Question for Cris and James R.,if possible...

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
MarAC,

Because without objective observation human imagination comes into play and that opens the possibility of an infinite number of different ideas.

As I said, what matters to me is not the fact that I would stand in solidarity with other fools, but that I would be a fool. Objectivity provides certainty that you're seeing the same thing - not that you are seeing what is truly there. Though I utilize the tool of science that is my basic problem with some who utilize it.

Wouldn’t truth be more valuable than just a dream?

Maybe, what is truth as opposed to a dream?

I have perhaps used a profanity twice in my 4 years here, this was the second.

If that was to effect humour and amazement; you were truly and absolutely successful.

There are some things that are such obvious nonsense that only meaningless profanities seem appropriate as a response.

I'm very careful about using phrases such as "obvious nonesense" with regards to such things. I prefer to use 'non-descript gibberish' (I just don't understand it).

 

[Cris]

MarAC, Canute,

I'm not sure it's right to say that faith provides knowledge. It seems more accurate to say that faith provides the basis for knowledge, which is a slightly different claim. But I agree that the definition of 'knowledge' varies between people and needs a clear definition in this kind of discussion. I suggest 'certain knowledge', which excludes all varieties of guesswork.

Well yes, that's basically what I meant. I continue to strive to perfect my English - though I doubt anyone can achieve it.

But isn’t the issue that the term faith is being used as a statement of conviction that something is true which hence implies a claim that it must be knowledge?

If you want to water down ‘faith’ so that it doesn’t imply knowledge then aren’t you really admitting that your use of ‘faith’ should be interpreted as ‘speculation’ since you are admitting that you don’t know, i.e. it does not point to knowledge?

 

[Cris]

MarAC,

Objectivity provides certainty that you're seeing the same thing - not that you are seeing what is truly there.

No I don’t think ‘objectivity’ has to mean that.

I was thinking more in terms of using a common yardstick. I.e. given a set of criteria that we all agree to how would the object be compared. My objection is when others pull ideas from nowhere, e.g. we don’t know the cause therefore it must have been caused by X. Which is how I see the theist tendency.

Wouldn’t truth be more valuable than just a dream?

Maybe, what is truth as opposed to a dream?

Perhaps the difference between the tangible and the intangible.

If that was to effect humour and amazement; you were truly and absolutely successful.

Well thankyou, you are most welcome. But it probably reflected a moment of frustration rather than humor.

I'm very careful about using phrases such as "obvious nonesense" with regards to such things. I prefer to use 'non-descript gibberish' (I just don't understand it).

I see this as a sense of perspective. Of being able to see the wood instead of just the trees. If we are not looking at the same thing with the same perspective then we have little chance of reaching agreement.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
MarAC, Canute,

But isn’t the issue that the term faith is being used as a statement of conviction that something is true which hence implies a claim that it must be knowledge?

If you want to water down ‘faith’ so that it doesn’t imply knowledge then aren’t you really admitting that your use of ‘faith’ should be interpreted as ‘speculation’ since you are admitting that you don’t know, i.e. it does not point to knowledge?

My intent is not to 'water down' faith. I'm almost sure that my view on the nature of faith differs from Canute's as he/she doesn't believe in God; for me it seems to be necessary for the human condition, necessary to be. I cannot 'water down' faith.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

Do you then agree with my statement –

… the term faith is being used as a statement of conviction that something is true which hence implies a claim that it must be knowledge?

IOW you are claiming that you know a god exists.

 

[thefountainhed]

Cris,

Where is a response? Should I assume you have none, and thus, concur with my asessment that Boris' argued on an incorrect premise?

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

Where is a response?

I couldn’t decide whether your post warranted a response or not. I assume you mean this one.

The word "transition" has no physical meaning.

Webster seems to disagree with you. Doesn’t this depend on what is making what type of transition from what to what?

Take for instance, water in liquid and solid forms. Where is the physical transition?

To transform one to the other the process is known as a phase transition involving a latent heat and a volume change. Hmm, I seem to remember this from my physics class at age 11.

There are both exact; but of different states.

But both are entirely material.

