the human eye....
    Where did I say otherwise, though this invalidates most "evidence" to date of a soul existing?




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then it's entirely feasible that if souls exist, they are not able to be captured on film or video so there is no "starting point" for an investigation at this time even if souls exist.
    Perhaps, but there is no starting point at the moment because the only evidence is wishful thinking.
    and,
    If souls can not interact with our universe than in what way can they be said to exist at all?
    If they do interact (in ways commonly attributed to them), it could be verified.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Science has not studied whether souls exist or not and therefore has no answer to the question either way.
    Because there is nothing to study???

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Science has no evidence that souls exist and science has no evidence that souls do not exist.
    Enlighten me on what evidence science could uncover of a souls non-existence...
    IOW, what evidence could show a soul does not exist?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the evidence for either proposition is equal (zero equals zero)
    Negative unless you can answer the above.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I reject the notion that if souls exist, science should have found evidence of it by now (more on that at the bottom).
    1. I never claimed "science should have found evidence by now. I said if souls existed as commonly claimed, there would be evidence to consider.
    That this is lacking is cause for caution regarding the proposition since this basically goes against everyday experience.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    We previously discussed you taking offense as me saying "so what?"?
    No, I didn't like you saying my argument/s was/were basically a semantic endeavor!
    The reason this bothered me is in the past, our conversations end up coming down to semantics because you won't get off definitions of particular words and harp on them till some one surrenders.
    I don't play word games and try hard to express ideas. That a particular word didn't fit the thought 100% should just be acknowledged and then back to the "meat" of the comment, not whether I should have said "beef" or "chicken" instead of "meat".


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't recall that so either you had that conservation with someone else or we had that conversation (a long time ago apparently) and I forgot about it. But either way, this is an irrelevant issue that we need not discuss further. I am now aware that you don't want me saying "so what?" as a response so either way, we are set on this point.
    I have only talked with 4-5 people on ODN more than you, though most of our conversations were more than a yr ago I believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I do think you've raised your standards.
    I thought you didn't remember my post from the past?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This debate seems to be going pretty well.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I agree. We have evidence that the Earth is not hollow and we have evidence that the Earth is round so we have good reason to think those claims are more likely to be false than true.

    But this does not apply to the soul. There is no evidence that the soul does not exist nor does the proposition contradict things that we do know.
    A US admiral saying this in the news is reason enough to consider the proposition and check it out. Quite a few people do/have believed this is true which seems the basis to believe a soul might exist



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I see nothing in the definition or concept of the soul that shows that we should be able to see it as it leaves the body and I see nothing in current scientific knowledge that indicates that we should be able to scientifically detect the soul if it exists.
    Except, oh ya, lots people have "seen" a soul, so this point kinda just goes away. If a human can see it, science could observe/detect it.....


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This assumes that we are using a scientific standard for "evidence". I never got you to specify what constitutes evidence but the context of the debate makes it pretty clear that we are using a pretty high scientific bar for "evidence". And using that bar, I would expect that we would have no evidence for the soul even if it does exist so it's not odd that we don't have evidence yet.
    [/QUOTE]

    So far you have offered NDE's as support of a soul (which you admit isn't even convincing to you) and nothing else but opinion. I have pretty much shut down that possibility and there is literally nothing for science to consider/study?
    You also seem to submit that we may not even be able to detect a soul should it exist. If that is the case, I'm not sure it even matters???.....

  13. #373
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Before I respond to your individual points, let me make a few points that will be referred to in my responses. I will bold certain parts for emphasis.

    1. My argument is that the evidence for and against the soul are equal. There is not evidence for the soul and there is not evidence that the soul does not exist. Therefore, it is not my position that there is evidence for the soul.

    2. The bar of evidence I believe that we are working with is "scientific-level" evidence. Something that is recorded via scientifically valid methods and can be pointed to.

    3. NDEs are not evidence of the soul. I was using NDEs as a measure for what might be considered evidence and at no point was attempting to argue that there is evidence that they are real or that they constitute evidence for the soul. My primary reason is that even IF they are real, all of the "evidence" we have is anecdotal (people saying that they had an NDE) and even if they are all speaking the truth, it is still anecdotal evidence which falls short of being considered "evidence" for this debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This would definitely require support. After all, I could say leprechauns exists because some people have "seen" them and the existence of unicorns supports the existence of leprechauns.
    But then I'm not arguing that anyone has seen a soul. Souls, if they exist are CLEARLY invisible to practically everyone, if not everyone. If they were as visible as rocks and trees, we would see them all of the time. So IF someone has actually seen one, that person must have some kind of "special sight" that the average person doesn't have or perhaps a soul, in that instance, took the effort to be visible to that person

    And I should say that this is kind of useless speculation for this debate. So this point kind of goes nowhere and should be dropped as unproductive to the discussion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Where did I say otherwise, though this invalidates most "evidence" to date of a soul existing?
    Since we both agree that there is no evidence for the soul, this is hardly a problem for anyone.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Perhaps, but there is no starting point at the moment because the only evidence is wishful thinking.
    and,
    If souls can not interact with our universe than in what way can they be said to exist at all?
    If they do interact (in ways commonly attributed to them), it could be verified.
    And if they exist, we may verify their existence in the future.

