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 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 441
  1. #421
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Researchers and scientists have been studying the effects of the soul for decades. I was discussing this point with Sharmak earlier in the debate.
    Any links for support?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    In my hypothetical, I stated that the event was video recorded.
    Forgive me, but that post was a month ago...but ok, that is better than just eye witness testimony.
    Anyway, I think the point was:
    "humans confirming a supernatural event happened, does not suddenly make it a natural event as some have claimed"

    I think we agree here?


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    As I stated before and I realize we don’t agree, but it appears that matter and spirit can work with each other. (Countless historical records of supernatural phenomena.) Physical stuff is subject to natural laws, and that which is not limited to physical laws, most likely is subject to a different set of laws. Not sure what outside the universe means to you. The Spirit, and this is stated in religious text, can and does work within the natural world.

    1. Then in what way is it supernatural at all? Just because we haven't come up with a way to explain it?
    If what you say is correct, there is definitely nothing supernatural about the soul, it just behaves according to laws different than the physical world.

    2. Things that happen exclusively in our universe are pretty much natural by definition.
    2a. Things that don't reside in our universe but can affect/interact with other things in our universe at will , would obviously be supernatural.
    2b. Is it possible for a supernatural phenomena (something breaking the laws of nature) to happen without affecting our universe as a whole?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Observing a phenomenon that is not subject to physical laws such as a soul leaving a body and going through physical structures and floating away is evidence that spiritual events are not confined to physical limitations, i.e. gravity.
    Assuming this actually happens, I would tend to agree. Though my point was:
    "why would an immaterial something have any issue "going thru" a physical something?"

    A MUCH better question is:
    "how can an immaterial something be seen by human eyes at all? Human eyes see "material things", not the opposite of "material things?"


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I think something can exist despite the fact that human physical senses may not see it. How we interpret observations are based on our limited five senses. QM has begun to demonstrate that there is more beyond our current mainstream perception of reality.
    a. This is at odds with your thoughts that human minds create reality.

    b. I submit that if all humans suddenly disappeared, very little (to the extreme) about our universe would change.
    IOW, human minds don't affect the reality and laws of nature of our universe at all.


    c. QM shows that "particles" can behave in ways that are unintuitive to humans. QM is used to help descried how "very tiny things" behave, and it is confined to the "very tiny".
    QM can't show why the planets orbit the sun as they do for instance.
    After all, we don't use a ruler to measure gallons of water, nor a thermometer to measure distance.

  2. #422
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    @Mican, I did ask Squatch to adjudicate and will abide by his ruling for this Op, but will still ask him for clarity on some points, such as:

    @Squatch, I think the question was more like:

    is there such a thing as "direct evidence of non existence". So yes, we can take whatever evidence is available and infer non existence, but what would actual evidence of non existence be? As in, you agree science is an inductive endeavor?
    Direct evidence that the mind generates consciousness would be direct evidence that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore direct evidence that the soul does not exist.

    Now, from my perspective, it seems to me that I've provided a variation of this answer multiple times with you essentially ignoring it and asking me to provide it again. I admit that this is just my perspective and I could be misreading what's going on and therefore make no direct accusations of your motives. But assuming you don't find the above answer satisfactory, you DO need to explain why it's not satisfactory and please be specific if you do that. I sincerely consider this to be very solid answer which should essentially end this particular section of the debate. And of course you are not obliged to agree with me on that but if you disagree, I need to know specifically what you think the problem with my response is. So if you are going to rebut it, please give lots of detail. Something vague, especially if it's something that you've said before, will probably not help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If you "don't dispute that", I am not sure what the problem is??
    and
    I didn't come close to saying "a soul was a wild ass idea".
    Then I guess the problem is that your argument that the "evidence being equal argument" does not force us to accept absurd ideas, like you creating the universe or whatever.

    I'm changing my response to your original argument a bit but my point is that in an purely evidence-based realm, the "evidence being equal" argument does force us to accept both propositions are equally likely, even if one of them is absurd.

    But we are not always forced to engage in issues by only looking at the evidence. If both you and I agree that a notion is absurd then we can just reject it on that basis regardless of whether the strict evidence or against is equal.

    So given that, I reject the notion that my "equal evidence" argument forces us to accept absurdities and therefore should not be rejected for that.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    As this does not appear to be a brute fact, it would need support before it supports your argument.

    IOW, why is this a given?
    Because there is no theoretical limit to what mankind can learn if given enough time.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    IF the soul exists why must it be available for human study?
    IF the soul exists and was supernatural why must it be available for human study?

    (If it is not available for human study, then science could not confirm anything about it)
    If something exists, it can theoretically be discovered and studies given enough time.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    a. How do we know this? What if it is not possible? Why must it be possible?
    b. If the soul did not exist science could just continue to look finding nothing...?
    a. It's a logical premise that except for that which is known to be impossible, everything must be considered possible.
    b. Answered above. If science learns that consciousness is generated by the mind, then it would learn that the soul does not exist.

  3. #423
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Direct evidence that the mind generates consciousness would be direct evidence that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore direct evidence that the soul does not exist.
    Assuming "consciousness = the soul" I would agree. This is not the issue Squatch and I are trying to point out though.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm changing my response to your original argument a bit but my point is that in an purely evidence-based realm, the "evidence being equal" argument does force us to accept both propositions are equally likely, even if one of them is absurd.
    Ok, you agree with Squatch here about me being god is equally likely as not since there is no evidence either way.
    I still think this smuggles in the premise god exists in the first place. It is not accounted for in the "evidence based argument".


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But we are not always forced to engage in issues by only looking at the evidence. If both you and I agree that a notion is absurd then we can just reject it on that basis regardless of whether the strict evidence or against is equal.

    So given that, I reject the notion that my "equal evidence" argument forces us to accept absurdities and therefore should not be rejected for that.
    But what is absurd to us (assuming we can/could agree on such a thing...) may not be to another, so this fails




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because there is no theoretical limit to what mankind can learn if given enough time.
    Look, the law of identity is a brute fact. It needs no support.
    You say this like it is a brute fact that needs no support.

    a. QM shows probabilities, not certainties, rule in some instances for instance. It is possible certain things can not be known no matter the time frame.
    b. It is possible if the supernatural exists that it is unavailable to be studied scientifically and known to the degree that would make your statement correct. You just can't make any predictions about studying the supernatural since by definition it defies natural law.

    Also, you responded but did not answer:
    "if the soul does not exist science could just continue looking and never find it".

    Saying "if science learns" does not support that science would/will/must "learn" the origins of consciousness or the soul.

  4. #424
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Assuming "consciousness = the soul" I would agree. This is not the issue Squatch and I are trying to point out though.
    Then please point it out. I specifically asked that you point out how my argument does not satisfy. So let me repeat it and this time please tell me specifically how it falls short in your eyes.

