Neither would yours, by the same token.
Not true.
When one is confronted with components X and their apparent effect Y, it is more parsimonious to conclude that X produces Y through an as yet unknown process than it is to assume that there is some other unevidenced component Z that is missing that is required for effect Y.
If you say ''I am not eating an apple'', then it means you are not eating an apple.
But does it mean that I am eating something else that is not an apple?
If I say that I do not believe the soul to exist, does that mean that mean that I believe the soul to not exist?
Or could it mean that that I simply don't have belief one way or the other?
It seems you are attempting to come across as agnostic, while at the same time trying to sneak in the idea that the soul does not exist.
I am not attempting anything.
And I am not sneaking in that idea.
You are simply taking the defensive posture and assuming that "not believing" is the same as "believing not".
How does it appear to be so?
All you see is the death of the physical body. How can you draw the conclusion that there is no soul, unless you base your conclusion upon what you can see?
Appearance is a matter of sensory evidence.
If there is no sensory evidence of something, why should I accept or believe that it is so?
The sensory evidence is that the body has died, and with that all evidence of consciousness, of a soul.
Parsimony would suggest that one gave rise to the other.
Look in my first couple of responses to you, and simply answer the questions posed.
Not until you provide the clarification requested.
The ball is in your court on this matter, Jan.
Does a soul exist after the death of the body?
No.
Why?
Because no one has ever seen one.
If that was my argument you would have a point.
But it isn't, so you don't.
Like I said, there are things that exist, that we can't see.
Such as?
And even if there are some things that exist that we can't see, how does that hold that everything that is claimed to exist that can't be seen does actually exist?
All you're doing by saying that it can't be seen is excusing yourself from providing evidence, not from actually providing anything in support of the argument that the soul exists.
Then show the facts, and or, information, which form the truth, or validity of your claims, independantly of your own personal point of view.
It is a fact that when the body dies, there is no longer any sign of consciousness.
I would think this incontrovertible, but if you wish to a provide counter, feel free.
How do you know others don't assume it?
Initially upon hearing it (especially in the context it is commonly used), I assume it, albeit for a second or so, then I realise what is being said.
I don't know that others don't assume it.
The point is that you don't know that they do assume it, yet you made the generalisation.
Given that the vast majority of the population is religious, it is reasonable to assume that many have a reasonable understanding of the term.
I'm giving you a basic definition.
What does the evidence that it does not exist outside the coporeal body, comprise of?
I'm guessing it is ''I can't see a soul, therefore the soul does not exist''. Can you prove my guess wrong?
That would be the evidence plus a conclusion, albeit an irrational one, and not the one I adhere to.
Given the definition of ''soul'', what would you regard as evidence.
I ask this, because it seems that you're only using evidence as a lway of stopping yourself from gaining a better understing of what is termed the 'soul'.
A kind of self-defeating mechanism.
First show me, through argument or otherwise, that there is something to be defeated about.
The onus is on you, who claims the soul to exist.
If you can not provide physical evidence then at least provide a coherent argument for its existence, for its necessity, that is not reliant upon circularity of argument.
So it is due to sight! I thought so.
Not just sight but any sense.
But given that the term "appear" has been used before, I am surprised that you seem to be excited about me using the term "disappear".
So because we cannot see the soul, it does not exist.
Again that is what you're saying boils down to.
If that is what all you can garner from what has been said then you are too blinkered, too intent on your own agenda here, and I think we are done.
There is only so much time I have for someone who simply refuses to listen to what the other says.
What other conclusion is there?
That it may exist, or it may not, but that it has not been demonstrated one way or the other, either through argument or evidentiary proof.
How is it that Occam's Razor only applies to the notion of a soul?
Why doesn't it apply to the personal views you presented as evidence?
Occams razor can be applied whenever looking at competing theories.
It does apply to my personal views, and I have explained why Occam's razor would favour the "no soul" theory.
But Occam's razor is not an arbiter of truth, but can be used to help one identify the more rational approach for them.
Why do you believe your position to be rational?
Because it does not require the assumption of something that has as yet been unevidenced, or for which there is no logical argument for the acceptance of that assumption.