RE: Arguments against Soul
September 23, 2019 at 10:48 pm
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2019 at 10:56 pm by Succubus.
Edit Reason: Line spacing.
)
(September 23, 2019 at 8:50 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(September 23, 2019 at 8:39 pm)Succubus Wrote: I provided a Link earlier that clearly demonstrates an immaterial soul does not, cannot, exist.
Quote:But the blog post at the link doesn't prove that at all.
Its definition of a soul is:
There is no "its definition of a soul", the full quote is:
'Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV.'
Regarding the highlight; why did you leave that out? It's Carroll's wild arse guess at how people commonly define the soul and you are perfectly entitled to provide your own definition and it will be just as valid or invalid as any other.
Quote:they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV.
Quote:Since they don't (and can't) describe what "spirit energy" is, they can't tell us anything. Is spirit energy like regular energy? Is it detectable by scientific means? (This is even leaving aside whether this is a fair description of what believers talk about. Even the definition in the blog post is too ambiguous to prove anything.
There is no 'they'. Spirit energy is bollocks made up by Carrol.
Quote:At best, the post makes a persuasive case that IF souls are made of detectable and well-understood energy of the type science studies, then we would be able to study them.
Correct.
Quote:Beyond that, it says nothing.
It says everything. It says souls can not exist as there is no possible mechanism to store the massive amount of information that is required to copy a persons entire life experience. Note, I didn't say there is no plausible way, I said there is no possible way.
Quote:Like Jehanne, you declare victory by begging the question. You assert, without proof, that a soul is made of measurable energy, and then say it hasn't been measured.
There will now be a lengthy screed naming long dead philosophers. And if we are lucky you will skip the embarrassing poetic whimsy regarding coffee cans.
There is no soul and there is no life after death.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.