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 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 441
  1. #381
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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
    1. But again, I think I was using it as a hypothetcial and not as an attempt to support that the soul exists. I would need a link to the post to say for sure. But isn't this irrelevant to the debate at hand? I said that If I said that the soul's existence is supported, I retract it now. So are you just looking for a "gotcha" or something? If not and I've already retracted the claim if I ever said it, there is no reason to continue discussing this.
    2. Nope. Nowhere in my argument did I say that there is no evidence that unicorns exist, which is a major part of my argument regarding the soul.
    4. Regardless, souls are typically defined as always existing. The bible has God saying "I knew you before you were born" so souls are commonly believed t exist before the body. But then this also seems to be an irrelevant point as well. If the soul is created along with the body, so what?
    5. I'm not repeating it to make it stronger. I'm repeating my answer because you keep repeating the question. And the answer was strong enough the first time I said so it doesn't need to be stronger. I've provided an example of how we could determine that the soul does not exist if it doesn't exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    I didn't say otherwise.

    I said that we must consider everything possible until it is shown to be impossible. What happens outside of human judgment on the issue is not relevant.

    I can spell it out in a logic chain if you want, but again, this seems to be an irrelevant issue as well. I suggest we limit the discussion to relevant issues only.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    Once again, before we learned of black holes we knew of nothing else like it so that's not a reason to reject it.

    And please support that the soul's existence is contrary to known physical law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    I don't know if there's just one. But there are hypothesis that have evidence to support them.

    The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon; about 20 to 100 million years after the Solar System coalesced.[1]

    The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:

    Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]
    Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
    The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
    The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
    There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris disks.
    Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
    The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
    [6]


    So this hypothesis has seven points of support. The Alien hypothesis has apparently no support.

    Therefore it's more likely that the moon was not created by Aliens than it was.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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...
    Here are the two ways we can make progress.

    1. You show that my argument is incorrect and then I withdraw it
    2. You don't challenge my argument any further and we move on from there.

    If you refuse to do either, then you are the one who is stalling the debate. To move past an opponent's argument, you must defeat it or cease challenging it (which does not mean you concede the issue, btw, you can always just move past it and focus on a different part of my argument and reserve the right to come back and challenge this argument if you think of a good challenge later. Or you may discover it doesn't really matter if this argument stands because you have a better focus in a different part of the debate.

    But you can't just say "no" without providing an argument for why it's wrong.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Being able to defy gravity at will would change physics.
    Please support that souls defy gravity.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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."
    But there IS evidence that you are not God (assuming you actually aren't).

    Definition of evidence:

    "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Dict...=1565753337323

    And if I hire a private detective to find out if you are God or not, he's going to come back with evidence that you are not God and therefore I will judge that it's more likely you did not create the universe.

    If, on the other hand, I don't hire a private detective then I know there's discoverable evidence out there but I don't know what it is and therefore can't say the evidence supports one hypothesis more than the other.

    Presenting a scenario where evidence is denied to me is not a good analogy for, while I didn't state it earlier, my argument for 50/50 is based on my current knowledge of what evidence DOES exist for the competing hypothesis for the soul. I'm not saying I don't know what the evidence is (which is what I would say about you being God) but that from what I can tell, No evidence exists that supports either soul hypothesis.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Why/how the hell do you draw the conclusion I am an atheist???
    I have NEVER argued as an atheist. EVER!
    Your position in this debate is atheistic. That's what gave me the impression that you were an atheist. Sorry if I offended you.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You don't require this for souls??

    Yes, and I have it for the soul. The issue has been looked into and there is no evidence for the soul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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
    I guess I do have the last word. And in the future, I'd appreciate it if you would put this kind of response at the top of your post. I go down one point at a time and my responses might be different if I'm aware that it's the last response (or I might decide to not take the time to reply).

    But I should say that it was you who kept forwarding the issue of what evidence could exist for the soul not existing, requiring me to repeat my argument so I think you were more responsible for making the debate repetative. And implying that you are leaving because you don't fine my arguments "compelling" enough is poor sportsmanship. Well, maybe I'll quit because I think your arguments suck - just kidding about that but you can see that it's not a classy way to bow out.

    I think my arguments are all very solid and if you want to take another stab at rebutting them, feel free.

    Or I'll see you elsewhere.

  2. #382
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Your position in this debate is atheistic. That's what gave me the impression that you were an atheist. Sorry if I offended you.

    Don't worry, I wasn't offended. I think you said this once before earlier in the thread and I just found it worthwhile to inquire why you came to this conclusion??

    My position in this thread has been that no reasoning nor evidence offered so far is compelling enough to believe a soul exists.

    I in NO way have ever argued that a god/gods/deity/creator of some sort/etc does not or can not exist.
    I may argue against a specific religion though, as there is no way to tell which one, if any, is true and the major ones are mutually exclusive.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I guess I do have the last word. And in the future, I'd appreciate it if you would put this kind of response at the top of your post.
    My apologies. My hero Apok, did it this way. I meant no offense. I assure you, I read every response to my posts. If a response seems interesting to me (or anyone else that might read it) and can be productive, I respond back.

    Our last posts show a divide I don't think we can overcome in this thread. The way you are looking evidence of a claim seems untenable to me and think I have explained why.
    Your response shows me that I am apparently unable to adequately explain why, because a I don't see a possibility of you moving you on this point though. So it seemed we had come as far as we could at the moment.





    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I go down one point at a time and my responses might be different if I'm aware that it's the last response (or I might decide to not take the time to reply).
    Really??
    Hmmmmm…….

  3. #383
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My position in this thread has been that no reasoning nor evidence offered so far is compelling enough to believe a soul exists.
    And I think it should be clear that it's never been my position that there is.

    My argument is that there is no evidence for the soul existing so of course I've never offered compelling evidence that the soul does exist. Such evidence would be in direct contradiction of one of the primary premises of my argument.

    As I understood the debate:

    I am arguing the evidence for and against the soul is equal (as in equally nonexistent) and assuming you taking the opposing position and not arguing that there is evidence for the soul (which you clearly are not), then your contrary position is that there is evidence that the soul does not exist. And I even saw valid attempts to argue that in your last post. For example, you were arguing that souls defy natural laws, such as gravity. While I challenge that argument and believe if we move forward with the debate, your argument wont' hold up, that is definitely a valid counter-position to my argument which would defeat my position if it holds up.

