The soul does not exist

[evensaul]

My argument is that souls do not exist because:

1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).

Why are those the only two options? Why couldn't it exist as an immaterial spiritual entity, rather than an idea or wish?

2. The idea of a soul being eternal brings many problems, not least of which, where do they come from and where do they go after death and how could there possibly be enough room for everyone, forever. Of course, each religion has various ways to resolve the issue, from reincarnation to a supposedly ever expanding heaven/hell or simply being absorbed back into some deity. But none of these solve the space issue or resources or how souls will interact with each other.

If the soul is immaterial, why would space and time be problems?

3. It’s clear that we are the sum of our brains and our bodies. Attempts to ‘measure’ the weight of the soul at the time of death have usually failed at being convincing (see the 21gram experiment - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment).

If a soul is immaterial, why would it have weight?

[Dionysus]

Why are those the only two options? Why couldn't it exist as an immaterial spiritual entity, rather than an idea or wish?

It's not clear what is meant by "immaterial spiritual entity". Without knowing what that is, it could just as easily be that it exists as a G&%198.qa^ FFFFFFFG*#1.

[SharmaK]

I am not letting you off starting another tangent until you have formally withdrawn your three big statements
:

- your big statement about your agnostic position
- essence=consciousness
- ALL religions believe E=S

You first.

Again, the original burden is on YOU.

YOU are arguing that the concept of the soul doesn't make sense and yet you've taken no coherent position on what about it doesn't make sense. Asking me what I think it means is not taking your own position and therefore does not equate an assertive argument that it doesn't make sense

So instead of me telling you what I think, you need to tell me what you think. I mean the OP's definition seemed pretty good to me and yet you are asking me what I think you were saying as if you don't know what you are saying. So I'm not withdrawing what I'm saying but I'm not going to continue explaining to you what I think this and that actually means.

So let me put this issue in a formal challenge.

I you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the concept of the soul, as described in the OP, makes no sense.

If you decline this challenge, then this whole issue is dropped and then there is definitely no need for me to waste my time explaining this to you.

The OP details my thoughts. That you jump ahead and make assumptions instead of asking for clarification and getting that all wrong and having to back track at least three times instead of reading the OP is typical.

So how about reading the OP and going from there. Which is what you should have done to begin with.

You seem to be conflating me not being convinced by your arguments with not reading them or ignoring them.

You have been issued red letter warnings that you have failed to address any of my challenges to support that there is scientific evidence favoring your side of the debate. As far as I can tell, you have indeed offered nothing to support your side and if you are going to maintain that you've provided solid evidence, please support that assertion.

So I am weighing the evidence equally. Zero equals zero. If there is some evidence that supports your side that I have missed, please present it. Otherwise your claim that I have ignored anything is hot air.

We dropped the consciousness track since that’s all you. So do you agree to retract that:

A - essence = consciousness
B - this is stated in all religions.


You need to formally withdraw this since you have been challenged on it.

I'm not interested in hearing you complain and complain.

If you want to attack my arguments, attack away. If you want to provide spammish assessments of my debating or me, you are wasting both of our times.

I believe you started all this with your “I won’t support my own words because it might help you”. So you stop first!

Well, I believe that I have utterly destroyed every single argument you ever made and you lack the intellectual capacity to form a coherent point.

I can prove it when I say it!

I did. My response doesn't change. So to repeat:

I do not disagree that you more or less accurately described what an NDE is. But THAT'S ALL YOU DID. You just described it and then blew the proverbial raspberry at it without stating what specifically is ridiculous about it.

If you are going to maintain that your statement did specifically point out why it's ridiculous, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that statement. So no "go back and reread what I said". You now need to back up your claim or drop it.

Specifically what is ridiculous for the THIRD TIME is that you are suggesting that this OOBE experience can HEAR things without suggesting what it is that is doing the hearing, what is doing that actual hearing and where it is stored. It makes no sense - therefore nonsense.

I was only using that article to support that there have been thousands of cases and not using the article to attempt to support that it actually happens.

Right. Of course you are. So you hold positions based on unproven hearsay!

No, I can't use it to support any position. For example, I can't use it to support that the Earth is flat since we have very strong evidence that the Earth is round. I can't use it to support that the sun rises in the West. And I'm not even setting the bar of "possible" THAT high. Just provide some level of valid support that OBEs can't/don't happen and you will likely defeat the notion (obviously it has to be valid support).

So until you do provide support that such things don't happen or can't happen, the default position is that such things are possible.

So yes, until one shows evidence that supports X is impossible, it must be considered possible. That is a logical truism and therefore addresses your challenge.

Ridiculous - you’re dodging again with unproven assertions and nonsense.

I agree that this makes the notion unsupported but it does not make it ridiculous. Or are you arguing that every concept that lacks support is ridiculous?

No but OOBE is nonsense.

But then I never argued otherwise. I'm just arguing that it's possible.

Then answer the question - how does the hearing or seeing work?

Well, I had a dream last night and you had a dream last night. What are the odds that they were the same dream? Very tiny.