The body is the soul and the soul is the body; but they are different.

This is an apparently pure paradoxical and meaningless statement.

The entire 'legend' and purpose of souls is that they exist as a different state of being. Your 'soul' does not interact with your body when you are alive, and I have heard of no definition that says it does.

I suggest you search the web for Dualism, and Descartes. These are somewhat basic, classic and widely understood concepts from philosophy 101. Try this at least http://skepdic.com/dualism.html

I disagree with the assertion that there 'appears no reason' to conclude that there is another realm. I believe Canute and I have both presented the notion of consciousness and the unknowns associated with it.

These are speculations and do not constitute a logical reason (i.e. factual) to conclude that the immaterial exists.

I believe that the fact that the physical which is the fat we call the brain can somehow create consciousness/self awareness is reason enough for people to reach conclusions about a soul (however embellished they maybe from the original notion).

This is invalid logic. The premises – the brain exists, consciousness exists, self-awareness exists, in no way allow a conclusion that an imaginary entity called a soul exists. It’s a basic non-sequitur. The fact that people believe these things has nothing to do with reasoned logic.

The body is aware of itself, and can see 'itself' outside 'itself' and so imagines that its physical death is not its end.

It can also imagine that death is the end. What’s your point?

Souls exist simple because of the 'immaterial'(world specifically inhabited by the soul) world.

How do you know this? And why should we see this as anything other than pure fantasy?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
MarAC, Canute,

But isn’t the issue that the term faith is being used as a statement of conviction that something is true which hence implies a claim that it must be knowledge?

I don't know. MarcA, fountainhead and I are saying slightly different things here. I do not consider it correct to say that a faith in the truth of some proposition constitutes knowledge. However I do consider it correct to say that in order to claim that one knows a proposition is true it is necessary to have faith in something axiomatic by which one can judge its truth. In other words, epistemelogical 'truth' is impossible without faith.

I am not arguing that there is a sound argument for the existence of God. I'm arguing that the arguments against his existence are no more sound than the arguments for it.

The truth of the matter can only be known subjectively, since direct knowledge of reality cannot be objective in principle, it can only be derived from experience. (of course this is not true of other kinds of knowledge, of physics for instance, or at least not in quite the same way).

If you want to water down ‘faith’ so that it doesn’t imply knowledge then aren’t you really admitting that your use of ‘faith’ should be interpreted as ‘speculation’ since you are admitting that you don’t know, i.e. it does not point to knowledge? [/B]

I agree that faith does not imply knowledge, it's more true the other way around. However neither does it necessarily imply speculation.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
MarcAC,

Do you then agree with my statement –

… the term faith is being used as a statement of conviction that something is true which hence implies a claim that it must be knowledge?

IOW you are claiming that you know a god exists.

From the sense of the subjective... it is knowledge. From an objective sense it can't be knowledge unless, of course, everyone else agrees with you as was stated earlier in a paraphrase by Canute I think. When it comes down to it, despite my arguments, we can only accept what we experience as humans as truth... or we will accept nothing as truth... and will have to conclude that truth doesn't exist for us if we try to elliminate what we can experience as truth: if you believe in God you can simply be assured that what you experience is what you need to experience at the moment, and from that there is truth within that experience. If we meet another civilization with, possibly, a totally different set of axioms which attempt to explain the universe, maybe we can then elliminate what we experience and try to find common ground between what we and the other civilization experiences. Otherwise, I consider it (the notion that we can't know if we know truth or not) pointless for practical purposes at the moment, yet essential to keep in mind when we go about dismissing other people's beliefs and experiences which differ from ours.

I believe in God, I can lay that out to you, tell you what I experiencce, then you can see for yourself if there is any correlation with what you experience. The real issue here, for me, as a Christian, is the consequence of not believing one thing as opposed to believing something else because according to Christianity the conqequences can be dire. This all takes me to the point where I state, again, that we can believe what we want, however, our beliefs carry consequences. As a Christian I think faith gives us the ability to believe and that's basically my definition of it - not the ability to speculate. From the aspect of knowing truth, faith cannot lead us all to truth, obviously, however I think we all have an inherrent ability to find truth and know essential truth as opposed to something that is untrue. So I show you what I believe, because within me I know it is right. Objectively, we can never know who is right or wrong until, maybe, the time comes for our beliefs to realise their truth (for example the 'Day of Judgement' in Christianity), and in fact, for Christianity, when that day comes from what I understand, we won't even remember the lives we were living here if we believed. So... it's a tough issue - one which essentially cannot be resolved objectively. That's it from me.

