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 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 478
  1. #161
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. So I have supported that OBEs are possible

    I have not supported that OBEs actually occur.

    Correct?
    Youíve supported that you believe that OBEs are possible. To show that they are possible, you still have to detail as to what they are since the evidence youíve shown has been pseudoscience and faulty.

    Since your ďlogic chainĒ applies to anything, as you have readily conceded, I am still unclear as to what youíre actually talking about.

    I agree that I haven't supported that they exist (nor did I claim that they do).
    You havenít supported what they are, existence is obviously not supported since youíve just been spouting pseudoscience.

    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?
    Point 2 is referencing a pseudoscientific claim. And 3 as well.

    So essentially you are claiming pseudoscience is possible unless proven otherwise. That sounds like straw grasping to me but if thatís all you have then good on you!




    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.
    Like I said, this is a poorly supported pseudoscientific phenomena that youíre using to support a point about consciousness that you still havenít shown *is* soul to begin with.

    So basically the whole argument chain just going down a huge rabbit hole of pseudoscientific nonsense (I canít wait till you invoke the supernatural) that youíre going to claim is possible unless proven otherwise.

    Thus you really have nothing b

    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.
    And? So the rest of the material is suddenly irrelevant, even though it ends with an actual scientist suggesting a explanation, curiously enough the actual brain. So itís convenient to ignore all that of course, and just use the tiny part that supports your cause.


    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.
    Well, itís all very well ignoring the pseudoscience around the articles. Perhaps you might do better if you didnít have to use unreliable data to support anything at all. How about that for a start?


    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.
    But itís not MY argument to support what it is - thatís me erroneously trying to get to a common ground but since it isnít being reciprocated, I withdraw everything I have to say on the matter and get back to a position of, I have no idea what you are taking about.

    Youíve already been shown to be wrong that ALL religions believe that consciousness is the soul; and even went as far as if I *should* share your definition too! And you are also spouting pseudoscience, which makes me think that perhaps youíre wrong about NDEs too.

    So please explain what an NDE is.



    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.
    I havenít claimed victory - I am claiming it stands. As to whatever you think Iím supposed to support, at this point in time, Iím not sure how much of it is even necessary since youíve already shown to be thrice deep in a nested chain of unsupported claims, and with NDEs at least triply outright antiscientic. Coupled with your lack of forwarding actual information about anything and resorting to your famous truism, which you yourself, admit can apply to anything, I have to conclude you really have nothing to say.

    So all I have to do is not approach the points of challenge so I donít have to support or retract them. As you taught me, I just donít have to raise those points again. So I wonít.

    Instead, I insist that you stick to scientific and material explanations and explain what you mean.

  2. #162
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You’ve supported that you believe that OBEs are possible. To show that they are possible, you still have to detail as to what they are since the evidence you’ve shown has been pseudoscience and faulty.
    No I don't. You don't get to decide on your own what is and what is not support. A valid logic chain is support. Therefore:

    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 support that the conclusion is supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You haven’t supported what they are, existence is obviously not supported since you’ve just been spouting pseudoscience.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I have spouted pseudoscience.

    Please provide the alleged evidence forwarded or alleged argument that I made that "spouts pseudoscience"..

    And you cannot repeat that claim until you support it.

    Besides that, "you've just been spouting pseudoscience" is referring to me instead of my argument. Attack the argument, not the person. If you are saying that my argument is based on pseudoscience, then you should say "Your argument is based on pseudoscience" which would be an attack on my argument. But as we can see below, that argument goes nowhere (so far).



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Point 2 is referencing a pseudoscientific claim. And 3 as well.
    True. But I asked you to SUPPORT your claim that my logic chain is based on pseudoscience.

    Of course the chain is referencing pseudoscience but it is not based on pseudoscience. So that claim fails for lack of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Like I said, this is a poorly supported pseudoscientific phenomena that you’re using to support a point about consciousness that you still haven’t shown *is* soul to begin with.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I am using pseudoscience to support a point about consciousness.

    And just saying I did will not suffice. Please show the exact argument that I made (copy and paste it) that used pseudoscience as support. And I will say in advance that you will not do it because you cannot do it because you are just incorrect on that. So unless you can show that I've made such an argument, you cannot repeat this claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And? So the rest of the material is suddenly irrelevant, even though it ends with an actual scientist suggesting a explanation, curiously enough the actual brain. So it’s convenient to ignore all that of course, and just use the tiny part that supports your cause.
    I've ignored the rest of it because it's irrelevant to the argument I want to make.

    If YOU want to use that material to make your own argument regarding the issue, go ahead. But if I'm not using it to support an argument of mine and you aren't using it to support an argument of yours then it's completely irrelevant to any argument on this thread. So essentially you are wasting time by even talking about it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, it’s all very well ignoring the pseudoscience around the articles. Perhaps you might do better if you didn’t have to use unreliable data to support anything at all. How about that for a start?
    The only data I used was the data regarding 3000 claims of NDEs. The claim that I used anything else from the article for any purpose is wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But it’s not MY argument to support what it is
    And it's not mine either.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    that’s me erroneously trying to get to a common ground but since it isn’t being reciprocated, I withdraw everything I have to say on the matter and get back to a position of, I have no idea what you are taking about.
    But it's not up to me to define NDEs. I did not invent the concept. I learned about it and now I generally understand what it is. And of course you likewise generally understand what it is because you have been coherently debating that very thing for quite a while. I mean your argument where you mocked the idea of the consciousness seeing and hearing without sensory organs accurately described the whole process.

    So you do know what an NDE is. Maybe there are some specific things you don't understand but you generally do know what it is.

    I'm not sure what the point of pretending you don't know is suppose to accomplish.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I haven’t claimed victory - I am claiming it stands.
    Same thing. If an OP stands, then the creator of the OP wins.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    As to whatever you think I’m supposed to support, at this point in time, I’m not sure how much of it is even necessary since you’ve already shown to be thrice deep in a nested chain of unsupported claims, and with NDEs at least triply outright antiscientic. Coupled with your lack of forwarding actual information about anything and resorting to your famous truism, which you yourself, admit can apply to anything, I have to conclude you really have nothing to say.
    And if your opinion on the matter meant much of anything beyond it's just what you think, I might consider responding to this. I think something different but it would be as much a waste of time telling you what I think as it's a waste of time you telling me what you think.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So all I have to do is not approach the points of challenge so I don’t have to support or retract them. As you taught me, I just don’t have to raise those points again. So I won’t.
    Then those points are withdrawn and cannot be forwarded as true or accurate in this debate.

