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 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 478
  1. #141
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Agreed. This is one of those bottom of the barrel “arguments” that may be logically true but it wholly puts the burden on me to prove it impossible. Right?
    It does not put a burden on you. A burden is something that you MUST do to achieve a goal. For example, when you forward an argument as factual in a debate, then you have taken on the burden to support that your argument is true. So at that point you MUST support your argument to achieve your goal and therefore have a burden.

    But if you don't choose to do a particular something, then you have no burden to do it. And you have the option of not attempting to argue that OBEs are impossible so unless you CHOOSE to support that OBEs are impossible, you have absolutely no burden to do that.

    I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what "shifting the burden is".

    If I were to argue that, for example, the world is flat, then I would have the burden to support that. I would have to provide some kind of argument that supports my position. If I do it, then no problem. But if instead of providing support I say "The Earth is flat. If you disagree, then please support that it's not flat" then instead of taking on my own burden to support my argument, I have instead said that you have the burden to support the opposite conclusion. That is a logical fallacy because :
    1. It fails to provide support for my position
    2. If says that you have a burden that you have no obligation to accept.

    And my "possible" argument does neither of those.
    1. It has provided support - you have admitted on more than one occasion that it is logically valid
    2. It does not ask you to support the opposing conclusion. At no point does it say to you that you must do anything in particular. I mean IF you want to argue that it's impossible you may but I did not request that you do it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Since my position is disbelief, the onus has somehow transferred to me to demonstrate it is impossible.
    The only burden you have is the one that you accept. If you CHOOSE to argue that it's impossible, then you have that burden. Otherwise you have no such burden.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Meanwhile, you get to sidestep having to put any more thought into the matter even though I have asked you repeatedly to consider how sensory perceptions, INCLUDING proprioception that are bodily functions. So you somehow throw out garbage, ignore an honest discussion to consider how silly the idea is, and resort to stonewalling.

    @squatch: THAT is what I am formally complaining about. The forge of reason should be a comparison of ideas and not dodging one’s responsibility to account for one’s ideas. The sad thing is that we haven’t even begun to discuss points in the OP yet. Even my discussion with eye was cut short when she realized her grammatical gotcha had no effect. Is that what this site has turned into?
    I should point out that you should not be making such complaints on a public thread. You were specifically warned about this in the red-letter post. Of course you can complain if you feel that you have a legitimate complaint but it should be made via PM, not on a public thread

    And per my prior response on such complaints, I will not bother dragging the argument in that direction and explain how you are wrong on all accounts but just point out that you are wrong.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This is a debate where words matter and some words have different meanings, sometimes even contradictory. But since you have asked me to provide a working definition for the purpose of this debate, I will:



    So now explain how that can occur outside of the brain.
    First off, I think that is a pretty good definition.

    And it's your argument that such a thing does not occur outside of the brain so the burden is yours to support that it doesn't.

    I never claimed that I did know how such an event occurred and therefore have no burden to explain how it does happen.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Boo boo. You have to support what you’re talking about where there’s clear disagreement.
    No, I have to support my claims. If I claim X is true, then I must support that X is true.

    I don't even really know what "support what you're talking about" means.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So now, @squatch, we have a clear admission, and not for the first time, that mican is deliberately withholding information that he has to have in order to hold the position he is holding.
    What? I agree that I need to know what conscious is to hold the position that consciousness might be able exist outside of the body but the notion that the term "consciousness" has not been adequately understood by either of us is directly contradicted by the fact THAT WE HAVE BEEN HAVING A COHERENT CONVERSATION ON THE TOPIC OVER SEVERAL POSTS.

    The notion that I have inadequately defined consciousness is ludicrous! And besides that, even if that was the case, YOU solved the problem by providing a dictionary definition which happens to completely coincide with how we've been using the word "consciousness" all along.

    This complaint is just ridiculous! And to me its ridiculousness seems pretty on par with the rest of your complaints.

    Now on a side note, while it's clear that you have gone against what Squatch told you not to do, I can understand your actions if they are taken out of sheer frustration and therefore think that this can be excused to some extent since we have likewise been conversing with him. So I'm not advocating any particular action be taken by a moderator on this. And I don't know when Squatch is going to deal with this. But I do ask that if you are going to make another post before Squatch chimes in, that it not contain these kinds of complaints at all. Again, you are not suppose to be making them on public threads.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And I continue to contend that whilst this is logically true, that is not what support means in the context of a debate where we are holding opposite sides. By your logic, anything is possible - it’s a blank check to put the onus on your opponent to do all the work.
    You have no onus to do any work at all. You don't have to rebut every argument I make.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And if you don’t have a position, you’re trolling. This debate needn’t get to this point - it is your reticence that is causing it. Just drop the debate and move on. You are literally contributing nothing and expecting me to do all the heavy lifting. If you don’t have a position you want to support retract it.
    You've been specifically warned to not engage in these kinds of personal attacks on a public thread.

    I could blah blah blah blah attack attack attack right back at you but, apparently unlike you, I recognize such comments for the annoying waste of time that they are and since I have no particular desire to annoy you or waster your time, I don't put these comments in my post and you should behave in a similar manner towards me. In fact, you have been told that you must. If you want to complain to Squatch in private, go ahead BUT DO NOT RESORT TO PERSONAL ATTACKS WHEN ADDRESSING ME.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It is completely supported by evidence of a physical universe of information transfer between physical activities to sensory organs to a mind.
    How does that support that such a thing doesn't happen by some other method if the consciousness were to not be in the body. For example, if the conscioussness is floating above the body in a room, it can still be exposed to sound waves and light waves. Can you support that a disembodied consciousness cannot interpret such waves to see and hear what is going on?


    [QUOTE=SharmaK;564414]Besides, since you haven’t explained what consciousness is, you cannot disembody it.[quote]

    That doesn't make sense but either way, you provided a definition yourself so we're set on that account.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And when you do, you still have to explain how physical sensory information is transferred to it. And then you have to explain how in the world, that this is a better explanation than the fact the patient is actually already in the room and can likely see and hear things!
    No I don't. It's YOUR argument that such a thing does not happen. Asking me to support that it does happen would be shifting the burden. So assuming you are not attempting to shift the burden, then it's agreed that I have no burden to support that happens. And therefore I have no burden to explain how it happens.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You have not added one iota of plausibility to this idea so I don’t accept that you have supported it is possible.
    Since you agreed that I have supported that it's logically possible via a different method, that issue has been settled.

    The fact that you have issues with how I supported that it's possible does not effect that I've supported that it's possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    On the first claim, you were spouting from a pseudoscientific blog and then an article that points out the implausibility of these claims. Yet you still walk away saying that is is still possible. I suggest you read your article and decide again where you lie: pseudoscience or actual science.
    The ONLY point I have made from the articles on NDES is that there are 3000+ claims that they happened. Saying that I used those articles for any other reason is a red herring and will be ignored as such.

    And THIS is a point that Squatch has acknowledged has been supported. So I have only TWO claims regarding NDEs

    1. There are 3000+ claims of them occurring
    2. It is possible that NDEs happen.

    Both claims are supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Huh? So all you are saying is that it is *possible* that *people claim NDE* and not *NDE itself*? Are you f**king serious? That’s all you have? This is a joke.
    No. I'm saying that it is SUPPORTED that 3000+ people have claimed that they have had NDE experiences. And I am claiming that it's possible that some people have had actual NDE experiences.