    There are plenty of things that interact with the universe but that we had no evidence of in the past. For example, infrared light interacts with the universe but was not discovered to exist for most of human history. And then one day we were able to detect it. And the same thing may happen with souls in the future. Maybe we can't detect it YET but one day we will.

    Until then, we have no evidence to hold that the soul does exist or that it doesn't exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Because there is nothing to study???
    Maybe.

    Or maybe we will find something to study in the future.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Enlighten me on what evidence science could uncover of a souls non-existence...
    IOW, what evidence could show a soul does not exist?
    A soul is essentially disembodied consciousness that leaves the body when it dies and then goes somewhere else, etc.

    If we were to learn enough about consciousness to determine whether it leaves the body upon death or not and discover that it definitely does not leave the body upon death, then we would know for a fact that the soul does not exist.

    Right now, we don't know if consciousness leaves the body after death and therefore don't know if the soul exists or not.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Negative unless you can answer the above.
    Since I did answer above, I will restate the comment you were responding to.

    So the evidence for either proposition is equal (zero equals zero)





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. I never claimed "science should have found evidence by now. I said if souls existed as commonly claimed, there would be evidence to consider.
    That this is lacking is cause for caution regarding the proposition since this basically goes against everyday experience.
    The proposition of the soul in no way contradicts everyday experience. If the soul, as described, exists, we would expect to experience exactly what we do experience.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    No, I didn't like you saying my argument/s was/were basically a semantic endeavor!
    The reason this bothered me is in the past, our conversations end up coming down to semantics because you won't get off definitions of particular words and harp on them till some one surrenders.
    I don't play word games and try hard to express ideas. That a particular word didn't fit the thought 100% should just be acknowledged and then back to the "meat" of the comment, not whether I should have said "beef" or "chicken" instead of "meat".
    Well, I'm not going to rehash past debates (although I very much doubt that I hung up a debate over an irrelevant semantic issue, like which of two words we should use when the difference between them is irrelevant - if I ever insisted that you should say "chicken" instead of "meat", there was a good reason to use the "right" word) but in THIS debate, you were very much making a semantic argument. You were arguing what the definition of "Death" was. That is a semantic argument. And I pointed out that your argument about the definition of death was correct but that it was irrelevant to the argument I was making.

    I'm sorry but if you are arguing for a definition, that is a semantic argument.

    What exactly am I suppose to say when I believe you are arguing for the definition of a specific word and the definition of that word has no apparently relevance to my argument?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I thought you didn't remember my post from the past?
    No, I don't remember the conversation where you took offense at me saying "so what?" although now I've learned that that's because that wasn't what you had a problem with.

    But regardless, I see no value in discussing this particular issue further and likely will not respond to this issue if you continue to discuss it in the next post.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A US admiral saying this in the news is reason enough to consider the proposition and check it out. Quite a few people do/have believed this is true which seems the basis to believe a soul might exist/
    I think the NDES phenomena might be something for a curious person to look into and draw a conclusion about. I could, if I chose to, make a stronger case for why NDEs should give one reason to think that there is life after death (there are particular stories that one might find more convincing such as someone returning from "the other side" with accurate information they could not have learned before the NDE).

    But this is irrelevant to why I forwarded NDEs. Again, it was just a subject for a discussion on what is or is not evidence.

    Since all there is for NDEs is anecdotal evidence, they are not evidence for the soul.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Except, oh ya, lots people have "seen" a soul, so this point kinda just goes away. If a human can see it, science could observe/detect it.....
    Correct, people have CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN A SOUL. We do no know if they actually saw one or not. In fact, I think you, apparently an atheist, would very much doubt that anyone has actually seen a soul.

    So we can't say that anyone has actually seen a soul and therefore it's entirely feasible that IF souls exist, they can never been seen with the human eye.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So far you have offered NDE's as support of a soul (which you admit isn't even convincing to you) and nothing else but opinion. I have pretty much shut down that possibility and there is literally nothing for science to consider/study?
    You also seem to submit that we may not even be able to detect a soul should it exist. If that is the case, I'm not sure it even matters???.....
    First off, let me state this in all caps for emphasis. IT IS MY POSITION THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL. And there is no evidence that the soul doesn't exist as well.

