(August 30, 2015 at 11:18 am)LIATIA Wrote:What those links do is point to is the existence, definition and identification of a conscientiousness/awareness that is not explained by, or can not be explained by what 'science' is designed to identify and catalog. Which means because we can confirm the existence of "I", and yet 'science' can not explain it.. Leads to the conclusion your demand for 'scientific proof' is not the standard in which a soul can be measured or identified. In short 'science' or the proof it can provide can not support or DENY the existence of a soul.(August 30, 2015 at 11:06 am)Drich Wrote: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bioc...e-says-yes
http://www.mindopenerz.com/does-the-soul...-says-yes/
The above is a couple links to an articles that provide evidence for the soul/what psychology defines as a soul
There is no evidence whatsoever in either link. The first changes midstream to accommodate the conclusion (without evidence) and the second link is strictly opinion.
Which means that the proof of a soul lies I its definition. In the article the word is defined as our consciousness the fact that most of us can claim consciousness means we have all the "proof" we need.
