RE: Theist zone
March 9, 2011 at 6:22 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2011 at 7:29 am by Violet.)
(March 8, 2011 at 9:09 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote:(March 8, 2011 at 5:59 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Why does a soul need to be proven by empirical means? It would seem that you've already closed the case on the soul, and are running through the formalities. As defined, a soul is not tangible. This means that tangible measurements (height, width, weight) do not apply to it... and it cannot be proven to exist by finding these things... as doing so would not be finding a soul as it has been defined.Nope this is not true at all. For those who posit the existence of a 'soul' and indeed an 'immaterial' diety, they cannot retreat behind 'its immaterial therefore there is no empirical evidence'.
Even though the immaterial literally has no empirical evidence, and therefore their statement s true?
Quote:It is very clear that the soul and indeed even the immaterial diety interact with the natural material world. For example in the case of a 'soul': forming a relationship with our physical bodies and presumabley interacting with our brain to help form our thoughts and actions.
So because beings from the 26th dimension interact with our dimension... we can see how they are interacting with it, and test for them with 4 dimensional tools?
Quote:In the case of an immaterial diety they regulary (apparently) perform miracles and change physical matter (water>wine). Thus the effects of these immaterial things are dedectable empirically through methodological naturalism, we would be able to see water turn into wine and witness thoughts and actions performed without internal (to the person) or material external stimulii.
I would note here that the being you are referring to (Jesus) was no immaterial. Hence how he could be crucified and die? Granted, I have no idea what kind of force could act on water to turn it into wine that we couldn't detect... but I suppose that is the point of metaphysics, isn't it?
Quote:But guess what they have never been evidenced, and they should have been if they are there becuase the immaterial must interact and initiate that interaction with the material. There is however plenty of (and only to this point) evidence of physical, natural processes at work. So RJ is perfectly entitled to ask for the evidence, otherwise we should assume parsimony and reject the need for the immaterial as an uneccssary complication, leaving only the material world creating its own effects.
Are you presuming to tell me that anyone has miraculously turned water into wine sometime within the last 1900 some years for which we could test with our current day technology? Unless... you have a time machine stored away and ready for use somewhere...? It's really hard to ask for evidence when you cannot take any in the first place.
Quote:It is far simpler to believe that some neurons fired in my brain to make me walk across a room (is evidenced), rather than an immaterial soul miraculously interacting with the physcial structures in my brain (is not evidenced) and guiding my neurons into firing to walk across a room.
It's far simpiler to believe
'* as a result of ___
* as a result of ___
* as a result of ___'
than it is to believe
'it's a miracle'
...?
I favor the complex method for myself, sure... but it is so much more work to be rational and naturalistic about everything. How do you find that at all simpler than a statement of faith? 0.o
I'm like a couch gargoyle: I love hiding! ^_^
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day