    If the soul exists, we probably don't have the means to detect it today, just like we used to not have the means to detect infrared light hundreds of years ago. And yet that doesn't have any bearing on whether they exist or not. They were both things that we would not be expect to be able to detect given the current state of technology. One of them we eventually did discover once our technology got better. And likewise we MIGHT detect souls in the future once our understanding and technology gets better. Or maybe they don't exist and we will learn that they don't exist once we have a more complete understanding of consciousness.

    I'm sure you will agree that there is A LOT that the human race currently doesn't know enough about to give an informed answer regarding it. And it seems pretty clear, that the soul is one of those things. We don't know enough to find evidence that it does exist or find evidence that it does not exist.

    I guess perhaps the crux of the agnostic position - being comfortable saying "we don't know" when we don't actually know.

  14. #374
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. My argument is that the evidence for and against the soul are equal.
    If a soul were to exist (in the commonly forwarded way):
    1. You would be a soul yet blissfully unaware unless someone mentioned the idea to you.
    2. We no of nothing else that lives eternally or that it is even. possible.
    3. If the soul can be seen by humans it could be verified. If souls leave upon the bodies death, this should be a common occurrence.
    4. Either the soul existed prior to the body being born or a finite human body gave rise to an eternal being.
    5. You have given no support of if there could be "evidence of non existence".


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    3. NDEs are not evidence of the soul.
    Great, lets drop it.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since we both agree that there is no evidence for the soul, this is hardly a problem for anyone.
    Agreed, and no reason has been forwarded why a soul is to be considered anything more than an idea at this point (hypothesis) since it not known if its even possible and eternal anything goes against everyday experience.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if they exist, we may verify their existence in the future.
    We may even find them damn unicorns too dude


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    …. we have no evidence to hold that the soul does exist or that it doesn't exist.
    I have said nothing different, though we can look to likelihood of propositions too.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    A soul is essentially disembodied consciousness that leaves the body when it dies and then goes somewhere else, etc.
    If the human body is basically a "TV/receiver of the souls thoughts" (as MT and Squatch basically promote) then consciousness would be like the TV being on, but the show is being transmitted to is from the soul.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm sorry but if you are arguing for a definition, that is a semantic argument.
    I was very clear what I meant by death (as in a coroner pronounces you dead), it was you that wanted to enter stages of or varying degrees of death.
    IOW, no medic gives up trying to revive you at "clinical death" cause you ain't dead yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I guess perhaps the crux of the agnostic position - being comfortable saying "we don't know" when we don't actually know.
    Sure, we don't know, that doesn't mean every proposition is as likely as not and you have not supported that they are.

  15. #375
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If a soul were to exist (in the commonly forwarded way):
    1. You would be a soul yet blissfully unaware unless someone mentioned the idea to you.
    2. We no of nothing else that lives eternally or that it is even. possible.
    3. If the soul can be seen by humans it could be verified. If souls leave upon the bodies death, this should be a common occurrence.
    4. Either the soul existed prior to the body being born or a finite human body gave rise to an eternal being.
    5. You have given no support of if there could be "evidence of non existence".
    1. True (unless I had an out of body experience which might convince me of the soul)
    2. We know of nothing that lives eternally, but it is possible because it has not been proven to be impossible and the logically, that which is not proven to be impossible must be considered possible
    3. Obviously if souls exist, they are generally invisible (otherwise we would see them all of the time). Anyone claiming to have seen one is not necessarily telling the truth or perhaps they are special somehow and see what the rest of us cannot. Either way, this does not equate as evidence against the soul existing.
    4. Logically, if the soul is eternal (as it is typically described) it must enter the body at some point, likely some time between conception and birth.
    5. Yes I did. In my last I described how it could be proven that souls don't exist. This:

    If we were to learn enough about consciousness to determine whether it leaves the body upon death or not and discover that it definitely does not leave the body upon death, then we would know for a fact that the soul does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Agreed, and no reason has been forwarded why a soul is to be considered anything more than an idea at this point (hypothesis) since it not known if its even possible
    I will support that it's possible with a logic chain.

    1. TRUISM - beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything must be considered possible.
    2. FACT - No one has proven that the existence of the soul is impossible.
    3. THEREFORE - the existence of the soul must be considered possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    and eternal anything goes against everyday experience.
    What do you mean by "goes against everyday experience"? I certainly don't experience the eternal every day, yes. But then I don't experience black holes every day either and yet they exist. So I'm not sure what you mean here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    We may even find them damn unicorns too dude
    Appeal to ridicule aside, my point stands.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have said nothing different, though we can look to likelihood of propositions too.
    Sure, and going by the evidence for either proposition (souls exist vs. souls don't exist), the evidence is equal and therefore the likelihood is equal.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If the human body is basically a "TV/receiver of the souls thoughts" (as MT and Squatch basically promote) then consciousness would be like the TV being on, but the show is being transmitted to is from the soul.
    I prefer a VR analogy with the avatar in the virtual world being "the body" and the player being "the soul".