    Direct evidence that the mind generates consciousness would be direct evidence that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore direct evidence that the soul does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, you agree with Squatch here about me being god is equally likely as not since there is no evidence either way.
    I still think this smuggles in the premise god exists in the first place. It is not accounted for in the "evidence based argument".
    "God is as likely to exist as not" is definitely not the same as "God exists in the first place" so "Likely as not" does not smuggle "Does exist"





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But what is absurd to us (assuming we can/could agree on such a thing...) may not be to another, so this fails
    But we are the only two people debating here (considering Squatch to be an adjudicator and not a debater) so we can agree about anything in particular and hold it as "correct" for this debate. So assuming we agree that the notion that you created the universe is absurd, we can both reject it and therefore we are not forced to hold that it's "as likely as not" in terms of this debate.

    So even if the evidence for you being God or not being God was equal, I reject the notion that you are God as being absurd. Since I'm sure you agree with me on that, we can reject that notion regardless of what the quantity of evidence may be.





    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Look, the law of identity is a brute fact. It needs no support.
    You say this like it is a brute fact that needs no support.

    a. QM shows probabilities, not certainties, rule in some instances for instance. It is possible certain things can not be known no matter the time frame.
    I don't know if I agree but I don't think that really matters here.

    Are you arguing that IF consciousness is generated by the brain (and therefore the soul does not exist), this IS something that mankind WILL never discover? If so, please support. If not, then you must concede that it's possible that one day we will learn, from direct evidence, that the soul does not exist.

    I mean that's my point. It is possible that one day we will have evidence that the soul does not exist. And it is possible, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    b. It is possible if the supernatural exists that it is unavailable to be studied scientifically and known to the degree that would make your statement correct. You just can't make any predictions about studying the supernatural since by definition it defies natural law.
    No, that's not how "supernatural" is defined (defies natural law).

    And as I recall, y0u and I recently had a looooooonnnnnggggg semantic debate over the term "supernatural" on this very thread and it looks like we kind of ended on an "agree to disagree" note. So assuming we don't want to continue to engage in a semantic debate over the term "supernatural" (and I definitely do not), that term should not be used in this debate. So given that, I have no response to that argument since what it means for something to be "supernatural" is unclear.

    If you want to restate your argument without using that word, I will respond to it then.
    Last edited by mican333; September 8th, 2019 at 07:55 AM.

  5. #425
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,517
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Any links for support?

    The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) is a long-established and highly productive university-based research group, exclusively devoted to the investigation of phenomena that challenge mainstream scientific paradigms regarding the nature of the mind/brain relationship. The researchers at DOPS are particularly interested in studying phenomena related to consciousness clearly functioning beyond the confines of the physical body, as well as phenomena that are directly suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness.
    Through their careful study, the DOPS researchers objectively document and analyze the empirical data collected regarding human experiences suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness. Rigorous evaluation of considerable empirical evidence collected over fifty years of research, suggests that consciousness may indeed survive bodily death and that mind and brain appear to be distinct and separable.
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/

    The following analysis is based primarily on listings in the Index, with the addition of the few major books that were not reported in the periodical cal literature. It excludes the numerous individual case studies of NDErs. Results indicate that in the first 30 years of modern NDE research, U.S. researchers had conducted the largest number of retrospective studies-at least 34 researchers or research teams conducting at least 42 studies-involving involving sample sizes ranging from four to over 300 NDErs, for a total of over 2,500 NDEr research participants. Of these, 19 studies addressed the experience itself, including its phenomenology/contents, incidence, and correlates; 8 addressed NDE aftereffects-how people had changed in the aftermaths of their NDEs; and 15 addressed both.

    Outside the United States, 11 researchers or research teams had conducted ducted at least 13 retrospective studies, most on Western continents of Europe and Australia, with a total sample of over 600 NDErs; 5 retrospective tive studies in non-Western countries of Asia, with a total sample of over 70 NDErs; and none in South America or Africa. Studies in both Western and non-Western cultures outside the United States addressed the experience, ence, its aftereffects, or both.

    At least 10 prospective North American and European researchers or research teams had published as many studies, involving a total of about 270 NDErs. Like retrospective studies, these prospective studies addressed the experience, its aftereffects, or both. As of 2005, prospective research outside these Western culture areas had yet to be published.

    Taken together, it is safe to say that between 1975 and 2005, at least 55 researchers or research teams in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia published at least 65 research studies involving nearly 3,500 NDErs, addressing ing the experience, its aftereffects, or both. It is primarily the results of these scholarly inquiries that authors reviewed in the chapters of this book.
    The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...investigation/

    Researchers at the University of Virginia, beginning with Ian Stevenson, have investigated children’s reports of memories of previous lives for the past fifty years, studying more than 2,500 cases from around the world.

    Common features in the cases include a child talking about a past life at a very early age, behaviors that appear connected to that life such as phobias related to the mode of death, and sometimes birthmarks or birth defects that correspond to wounds the previous person suffered.
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...revious-lives/


    Neurochemical models of near-death experiences: A large-scale study based on the semantic similarity of written reports
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...azucchi-CC.pdf

    Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality: A Brief History of the “Sursem” Project
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...ect_OTH-36.pdf

    Consciousness -- What Is It?
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...ss-JCosmol.pdf

    Discrepancy Between Cerebral Structure and Cognitive Functioning
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...oning-JNMD.pdf



    Then in what way is it supernatural at all? Just because we haven't come up with a way to explain it?
    Definition of supernatural

    1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
    2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

    b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural


    Is it possible for supernatural phenomena (something breaking the laws of nature) to happen without affecting our universe as a whole?
    My guess would be yes, probably because most humans and the human senses are only able to observe small slices of any given event.

    Assuming this actually happens, I would tend to agree. Though my point was:
    "why would an immaterial something have any issue "going thru" a physical something?"
    Well, most materialistic scientists have a problem accepting such phenomena when people claim to observe it. I can understand that, but that doesn’t mean the event didn’t take place.

    A MUCH better question is: "how can an immaterial something be seen by human eyes at all?
    Human eyes are probably not what is truly “observing” a supernatural event. Physical eyes are most likely just like a TV set, a wonderful, yet complex receiving set of hardware. For example, we would never expect to find the announcer to a television program inside the TV hardware if we broke apart the unit looking for the announcer. The show comes from a different source. The TV is only the hardware that allows us to see the show. Physical eyes can see and observe physical things. But some humans (as history has shown) have the ability to see and perceive phenomena using the receiving hardware of their eyes but the event is not caused by physical events, i.e, souls leaving a deceased body, or seeing angels or demons, etc.

