Theist zone

[Violet]

---

Why does a soul need to be proven by empirical means? It would seem that you've already closed the case on the soul, and are running through the formalities. As defined, a soul is not tangible. This means that tangible measurements (height, width, weight) do not apply to it... and it cannot be proven to exist by finding these things... as doing so would not be finding a soul as it has been defined.

Nope this is not true at all. For those who posit the existence of a 'soul' and indeed an 'immaterial' diety, they cannot retreat behind 'its immaterial therefore there is no empirical evidence'.

Even though the immaterial literally has no empirical evidence, and therefore their statement s true?

It is very clear that the soul and indeed even the immaterial diety interact with the natural material world. For example in the case of a 'soul': forming a relationship with our physical bodies and presumabley interacting with our brain to help form our thoughts and actions.

So because beings from the 26th dimension interact with our dimension... we can see how they are interacting with it, and test for them with 4 dimensional tools?

In the case of an immaterial diety they regulary (apparently) perform miracles and change physical matter (water>wine). Thus the effects of these immaterial things are dedectable empirically through methodological naturalism, we would be able to see water turn into wine and witness thoughts and actions performed without internal (to the person) or material external stimulii.

I would note here that the being you are referring to (Jesus) was no immaterial. Hence how he could be crucified and die? Granted, I have no idea what kind of force could act on water to turn it into wine that we couldn't detect... but I suppose that is the point of metaphysics, isn't it?

But guess what they have never been evidenced, and they should have been if they are there becuase the immaterial must interact and initiate that interaction with the material. There is however plenty of (and only to this point) evidence of physical, natural processes at work. So RJ is perfectly entitled to ask for the evidence, otherwise we should assume parsimony and reject the need for the immaterial as an uneccssary complication, leaving only the material world creating its own effects.

Are you presuming to tell me that anyone has miraculously turned water into wine sometime within the last 1900 some years for which we could test with our current day technology? Unless... you have a time machine stored away and ready for use somewhere...? It's really hard to ask for evidence when you cannot take any in the first place.

It is far simpler to believe that some neurons fired in my brain to make me walk across a room (is evidenced), rather than an immaterial soul miraculously interacting with the physcial structures in my brain (is not evidenced) and guiding my neurons into firing to walk across a room.

It's far simpiler to believe
'* as a result of ___
* as a result of ___
* as a result of ___'

than it is to believe

'it's a miracle'

...?

I favor the complex method for myself, sure... but it is so much more work to be rational and naturalistic about everything. How do you find that at all simpler than a statement of faith? 0.o

---

I'm like a couch gargoyle: I love hiding! ^_^

[Violet]

---

You want tangible evidence for an intangible device?

Oh. We are going THERE now? You dont have to give any evidence for it, and claim it is impossible to tell what a soul is beacause "its different from person to person", then you claim a soul is a "device" (begging the argument that it does manipulate tangible thing, yet is still intangible) and that is imposible to prove it exists because it is intagable.

To paraphrase Spock "we would need a common point of reference."

Metaphysics are weird... and I do not claim to be an expert on them (quite the contrary). A soul is a thing, and is therefore a device. If a soul was not a thing, it would not exist. Please try not to make a poor argument in my arena of thought (existentialism), you might make me cry. Tears of pain. How could you make a squirrel cry of pain? You monster.

The tangible is everything that is 'real'. However, as we cannot prove 'reality'... we tend to use 'tangible' to imply everything that is intersubjectively real to us. Just as every solid object you can name is intangible in this sense to every neutrino: that which lies outside of the intersubjective experience we share with much of our 'kind' (attention, solipsist argument: the intersubjective experience cannot be proven to be any different from the subjective experience, and all of those people that agree with you are actually of your own invention. Don't let Doubtie read this, he'll go on about it for weeks ) is 'intangible' to us.

That does not mean it isn't there, and it does not mean that some can subjectively find it (Watson's argument, i think?). All in all, I believe that it is this inter-subjective understanding of tangibility which was being used... not the full on objective sense of the term (and this thread has nothing to do with touching with the hands, tangibility's first definition).