    So there was indeed productive debate to be had moving forward and debate that you might win (while I predict you won't succeed, I can't say you definitely won't because I don't know what your response to me would be if you made it).

    Likewise you were also taking the tactic of showing that my reasoning for saying it's equally likely that at the soul exists is flawed because it can be used to show that something that common sense says is unlikely to be true (you being God) would be "just as likely" given my argument. And you may have been doing the same with the concept of unicorns.

    So I see two potential defeaters of my argument in your last post that were not resolved and therefore could potentially defeat my argument.

    Your apparent reason for leaving the debate seems to be based on a false notion - that I was attempting to provide evidence that the soul does exist. I absolutely am not doing that.

  4. #384
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I think it should be clear that it's never been my position that there is.
    You are taking that out of context. I was referring to you saying my argument was atheistic/or that I was an atheist.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My argument is that there is no evidence for the soul existing so of course I've never offered compelling evidence that the soul does exist. Such evidence would be in direct contradiction of one of the primary premises of my argument.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am arguing the evidence for and against the soul is equal (as in equally nonexistent)
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So there was indeed productive debate to be had
    Agreed


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Likewise you were also taking the tactic of showing that my reasoning for saying it's equally likely that at the soul exists is flawed because it can be used to show that something that common sense says is unlikely to be true (you being God) would be "just as likely" given my argument. And you may have been doing the same with the concept of unicorns.
    Pretty close!
    I think I was more going for:
    if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not.

    This is where we are stuck. There is no evidence that I am god or not. Your answer is to "investigate" (which really doesn't work for god or we would know if one/any actually exists). Now the soul, you needed no "investigation", you just pronounce it equally likely based on current evidence known to you and me.

    This is untenable to me and I am not here to insult people, but to listen to ideas that don't agree with mine. Having said that, whether you want to call it compelling/productive/whatever, when the conversation reaches a "point", I will move on rather that keep rehashing a point that I already found unconvincing. Apok did do this and it's the right thing to do.
    Again, I mean no offense (as I am fairly sure he didn't either), and at least you know where I stand (as apposed to most people here that just let a thread drop with no explanation when they leave.

    So, as long as we can keep it moving, I will talk with you



    ps I am going to be tied up for the next little while it looks like, so I may not be able to post as often as lately, but I still look to see what anyone else posts and I may find the time

  5. #385
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Pretty close!
    I think I was more going for:
    if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not.

    This is where we are stuck. There is no evidence that I am god or not. Your answer is to "investigate" (which really doesn't work for god or we would know if one/any actually exists). Now the soul, you needed no "investigation", you just pronounce it equally likely based on current evidence known to you and me.
    When I say "investigate" I mean "collect all available evidence that will support either side of the question."

    So with you, that would mean collecting all available evidence regarding your Godhood which would mean collecting all averrable data on you. If there were done, it's safe to say that the evidence that you are not God would greatly outweigh the evidence that you are God. And until the evidence is collected, it can't be determined what the evidence would support and therefore I can't weigh the relative odds that you are or are not God.

    And with the soul, all available scientific evidence regarding its existence HAS ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED and basically none of it shows that the soul does or does not exist so I can posit that the odds are equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This is untenable to me and I am not here to insult people, but to listen to ideas that don't agree with mine. Having said that, whether you want to call it compelling/productive/whatever, when the conversation reaches a "point", I will move on rather that keep rehashing a point that I already found unconvincing.
    Considering I never made this particular argument before, you currently have no basis to judge how convincing it is. And besides that, if I make an unconvincing argument, you should be able to point out why it doesn't work which is essentially what debate is. One person makes and argument, the other points out the flaw in that argument, then the other person responds and so on.

    If I make a bad argument, you should be able to point out its logical flaw and then I shouldn't be able to make it again because I can't repeat a flawed argument. It's when we are gong "Nuh-uh" and "Yuh-huh" without anyone bothering to back up their position is when we are "stuck". Really, you should only be abandoning arguments if my argument is so good that you can't muster a rebuttal to it, not when it's so bad that you can shoot it down easily. If you can shoot it down, then shoot it down.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    ps I am going to be tied up for the next little while it looks like, so I may not be able to post as often as lately, but I still look to see what anyone else posts and I may find the time
    No problem. Get back to me when it's convenient.
    Last edited by mican333; August 18th, 2019 at 09:35 AM.

  6. #386
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When I say "investigate" I mean "collect all available evidence that will support either side of the question."
    Yet, my point is the same:
    "if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not."


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So with you, that would mean collecting all available evidence regarding your Godhood which would mean collecting all averrable data on you. If there were done, it's safe to say that the evidence that you are not God would greatly outweigh the evidence that you are God. And until the evidence is collected, it can't be determined what the evidence would support and therefore I can't weigh the relative odds that you are or are not God.
    God could easily appear to be totally human if He so chose! Think Jesus.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And with the soul, all available scientific evidence regarding its existence HAS ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED and basically none of it shows that the soul does or does not exist so I can posit that the odds are equal.
    Didn't you claim a bit ago that science had not studied/tested/investigated the souls possible existence? No time to go back and look, maybe I am thinking of some one else anyway?


    I am still trying to keep Squatch honest in this thread at t he moment too:
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ally-justified

  7. #387
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yet, my point is the same:
    "if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not."
    But then going by MY standard of evidence, evidence exists that support that you are a human and not a God and therefore it's more likely that you are not God. And what I mean is that it's a fact that you are a human being. And while I can't present evidence of that fact to this thread, it is something that is discoverable using our current scientific method of discovery. Undiscovered evidence is still evidence. As an example, if there's a crime and fingerprints (evidence) is left, those fingerprints are evidence even before the detective arrives to collect them. Likewise there is currently uncollected evidence that you are human and not God. So going by my standard, there is evidence that you are human - it just hasn't been collected.

    And I'm not playing around with the term "evidence". My initial argument is that based on all evidence that I'm aware of the, the odds are 50/50 and I certainly am not basing my conclusion soley on what was presented in ODN debate threads. I'm appealing to a layperson's knowledge of what science has learned regarding the issue which has not supported either side of the issue regarding the soul's existence. And if there is existing evidence that has not been collected yet, then I can’t say that the evidence shows that it’s equally likely as I won’t know what the evidence shows until it’s collected.

