Arguments against Soul

[Dmitry1983]

The brain is simply a transceiver. Consciousness is external.

If this were true then anyone placed in a Faraday cage would immediately fall to the floor unconscious, cabbaged.

What if complex neural structures can interact with dark matter/dark energy so faraday cage can't block signals

[EgoDeath]

Well, much like the "debate" about the existence of god, we can begin the conversation about "soul" when one actually presents a modicum of evidence that it exists.

Until then, there are no "arguments against soul" needed.

[Succubus]

If this were true then anyone placed in a Faraday cage would immediately fall to the floor unconscious, cabbaged.

What if complex neural structures can interact with dark matter/dark energy so faraday cage can't block signals

Please you cannot be serious, that was the first thing I tried. The wormhole snapped back on itself releasing a blizzard of neutrinos. I was ok mind you, I was wearing me hat.

[FlatAssembler]

Well, much like the "debate" about the existence of god, we can begin the conversation about "soul" when one actually presents a modicum of evidence that it exists.

Until then, there are no "arguments against soul" needed.

Well, there are quite a few arguments that can be made for the existence of soul. You need to understand that the question of whether a soul exists is different from the question whether there is a god. God is an incoherent concept in itself, because of the Omnipotence Paradox. Furthermore, it clearly contradicts what we observe because of the Problem of Evil. The same, however, can't be said for souls.

First of all, it's instinctual to think that a soul exist. Nearly all the cultures around the world, even once that had little or no contact with us, came up with the ideas about souls and afterlives. Sure, not every scholar of the ancient world believed in those things (the author of Ecclesiates explicitly denied that, when he or she said that dead people don't remember anything, and so did probably John, when he put into Jesus'es mouth that nobody has ever been to heaven), but it's quite clear the vast majority of people did (First Book of Samuel describes a witch which talks to a spirit of the deceased Samuel, Matthew said Apostles thought they were seeing a ghost when Jesus walked on water, Matthew put into Jesus'es mouth that people in heaven will be like angels, John said the Jews commented on Jesus'es speech "Will he kill himself? Is that what 'I will go where you cannot go.' means?", and even Odyssey, probably older than anything in the Bible, describes spirits in the underworld.). So, if you are going to claim something that goes against our instincts, you are making an assumption that our instincts are wrong, so perhaps the burden of proof is on you.

And, today, quite a few people have been brought back to life, and they tell us about NDEs. And some of those stories are really fascinating. Recently, in Book (a Croatian right-wing newspaper), there was a story about a man who saw, in his NDE, a child trapped in a building ruined by fire. And when he woke up and got better, he and a few of his friends went on to find that child. And they found him. You can say there is not enough evidence of that story, but so too is there very little evidence of the claim that people who have the middle of their brain damaged have different personalities governing halves of their bodies.

[Belacqua]

God is an incoherent concept in itself, because of the Omnipotence Paradox. 

As always, this is true of the Sunday school version of God. Many Christians believe in this type.

It is not true of the God of Aquinas, Spinoza, etc. etc. etc.

It makes sense to argue against people whose understanding stopped at Sunday school. It is a straw man to pretend that's all there is.

[EgoDeath]

Well, there are quite a few arguments that can be made for the existence of soul. You need to understand that the question of whether a soul exists is different from the question whether there is a god. God is an incoherent concept in itself, because of the Omnipotence Paradox. Furthermore, it clearly contradicts what we observe because of the Problem of Evil. The same, however, can't be said for souls.

First of all, it's instinctual to think that a soul exist.

Instinctual? First of all, how do you quantify that something is "instinctual?" Secondly, who says it is instinctual? You? I don't think it is.

Nearly all the cultures around the world, even once that had little or no contact with us, came up with the ideas about souls and afterlives.

That a bunch of individuals completely ignorant to the concept of science or the scientific method all came up with a similar, nonsensical idea means nothing.

Sure, not every scholar of the ancient world believed in those things (the author of Ecclesiates explicitly denied that, when he or she said that dead people don't remember anything, and so did probably John, when he put into Jesus'es mouth that nobody has ever been to heaven), but it's quite clear the vast majority of people did (First Book of Samuel describes a witch which talks to a spirit of the deceased Samuel, Matthew said Apostles thought they were seeing a ghost when Jesus walked on water, Matthew put into Jesus'es mouth that people in heaven will be like angels, John said the Jews commented on Jesus'es speech "Will he kill himself? Is that what 'I will go where you cannot go.' means?", and even Odyssey, probably older than anything in the Bible, describes spirits in the underworld.). So, if you are going to claim something that goes against our instincts, you are making an assumption that our instincts are wrong, so perhaps the burden of proof is on you.