 

[thefountainhed]

I couldn’t decide whether your post warranted a response or not. I assume you mean this one.

Funny.

Webster seems to disagree with you. Doesn’t this depend on what is making what type of transition from what to what?

It has no physical meaning in the context we talking about.

To transform one to the other the process is known as a phase transition involving a latent heat and a volume change. Hmm, I seem to remember this from my physics class at age 11.

What does that have to do with an "interaction"???? The body's temperature decreases when it dies. Boris argued for a material link between the body and the soul....

But both are entirely material.

It is irrelevant.

This is an apparently pure paradoxical and meaningless statement.

Show how it is paradoxical. Sow how it is meaningless.

I suggest you search the web for Dualism, and Descartes. These are somewhat basic, classic and widely understood concepts from philosophy 101. Try this at least http://skepdic.com/dualism.html

LOL. This is from your site: "...distinct and independent types of being, one material and the other spiritual". Again, where is any mentioning of an interaction between the two. Stupid responses that do not address the issue will be treated with contempt.

These are speculations and do not constitute a logical reason (i.e. factual) to conclude that the immaterial exists.

Which necessarily means that a logical argument cannot be made for a lack thereof one.

This is invalid logic. The premises – the brain exists, consciousness exists, self-awareness exists, in no way allow a conclusion that an imaginary entity called a soul exists. It’s a basic non-sequitur. The fact that people believe these things has nothing to do with reasoned logic.

It is illogical, yes. You did not say there was no logical reason. There are plenty of reasons why people can assume souls-- I gave you one.

It can also imagine that death is the end. What’s your point?

The point is that some there fore think that physical death is not all.

How do you know this? And why should we see this as anything other than pure fantasy?

How do I know this? It is the frikking definition. The soul is defined outside the material.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

If an immaterial soul is distinct and separate from a material human and the two entities have no interaction between each other then why would a soul have any relevance for us as material humans?

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

You stated -

The body is the soul and the soul is the body; but they are different.

Show how it is paradoxical. Sow how it is meaningless.

If A is soul, and B is the body then what you are saying is –

(B = A) and (A = B), but (A NOT = B).

This is impossible since if (A = B) is true then (A NOT = B) cannot be true as well. Hence your statement is meaningless.

 

[Canute]

MarcA

Thought I'd disagree with you for a change.

Originally posted by MarcAC
From the sense of the subjective... it is knowledge.
From an objective sense it can't be knowledge unless, of course, everyone else agrees with you as was stated earlier in a paraphrase by Canute I think.

Are you saying that by having faith in something we have knowledge of it? That doesn't seem right. If, as you say below, we can choose what to believe then this would mean that we can choose what to call knowledge. I'd be with Cris on this one.

When it comes down to it, despite my arguments, we can only accept what we experience as humans as truth... or we will accept nothing as truth... and will have to conclude that truth doesn't exist for us if we try to elliminate what we can experience as truth:

Quite agree with that.

if you believe in God you can simply be assured that what you experience is what you need to experience at the moment, and from that there is truth within that experience.

But don't understand this.

If we meet another civilization with, possibly, a totally different set of axioms which attempt to explain the universe, maybe we can then elliminate what we experience and try to find common ground between what we and the other civilization experiences.

Surely it is impossible to eliminate what you experience. We can't share what we experience with aliens any more than we can with other human beings.

Otherwise, I consider it (the notion that we can't know if we know truth or not) pointless for practical purposes at the moment, yet essential to keep in mind when we go about dismissing other people's beliefs and experiences which differ from ours.

Only if the 'notion' is a true one. I don't believe that it is.