    But we don't need to get bogged down with this if you don't want to. So I will leave it up to you. Do you want to restrict "evidence" to what has been shown in this thread instead of what I have forwarded as evidence (which would include the fact that you are human as "uncollected evidence" that would support that you are not God)? We can go with your bar of evidence or my bar of evidence. Let me know which you choose.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    God could easily appear to be totally human if He so chose! Think Jesus.
    Yeah, but assuming that he did so at this time, the odds of any particular person being God is 1 in 7 billion (approximately the population of the Earth). So even if God walks amongst us, the odds are 1 in 7 billion that it's you.

    I suppose I can just that to estimate the odds are slim that you are God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Didn't you claim a bit ago that science had not studied/tested/investigated the souls possible existence? No time to go back and look, maybe I am thinking of some one else anyway?
    As far as I know, the question has not been specifically studied. But relevant evidence regarding the question has been gathered (such as evidence regarding the nature of consciousness) so evidence regarding its existence has been gathered.
    Last edited by mican333; August 20th, 2019 at 02:13 PM.

  8. #388
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then going by MY standard of evidence, evidence exists that support that you are a human and not a God and therefore it's more likely that you are not God.
    1. Again: "if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not.", which is an untenable position.

    1a. Again, there is NO reason to believe God could not appear to live as a human. Further, again, God has done this before, Jesus!



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I'm not playing around with the term "evidence". My initial argument is that based on all evidence that I'm aware of the, the odds are 50/50 and I certainly am not basing my conclusion soley on what was presented in ODN debate threads. I'm appealing to a layperson's knowledge of what science has learned regarding the issue which has not supported either side of the issue regarding the soul's existence. And if there is existing evidence that has not been collected yet, then I can’t say that the evidence shows that it’s equally likely as I won’t know what the evidence shows until it’s collected.
    Well, the real issue between us at the moment is when no evidence exists (as in this Op).


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yeah, but assuming that he did so at this time, the odds of any particular person being God is 1 in 7 billion (approximately the population of the Earth). So even if God walks amongst us, the odds are 1 in 7 billion that it's you.

    I suppose I can just that to estimate the odds are slim that you are God.
    Perhaps, but there is no evidence either way, so equal likelihood (per your argument).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as I know, the question has not been specifically studied. But relevant evidence regarding the question has been gathered (such as evidence regarding the nature of consciousness) so evidence regarding its existence has been gathered.

    "the old straddle both sides of the fence defense"...
    (In a Maxwell Smart tone of voice)

    Didn't you claim vehemently several times that there is no evidence for or against a soul?

    Also, you still have not supported that there could be "evidence of non existence".

  9. #389
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. Again: "if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not.", which is an untenable position.

    1a. Again, there is NO reason to believe God could not appear to live as a human. Further, again, God has done this before, Jesus!
    I didn't argue otherwise. But the issue isn't whether God can walk amongst us but whether you are God. I have supported in my last post, that there is evidence that you are not God.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Well, the real issue between us at the moment is when no evidence exists (as in this Op).
    And when no evidence exists, then the evidence is equal for both sides.

    But again, there is evidence that you are not God so it's not equally likely that you are or are not God.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Perhaps, but there is no evidence either way, so equal likelihood (per your argument).
    Yes, there is evidence. There is logic that shows that it's likely you are not God.

    First off, let's start off with the proposition that God walks amongst us. Since we have no evidence either way, the odds or 50/50.

    Now IF God walks amongst us, God is one particular person (like Jesus was one particular person). So what are the odds that you are that one particular person compared to every other person in the world. It's 1 in 7 billion (since there are roughly seven billion people in the world).

    So if we combine the odds that God walks with Earth (1 in 2) with the odds that you are God if God walks the Earth (1 in 7 billion), the odds that God walks the Earth AND also happens to be you is 1 in 14 billion.

    So odds are great that you are not God.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    "the old straddle both sides of the fence defense"...
    (In a Maxwell Smart tone of voice)

    Didn't you claim vehemently several times that there is no evidence for or against a soul?
    Correct. And what is a person suppose to do when there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true. It's either straddle the fence or pick one side based on no evidence.

    And what I meant is that relevant evidence for and against the soul has been gathered and there is none that supports that the soul does or does not exist (similar to a detective looking for evidence of a crime and finding none). I guess I could have worded that better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Also, you still have not supported that there could be "evidence of non existence".
    Yes I have. Multiple times. And I guess I'll have to do it again.

    We could discover that consciousness dies with the body when it dies and therefore never leaves the body. If that was discovered, then that would be evidence of the nonexistence of the soul. And that COULD happen so there COULD BE evidence of nonexistence.

  10. #390
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't argue otherwise.
    To be clear, since I made two points and you made one response:

    are you agreeing that "if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not."?



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the issue isn't whether God can walk amongst us but whether you are God. I have supported in my last post, that there is evidence that you are not God.
    Actually you tried to support that evidence could be attained/acquired/sought that would show I wasn't god. However since no evidence currently exists that I am or am not god, per you, both propositions are equally likely.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But again, there is evidence that you are not God so it's not equally likely that you are or are not God.
    Again, showing I acted in "human" ways would not be evidence that I was not/could not be god. god is eminently capable of this.
    However, I think you can't see the forest I am pointing out because all of the trees that are in the way, so lets stick with the idea I am trying so hard to convey instead, that per you:

    any proposition with no evidence is as likely as not.





    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes, there is evidence. There is logic that shows that it's likely you are not God.

    First off, let's start off with the proposition that God walks amongst us. Since we have no evidence either way, the odds or 50/50.
    Yup, per you and the bold above, it is equally likely



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Correct. And what is a person suppose to do when there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true. It's either straddle the fence or pick one side based on no evidence.
    My point was you are again saying there is and isn't evidence.






    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes I have. Multiple times. And I guess I'll have to do it again.
    Absolute nonsense!
    Just saying "evidence could be discovered" does not answer the question in the slightest!!