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I was very clear what I meant by death (as in a coroner pronounces you dead), it was you that wanted to enter stages of or varying degrees of death.
    IOW, no medic gives up trying to revive you at "clinical death" cause you ain't dead yet.
    Right. But NDEs occurs during clinical death and not death. Death, the complete final end of life is not part of an NDE so it's irrelevant to the topic. So again, your argument about the definition of Death is accurate but it's an irrelevant issue to what I was talking about. Again, you were right but so what?





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Sure, we don't know, that doesn't mean every proposition is as likely as not and you have not supported that they are.
    Yes, I have but now I will do it again with a logic chain.

    1. TRUISM - If the evidence for two competing propositions (in this case, the soul exists vs. the soul doesn't exist) is equal in amount, then the two competing propositions must be considered equally likely
    2. FACT - in this debate, no one has provided evidence that the soul exists and no one has provided evidence that the soul does not exist.
    3. THEREFORE - the amount of evidence for the soul existing is equal to amount of evidence of souls not existing
    4. THEREFORE - the propositions that the soul exist must be considered equally likely as the proposition that the soul does not exist.
    Last edited by mican333; August 8th, 2019 at 06:34 PM.

  16. #376
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. True (unless I had an out of body experience which might convince me of the soul)
    2. We know of nothing that lives eternally, but it is possible because it has not been proven to be impossible and the logically, that which is not proven to be impossible must be considered possible
    3. Obviously if souls exist, they are generally invisible (otherwise we would see them all of the time). Anyone claiming to have seen one is not necessarily telling the truth or perhaps they are special somehow and see what the rest of us cannot. Either way, this does not equate as evidence against the soul existing.
    4. Logically, if the soul is eternal (as it is typically described) it must enter the body at some point, likely some time between conception and birth.
    5. Yes I did. In my last I described how it could be proven that souls don't exist. This:

    If we were to learn enough about consciousness to determine whether it leaves the body upon death or not and discover that it definitely does not leave the body upon death, then we would know for a fact that the soul does not exist.
    1. More wishful thinking to support existing wishful thinking is weak support.
    2. Unicorns have not been proven to be logically impossible.
    3. I don't see any reason they could not chose to be seen or not, since they are generally described with abilities humans don't have (except humans are of a soul, curious that would be).
    4. To "enter" a human body sounds a bit theistic.
    5. "Proving" something can't exist is a different claim than "this is evidence of non existence". The "discover" part is the evidence. What is evidence of non-existence?



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I will support that it's possible with a logic chain.

    1. TRUISM - beyond that which is proven to be impossible, everything must be considered possible.
    2. FACT - No one has proven that the existence of the soul is impossible.
    3. THEREFORE - the existence of the soul must be considered possible.
    Unicorns could exist then. Fine.
    If you want to live this way. I find it pretty common sense not all claims that "have not been proven are impossible" carry equal weight of likelihood.
    At this point I am doubting we shall be able to carry this discussion further in a positive direction.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What do you mean by "goes against everyday experience"? I certainly don't experience the eternal every day, yes. But then I don't experience black holes every day either and yet they exist. So I'm not sure what you mean here.
    We have very good reasons to believe a black hole (or "something" with a "ton" of mass exists thru years of careful observation of stars. The only reasons to believe in a soul forwarded so far are:
    1. A soul hasn't been shown to be impossible.
    2. There is "no evidence" a soul does not exist, so it could.
    3. Theism.

    The first is unsatisfying to me to debate to the point you can't really.
    The second, maybe if you can answer what "evidence of non existence" would "look" like. IOW, is there/could there be such a thing?
    The third, theism, I find interesting to discuss but it would rapidly veer off the Op I'm afraid and there are other current Ops dealing with that anyway.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I prefer a VR analogy with the avatar in the virtual world being "the body" and the player being "the soul".
    I'm sure you do since it doesn't apply to my point. We are real bodies. Not a VR body with a VR mind. Analogy fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, you were right but so what?
    There is no reason to think a person that is not dead can tell you anything about being dead.
    A person that has not been pregnant can not tell you what it is like to be pregnant.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. TRUISM - If the evidence for two competing propositions (in this case, the soul exists vs. the soul doesn't exist) is equal in amount, then the two competing propositions must be considered equally likely
    Support this!
    Just saying it is so ain't cutting no mustard.

    The evidence that I created the universe or not "is equal in amount". None.

    (I could be god and talking to you on the internet ya know. he works in mysterious ways...).