(snip) The real issue here, for me, as a Christian, is the consequence of not believing one thing as opposed to believing something else because according to Christianity the conqequences can be dire. This all takes me to the point where I state, again, that we can believe what we want, however, our beliefs carry consequences.

Very good point (imo), and well illustrated by current trends in western societies. People hardly trust themselves to believe anything these days, and it shows.

From the aspect of knowing truth, faith cannot lead us all to truth, obviously, however I think we all have an inherrent ability to find truth and know essential truth as opposed to something that is untrue. So I show you what I believe, because within me I know it is right.

That's a fair argument. But wouldn't Cris have the right to make the same argument for his opposite belief?

I can't agree with you that believing something can make it knowledge. It is knowing something that makes it knowledge. Believing in God existence is anybody's right, but His existence is not a piece of knowledge unless you know that He exists. You can argue that believing in God is rational (I feel that you can anyway) but you can't call it 'subjective knowledge' if it's just a belief. Subjective knowledge should be as rigorously tested by observation and logic as the objective kind before it can be considered as certain knowledge.

 

[thefountainhed]

Cris,

If an immaterial soul is distinct and separate from a material human and the two entities have no interaction between each other then why would a soul have any relevance for us as material humans?

Because humans do not want to accept that their death is their end-- that there is more after death. Therfore we have this physical world in which our physical body inhabits, and upon death, our sould "emerges"... That is fundamental relevance if you asked me.

If A is soul, and B is the body then what you are saying is –

(B = A) and (A = B), but (A NOT = B).

This is impossible since if (A = B) is true then (A NOT = B) cannot be true as well. Hence your statement is meaningless.

Obviously this is incorrect, as this statment: "The body is the soul and the soul is the body; but they are different", is taken out of context. The context was an example using the different states of water-- water is water, but ice is not water vapour.

The logical progression would be:

(B = A) under the space of ***
(B NOT A) under material space
(A NOT B) under immaterial space

material space, immaterial space members of ***

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

If an immaterial soul is distinct and separate from a material human and the two entities have no interaction between each other then why would a soul have any relevance for us as material humans?

Because humans do not want to accept that their death is their end-- that there is more after death. Therefore we have this physical world in which our physical body inhabits, and upon death, our soul "emerges"... That is fundamental relevance if you asked me.

I need to break this down –

Because humans do not want to accept that their death is their end

This will probably connect with what you are trying to say on the A=B issue, but I will ask anyway. A human is clearly material, agreed? And a material human has no connection with an immaterial soul, agreed? Why then would a human have any expectation that they would ‘become’ immaterial upon death? That they might wish for it isn’t going to make it happen, agreed?

Therefore we have this physical world in which our physical body inhabits, and upon death, our soul "emerges"...

How does something immaterial ‘emerge’ from something material if there is and has never been a connection or interaction between the material and the immaterial?

Or, if there has never been any interaction between the material body and the immaterial soul during the lifetime of the material body then what would the immaterial, soul ‘contain’, i.e. in terms of perhaps life knowledge etc?

Also, if the ‘emergent’ soul has any relationship with the human it has emerged from then wouldn’t it be essential that information would have to transfer from one to the other, i.e. an interaction would be needed, which you are claiming doesn’t happen?

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Canute
MarcA

Thought I'd disagree with you for a change.

Yeah, thanks, I appreciate it. I think Cris was becoming slightly overwhelmed.

Are you saying that by having faith in something we have knowledge of it? That doesn't seem right. If, as you say below, we can choose what to believe then this would mean that we can choose what to call knowledge. I'd be with Cris on this one.

Well, yes and no. But yes, I am saying we can choose what to call knowledge from what we experience ourselves. Otherwise we know nothing right? That's why it is my opinion that the issue cannot be resolved interpersonally... ever.

But don't understand this.

You don't believe in God so... however... if you believe in (and trust) God as a loving and compassionate creator from what you've experienced you then can be assured that your God would not show you a lie (decieve): unless of course it is for your own good in which case would you call it deception? In childhood you know things one way but as you grow older things change.

Surely it is impossible to eliminate what you experience. We can't share what we experience with aliens any more than we can with other human beings.