    Any alternative interpretations of what I said are incorrect.
    Last edited by mican333; March 2nd, 2019 at 11:39 AM.

  2. #142
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,692
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Before you get yourself banned, SharmaK, could you reply to my post #101? Iím curious how youíll answer my questions.

    Oh, and although I disagree with 99% of the stuff you write, I do enjoy reading it, so please hang in there.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  3. #143
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The sad thing is that we haven’t even begun to discuss points in the OP yet. Even my discussion with eye was cut short when she realized her grammatical gotcha had no effect. Is that what this site has turned into?

    Calm down Sharmak. Your OP, to me at least, is an argument against the religious concept of the soul. Your main points are religious points. Personally, I didn’t find that too inspiring or mentally engaging – but that’s just me. There was no intentional gotcha intent on my part. I noted one glimmer of interest in one little sentence in your religious dissertation against the soul about evidence -- which you later clarified, “evidence doesn’t exist.” Then you further clarified and said any “evidence would have to not be open to interpretation.” Well that pretty much rules out all possible interesting debate about evidence for the subject of your OP “the soul,” which you define as: “immaterial “essence,” Immortal, Provides the animating force behind a person’s actions” -- at least from my perspective, unless one wants to engage in pages of debate about data interpretations – which to me is no fun.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.Ē --"The Mental UniverseĒ | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  4. #144
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It does not put a burden on you. A burden is something that you MUST do to achieve a goal. For example, when you forward an argument as factual in a debate, then you have taken on the burden to support that your argument is true. So at that point you MUST support your argument to achieve your goal and therefore have a burden.

    But if you don't choose to do a particular something, then you have no burden to do it. And you have the option of not attempting to argue that OBEs are impossible so unless you CHOOSE to support that OBEs are impossible, you have absolutely no burden to do that.

    I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what "shifting the burden is".

    If I were to argue that, for example, the world is flat, then I would have the burden to support that. I would have to provide some kind of argument that supports my position. If I do it, then no problem. But if instead of providing support I say "The Earth is flat. If you disagree, then please support that it's not flat" then instead of taking on my own burden to support my argument, I have instead said that you have the burden to support the opposite conclusion. That is a logical fallacy because :
    1. It fails to provide support for my position
    2. If says that you have a burden that you have no obligation to accept.

    And my "possible" argument does neither of those.
    1. It has provided support - you have admitted on more than one occasion that it is logically valid
    2. It does not ask you to support the opposing conclusion. At no point does it say to you that you must do anything in particular. I mean IF you want to argue that it's impossible you may but I did not request that you do it.
    Of course it does. You are claiming it is possible then it is your burden to show it is. Resorting to me proving it is impossible is not support.

    I should point out that you should not be making such complaints on a public thread. You were specifically warned about this in the red-letter post. Of course you can complain if you feel that you have a legitimate complaint but it should be made via PM, not on a public thread

    And per my prior response on such complaints, I will not bother dragging the argument in that direction and explain how you are wrong on all accounts but just point out that you are wrong.
    Youíre right. Iíve removed the offending parts.




    First off, I think that is a pretty good definition.

    And it's your argument that such a thing does not occur outside of the brain so the burden is yours to support that it doesn't.

    I never claimed that I did know how such an event occurred and therefore have no burden to explain how it does happen.
    No, you are saying it is POSSIBLE so you must *demonstrate* that it is.





    What? I agree that I need to know what conscious is to hold the position that consciousness might be able exist outside of the body but the notion that the term "consciousness" has not been adequately understood by either of us is directly contradicted by the fact THAT WE HAVE BEEN HAVING A COHERENT CONVERSATION ON THE TOPIC OVER SEVERAL POSTS.

    The notion that I have inadequately defined consciousness is ludicrous! And besides that, even if that was the case, YOU solved the problem by providing a dictionary definition which happens to completely coincide with how we've been using the word "consciousness" all along.

    This complaint is just ridiculous! And to me its ridiculousness seems pretty on par with the rest of your complaints.

    Now on a side note, while it's clear that you have gone against what Squatch told you not to do, I can understand your actions if they are taken out of sheer frustration and therefore think that this can be excused to some extent since we have likewise been conversing with him. So I'm not advocating any particular action be taken by a moderator on this. And I don't know when Squatch is going to deal with this. But I do ask that if you are going to make another post before Squatch chimes in, that it not contain these kinds of complaints at all. Again, you are not suppose to be making them on public threads.
    Iíve removed the offending notes. Hopefully you can get back on track now.






    How does that support that such a thing doesn't happen by some other method if the consciousness were to not be in the body. For example, if the conscioussness is floating above the body in a room, it can still be exposed to sound waves and light waves. Can you support that a disembodied consciousness cannot interpret such waves to see and hear what is going on?
    Well, you canít talk about floating unless youíve shown it is possible. Itís all speculation at this point.



    No I don't. It's YOUR argument that such a thing does not happen. Asking me to support that it does happen would be shifting the burden. So assuming you are not attempting to shift the burden, then it's agreed that I have no burden to support that happens. And therefore I have no burden to explain how it happens.
    Yes, it is since you brought it up as being possible.




    Since you agreed that I have supported that it's logically possible via a different method, that issue has been settled.

    The fact that you have issues with how I supported that it's possible does not effect that I've supported that it's possible.
    All I have agreed to is that people are making claims in pseudoscientific journals. You havenít supported that NDEs are possible.

    The ONLY point I have made from the articles on NDES is that there are 3000+ claims that they happened. Saying that I used those articles for any other reason is a red herring and will be ignored as such.

    And THIS is a point that Squatch has acknowledged has been supported. So I have only TWO claims regarding NDEs

    1. There are 3000+ claims of them occurring
    2. It is possible that NDEs happen.

    Both claims are supported.
    I agree with the first and disagree with the second. Where have you supported they can happen? And are you talking about peopleís reported experiences or are you talking that their experience truly happened?


    No. I'm saying that it is SUPPORTED that 3000+ people have claimed that they have had NDE experiences. And I am claiming that it's possible that some people have had actual NDE experiences.

    Any alternative interpretations of what I said are incorrect.
    What a load of tosh. Youíre saying it is possible that people can claim an experience? Really, thatís all you have?
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 2nd, 2019 at 01:45 PM.

  5. #145
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course it does. You are claiming it is possible then it is your burden to show it is.
    And I have met that burden. You have pointed out that my argument is logically sound. So I have supported, with logic the OBEs are possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Resorting to me proving it isn’t is not support.
    And I didn't resort to asking you to support the opposite conclusion. At no point have I requested that you support that it's impossible.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, you are saying it is POSSIBLE so you must demonstrate that it is.
    And I've done it. And I will do it again. I will use a logic chain this time.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    And before you trot out "shifting the burden" again, I have not asked that you support that the OBEs are impossible. I've just observed that that has not been done.

    I have made no demands that you do it.

    Again, shifting the burden is in effect if I:
    1. Do not support my claim myself
    2. Demand that you support the opposite conclusion.

    Neither of those things have taken place.



    As far as what follows, it looks like it's all my statements put in some funky formatting. So I don't see any points of yours to respond to so I'll stop here.