  17. #377
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. More wishful thinking to support existing wishful thinking is weak support.
    2. Unicorns have not been proven to be logically impossible.
    3. I don't see any reason they could not chose to be seen or not, since they are generally described with abilities humans don't have (except humans are of a soul, curious that would be).
    4. To "enter" a human body sounds a bit theistic.
    5. "Proving" something can't exist is a different claim than "this is evidence of non existence". The "discover" part is the evidence. What is evidence of non-existence?
    1. Have I not made it clear that it's my position that there is no support/evidence for the existence of the soul?
    2. True. So what?
    3. I've never seen any description of the soul including "the ability to be visible at will" or "Can do anything it wants at any time".
    4. It's purely logical given the fact that souls, as described, are immortal but human bodies are both created (conception/birth) and uncreated (death). The soul would have to enter and then leave a body if it's occupy the body at all.
    5. I didn't provide evidence of non-existence but just explained how we could discover that they don't exist if they don't.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Unicorns could exist then. Fine.
    If you want to live this way. I find it pretty common sense not all claims that "have not been proven are impossible" carry equal weight of likelihood.
    At this point I am doubting we shall be able to carry this discussion further in a positive direction.
    You said it's not known if it's even possible and I have supported that we it is possible. I was addressing a specific thing you said.

    And, most importantly, I was not using that as reasoning to hold that it's just as likely that the soul exists as not. You specifically forwarded an argument about "possibility" so I respond to your argument.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    We have very good reasons to believe a black hole (or "something" with a "ton" of mass exists thru years of careful observation of stars. The only reasons to believe in a soul forwarded so far are:
    1. A soul hasn't been shown to be impossible.
    2. There is "no evidence" a soul does not exist, so it could.
    3. Theism.

    The first is unsatisfying to me to debate to the point you can't really.
    The second, maybe if you can answer what "evidence of non existence" would "look" like. IOW, is there/could there be such a thing?
    The third, theism, I find interesting to discuss but it would rapidly veer off the Op I'm afraid and there are other current Ops dealing with that anyway.
    But then I am not arguing that there are good reason to believe in a soul.

    You said the soul is not part of our everyday experience as if that's a reason to not believe in the soul. I'm pointing out that other things that aren't part of our everyday experience, like a black hole, definitely exist so "not being part of our everyday experience" is not a valid reason to think that something does not exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I'm sure you do since it doesn't apply to my point. We are real bodies. Not a VR body with a VR mind. Analogy fail.
    If an analogy fails because the thing you are using for an analogy is different than the thing itself, then ALL analogies fail. You provided an analogy (Which of course also fails by the criteria you set) and I provided what I thought was a better one. But then I don't see the point of the original analogy so I don't think there's a point anyway so we can drop this. Or you can state what the point was.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    There is no reason to think a person that is not dead can tell you anything about being dead.
    A person that has not been pregnant can not tell you what it is like to be pregnant.
    No, but if you trust that NDEs are valid, you can trust that a person can explain what it's like to have their soul leave their body and therefore consider that evidence for the soul, regardless of the definition of the word "Death" (which is why arguing what the definition of that word is is irrelevant).

    Again, I don't argue that it is evidence but my point was that some people do think it's evidence.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Support this!
    Just saying it is so ain't cutting no mustard.
    Would common sense do it? Let me ask you a question. If we have equal evidence that X is true and X is not true, what is the logical conclusion on whether X is true or not?
    1. It's more likely X is true than not
    2. It's more likely X is not true than is
    3. It's equally likely that X is true as X is not true.

    Assuming you chose the obviously correct answer, which is 3, that supports point 1 of my logic chain. If you didn't, explain why 1 or 2 is correct. But for now, I will assume that you chose 3 and therefore the first point of my logic chain is supported. So here is the chain again in its entirety.


    1. TRUISM - If the evidence for two competing propositions (in this case, the soul exists vs. the soul doesn't exist) is equal in amount, then the two competing propositions must be considered equally likely
    2. FACT - in this debate, no one has provided evidence that the soul exists and no one has provided evidence that the soul does not exist.
    3. THEREFORE - the amount of evidence for the soul existing is equal to amount of evidence of souls not existing
    4. THEREFORE - the propositions that the soul exist must be considered equally likely as the proposition that the soul does not exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The evidence that I created the universe or not "is equal in amount". None.

    (I could be god and talking to you on the internet ya know. he works in mysterious ways...).
    But if we did a scientific investigation on whether you made the universe or not, we WOULD find evidence to draw a conclusion and I'm quite sure when the scientific study was completed, the evidence that you did not create the universe would greatly outweigh the evidence that you did.

    OTOH, the evidence gathering for the proposition for the soul's existence versus non-existence has so far turned up an equal amount of evidence.
    Last edited by mican333; August 11th, 2019 at 09:18 AM.