Yeah, I didn't really mean drop what we know completely, but kind of find an average or a mean. Somewhat like elliminating random errors in scientific analysis. However, as I've realised with science, this really doesn't assure you of anything in truth so... that's why I put maybe. Maybe by then we would have developed some strange ability to... almost be one with someone in every way - become some kind of dual being with another human kind of (way out so... that's why the maybe was there).

Only if the 'notion' is a true one. I don't believe that it is.

Yes, I doubt it is myself, in fact, I know it's wrong.

Very good point (imo), and well illustrated by current trends in western societies. People hardly trust themselves to believe anything these days, and it shows.

Yes, I find it quite repulsivce actually.

That's a fair argument. But wouldn't Cris have the right to make the same argument for his opposite belief?

Yes, he would. But then we may never be able to agree who is right and who is wrong - from I Christian point of view - we will never agree on it because when we are able to realise it's truth we won't be able to agree or disagree.

I can't agree with you that believing something can make it knowledge. It is knowing something that makes it knowledge. Believing in God existence is anybody's right, but His existence is not a piece of knowledge unless you know that He exists.

Agreed. Knowing it through faith makes it knowledge.

You can argue that believing in God is rational (I feel that you can anyway) but you can't call it 'subjective knowledge' if it's just a belief. Subjective knowledge should be as rigorously tested by observation and logic as the objective kind before it can be considered as certain knowledge.

It is nearly impossible to constrain a being with supposed unlimited powers (Christian God) to logic. Though it seems necessary you'll always run into paradoxes. But then from all that I have experienced so far - these are veritable paradoxes - and can be resolved.

 

[Canute]

MarcA

I agree with a lot of what you say. But I don't think that you can say that knowing something through faith makes it knowledge. In fact I'm not sure what 'knowing something through faith' actually means.

We agree that one can know things with certainty through subjective experience, (and thus, hypothetically speaking, know that God exists), but I would argue that you have to actually have the appropriate experience, not just a faith that you're going to have it.

Christian mystics do not, as far as I know, ever claim that they derive knowledge from their faith. They claim that they have experienced God in some shape or form and therefore have direct knowledge. Their reports of their experiences (as explorers of reality) may lead others to a greater faith in God. But they do not give the rest of us any greater knowledge of God. Only those mystics can claim the knowledge.

I think that you're entitled to your faith, and certainly you can't be proved wrong. But I don't think that you can call it knowledge. (Although perhaps 40 days in the wilderness might turn it into knowledge).

 

[thefountainhed]

Cris,

This will probably connect with what you are trying to say on the A=B issue, but I will ask anyway. A human is clearly material, agreed? And a material human has no connection with an immaterial soul, agreed? Why then would a human have any expectation that they would ‘become’ immaterial upon death? That they might wish for it isn’t going to make it happen, agreed?

Yes, agreed, but for you to try to show logically that this metamorphosis isn't possible is impossible--this is what Boris tries. It is important to assert however, that it is reasonable to
assume such a metamorphosis to be possible.

How does something immaterial ‘emerge’ from something material if there is and has never been a connection or interaction between the material and the immaterial?

Because the two are the same at conception. At life you realize yourself as a body; at birth you realize yourself as a soul. You must also realize that this 'immaterial" must be taken only within the context of the soul and therefore must exclude the "supernatural". Once you realize this, you must therefore realize that this "immaterial" has never been shown to have aconnection to the material because there need not be any connection/interaction and that this 'immaterial' is realizable only outside the context of life. It is also important to assert that a connection or an interaction is unimportant by definition. You placing animportance on an interaction or connection merely perverses the premise to your needs.

Or, if there has never been any interaction between the material body and the immaterial soul during the lifetime of the material body then what would the immaterial, soul ‘contain’, i.e. in terms of perhaps life knowledge etc?

And who says that the soul would know how I lived?

Also, if the ‘emergent’ soul has any relationship with the human it has emerged from then wouldn’t it be essential that information would have to transfer from one to the other, i.e. an interaction would be needed, which you are claiming doesn’t happen?

Why is it essential?