  6. #146
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Calm down Sharmak. Your OP, to me at least, is an argument against the religious concept of the soul. Your main points are religious points. Personally, I didnít find that too inspiring or mentally engaging Ė but thatís just me. There was no intentional gotcha intent on my part. I noted one glimmer of interest in one little sentence in your religious dissertation against the soul about evidence -- which you later clarified, ďevidence doesnít exist.Ē Then you further clarified and said any ďevidence would have to not be open to interpretation.Ē Well that pretty much rules out all possible interesting debate about evidence for the subject of your OP ďthe soul,Ē which you define as: ďimmaterial ďessence,Ē Immortal, Provides the animating force behind a personís actionsĒ -- at least from my perspective, unless one wants to engage in pages of debate about data interpretations Ė which to me is no fun.
    OK. Then I apologize for taking it that way. It does help to understand why you decided not to engage further and thank you for the clarification.

    ---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I have met that burden. You have pointed out that my argument is logically sound. So I have supported, with logic the OBEs are possible.
    I just agreed that your statement is sound but also adds nothing to the debate. I also disagree that that counts as support. All youíre saying is that your unconvinced something is impossible until youíre convinced otherwise, which is nonsensical tautology about why youíre holding a position.

    Yes, I agree that you have not been shown it is impossible. I disagree that merely restating your position counts as support.


    And I didn't resort to asking you to support the opposite conclusion. At no point have I requested that you support that it's impossible.
    Weíre in a debate on opposite sides. Of course thatís what youíre saying.




    And I've done it. And I will do it again. I will use a logic chain this time.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    And before you trot out "shifting the burden" again, I have not asked that you support that the OBEs are impossible. I've just observed that that has not been done.

    I have made no demands that you do it.

    Again, shifting the burden is in effect if I:
    1. Do not support my claim myself
    2. Demand that you support the opposite conclusion.

    Neither of those things have taken place.
    And this is as nonsensical the first time as every time you post this. All you are doing is saying youíre saying OBEs are possible without saying why. You still have to support why you think it is possible.

    As far as what follows, it looks like it's all my statements put in some funky formatting. So I don't see any points of yours to respond to so I'll stop here.
    I saved too early and responded above.

  7. #147
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I just agreed that your statement is sound but also adds nothing to the debate
    It depends on whether supporting that OBEs are possible adds something to the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I also disagree that that counts as support. All you’re saying is that your unconvinced something is impossible until you’re convinced otherwise, which is nonsensical tautology about why you’re holding a position.
    Wrong. It is not based on how convinced I am. Either support that OBEs are impossible has been provided in this debate or it has not. If it has not, then OBEs have not been shown to be impossible and per the sound logic of my argument, are possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes, I agree that you have not been shown it is impossible. I disagree that merely restating your position counts as support.
    The repetition doesn't mean it's supported.

    Its sound logic means it's supported.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    We’re in a debate on opposite sides. Of course that’s what you’re saying.
    No, it's not what I'm saying. Whether you want to challenge my argument is irrelevant to whether it's supported or not.

    If you want to challenge it, then challenge it. If you don't want to challenge it, then don't.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And this is as nonsensical the first time as every time you post this. All you are doing is saying you’re saying OBEs are possible without saying why. You still have to support why you think it is possible.
    Because:

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    A logically valid argument is a supported argument. This IS support.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I saved too early and responded above.
    No worries.

  8. #148
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,756
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s possible I’m not understanding why I haven’t met this challenge yet, so I will summarize my position as to why OOBE is nonsense:
    Your response details your questions about OOBEs and what you view would be necessary to prove them as occurring.

    Nonsense means that the concept is itself incoherent or that it has no meaning.

    Showing that there are unanswered questions about a concept does not show that it is logically incoherent. Thus this claim has not been met.

    That does not mean, of course, that OOBEs exist or are probable. It simply means you haven't shown that they are a nonsensical concept.





    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I believe that all talk of consciousness was dropped - it wasn’t my tactical mistake to link consciousness with the soul in the first place. It also wasn’t my mistake to say that ALL religions think this. And the person that did agreed to drop all talk of consciousness, so this line of discussion irrelevant IMHO. Let me know if I’m wrong.

    This would seem to be a necessary consequent of your argument. But if you are not making the claim explicitly it is up to someone else to point that out. Challenge stricken.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    WAIT: WHERE HAVE YOU SUPPORTED THAT OOBEs are POSSIBLE? If you’re going to trot out that it’s possible until proven otherwise, then I ask that Squatch rule on whether this is shifting the burden on me to prove it is IMPOSSIBLE.
    Mican pointed out in post 130 and earlier that the concept itself is not logically incoherent. IE that there isn't specifically a definitional issue with consciousness requiring a physical body as presented. This does not show that they are probable or comport with external evidence, but does allow for the argument to be coherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    2. In order to say that it is POSSIBLE, you still have to explain the mechanisms to have such experiences
    This is not actually correct. For example, we knew it was possible for birds to fly (via observing them) long before we could explain the mechanisms of lift. To be possible it only needs to be shown that an idea is logically coherent and does not conflict with known facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    However, this is one of those bottom of the barrel “arguments” that may be logically true but it wholly puts the burden on me to prove it impossible...

    Not necessarily. You could, for example show that the definition of OOBE is logically incoherent. Or show that it is inconsistent with a known fact. Those would be ways to reject his rebuttal.

    I don't think the burden is being shifted in the way you seem to. Remember, it was your original claim (in the OP) that this entire class of things don't exist. That is a very heavy burden to bear in a debate so it shouldn't be surprising that examples are forwarded that would object to that conclusion.

    To take a hypothetical. Let's say that I started a thread that said mathematicians cannot exist for X,Y,Z reasons. Now let's say an objection was raised that it is certainly possible that someone went to university and studied math and practices it for a living. That would be an attempted rebuttal. There are lots of ways to show that rebuttal doesn't work, but I shouldn't be surprised that I need to counter the rebuttal given that the original claim "mathematicians cannot exist" was mine.


    Formal finding, Mican is not shifting the burden. OOBEs were raised as an example of something possible in counter to an original claim made by the OP. Mican has offered support that they are possible. Sharmak is offering a counter claim that they are not possible, it is incumbent on him to support that claim just as it was incumbent on Mican to support his.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    So now, @squatch, we have a clear admission, and not for the first time, that mican is deliberately withholding information that he has to have in order to hold the position he is holding.

    I would encourage you to re-read his post with the principle of charity in mind. I don't read the quoted text at all as him saying he is withholding information, but rather as him saying that by accepting your argument, he places himself in an unacceptable position of being at your whim for whether to accept his text or not. That he could, in theory, write forever and you would still be able to say "I don't understand." This isn't trolling, he is trying to explain the consequences of the position you are taking as he sees them. [Side note: I'm not saying he is right or wrong, only that that is how I read this text.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Huh? So all you are saying is that it is *possible* that *people claim NDE* and not *NDE itself*? Are you f**king serious? That’s all you have? This is a joke.

    I would suggest that you consider rereading this section with the principle of charity as well. I'd also consider that when getting frustrated with a debater to take a moment before composing, or come back and edit text after a short break. This kind of text is already toeing a line between a rebuttal and just blatant hostility.

    If you feel that the distinction between actual and possible is irrelevant to his argument, detail why. Make an argument why his point is irrelevant or why mere possibility doesn't support his point or something. Simply swearing in incredulity doesn't help your position or convince anyone of your point.


    I often write my posts not directly at my opponent but at any third parties who might be reading it (you'd be surprised how often that happens). Write to convince that neutral third party who is more interested in argument and evidence than bluster.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It depends on whether supporting that OBEs are possible adds something to the debate.