    Retracting a point IS withdrawing it from the debate. Choosing to not repeat it again within the debate is a form of withdrawal.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Instead, I insist that you stick to scientific and material explanations and explain what you mean.
    And since I am not subservient to you, I will decline to do as you insist.
    Last edited by mican333; March 4th, 2019 at 07:34 AM.

  3. #163
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No I don't. You don't get to decide on your own what is and what is not support. A valid logic chain is support. Therefore:

    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 support that the conclusion is supported.
    Well, let's take stock of where we are:

    1. You need to support that OBEs are possible by MORE than the truism. The reason why is that without solid information about what you're talking about, you're not supporting anything.
    2. Before you can do that, you need to explain better, but won't, as to what OBEs are. So we're kinda stuck.
    3. And you're using OBEs to show that consciousness could be disembodied, whatever that means, and that needs explaining too.
    4. And then your link from consciousness to souls is flawed too since you overstated your case ignored that different religions think of the soul totally differently.

    So you have quite a ways to go. It doesn't help that information about what you're talking about isn't forthcoming and the articles you quoted supports that it is more likely that OBEs are not examples of a disembodied consciousness at all but just an illusion.

    So, I have to disagree you have supported anything


    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I have spouted pseudoscience.

    Please provide the alleged evidence forwarded or alleged argument that I made that "spouts pseudoscience"..

    And you cannot repeat that claim until you support it.

    Besides that, "you've just been spouting pseudoscience" is referring to me instead of my argument. Attack the argument, not the person. If you are saying that my argument is based on pseudoscience, then you should say "Your argument is based on pseudoscience" which would be an attack on my argument. But as we can see below, that argument goes nowhere (so far).
    Firstly, youíre the one that chose to use a pseudoscience blog. It didnít magic itself and it was wholly your choice. So own it.

    Just a basic scan of the materials about OBEs invoke "astral walking" and all sorts of other pseudo science and all the science is looking at material causes, as described in your Atlantic article, relegating all the other "explanations" in the pseudo-science category. That you quoted it isn't *attacking* you but placing what you're saying in an arena that is outside of the OP: which is ostensibly about religion and science.

    And since the only sources you have provided are in the pseudoscience area, I think it's fair to say that BOTH you and the argument are pseudo scientific. You're certainly not even being scientific about the matter of being agnostic about it: you literally have an article where a "believer" hadn't even come up with experiments and you're weighing this guy's nonsense with a plausible explanation from an actual scientist. I don't even know how you can support an agnostic position after reading that article. And that's how your argument is basically 99% stalling on you providing information that shows you have no case, and 1% digging your heels in with your "truism".



    True. But I asked you to SUPPORT your claim that my logic chain is based on pseudoscience.

    Of course the chain is referencing pseudoscience but it is not based on pseudoscience. So that claim fails for lack of support.
    You're quibbling about nothing - if you're "referencing pseudoscience" then the chain is "based on pseudoscience". It's not like you're referencing it in a negative way and you're still saying it is possible, whilst ignoring an actual scientist in your own article.


    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I am using pseudoscience to support a point about consciousness.

    And just saying I did will not suffice. Please show the exact argument that I made (copy and paste it) that used pseudoscience as support. And I will say in advance that you will not do it because you cannot do it because you are just incorrect on that. So unless you can show that I've made such an argument, you cannot repeat this claim.
    Now I'm confused: just now you said you were "referencing pseudoscience". If you're referencing pseudoscience then you're *using* pseudoscience to support your case. Sounds like you're quibbling over nothing.



    I've ignored the rest of it because it's irrelevant to the argument I want to make.

    If YOU want to use that material to make your own argument regarding the issue, go ahead. But if I'm not using it to support an argument of mine and you aren't using it to support an argument of yours then it's completely irrelevant to any argument on this thread. So essentially you are wasting time by even talking about it.
    You have it backwards, the rest of your article makes your argument irrelevant, because it has a scientist suggesting that OBE are an illusion and we should be looking at the brain. I'm glad that you concede that you're just cherry picking information that supports your case, but to ignore the rest of what it has to say means that you haven't fully researched your position.

    So basically, at this point there have been incorrect statements on the religion, the science and the pseudoscience, which doesn't really help any of your arguments. Which basically points at the "agnostic" position not being based on a thorough understanding of the topic. In which case, I suggest you bone up on both sides before declaring any kind of position, much less an agnostic one.


    The only data I used was the data regarding 3000 claims of NDEs. The claim that I used anything else from the article for any purpose is wrong.
    Forgive me for assuming that you'd read the whole article. My bad for expecting you to know your sources beyond the pieces that were cherry picked to support your case.



    And it's not mine either.
    If you bring something up, it is your support as to what it is.


    But it's not up to me to define NDEs. I did not invent the concept. I learned about it and now I generally understand what it is. And of course you likewise generally understand what it is because you have been coherently debating that very thing for quite a while. I mean your argument where you mocked the idea of the consciousness seeing and hearing without sensory organs accurately described the whole process.

    So you do know what an NDE is. Maybe there are some specific things you don't understand but you generally do know what it is.

    I'm not sure what the point of pretending you don't know is suppose to accomplish.
    Well, this isn't about me, because it is *your* argument that NDEs are possible. And you're using that to support that consciousness could be disembodied. And you're using consciousness to support that souls may exist.

    However, the whole chain unravels when you're wrong on the consciousness point, and if you can't support what you even mean by NDEs. It's not up to me to guess what you mean by anything since you've already been wrong. And if we're in the realm of pseudoscience, then you have explain things better.


    Same thing. If an OP stands, then the creator of the OP wins.
    Well, I'm sorry that you have to lose but from my point of view, you're a LONG LONG way from being able to support anything about your case. And the best you have is a stack of agnostic positions contingent on each other. You're not helping your case by being deliberately reticent in providing the information needed to debunk yourself, so I accept your concession.

    And since I am not subservient to you, I will decline to do as you insist.
    And there we have it: you decline to debate in an open and honest manner. I accept your concession.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 5th, 2019 at 06:46 PM.

