Question about "faith"

[Mister Agenda]

Since when do we [i]know[/know] that?

Please provide one example, that is demonstrable, of soul.

We know that because of it's proposition. That is what souls are conjectured to be: immaterial and associated with, and even responsible for, living things.

And why did we conjecture souls in the first place? We lack records but experiences of dreams, hallucinations, and psychedelic drugs give a reason to suspect we leave our bodies and go to some different place where the rules of the waking world aren't preserved. But outside observers couldn't tell that you were doing anything but dreaming, seizing, or tripping; hence the immateriality of dream self. Then we couldn't possibly understand what was really happening. Now we have strong evidence that this is all stuff happening in our brains. The phenomena that prompted the proposition in the first place have shown on close examination to not support the proposition; but since the proposition has been (usually) that souls are immaterial, not being able to detect them is a prediction of the proposition and cannot be falsified. If souls can be detected, they're real; if they can't be detected, they're immaterial. The definition lets you have it both ways because whether souls are actually detectable or not does not affect the proposition.

[GUBU]

If you don't know how to test for a soul, simply say so, if you claim their presence (should they exist) is testable then simply say how.

. I just know souls aren't defined in an unfalsifiable manner.

I know you're ignoring me because you can't answer my questions, but here's another one: How do you know souls aren't falsifiable?

I can show you how my chair or Seamus my office teddy bear are falsifiable. I can a) define them in non-nebulous terms, b) I can describe them and c) I can provide evidence for them.

To date you have not, cannot, do any of the above for a single soul.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Sigh.

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/

noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

A proposed explanation IS a prediction, if it's potentially falsifiable by experiment. A scientific theory is based on evidence supported by hypotheses that survive attempts to falsify them. Neither a hypothesis nor a theory is a mere conjecture.

An issue you're having is using general English dictionaries for domain-specific words. Whether it be faith in Christianity, or hypothesis in science, these are not words that are used the same by the general public. Hypotheses in science are very specific If/Then propositions: "If I manipulate the independent variable in such a manner, then the dependent variable will respond in such a way." There is no explanatory power in hypotheses, they are simply predictions about the outcome of an experiment. Hypotheses cannot support, confirm, or justify a theory: to do so would be affirming the consequent. A researcher takes the general statements of a theory and deduces specific hypotheses from it. As such, a theory is an explanation, and a hypothesis is a prediction.

[Mister Agenda]

SMH. What was I thinking, using an English dictionary?

[John 6IX Breezy]

It's a common error.

[The Grand Nudger]

And why did we conjecture souls in the first place? We lack records but experiences of dreams, hallucinations, and psychedelic drugs give a reason to suspect we leave our bodies and go to some different place where the rules of the waking world aren't preserved. 

I think that anthropologists would strongly take issue with the notion that we lack records.  Sure, dreams...hallucinations, drugs..but these are all just sub-groups of a larger set.  Human experience.  Our everyday human experience also provides us with the intuition that we are or have a something we routinely call a soul.  We credibly employ the term even when we don't believe in spirits.  

Our inability to comprehend the processes involved lead us to fill that conceptual void with the specific contents of our immediate mythologies - and it's worth pointing out that immateriality is the exception to the rule on that count.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think they teach that the soul (all that we are) is kept in the mind of god, then we are re-created.

"In harmony with the foregoing we as Adventists believe that, in general, the Scriptures teach that the soul of man represents the whole of man, and not a particular part independent of the other component parts of man's nature; and further, that the soul cannot exist apart from the body, for man is a unit" (SDA, 1957, p. 515).

"Seventh-Day Adventists do not believe that the whole man or any part of him is inherently immortal. We believe the Bible picture of man is of a creature subject to death..." (p. 518).

Reference: SDA. (1957). Questions on Doctrine: An explanation of certain major aspects of Seventh-Day Adventist belief. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[The Grand Nudger]

So much for not believing in a soul.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The phrase, "In harmony with the foregoing," quoted above, is in reference to an entire section devoted to the meaning and translation of the word soul in Scripture: "The majority of the occurrences of  נֶ֫פֶשׁ  may be appropriately translated as 'person,' 'individual,' 'life,' or by the appropriate personal pronoun."

We don't believe in souls; if you wish to use the word soul in a metaphorical sense you are still constrained by the Hebrew meaning which is synonymous with living person. This can be seen in the different translations of the Bible:

"...and the man became a living being." (Gen 2:7, NIV).
"...and the man became a living creature." (Gen 2:7, ESV)
"...and man became a living soul." (Gen 2:7, KJV)

[The Grand Nudger]

One group of christian cultists disagreeing with other groups of christian cultists about what a soul is, not whether they exist. Add that to the list of things you need to see your witchdoctor about.