    I'm assuming that at some point following the discussion of possibility you'll offer a more robust explanation of how the possibility of an OOBE undermines the OP's assertion that souls do no, in fact, exist?
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 2nd, 2019 at 02:20 PM.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
  10. #149
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It depends on whether supporting that OBEs are possible adds something to the debate.
    If youíre making claims they forward you case, then of course it does!


    Wrong. It is not based on how convinced I am. Either support that OBEs are impossible has been provided in this debate or it has not. If it has not, then OBEs have not been shown to be impossible and per the sound logic of my argument, are possible.
    You basically, youíre putting forward a position that youíre not convinced about either way to support your agnostic position on souls!? Really!


    The repetition doesn't mean it's supported.

    Its sound logic means it's supported.
    No, you have only supported that you are unconvinced they are impossible. Now explain why you are unconvinced even though your only support is a pseudoscientific journal and an article that shows thereís no support for OBE! Where are you getting your information from, when al that you have presented shows the whole enterprise is sketchy to begin with.


    You still cannot use that logic to demonstrate that OBEs are possibly true since that is a restatement of your position. And I donít disagree with that position.

    Since you have said people make this claim, then in order to accept their claims you need to show OBEs are possible. Otherwise, why are you neutral on the matter!?

  11. #150
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If you’re making claims they forward you case, then of course it does!
    Okay. Then my argument adds something to the debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You basically, you’re putting forward a position that you’re not convinced about either way to support your agnostic position on souls!? Really!
    Uh yeah, agnosticism is pretty much the definition of "not convinced about it either way".

    If I took the position that it's proven the OBEs are valid or the position that OBEs are bunk, it wouldn't be an agnostic position would it? But possible is entirely in line with agnosticism. Maybe, maybe not. Possible.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, you have only supported that you are unconvinced they are impossible.
    No, my logic chain makes no mention of whether I am convinced or unconvinced. It just supports that they are possible.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Now explain why you are unconvinced even though your only support is a pseudoscientific journal and an article that shows there’s no support for OBE! Where are you getting your information from, when al that you have presented shows the whole enterprise is sketchy to begin with.
    I am unconvinced because I've seen no proof that OBEs happen and I've seen no proof that they don't happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You still cannot use that logic to demonstrate that OBEs are possibly true since that is a restatement of your position. And I don’t disagree with that position.

    Since you have said people make this claim, then in order to accept their claims you need to show OBEs are possible. Otherwise, why are you neutral on the matter!?
    And I have shown that OBEs are possible. See logic chain above.

  12. #151
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your response details your questions about OOBEs and what you view would be necessary to prove them as occurring.

    Nonsense means that the concept is itself incoherent or that it has no meaning.

    Showing that there are unanswered questions about a concept does not show that it is logically incoherent. Thus this claim has not been met.

    That does not mean, of course, that OOBEs exist or are probable. It simply means you haven't shown that they are a nonsensical concept.

    Maybe I’m not getting something but why is it insufficient to point out that in order for physical knowledge of the universe to be absorbed, understood, remembered and transferred back to the body that there has to be more of an argument than “if it isn’t proven impossible, then it must be possible”? How is that support?



    This would seem to be a necessary consequent of your argument. But if you are not making the claim explicitly it is up to someone else to point that out. Challenge stricken.




    Mican pointed out in post 130 and earlier that the concept itself is not logically incoherent. IE that there isn't specifically a definitional issue with consciousness requiring a physical body as presented. This does not show that they are probable or comport with external evidence, but does allow for the argument to be coherent.
    In that case, then that too needs to be supported. It’s all very well declaring it’s not logically incoherent without saying why. And even if C doesn’t need a body, it doesn’t follow that it doesn’t need a physical substrate either. We have jumped from a physical reality to some unknown plane of existence. All without support!

    This is not actually correct. For example, we knew it was possible for birds to fly (via observing them) long before we could explain the mechanisms of lift. To be possible it only needs to be shown that an idea is logically coherent and does not conflict with known facts.
    Except that in the case of birds we see them fly. In the case of OBE claims, we have pseudoscience and speculation. If someone is claiming the supernatural then it has to be declared, otherwise it is unsupported. All that’s happening here isn’t facts but speculation with no support. And *because* we hit physical reality on either end of the experience that has to be explained.

    That the person is always in the same room should also raise the question as to why this is being deliberately ignored! So we *already* have a logical explanation, yet somehow anyone can put forward unsupported junk from some likely sketchy poll and claim it all to be possible!





    Not necessarily. You could, for example show that the definition of OOBE is logically incoherent. Or show that it is inconsistent with a known fact. Those would be ways to reject his rebuttal.

    I don't think the burden is being shifted in the way you seem to. Remember, it was your original claim (in the OP) that this entire class of things don't exist. That is a very heavy burden to bear in a debate so it shouldn't be surprising that examples are forwarded that would object to that conclusion.
    I pointed out all the information transfer steps. Why isn’t sufficient? That it is dismissed so easily is irksome.


    To take a hypothetical. Let's say that I started a thread that said mathematicians cannot exist for X,Y,Z reasons. Now let's say an objection was raised that it is certainly possible that someone went to university and studied math and practices it for a living. That would be an attempted rebuttal. There are lots of ways to show that rebuttal doesn't work, but I shouldn't be surprised that I need to counter the rebuttal given that the original claim "mathematicians cannot exist" was mine. [/COLOR]

    Formal finding, Mican is not shifting the burden. OOBEs were raised as an example of something possible in counter to an original claim made by the OP. Mican has offered support that they are possible. Sharmak is offering a counter claim that they are not possible, it is incumbent on him to support that claim just as it was incumbent on Mican to support his.
    That’s what I’m asking? What is this support?



    I would encourage you to re-read his post with the principle of charity in mind. I don't read the quoted text at all as him saying he is withholding information, but rather as him saying that by accepting your argument, he places himself in an unacceptable position of being at your whim for whether to accept his text or not. That he could, in theory, write forever and you would still be able to say "I don't understand." This isn't trolling, he is trying to explain the consequences of the position you are taking as he sees them. [Side note: I'm not saying he is right or wrong, only that that is how I read this text.]
    That’s kinda what debating IS about so therefore it’s stonewalling.




    I would suggest that you consider rereading this section with the principle of charity as well. I'd also consider that when getting frustrated with a debater to take a moment before composing, or come back and edit text after a short break. This kind of text is already toeing a line between a rebuttal and just blatant hostility.

    If you feel that the distinction between actual and possible is irrelevant to his argument, detail why. Make an argument why his point is irrelevant or why mere possibility doesn't support his point or something. Simply swearing in incredulity doesn't help your position or convince anyone of your point.


    I often write my posts not directly at my opponent but at any third parties who might be reading it (you'd be surprised how often that happens). Write to convince that neutral third party who is more interested in argument and evidence than bluster.
    Good point. I will be more careful





    I'm assuming that at some point following the discussion of possibility you'll offer a more robust explanation of how the possibility of an OOBE undermines the OP's assertion that souls do no, in fact, exist?
    [/Quote]
    I don’t know. It’s not my pseudoscience.

    ---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. Then my argument adds something to the debate.
    No it doesn’t - you are just stonewalling.



    Uh yeah, agnosticism is pretty much the definition of "not convinced about it either way".