  4. #164
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, let's take stock of where we are:

    1. You need to support that OBEs are possible by MORE than the truism.
    Why? Because you say so?

    Again, a logic chain based on a truism and a fact that logically leads to a conclusion supports that conclusion.

    You just saying that I need to do more than that to support the conclusion is a baseless claim.

    I've provided supported. You can choose to attempt to show that my fails to support what it supports, you can choose to provide a counter-argument, or you can choose to let the point stand and move on.

    But you can't just say "nope. Not good enough".



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Firstly, you’re the one that chose to use a pseudoscience blog. It didn’t magic itself and it was wholly your choice. So own it.

    Just a basic scan of the materials about OBEs invoke "astral walking" and all sorts of other pseudo science and all the science is looking at material causes, as described in your Atlantic article, relegating all the other "explanations" in the pseudo-science category. That you quoted it isn't *attacking* you but placing what you're saying in an arena that is outside of the OP: which is ostensibly about religion and science.

    And since the only sources you have provided are in the pseudoscience area, I think it's fair to say that BOTH you and the argument are pseudo scientific. You're certainly not even being scientific about the matter of being agnostic about it: you literally have an article where a "believer" hadn't even come up with experiments and you're weighing this guy's nonsense with a plausible explanation from an actual scientist.
    Red herring. I never made any kind of argument about the weight of one side versus the other. You are literally referring to some kind of argument that I never forwarded.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't even know how you can support an agnostic position after reading that article.
    Another red herring. I'm not attempting to support the agnostic position.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And that's how your argument is basically 99% stalling on you providing information that shows you have no case, and 1% digging your heels in with your "truism".
    A reminder on what Squatch said in post 129 "Comments about opponents in whatever form (arguments about style, intelligence, etc) will not be tolerated in any form."



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You're quibbling about nothing - if you're "referencing pseudoscience" then the chain is "based on pseudoscience".
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that if an argument references pseudoscience then it's based on pseudoscience.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You have it backwards, the rest of your article makes your argument irrelevant, because it has a scientist suggesting that OBE are an illusion and we should be looking at the brain.
    If you want to argue that the article shows that OBEs are impossible, then you can use that article to support your case. Please provide the direct quote from the article that supports your position.

    Again, i only used the article to support that there were 3000 claims. That's it. If the article says something else that you want to bring to my attention, then show me the part you want to forward.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I'm glad that you concede that you're just cherry picking information that supports your case, but to ignore the rest of what it has to say means that you haven't fully researched your position.
    Here's a concept. A person knows a lot about a subject but chooses to just present one fact about the subject in a debate. The fact is you don't know how much I know about NDEs or how many articles or books I read and so on. All you know is that I've forwarded just one fact about it in this debate because it's the only fact relevant to an argument that I've made here.

    Forwarding other facts about NDEs that are irrelevant to my argument is a waste of our time.

    So you are again just forwarding personal comments about me as if they had some kind of relevance to my argument and they don't. Just because I've only said one thing does not mean that I only know one thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If you bring something up, it is your support as to what it is.
    Show me in the ODN rules where it says that.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, this isn't about me, because it is *your* argument that NDEs are possible. And you're using that to support that consciousness could be disembodied. And you're using consciousness to support that souls may exist.

    However, the whole chain unravels when you're wrong on the consciousness point, and if you can't support what you even mean by NDEs. It's not up to me to guess what you mean by anything since you've already been wrong. And if we're in the realm of pseudoscience, then you have explain things better.
    You don't have to guess what I mean. You apparently read the Atlantic article about NDEs and have even formed a position on whether they happen or not. So you have an adequate understanding of them to discuss them here.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, I'm sorry that you have to lose but from my point of view, you're a LONG LONG way from being able to support anything about your case. And the best you have is a stack of agnostic positions contingent on each other. You're not helping your case by being deliberately reticent in providing the information needed to debunk yourself, so I accept your concession.
    You do know that before you can accept one's concession, they actually have to concede, right?

    If not, you do now.

    And I have certainly not concede the point regarding my logic chain, especially since I have yet to see anything that I consider a valid rebuttal to it.
    Last edited by mican333; March 5th, 2019 at 08:59 PM.

  5. #165
    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
    Why? Because you say so?
    Because this is a debate. Youíve already admitted that you are refusing to provide information about NDEs because it might prompt me to ask more questions.

    As I said, the argument is poorly supported and NDEs are poorly explained and itís still the first step in a chain of equally incorrect chain of reasoning. So, itís best this is laid to bed.


    Again, a logic chain based on a truism and a fact that logically leads to a conclusion supports that conclusion.

    You just saying that I need to do more than that to support the conclusion is a baseless claim.

    I've provided supported. You can choose to attempt to show that my fails to support what it supports, you can choose to provide a counter-argument, or you can choose to let the point stand and move on.

    But you can't just say "nope. Not good enough".
    Nope. Not good enough. The counter argument is that NDEs have not been fully explained.

    Red herring. I never made any kind of argument about the weight of one side versus the other. You are literally referring to some kind of argument that I never forwarded.
    So you didnít read the whole article?

    Another red herring. I'm not attempting to support the agnostic position.
    I believe you have said you were several times in the debate.


    A reminder on what Squatch said in post 129 "Comments about opponents in whatever form (arguments about style, intelligence, etc) will not be tolerated in any form."
    I was answering a question! So now youíre just setting traps because you have no more answers. Besides, itís clear that I was talking about the poor argument and not the poor arguer. Iím sorry that I made you feel guilty about a poor argument. The paucity of information can not possibly be your fault and to blame you for cherry picking and ignoring your own articles surely shouldnít be laid at your feet.

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that if an argument references pseudoscience then it's based on pseudoscience.
    Huh? So the argument *are* using pseudoscience as a source!?

    If you want to argue that the article shows that OBEs are impossible, then you can use that article to support your case. Please provide the direct quote from the article that supports your position.

    Again, i only used the article to support that there were 3000 claims. That's it. If the article says something else that you want to bring to my attention, then show me the part you want to forward.
    Cherry picking it is then. Please read your own sources fully before taking a position. I now consider your arguments incomplete and invalid. Your concession is accepted.


