(September 26, 2020 at 5:40 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: My denomination claims that God created man as mortal, having no soul or spirit in addition to, or independent from, the body. At death the person merely decomposes.

If you falsify this proposition, by showing man does indeed have a soul, it would refute the existence of my particular God. I would have to join Hinduism or Islam, or any other religion with a soul-predicting God. Or at the very least reinterpret my churches beliefs to account for the information.

No we mean falsify god, not a particular religious belief, there is as so far no evidence of a soul.

The soul itself is so described as to be beyond falsification the meaning (in religious context is) ''the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.'', you claim science is about disproving rather than proving, how would you go about disproving (or proving) the soul ?

Out of interest John, what denomination are you ?

(September 26, 2020 at 6:03 pm)possibletarian Wrote: No we mean falsify god, not a particular religious belief, there is as so far no evidence of a soul.

Out of interest John, what denomination are you ?

1. God and religious beliefs go hand in hand; stated another way, it is as if God was the theory and religious beliefs were it's hypothesis: If my particular God exists, then man shouldn't have a soul. Therefore, if man is found to have a soul, my particular God does not exist.

2. There's nothing inherently unfalsifiable about souls. When things aren't falsifiable it is usually because they predict every possible test outcome, not because you haven't figured out a way to test it.

3. Seventh-Day Adventist.

Wish granting magic sky pixies are just imaginary friends for adults.

(September 26, 2020 at 6:34 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 26, 2020 at 6:03 pm)possibletarian Wrote: No we mean falsify god, not a particular religious belief, there is as so far no evidence of a soul.

Out of interest John, what denomination are you ?

1. God and religious beliefs go hand in hand; stated another way, it is as if God was the theory and religious beliefs were it's hypothesis: If my particular God exists, then man shouldn't have a soul. Therefore, if man is found to have a soul, my particular God does not exist.

2. There's nothing inherently unfalsifiable about souls. When things aren't falsifiable it is usually because they predict every possible test outcome, not because you haven't figured out a way to test it.

3. Seventh-Day Adventist.

*bold mine*
Sorry John I have no idea what that means, can you expand and explain it for me ?
Then how would you tell if there was a soul, what about a soul would we be able to test ?

(September 26, 2020 at 5:50 pm)Eleven Wrote: Religious faith does to the theistic mind what hallucinetic drugs do to any mind.

At least when you're doing shrooms they don't take a long time to wear off.

(September 26, 2020 at 9:05 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Then how would you tell if there was a soul, what about a soul would we be able to test ?

I don't know enough about souls to give you an answer; they're just not in principle unfalsifiable. If a theory predicts that an egg drop will break an egg, but it also predicts that it won't break an egg, that theory is unfalsifiable because it predicts all possible experimental outcomes. Nothing about the description of souls predicts all possible outcomes.

Scientists spend much of their time figuring out precisely how to test things. That's not an easy question to answer. Many breakthroughs in science occurred after someone finally figured out a clever way to test something. An example that comes to mind was the hypothesis that neurons communicate via chemical signals, not electrical signals. For a long time nobody knew how to test this hypothesis until Otto Loewi came up with a clever experiment. He stimulated the parasympathetic nerve of a heart inside a liquid solution, and then bathed a second heart with that same solution and observed as the heart rate decreased. Thus concluding that neural transmission was chemical and those chemicals had diffused into the solution. This story is famous because Otto came up with the idea for the experiment in a dream he had lol.

Short answer: That's for you to figure out.

(September 26, 2020 at 9:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 26, 2020 at 9:05 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Then how would you tell if there was a soul, what about a soul would we be able to test ?

I don't know enough about souls to give you an answer; they're just not in principle unfalsifiable. If a theory predicts that an egg drop will break an egg, but it also predicts that it won't break an egg, that theory is unfalsifiable because it predicts all possible experimental outcomes. Nothing about the description of souls predicts all possible outcomes.

Scientists spend much of their time figuring out precisely how to test things. That's not an easy question to answer. Many breakthrough in science occurred after someone finally figured out a clever way to test something. An example that comes to mind was the hypothesis that neurons communicate via chemical signals, not electrical signals. For a long time nobody knew how to test this hypothesis until Otto Loewi came up with a clever experiment. He stimulated the parasympathetic nerve of a heart inside a liquid solution, and then bathed a second heart with that same solution and observed as the heart rate decreased. Thus concluding that neural transmission was chemical and those chemicals had diffused into the solution. This story is famous because Otto came up with the idea for the experiment in a dream he had lol.

Short answer: That's for you to figure out.

Well that's just the point, I can't figure it out, I've seen you type lots but am still at a loss as to what you are trying to convey.

If you don't know how to test for a soul, simply say so, if you claim their presence (should they exist) is testable then simply say how. Quoting material objects like eggs and other growing knowledge about physical things does nothing to aid comprehension of what you are saying I'm afraid.

Ironically, we don't see theists living as though unicorns and werewolves could exist. When asked, they can provide the answer, "Those things don't exist." Heck, even when it comes to the deities of other cultures, "Those gods aren't real."

It takes some special mental gymnastics, coupled with delusion disguised as religious faith, to presume and claim that one's thoughts on the validity of a particular religious concept is realistic.

(September 26, 2020 at 9:58 pm)possibletarian Wrote: If you don't know how to test for a soul, simply say so, if you claim their presence (should they exist) is testable then simply say how.

I see; you misunderstood me then. My denomination doesn't believe in souls. That's why I gave the formula: "If my particular God exists, then man shouldn't have a soul." Meaning that if man does have a soul, my particular God does not exist.

I don't know how you would test for souls, since you wish to falsify my beliefs. I just know souls aren't defined in an unfalsifiable manner.