    Jesus talked about this phenomena: "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?" Mark 8:18 (In other words, if we try to look for and see the hero to the drama inside the TV set we won't find/see him. If we want to have inner-vision, observe the Spirit, miracles, angels, etc., with our physical eyes, we might want to consider accessing another set of tools, probably subject to a different set of laws, spiritual laws.

    "And their eyes were opened" and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, "See that no man know it." Matthew 9:30 (Their inner vision was opened to observe a spiritual event using the hardware of their physical eyes).

    This is at odds with your thoughts that human minds create reality.
    Perspective…

    New Scientist
    Reality Check
    https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/06/22/2734686.htm

    What they found is that Leggett's formula is violated as well: even if you allow for instantaneous influences, quantum measurements do not fit with the idea of an objective reality. This is surprising because you might expect that, once any spooky "non-local" action is allowed, you could account for almost any relationship between two particles, and there would be no reason to ditch our concepts of reality. "This is not the case," says Aspelmeyer.

    Although some loopholes remain not all non-local models have been ruled out we now have to face the possibility that there is nothing inherently real about the properties of an object that we measure. In other words, measuring those properties is what brings them into existence. "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality," says quantum researcher Vlatko Vedral of the University of Leeds, UK.

    This idea may not be new, but the evidence for it is, and it could have serious implications for a theory of everything: it tells us that what we think of as real is not necessarily so. "We know from our experience that there is a 'real' world with 'real' physical events, starting from clicks in a detector in the laboratory to experiencing a headache after too many beers," Aspelmeyer says. But that doesn't mean our physical theories ought to slavishly follow that experience, he points out perhaps they need to dig deeper.

    QM is used to help described how "very tiny things" behave, and it is confined to the "very tiny".
    (PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at UC Santa Barbara have provided the first clear demonstration that the theory of quantum mechanics applies to the mechanical motion of an object large enough to be seen by the naked eye. Their work satisfies a longstanding goal among physicists.
    https://phys.org/news/2010-03-physic...cs-motion.html



    QM can't show why the planets orbit the sun as they do for instance.
    They’re still working on a unified theory that ideally will unify classical physics and QM. But until then, bear in mind that humans are made up of millions of particles. Molecules are made out of atoms, and atoms are made out of subatomic particles such as protons and electrons which are 99.99999% empty space.

    I think this raises an interesting question: why does everything look and feel so solid?
    Last edited by eye4magic; September 9th, 2019 at 10:15 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  6. #426
    Administrator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. PREMISE 1 - it's possible that one day science will prove that the soul doesn't leave the body.
    2. PREMISE 2 - The evidence that proves something to be true may or may not be empirical.
    3. THEREFORE - the evidence that would prove that the soul does not exist may not be empirical
    4. THEREFORE - the evidence that shows that the soul does not exist does not need to be empirical.
    5. THEREFORE - I have no requirement to supply empirical evidence to support that evidence exists that supports that the soul doesn't exist.

    Do you agree that I've shown that evidence may exist, whether it's empirical evidence or non-empirical? I think it's pretty clear that if science PROVES that consciousness does not leave the body upon death, then it proves that the soul does not exist and empirical or not, there would be something one can point to and say say "there's the proof that the soul does not exist" -

    I think the heart of the objection here is that premise 1 is unsupported and is not a brute fact. I don't know if such a thing is possible or not. That premise would need to be defended.

    I think you first two conclusions are valid. The issue is that they don't comprehensively address your original premise. Your second premise essentially adds all deductive logic to inductive logic. So the so what from premise two is essentially, yeah, we could prove it through non-scientific methods.

    Your final conclusion is correct in a broad sense, but no so much when related to premise 1. When you add the term "science" into that premise, you are confining yourself to empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. Which is where I think this logic chain is a bit faulty. Premise 1 stands alone from the rest of the argument. If you removed premise 1 and read the argument again, it wouldn't really change the structure of the argument at all. Premise 2 carries all the weight because it says, essentially "I could prove x through deductive or inductive means" which is obviously true.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    even if "it" is scientific consensus without empirical evidence.

    This already happens in a lot of areas, but this isn't science. Consensus without evidence is fashion, not the scientific process. Not to go too off-topic, but consensus is completely irrelevant to the scientific process. It only serves as a form of appeal to authority fallacy for the warrant of those without the expertise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But I don't think that's a good example as it is not about evidence proving that something is true. Can you give me an example of something that is proven to be true without empirical evidence that it's true?
    Not if we are confining ourselves to science as the method. Science, being inducitve logic requires, as its starting point, empirical evidence. It also can't really (and this isn't super relevant to our discussion) prove anything, it can only give warrant for a claim.

    My point with the example was that the underlying question (why do we experience time dilation at velocities that approach the speed of light) is a physical question, but it is a physical question that isn't in the realm of science to answer. So your premise that "it is possible that one day science will prove that we experience time dilation through matter distortion" would be false in this example.

    So if your premise could be true, or it could be false, it needs some kind of further support.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    is there such a thing as "direct evidence of non existence". So yes, we can take whatever evidence is available and infer non existence, but what would actual evidence of non existence be? As in, you agree science is an inductive endeavor?

    The same sentence is true about existence. IE: "we can take whatever evidence is available and infer existence." We agree that science is an inferential logic process. Thus whatever we are concluding based on the evidence (existence, or non-existence) is derived through inference. "Direct evidence" is more related to whether some piece of evidence is indicative of the thing itself or of some other evidence that is indicative of the thing itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Direct evidence that the mind generates consciousness would be direct evidence that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore direct evidence that the soul does not exist.
    Just to step in for a second, this statement conflates 'mind' with 'body' in a manner that begs the question I think. If I'm reading this correctly, you seem to be assuming that the mind is present within the body or is, at least, a physical thing that dies with the body.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #427
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I think the heart of the objection here is that premise 1 is unsupported and is not a brute fact. I don't know if such a thing is possible or not. That premise would need to be defended.
    Okay. I will support premise 1 with a logic chain.

    1. PREMISE - Short of that which is proven to be impossible, everything must be considered possible.
    2. FACT - In this debate, it has not been supported that it's impossible that one day science will prove that the soul doesn't leave the body.
    3. THEREFORE - It must be considered possible that that one day science will prove that the soul doesn't leave the body.

    So now that Premise 1 is supported, I will provide the original logic chain again for reference.

    1. PREMISE 1 - it's possible that one day science will prove that the soul doesn't leave the body.
    2. PREMISE 2 - The evidence that proves something to be true may or may not be empirical.
    3. THEREFORE - the evidence that would prove that the soul does not exist may not be empirical
    4. THEREFORE - the evidence that shows that the soul does not exist does not need to be empirical.
    5. THEREFORE - I have no requirement to supply empirical evidence to support that evidence exists that supports that the soul doesn't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you first two conclusions are valid. The issue is that they don't comprehensively address your original premise. Your second premise essentially adds all deductive logic to inductive logic. So the so what from premise two is essentially, yeah, we could prove it through non-scientific methods.