    Here's a concept. A person knows a lot about a subject but chooses to just present one fact about the subject in a debate. The fact is you don't know how much I know about NDEs or how many articles or books I read and so on. All you know is that I've forwarded just one fact about it in this debate because it's the only fact relevant to an argument that I've made here.
    Likewise, you canít claim what I know about a topic. However, if you supply me with resources, such as your two articles, then all the information in both become part of the debate, not just the bits you cherry picked.

    One article was a pseudoscience blog. So that was the primary pick, and I assume the best evidence in your arsenal. And the second pretty much sealed that NDEs are pseudoscience and the brain is a much more likely source.

    That you donít read your own sources is irrelevant.

    Forwarding other facts about NDEs that are irrelevant to my argument is a waste of our time.
    Clearly because your argument doesnít appear to be based on much fact at all. In fact. I have to reject the number 3000 until you can provide the actual paper that did the survey. Who knows if the number is even realistic? So please support or retract the ďfactĒ.

    So you are again just forwarding personal comments about me as if they had some kind of relevance to my argument and they don't. Just because I've only said one thing does not mean that I only know one thing.
    It canít be helped if youíre not supporting your own case. At that point, since you have admitted you wonít provide information and youíre cherry picking from articles then I have to call you out.

    That said, it does appear you have no argument to speak of. So I accept you have no more information and your position is unsupported.

    Show me in the ODN rules where it says that.
    Itís common sense!


    You don't have to guess what I mean. You apparently read the Atlantic article about NDEs and have even formed a position on whether they happen or not. So you have an adequate understanding of them to discuss them here.
    So now who is attacking the debator? Squatch!

    Anyway, thatís irrelevant. You need to supply information about what youíre talking about and you have to have read the article so to still say they are possible is incompatible with your own sources!

    You do know that before you can accept one's concession, they actually have to concede, right?

    If not, you do now.
    Well, I accept it nevertheless. Itís possible that you are implicitly conceding. So I proactively accept to save you the trouble and embarrassment.

    And I have certainly not concede the point regarding my logic chain, especially since I have yet to see anything that I consider a valid rebuttal to it.
    The logic chain is still based on something that hasnít been fully explained so its impossible to accept it. At this point, after many rounds, the notion of NDEs is still not described fully so it doesnít matter what the logic chain is, even the sources are suspect. So the whole argument is suspect.

  6. #166
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Because this is a debate. You’ve already admitted that you are refusing to provide information about NDEs because it might prompt me to ask more questions.

    As I said, the argument is poorly supported and NDEs are poorly explained and it’s still the first step in a chain of equally incorrect chain of reasoning. So, it’s best this is laid to bed.
    You can say what you want. But you've revealed no flaw in the logic chain that has stood up to scrutiny. Just saying that I need to provide more information is not a valid rebuttal.

    So do you have an ACTUAL REBUTTAL to my logic chain?

    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.

    If so, present it.

    If not, then you should lay your argument that there is some kind of flaw in the chain itself to bed and move on.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nope. Not good enough. The counter argument is that NDEs have not been fully explained.
    You have not defined what "fully explained" is or why it needs to be "fully explained" in order for it to be valid.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So you didn’t read the whole article?
    Irrelevant question to the debate. You can't attack my argument based on my personal characteristics or personal actions.

    Starting an argument by pointing out that I did or did not do something would constitute a personal attack.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I believe you have said you were several times in the debate.
    And there's a difference between saying that I'm an agnostic and taking a position in the debate to defend agnosticism. So no, I have not taken the position to defend agnosticism.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I was answering a question! So now you’re just setting traps because you have no more answers. Besides, it’s clear that I was talking about the poor argument and not the poor arguer. I’m sorry that I made you feel guilty about a poor argument. The paucity of information can not possibly be your fault and to blame you for cherry picking and ignoring your own articles surely shouldn’t be laid at your feet.
    Again, there is no difference between criticizing how someone is debating and criticizing the person himself.

    Here's a simple check. If you are saying "you" and not "your argument", then you are attacking the person, not the argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Huh? So the argument *are* using pseudoscience as a source!?
    No. It's not using pseudoscience as a source and therefore is not based on pseudoscience. So to repeat my challenge.

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that if an argument references pseudoscience then it's based on pseudoscience.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Cherry picking it is then. Please read your own sources fully before taking a position. I now consider your arguments incomplete and invalid. Your concession is accepted.
    Okay. Please stop saying that you are accepting a concession when I haven't offered one. A concession can only be accepted once a concession is given. So saying that you accept a concession when none is given is silly. It's also annoying so to continue to say that adds nothing to the debate except annoyance and intentionally annoying others is trolling.

    And as far as "cherry picking" goes, it's not a matter of what I've read. It's a matter of what information from the article I choose to share. The article only had ONE point that I needed to support my argument, so I only presented ONE point. To present any other information from the article would have been to share information that is irrelevant to my argument. So it's not cherry-picking. IT'S EXCLUSIVELY SELECTING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION ONLY.

    And the notion that I did not read the entire article is without support. You don't know what I did or didn't read.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Likewise, you can’t claim what I know about a topic. However, if you supply me with resources, such as your two articles, then all the information in both become part of the debate, not just the bits you cherry picked.
    The only parts of the articles that become part of the debate are the parts that we forward in the debate.

    The ONLY point from the articles I forwarded from the debate is that there are 3000 claims of NDEs. The rest of the articles were not part of my argument and cannot be considered to be part of my argument or support for my argument.

    And since I did not offer the 3000 claims as support for my logic chain, there is NOTHING in those articles that was provided as support for the logic chain.

    And if you want to forward something from those articles to support one of your arguments, go ahead. And if you don't, then those articles are irrelevant to the debate (except for the 3000 claims part).



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    One article was a pseudoscience blog. So that was the primary pick, and I assume the best evidence in your arsenal. And the second pretty much sealed that NDEs are pseudoscience and the brain is a much more likely source.
    If that is your argument, please support it.

    Please provide the specific part of the article that backs up your position.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That you don’t read your own sources is irrelevant.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I've not read every word of both articles.

    Do not repeat that claim again until you've supported it.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Clearly because your argument doesn’t appear to be based on much fact at all. In fact. I have to reject the number 3000 until you can provide the actual paper that did the survey. Who knows if the number is even realistic? So please support or retract the “fact”.
    You don't just get to decide to that what typically qualifies as support at ODN isn't support. A link to information from a credible source qualifies as support so I've supported it.