  18. #378
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. Have I not made it clear that it's my position that there is no support/evidence for the existence of the soul?
    2. True. So what?
    3. I've never seen any description of the soul including "the ability to be visible at will" or "Can do anything it wants at any time".
    4. It's purely logical given the fact that souls, as described, are immortal but human bodies are both created (conception/birth) and uncreated (death). The soul would have to enter and then leave a body if it's occupy the body at all.
    5. I didn't provide evidence of non-existence but just explained how we could discover that they don't exist if they don't.
    1. Prior to this comment yes, but you brought up "out of body" experience to support you "might be aware that you had a soul", and that "experience" has no more evidence than a soul.
    2. Then you are saying unicorns are as likely as a human soul, since there is no evidence of either.
    3. I said "abilities humans don't have", and possibly being able to choose to be visible or not.
    4. How does that necessarily mean an immortal soul isn't part of the body at conception? IOW, how does being immortal mean you can't be born?
    5. Actually, you said "...discover that it definitely does not leave the body upon death...". Again, the "discover part" is the evidence. What would/could be evidence to show it didn't leave the body at death"? IOW, how do you prove non-existence?
    5a. Maybe we are wrong an there is a soul but it's not immortal?



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You said it's not known if it's even possible and I have supported that we it is possible.
    Ok, possible, don't think I have ever said different, so?
    The likelihood is much more relevant than possible.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You said the soul is not part of our everyday experience as if that's a reason to not believe in the soul. I'm pointing out that other things that aren't part of our everyday experience, like a black hole, definitely exist so "not being part of our everyday experience" is not a valid reason to think that something does not exist.
    I said the qualities attributed to souls are out of our everyday experience (defying gravity, immortal, etc).
    Black holes as I supported are very much part of our everyday experience should we choose to see.

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...hole&FORM=IGRE

    Absolutely awesome pic's should you care to see!!


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If an analogy fails because the thing you are using for an analogy is different than the thing itself, then ALL analogies fail...
    You analogy was a completely computer generated situation. The "soul" and "body" in your analogy are a computer program. They are made of the same stuff.
    The human soul and body don't resemble this in any way. Made of completely different "stuff". An analogy needs to relate to the subject matter somehow??



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Would common sense do it?
    Usually, but so far your picnic basket seems to be looking for a few more sandwiches....


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Let me ask you a question. If we have equal evidence that X is true and X is not true, what is the logical conclusion on whether X is true or not?
    1. It's more likely X is true than not
    2. It's more likely X is not true than is
    3. It's equally likely that X is true as X is not true.
    Let me ask it in a relevant way. In your example no other knowledge is known. With regard to humans and the natural world, a lot is known.
    So a more apropos question would be:

    We have no evidence the moon was made by aliens.
    We have no evidence the moon was not made by aliens.

    Both possibilities have the same evidence (none), so each possibility is equally likely by your definition/argument.
    Are you really going to argue they both have the same likelihood of being true?....



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. TRUISM - If the evidence for two competing propositions (in this case, the soul exists vs. the soul doesn't exist) is equal in amount, then the two competing propositions must be considered equally likely
    1. Support that only evidence should be the only consideration of the likely hood of a given something.


    If the soul doesn't exist nothing we know scientifically changes.
    If the soul does existing physical law proven thru countless experiments will need to be rewritten.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if we did a scientific investigation on whether you made the universe or not, we WOULD find evidence to draw a conclusion and I'm quite sure when the scientific study was completed, the evidence that you did not create the universe would greatly outweigh the evidence that you did.
    OMG.....

    We have been studying how the universe came to be for a while now. +

    There is no evidence I did or did not create the universe. I could be God talking with you now (no evidence one way or the other of that either) and you would not be able to "scientific investigation" unless I allowed it but even if you could and prove if I created it or not,..
    so what?
    You are defending if it is in equal in likely hood based on the evidence available!!

