Existence of God and Existence of Soul.

[Gregory Thompson]

I was curious.

Is it consistent that someone who believes the existence of a creator of the universe is non-scientific, would the same person also believe the same thing about the soul?

Or is this a gray area?

 

[jahel]

It would be the difference between thought and action.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was curious.

Is it consistent that someone who believes the existence of a creator of the universe is non-scientific, would the same person also believe the same thing about the soul?

Or is this a gray area?

I am perplexed by your question. Firstly, I it difficult to imagine that someone could logically think the creator of a universe, the nature of which is consistent with and revealed by science, could themselves be unscientific. Can you say why you think this is a realistic hypothetical?

Secondly, how would a scientific soul differ from a non-scientific one?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I am perplexed by your question. Firstly, I it difficult to imagine that someone could logically think the creator of a universe, the nature of which is consistent with and revealed by science, could themselves be unscientific. Can you say why you think this is a realistic hypothetical?

Secondly, how would a scientific soul differ from a non-scientific one?

Science is defined by what can be proved with re-producible evidence.

If people cannot perceive the evidence of an invisible God, I was curious if it's like that with the soul also? I'd imagine it would differ from person to person since the observation element of science varies from person to person.

 

[Charlie24]

I was curious.

Is it consistent that someone who believes the existence of a creator of the universe is non-scientific, would the same person also believe the same thing about the soul?

Or is this a gray area?

Paul said that nature itself is proof of a Creator, but it takes more than this for the science oriented person.

Science will have the same problem with the existence of the soul, seeing they don't believe in the Creator who formed man and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul.

I suppose I believe God over science because He has revealed to me through His saving grace that it is impossible for there not to be a Creator.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science is defined by what can be proved with re-producible evidence.

Your thinking is mistaken here. Science can disprove hypotheses and theories, but it can never prove them. What science can do and does, is to produce a volume of supporting evidence and explanatory concepts for related observations. Together this material may constitute a theory that represents the best current explanation for the topic. That explanation is always potentially open to being overturned.

I'd imagine it would differ from person to person since the observation element of science varies from person to person.

The observational element may vary from person to person, but the requirement that observations be independently confirmed and that publications be subject to peer review, largely eliminates the personal element from the findings of science.

That said, I still don't quite understand what you are asking, but I note that at least one other person seemed to find no difficulty with your question. I suspect the problem lies with the very different perspective I bring to the reading of your question, that makes it unintelligible to me. So thanks for the reply, but it's probably best if I withdraw.

 

[jahel]

God as not a scientist wouldn’t scientifically formulate a soul. He would think it and poof, there it would be. As the creator He would be more inclined to think it into existence and then scientifically test it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was curious.

Is it consistent that someone who believes the existence of a creator of the universe is non-scientific, would the same person also believe the same thing about the soul?

Or is this a gray area?

It depends on what you mean by 'the soul'. If you can provide a definition for it in terms of some observable or measurable phenomena, it would be open to scientific investigation. Less directly, if you can show how it is a prediction of some scientific theory, it would (arguably) be a scientific concept.

It seems to me that the same criteria could apply to the idea of a creator of the universe; for example, as was argued earlier, the big bang could be called the creator of the universe, just as a seaquake could be called the creator of a tsunami.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I appreciate all the answers so far.

I like to live in questions so interaction is important for forming new questions.

Main flaws with this question: It does not define anything specifically, thus making God or the soul unable to be examined scientifically.

 

[Kylie]

I was curious.

Is it consistent that someone who believes the existence of a creator of the universe is non-scientific, would the same person also believe the same thing about the soul?

Or is this a gray area?

Define soul, then we can talk.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am perplexed by your question. Firstly, I it difficult to imagine that someone could logically think the creator of a universe, the nature of which is consistent with and revealed by science, could themselves be unscientific.

Which scientific theory reveals a creator of the Universe?

 

[Ophiolite]

Which scientific theory reveals a creator of the Universe?

None that I am aware of and certainly none that was implied in my post, repeated here for your convenience, with a typographic error corrected.
I am perplexed by your question. Firstly, it (is) difficult to imagine that someone could logically think the creator of a universe, the nature of which is consistent with and revealed by science, could themselves be unscientific.

 

[Ken-1122]

I was curious.

Is it consistent that someone who believes the existence of a creator of the universe is non-scientific, would the same person also believe the same thing about the soul?

Or is this a gray area?

Yes it is consistent. Neither a creator of the Universe or a soul is supported by science, thus non-scientific.

 

[ruthiesea]

Your thinking is mistaken here. Science can disprove hypotheses and theories, but it can never prove them. What science can do and does, is to produce a volume of supporting evidence and explanatory concepts for related observations. Together this material may constitute a theory that represents the best current explanation for the topic. That explanation is always potentially open to being overturned.

As related to theories, a hypothesis is a test to invalidate (disprove) a theory, whole or in part. A lot of time and effort was used if efforts to invalidate General Relativity. The theory predicted that path of light would be bent by gravity. In order to test that the hypothesis was that light would not bend in the presence of gravity. That it would bend was the null hypothesis. After several tries that were sabotaged by weather or politics, the hypothesis was shown to be wrong. This experiment was repeatable with the same results. That did not prove the theory, but provided support for it. You are correct that theories cannot, by definition, be proven. However, as with General Evolution, there are way’s to disprove them if incorrect.

To be valid, a theory must meet certain criteria. Testability is the most important one.

 

[Ophiolite]

As related to theories, a hypothesis is a test to invalidate (disprove) a theory, whole or in part.

You have selected one meaning of the word hypothesis. It was not the one I was using. I referred to "hypotheses and theories", the conjunction making clear they held similar levels. In this context hypothesis is a provisional explanation for a phenomenon that is open to testing. Such testing may refute, support or amend the hypothesis.

A lot of time and effort was used if efforts to invalidate General Relativity. The theory predicted that path of light would be bent by gravity. In order to test that the hypothesis was that light would not bend in the presence of gravity. That it would bend was the null hypothesis. After several tries that were sabotaged by weather or politics, the hypothesis was shown to be wrong. This experiment was repeatable with the same results. That did not prove the theory, but provided support for it. You are correct that theories cannot, by definition, be proven.

So? That neither contradicts or adds to the generality of what I said.

However, as with General Evolution, there are way’s to disprove them if incorrect.

Which is why I said, in my opening sentence, "Science can disprove hypotheses and theories."

To be valid, a theory must meet certain criteria. Testability is the most important one.

Valid is not a term I would use in respect of a theory. Sound would be better. However, if an explanation has achieved the status of a scientific theory it is, de facto, sound, or - if you prefer your terminology - valid.