    Your final conclusion is correct in a broad sense, but no so much when related to premise 1. When you add the term "science" into that premise, you are confining yourself to empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. Which is where I think this logic chain is a bit faulty. Premise 1 stands alone from the rest of the argument. If you removed premise 1 and read the argument again, it wouldn't really change the structure of the argument at all. Premise 2 carries all the weight because it says, essentially "I could prove x through deductive or inductive means" which is obviously true.
    And which, for the purpose of my argument is good enough.

    As far as I understand, I am addressing an argument that posits that it's a flawed argument of mine to use the fact that there's no evidence that the soul does not exist to support, along with the fact that there's no evidence that the soul exists, to conclude, if base the issue on the evidence, that it's equally likely that the soul exists and does not exist because there can be no evidence that the soul does not exist and therefore one side has an impossible standard to meet. And my response, in a nutshell, is that it's not impossible that one day we may discover evidence that the soul does not exist. What form that evidence may take is pretty much irrelevant to my point. If it's possible that evidence may be discovered that the soul does not exist, then the argument about my standard being flawed is defeated.

    So really, whether the evidence is scientific, empirical, whatever is kind of irrelevant to my point.

    So if we agree that I have supported that one day we may find evidence that the soul does not exist, then I've met the burden of my own argument and we are set. I believe saying that that is not good enough for support and it needs to be a particular kind of evidence to support my conclusion is essentially moving the goalpost.

    And if my argument is not a defeater to Bel's argument, then I think someone needs to make clear what his argument is and how it, if correct, defeats my "no evidence is equal evidence" position.

    Really, now that I think about it, I really could just challenge his argument about "no evidence of the soul not existing can be found" with a support or retract challenge so really, I'm not sure I really have any burden here. But I do think it's good form to explain why you disagree with another's position instead of just saying "support or retract".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    This already happens in a lot of areas, but this isn't science. Consensus without evidence is fashion, not the scientific process. Not to go too off-topic, but consensus is completely irrelevant to the scientific process. It only serves as a form of appeal to authority fallacy for the warrant of those without the expertise.
    I said without "empirical evidence", not without evidence.

    And if you are saying that there will never be an accepted scientific discovery without empirical evidence, then my support that science may agree that the soul does not exist proves that in the future science may discover empirical evidence that the soul does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My point with the example was that the underlying question (why do we experience time dilation at velocities that approach the speed of light) is a physical question, but it is a physical question that isn't in the realm of science to answer. So your premise that "it is possible that one day science will prove that we experience time dilation through matter distortion" would be false in this example.

    So if your premise could be true, or it could be false, it needs some kind of further support.
    Okay. But the hypothetical scenario is that it's a FACT that the brain generates consciousness so it is true. And the only issue is whether it's theoretically possible for this truth to be discovered. Even "maybe it will and maybe it won't" includes "maybe it will" and therefor supports that it's possible that one day we will discover evidence that the soul does not exist.

    So I believe I have amply supported that it's possible that one day evidence that the soul does not exist MAY be discovered.

    And likewise I believe that adequately addresses the challenge that Bel issued.

    So do you agree that I have supported that it's possible that one day we will discover evidence that the soul does not exist? If so, I think this issue is settled.

  8. #428
    Administrator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. I will support premise 1 with a logic chain.

    1. PREMISE - Short of that which is proven to be impossible, everything must be considered possible.
    2. FACT - In this debate, it has not been supported that it's impossible that one day science will prove that the soul doesn't leave the body.
    3. THEREFORE - It must be considered possible that that one day science will prove that the soul doesn't leave the body.
    I think you are stretching this chain about as far as it will go and I'm not sure that it gets you really where you want to be. That logic chain demonstrates that it hasn't been shown to be logically incoherent and as such cannot be, out of hand, dismissed. But since you haven't offered a positive support that such a thing is logically coherent all you are standing on is the presumption of possibility. Thus it doesn't show that such a thing is feasible (ie actualizable in this world) which is necessary for your counter argument to follow. IE, you would need a positive support of that concept being logically coherent in this world to act as a defeator to an argument saying that it isn't.

    Really, and I think you get there in this last statement it is essentially a raw disagreement with the underlying argument that such a thing is impossible. That the latter isn't the case has already been adjudicated (see point 3). So you are technically correct that you could fall back on simply returning the burden to show impossibility by withdrawing this point. But a much better tactic would be to simply offer some evidence or reason as to why this statement is coherent in the actualized world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As far as I understand, I am addressing an argument that posits that it's a flawed argument of mine to use the fact that there's no evidence that the soul does not exist to support, along with the fact that there's no evidence that the soul exists, to conclude, if base the issue on the evidence, that it's equally likely that the soul exists and does not exist because there can be no evidence that the soul does not exist and therefore one side has an impossible standard to meet. And my response, in a nutshell, is that it's not impossible that one day we may discover evidence that the soul does not exist.

    Man that first sentence is a beast. If, as I read it, the fundamental sticking point is about whether your standard invoking evidence of impossibility is correct or not, I think you are right that it certainly is. Which is why I agreed in my first real response. If that suffices to move the discussion forward so be it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I believe saying that that is not good enough for support and it needs to be a particular kind of evidence to support my conclusion is essentially moving the goalpost.
    Well, just to be accurate you moved the goal post by adding the term science in there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I said without "empirical evidence", not without evidence.

    And if you are saying that there will never be an accepted scientific discovery without empirical evidence, then my support that science may agree that the soul does not exist proves that in the future science may discover empirical evidence that the soul does not exist.

    Two issues here. Empirical evidence is all that is relevant to scientific inductive reasoning. Other forms of evidence apply to deductive reasoning.

    I am, just to be precise, saying that there will never be a valid scientific discovery without empirical evidence. Whether it is accepted or not is irrelevant to the process. I'm not saying that scientists always follow that process, which is what I think your last sentence presumes. Scientists, like all humans, have their own sets of biases, incentives, and other factors working against pure reasoning (in this case inductive).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #429
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you are stretching this chain about as far as it will go and I'm not sure that it gets you really where you want to be. That logic chain demonstrates that it hasn't been shown to be logically incoherent and as such cannot be, out of hand, dismissed. But since you haven't offered a positive support that such a thing is logically coherent all you are standing on is the presumption of possibility.
    The example of it being proven that the brain generates consciousness is a logically coherent example of how it’s possible to discover evidence against the soul’s existence.

    Since it is possible that such a thing maybe discovered and, as you said, any such discovery would need real evidence, I have supported that it’s possible that we may discover real evidence that the soul does not exist in the future.

    And in regards to the argument I was addressing, that is sufficient.

