CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
If you expect me to believe it survives my physical body's death, and will be susceptible to eternal fire or eternal singing, then yeah, evidence would be appropriate.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you expect me to believe it survives my physical body's death, and will be susceptible to eternal fire or eternal singing, then yeah, evidence would be appropriate.What's inflation? What's a Higgs? What's a graviton? What's dark energy? What is dark matter? Are you expecting a physical description of some kind?
What's inflation?
What's a Higgs?
What's a graviton?
What's dark energy?
What is dark matter?
Are you expecting a physical description of some kind?
What's inflation? What's a Higgs? What's a graviton? What's dark energy? What is dark matter? Are you expecting a physical description of some kind?
Do you know the difference between slavery and reverence?
We're expecting some kind of clear definition. Something that allows us to differentiate the "soul" from a mind, or a brain, or really any other phenomenon we can already easily explain.
If you expect me to believe it survives my physical body's death, and will be susceptible to eternal fire or eternal singing, then yeah, evidence would be appropriate.
Ok, let's go for some actual ones, just as an aside:
How many children did Michal have? (2 Samuel 6 vs 2 Samuel 23)
Who was the mother of Abijah? (2 Chronicles 11 vs 2 Chronicles 13)
If you're hunting down more anecdotes, then don't bother.
The only point seems to be that only you personal experiences are relevant and factually true. Everyone else must be distrusted lest your belief systems crumble.You could post 10 million anecdotes and still miss the point entirely.
It's used statistically in science all the time. It's accepted in a court of law.There is no amount of anecdotal evidence that is ever valid in science.
What would suffice in your opinion?It can be interesting and spur further research but it demonstrates nothing scientifically.
Likewise when you refuse to admit anything as evidence without any kind of standard, the whole system turns into pure denial and becomes a self serving circular feedback loop designed to protect a current belief.So what? See above for why this is irrelevant. Is there a cutoff where something becomes 'factually true'...how many reports is that at, exactly? 200? 20,000? 2 billion? How verified do these accounts have to be? When you'll admit anything as evidence without using any kind of standard, the entire system falls over.
What would constitute "data" related to "soul" to you personally?It's not data. It's anecdote.
Likewise, your desire to elevate your own personal experience, and/or lack thereof to the level of super importance, and exclude all other human experience from consideration demonstrates why your belief system is so self serving and so self righteous.Again, you're missing the entire point, and your acceptance of anecdote as evidence demonstrates why your belief system was so easily subverted.
And what if they are not and you simply assumed that?And yes, it's entirely valid to look at an extraordinary claim and realize that the person making it might be looking for fame and glory.
No astronomer in the universe knows what dark energy is, where it comes from, etc. Ditto for inflation, dark matter, etc. No clear evidence exists that a Higgs is part of the "natural order". How can we say ANYTHING is part of the "natural" order?You don't even really know what it is, so how can you say that it is part of the natural order?
So? People have also been known to reassert their personality again even after such traumatic events as the brain has a chance to repair and rewire itself over time. I certainly wouldn't deny the fact that the physical structures of the brain are involved in 'awareness', intellect and emotional input/output while we're alive. Quite the opposite in fact.My point would be that we can damage specific parts of the brain and lose particular faculties, even emotional ones - the ability to empathize for example, or the ability to match names with faces - and still have the rest of the brain function fine.
How does one get a verified example from any of those billions of people when you ignore their testimony entirely?What you're asking is that the ENTIRE brain will be damaged through the process of death - all neuron activity and function will completely cease - and yet your soul can rise off of this with all your mental faculties entirely intact, and you'll be able to recognize people, places, memories, and so on. There is absolutely no evidence to show that this is possible, and we've had billions of people from whom to get a verified example.
As I've said, I think the "best" testimony comes from NDE's. Stevenson has done some published work on reincarnation as well (just noting).What evidence would suggest there is any such thing as a soul?
How could there be anything but "anecdotal" evidence for soul anyway? What would suffice? That's really the same question I keep having to ask you since there's really no other way to demonstrate what you're looking for (the ability to RECOGNIZE things) other than to ask living humans if they do recognize some thing, some place, etc.Non-biblical or anecdotal evidence please.
But the brain isn't even STATIC to begin with. It REWIRES itself! Your error is demonstrated by an analogy. A driver/soul might get into a car/body accident yet the driver is not injured. The car's horn is now blowing, the lights no longer work, the brakes are squealing like pig now, but the driver isn't harmed. Likewise parts of our brain can be damaged and our emotional inputs and outputs can be damaged, but a soul isn't damaged just as the driver is not damaged. That doesn't mean the the driver will be able to do everything with that car that they once did, but the driver is still fine. He may even be able to fix parts of the car.I know you want there to be such a thing, as do lots of people, but that's not good enough, and 150 years of neurobiology has suggested the very opposite to be true. Damage parts of the brain and you lose parts of your mind, damage all of it and you lose the lot.
