The Bible-Boooooring

[Neo-Scholastic]

There's no need to do that when we can already explain a lot of these apparent experiences, through testable - natural - and physical means.

Neuroscience is very far away from even coming to close to a testable, natural physical explanation of any conscious experience.

---

Once things have testable, verifiable evidence, they fail to be supernatural.

Do you believe that everything must be verifiable and testable to be true? For example, there is no test to confirm whether Napoleon lost at Waterloo. What about things known only by deduction? What is the verifiable evidence that two parallel line never meet in Euclidean space?

---

...with each new 'spiritual experience' that is being attributed to natural means, there is a dwindling need to say that it's spiritual, and experienced through the soul... is ever decreasing.

Not necessarily so. The existence of a soul is not a 'God in the gaps' explanation. It is a theory to explain all observed phenomena.

[Tex]

"Not necessarily so. The existence of a soul is not a 'God in the gaps' explanation. It is a theory to explain all observed phenomena."

Thank you, sir.

[Joel]

...with each new 'spiritual experience' that is being attributed to natural means, there is a dwindling need to say that it's spiritual, and experienced through the soul... is ever decreasing.

Not necessarily so. The existence of a soul is not a 'God in the gaps' explanation. It is a theory to explain all observed phenomena.

Oh, okay. That makes more sense.
But, even if it's a theory to explain phenomena; when that phenomena can be explained through a natural explanation, why is it that people will deny that and continue with their soul theory?

[Ryantology]

It didn't start out as a God in the gaps theory. That's just what it has become.

[Tex]

"It didn't start out as a God in the gaps theory. That's just what it has become."

Thank you too, sir.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not necessarily so. The existence of a soul is not a 'God in the gaps' explanation. It is a theory to explain all observed phenomena.

...when that phenomena can be explained through a natural explanation, why is it that people will deny that and continue with their soul theory?

You seem to be creating two catagories: natural processes and supernatural processes. Then you treat both as intermediate causes within a chain of events, like this: natural cause A has supernatural effect B and that supernatural effect B becomes the cause of a natural effect C, and so on. That would be a 'God in the gaps' type of theory.

A soul would not serve as a bridge between two natural causes in that way. Efficient causes can go directly from physical cause to physical effect without any intermediary. What the soul would do is this. It would constrain what is possible within any causal chain and provide an ontological basis for immaterial attributes (like qualia and meanings) that correspond with natural processes.

[Joel]

...when that phenomena can be explained through a natural explanation, why is it that people will deny that and continue with their soul theory?

You seem to be creating two catagories: natural processes and supernatural processes. Then you treat both as intermediate causes within a chain of events, like this: natural cause A has supernatural effect B and that supernatural effect B becomes the cause of a natural effect C, and so on. That would be a 'God in the gaps' type of theory.

A soul would not serve as a bridge between two natural causes in that way. Efficient causes can go directly from physical cause to physical effect without any intermediary. What the soul would do is this. It would constrain what is possible within any causal chain and provide an ontological basis for immaterial attributes (like qualia and meanings) that correspond with natural processes.

Ah alright. That makes a great deal of sense to me; thanks.

[Minimalist]

I suppose it might if there were any evidence for "souls." As it is, it is just another baseless assertion.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ah alright. That makes a great deal of sense to me; thanks.

Does it? Or are you being sarcastic. If so, what part don't you understand?

[Joel]

Ah alright. That makes a great deal of sense to me; thanks.

Does it? Or are you being sarcastic. If so, what part don't you understand?

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was serious.