Fine. I own a sword. It is called "death of dreams". It has powerful magic on it and it is able to kill a god. I killed Jesus about 3 months ago and replaced him with loki so that you will be fooled into thinking Loki is Jesus. Do you pray to Jesus and hold him up as the prince of peace? Then you are really doing so for Loki. Death of Dreams is intangible. If you believe in Jesus then that is proof that Jesus is dead and you are doing the bidding of Loki.

Full peace is only available through death.

You are a pathetic 4 dimensional worm... a little toad-stickler isn't going to have you slaying a god. Now... a lesser demigod: maybe. We're talking the maybe in the sense of 'you got the jump on them, took them by complete surprise, while they were in the middle of the strongest orgasm of their life, completely fatigued after the hard work of the past ten years building up to that moment, stuffed full of the most lethargic-making food known to demigod-kind, and still puzzling over today's crossword puzzle'. In other words, without that little sword: you wouldn't be capable of killing anything of the sort... hell: just wounding a demigod is otherwise beyond you.

With the sword, you still need the above kind of maybe to have a shot at it... and frankly: that's the kind of maybe you have to plan decades before it will occur... and even then there is no guarantee.

Did i also mention that the god in question is omniscient, so you can't even sneak up on him? Oh dear, what can we do about that. I can talk false tales of slaying Regulos too... but nobody would believe me if my story centered around how a little trinket in my hands brought down a being known for devouring whole planets. Hell, nobody would believe me if I inserted 500 legions of Telara's best into the battle as well. This is because if it was that simple to kill the Baleful God of Death: we'd have done it already.

Do you often ask people for the impossible, and then wonder why they can't give it to you?

I understand. The soul doesnt exist because Death of Dreams killed every single soul in existence when it slayed Jeebus. I understand it is difficult for you to prove that your soul exists after I killed it so many moons ago.

So in other words, everyone that isn't me is dead... and you've changed me from a mighty demigod that makes use of the souls of heros and legends gone by... into just a normal human?

Words cannot possibly express what I think of what you claim to have done... but I can give you the understatement of the year: I am angry. With the blood vessels in my eyes popping and blood pouring out of my ears. That is how angry.

Not if it doesn't sit right with you, you shouldn't have. Souls are the subject of metaphysics, by nature they are taken on strong faith if taken at all.

I agree. Just like Death of Dreams is also a subject of metaphysics as well.

Metaphysics is not a word that is equatable with tall tales. Metaphysics is "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."

It is not the branch of philosophy behind sarcasm and misrepresented examples

Breathing is an interesting concept for those who do not. Monogamy is interesting to me because I am not, and I have no idea how that experience feels. I need more than a "what it is" to fully claim an understanding of it... i need to 'feel it' to actually be able to relate to those who live with monogamy. And people that are not polyamorous need to know more than "what it is" to relate to me about it.

Exactly. And the "Jesus/god feeling" that you are feeling is actually proof that Loki is fooling you after I utilized the intangible device of Death of Dreams.

*Takes her real world sword and figuratively jabs it into the good reverend's side to see if he stops this nonsense when he is dead*

Why does a soul need to be proven by empirical means? It would seem that you've already closed the case on the soul, and are running through the formalities. As defined, a soul is not tangible. This means that tangible measurements (height, width, weight) do not apply to it... and it cannot be proven to exist by finding these things... as doing so would not be finding a soul as it has been defined.

and since you have just tossed out the requirement of empirical evidence, then you MUST be willing to believe anything I say to you, especially Death of Dreams..or do you want Emperical evidence for my claims, but want me to not ask for empircal evidence of you? I might as well just say everything that you say is truth and real, no matter how absurd:

I can place my faith in anything... but there is no reason I would have to place it in you, or what you say, or your anecdotal sarcasm. I don't ask for empirical evidence of souls: i've already closed the case on them for myself. I'm honest about it: I don't ask for scientific evidence of the soul or gods, as I believe they do not exist and I understand that i can no more find scientific evidence of such things than any of the characters in my video games experience the world in which I live.

You = Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Me = Well, I am not allowed to ask for evidence, so it obviously must be true, especially if he "feels" it is tru in his heart. Cant go wrong there.
You = Jesus is my bitch ho
Me = WOW. You must be all powerful! Do you want me to worship you?
You = gyhtra is the way of allowing dertig to manifest in your hutry
Me = I havent the slightest idea what you said, but dare I question it or risk not having dertig manifest in my hutry? I dare not risk it!