    If I took the position that it's proven the OBEs are valid or the position that OBEs are bunk, it wouldn't be an agnostic position would it? But possible is entirely in line with agnosticism. Maybe, maybe not. Possible.
    But if you read your own supporting materials, that might help you go one way of the other. That twice you supported by position that OBEs are bunk should tell you so.


    No, my logic chain makes no mention of whether I am convinced or unconvinced. It just supports that they are possible.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.
    OBEs haven’t been explained yet to show that they’re impossible. Because you refuse to go further into how it can happen, or even what it is being happened *to*, I.e. what is consciousness anyway? You are saying nothing other than you believe that pseudoscience can be possible.


    I am unconvinced because I've seen no proof that OBEs happen and I've seen no proof that they don't happen.
    So all the materials pointing in the direction of bunk somehow has no effect on you?

    And I have shown that OBEs are possible. See logic chain above.
    No, again, all you have shown is that something which you will not explain is possible, despite your own evidence pointing to it as bunk.
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 6th, 2019 at 01:16 PM. Reason: tag fix

  13. #152
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But if you read your own supporting materials, that might help you go one way of the other. That twice you supported by position that OBEs are bunk should tell you so.
    Have I not made it cleat that the ONLY thing I was supporting with those articles are that that are 3000+ claims of NDEs? Beyond that, whatever else is in the article is completely irrelevant to any argument I've made.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OBEs haven’t been explained yet to show that they’re impossible. Because you refuse to go further into how it can happen, or even what it is being happened *to*, I.e. what is consciousness anyway? You are saying nothing other than you believe that pseudoscience can be possible.
    I'm saying, and have supported, that OBEs are possible.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So all the materials pointing in the direction of bunk somehow has no effect on you?
    What material are you referring to? Are you saying that the articles that I used to support the 3000 number have evidence in there that OBEs are bunk and never actually happen?

    If so, please support that assertion. Otherwise your claim fails for lack of support.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, again, all you have shown is that something which you will not explain is possible, despite your own evidence pointing to it as bunk.
    You can't just say "Nope" to support.

    The logic chain IS support. Just denying that it is without providing an argument that reveals that it's flawed in somehow and does not support the conclusion is not a rebuttal.

    The logic chain stands as support until you provide an actual rebuttal.

  14. #153
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Have I not made it cleat that the ONLY thing I was supporting with those articles are that that are 3000+ claims of NDEs? Beyond that, whatever else is in the article is completely irrelevant to any argument I've made.
    No, you had a second claim saying it was possible they had NDEs.

    I'm saying, and have supported, that OBEs are possible.
    Not with any substance you havenít. I donít accept that you have shown they are possible because you havenít explained anything about how!


    What material are you referring to? Are you saying that the articles that I used to support the 3000 number have evidence in there that OBEs are bunk and never actually happen?

    If so, please support that assertion. Otherwise your claim fails for lack of support.
    Yes! You first started off with a pseudoscientific blog and then went to an article that practically debunked the whole thing. So there NO evidence they happened. There is only evidence that people CLAIMed it happened and therefore you have no proof anything actually did occur in the way they claimed. And certainly you have no warrant to say it is POSSIBLE!



    You can't just say "Nope" to support.

    The logic chain IS support. Just denying that it is without providing an argument that reveals that it's flawed in somehow and does not support the conclusion is not a rebuttal.

    The logic chain stands as support until you provide an actual rebuttal.
    Itís flawed because you are repeating a position of disbelief and not why.

  15. #154
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, you had a second claim saying it was possible they had NDEs.
    Well, the logic I forward supports that claim just as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Not with any substance you haven’t. I don’t accept that you have shown they are possible because you haven’t explained anything about how!
    But then you don't just get to decide that support is not support. There are many ways to support an argument and if one works, then the argument is supported. And an argument that combines a truism with a fact to reach a conclusion has supported that conclusion.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    So you can't just say "huh-uh" because you personally don't like the way I supported my argument and woild be much more satisfied if I had one it a different way.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes! You first started off with a pseudoscientific blog and then went to an article that practically debunked the whole thing. So there NO evidence they happened.There is only evidence that people CLAIMed it happened and therefore you have no proof anything actually did occur in the way they claimed. And certainly you have no warrant to say it is POSSIBLE!
    Yes I do. I supported that it's possible with the logic chain you see above.

    And I never claimed that any of the articles provided evidence that it actually did happen which is not a problem for me since I'm not arguing that they did happen. I'm only arguing that it's possible.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s flawed because you are repeating a position of disbelief and not why.
    That reveals no flaw in my logic chain.

  16. #155
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, the logic I forward supports that claim just as well.
    No it doesnít. It just supports why you continue to disbelieve the impossibility of it. It doesnít support it is actually possible. Especially since all the information you have presented on the matter is pseudoscience and suspect.


    But then you don't just get to decide that support is not support. There are many ways to support an argument and if one works, then the argument is supported. And an argument that combines a truism with a fact to reach a conclusion has supported that conclusion.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    So you can't just say "huh-uh" because you personally don't like the way I supported my argument and woild be much more satisfied if I had one it a different way.
    Iím not just say huh-uh. I am saying that you have no warrant to say it is possible because all the information you have presented is suspect. Itís the pseudoscience, itís the unreliable witnesses. Itís the unnecessary nature of what youíre claiming.

    Thereís nothing to support your case that itís possible. If all you have is that it hasnít been proven impossible then you are hanging on by a Barr thread with nothing to support it even happened.



    And I never claimed that any of the articles provided evidence that it actually did happen which is not a problem for me since I'm not arguing that they did happen. I'm only arguing that it's possible.
    You canít argue that itís possible unless youíre putting some credence on the pseudoscience or the claims from the people that purport to have experienced it. After all youíre offering them as some kind of evidence OBE exists, right? Otherwise, we wouldnít be talking about it.

    All your information about it even happening is unreliable so I donít think you can even say the people are speaking the truth of what they experienced

    That reveals no flaw in my logic chain.
    The flaw in your logic chain is that it is a generic bunk that could apply to anything from the flat earth to dragons and all sorts of nonsense in between. Itís literally meaningless and offers no support. Itís also a ridiculous tautology that adds no meaning.

    Nevertheless, I fear we have strayed way too far from the OP and I accept that you have no position to speak of. I think weíre about three levels of agnosticism with no way out since your knowledge base seems poorly sourced to begin with.

    At this point, you have failed to disprove my OP and just went onto tangents about consciousness, which you have still failed to link to the soul; and only dug yourself another hole by claiming ALL religions claimed the same. And this OBE side track is obviously not going to get resolved since youíre not going to offer any reasoning.

    So I have to conclude that my OP stands.

  17. #156
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No it doesn’t. It just supports why you continue to disbelieve the impossibility of it. It doesn’t support it is actually possible. Especially since all the information you have presented on the matter is pseudoscience and suspect.
    This does not rebut the veracity of what I have used to support my argument one bit. I am NOT using the articles about NDEs as my basis of support so what they say, unless you can use them to support that NDEs are not possible, is irrelevant. Here is my argument for NDEs being possible.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    That's it. No more and no less. Either you can reveal a flaw in this logic chain or you cannot. If you cannot then it stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’m not just say huh-uh. I am saying that you have no warrant to say it is possible because all the information you have presented is suspect. It’s the pseudoscience, it’s the unreliable witnesses. It’s the unnecessary nature of what you’re claiming.
    Which in no way points to the logic chain that I AM USING TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT is invalid.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    IThere’s nothing to support your case that it’s possible. If all you have is that it hasn’t been proven impossible then you are hanging on by a Barr thread with nothing to support it even happened.
    Which might be a problem for me if I was taking the position that it happened. But then my position is that it's possible that it happened and my logic chain supports that it is possible.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You can’t argue that it’s possible unless you’re putting some credence on the pseudoscience or the claims from the people that purport to have experienced it.
    Yes I can. The logic chain clearly shows that I can argue that it's possible without addressing the credibility of NDEs. Not only can I do it, I've done it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    After all you’re offering them as some kind of evidence OBE exists, right?
    WRONG!!!!!! Seriously, pay attention to something when I say it.