  19. #379
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. Prior to this comment yes, but you brought up "out of body" experience to support you "might be aware that you had a soul", and that "experience" has no more evidence than a soul.
    2. Then you are saying unicorns are as likely as a human soul, since there is no evidence of either.
    3. I said "abilities humans don't have", and possibly being able to choose to be visible or not.
    4. How does that necessarily mean an immortal soul isn't part of the body at conception? IOW, how does being immortal mean you can't be born?
    5. Actually, you said "...discover that it definitely does not leave the body upon death...". Again, the "discover part" is the evidence. What would/could be evidence to show it didn't leave the body at death"? IOW, how do you prove non-existence?
    5a. Maybe we are wrong an there is a soul but it's not immortal?
    1. It was a hypothetical argument and in no way should be interpreted as an attempt to argue that there is evidence that the soul exists.
    2. I never argued that there is no evidence that unicorns don't exist so I have not taken the position that they are equally likely to exist as not.
    3. Ok. So MAYBE souls can become visible. And MAYBE they can't.
    4. Because Immortal typically means that it always existed so if there's a time when the soul exists and the body doesn't, then the soul is outside of the body before it exists and must enter to be in it.
    5. It would be discovering that consciousness dies when the body dies - that would be evidence that the soul doesn't exist. And the soul is defined as immortal.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, possible, don't think I have ever said different, so?
    The likelihood is much more relevant than possible.
    Of course. The only reason I argue that it's possible is because you questioned that. If the issue is not relevant, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I said the qualities attributed to souls are out of our everyday experience (defying gravity, immortal, etc).
    Black holes as I supported are very much part of our everyday experience should we choose to see.
    But then I have not chosen to look at black hole pictures, so they are not part of my everyday experience.

    And besides that, there was a time when people had no knowledge of black holes so it DEFINITELY was not part of our everyday experience. But that was not evidence that black holes did not exist back then.

    So being outside of everyday experience is not evidence of nonexistence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You analogy was a completely computer generated situation. The "soul" and "body" in your analogy are a computer program. They are made of the same stuff.
    The human soul and body don't resemble this in any way. Made of completely different "stuff". An analogy needs to relate to the subject matter somehow??
    And they are related somehow. Just because they aren't related in a particular way does not ruin the analogy.

    If I need to explain it to you, a soul, as described, is the animating force that moves our body through this world. A player is the animating force that moves the avatar through the virtual world. If the soul/player leave their worlds, the avatar doesn't move anymore.

    But I'm not sure of the point of bringing up these analogies anyway but I have shown that the analogy works.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Let me ask it in a relevant way. In your example no other knowledge is known. With regard to humans and the natural world, a lot is known.
    So a more apropos question would be:

    We have no evidence the moon was made by aliens.
    We have no evidence the moon was not made by aliens.

    Both possibilities have the same evidence (none), so each possibility is equally likely by your definition/argument.
    Are you really going to argue they both have the same likelihood of being true?....
    No, because we have EVIDENCE that the moon was not made by aliens. There is an accepted scientific theory on how the moon was made which contradicts the aliens hypothesis. So you have not provided any reason to reject my support so I will repeat it and either address it as it is or it stands as support for point 1.

    if we have equal evidence that X is true and X is not true, what is the logical conclusion on whether X is true or not?
    1. It's more likely X is true than not
    2. It's more likely X is not true than is
    3. It's equally likely that X is true as X is not true.

    Assuming you chose the obviously correct answer, which is 3, that supports point 1 of my logic chain. If you didn't, explain why 1 or 2 is correct. But for now, I will assume that you chose 3 and therefore the first point of my logic chain is supported. So here is the chain again in its entirety.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. Support that only evidence should be the only consideration of the likely hood of a given something.
    I didn't say it should be.

    But I am saying that that is what I'm doing. My argument is an evidence-based argument. If you don't want to address my evidence-based argument, then it stands as unrebutted.

    So to repeat my logic chain (and I'll add something to point 1 regarding evidence-based arguments.

    1. TRUISM - If the evidence for two competing propositions (in this case, the soul exists vs. the soul doesn't exist) is equal in amount, then the two competing propositions must be considered equally likely (assuming one is making an evidence-based argument)
    2. FACT - in this debate, no one has provided evidence that the soul exists and no one has provided evidence that the soul does not exist.
    3. THEREFORE - the amount of evidence for the soul existing is equal to amount of evidence of souls not existing
    4. THEREFORE - the propositions that the soul exist must be considered equally likely as the proposition that the soul does not exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If the soul doesn't exist nothing we know scientifically changes.
    If the soul does existing physical law proven thru countless experiments will need to be rewritten.
    Only if what's discovered contradicts prior experiments. You have not supported that that would be the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    OMG.....

    We have been studying how the universe came to be for a while now. +

    There is no evidence I did or did not create the universe. I could be God talking with you now (no evidence one way or the other of that either) and you would not be able to "scientific investigation" unless I allowed it but even if you could and prove if I created it or not,..
    so what?
    You are defending if it is in equal in likely hood based on the evidence available!!
    But one cannot say that X is more likely to be true than not based on evidence until all of the available evidence has been collected. I'm not saying the soul is equally likely to exist because we know absolutely nothing about anything. I'm saying that we know a lot about the universe through scientific discovery and going by scientific evidence, we have yet to determine whether the soul exists or not. I am arguing from the scientific perspective and therefore am making a scientific argument.

