Do we have soul?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Is that supposed to be your rebuttal? It fails.
There is no scientific burden for me to provide, YOU are the one claiming the Psyche is non-biological, so YOU are the one with the burden.
I never said that, those are your words.
What you really, really, really want to believe may not be true regardless of how much you really, really, really want to be believe.
I did not say that everyone has children. I merely stated that some people do and think that way. the word "some" and "others" should be a clue here. and while you are right that i am not my children, they undoubtedly do carry my DNA, hence they have inherited something from me.
Ok.
I'm all for that.
But noone can seem to come up with a suitably scientific definition.
They will thus surely try to claim it is outside the remit of scientific examination and, like God, is not understandable or explainable through science.
And will thus cry foul whenever science is brought in as the arbiter of discussion.
Yes, if you insist definitions trump evidence, you will inevitably fail.
Yep, I am the one claiming there is no special relationship between two phenomena, i.e. the default null hypothesis of the scientific method. I cannot prove that no relationship exists, as you cannot prove a negative. That is why the burden rests with the positive claim.
Well if the soul is outside the realm of science, like god, what value does it have? God has not value that can be proven, likewise the soul. Rather it is only valuable to people's faith or delusion, which ever you want to call it.
Baldeee,
This doesn't answer the question. The taste cannot be separated from the orange as it is what makes it an orange.
No. I think the ''soul'' is what makes you a human, as the taste is what makes an orange, an orange.
Ultimately, everything is a subjective experience.
I think, the ''soul'' is essential component allowing us to be consciously aware, and the bodies we possess represent our consciousness level.
''Consciousness'', based on that logic, is a sympton of the ''soul'' and can be understood to be present through nature by:
Coming into being
Growth/Development
Produce byproducts
Grow old/Dwindle
Die/Cease to exist.
jan.
This doesn't answer the question. The taste cannot be separated from the orange as it is what makes it an orange.
No. I think the ''soul'' is what makes you a human, as the taste is what makes an orange, an orange.
Ultimately, everything is a subjective experience.
I think, the ''soul'' is essential component allowing us to be consciously aware, and the bodies we possess represent our consciousness level.
''Consciousness'', based on that logic, is a sympton of the ''soul'' and can be understood to be present through nature by:
Coming into being
Growth/Development
Produce byproducts
Grow old/Dwindle
Die/Cease to exist.
jan.
McCullough's research suggests that religious people of all faiths, by sizable margins, do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and are generally happier than their nonbelieving peers. - http://phys.org/news159440729.html
aah ignorance is bliss, nuf' said.
No, taste does not define an orange since it is but a subjective interpretation of a chemical reaction, namely when certain chemicals interact with your taste buds. Taste is merely one attribute of what makes an orange an orange. And yes, taste can be separated because we can artificially reproduce it.
Your assumption that you have a soul is therefore subjective. You believe it and think that this is some kind of distinction that raises you above other animals.
You believe it that does not constitute a logical argument. Consciousness is not a symptom of a soul. It is an indelible aspect of our being. Your comparisons or whatever these juxtaposed terms are meant to be make no sense in that regard. Or are you trying to find synonyms for some of these terms but not others?
TheHun,
The taste is the orange. One could be forgiven for thinking the ultimate purpose of the orange is its taste.
This cannot be proven to be, or not to be, it can only be understood through reason (and even then different opinions are accepted).
There is no way to prove the taste of orange, we can only accept it based on our own experience. How we choose to interpret it will differ from experience to experience (some won't even give a moment's thought to it, but still know what is orange fruit and what isn't).
Regarding the soul, we can understand that there is something distinct and unique about every living being. Some kind of characteristic, even personality trait, that you don't find in non living things (including dead bodies which, for a while, still look the same as when they were alive).
When I see a dead body of a person I knew, I know that is the not person, but a shell, but I can accept that other people regard the corpse as the person but is now dead. In the same way, I can accept someone saying that orange is horribe whereas I think it is lovely.