I despise english grammar, fyi. But I actually have fun learning about it in my russian class... kind of ironic as I understand it

Jesus is not my bitch... and it would do you well to remember that I am submissive. I am not all powerful, but I am more powerful than you, and would much appreciate you worshiping me It's okay: i don't have the slightest idea what I say either! ^_^

*Disclaimer: all of my narcissism in this post is false, and performed in the intent of mild humor (Very mild, you probably didn't even smile, because you make squirrels cry tears of pain!).

---

Think of hide tags as my clothes. In any post of mine that didn't have them: I WAZ NAKID!

[tackattack]

@KN -
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
The advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
The conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
... Borrowed from wiki

I wasn't saying that I was intellectually honest, it's not my claim to make. It was an observation that rev.J was being dishonest intellectually because of his intentional misquoting along with all 3 of the above examples, regardless of on what his actual beliefs are. I expressed that while you and I differ on our beliefs I've found you to be intellectually honest I was appreciating that.

My problem wasn't with his belief; I know and respect a lot of physical materialists, but his methodology and reasoning.

@Ace- No need to apologize, we both found it funny, for different reasons though most likely. If that's all you have to say then that's fine. One of these days though I'm going to drag more than one or two lines from you in relation to religion!

@CS- I wasn't retreating behind anything. I was making the point that the irreducible self (the I think therefore I am concept) is in a large part a function of the mind, influenced by physical stimuli and intangible concept, but not dependant on the brain as a sole storage medium. If the brain isn't the storage medium then the medium would have to transcend death. While not necessarily, it is likely to be intangible. That give it 2 qualities; intangible (or transcendent) and immortal. It would also be independent of the mental functions of self but be a part of identity. Therefore to me, part of who I am is based on experiential data, mental constructs and an intangible, irreducible, independent entity I term as a soul. Because of my religious bias I am inclined to also believe in the Holy Spirit, which is similar in makeup and (for all intents and purposes be the same thing). I differentiate the soul and Holy Spirit based on what I deem as contrary to my nature and will to be both independent of myself identity and influencing to my mind from an outward source. I then follow the logical conclusion my bias leads me to that the outside influence is God.

[Ace Otana]

@Ace- No need to apologize, we both found it funny, for different reasons though most likely. If that's all you have to say then that's fine. One of these days though I'm going to drag more than one or two lines from you in relation to religion!

At some point we shall old chap. When I can be bothered that is, I'm still technically on my break from debating religion. More to life than arguing over the existence of god. I think we both can agree with.
For now I'm just gonna observe conversations rather than be involved in one.
You're still my favourite theist, tack.

[Captain Scarlet]

@CS- I wasn't retreating behind anything. I was making the point that the irreducible self (the I think therefore I am concept) is in a large part a function of the mind, influenced by physical stimuli and intangible concept, but not dependant on the brain as a sole storage medium. If the brain isn't the storage medium then the medium would have to transcend death. While not necessarily, it is likely to be intangible. That give it 2 qualities; intangible (or transcendent) and immortal. It would also be independent of the mental functions of self but be a part of identity. Therefore to me, part of who I am is based on experiential data, mental constructs and an intangible, irreducible, independent entity I term as a soul. Because of my religious bias I am inclined to also believe in the Holy Spirit, which is similar in makeup and (for all intents and purposes be the same thing). I differentiate the soul and Holy Spirit based on what I deem as contrary to my nature and will to be both independent of myself identity and influencing to my mind from an outward source. I then follow the logical conclusion my bias leads me to that the outside influence is God.

- What leads you to assume that there is a storage mechanism external to the brain?
- What leads you to conclude that this is immaterial?
- How would an immaterial anything interact with a material something?
- If it does interact it must be doing so billions of times a second across the earth in humankind, so why can't we detect its presence?
- Is it present in other animals as well as humankind?
- The view that this is a soul and is the one consistent with xtianity is confirmation bias (as you concede)
- I cannot see the logic that leads you to that conclusion as you have conceded its fallacious (bias on your part)

On the other hand there is a mountain of evidence (which grows daily), which supports the idea that we are probably ONLY material beings and that previously unknown mental events are infact down to brain chemistry, neurons firing/misfiring etc, rather than souls, demonic possession or anything of the sort. The problem with evidence is that its only inductive, but its advantage is that its powerfully persuasive. Substance dualism is not a very prominent theory of the mind anymore for these reasons. Thus far it seems to me that your reasoning amounts to "I believe it, becuase I believe it", it is of course your own choice but lets call it what it is; it definately isn't well thought out [that would be my material brain ;-) doing that], nor backed by evidence.