    Let's move past this tree as well and maybe I can show you the forest I am discussing.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/..._Non_Existence
    "Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."

  11. #391
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    To be clear, since I made two points and you made one response:

    are you agreeing that "if we use your standard for likelihood, the possibility of any proposition without evidence is as likely as not."?
    Yes. But let me be clear that this statement also includes the definition of "evidence" that I am using. If we don't go by that particular definition, then I can't agree with the statement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Actually you tried to support that evidence could be attained/acquired/sought that would show I wasn't god. However since no evidence currently exists that I am or am not god, per you, both propositions are equally likely.
    Incorrect. Evidence that will support whether or not you are God definitely exists. It just hasn't been collected yet. Here is the definition of "evidence" that I am using.

    "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/evidence

    The fact that you are a human being (and therefore not God) is an available fact - it's something that can be discovered if someone took effort to seek it out. When I say there is no evidence, I mean that given all of the relevant facts to the issue that people have or can discover, we can't find any facts that support the proposition either way. That standard does apply to the existence of the soul but not to the proposition that you are God.

    Let me make the case a bit clearer. If there's a crime scene and the detective looks for evidence, the fingerprint he finds is evidence before he finds it. If it wasn't, then he couldn't go looking for evidence as there would be no evidence prior to him looking for it. Likewise if I hire a private detective to find info on you, there is evidence available for him to find. If it was a fact that there is no evidence that you are human, then I would not bother to hire him since there would be no evidence for him to find.

    And again, this is not just playing games with the word "evidence". My belief in the odds of the soul existing is not based on nothing more or less than what has been forwarded in this thread but based on the entirety of scientific evidence as I understand it. I assume you would agree that it's entirely rational for one to base their scientific beliefs on their best understanding of scientific knowledge and not limit it to whatever is said on an ODN thread. If that was not clear earlier, it is hopefully clear now.

    But I think this might all be a moot point anyway, since I have supported that it's unlikely that you are God without hiring a hypothetical private detective in my argument below. At least my support stands until you rebut it.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yup, per you and the bold above, it is equally likely
    You responded to only a portion of my argument. You did not respond to the entire argument and therefore it stands until you do rebut it. I have supported that we can use logic to determine that the odds that you are God is roughly 1 in 14 billion. I will paste my entire argument and bold it. If you do not respond to the entirety of my argument (the part in bold), then you have not offered a valid rebuttal.

    First off, let's start off with the proposition that God walks amongst us. Since we have no evidence either way, the odds or 50/50.

    Now IF God walks amongst us, God is one particular person (like Jesus was one particular person). So what are the odds that you are that one particular person compared to every other person in the world. It's 1 in 7 billion (since there are roughly seven billion people in the world).

    So if we combine the odds that God walks with Earth (1 in 2) with the odds that you are God if God walks the Earth (1 in 7 billion), the odds that God walks the Earth AND also happens to be you is 1 in 14 billion.

    So odds are great that you are not God.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My point was you are again saying there is and isn't evidence.
    In regards to the soul, I'm saying there isn't evidence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Absolute nonsense!
    Just saying "evidence could be discovered" does not answer the question in the slightest!!
    But I didn't just say "evidence could be discovered". I showed a scenario where it could be proven that the soul does not exist. Since the scenario I showed is possible, I have supported that there could be evidence of non-existence which DIRECTLY rebuts your argument:

    "Also, you still have not supported that there could be "evidence of non existence".

    So I have supported that there could be "evidence of non existence" and therefore have rebutted the statement you made.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Let's move past this tree as well and maybe I can show you the forest I am discussing.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/..._Non_Existence
    "Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."
    I'm lost to what you are getting at here. I certainly have no burden to prove that the soul exists (my argument is that there is no evidence) so I don't see what this statement has to do with my position.
    Last edited by mican333; August 22nd, 2019 at 07:10 AM.

  12. #392
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes. But let me be clear that this statement also includes the definition of "evidence" that I am using. If we don't go by that particular definition, then I can't agree with the statement.
    Since your "definition" of evidence is:
    "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

    I don't see we have much left to discuss. Again, to say any proposition without evidence is as likely as not is absurd.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Incorrect. Evidence that will support whether or not you are God definitely exists. It just hasn't been collected yet.
    1. If it hasn't been collected yet, you have NO way of knowing what will be known when it is collected. It hasn't been shown impossible I am god, so per you it is possible, and since no evidence currently exists that I am or not, per you, it is equally likely.
    2. Evidence showing I had some human qualities dos not rule out my being a deity in the slightest. Lets say you find out I have a job and eat regularly for instance. A deity could do these things or any other thing that a human does. After all, I wouldn't be much of a god if I could create the universe but not appear human to humans if I so chose.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The fact that you are a human being (and therefore not God) is an available fact - it's something that can be discovered if someone took effort to seek it out.
    Completely negative.
    Jesus was/is fully human and fully God, so it has been done before and a point you keep refusing to acknowledge.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When I say there is no evidence, I mean that given all of the relevant facts to the issue that people have or can discover, we can't find any facts that support the proposition either way. That standard does apply to the existence of the soul but not to the proposition that you are God.
    1. What is this test for godhood you speak of? How would we test to see if someone was God?
    2. What evidence would there be that God (or I) created the universe?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And again, this is not just playing games with the word "evidence". My belief in the odds of the soul existing is not based on nothing more or less than what has been forwarded in this thread but based on the entirety of scientific evidence as I understand it. I assume you would agree that it's entirely rational for one to base their scientific beliefs on their best understanding of scientific knowledge and not limit it to whatever is said on an ODN thread.
    1. You went waaay past a souls likelihood and said any proposition with no evidence.

    2. Based on scientific evidence:
    a. we know of nothing that lives eternally nor reason to suspect something could based on our understanding of life (save it hasn't yet been proven impossible, yet).
    b. we know of nothing living that is immaterial
    c. we know of nothing alive that defies the known laws of physics
    d. everyone has a soul but is unaware of it seems at odds with consciousness

    I could probably go on a while given time, but these things and more, make a soul less than 50/50 likelihood based on common everyday experience.
    Now I would not say a soul can't/doesn't exist, but no reasoning has ever been forwarded (that I am aware of) that would counter existing known facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I think this might all be a moot point anyway, since I have supported that it's unlikely that you are God without hiring a hypothetical private detective in my argument below. At least my support stands until you rebut it.
    Done, hopefully I explained it more thoroughly this time.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You responded to only a portion of my argument. You did not respond to the entire argument
    I quit responding to your argument once it was defeated, there was no reason to go further.