What makes it an orange, hence the reason how you know it's an orange, is it's taste. If it tasted like kebab and chips, I'm sure you wouldn't accept it as an orange, even if it looked like one. Your ''experience'' is part of the essential quality of your being just as the taste is the essential component of an orange.
We taste, agreed, but we can identify an orange because that is how we know it is indeed an orange.
Something that looks like an orange without the taste of an orange is very questionable (at least).
The ''concept of the soul'' has to be understood, and you understand it the way you.
But I dare say you cannot explain why you take that position, with any scientific reasoning, meaning it is simply a belief based on your particular view of the world.
You simply accept the soul as ''philosophical musings'' because for the most part (your life experience), it is. But philosophical musings is not the way to understand the soul at it's most essential part.
For example, we go to the store by some orange juice, drink, and enjoy. We know it's orange juice, and most of us know that it represents the taste of an orange fruit. Most of us will know that oranges grow on trees, and the seeds are the early stages of trees. Less of us will know more about the growth process and so on down the line. So there are different understanding of an orange, but what it comes down to, is the the taste (the essence), and as long as we percieve the taste then we have knowledge of it.
Science can give us vasts amount of information which can lead to knowledge of the orange fruit. It can even explain our tasting process, nutritional content, how it affects the body, and so on.
But it cannot explain the essence of the orange which we recognise as it's taste, yet the taste is the whole, essential, point.
Sorry for the constant ''orange'' in my post, I will tone it down in future!
jan.
The taste is the orange. One could be forgiven for thinking the ultimate purpose of the orange is its taste.
This cannot be proven to be, or not to be, it can only be understood through reason (and even then different opinions are accepted).
There is no way to prove the taste of orange, we can only accept it based on our own experience. How we choose to interpret it will differ from experience to experience (some won't even give a moment's thought to it, but still know what is orange fruit and what isn't).
Regarding the soul, we can understand that there is something distinct and unique about every living being. Some kind of characteristic, even personality trait, that you don't find in non living things (including dead bodies which, for a while, still look the same as when they were alive).
When I see a dead body of a person I knew, I know that is the not person, but a shell, but I can accept that other people regard the corpse as the person but is now dead. In the same way, I can accept someone saying that orange is horribe whereas I think it is lovely.
What makes it an orange, hence the reason how you know it's an orange, is it's taste. If it tasted like kebab and chips, I'm sure you wouldn't accept it as an orange, even if it looked like one. Your ''experience'' is part of the essential quality of your being just as the taste is the essential component of an orange.
We taste, agreed, but we can identify an orange because that is how we know it is indeed an orange.
Something that looks like an orange without the taste of an orange is very questionable (at least).
The ''concept of the soul'' has to be understood, and you understand it the way you.
But I dare say you cannot explain why you take that position, with any scientific reasoning, meaning it is simply a belief based on your particular view of the world.
You simply accept the soul as ''philosophical musings'' because for the most part (your life experience), it is. But philosophical musings is not the way to understand the soul at it's most essential part.
For example, we go to the store by some orange juice, drink, and enjoy. We know it's orange juice, and most of us know that it represents the taste of an orange fruit. Most of us will know that oranges grow on trees, and the seeds are the early stages of trees. Less of us will know more about the growth process and so on down the line. So there are different understanding of an orange, but what it comes down to, is the the taste (the essence), and as long as we percieve the taste then we have knowledge of it.
Science can give us vasts amount of information which can lead to knowledge of the orange fruit. It can even explain our tasting process, nutritional content, how it affects the body, and so on.
But it cannot explain the essence of the orange which we recognise as it's taste, yet the taste is the whole, essential, point.
Sorry for the constant ''orange'' in my post, I will tone it down in future!
jan.
Except ignorance does not explain doing better in school.
Ignorance in this case is selective, one choosing to ignore the horrors of the world and their logical incompatibility with a caring pro-active god, makes life happier, makes doing anything easier. Choosing to believe their is some place for you after you die, regardless of the lack of evidence, certainly helps people get through life, I won't deny that.