    I have said NUMEROUS TIMES, that I was using those article on NDEs to support JUST ONE THING.

    THEY ARE USED TO SUPPORT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN 3000+ CLAIMS OF NDES. THAT IT'S.

    Any notion that I have used those articles for any other purpose is completely incorrect.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The flaw in your logic chain is that it is a generic bunk that could apply to anything from the flat earth to dragons and all sorts of nonsense in between.
    That is not a flaw. Just because something can be effectively used for other things does not show that it's flawed.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s literally meaningless and offers no support.
    Just saying that does not make it so. You actually have t show that it's wrong - that it fails to support the conclusion that it claims to support before you can say it fails to offer support.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s also a ridiculous tautology that adds no meaning.
    Which likewise in no way shows that it does not reach the conclusion that it reaches.

    Question to opponent.Given that my logic chain is:

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    Do you disagree that it uses a valid logical truism (point 1) and a fact (point 2) to logically lead to its conclusion (3). If so, please show how it fails to do that. If not, then the logic chain does support its conclusion.

    Saying something like "Yeah, but it can used to support silly things like dragons exising" is still a "yeah" and does not reveal a flaw in the chain.

    If you want to argue that the logic chain is valid but you aren't impressed that I've shown that OBEs are possible because things we know are silly, like dragons also existing, are likewise possible using that logic chain, that fine. But you can't say that logic chain does not support is conclusion unless you can actually show that points 1 or 2 are not valid points or they fail to support point 3.

    So to be clear, do you argue that there is factual or logical flaw in the logic chain? If yes, what it is it. If no, then the chain is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nevertheless, I fear we have strayed way too far from the OP and I accept that you have no position to speak of.
    And you are wrong, of course as you always are when you say that I have no position.

    My position is that you have not supported that the soul does not exist. And so far my position seems to be correct. I have yet to see an argument that the soul does not exist that has stood up to scrutiny.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I think we’re about three levels of agnosticism with no way out since your knowledge base seems poorly sourced to begin with.
    Again, the only knowledge I forward from the article is that there are 3000 claims. Saying that I am using anything else from those articles as a knowledge based is completely incorrect. Saying that what's in articles has any effect on my logic chain is also incorrect for I do not attempt to use anything from there to support my logic chain.

    I think you are seriously confused on the relevance of the article to my logic chain. Since the article has nothing to do with my logic chain (beyond just showing that some people claim that OBEs happen which likewise isn't needed for me to forward the logic chain), try pretending that those articles were never forwarded. Again, their existence is irrelevant to whether my logic chain holds up or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    At this point, you have failed to disprove my OP and just went onto tangents about consciousness, which you have still failed to link to the soul; and only dug yourself another hole by claiming ALL religions claimed the same. And this OBE side track is obviously not going to get resolved since you’re not going to offer any reasoning.

    So I have to conclude that my OP stands.
    1. The burden is not on me to disprove your OP. The burden is on you to support your OP. Saying that you OP stands because no one has shown that it is wrong is, ironically, classic shifting the burden. So currently you OP fails because it has not been supported when challenged.

    2. I have offered reasoning why OBEs are possible. You just keep failing to accept it and likewise have failed to reveal any flaw in the logic of it (in fact, you have conceded more than once that the logic is good). So my position that OBEs are possible stands until you can show that the logic chain does not effectively support its conclusion via logic and fact.
    Last edited by mican333; March 3rd, 2019 at 07:28 AM.

  18. #157
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This does not rebut the veracity of what I have used to support my argument one bit. I am NOT using the articles about NDEs as my basis of support so what they say, unless you can use them to support that NDEs are not possible, is irrelevant. Here is my argument for NDEs being possible.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    That's it. No more and no less. Either you can reveal a flaw in this logic chain or you cannot. If you cannot then it stands.
    No. You donít get away with presenting pseudoscience and then an article that puts doubt on BOTH the accounts AND the science, or rather lack thereof; and then claim that NDEs are a real thing. Who cares whether you think NDEs are possible - itís still based on garbage. And that cannot stand.


    Which in no way points to the logic chain that I AM USING TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT is invalid.

    ...

    Sure, but your logic chain is based on poor information to begin with. We all know that everything you have presented is suspect. So there is no reason for you to hold your position. It carries no more weight than if you said that pigs can fly.




    Which might be a problem for me if I was taking the position that it happened. But then my position is that it's possible that it happened and my logic chain supports that it is possible.
    A logic chain based on garbage is still garbage. So yes, I agree that your logic chain based on unreliable information and pseudoscience and much better explained by the obvious elephant in the room.



    Yes I can. The logic chain clearly shows that I can argue that it's possible without addressing the credibility of NDEs. Not only can I do it, I've done it.
    Sure - thatís why your logic chain is rubbish. It can be used for well supported phenomena as well as, in this case, badly supported phenomena. So good luck with that.

    WRONG!!!!!! Seriously, pay attention to something when I say it.

    I have said NUMEROUS TIMES, that I was using those article on NDEs to support JUST ONE THING.

    THEY ARE USED TO SUPPORT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN 3000+ CLAIMS OF NDES. THAT IT'S.

    Any notion that I have used those articles for any other purpose is completely incorrect.
    Wait, youíve always maintained it was for two things. Firstly, what you say is true - there are cases of people making supported claims of NDEs and there are pseudoscience articles declaring all sorts of other equally unsupported claims because of that.

    However, you also use them to support that NDES are also possible.




    That is not a flaw. Just because something can be effectively used for other things does not show that it's flawed.
    When something can be used to maintain a position on supported phenomena as well as unsupported phenomena it pretty much points to it being practically useless. When coupled with a lack of further information, which you have repeatedly refused to supply because you donít want to be asked more questions tells me you have nothing.

    So on top of flawed accounts on a pseudoscientific phenomena you are using a truism, the bare minimum ďsupportĒ whilst avoiding providing information. Your whole enterprise here is flawed from top to bottom.

    And Iím still baffled as to how itís even related to anything.

    Just saying that does not make it so. You actually have t show that it's wrong - that it fails to support the conclusion that it claims to support before you can say it fails to offer support.

    Which likewise in no way shows that it does not reach the conclusion that it reaches.
    Nope. You have no support for NDEs, you refuse to supply information about NDEs other than pseudoscience and the only thing you have is just a pointless truism. So basically you donít even have ANYTHING to argue about so youíre not supporting anything but bad science.

    And you are wrong, of course as you always are when you say that I have no position.

    My position is that you have not supported that the soul does not exist. And so far my position seems to be correct. I have yet to see an argument that the soul does not exist that has stood up to scrutiny.
    Of course you have a position but it is one based on empty air.

    I assume you will delete this comment since we are not suppose to resort to personal comments about each other on this thread, right?
    Wait, what was wrong with that!?