[tackattack]

---

@Ace- No need to apologize, we both found it funny, for different reasons though most likely. If that's all you have to say then that's fine. One of these days though I'm going to drag more than one or two lines from you in relation to religion!

At some point we shall old chap. When I can be bothered that is, I'm still technically on my break from debating religion. More to life than arguing over the existence of god. I think we both can agree with.
For now I'm just gonna observe conversations rather than be involved in one.
You're still my favourite theist, tack.

---

Agreed, I'm supposed to be on break as well. I don't endeavor to be your favorite, but I'm glad I'm one that hasn't burned that bridge for you yet.

---

@CS- I wasn't retreating behind anything. I was making the point that the irreducible self (the I think therefore I am concept) is in a large part a function of the mind, influenced by physical stimuli and intangible concept, but not dependant on the brain as a sole storage medium. If the brain isn't the storage medium then the medium would have to transcend death. While not necessarily, it is likely to be intangible. That give it 2 qualities; intangible (or transcendent) and immortal. It would also be independent of the mental functions of self but be a part of identity. Therefore to me, part of who I am is based on experiential data, mental constructs and an intangible, irreducible, independent entity I term as a soul. Because of my religious bias I am inclined to also believe in the Holy Spirit, which is similar in makeup and (for all intents and purposes be the same thing). I differentiate the soul and Holy Spirit based on what I deem as contrary to my nature and will to be both independent of myself identity and influencing to my mind from an outward source. I then follow the logical conclusion my bias leads me to that the outside influence is God.

- What leads you to assume that there is a storage mechanism external to the brain?
- What leads you to conclude that this is immaterial?
- How would an immaterial anything interact with a material something?
- If it does interact it must be doing so billions of times a second across the earth in humankind, so why can't we detect its presence?
- Is it present in other animals as well as humankind?
- The view that this is a soul and is the one consistent with xtianity is confirmation bias (as you concede)
- I cannot see the logic that leads you to that conclusion as you have conceded its fallacious (bias on your part)

On the other hand there is a mountain of evidence (which grows daily), which supports the idea that we are probably ONLY material beings and that previously unknown mental events are infact down to brain chemistry, neurons firing/misfiring etc, rather than souls, demonic possession or anything of the sort. The problem with evidence is that its only inductive, but its advantage is that its powerfully persuasive. Substance dualism is not a very prominent theory of the mind anymore for these reasons. Thus far it seems to me that your reasoning amounts to "I believe it, becuase I believe it", it is of course your own choice but lets call it what it is; it definately isn't well thought out [that would be my material brain ;-) doing that], nor backed by evidence.

---

1- What leads you to assume that there is a storage mechanism external to the brain?
There have been recorded instances of people recalling events that happened while 0 brain activity was going on or at least that the brain was unresponsive to input (light, sound, pain etc.) While some of them may be deducible with a creative imagination and some of them might have even been coached. The likelihood of all of them having no foundation in experience, IMO, is slim.

2- What leads you to conclude that this is immaterial?
I know of no physical storage medium (with respect to the human organism) that continues to function outside of biological life. Even qualia, a sense of time, intuition all immaterial and purely conceptual cease on ceasing of brain activity (waking up from a coma with the idea it's 1970, etc.)

3- How would an immaterial anything interact with a material something?
IDK...

