Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[mordant]

Treatment of mental illness and disorders has advanced through the science of the brain and not through the study of the "soul".

I wouldn't expect the study of the soul to treat brain disorders.  I'm very much into science to improve our lives.  There's really no sense in arguing the function of a soul when you don't believe we have one.

Apparently also there is no sense in arguing in favor of the existence of a soul when you have no evidence for it.

[Silver]

Scientific studies won't help one bit in how we get along in the afterlife.

Religious hoopla certainly will not help me live a better life while I am alive.

I find that the one life we are offered, the absolute one of which we are certain, is the only one that matters.

To waste such a life on what is not guaranteed to be provided after life is absurd.

[Jehanne]

Treatment of mental illness and disorders has advanced through the science of the brain and not through the study of the "soul".

I wouldn't expect the study of the soul to treat brain disorders.  I'm very much into science to improve our lives.  There's really no sense in arguing the function of a soul when you don't believe we have one.  Scientific studies won't help one bit in how we get along in the afterlife.

If the soul truly existed, then it is reasonable that there would be scientific evidence for it.

[Silver]

If the soul truly existed, then it is reasonable that there would be scientific evidence for it.

Not necessarily, at least not yet. Science can only do so much, and it has a great deal to discover yet.

[Lek]

I wouldn't expect the study of the soul to treat brain disorders.  I'm very much into science to improve our lives.  There's really no sense in arguing the function of a soul when you don't believe we have one.  Scientific studies won't help one bit in how we get along in the afterlife.

If the soul truly existed, then it is reasonable that there would be scientific evidence for it.

Since the soul is supernatural, not natural, it would be impossible for science to find evidence of it. Science only deals in natural evidence.

[mordant]

Since the soul is supernatural, not natural, it would be impossible for science to find evidence of it.  Science only deals in natural evidence.

If there were a soul and it were supernatural, I'd say that you got that right.

Alas, there is no other kind of evidence than natural evidence.

[Silver]

Since the soul is supernatural, not natural, it would be impossible for science to find evidence of it.  Science only deals in natural evidence.

If there were a soul and it were supernatural, I'd say that you got that right.

Alas, there is no other kind of evidence than natural evidence.

'Member when there was no evidence of gravity or relativity until there was evidence?

[LostLocke]

Since the soul is supernatural, not natural, it would be impossible for science to find evidence of it.  Science only deals in natural evidence.

If there were a soul and it were supernatural, I'd say that you got that right.

Alas, there is no other kind of evidence than natural evidence.

And what this tells me is that, unless we were directly told by Jehovah that we had a soul, there would never be under any circumstances evidence that we had a soul. It comes down to, "I know I have a soul because I was told I have a soul." and nothing more.
The moment someone says, "Well, I also know I have a soul because XYZ.", they are now presenting evidence which can be analyzed.

[Jehanne]

If the soul truly existed, then it is reasonable that there would be scientific evidence for it.

Not necessarily, at least not yet.  Science can only do so much, and it has a great deal to discover yet.

It's like saying that astronomers will discover the planet Vulcan somewhere between the orbit of the Sun and Mercury?  Perhaps Vulcan is there but just invisible and is made of matter that is invisible?  Maybe there are intelligent lifeforms there who are watching us?

---

If the soul truly existed, then it is reasonable that there would be scientific evidence for it.

Since the soul is supernatural, not natural, it would be impossible for science to find evidence of it.  Science only deals in natural evidence.

This is just abjectly false.  Consider the AWARE studies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Parnia...E.29_study

---

If there were a soul and it were supernatural, I'd say that you got that right.

Alas, there is no other kind of evidence than natural evidence.

'Member when there was no evidence of gravity or relativity until there was evidence?

No, things were much deeper than that.  Within Maxwell's equations there was evidence of the principle of simultaneity, which lead Einstein to develop special relativity.  After the experiments by Michelson and Morley that were not able to detect the luminous ether and the failure of Lorentz's ideas of "ether dragging" was relativity, slowly, accepted.  But, yes, as with the multiverse, the lack of empirical evidence over something divides the physics community, and like religion, you get all sorts of fragmentation.  With things that have evidence (such as neutrinos), however, there is absolutely no fragmentation; you get from the community universal acceptance.  This is an example of how science differs from religion, in that scientists can come to agree and accept things that are strange and counter-intuitive based upon evidence and observation.

[mordant]

If there were a soul and it were supernatural, I'd say that you got that right.

Alas, there is no other kind of evidence than natural evidence.

'Member when there was no evidence of gravity or relativity until there was evidence?

Gravity and relativity are natural phenomena described by natural laws and observable through natural means.

There has always been evidence to examine for them, or the concepts wouldn't have come into being. Plus -- and this is key -- they were formulated initially as falsifiable and scientifically valid and testable hypotheses.

We may not have initially known how to test the hypotheses, or how to fully examine the evidence -- but it was there.

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Supernatural. It is a useless and illogical concept. Anything that is truly supernatural, we would have no information about. Anything you claim to have information about, would be natural by definition, because you're a natural creature with natural senses and a natural brain. The corollary to this is that as soon as you have any actual data about something, it is no longer supernatural, even if the supernatural DID exist. If god reveals himself, he has entered the realm of the natural universe and is no longer outside it and so is not supernatural.

100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all assertions about the supernatural and its inhabitants are unsubstantiated. That is to say, it's not just not fully substantiated, it's not substantiated AT ALL -- not even a BIT.

100% -- one HUNDRED percent -- of all hypotheses about the supernatural, about invisible realms and beings, are not falsifiable hypotheses. We can't say how we'd disprove them systematically according to a proven methodology. So we can't demonstrate, that they are true. Hence, they are inherently unsubstantiatable. And that's by design, because they are completely MADE UP.