    Indicating that I need to provide even better support than what I already have seems to either be artificially raising the bar or there is a misunderstanding of the argument I was responding to and therefore a misunderstanding of what my burden is. Maybe the misunderstanding is my own as opposed to someone else but regardless, I do not see how what I’ve provided does not adequately address the argument I was responding to.

    So is it agreed that I have supported that it’s possible that evidence of the existence of the soul maybe found in the future?

    And if so, how is that insufficient as a defeater for the argument I'm addressing?
    Last edited by mican333; September 11th, 2019 at 06:15 AM.

  10. #430
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The example of it being proven that the brain generates consciousness is a logically coherent example of how it’s possible to discover evidence against the soul’s existence.
    This assumes consciousness = a soul.

    Just as a thought, MT once told me the brain was like a radio or tv, in that it received "signals" (thoughts) from the soul. Consciousness could be the human version of "Windows". Just making the bodily functions "work" and the soul could be the "program" that runs on it. If that were the case, the soul could still live on after the body dies.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since it is possible that such a thing maybe discovered …
    How do we know this?
    I gave an example of that which can not be known. How do we know the soul is something that can be empirically studied?

    ---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This quote is partially correct and partially incorrect. Inductive reasoning cannot actually prove any general hypothesis positive or negative in nature. If you want to "prove" something, you have to use deductive reasoning. I don't think the quote is quite accurate when it says that they cannot use "what they don't find." We do this all the time. We posit hypothesis that should have a certain experimental result. If we don't get that result, (IE we don't find it) we use that as evidence the hypothesis is incorrect. Take the famously incorrect hypothesis of Aether (the material that filled the vacuum of space). It was rejected because of what scientists didn't find (specifically drag on orbital bodies), not on what they did find.
    Yes, we use that "result" to inform our hypothesis of it's correctness.

    Soooooooooo, they didn't find evidence of "Aether", and you are saying the lack of evidence is evidence??
    I can see proving Aether doesn't exist as postulated, by evidence of other things, but actual "evidence of non existence" seems non sensical to me?


    Also,
    you answered one link but not the other:

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/..._Non_Existence
    "Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence."


    Your Al Gore example sounds like a "special situation".
    I wasn't even looking for "proof" of non existence, just direct evidence.

    Since we agree science is inductive in nature, I don't see how there can be evidence of non existence?
    If something exists we can measure its dimensions & weight, composition, interactions with other matter, etc for evidence.
    Now what does non existence exhibit for evidence? What can we see, measure, interact with in ANY way?
    I see that non existence can be inferred, but actual evidence of it does not make sense???
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 10th, 2019 at 04:06 PM.

  11. #431
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This assumes consciousness = a soul.

    Just as a thought, MT once told me the brain was like a radio or tv, in that it received "signals" (thoughts) from the soul. Consciousness could be the human version of "Windows". Just making the bodily functions "work" and the soul could be the "program" that runs on it. If that were the case, the soul could still live on after the body dies.
    The typical description of the soul is that it is contained within the body and exits it upon death, which is why the NDE experience, if proven to be valid, would be evidence of the soul existing since that is what people think a soul does.

    Alternative explanations may work but regardless, if it were shown that our consciousness was strictly a product of our brain, that would pretty much prove that the soul does not exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How do we know this?
    I gave an example of that which can not be known. How do we know the soul is something that can be empirically studied?
    We don't. Again, I said it's POSSIBLE that if the soul exists, we may find evidence that it doesn't exist. That's different than saying we will be able to do that.


    Are you going to respond to my last post addressed to you?

  12. #432
    Administrator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The example of it being proven that the brain generates consciousness is a logically coherent example of how it’s possible to discover evidence against the soul’s existence.
    Only in the same way that showing I could find a married bachelor is a coherent example of how it is possible to discover evidence of contradictions. It is a sufficient rebuttal to someone simply asserting that married bachelors are impossible, but a coherent argument that they are, in fact, possible.

    Now, we could rely on a presumption of possibility here, that we assume a married bachelor is possible until shown otherwise, but I think you can see what that isn't compelling.

    My point both here and in the last post is if you intend for your rebuttal to be anything with a bit more weight than "You haven't shown that it isn't" then this argument wouldn't hold. If your entire point with the example is that Bel hasn't shown it to be impossible, then I think it does meet that standard, but we need to be clear to what level your reply rises.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Soooooooooo, they didn't find evidence of "Aether", and you are saying the lack of evidence is evidence??
    In popular venacular, yes. If we want to be more precise, the experimental result is evidence, evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect. So if I was doing a chemical reaction and my hypothesis was that it was going to produce a sediment, but when done it only produced a solution; that solution would be evidence that my hypothesis is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I can see proving Aether doesn't exist as postulated, by evidence of other things, but actual "evidence of non existence" seems non sensical to me?
    I understand. This is, unfortunately, a very common issue that I think stems from pop-science misconceptions. The fact is, not only in science, but in our daily lives we do this all the time.

    I think your hangup is that you are, correctly, concerned about taking a deduction of this sort too far. We wouldn't say that the experiment shows that nothing even vaguely like Aether exists. We would only say, the concept as we proposed it doesn't exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Also,
    you answered one link but not the other:
    Yeah, logically fallacious dot com is a relatively unreliable source. Dr. Bo Bennett doesn't have a degree or training in any related field to what his book is about. His degree is, in fact, in a obscure corner of psychology. Which would make him an appeal to authority fallacy. ;-) Something the good doctor should have realized if he was going to write his book. The fact is that he uses novel terms to convey existing ideas, has never published a paper on any of these ideas (or any paper at all that I can find), and makes some rudimentary errors in his descriptions. Its pretty bad when even Wikipedia won't accept you as a source.

    I would stick to Nizkor personally, it is a far more reliable source. The fact is, what he is describing isn't even a fallacy. He is trying to invoke a burden shift (which is a debate tactic, not a logical fallacy) and he does so in a relatively clumsy way. He is operating off the presumption of non-existence, which, if he had any training in the subject, he would realize is a violation of the basic understanding of warrant. He also doesn't understand that any statement made about non-existence is logically equivilant to a statement about existence. IE A = ~~A (A is the same thing as not not A).

    So me saying "Married bachelors do not exist" is the exact same thing as saying "Our universe contains only single bachelors." But in his construct one of those statements holds a burden and the other doesn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    If something exists we can measure its dimensions & weight, composition, interactions with other matter, etc for evidence.
    Now what does non existence exhibit for evidence? What can we see, measure, interact with in ANY way?
    I see that non existence can be inferred, but actual evidence of it does not make sense???
    But existence itself is only inferred, literally everything observational is an inference. You are basing your acceptance of existence off of inferential data on an object. You don't actually interact with the box you see, your brain is detecting photons bouncing off of that box.

