Arguments against Soul

[FlatAssembler]

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.

Well, God of Aquinas and Spinoza is omnipotent, since the Ontological Argument argues for an omnipotent God. A perfect being is supposed to be omnipotent, don't you think?

---

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.

If a majority of people believes something, then perhaps there is evidence of it you are unaware of. I used to think that the Earth is flat and that everybody else believed it was round for no good reason, and that the burden of proof is on them. That was incredibly arrogant of me.

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.

Well, it's not just according to me, it's according to the Book, one of the most respected Croatian newspapers. If it were obviously wrong, why hasn't another journalist written an article debunking that story? And it's not just that story. The Maria's Shoe story is probably more famous in the English-speaking world.

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

Well, I've published a few papers about linguistics in peer-reviewed journals, all of them being at least partly about my alternative interpretation of the names of places in Croatia, so I certainly know something about how science works.