    Repeating the same sentences 5 times and adding bold does not make an argument more sound. Same for all caps.

    Once you said "First off, let's start off with the proposition that God walks amongst us. Since we have no evidence either way, the odds or 50/50." your argument lost.
    No evidence = a proposition is as likely as not.
    I have repeatedly explained that there is no test for godhood so your "gathering of existing evidence showing my human qualities" matters not at all....


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I didn't just say "evidence could be discovered". I showed a scenario where it could be proven that the soul does not exist.
    You said"
    "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."

    Emphasis mine!


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I have supported that there could be "evidence of non existence" and therefore have rebutted the statement you made.
    NOT at all have you supported this!


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm lost to what you are getting at here. I certainly have no burden to prove that the soul exists (my argument is that there is no evidence) so I don't see what this statement has to do with my position.
    I am trying to get you to realize there is no evidence of non existence per that link, so your argument of "equal likelihood based on equal (no) evidence" is incorrect.

  13. #393
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Since your "definition" of evidence is:
    "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

    I don't see we have much left to discuss. Again, to say any proposition without evidence is as likely as not is absurd.
    Then what is one suppose to conclude if there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is false?

    What is the non-absurd conclusion to draw?



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. If it hasn't been collected yet, you have NO way of knowing what will be known when it is collected. It hasn't been shown impossible I am god, so per you it is possible, and since no evidence currently exists that I am or not, per you, it is equally likely.
    True. But I can't say that there is no evidence that you are or are not God and therefore this scenario does not address the logic regarding my position of what to conclude when there is no evidence.

    What I would say in that situation is that if I were to make an evidenced-based conclusion, I could not say how strong the evidence would support that you are or are not God and therefore can't weigh the odds of what the evidence would support (although I would guess, if I were to make a guess, that it would strongly support the notion that you are not God).


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    2. Evidence showing I had some human qualities dos not rule out my being a deity in the slightest. Lets say you find out I have a job and eat regularly for instance. A deity could do these things or any other thing that a human does. After all, I wouldn't be much of a god if I could create the universe but not appear human to humans if I so chose.
    It's not impossible that you are God in disguise but there would clearly be no evidence that you are God. And there would be plenty of evidence that you are just another human being.

    So based on the evidence (plenty you are human, none you are God), I would conclude that based on the evidence, it's more likely that you are human. I agree that it's not impossible that you are God but the evidence shows that it's not likely that you are.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. What is this test for godhood you speak of? How would we test to see if someone was God?
    2. What evidence would there be that God (or I) created the universe?
    I'm not sure of the relevance of these questions and fear that the debate will be dragged off-topic if I were to answer them. So perhaps restate them as a statement (such as "there is no way to find evidence that I was God if I were") would be better.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. You went waaay past a souls likelihood and said any proposition with no evidence.

    2. Based on scientific evidence:
    a. we know of nothing that lives eternally nor reason to suspect something could based on our understanding of life (save it hasn't yet been proven impossible, yet).
    b. we know of nothing living that is immaterial
    c. we know of nothing alive that defies the known laws of physics
    d. everyone has a soul but is unaware of it seems at odds with consciousness
    1. Well, obviously if the logic is solid for the soul, it has to be solid for everything else as well.

    a. just like we used to know of nothing about invisible light spectrums nor reason to suspect that they could exist.t
    b. which does not support that no such thing can exist.
    c. and you have not supported that the soul defies known laws of physics
    d. I don't see why that would be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I could probably go on a while given time, but these things and more, make a soul less than 50/50 likelihood based on common everyday experience.
    I see nothing in common everyday experience that precludes the soul existing. In fact, if the soul, as described, does exist, I would expect to see the common everyday reality that I currently see.

    And you have yet to provide evidence that supports that the soul does not exist and therefore have no evidence-based reason to move the odds other than 50/50.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I quit responding to your argument once it was defeated, there was no reason to go further.

    Repeating the same sentences 5 times and adding bold does not make an argument more sound. Same for all caps.

    Once you said "First off, let's start off with the proposition that God walks amongst us. Since we have no evidence either way, the odds or 50/50." your argument lost.
    No evidence = a proposition is as likely as not.
    Right. But my argument did provide evidence that the odds that you are God (if God walks the Earth) is 1 in 7 billion.

    1. So odds that God walks the Earth 1 in 2
    2. Odds that you are God if God walks the Earth 1 in 7 billion

    THEREFORE:

    The odds that God walks the Earth AND is you is 1 in 14 billion.

    I have supported that the odds that you are God is 1 in 14 billion. To address point 1 but ignore point 2 is to fail to address my argument and leave it standing.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I You said"
    "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."

    Emphasis mine!
    Right.
    And such a thing could happen. Right?
    And if it happened, we would have evidence that the soul does not exist. Right?
    So in the future, there could be evidence that the soul does not exist. Right?
    Therefore, one day there could be evidence of non-existence.

    Now, I'm guessing there's a miscommunication going on here. So let me try explaining this from a different angle.

    As I understand it, you are saying that there can never be evidence for the souls nonexistence because one can't prove a negative so therefore my position is flawed because it sets an impossible-to-reach standard for the "soul doesn't exist" side. And I'm saying the standard is not impossible to reach and therefore one day we MIGHT discover evidence that shows that the soul does not exist and I've provided a hypothetical scenario where that happens (they learn enough about consciousness to know if it leaves the body upon death and discover that it does not). So I have shown that its possible that one day we may have evidence that shows that the soul does not exist (or we may find evidence that it does).

    Now, if that does not accurately reflect your argument, then you need to make your argument more clear.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am trying to get you to realize there is no evidence of non existence per that link, so your argument of "equal likelihood based on equal (no) evidence" is incorrect.
    How so?

    I mean I agree that there currently is no evidence of nonexistence but then there is no evidence of existence.
    Last edited by mican333; August 23rd, 2019 at 08:25 AM.

  14. #394
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then what is one suppose to conclude if there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is false?