    Moreover, evidence for non-existence would be simple. A lack of interactions with other matter when it should. A lack of influence on other objects or energy or consequences when it should have those interactions. So if photons are not bouncing off the box into your eye, you would take that for evidence of the non-existence of that particular box.

    Now, you might argue that that just means the box is somewhere else. To which I would reply, "Ok, why were you looking in that spot then?" That is bad experimental design, not a flaw in reasoning.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #433
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Only in the same way that showing I could find a married bachelor is a coherent example of how it is possible to discover evidence of contradictions. It is a sufficient rebuttal to someone simply asserting that married bachelors are impossible, but a coherent argument that they are, in fact, possible.

    Now, we could rely on a presumption of possibility here, that we assume a married bachelor is possible until shown otherwise, but I think you can see what that isn't compelling.

    My point both here and in the last post is if you intend for your rebuttal to be anything with a bit more weight than "You haven't shown that it isn't" then this argument wouldn't hold. If your entire point with the example is that Bel hasn't shown it to be impossible, then I think it does meet that standard, but we need to be clear to what level your reply rises.
    The only relevant "level" we need to address is the level of whether I have supported my argument that it's possible that we can discover evidence that the soul does not exist.

    With a grading analogy, it's a pass/fail and I've either passed or I've failed. Whether my answer is A+ or not is not a relevant issue to what needs to be determined here.

    I have provided support or I have not. And I think there's not much disagreement that I have.

    So assuming you agree that I have supported my argument that it's possible that it's possible that one day evidence that the soul does not exist will be discovered, this issue is settled.
    Last edited by mican333; September 12th, 2019 at 06:46 AM.

  14. #434
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Are you going to respond to my last post addressed to you?
    I'm trying. I mentioned a couple posts ago that my responses might not be as timely as in the past.

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Definition of supernatural

    1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
    2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

    b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
    God is supernatural (assuming God exists), I hope even Dio would agree with that.
    If the soul were confirmed true, it would not be "departing from what is usual or normal".
    The soul as you describe is not invisible.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    My guess would be yes, probably because most humans and the human senses are only able to observe small slices of any given event.
    I doubt it. This universe is balanced. Add energy somewhere and it will probably have an effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well, most materialistic scientists have a problem accepting such phenomena when people claim to observe it. I can understand that, but that doesn’t mean the event didn’t take place.
    They doubt anything alive can be immaterial perhaps, but I don't think they would doubt the immaterial could go thru a material wall.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Human eyes are probably not what is truly “observing” a supernatural event. Physical eyes are most likely just like a TV set, a wonderful, yet complex receiving set of hardware. For example, we would never expect to find the announcer to a television program inside the TV hardware if we broke apart the unit looking for the announcer. The show comes from a different source. The TV is only the hardware that allows us to see the show. Physical eyes can see and observe physical things. But some humans (as history has shown) have the ability to see and perceive phenomena using the receiving hardware of their eyes but the event is not caused by physical events, i.e, souls leaving a deceased body, or seeing angels or demons, etc.
    Would you support the boldened part above please?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Jesus talked about this phenomena: "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?" Mark 8:18 (In other words, if we try to look for and see the hero to the drama inside the TV set we won't find/see him. If we want to have inner-vision, observe the Spirit, miracles, angels, etc., with our physical eyes, we might want to consider accessing another set of tools, probably subject to a different set of laws, spiritual laws.
    I think he meant something like "you can't see the forest for the trees" here. As in, perception can deceive the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Perspective…
    Although some loopholes remain not all non-local models have been ruled out we now have to face the possibility that there is nothing inherently real about the properties of an object that we measure. In other words, measuring those properties is what brings them into existence. "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality," says quantum researcher Vlatko Vedral of the University of Leeds, UK.
    Huh? How can "measuring those properties is what brings them into existence." be true since there had to be something to measure to start with?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    (PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at UC Santa Barbara have provided the first clear demonstration that the theory of quantum mechanics applies to the mechanical motion of an object large enough to be seen by the naked eye. Their work satisfies a longstanding goal among physicists.
    https://phys.org/news/2010-03-physic...cs-motion.html
    I realize the article does say this could be seen with the naked eye, but they are talking about:
    " With the mechanical resonator as close as possible to being perfectly still, they added a single quantum of energy to the resonator using a quantum bit (qubit) to produce the excitation. "

    obviously the naked eye did not witness this...



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    They’re still working on a unified theory that ideally will unify classical physics and QM. But until then, bear in mind that humans are made up of millions of particles. Molecules are made out of atoms, and atoms are made out of subatomic particles such as protons and electrons which are 99.99999% empty space.
    Agreed, but my point still stands:
    " QM can't show why the planets orbit the sun as they do for instance. "

    and I don't think it ever will by itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I think this raises an interesting question: why does everything look and feel so solid?
    Indeed, the universe is an interesting place is it not

  15. #435
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then please point it out. I specifically asked that you point out how my argument does not satisfy. So let me repeat it and this time please tell me specifically how it falls short in your eyes.

    Direct evidence that the mind generates consciousness would be direct evidence that consciousness does not leave the body and therefore direct evidence that the soul does not exist.
    Again if consciousness = a soul you may have a point.
    The sticky issue is:
    can the mind/consciousness/the soul be empirically studied.
    IOW is science actually capable of realizing your claim?

    I am not saying it can't, just suggesting it is hardly a given the soul is available for study in such a manner.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "God is as likely to exist as not" is definitely not the same as "God exists in the first place"...
    Exactly, that is the point!
    To determine odds of my being god, you first have to agree god exists (which is not a given) or there is no way to make odds of any sort.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But we are the only two people debating here (considering Squatch to be an adjudicator and not a debater) so we can agree about anything in particular and hold it as "correct" for this debate. So assuming we agree that the notion that you created the universe is absurd, we can both reject it and therefore we are not forced to hold that it's "as likely as not" in terms of this debate.

    So even if the evidence for you being God or not being God was equal, I reject the notion that you are God as being absurd. Since I'm sure you agree with me on that, we can reject that notion regardless of what the quantity of evidence may be.
    Personal opinion of the "absurdness" of a given issue is only that, a personal opinion. Hardly part of a logical argument.

    Even if I grant Squatch's idea that there can be "direct evidence of non existence", we can still use evidence and facts from other related things to help make an informed decision on a given topic.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't know if I agree but I don't think that really matters here.
    You don't have to agree to logic.
    to quote you "A truism":

    1. A brute fact needs no other support
    2. QM shows that some things are unknowable.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Are you arguing that IF consciousness is generated by the brain (and therefore the soul does not exist), this IS something that mankind WILL never discover? If so, please support. If not, then you must concede that it's possible that one day we will learn, from direct evidence, that the soul does not exist.
    I am arguing that the soul may not be available for empirical study.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean that's my point. It is possible that one day we will have evidence that the soul does not exist. And it is possible, right?
    I don't think anyone knows of it's possible!
    What if it does exist?? Then it would be impossible to "prove the soul does not exist".