4- If it does interact it must be doing so billions of times a second across the earth in humankind, so why can't we detect its presence?
maybe we don't yet have the means to measure it, or maybe it's not possible with material instruments to measure the immaterial, IDK

5- Is it present in other animals as well as humankind? To my understanding it is

6- The view that this is a soul and is the one consistent with xtianity is confirmation bias (as you concede)
yes.. but I'm open to possession by aliens, mass mind control, parasite infection, super complicated bacteria manipulation or other concepts

7- I cannot see the logic that leads you to that conclusion as you have conceded its fallacious (bias on your part)
You can't escape bias. Even if we both saw a soul literally coming out of someone's body we would each interpret it different, bias does not mean false, although it can imply impartial which I fully admit to. I still feel it's logical, not based on evidence though based on faith. If evidence supersedes that then I'll probably accept it. However my faith has show proven results to me that place events in my life clearly on the side of the synchronistic rather than probability and I see no reason not to apply it in this case.

[reverendjeremiah]

Several pages of nothing but blah blah from the believers of a soul. You may as well say that gravity doesnt exist and is in fact "intelligent falling".

Everything you have equated to a "soul", I can just as easily equate to "goblins". Goblins are invisible, intangible, mischevious beings that Loki sends to torment and fool and confuse people. Example:
-"I still feel it's logical, not based on evidence though based on faith" = goblins
-"maybe it's not possible with material instruments to measure the immaterial" = goblins
-"Even if we both saw a soul literally coming out of someone's body we would each interpret it different" = not a soul, but goblins!
-"However my faith has show proven results to me that place events in my life clearly on the side of the synchronistic rather than probability and I see no reason not to apply it in this case." = You are mistaken. Thats the goblins fooling you! Loki is unpredictable to us mere mortals.
-"I know of no physical storage medium (with respect to the human organism) that continues to function outside of biological life. Even qualia, a sense of time, intuition all immaterial and purely conceptual cease on ceasing of brain activity (waking up from a coma with the idea it's 1970, etc.)"= Because of Goblins. Goblins told the mind what was happening when they were out (qualia)

It was an observation that rev.J was being dishonest intellectually because of his intentional misquoting along with all 3 of the above examples, regardless of on what his actual beliefs are.

If I was quoting you wrong, then I am sorry. I am human, not perfect.

Please show me where there is a difference between Goblins and souls.

[Violet]

Several pages of nothing but blah blah from the believers of a soul. You may as well say that gravity doesnt exist and is in fact "intelligent falling".

Gravity exists as an idea. Intelligent falling would be fine considering that there is no evidence of gravitons Anyway, if you can't stand to directly respond to those "several pages of nothing but blah blah blah", what gives you the impression that anyone would be remotely interested in showing you the difference between goblins and souls?

Stop beating around the bush and admit this: "I have already closed the book on souls, and believe they do not exist."

We know it is true, but (poorly) playing as if you haven't is only irritating.

[Anomalocaris]

Gravity exists as an idea. Intelligent falling would be fine considering that there is no evidence of gravitons

I'll be sure get that idea out of my mind next time I recollect the absense of evidence for gravitons.

[reverendjeremiah]

Gravity exists as an idea. Intelligent falling would be fine considering that there is no evidence of gravitons Anyway,

Wrong. Gravity exists WAY MORE than just an "idea". Look up the particle/wave split discussion to see where you made your mistake. Also speak with any physicist to understand how gravity is WAY much more than what you say. Nice setting up gravity as a straw man. I refuse to acknowledge it. Let your crows roost on it.

if you can't stand to directly respond to those "several pages of nothing but blah blah blah", what gives you the impression that anyone would be remotely interested in showing you the difference between goblins and souls?

Really? And here I thought I was directly responding in most of the..oh, I dont know..5 or 6 pages back even up to now. How much more responding do I have to do to qualify as "responding" to you? Not to mention I steered this topic towards souls. I believe my original post was: "no souls, no need for salvation, no need for jesus, no need for afterlives". But by all means, feel free to ignore my comparisons, as I in no way hold them as a qualifier to wether your interest in this matter is sincere.

Stop beating around the bush and admit this: "I have already closed the book on souls, and believe they do not exist."

Really? Then you really didnt get what I was trying to say about the goblins then did you?

*QUICK POLL*
If you understand the point I was trying to make with the Goblins vs. Souls, then please thumb this post up

Are you so quick to dismiss Goblins fooling us into thinking that souls exist? If so then you are WAY MORE closed minded then you claim me to be.

We know it is true, but (poorly) playing as if you haven't is only irritating.

Im not sure if I understand this sentence. Could you clarify?