    But then as I've said the 3000 claim has nothing to do with my logic chain (it was used for an entirely different argument) so it is not a fact that I'm using to support my logic chain and therefore is irrelevant to my logic chain so just to clear this mess up, I will retract it and now it is irrelevant to my logic chain. And now that that has been removed from my debate, there is NOTHING in those two articles that I have used to support any of my arguments. The logic chain's support lies elsewhere.

    So unless you are going to use those articles to support one of your arguments, they are utterly irrelevant to any argument on this thread and to discuss them further is to engage in spam (something that has no irrelevance to the debate).



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    ClearlyIt can’t be helped if you’re not supporting your own case. At that point, since you have admitted you won’t provide information and you’re cherry picking from articles then I have to call you out.
    No you don't have to call me out. In fact, you are specifically forbidden to make personal comments. Address my arguments ONLY.

    And I [challenge][challenge] you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the logic chain is not supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That said, it does appear you have no argument to speak of. So I accept you have no more information and your position is unsupported.
    ahem.

    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.

    Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s common sense!
    Actually it's nonsensical.

    You support a claim. I don't even know what "support what it is" is suppose to mean. My best guess is that you are saying that I need to explain it in an unspecified amount of detail which is up to you to determine when I've met (which allows you to essentially never be satisfied and therefore claim I've not met the burden no matter how much detail I give). If I haven't made it clear already, I have no obligation to do that nor do I intend to do it.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So now who is attacking the debator? Squatch!
    Gee. Sorry I implied that you weren't too ignorant to discuss this topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Anyway, that’s irrelevant. You need to supply information about what you’re talking about and you have to have read the article so to still say they are possible is incompatible with your own sources!
    Because you say so?



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, I accept it nevertheless. It’s possible that you are implicitly conceding. So I proactively accept to save you the trouble and embarrassment.
    Actually, not only do I not concede. As far as I know, you've provided no valid rebuttal to my logic chain. So not only do I not concede, I maintain that my argument stands unrebutted.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The logic chain is still based on something that hasn’t been fully explained so its impossible to accept it. At this point, after many rounds, the notion of NDEs is still not described fully so it doesn’t matter what the logic chain is, even the sources are suspect. So the whole argument is suspect.
    Support or retract that NDEs need to be "fully explained" before the logic chain can be accepted. And also define what "fully explained" means so we can determine whether it's been fully explained or not. IMO, you adequately explained NDEs in one of your argument a while back (the one that questions how it can hear and see when it leaves the body) and adequately explained is good enough.
    Last edited by mican333; March 6th, 2019 at 01:55 PM.

  7. #167
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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?

    Because you are conflating possible with proven. What you are arguing here is what should be shown to defend that something actually exists. That is a wholly seperate claim from whether something is possible. Its the difference between showing that the replicators from Star Trek are possible (since the idea isn't contradictory and it doesn't seem to violate known science) and arguing that they exist in the Pentagon. Or to use another example. It is absolutely possible that I could get five royal flushes playing in a casino. That is a very different type of argument from me saying I got that last week.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    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!

    No, Mican's claim (so far) is solely that OBE's are possible and that claim has been supported. No further consequences of that possibility are on the table to my knowledge. If you think a non-sequitor has been made about the consequences of that possibility, please bring that to my attention.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Except that in the case of birds we see them fly.

    Let's use another example then. Is it logically possible for someone, using a normal quarter, to flip 1000 heads in a row? The answer is, of course, yes. Now I don't think it has ever been observed, but it is certainly possible, right?

    The point of the bird analogy was that we don't necessarily need the underlying explanation of the mechanism to make a determination of possibility. You agree with that, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I pointed out all the information transfer steps. Why isn’t sufficient?
    Because just pointing out that you feel there need to be the steps doesn't really show that they are, in fact, required, nor does it show that those steps are impossible.

    If you were to show one of those steps was both required and impossible, that would be a sufficient defense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That’s what I’m asking? What is this support?

    This fits well with Mican's request that I formally rule of his argument:

    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.

    As I noted earlier, as long as an idea is not internally contradictory and is not contradicting known facts, it is logically possible. This is equivilant to his statement 1 more or less. Mican is correct that an idea is logically coherent unless there is an argument to its contradiction. He does not state, but did offer earlier, a defense of that coherence as well. That constitutes as support. Thus his claim that OBEs are possible is supported. [Note: again this doesn't mean they are true, nor does it even mean that he is correct that they are, in fact, possible. There well could be evidence put forward that shows the definition is conflicting with reality or that it is, in fact, contradictory. But until that is done, a minimum required defense has been offered.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That’s kinda what debating IS about so therefore it’s stonewalling.

    If that is truely what you feel debating is I'm afraid you've missed a lot of the point. Regardless, Mican is correct here that he is under no obligation to satisfy your requests for futher explanations unless you can make a compelling case as to why that futher elaboration is necessary to his argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Firstly, you’re the one that chose to use a pseudoscience blog.

    This would, at first blush seem to be a no true scotsman fallacy. What are the objective reasons the blog is "psuedoscience?" It has to be more than just dealing with unconventional topics or explanations. This challenge remains unsupported.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Now I'm confused: just now you said you were "referencing pseudoscience". If you're referencing pseudoscience then you're *using* pseudoscience to support your case.
    This has not met the challenge. Your claim Sharmak was that Mican was using psuedoscience to support a claim about conciousness.

    To support this claim, you need to offer the quote or argument where Mican is using psuedoscience to defend a claim about conciousness and then defend that the point is, in fact, psuedoscience.

    Until that has been done, further use of the claim that Mican is using psuedoscience to defend his argument should not be used.
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 6th, 2019 at 01:29 PM. Reason: tag fix
    "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.


  8. #168
    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
    You can say what you want. But you've revealed no flaw in the logic chain that has stood up to scrutiny. Just saying that I need to provide more information is not a valid rebuttal.

    So do you have an ACTUAL REBUTTAL to my logic chain?

    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.

    If so, present it.

    If not, then you should lay your argument that there is some kind of flaw in the chain itself to bed and move on.
    Sigh. You havenít explained what an OBE actually is!