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, that's not how "supernatural" is defined (defies natural law).

    The common definition is fine with me:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
    "1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
    especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
    2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
    b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost"

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural
    "1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
    2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
    3. Of or relating to a deity.
    4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
    5. Of or relating to the miraculous."

    https://www.yourdictionary.com/supernatural
    "The definition of supernatural is extraordinary or is something associated with forces we don't understand or that cannot be explained by science."
    (emphasis mine)

  16. #436
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Again if consciousness = a soul you may have a point.
    The sticky issue is:
    can the mind/consciousness/the soul be empirically studied.
    IOW is science actually capable of realizing your claim?
    And the answer is "maybe" which means that it's possible that we may discover evidence that the soul does not exist in the future.

    Let's be clear. I am, assume, responding to an argument that posits that my "equal evidence" argument is flawed because we CAN'T discover evidence that the soul does not exist. So the bar I have to meet is "maybe it will be discovered". I have met that bar.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Exactly, that is the point!
    To determine odds of my being god, you first have to agree god exists (which is not a given) or there is no way to make odds of any sort.
    No, I have to determine the odds that God exists. And as I have supported, it's 50/50 that God exists. Squatch has accepted that I have.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Personal opinion of the "absurdness" of a given issue is only that, a personal opinion. Hardly part of a logical argument.
    But that doesn't change the fact that if both parties in a debate agree that something is absurd, they can agree to reject it regardless of what the evidence says. So despite what evidence is or is not provided, we can agree that it's absurd to post that you are God and therefore reject that notion. So we are not forced to hold that it's equally likely as not that you are God just because no one has provided any evidence either way (although I have provided evidence that you probably are not and Squatch agrees that my argument is sound).



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Even if I grant Squatch's idea that there can be "direct evidence of non existence", we can still use evidence and facts from other related things to help make an informed decision on a given topic.
    Yep.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am arguing that the soul may not be available for empirical study.
    But things that could prove that the soul doesn't exist may be available for empirical study.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I don't think anyone knows of it's possible!
    What if it does exist?? Then it would be impossible to "prove the soul does not exist".
    First off, short of things that have been proven to be impossible, everything must be considered possible.

    Yes, and if it's proven the soul does exist THEN it's impossible that the soul does not exist. But since we haven't proven that the soul exists, it must be considered possible that the soul does not exist.






    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The common definition is fine with me
    And there is nothing in any of the definitions that say the the supernatural actually contradicts natural laws.

    The parts you bolded all say "appears to transcend", "seems to violate", "We don't understand", "cannot be explained". None of them say the supernatural actually violates the laws of nature.

    So if you want to accept my argument and agree that the term supernatural is not about actually violating natural laws, that's fine.

    If you want to keep on engaging in a semantic argument about the definition of "supernatural", I'm not interested and hold that we must agree to disagree (since we apparently couldn't reach an agreement after debating the definition for quite a while earlier) on the definition of "supernatural" and therefore the term is not usable in this debate.
    Last edited by mican333; September 13th, 2019 at 09:26 AM.

  17. #437
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And the answer is "maybe" which means that it's possible that we may discover evidence that the soul does not exist in the future.

    Let's be clear. I am, assume, responding to an argument that posits that my "equal evidence" argument is flawed because we CAN'T discover evidence that the soul does not exist. So the bar I have to meet is "maybe it will be discovered". I have met that bar.
    "Maybe" allows for not being able to be empirically studied also, but the real point was settled a few posts ago when you agreed that not every idea with no evidence is as likely to be true as not.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    ...so we are not forced to hold that it's equally likely as not that you are God just because no one has provided any evidence either way...
    So again we agree here (that no evidence of a proposition does not mean equal likely hood of it being true or not) since this was only a metaphor to show a flaw in the argument being presented to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yep.
    Near total agreement then



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But things that could prove that the soul doesn't exist may be available for empirical study.
    Sure, but we are discussing direct evidence of non existence so this is non sequitur.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, short of things that have been proven to be impossible, everything must be considered possible.
    I have shown some things are not available for empirical study and the soul could be one of them, but the real point is not "is something possible", it's how likely that possibility is.

    So, I would say we generally agree here...


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes, and if it's proven the soul does exist THEN it's impossible that the soul does not exist. But since we haven't proven that the soul exists, it must be considered possible that the soul does not exist.
    Your question was something like "it's possible that one day we could prove the soul does not exist isn't it?"

    My response was to that specific question not the debate in general:
    "that it may be impossible to do that because the soul may in fact exist"


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And there is nothing in any of the definitions that say the the supernatural actually contradicts natural laws.

    The parts you bolded all say "appears to transcend", "seems to violate", "We don't understand", "cannot be explained". None of them say the supernatural actually violates the laws of nature.
    I gave def's from several websites all saying basically the same idea:
    that natural law was being "transcended", "violated" etc. There is nothing semantic about that idea.

    It matters little to my comments so far, though suffice it to say "supernatural" definitely does not mean natural!

    As you have agreed that no evidence of a proposition does not necessarily mean equal in likely hood or not and the def of "supernatural" does not matter to the debate, it appears to me we have covered the bases here.
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 13th, 2019 at 05:33 PM.

  18. #438
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,517
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    God is supernatural (assuming God exists), I hope even Dio would agree with that.
    If the soul were confirmed true, it would not be "departing from what is usual or normal".
    Why not? Why would that be an issue assuming the soul exists? I addressed this idea before and I thought you agreed – Something that is not physical (the soul) would have no issue interacting or disengaging from a material object.

    The soul as you describe is not invisible.
    In my hypothecial example, I did not describe the soul

    If the soul was visible most people throughout history through today would be able to see it depart a desceased body. If the soul was visible, we probably wouldn’t be having this debate.


    They doubt anything alive can be immaterial perhaps, but I don't think they would doubt the immaterial could go thru a material wall.
    It would probably depend on the scientist. I think most scientists today who found themselves in a circumstance where they observed a spirit form exit a deceased body and float away through a wall, might seriously doubt what they observed.


    Would you support the boldened part above please?
    Such people are known as seers and prophets and have existed throughout the ages through today and through the world cultures. Here are some well-known people. There are probably many more not so well known.



