(August 22, 2010 at 4:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The evidence must match the subject to be relevant. As 'souls' are defined as non physical, it would be incorrect to require physical evidence of their existence. So evidence can only be deduced through logic alone.
What defines the soul in many religious endeavours is very different. In xtianity, as I think you may be referring to chicken, it is the essence of a person unrelated to the mind and body.
The term seems well used in popular culture, I have an idea what someone would mean by calling something or someone soulless or having no soul.
It's a problem for critical thinking skills which are in danger of rusting from disuse in modern society. Personally I uphold their importance.
But if there is no evidence of god or jesus as in religious so to speak then how can their be evidence of a soul?