So can you explain why thousands of people have essentially the same dream in the same situation? I certainly don't discount a hypothesis that explains why this might happen but my point is not to weight competing hypothesis. My point is that one particular hypothesis is possible. That's it. Even if a competing hypothesis is more likely to be true, it does not change the fact that the NDE one is possible.

OK so you’re saying that all those people on acid or meth must truly be seeing their illusions? That it can’t just be in their heads unreliable recalling what happened? Seriously, you’d rather consider a nonsensical idea rather than going to the most obvious source - the fallible mind!

Since "nonsense" is not defined as "something that doesn't need to be taken at face value", I disagree that you have shown that it is nonsense

Double negative much - what do you even mean?

And you have not supported that I can't explain or speculate how it happens so that comment fails for lack of support. BTW, I'm not offering to explain it all (to do so, I would first need to do more research on the issue which I'm not inclined to do right now). But if you are going to argue that if I tried, I would fail and therefore cannot do it, you do need to support that assertion.

I don’t need you to PROVE anything. I am challenging you use your brain and knowledge about the brain to draw your own conclusions!

[evensaul]

It's not clear what is meant by "immaterial spiritual entity". Without knowing what that is, it could just as easily be that it exists as a G&%198.qa^ FFFFFFFG*#1.

Right. So? Does the name really matter? Why do you need to know all the details of "what it is", to acknowledge it might exist? Do scientists need to know every detail about dark matter to believe it might exist?

The point is that he claims there are only two possibilities, and has given no reason to exclude all others. It is an unsupported claim.

[Dionysus]

Right. So? Does the name really matter? Why do you need to know all the details of "what it is", to acknowledge it might exist. Do scientists need to know every detail about dark matter to believe it might exist?

Because if you have no idea what something is, you can't go on to claim to know anything about it.

[evensaul]

Because if you have no idea what something is, you can't go on to claim to know anything about it.

Having no idea is much different than not knowing every detail.

[Dionysus]

Having no idea is much different than not knowing every detail.

I didn't say it wasn't, but you DO have to know SOMETHING about it. Using nebulous terms like "immaterial spiritual entity" doesn't tell us anything about it.

[mican333]

I am not letting you off starting another tangent until you have formally withdrawn your three big statements
:

- your big statement about your agnostic position
- essence=consciousness
- ALL religions believe E=S

I do not have to withdraw any of them.

With the support or retract rule, one does not have to withdraw a comment but just not repeat it to abide by the rule.

So at this point I choose to not repeat any of those statements and if I do repeat then, you may then challenge me to support or retract them.

Likewise you have the option of just not repeating your argument that the concept of the soul does not make sense in the face of my challenge for you to support or retract it.

Likewise you are currently abiding by the support or retract rule by not repeating the various claims that you were red-lettered about.

The OP details my thoughts. That you jump ahead and make assumptions instead of asking for clarification and getting that all wrong and having to back track at least three times instead of reading the OP is typical

So how about reading the OP and going from there. Which is what you should have done to begin with.

I have read the OP. And I have challenged you to support or retract your claim that the concept of the soul does not make sense.

So don't repeat that claim again unless you are going to support it.

I will consider this issue of whether the concept makes sense to be closed until you do offer support.

We dropped the consciousness track since that’s all you. So do you agree to retract that:

A - essence = consciousness
B - this is stated in all religions.

I currently have no intention of repeating those claims.

You need to formally withdraw this since you have been challenged on it.

Wrong. Again, not repeating a claim qualifies as a retraction. There is nothing in the ODN rules that says that one must withdraw a claim if they choose to not support it.

Specifically what is ridiculous for the THIRD TIME is that you are suggesting that this OOBE experience can HEAR things without suggesting what it is that is doing the hearing, what is doing that actual hearing and where it is stored. It makes no sense - therefore nonsense.

Support or retract that it's ridiculous that the OBE experience can hear just because I have have not specified how it hears.

Right. Of course you are. So you hold positions based on unproven hearsay!

I supported that there are at least 3000 cases of NDE with what constitutes valid support on ODN (linked article).

I have supported that such incidents are possible with solid logic (possible unless impossible).

I have not supported that NDEs actually happen but then I've never taken the position that they do. So I have supported that positions that I actually took.

Ridiculous - you’re dodging again with unproven assertions and nonsense.

Nope. I provided a supported argument and it stands until you offer an actual rebuttal instead of just making those unsupported assertions.

No but OOBE is nonsense.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.

And again, don't repeat it until you provide support for it.

Then answer the question - how does the hearing or seeing work?

Shifting the burden. If you want to argue that it can't see or hear, please support that assertion. Asking me to support the opposite conclusion is shifting the burden.

OK so you’re saying that all those people on acid or meth must truly be seeing their illusions? That it can’t just be in their heads unreliable recalling what happened? Seriously, you’d rather consider a nonsensical idea rather than going to the most obvious source - the fallible mind!