    What is the non-absurd conclusion to draw?
    That not every wild ass idea that has no evidence and has not been proven to be impossible is as likely as not to be true as not, especially if it goes against current known facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    True. But I can't say that there is no evidence that you are or are not God and therefore this scenario does not address the logic regarding my position of what to conclude when there is no evidence.
    (your logic train)
    Currently there is no evidence of a soul.
    Evidence of a soul may exist that you are currently unaware of.
    We may find evidence in the future that the soul exists or not.
    The same can be said of me being god.

    This point is a tree getting in the way of you seeing the forest.
    The issue I am getting at is, wild ass ideas being as likely to be true as false, if there is no evidence (per you).


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm not sure of the relevance of these questions and fear that the debate will be dragged off-topic if I were to answer them. So perhaps restate them as a statement (such as "there is no way to find evidence that I was God if I were") would be better.
    Because you seem to think there would obvious evidence if god were to live among us (which makes no sense at ALL, as once it could be shown said person was god, he could no longer live among us as one of us, which would seem to be the point for him to live among us in the first place).

    Either way, you didn't answer your reworded question either.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    a. just like we used to know of nothing about invisible light spectrums nor reason to suspect that they could exist.t
    b. which does not support that no such thing can exist.
    c. and you have not supported that the soul defies known laws of physics
    d. I don't see why that would be true.
    a. negative. we knew there was light to start with. studying it showed us "spectrums".
    b. I haven't EVER say a soul could not exist!
    c. "Living" after death. Defying gravity at will. Being immaterial (how can something immaterial even be said to exist at all?). Living eternally for sure since the universe is not ETERNAL. Amongst others.
    d. if being unaware that you are an, immortal, immaterial, "essence" that was somehow trapped in a human body till the body dies and then you are released, sometimes staying here on earth and sometimes going "somewhere" (other plane of existence) else doesn't strike you as rather fantastic, I think you are being a bit disingenuous.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And you have yet to provide evidence that supports that the soul does not exist and therefore have no evidence-based reason to move the odds other than 50/50.
    I never claimed such an absurd thing. Perhaps I should post a paragraph of all caps saying so. You and Sig seem to think that helps with reader comprehension.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right. But my argument did provide evidence ...
    Negative!!! You provided "blue sky"!

    Please ask Squatch or other staff to adjudicate this point:
    evidence of non existence.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I understand it, you are saying that there can never be evidence for the souls nonexistence because one can't prove a negative so therefore my position is flawed because it sets an impossible-to-reach standard for the "soul doesn't exist" side. And I'm saying the standard is not impossible to reach and therefore one day we MIGHT discover evidence...
    Saying it is possible/maybe/someday to have evidence of non existence isn't quite as good as "here is something that does not exist and this evidence proves it".
    In fact, there can be no "here is something" in the first place if it doesn't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    that shows that the soul does not exist and I've provided a hypothetical scenario where that happens (they learn enough about consciousness to know if it leaves the body upon death and discover that it does not). So I have shown that its possible that one day we may have evidence that shows that the soul does not exist (or we may find evidence that it does).
    Since you like repeats (I don't):
    You have shown NOTHING!!
    Please have Squatch (or I can PM him if you like) adjudicate this point. You repeating the same sentences over and over and over doesn't make your argument stronger and is why I "left you the last word a few posts ago"........



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How so?

    I mean I agree that there currently is no evidence of nonexistence but then there is no evidence of existence.

    1. Support there is no evidence of existence.

    2. Did you read any of the link? It says it is not possible to have evidence of non existence which renders your whole argument impotent.
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 27th, 2019 at 03:28 PM.

  15. #395
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That not every wild ass idea that has no evidence and has not been proven to be impossible is as likely as not to be true as not, especially if it goes against current known facts.
    I don't dispute that.

    But then the notion that the soul is a "wild ass idea" seems to be a rather subjective position and one that is not shared by a majority of the people of the world. Of course they aren't right for just being in the majority but this strongly counters the argument that the concept is absurd or incredibly wild. I mean "wild" things are typically things that the majority tend to reject. Whether something is absurd or wild is kind of subjective so really what people think is kind of relevant here.

    So it does seem that your claim that it's absurd or wild-ass seems to be coming from a personal bias, just like a theist might think that the concept of a soul is common sense.

    I've heard plenty of what people think from both sides. I'm really only interested in what people can prove or show to be true with evidence which is why I'm focusing the debate around evidence.

    So I would say that labelling the concept of the soul "wild ass" or "absurd" is begging the question. If you want to argue that the concept is absurd, that's fine but you can't start with that as the premise. You need to provide, well, evidence, that it's absurd or "wild ass".


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    (your logic train)
    Currently there is no evidence of a soul.
    Evidence of a soul may exist that you are currently unaware of.
    We may find evidence in the future that the soul exists or not.
    The same can be said of me being god.

    This point is a tree getting in the way of you seeing the forest.
    The issue I am getting at is, wild ass ideas being as likely to be true as false, if there is no evidence (per you).
    First off, I disagree that there is no evidence that you are not God but I don't think I need to re-has that right now.

    And as I indicated above, starting with the premise that the notion of the soul existing is a wild ass idea is begging the question.

    And just in case you think I'm arguing disingenuously (and if you are, I sincerely thank you for not directly accusing me of that), let me speak genuinely here. The question of the soul is the same as the question of what happens when we die. Do we leave out dead bodies and continue living or do we just cease to exist? Frankly, I find both options to be pretty mind-boggling and if one is crazy and absurd, then so is the other. If you are much more accepting of one than the other, that's fine and of course other people feel the other way. But what you or they happen to think is not of interest. Again, I am trying to go where the evidence goes.

    So again, I do not accept the premise that either proposition is uniquely absurd and therefore if that position to be held, it must be supported.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Because you seem to think there would obvious evidence if god were to live among us (which makes no sense at ALL, as once it could be shown said person was god, he could no longer live among us as one of us, which would seem to be the point for him to live among us in the first place).

    Either way, you didn't answer your reworded question either.
    Please note that there is clearly some kind of miscommunication going on.

    I have argued that there is NO evidence that God walks amongst us (and there is no evidence that he doesn't either).