    1. The burden is not on me to disprove your OP. The burden is on you to support your OP. Saying that you OP stands because no one has shown that it is wrong is, ironically, classic shifting the burden. So currently you OP fails because it has not been supported when challenged.
    I havenít had any challenges thus far so my OP stands. Youíve just been blathering on about how you wonít support why NDEs are possible.


    2. I have offered reasoning why OBEs are possible. You just keep failing to accept it and likewise have failed to reveal any flaw in the logic of it (in fact, you have conceded more than once that the logic is good). So my position that OBEs are possible stands until you can show that the logic chain does not effectively support its conclusion via logic and fact.
    OK. And?

  19. #158
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    I looked over my post after completing it and realized that I offered essential the same rebuttal numerous times (as I have a rebuttal that addresses several of your points - perhaps because some of your points are likewise redundant). Either way, I have now deleted several of my responses to avoid redundancy.


    I put this in my last post but it wasn't responded to. It was added in an edit so I'm guessing you just didn't see it when you made your response so I'm not accusing you of dodging it. But I think addressing this might clear some things up and move the debate forward.

    Question to opponent.Given that my logic chain is:

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    Do you disagree that it uses a valid logical truism (point 1) and a fact (point 2) to logically lead to its conclusion (3). If so, please show how it fails to do that. If not, then the logic chain does support its conclusion.

    Saying something like "Yeah, but it can used to support silly things like dragons exising" is still a "yeah" and does not reveal a flaw in the chain.

    If you want to argue that the logic chain is valid but you aren't impressed that I've shown that OBEs are possible because things we know are silly, like dragons also existing, can likewise be considered possible using that logic chain, that fine. But you can't say that logic chain does not support is conclusion unless you can actually show that points 1 or 2 are not valid points or they fail to support point 3.

    So to be clear, do you argue that there is factual or logical flaw in the logic chain? If yes, what it is it. If no, then the chain is valid.

    Which is not say that you can't make other arguments regarding it (like it's essentially meaningless) but whether it is logically valid or not must be established. And if it logically valid, then its conclusion is supported (even if you feel that the conclusion is silly or meaningless).


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No. You don’t get away with presenting pseudoscience and then an article that puts doubt on BOTH the accounts AND the science, or rather lack thereof; and then claim that NDEs are a real thing. Who cares whether you think NDEs are possible - it’s still based on garbage. And that cannot stand.
    Straw man. I never claimed NDEs are a real thing.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but your logic chain is based on poor information to begin with.
    SUPPORT OR RETACT that my logic chain is based on poor information.

    Which part of the logic chain has poor information?

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure - that’s why your logic chain is rubbish. It can be used for well supported phenomena as well as, in this case, badly supported phenomena. So good luck with that.
    So what you are saying is, in essence:

    The conclusion of the logic chain is supported (as in it's logically valid) but the conclusion doesn't really mean anything because the logic chain can be used to support all kinds of silly things.

    Correct? And I don't disagree that the logic chain can be used to support silly things. But that is a different issue than whether it is supported or not.

    So the logic chain does support its conclusion, regardless of how useful or useless its conclusion ultimately is.

    So how about we settle on that and move the debate along?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Wait, you’ve always maintained it was for two things. Firstly, what you say is true - there are cases of people making supported claims of NDEs and there are pseudoscience articles declaring all sorts of other equally unsupported claims because of that.
    I never said that people have made SUPPORTED claims of NDEs and I will clearly state that that is not my position. If you think I ever said that, then you have either mistaken what I said or I made an error in how I stated something. Regardless, that is not a position I forward.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    However, you also use them to support that NDES are also possible.
    Wrong. While they are part of the same conversation, the logic chain in no way relies on the article for support.

    In fact, the ONLY reason I brought up the articles was in reference to your appeal to ridicule argument to forward a similar facetious appeal to ridicule along the lines of "You're telling me that 3000 people had the same hallucination? Ridiculous!". Any assertion that I used the article for any reason other than that is incorrect.

    So no, I am not using the articles to support that NDEs are real or even possible.

    I am using my logic chain to support that they are possible and it in no way relies on the articles for validity.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So on top of flawed accounts on a pseudoscientific phenomena you are using a truism, the bare minimum “support” whilst avoiding providing information. Your whole enterprise here is flawed from top to bottom.
    your opinion is noted.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And I’m still baffled as to how it’s even related to anything.
    Well, if the conclusion of the logic chain isn't related to anything but is logically valid, then there's no reason to challenge the logic (which you have yet to do anyway).





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course you have a position but it is one based on empty air.
    No, it's based on a truism and a fact.

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    None of that is hot air. And if you think it's true but essentially meaningless to the debate, then just concede that the "meaningless" conclusion is supported.

    I mean, yes, I can use the same logic for dragons. Substitute OBEs for dragons and I have also supported that dragons are possible. And if you think that makes the whole thing ridiculous, fair enough.

    BUT that does not make the conclusion unsupported. The truism (1) and the fact (2) are correct and they logically support the conclusion (3).

    So if it is indeed all useless silliness that makes no difference to the actual debate, then concede the issue. And if you aren't going to concede that the logic chain is valid, then point out the logical/factual flaw in it.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Wait, what was wrong with that!?
    Sorry. I first thought you were referring to my personal knowledge base and therefore implying that I'm ignorant. But I realized that you were referring to the article and I changed my response. So no worries.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I haven’t had any challenges thus far so my OP stands. You’ve just been blathering on about how you won’t support why NDEs are possible.
    Go back to my very first response to your OP and there's your challenge. And not to re-play the whole debate but to my best understanding you've not responded to the challenges based on your scientific arguments (the red-letter section) and therefore you scientific arguments are not supported and likewise have stalled on supporting that the concept is meaningless.

    But either way, the debate is still ongoing so it's ridiculous for you to claim victory.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OK. And?
    And I have supported that OBEs are possible.
    Last edited by mican333; March 3rd, 2019 at 10:08 AM.

  20. #159
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I looked over my post after completing it and realized that I offered essential the same rebuttal numerous times (as I have a rebuttal that addresses several of your points - perhaps because some of your points are likewise redundant). Either way, I have now deleted several of my responses to avoid redundancy.
    Weíve going around in circles for days. Glad you finally noticed!


    I put this in my last post but it wasn't responded to. It was added in an edit so I'm guessing you just didn't see it when you made your response so I'm not accusing you of dodging it. But I think addressing this might clear some things up and move the debate forward.

    Question to opponent.Given that my logic chain is:

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    Do you disagree that it uses a valid logical truism (point 1) and a fact (point 2) to logically lead to its conclusion (3). If so, please show how it fails to do that. If not, then the logic chain does support its conclusion.

    Saying something like "Yeah, but it can used to support silly things like dragons exising" is still a "yeah" and does not reveal a flaw in the chain.

    If you want to argue that the logic chain is valid but you aren't impressed that I've shown that OBEs are possible because things we know are silly, like dragons also existing, can likewise be considered possible using that logic chain, that fine. But you can't say that logic chain does not support is conclusion unless you can actually show that points 1 or 2 are not valid points or they fail to support point 3.

    So to be clear, do you argue that there is factual or logical flaw in the logic chain? If yes, what it is it. If no, then the chain is valid.

    Which is not say that you can't make other arguments regarding it (like it's essentially meaningless) but whether it is logically valid or not must be established. And if it logically valid, then its conclusion is supported (even if you feel that the conclusion is silly or meaningless).
    I literally said that in my last post. So yes, I agree the logic chain is sound but it is useless without proper backing and support about NDEs. All the information you have provided is pseudoscience and unreliable witnesses.