    You have not defined what "fully explained" is or why it needs to be "fully explained" in order for it to be valid.
    Iíll take a simple description as to what you mean by OBE.



    Irrelevant question to the debate. You can't attack my argument based on my personal characteristics or personal actions.

    Starting an argument by pointing out that I did or did not do something would constitute a personal attack.
    I donít see how. Since you provided the link, it is all admissible, not just the portion you cherry pick.


    And there's a difference between saying that I'm an agnostic and taking a position in the debate to defend agnosticism. So no, I have not taken the position to defend agnosticism.
    Then please state your position. Since I have lost track of what youíre even talking about.


    Again, there is no difference between criticizing how someone is debating and criticizing the person himself.

    Here's a simple check. If you are saying "you" and not "your argument", then you are attacking the person, not the argument.
    In that case, if I forget, please make the substitutions accordingly. I have no need to attack you personally since the argument presented is so poor.



    No. It's not using pseudoscience as a source and therefore is not based on pseudoscience. So to repeat my challenge.

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that if an argument references pseudoscience then it's based on pseudoscience.
    Iím, you used a pseudoscientific blog as a source for your point! Of course itís based on pseudoscience.





    Okay. Please stop saying that you are accepting a concession when I haven't offered one. A concession can only be accepted once a concession is given. So saying that you accept a concession when none is given is silly. It's also annoying so to continue to say that adds nothing to the debate except annoyance and intentionally annoying others is trolling.
    Please do not attack me personally. Attack my argument.

    We
    And as far as "cherry picking" goes, it's not a matter of what I've read. It's a matter of what information from the article I choose to share. The article only had ONE point that I needed to support my argument, so I only presented ONE point. To present any other information from the article would have been to share information that is irrelevant to my argument. So it's not cherry-picking. IT'S EXCLUSIVELY SELECTING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION ONLY.

    And the notion that I did not read the entire article is without support. You don't know what I did or didn't read.
    [/Quote]
    Doesnít matter, the whole article counts because you chose to provide the link.



    The only parts of the articles that become part of the debate are the parts that we forward in the debate.

    The ONLY point from the articles I forwarded from the debate is that there are 3000 claims of NDEs. The rest of the articles were not part of my argument and cannot be considered to be part of my argument or support for my argument.

    And since I did not offer the 3000 claims as support for my logic chain, there is NOTHING in those articles that was provided as support for the logic chain.

    And if you want to forward something from those articles to support one of your arguments, go ahead. And if you don't, then those articles are irrelevant to the debate (except for the 3000 claims part).
    Then the 3000 claims can be ignored because you havenít supported it.




    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I've not read every word of both articles.

    Do not repeat that claim again until you've supported it.
    I didnít say you didnít read it all but that you did and youíre ignoring the portions that go against your case.



    You don't just get to decide to that what typically qualifies as support at ODN isn't support. A link to information from a credible source qualifies as support so I've supported it.

    But then as I've said the 3000 claim has nothing to do with my logic chain (it was used for an entirely different argument) so it is not a fact that I'm using to support my logic chain and therefore is irrelevant to my logic chain so just to clear this mess up, I will retract it and now it is irrelevant to my logic chain. And now that that has been removed from my debate, there is NOTHING in those two articles that I have used to support any of my arguments. The logic chain's support lies elsewhere.

    So unless you are going to use those articles to support one of your arguments, they are utterly irrelevant to any argument on this thread and to discuss them further is to engage in spam (something that has no irrelevance to the debate).
    Sigh. So youíre withdrawing more stuff.



    No you don't have to call me out. In fact, you are specifically forbidden to make personal comments. Address my arguments ONLY.

    And I [challenge][challenge] you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the logic chain is not supported.
    It isnít supported because I donít know what an OBE actually is on *your* mind. This is a new terminology that you started using recently.





    Actually it's nonsensical.

    You support a claim. I don't even know what "support what it is" is suppose to mean. My best guess is that you are saying that I need to explain it in an unspecified amount of detail which is up to you to determine when I've met (which allows you to essentially never be satisfied and therefore claim I've not met the burden no matter how much detail I give). If I haven't made it clear already, I have no obligation to do that nor do I intend to do it.
    Right now you have nothing but a new acronym that you have not defined. So I donít know what youíre arguing.

    But it doesnít matter because the truism is a pointless ďargumentĒ that works for anything.




    Gee. Sorry I implied that you weren't too ignorant to discuss this topic.
    Apology accepted. Itís common to assume that your opponent thinks the same as oneself but as we define our terms, we discover we are talking about different things. Thatís why you need to describe what youíre talking about.


    Actually, not only do I not concede. As far as I know, you've provided no valid rebuttal to my logic chain. So not only do I not concede, I maintain that my argument stands unrebutted.
    Itís not the chain thatís the problem. Itís what your chain is about! I still have no idea what you mean by OBE!


    Support or retract that NDEs need to be "fully explained" before the logic chain can be accepted. And also define what "fully explained" means so we can determine whether it's been fully explained or not. IMO, you adequately explained NDEs in one of your argument a while back (the one that questions how it can hear and see when it leaves the body) and adequately explained is good enough.
    Youíre using the term OBE now so your challenge is wholly rejected as irrelevant to your constant changing of arguments and terms. So I have no idea what you are discussing other than proving my point that the logic chain is pointless.

    ---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Because you are conflating possible with proven. What you are arguing here is what should be shown to defend that something actually exists. That is a wholly seperate claim from whether something is possible. Its the difference between showing that the replicators from Star Trek are possible (since the idea isn't contradictory and it doesn't seem to violate known science) and arguing that they exist in the Pentagon. Or to use another example. It is absolutely possible that I could get five royal flushes playing in a casino. That is a very different type of argument from me saying I got that last week.
    But the problem is that I donít know what NDE or now, OBE means. So how am I supposed to accept that itís possible? I donít understand the assumptions underlying the claim so I canít accept the logic chain.

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



    No, Mican's claim (so far) is solely that OBE's are possible and that claim has been supported. No further consequences of that possibility are on the table to my knowledge. If you think a non-sequitor has been made about the consequences of that possibility, please bring that to my attention.
    The non sequitur is the whole idea of NDE or OBE and what it means.


    Let's use another example then. Is it logically possible for someone, using a normal quarter, to flip 1000 heads in a row? The answer is, of course, yes. Now I don't think it has ever been observed, but it is certainly possible, right?