    But I don't see why if you were known to be God walking amongst us, you still couldn't be God living amongst us. Who's going to force you to leave?



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    a. negative. we knew there was light to start with. studying it showed us "spectrums".
    b. I haven't EVER say a soul could not exist!
    c. "Living" after death. Defying gravity at will. Being immaterial (how can something immaterial even be said to exist at all?). Living eternally for sure since the universe is not ETERNAL. Amongst others.
    d. if being unaware that you are an, immortal, immaterial, "essence" that was somehow trapped in a human body till the body dies and then you are released, sometimes staying here on earth and sometimes going "somewhere" (other plane of existence) else doesn't strike you as rather fantastic, I think you are being a bit disingenuous.
    a. A thousand years ago, people did not know that light had various spectrums, including invisible ones.
    b. Correct. And there this is not support that the soul is unlikely to exist (you are trying to support that, right?)
    c. There is no law of physics that says things cannot "live" after death. And there are things that are immaterial and not effected by gravity (like thoughts). And "eternal" doesn't matter. If it's proven that consciousness lives on after the body dies, then it's proof that the soul exists even if it's determined that the soul does not exist beyond the life of the universe.
    d. I don't find it more fantastic than the alternative of ceasing to exist forever.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I never claimed such an absurd thing. Perhaps I should post a paragraph of all caps saying so. You and Sig seem to think that helps with reader comprehension.
    I don't caps to increase comprehension but to emphasize certain points over others.

    And you said:

    "I could probably go on a while given time, but these things and more, make a soul less than 50/50 likelihood based on common everyday experience."


    Which certainly looks to me like you are arguing that the odds of the soul existing is less than 50%.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Negative!!! You provided "blue sky"!

    Please ask Squatch or other staff to adjudicate this point:
    evidence of non existence.
    Okay. The blue part is for Squatch's adjudication

    SQUATCH - I am supporting that the odds are great that Belthazor is not God using evidence and logic. Here is my logic chain.

    1. TRUISM - If the evidence for X being true and X being false is equal, then the odds that X is true is 1 in 2
    2. FACT - No evidence has been provided that God walks the Earth
    3. FACT - No evidence has been provided that God does not walk the Earth
    4. THEREFORE - based on the evidence, the odds that God walks the Earth is 1 in 2
    5. FACT - there are roughly 7 billion people on this planet
    6. THEREFORE - If God currently walks the Earth as an individual human, the odds that any particular human is God is 1 in 7 billion
    7. THEREFORE - The odds that God walks the Earth (1 in 2) and is Belthazor instead of someone else (1 in 7 billion) is roughly 1 in 14 billion
    8. THEREFORE the odds are great that Belthazor is not God walking the Earth.

    Do you agree that this chain shows that it's unlikely that Belthazor is God?




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Saying it is possible/maybe/someday to have evidence of non existence isn't quite as good as "here is something that does not exist and this evidence proves it".
    In fact, there can be no "here is something" in the first place if it doesn't exist.
    Well, we work with what we got.

    I have support that if the soul doesn't exist, we may one day find evidence that this is so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Since you like repeats (I don't):
    You have shown NOTHING!!
    Please have Squatch (or I can PM him if you like) adjudicate this point. You repeating the same sentences over and over and over doesn't make your argument stronger and is why I "left you the last word a few posts ago"........
    You might not like repeats but that apparently doesn't stop you from repeating your argument. I counted earlier and I repeated this argument at least three times (probably more because I stopped counting at three) because it was a rebuttal to an argument that you kept repeating. I don't repeat my argument to try to make it stronger. I repeat it because you keep repeating the argument that it's a rebuttal to. I don't really care to debate with you who's doing the most repeating but if you are going to unfairly criticize me, I will address it.

    But moving on, here is my argument for Squatch to adjudicate

    SQUATCH - I am going to support that if the soul does not exist, it's possible to find evidence that this is so.

    The soul, pretty much by definition, is consciousness that leaves the body upon death and goes somewhere else (like Heaven in Christian theology). If consciousness does not leave the body upon death, then there is no soul. As science progresses, it is entirely possible that one day scientists will discover whether the consciousness leaves the body upon death. If that were to happen and it was discovered that consciousness does not leave the body upon death, then science will have proven, or at least provided solid evidence, that the soul does not exist. THEREFORE, it is possible that one day we may find evidence that the soul does not exist.


    Belthazor, I have to admit that I'm not sure what your objection to my argument is. But assuming it's about whether it's accurate or not, this should resolve it (assuming Squatch finds my argument valid). If your objection lies elsewhere ("yeah it's correct but it's meaningless..."") please make it clear where the problem lies.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. Support there is no evidence of existence.
    No such evidence has been presented in this debate nor has, to the best of my knowledge, has science ever uncovered such evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    2. Did you read any of the link? It says it is not possible to have evidence of non existence which renders your whole argument impotent.
    I believe my above argument that Squatch is adjudicating shows that it is possible (currently assuming he will).

    And what I'm supporting is that evidence can be found that a necessary condition of the soul existing does not exist. If the necessary condition for the soul does not exist, then the soul does not exist.
    Last edited by mican333; August 27th, 2019 at 07:05 PM.

  16. #396
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    First, let me make sure I have both arguments correctly summarized. I will write what I think is a brief summary of the propositions, then if both parties could give me a thumbs up I'll offer an adjudication.



    Argument 1

    Absent additional outside evidence, the odds of any claim being correct is 50%. There are 7 Billion people on the planet so a claim of that sort applied to a specific individual would be 1 in 14 billion. This is sufficiently unlikely as to constitute a good certainty that the claim isn't true unless any other evidence is applied.



    Argument 2

    There are two parts to this that I need confirmation on. 1) is the agreed upon definition of the soul the one proffered by Mican: "consciousness that leaves the body upon death and goes somewhere else?"

    2) The dispute is whether it is possible to prove such a thing doesn't exist. Mican is holding that it a scientific discovery could reflect that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore that souls do not exist.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #397
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, let me make sure I have both arguments correctly summarized. I will write what I think is a brief summary of the propositions, then if both parties could give me a thumbs up I'll offer an adjudication.