This is all irrelevant to my argument. I am not arguing that one is more likely than the other. I am ONLY arguing that it's POSSIBLE the NDEs happen. An alternative explanation being more likely is irrelevant.

Double negative much - what do you even mean?

I mean what said about NDEs ("something that doesn't need to be taken at face value"") does not meet the definition of "nonsense".

I don’t need you to PROVE anything. I am challenging you use your brain and knowledge about the brain to draw your own conclusions!

I am. Using my brain and knowledge, I have concluded that NDEs are possible. If you don't like my answer, then tell me why it's wrong. If you can't or won't do that, then my position stands.

[evensaul]

I didn't say it wasn't, but you DO have to know SOMETHING about it. Using nebulous terms like "immaterial spiritual entity" doesn't tell us anything about it.

It identifies the subject as immaterial, which I'm assuming SharmaK is using to mean "spiritual, rather than physical". And if we're discussing the soul in terms of Christianity, then it is an entity created by God, which temporarily resides in an earthly body. When that body dies, the soul will go to heaven or hell. You don't subscribe to those beliefs, I know, but don't pretend that they are unknown to you.

[Dionysus]

It identifies the subject as immaterial, which I'm assuming SharmaK is using to mean "spiritual, rather than physical". And if we're discussing the soul in terms of Christianity, then it is an entity created by God, which temporarily resides in an earthly body. When that body dies, the soul will go to heaven or hell. You don't subscribe to those beliefs, I know, but don't pretend that they are unknown to you.

I'm not pretending anything. I never understood what people meant when they said a soul is an "immaterial spiritual entity". What is "spiritual"? What does it mean for a thing to be "immaterial"? What does that mean? What's the stuff it's made of? Is it matter? Is it energy?

[evensaul]

I'm not pretending anything.

Okay, good.

For me, not knowing details doesn't bother me any more than when I don't know exactly how the internet works, how hunger pains are triggered, or what causes nightmares. It just isn't necessary to know and understand. But I realize that it may be completely different for nonbelievers.

I'm not sure you and I have much to debate here. I'm just killing time until SharmaK responds to my first post.

[futureboy]

not knowing details doesn't bother me any more than when I don't know exactly how the internet works

Your comparison between "soul" and "internet" here is not valid. There is tangible empirical evidence that internet exists and does work, so you at least know it works somehow just not exactly how.

[evensaul]

Your comparison between "soul" and "internet" here is not valid. There is tangible empirical evidence that internet exists and does work, so you at least know it works somehow just not exactly how.

I said the comparison works for me.

[futureboy]

The comparison works for me. I don't care if it doesn't work for you.

I get that you don't care, that's fine. Just to point out the incorrectness of your statement: I didn't say it doesn't work for me - I said it isn't valid, and explained why. You can choose to respond or the comparison remains invalid, meaning your use of it as a justification for continuing believing in a soul without having any empirical evidence makes your reasoning irrational.

[evensaul]

Your opinion is noted.

[futureboy]

Your opinion is noted.

Unfortunately, simply claiming that someone's rebuttal of your argument is an opinion does not serve as a valid response to that rebuttal. Further such responses will be ignored.

[evensaul]

Your personal opinion of what does not serve as a valid response is noted.

[Dionysus]

For me, not knowing details doesn't bother me any more than when I don't know exactly how the internet works, how hunger pains are triggered, or what causes nightmares. It just isn't necessary to know and understand. But I realize that it may be completely different for nonbelievers.

Gotcha.

So, given that you appreciate that it may be completely different for non-believers, how does that square with the idea of choosing to believe in souls? Your statement here suggests that your position on the matter is fueled by a certain kind of intuition on the matter that you simply have; an intuition that a non-believer may completely lack. And if that unbeliever completely lacks that sort of intuition, to what extent are they personally responsible for not believing in things that are simply self-evident to people like yourself?

[evensaul]

Gotcha.

So, given that you appreciate that it may be completely different for non-believers, how does that square with the idea of choosing to believe in souls? Your statement here suggests that your position on the matter is fueled by a certain kind of intuition on the matter that you simply have; an intuition that a non-believer may completely lack. And if that unbeliever completely lacks that sort of intuition, to what extent are they personally responsible for not believing in things that are simply self-evident to people like yourself?

From the last part first, it's not my place to judge whether nonbelievers are responsible for their lack of belief. I suspect that they are not, but I really don't know.

To me, belief in God, the soul, Heaven is a package deal. I believe in God and, by extension, what the Bible says about souls, Heaven, etc.

[Dionysus]

From the last part first, it's not my place to judge whether nonbelievers are responsible for their lack of belief. I suspect that they are not, but I really don't know.

To me, belief in God, the soul, Heaven is a package deal. I believe in God and, by extension, what the Bible says about souls, Heaven, etc.

That's fair. Also, I know I'm veering us off-topic a little, but the same ol' nose-thumbing back and forth is so boring, you know?

Anyway, concerning non-belief, what makes you suspect that those who are simply not equipped with that intuition will not be held responsible for that lack of belief (asked with a full appreciation of the fact you say that, ultimately, you don't know)?