    The point of the bird analogy was that we don't necessarily need the underlying explanation of the mechanism to make a determination of possibility. You agree with that, right?
    I understand what possible means. The claim is akin to saying that the die will land on a point 1000 times. Itís impossible in a normal situation but may be possible in a zero gravity situation. So unless I know what the situation is then I canít accept the claim.

    But itís worse in this case because there is no explanation as to what an NDE is and now, we are talking about OBEs. So it could be *possible* that OBEs are impossible but until we understand the details, we canít determine that. Therefore, I shouldnít be obliged to accept the truism on face value.


    Because just pointing out that you feel there need to be the steps doesn't really show that they are, in fact, required, nor does it show that those steps are impossible.

    If you were to show one of those steps was both required and impossible, that would be a sufficient defense.
    Thatís the point. More information is needed.


    This fits well with Mican's request that I formally rule of his argument:

    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.

    As I noted earlier, as long as an idea is not internally contradictory and is not contradicting known facts, it is logically possible. This is equivilant to his statement 1 more or less. Mican is correct that an idea is logically coherent unless there is an argument to its contradiction. He does not state, but did offer earlier, a defense of that coherence as well. That constitutes as support. Thus his claim that OBEs are possible is supported. [Note: again this doesn't mean they are true, nor does it even mean that he is correct that they are, in fact, possible. There well could be evidence put forward that shows the definition is conflicting with reality or that it is, in fact, contradictory. But until that is done, a minimum required defense has been offered.]
    I donít understand how this can be unless we understand what OBEs are for. But if thatís your ruling then so be it.



    If that is truely what you feel debating is I'm afraid you've missed a lot of the point. Regardless, Mican is correct here that he is under no obligation to satisfy your requests for futher explanations unless you can make a compelling case as to why that futher elaboration is necessary to his argument.

    I did many times. I donít know what heís talking about.




    This would, at first blush seem to be a no true scotsman fallacy. What are the objective reasons the blog is "psuedoscience?" It has to be more than just dealing with unconventional topics or explanations. This challenge remains unsupported.
    I provided a review of the paper that pointed out that the blog peddled in pseudoscience as soon as I read it.


    This has not met the challenge. Your claim Sharmak was that Mican was using psuedoscience to support a claim about conciousness.

    To support this claim, you need to offer the quote or argument where Mican is using psuedoscience to defend a claim about conciousness and then defend that the point is, in fact, psuedoscience.

    Until that has been done, further use of the claim that Mican is using psuedoscience to defend his argument should not be used.

    We both agreed consciousness has been dropped ages ago, even before your last ruling.

  9. #169
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sigh. You haven’t explained what an OBE actually is!
    Nor do I need to.

    The term has existed for decades and is quite simple. If you don't know what it is, you can look it up and learn for yourself. But if you want a simple description, I will provide it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’ll take a simple description as to what you mean by OBE.
    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

    And now that I've given you a simple description which, not coincidentally, applies to what YOU described in your argument about whether consciousness can hear or see when it leaves the body, the term is indeed understood well enough for the purpose of this debate.

    Therefore I will consider all of your other arguments regarding not understanding what OBEs are to be addressed and not respond to them.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t see how. Since you provided the link, it is all admissible, not just the portion you cherry pick.
    And you can use whatever you want from the articles to make whatever argument you want.

    I only had use for one thing so I only forwarded one thing.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then please state your position. Since I have lost track of what you’re even talking about.
    My position is that OBEs are possible.

    Support:

    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.

    And Squatch has pointed out that this does constitute support.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    In that case, if I forget, please make the substitutions accordingly. I have no need to attack you personally since the argument presented is so poor.
    Your opinion of my arguments is irrelevant.

    The only relevant thing you can offer is a rebuttal to my arguments.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’m, you used a pseudoscientific blog as a source for your point! Of course it’s based on pseudoscience.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I used a pseudoscientific blog as a source for my point.

    Which point used a pseudoscience blog as a source?

    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.

    The answer is NONE.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Please do not attack me personally. Attack my argument.
    I did not attack you. I asked that you stop doing something that you were doing.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Doesn’t matter, the whole article counts because you chose to provide the link.
    And you are free to use whatever you want from the article.

    As am I. And I used just one thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I didn’t say you didn’t read it all but that you did and you’re ignoring the portions that go against your case.
    Again, you don't know what I read or didn't read.

    And if you want to forward stuff from the article that goes against my case, then cut and paste it into your own argument and make the case against my position. It's certainly not up to me to make a case against myself by using stuff from the link.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sigh. So you’re withdrawing more stuff.
    Something that is irrelevant to my logic chain argument, yes. Its presence seems to be causing some confusion so it's best to retract it.

    So now there is NOTHING in those articles that I have used to support any argument of mine that I am currently forwarding.

    To be clear, there is nothing in those articles that I used to support the logic chain.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It isn’t supported because I don’t know what an OBE actually is on *your* mind. This is a new terminology that you started using recently.
    It's not a new terminology. The term was coined decades ago. And I gave a simple explanation above so we're set.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Right now you have nothing but a new acronym that you have not defined. So I don’t know what you’re arguing.

    But it doesn’t matter because the truism is a pointless “argument” that works for anything.
    The fact that it works for plenty of other things does not make it false. Your objection is irrelevant to its validity.

  10. #170
    Registered User

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

    Question Re: The soul does not exist

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

    And now that I've given you a simple description which, not coincidentally, applies to what YOU described in your argument about whether consciousness can hear or see when it leaves the body, the term is indeed understood well enough for the purpose of this debate.

    Therefore I will consider all of your other arguments regarding not understanding what OBEs are to be addressed and not respond to them.
    What do you mean by consciousness? And what do you mean by it "leaving"?


    My position is that OBEs are possible.

    Support:

    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.

    And Squatch has pointed out that this does constitute support.
    Sure, but maybe you and he have the same idea about OBEs whereas I'm not sure you and I do.


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

    Which point used a pseudoscience blog as a source?
    Your first point about 3000 supposed reports. I also dispute this point, which I think you've already withdrawn. So this is moot.

    And you are free to use whatever you want from the article.

    As am I. And I used just one thing.
    Well, I will but it's not worth it unless I know what you mean by NDE or OBE. Without that knowledge, I cannot accept the truism because I don't know what you are saying is possible.