    I think he meant something like "you can't see the forest for the trees" here. As in, perception can deceive the truth.
    The principle of a spiritual body versus a natural body is found in most of the world major religious text.
    “There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Corinthians 15:44

    huh? How can "measuring those properties is what brings them into existence." be true since there had to be something to measure to start with?
    We will most likely understand this better in the future. Until then it remains one of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike,
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0227055013.htm


    Agreed, but my point still stands:
    " QM can't show why the planets orbit the sun as they do for instance. "

    and I don't think it ever will by itself.
    We’ll have to wait and see what happens.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  19. #439
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    "Maybe" allows for not being able to be empirically studied also, but the real point was settled a few posts ago when you agreed that not every idea with no evidence is as likely to be true as not.
    But that does not show that the odds of the soul existing, based on what's presented in this debate, is anything other than 50/50.

    All the "you are God" scenario shows is that we CAN use things other than evidence to weigh the odds (such as mutually agreeing that one proposition is absurd and therefore agree to favor the other).

    But to do that to shift the odds away from "evidence only" in THIS debate, you need to ACTUALLY present such a thing (something that is not evidence but would shift the odds of the soul existing somehow). As supported, you hypothetically could do that. But in this debate, you have not done introduced something like that so all we have in THIS debate is evidence and the evidence, as supported, shows that the odds of existence/nonexistence is 50/50.

    So my argument that the odds are 50/50 because the evidence supports both sides equally still stands because these other factors are not present. All you've done is shown that it's possible to introduce non-evidence to shift the odds but you have not actually shifted the odds.

    I think this argument covers many of your other comments so I'm not going to respond to those ones to avoid redundancy and confusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Sure, but we are discussing direct evidence of non existence so this is non sequitur.
    Things that would show that the soul does not exist would indeed be evidence that the soul does not exist.

    And "evidence that the soul does not exist" is the bar I have to meet to address your argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have shown some things are not available for empirical study and the soul could be one of them, but the real point is not "is something possible", it's how likely that possibility is.

    So, I would say we generally agree here...
    No, it's not how likely the possibility is. If it's POSSIBLE at all that we can discover evidence that the soul does not exist, then I have successfully rebutted your argument that it's not possible that we could find evidence that the soul does not exist.

    My argument only fails if we CAN NEVER find evidence that the soul does not exist even if it does exist.

    If I'm incorrect about that, then you need to restate your argument to show that my assumption is incorrect. Otherwise, I maintain that it is so.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your question was something like "it's possible that one day we could prove the soul does not exist isn't it?"

    My response was to that specific question not the debate in general:
    "that it may be impossible to do that because the soul may in fact exist"
    But that doesn't rebut my argument at all.

    Yes, we may find that it's impossible to show that soul does not exist because it does. But that does not contradict my statement that it's possible that one day we could prove the soul does not exist.

    So please answer this question (and hopefully resolve this).

    Do you agree that it's possible that the soul does not exist and it's also possible that we will find evidence that the soul does not exist?

    If yes, then my point stands.

    If not, then explain why not?




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I gave def's from several websites all saying basically the same idea:
    that natural law was being "transcended", "violated" etc. There is nothing semantic about that idea.
    No, it does not say natural law was being violated. It says "seems to"

    From your post - here is every definition that mentions violating natural law somehow.

    "2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

    2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces."


    There is a very significant difference between "violates natural law" and "seems to violate natural law".


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It matters little to my comments so far, though suffice it to say "supernatural" definitely does not mean natural!
    And if definitely does not mean "violates natural law".

    And if you are going to use the word, it DOES matter that you use it correctly. You are using it incorrectly when you say that it means "violates natural law" as opposed to "appears to violate natural law". Using a single word to describe something more complex is suppose to be a time-saving device (use that one word instead of having to use a bunch of words to explain what you mean) but when you use the word incorrectly, it's the opposite of a time-save device for instead of me understanding what you mean when you say "supernatural", I have to get into a semantic debate with you which takes up more time for both of us than it would if you had taken the time to explain what you mean without using that one word. And again, we already had a semantic debate over this word for quite a while and I think I either won that debate or we agreed to disagree. But either way, it is CLEARLY detrimental to this debate for this word to be used in this debate (unless the point of the debate is to argue the definition). So I ask that if you want to use that word, don't use it and instead take the time to explain what you are trying to get across with different words. Since the word "supernatural" has no agreed-upon definition, it's usage hampers communication instead of helps it and therefore is not usable.
    Last edited by mican333; Yesterday at 06:21 PM.

  20. #440
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Why not? Why would that be an issue assuming the soul exists? I addressed this idea before and I thought you agreed – Something that is not physical (the soul) would have no issue interacting or disengaging from a material object.
    I'm not sure how this applies to the quote you are responding to?

    1. I said:
    "God if He exists would be supernatural. Do you agree?

    2. I said if the soul exists it would not be:
    "departing from what is usual or normal". Since all humans would have a soul, it would be incredibly common....


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    In my hypothecial example, I did not describe the soul

    If the soul was visible most people throughout history through today would be able to see it depart a desceased body. If the soul was visible, we probably wouldn’t be having this debate.
    Most of thjs seems quite reasonable, except your hypothetical said:
    "1. A large group of top scientists personally witness a soul/spirit leave, float way, from a human deceased body. It’s captured on video. They all see it and watch it a 100+ times to make sure they were not dreaming."

    You have further described a soul as:
    "I am also not aware of any natural laws that explain, let alone recognize the spirit of anything in the natural world; nor am I aware of any current natural laws that explain ghosts floating in the air [NASA might be interested in this knowledge]; or ghosts walking through walls [law enforcement agencies could greatly benefit from this know-how, let alone anyone caught in a fire]; nor am I aware of any natural laws that explain how ghosts can punch a human in the face, given that they have no physical body. [This skill set could be very handy for some military operations.]

    but I do agree, if the soul was visible we probably wouldn't be having this particular conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It would probably depend on the scientist. I think most scientists today who found themselves in a circumstance where they observed a spirit form exit a deceased body and float away through a wall, might seriously doubt what they observed.
    Sounds like a reasonable conclusion since you just said souls were not visible??.....


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Such people are known as seers and prophets and have existed throughout the ages through today and through the world cultures. Here are some well-known people. There are probably many more not so well known.
    If the future could actually be known, then free will does not exist in any practical sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The principle of a spiritual body versus a natural body is found in most of the world major religious text.
    “There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Corinthians 15:44
    Perhaps, but the more likely story is just like it sounds:
    "look but do not see"

    sounds a lot like "perception is 9/10th's of the law" (Belthazor).


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    We will most likely understand this better in the future. Until then it remains one of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike,
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0227055013.htm
    1. Your link does not support your point.
    2. So I stick my tape measure out and suddenly something appears for me to measure with it? This is dangerously close to "married bachelor" territory...

    The universe existed way before humans existed....

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    We’ll have to wait and see what happens.
    I don't think we do. QM does not work on very larger objects. That another theory could be used to bridge the gap with other existing theories (GR) notwithstanding.

 

 
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast

Similar Threads

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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