That a majority of people may or may not believe in an idea which has no evidence behind it doesn't shift the burden of proof. I don't have to disprove the existence of a soul any more than I have to disprove the existence of the Sasquatch.

And, today, quite a few people have been brought back to life, and they tell us about NDEs. And some of those stories are really fascinating. Recently, in Book (a Croatian right-wing newspaper), there was a story about a man who saw, in his NDE, a child trapped in a building ruined by fire. And when he woke up and got better, he and a few of his friends went on to find that child. And they found him. You can say there is not enough evidence of that story, but so too is there very little evidence of the claim that people who have the middle of their brain damaged have different personalities governing halves of their bodies.

Providing one anecdotal story about a man who, supposedly, according to you, had some hallucination that coordinated with something that actually happened (a coincidence) means absolutely nothing.

I really don't think you understand how critical thinking or the scientific method works.

As always, this is true of the Sunday school version of God. Many Christians believe in this type.

It is not true of the God of Aquinas, Spinoza, etc. etc. etc.

It makes sense to argue against people whose understanding stopped at Sunday school. It is a straw man to pretend that's all there is.

You always reference this "Sunday-school god" as some silly idea that no rational person could possibly believe in. But you're wholly and patently wrong. End of story. Hundreds of millions of people believe in this god in the United States, and beyond. So what exactly is your point here?

[Belacqua]

Hundreds of millions of people believe in this god in the United States, and beyond. 

That's why I wrote:

Many Christians believe in this type.

Here's another quote:

There are many levels of Christianity. There are many notions about God. To believe that God is a person is just one of the notions of God that you can find in Christianity. So, we should not say that there is one Christianity. There are many Christianities. 

-- Thich Nhat Hanh

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2003/09/19/september-19-2003-extended-interview-thich-nhat-hanh/2758/

[EgoDeath]

Hundreds of millions of people believe in this god in the United States, and beyond. 

That's why I wrote:

Many Christians believe in this type.

Here's another quote:

There are many levels of Christianity. There are many notions about God. To believe that God is a person is just one of the notions of God that you can find in Christianity. So, we should not say that there is one Christianity. There are many Christianities. 

-- Thich Nhat Hanh

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2003/09/19/september-19-2003-extended-interview-thich-nhat-hanh/2758/

I think you wrote in the part about many Christians believing in this god just to cover your ass, to be honest. Because a couple of us here at AF have had to spank you once or twice before for ignoring this fact.

And yet, you write about people who "stopped learning after Sunday school" as if that doesn't account for the majority of Christians. So I ask again, what is your point?

You replied to @FlatAssembler as if he's silly for arguing against this type of god. But he isn't. In fact, it makes sense to argue against this type of god, if you're going to make an argument. This is, in fact, the god that most Christians believe.

So, once again, what's your point?

Also, is there a significance to you giving me a quote of someone I quoted in my signature? It must have gone over my head, your intellect being so superior to mine, and all.

Was this supposed to be some sort of checkmate moment for you? If so, you fell quite short of the mark. As per usual.

[Belacqua]

In fact, it makes sense to argue against this type of god, if you're going to make an argument. This is, in fact, the god that most Christians believe.

Yes, that's why I wrote

It makes sense to argue against people whose understanding stopped at Sunday school.

Insofar as they are wrong, it is good for us to argue against them.

Popularity is not a reliable sign of quality, and the truth isn't decided by popular vote.

[EgoDeath]

In fact, it makes sense to argue against this type of god, if you're going to make an argument. This is, in fact, the god that most Christians believe.

Yes, that's why I wrote

It makes sense to argue against people whose understanding stopped at Sunday school.

Insofar as they are wrong, it is good for us to argue against them.

Popularity is not a reliable sign of quality, and the truth isn't decided by popular vote.

I agree that a belief's popularity doesn't give it any credence. However, the only thing one could possibly say is better about the god you seem to talk about is that it is, according to some, harder to disprove. That doesn't mean we have any reason to believe in that god, either, though. If anything, it's just more CYA nonsense.

So, I ask again, what was your original point?