Inflation is the cosmological model that says the universe expanded exponentially and is still expanding.
As does the theory of soul.It is a theory - a model - but one that fits annoyingly well.
You still never explained where it comes from, you've never shown it is 'real" or capable of moving even one atom in a controlled experiment. It's a MYTHOLOGY without empirical substance. Even some of it's early pioneers have rejected it and cited it's CONSIDERABLE problems:It predicts there should be adiabatic perturbations (in thermal equilibrium with each other) with about a one in ten thousand level of inhomogeneity - almost exactly what has so far been observed by experiment...so currently it is pretty much accepted, despite the known problems.
That sure is a lot of zero's.Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation … Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation –by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!”[98]
It still lacks empirical support at this moment in time. Granted that could change at any moment, but it's still a 'theory' devoid of empirical support.A Higgs Boson is a hypothesis of the standard model, a particle that should have a mass of around 125 GeV/c2. The mathematics works annoyingly well with it included.
Another DUD in the lab too.A Graviton is another hypothetical particle, another boson.
See my first sentence.So what's a soul? Yes, I am expecting a clear description, even a hypothetical one. You're the one saying it exists...define it. Thanks.
Whatever is responsible for the acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.
Soul is the theoretical model that says that awareness isn't limited to form and which suggests that awareness transcends physical death. I can play these definition *WITHOUT* empirical substance games just like you.
As does the theory of soul.
You still never explained where it comes from, you've never shown it is 'real" or capable of moving even one atom in a controlled experiment. It's a MYTHOLOGY without empirical substance. Even some of it's early pioneers have rejected it and cited it's CONSIDERABLE problems:
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It still lacks empirical support at this moment in time. Granted that could change at any moment, but it's still a 'theory' devoid of empirical support.
Another DUD in the lab too.
So by your logic, soul would be whatever is responsible for awareness and experience after physical death.
So by your logic, soul would be whatever is responsible for awareness and experience after physical death.
Which has never been verifiably observed, ever. Not to say that it won't be, of course, but so far...no.
How would you ask questions of someone who is dead?It has in fact been observed by others, just not by you (or me) personally. Your need for a subjective kind of 'verification' without that information/data coming from INDIVIDUALS makes validation impossible in YOUR particular case, probably by (my) definition. I can't see how we'd ever "verify" anything without asking them questions about their "experiences' during clinical death.
Dark energy is a placeholder term for an observed phenomenon.
By my logic you would need to demonstrate the persistence of a conscience (or awareness; in case there's any practical difference between the two), then you can call it a soul.
That said it would just be a placeholder until we can find the actual mechanism that would allow such a thing to happen.
In the end it all comes down to evidence though. We have no observations of such a ludicrous thing happening, as such we don't use any arbitrary name to describe it.
How would you ask questions of someone who is dead?
It has in fact been observed by others, just not by you personally. Your need for 'verification' without that information/data coming from INDIVIDUALS makes validation impossible in YOUR particular case, probably by (my) definition. I can't see how we'd ever "verify" anything without asking them questions.
Clinical death is not dead, but hypoxia. Reproducible results - every time. There is no soul.
Assuming that "soul" is "real", it most likely is composed of some PHYSICAL substance.
By verification - you do realize all I mean is that a situation that means other explanations for these phenomena, if they have occurred, can be reasonably ruled out? Because someone or a group of people just saying it doesn't make it true, just like with UFO's, Bigfoot, Nessie...
I'm not complaining that you WANT verification, I'm complaining because you're writing off all testimony you disagree with with nothing more than a handwave.We can think of many explanations for these occurrences that are just as plausible, so it doesn't matter how much anecdote you have. You're complaining that I want verified evidence for something that is nothing less than the most important scientific discovery of all time.
Why would it "change" anything? More than 85% of the planet already believes in a "soul".Why would you want the standard of evidence to be low for THAT? It'd be the most pivotal thing in the entirety of human history. It'd redefine the planet and our species, it'd rewrite every school book, everything - it'd change the entire planet forever.
You keep making claims about their testimony being "untestable'. That's nonsense. Police investigate testimony all the time, and verify it or falsify it too.It's a lovely notion, but do you actually think untestable anecdotal evidence will suffice for that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?