    Straw man. I never claimed NDEs are a real thing.
    You are claiming it is possible they are a real thing.



    SUPPORT OR RETACT that my logic chain is based on poor information.

    Which part of the logic chain has poor information?

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.
    OBEs arenít anything you have supported even exists so youíre chain of logic is based on pseudoscience. You might as well claim spirits and ghosts exist just because someone says they experienced it.


    So what you are saying is, in essence:

    The conclusion of the logic chain is supported (as in it's logically valid) but the conclusion doesn't really mean anything because the logic chain can be used to support all kinds of silly things.

    Correct? And I don't disagree that the logic chain can be used to support silly things. But that is a different issue than whether it is supported or not.

    So the logic chain does support its conclusion, regardless of how useful or useless its conclusion ultimately is.

    So how about we settle on that and move the debate along?
    No. You keep harping on about your logic chain but not about the topic of the logic chain - namely the OBEs, which you havenít reliably reported exists or what it truly is!


    I never said that people have made SUPPORTED claims of NDEs and I will clearly state that that is not my position. If you think I ever said that, then you have either mistaken what I said or I made an error in how I stated something. Regardless, that is not a position I forward.
    So you have been quoting pseudoscience on claims that are NOT supported and yet somehow, youíre still saying itís possible that NDEs are real? And you use this for what purpose?


    Wrong. While they are part of the same conversation, the logic chain in no way relies on the article for support.
    Since the ONLY information you have put forward about OBEs are the articles, that is the only thing the chain CAN be based on!

    In fact, the ONLY reason I brought up the articles was in reference to your appeal to ridicule argument to forward a similar facetious appeal to ridicule along the lines of "You're telling me that 3000 people had the same hallucination? Ridiculous!". Any assertion that I used the article for any reason other than that is incorrect.

    So no, I am not using the articles to support that NDEs are real or even possible.

    I am using my logic chain to support that they are possible and it in no way relies on the articles for validity.
    So, since you refuse to describe or support what NDEs even are, and you are also saying the articles are not support AND the people themselves arenít support THEN you literally are talking about NOTHING!





    Well, if the conclusion of the logic chain isn't related to anything but is logically valid, then there's no reason to challenge the logic (which you have yet to do anyway).
    So much for summarizing and consolidating! I junked the rest of your response.

    Go back to my very first response to your OP and there's your challenge. And not to re-play the whole debate but to my best understanding you've not responded to the challenges based on your scientific arguments (the red-letter section) and therefore you scientific arguments are not supported and likewise have stalled on supporting that the concept is meaningless.

    But either way, the debate is still ongoing so it's ridiculous for you to claim victory.
    Then I consider you have retracted the case. Iím not going all the way back so that you can play gotcha games.

    My OP still stands.

  21. #160
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I literally said that in my last post. So yes, I agree the logic chain is sound but it is useless without proper backing and support about NDEs. All the information you have provided is pseudoscience and unreliable witnesses.
    Okay. So I have supported that OBEs are possible

    I have not supported that OBEs actually occur.

    Correct?



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You are claiming it is possible they are a real thing.
    Yes. And I have supported that it's possible that they are a real thing.

    The logic chain supports that it's possible that they are real. Just to be clear, since it's agreed that the logic chain is sound, it does indeed support that OBEs are possible.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OBEs aren’t anything you have supported even exists so you’re chain of logic is based on pseudoscience.
    I agree that I haven't supported that they exist (nor did I claim that they do).

    Please support that my logic chain is based on pseudoscience. Which point is based on pseudo science.?

    1. TRUISM - except for that which is proven impossible, everything must be considered possible
    2. FACT - OBEs have not been proven to be impossible
    3. Therefore, logically, OBEs must be considered possible.

    Is it point 1? Is it point 2?



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No. You keep harping on about your logic chain but not about the topic of the logic chain - namely the OBEs, which you haven’t reliably reported exists or what it truly is!
    The ONLY reason that I keep "harping on" about my logic chain being supported is because you keep claiming that it's not. Am I suppose to say "I guess this time you are right that my logic chain is not supported despite the fact that is admittedly logically sound"? Of course not. If you say a logically sound logic chain is not supported, then I'm going to point out that it is. Stop denying that it's supported and I'll stop arguing at that is supported.

    And I'm guessing you don't remember (and I don't blame you for that since it was a while back), the ONLY reason I brought up OBEs was to rebut your argument that says that consciousness cannot have experiences outside of the brain. And I'm using OBEs as a HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE of a situation where it POSSIBLY happens. So no, I am not for one second trying to convince you or anyone that OBEs actually occur and therefore have no reason to discuss them further than just showing that it's possible that consciousness can have experiences outside of the mind and therefore your claim that they can't is incorrect.

    Intentional on your part or not (probably not), you trying to move the conversation to whether OBEs actually happen is a complete red herring.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So you have been quoting pseudoscience on claims that are NOT supported and yet somehow, you’re still saying it’s possible that NDEs are real? And you use this for what purpose?
    Explained above.

    And I believe the ONLY thing I actually quoted from those articles is the number of claims. This is what I quoted from the article in The Atlantic in its entirety. Post 96.

    Of those books, probably the single best overview is The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation, an anthology published in 2009. As The Handbook outlines, by 2005 dozens of studies involving nearly 3,500 subjects who reported having had NDEs had become material for some 600 scholarly articles.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...iences/386231/


    Is THAT a pseudoscientific claim? Nope. And earlier I provided a similar quote from a different article that provided a larger number but you found that source to not be credible so I retracted that one.

    So that's it. I've only quoted that a certain numbers of NDEs were claimed and have forwarded NOTHING that alleges that NDEs actually happen or don't happen.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Since the ONLY information you have put forward about OBEs are the articles, that is the only thing the chain CAN be based on!
    The chain is not based on the article AT ALL.

    It's based on a logical truism (point 1) and a fact (point 2).



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So, since you refuse to describe or support what NDEs even are, and you are also saying the articles are not support AND the people themselves aren’t support THEN you literally are talking about NOTHING!
    NO, I'm talking about NDEs and I credit you with knowing what they are just like I credit you with knowing what "consciousness" is earlier. So that's what I'm talking about.

    The "I don't know what you are talking about and therefore you are talking about nothing until you describe what it is you are referring to" argument is hogwash. You aren't ignorant to what we are discussing and you aren't stupid so OF COURSE you know what an NDE basically is even if you don't know everything about it.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then I consider you have retracted the case. I’m not going all the way back so that you can play gotcha games.

    My OP still stands.
    Again, it's ridiculous to claim victory in a debate when the debate is still ongoing.

    Your OP stands when you have demonstrated that there have been no effective challenges.

    And when you have failed to respond to SUPPORT OR RETRACT challenges, then you have objectively failed to support those particular points. I mean if you want to argue with me on this, I can go back and find those challenges (in the red-letter section that Squatch made) and re-issue them in my next post.
    Last edited by mican333; March 3rd, 2019 at 12:24 PM.

 

 
Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is the 'soul' ? do you have one?
    By isaone in forum Religion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 11th, 2008, 09:07 AM
  2. Soul To Soul
    By Vivacious Brat in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 05:30 PM
  3. The Soul
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: July 16th, 2007, 12:21 AM
  4. What is the soul?
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 10:31 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, 12:31 PM

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
  •