    So before I can determine the likelihood of whether you are God based on scientific evidence, all of the relevant scientific evidence needs to be gathered. IF it isn't, then I cannot say what the odds are that you are God based on the evidence and therefore cannot say that it's equally likely that you are God as not.

    I can use logic to figure that you are likely not God (such as it seems pretty clear that since you apparently are an atheist, you would not be claiming to be God) but that's not scientific evidence.

    So once the evidence on the issue is gathered and analyzed is when I will posit what the likelihood that you are God is. If you refuse to let evidence be gathered, then I cannot figure the odds that you are God due to incomplete data.
    Last edited by mican333; August 12th, 2019 at 09:12 PM.

  20. #380
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. It was a hypothetical argument and in no way should be interpreted as an attempt to argue that there is evidence that the soul exists.
    2. I never argued that there is no evidence that unicorns don't exist so I have not taken the position that they are equally likely to exist as not.
    3. Ok. So MAYBE souls can become visible. And MAYBE they can't.
    4. Because Immortal typically means that it always existed so if there's a time when the soul exists and the body doesn't, then the soul is outside of the body before it exists and must enter to be in it.
    5. It would be discovering that consciousness dies when the body dies - that would be evidence that the soul doesn't exist. And the soul is defined as immortal.
    1. You said "1. True (unless I had an out of body experience which might convince me of the soul)" so this comment rings a bit hallow...
    2. You didn't have to, your argument does that for you.
    4. To you perhaps, but lets get a more objective definition shall we:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immortal
    "1: exempt from death"
    That does not preclude an immortal being from being born, it just means they don't die.
    5. Repeating the same comment does not make it stronger

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Of course. The only reason I argue that it's possible is because you questioned that. If the issue is not relevant, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
    Actually, it is possible or not independent of human acknowledgement. IOW, just because it hasn't been shown to be impossible at the moment doesn't change the reality of whether it is actually possible or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I have not chosen to look at black hole pictures, so they are not part of my everyday experience.
    As I said a couple posts ago, it seems are progress is slowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So being outside of everyday experience is not evidence of nonexistence.
    I said goes against everyday experience, as in defies our regular experience. We know of nothing else that has the qualities attributed a soul (defying gravity, immortal, etc) and its existence is contrary to known physical law.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, because we have EVIDENCE that the moon was not made by aliens. There is an accepted scientific theory on how the moon was made which contradicts the aliens hypothesis.
    Support that there is one accepted scientific theory of how the moon originated. I actually hope you can, because If you can Squatch has some explaining to do for me as he contends vehemently quite the opposite.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [I]if we have equal evidence that X is true and X is not true, what is the logical conclusion on whether X is true or not?
    Equal (no) evidence of a proposition does not equal the same likely hood and you have not supported that it does.
    Again, progress here is unlikely it seems...


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say it should be.

    But I am saying that that is what I'm doing. My argument is an evidence-based argument.
    So far it makes little sense to me at all, and as the points are just getting repeated, I don't see progress likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Only if what's discovered contradicts prior experiments. You have not supported that that would be the case.
    Being able to defy gravity at will would change physics.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But one cannot say that X is more likely to be true than not based on evidence until all of the available evidence has been collected. I'm not saying the soul is equally likely to exist because we know absolutely nothing about anything. I'm saying that we know a lot about the universe through scientific discovery and going by scientific evidence, we have yet to determine whether the soul exists or not. I am arguing from the scientific perspective and therefore am making a scientific argument.

    So before I can determine the likelihood of whether you are God based on scientific evidence, all of the relevant scientific evidence needs to be gathered. IF it isn't, then I cannot say what the odds are that you are God based on the evidence and therefore cannot say that it's equally likely that you are God as not.
    Big back peddle! You don't have these requirements for the souls existence??

    The current evidence is:
    1. no evidence that I am god
    2. no evidence that I am not god

    by your argument, each possibility is equally likely (just like unicorns...) since the evidence is equal. A curious position but per you:
    "...If we have equal evidence that X is true and X is not true, what is the logical conclusion on whether X is true or not?"
    "Assuming you chose the obviously correct answer, which is 3, that supports point 1 of my logic chain."

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I can use logic to figure that you are likely not God (such as it seems pretty clear that since you apparently are an atheist, you would not be claiming to be God) but that's not scientific evidence.
    Why/how the hell do you draw the conclusion I am an atheist???
    I have NEVER argued as an atheist. EVER!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So once the evidence on the issue is gathered and analyzed is when I will posit what the likelihood that you are God is. If you refuse to let evidence be gathered, then I cannot figure the odds that you are God due to incomplete data.

    You don't require this for souls??

    Given our current positions and most points are just being repeated, unless you have a more compelling reply that needs a response, till we meet again sir,
    the last word is yours

 

 
Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 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
  •