    Argument 1

    Absent additional outside evidence, the odds of any claim being correct is 50%. There are 7 Billion people on the planet so a claim of that sort applied to a specific individual would be 1 in 14 billion. This is sufficiently unlikely as to constitute a good certainty that the claim isn't true unless any other evidence is applied.
    Yes. To be clear, I'm combining

    Odds of God on Earth - 1 in 2
    Odds that any particular person is God if God is on Earth - 1 in 7 billion

    1 in 2 x 1 in 7 billion = 1 in 14 billion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Argument 2

    There are two parts to this that I need confirmation on. 1) is the agreed upon definition of the soul the one proffered by Mican: "consciousness that leaves the body upon death and goes somewhere else?"

    2) The dispute is whether it is possible to prove such a thing doesn't exist. Mican is holding that it a scientific discovery could reflect that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore that souls do not exist.
    1. It is the definition I'm forwarding so the premise is that it's accurate.
    2. Yes. As in it's possible that such a thing may happen in the future.

  18. #398
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, let me make sure I have both arguments correctly summarized. I will write what I think is a brief summary of the propositions, then if both parties could give me a thumbs up I'll offer an adjudication.


    Great

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Argument 1

    Absent additional outside evidence, the odds of any claim being correct is 50%.
    This is the broad version of the issue at hand. If I may paraphrase Mican's position:
    "when there is no evidence of existing or not existing, both are equal in likelihood"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are 7 Billion people on the planet so a claim of that sort applied to a specific individual would be 1 in 14 billion. This is sufficiently unlikely as to constitute a good certainty that the claim isn't true unless any other evidence is applied.
    1. I never claimed to be God. I intended to show the absurdity of the argument,
    That going by Mican's argument, that since there is no evidence I am god, and no evidence I am not god, both are equally likely.
    It is not a claim I am defending other than if Mican is correct, then it is 50/50 that I am god and it would make no difference if there were 500 billion people alive today.

    1a. There would be no way to know if god manifested himself into 1 or 1 billion people so there is no way to make odds such as "1 in 14 billion".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Argument 2

    There are two parts to this that I need confirmation on. 1) is the agreed upon definition of the soul the one proffered by Mican: "consciousness that leaves the body upon death and goes somewhere else?"
    I thought we were discussing the generally accepted ideas of a soul as in dictionary.com/etc and testimony given by believers/those that have witnessed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) The dispute is whether it is possible to prove such a thing doesn't exist. Mican is holding that it a scientific discovery could reflect that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore that souls do not exist.
    This is a specific version of the issue at hand.

    Can there be evidence of a souls' non existence?

  19. #399
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Ok, here is my initial take on where you two stand.

    Point 1: I think that it is somewhat uncontroversial to point out that in absence of evidence for or against a claim, that the claim is equally likely from a warrant point of view (ie from the point of view of whether I should accept it or not).

    Point 2: The combination of the equally likely claim and the 1 in 7 billion number isn't statistically correct. It would depends on the assumption that the odds are cumulative rather than independent. Similar to flipping a coin, there is a very different set of odds in saying "what is the odds that any given one of them is a heads" and "what is the odds that they will all turn out heads." Whether or not person X is "God on Earth" doesn't intuitively seem connected to whether person Y is "God on Earth." So taken purely on the "no evidence" line of argument, the odds of any given person being "God on Earth" would seem to be 50/50. An argument for cumulative odds would need to be offered to get to the 1 in 14B number.

    Point 3: We can absolutely prove a negative through a variety of means. Logical incoherence and definitional untruth being two pretty widely available options. For example, we can disprove that a married bachelor exits in my office because married bachelors don't exist. Likewise, we can disprove that a 'cat who has not or is not in doors' is in my office because it wouldn't be a cat who 'has not or is not in doors' anymore. In our example, if a soul was defined as the "motivating force for movement' and we could show that this wasn't true, that some other force motivated movement, we could show that souls don't exist. Maybe something else exists with a different definition, but that concept, with that definition, wouldn't exist.

    Point 4: There seems to be a disagreement on your shared definition of soul. I would recommend handling that point before addressing points 5 and 6.

    Point 5: So Mican's concept of science being able to disprove a soul (given his definition of soul) is correct. If it could find that evidence, it would have disproven souls.

    Point 6: But, did Mican actually show that such a breakthrough was possible? I don't think so. In order to hold that science, could, in fact, validate that kind of hypothesis, he would at least need to show that it is in the realm of empirical evidence and deductive reasoning to show that no immaterial consciouness leaves the body upon death. To be clear, I'm not saying he would need to show that that is the case of course, only that the question being asked (does conciousness leave the body upon death) is capable of being answered through empirical observation and inferential reasoning.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #400
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [COLOR="#800080"]
    Point 2: The combination of the equally likely claim and the 1 in 7 billion number isn't statistically correct. It would depends on the assumption that the odds are cumulative rather than independent. Similar to flipping a coin, there is a very different set of odds in saying "what is the odds that any given one of them is a heads" and "what is the odds that they will all turn out heads." Whether or not person X is "God on Earth" doesn't intuitively seem connected to whether person Y is "God on Earth." So taken purely on the "no evidence" line of argument, the odds of any given person being "God on Earth" would seem to be 50/50. An argument for cumulative odds would need to be offered to get to the 1 in 14B number.]
    To be clear, Jesus Christ was offered as the example. Clearly when Jesus Christ walked the earth, there was only one person who could be God. So it is cumulative. If the first person you examine happens to be God, then the rest of the population cannot be God. Given that, would you agree that the odds of any particular person being God is one in 14 billion?

    ---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Point 6: But, did Mican actually show that such a breakthrough was possible? I don't think so. In order to hold that science, could, in fact, validate that kind of hypothesis, he would at least need to show that it is in the realm of empirical evidence and deductive reasoning to show that no immaterial consciouness leaves the body upon death. To be clear, I'm not saying he would need to show that that is the case of course, only that the question being asked (does conciousness leave the body upon death) is capable of being answered through empirical observation and inferential reasoning.
    I am operating on the premise that anything that is true could eventually be confirmed as true. Therefore it possible to learn all that can be learned about consciousness including whether it leaves the body upon death. Maybe such a question may take 500 years of scientific progress to learn but it is something that is theoretically discoverable.

 

 
Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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
  •