  11. #171
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What do you mean by consciousness? And what do you mean by it "leaving"?
    If you don't know what those words mean, consult a dictionary. I am speaking plain english and am using both of those words as they are typically defines.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but maybe you and he have the same idea about OBEs whereas I'm not sure you and I do.
    But now I've given you a simple description.

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your first point about 3000 supposed reports. I also dispute this point, which I think you've already withdrawn. So this is moot.
    I challenged you to support or retract that I used pseudoscience blog as a source for the logic chain.

    I will consider that argument withdrawn and since you've been challenged on it, do not repeat it unless you can support it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, I will but it's not worth it unless I know what you mean by NDE or OBE. Without that knowledge, I cannot accept the truism because I don't know what you are saying is possible.
    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

  12. #172
    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
    If you don't know what those words mean, consult a dictionary. I am speaking plain english and am using both of those words as they are typically defines.
    Sure, but I don't know if your *understanding* is possible or impossible. So you can't just get away with a "simple" explanation so we have to explore further.

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.


    By "leave", do you mean it actually happens or it is **reported** that it happens? Also, what do you think constitutes "consciousness" ?

    I challenged you to support or retract that I used pseudoscience blog as a source for the logic chain.

    I will consider that argument withdrawn and since you've been challenged on it, do not repeat it unless you can support it.
    You used it for the 3000 number.

  13. #173
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but I don't know if your *understanding* is possible or impossible. So you can't just get away with a "simple" explanation so we have to explore further.
    I didn't invent the concept of OBEs. I learned what they are from how they are commonly and consistently described, which is:

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

    Again, I'm appealing to the common understanding of OBEs, not a definition of my invention so if you feel you need to learn what they are in order to proceed, then do some research on the issue. It's not up to me to educate you on what we are debating. You can do you



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    By "leave", do you mean it actually happens or it is **reported** that it happens? Also, what do you think constitutes "consciousness" ?
    Consult a dictionary if you are unclear on what these words mean.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You used it for the 3000 number.
    But not the logic chain.

    So the claim that the logic chain was supported by a pseudoscience blog is unsupported.

  14. #174
    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 didn't invent the concept of OBEs. I learned what they are from how they are commonly and consistently described, which is:

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

    Again, I'm appealing to the common understanding of OBEs, not a definition of my invention so if you feel you need to learn what they are in order to proceed, then do some research on the issue. It's not up to me to educate you on what we are debating. You can do you
    Sure, but there are better explanations as to what people are reporting. Are you rejecting those explanations as being insufficient?



    Consult a dictionary if you are unclear on what these words mean.
    Rude.



    But not the logic chain.

    So the claim that the logic chain was supported by a pseudoscience blog is unsupported.
    well, your logic chain isn't supported by anything right now - i don't understand your rudeness in not explaining what you mean.

  15. #175
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but there are better explanations as to what people are reporting. Are you rejecting those explanations as being insufficient?
    Insufficient in what way?

    But either way, if you want to argue that a certain explanation is indeed the best explanation, then make your argument. I certainly can't judge it before you present it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    well, your logic chain isn't supported by anything right now - i don't understand your rudeness in not explaining what you mean.
    It is supported by a truism and a fact. BTW, Squatch has ruled that it stands as supported so just saying "it's not supported" will not suffice.

    And I have explained what I mean by OBE.

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

  16. #176
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My position is that OBEs are possible.

    Support:

    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.
    The conclusion of your syllogism is that "OBEs must be considered possible", which is not the same as "OBEs are possible", which you state is your position. If you are making the positive claim that they are possible (and not merely that they should be considered possible), then the burden of proof is on you to support that claim. An argument for why they should be considered possible is not support for that claim, and the lack of support that they are impossible is also not support for that claim. The lack of support that they are impossible means that we cannot conclude that they are impossible, and the lack of support that they are possible means that we likewise cannot conclude that they are possible.

  17. #177
    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
    Insufficient in what way?

    But either way, if you want to argue that a certain explanation is indeed the best explanation, then make your argument. I certainly can't judge it before you present it.





    It is supported by a truism and a fact. BTW, Squatch has ruled that it stands as supported so just saying "it's not supported" will not suffice.

    And I have explained what I mean by OBE.

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.
    Yes, but Squatch doesn't realize that you're making a strong claim about OBE. Whereas, Wikipedia's is actually better:

    An out-of-body experience (OBE or sometimes OOBE) is an experience in which a person seems to perceive the world from a location outside their physical body.
    So I think we should go for that one since it's much more accurate.

  18. #178
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The conclusion of your syllogism is that "OBEs must be considered possible", which is not the same as "OBEs are possible", which you state is your position.
    They are the same in terms of the debate. If everyone in this debate must consider X to be possible, then they must accept the position that X is possible and therefore I have supported that X is possible (for if I hadn't, then it would not be true that X must be considered possible).

    ---------- Post added at 09:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes, but Squatch doesn't realize that you're making a strong claim about OBE.
    It makes no difference in the validity of the logic chain.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Whereas, Wikipedia's is actually better:

    So I think we should go for that one since it's much more accurate.
    It's not better because it's not the strong claim that was intended.

    You asked me what I meant and I said:

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

    And it's within the context of supporting that it's possible that consciousness can leave the body and have experiences so that is what is under discussion.

  19. #179
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    They are the same in terms of the debate. If everyone in this debate must consider X to be possible, then they must accept the position that X is possible and therefore I have supported that X is possible (for if I hadn't, then it would not be true that X must be considered possible).
    Then it is not true that X must be considered possible, since your first premise is flawed. The lack of evidence that something is impossible is not evidence that it is possible - that's an argument from ignorance. Evidence is required to support the claim that something is possible, and it's fallacious to assert that something which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible.

  20. #180
    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 makes no difference in the validity of the logic chain.




    It's not better because it's not the strong claim that was intended.

    You asked me what I meant and I said:

    Consciousness leaves the body and returns back to the body later on.

    And it's within the context of supporting that it's possible that consciousness can leave the body and have experiences so that is what is under discussion.
    Well your definition excludes the scientific position so I donít accept it as a valid one. And you havenít said what consciousness even is so you canít say it can leave the body.

 

 
Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 ... 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
  •