Like I pointed out, the taste of an orange can be artificially produced. Therefore you can twist this any way you want, but taste is not the definition of an orange, merely an aspect.
More of the same gobbledygook. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or someone else? Those who can see it, feel it, and are familiar with its categorization will accept it to be an orange—taste notwithstanding. In any event, not all oranges taste the same, nor do we experience the taste in exactly the same manner..
So a chair and a dead guy have no personality. Wow, now that’s a revelation from god for sure. Alright, can you stop that patronizing crap now? You might not be aware of it, but we are not a bunch of imbeciles needing to be led around by a leash. While I am familiar with that particular tactic from those religious zealots who want to convert others to their way of thinking—or not as the case may be—this is not a conversion camp.
See comment on patronizing crap and add “completely irrelevant and repetitive nonsense.”
You seriously cannot recognize an orange from a picture without tasting it?
I don’t really care how you “understand” the meaning of the term soul. I stated that I don’t think souls exist, so your pseudo-scientific attempts at making souls real does not work—even if you kill oranges to accomplish this. And no, taste is not the whole essential point of what an orange is, it’s just an aspect. While you can insist on your orange being defined by its taste, you are wrong. One more time, I can replicate the taste of an orange and still NOT have an orange in hand.The ''concept of the soul'' has to be understood, and you understand it the way you.
But I dare say you cannot explain why you take that position, with any scientific reasoning, meaning it is simply a belief based on your particular view of the world.
You simply accept the soul as ''philosophical musings'' because for the most part (your life experience), it is. But philosophical musings is not the way to understand the soul at it's most essential part.
For example, we go to the store by some orange juice, drink, and enjoy. We know it's orange juice, and most of us know that it represents the taste of an orange fruit. Most of us will know that oranges grow on trees, and the seeds are the early stages of trees. Less of us will know more about the growth process and so on down the line. So there are different understanding of an orange, but what it comes down to, is the the taste (the essence), and as long as we percieve the taste then we have knowledge of it.
Science can give us vasts amount of information which can lead to knowledge of the orange fruit. It can even explain our tasting process, nutritional content, how it affects the body, and so on.
But it cannot explain the essence of the orange which we recognise as it's taste, yet the taste is the whole, essential, point.
Sorry for the constant ''orange'' in my post, I will tone it down in future!
jan.
Last edited:
There is no logical incompatibility with a caring pro-active god, so long as you have a reasonable rationale for what that entails. Free will precludes a god from influencing a closed system in any way other than through agents that already exist within that system.
You might want to read that article too, just for a comparison and why this religious bliss thing is not what it seems to be. Mostly it serves as a coping mechanism. If you shift responsibility for the worlds ills onto a deity, then you can be happily ignore your part in the mess and you need not do anything about it because god will sort it all out in the end.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201211/are-religious-people-happier
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110808170052.htm
Here is an excerpt from the above mentioned article.
Circumstances predict religiousness," he said. "Difficult circumstances lead more strongly to people being religious. And in religious societies and in difficult circumstances, religious people are happier than nonreligious people. But in nonreligious societies or more benign societies where many people's needs are met, religious people aren't happier -- everyone's happier.
You would think so, but is that true?
In the US it seems to me that many of the most religious people are also prosperous.
While the poor are hooked on dope, sex, TV and calories, which are salves for unhappiness.
Or are my impressions wrong?
You would think so, but is that true?
In the US it seems to me that many of the most religious people are also prosperous.
While the poor are hooked on dope, sex, TV and calories, which are salves for unhappiness.
Or are my impressions wrong?
Well, you can actually read the article and there you find that the poorer people are, the more likely it is that they are uneducated and religious. The wealthier, educated people are less religious. It just reinforces the notion that education is a must for the poor so that they can take care of their needs better and need not turn to religion to feel better about poverty.
Also, I do know more poor people who work hard and stay away from booze and drugs than I know those that you describe.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0808170052.htm
Also, I do know more poor people who work hard and stay away from booze and drugs than I know those that you describe.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0808170052.htm
- Status