Arguments against Soul

[EgoDeath]

I'll just answer your questions as best I can then, and leave the other shit out there:

What is a soul made of, physically? I don't know what an incorporeal thing would be "made of", perhaps something non-baryonic.

So how do you know that a soul is incorporeal? How do you know it's "non-baryonic?" Furthermore, are you a physicist? Or are you just using these words to make it sound like you're saying more than you're actually saying?

I mean, if something is immaterial, how do we even know it is there? Faith?

How do we observe the soul, objectively?  I would assume through phenomenology, but that rests on your definition of objective.

So, this is just a fancy way of saying you talk about the soul through philosophy. You're admitting that there is no objective, empirical way to observe the soul. Which is just as good as saying that we don't actually know it's there, not that we know what "it" even is.

How did you discover this method of observation? See above

So, basically, you didn't discover any method.

Did you follow the scientific method in discovering and defining what the soul is? No. Most people are just experiential in their day-to-day, as am I.

So once again, you're admitting that you simply claim to personally experience the soul, and that there is no empirical evidence for it.

Furthermore, how, exactly, does the soul work, specifically? see above and previous posts.

So once again, the answer is you don't know.

---

So far, we've learned absolutely nothing about the "soul...." Other than, of course, that you've admitted that we cannot observe it objectively, that there is no empirical evidence for it and that you don't eve know what it is made of, how it works, or what it is. We've learned that it is, according to you, possibly immaterial, which is just as good as saying that it isn't there.

Not a very compelling "definition," is it?