While it seems preposterous to believe in souls, gods, etc, I believe it also important that we reaize the limits of logic and why it is also a faith, etc and no be so quick to denounce theists for their beliefs.?

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

for you to try to show logically that this metamorphosis isn't possible is impossible—

That doesn’t say anything about the issue other than it is a baseless product of imagination.

this is what Boris tries.

Not quite. He pointed out the apparent paradox of a relationship between something material and immaterial and you are squirming extremely hard to claim there doesn’t need to be a connection. You haven’t succeeded yet.

It is important to assert however, that it is reasonable to assume such a metamorphosis to be possible.

No it is not reasonable at all. This is the same as claiming you can throw a 7 with a 6 sided dice. That you can imagine something does not promote the idea to being a possibility in reality.

How does something immaterial ‘emerge’ from something material if there is and has never been a connection or interaction between the material and the immaterial?

Because the two are the same at conception.

What does ‘same’ mean here? Do you mean the material and the immaterial, are the same? That is clearly nonsense, right?

At life you realize yourself as a body; at birth you realize yourself as a soul.

How? Please support this assertion.

You must also realize that this 'immaterial" must be taken only within the context of the soul and therefore must exclude the "supernatural".

The material is the natural and if there is anything else then it is automatically supernatural. Are you trying to create another third category?

Once you realize this, you must therefore realize that this "immaterial" has never been shown to have a connection to the material because there need not be any connection/interaction

OK, but that is what we are discussing.

and that this 'immaterial' is realizable only outside the context of life.

Realizable by what or who? If the material human is dead then that person cannot realize the material or the immaterial, right?

It is also important to assert that a connection or an interaction is unimportant by definition.

Definition of what?

You placing an importance on an interaction or connection merely perverses the premise to your needs.

I have no needs here, this is your concept that I am trying to understand.

What I can’t see is what this soul is if it comes into existence at the moment of death and that there has never been a connection or interaction with the material person. It would appear to be just a separate disembodied ‘something’ that has otherwise nothing to do with the person that has just died. Or am I missing something?

And who says that the soul would know how I lived?

OK fine. What is the purpose of the soul then?

Also, if the ‘emergent’ soul has any relationship with the human it has emerged from then wouldn’t it be essential that information would have to transfer from one to the other, i.e. an interaction would be needed, which you are claiming doesn’t happen?

Why is it essential?

If there has been no information transfer then the soul has nothing to do with the person who has just died. Is that what you are saying?

While it seems preposterous to believe in souls, gods, etc, I believe it also important that we realize the limits of logic and why it is also a faith, etc and no be so quick to denounce theists for their beliefs.?

Oh no, that is not an acceptable escape. Boris demonstrated a paradox and you are claiming very strongly that he is wrong. Now you are saying that you can’t show why he is wrong, and that we must accept without question what you are saying.

Logic is the most disciplined and powerful method of human thinking we have been able to devise. Those who criticize logic the most tend to be those who cannot use it or whose arguments are illogical. You have not demonstrated that logic has limits in this case only that your argument has no substance and is illogical.

Summary.

You are claiming that a soul comes into existence (emerges) at the moment of death.

You are claiming that there is no connection or interaction between a material person and the soul that begins at death.

Is that an accurate assessment?

If true then my question is – does a soul have any relationship whatsoever with the dead person or the life before the person dies, apart from whose death caused the soul to begin?

If there is some form of relationship, which I would propose is reasonable, otherwise the soul concept seems rather pointless, then how is that relationship caused if there has never been an interaction between the two entities?

If you say there is no relationship then indeed the soul concept is entirely irrelevant to any human.

If there is a relationship then you must overcome the paradox presented by Boris, or simply accept that souls simply cannot and do not exist.

 

[thefountainhed]

Cris,

That doesn’t say anything about the issue other than it is a baseless product of imagination.

No it is not baseless, for it based on observation.

Not quite. He pointed out the apparent paradox of a relationship between something material and immaterial and you are squirming extremely hard to claim there doesn’t need to be a connection. You haven’t succeeded yet.

LOL. 'squirming', I see. Nah, I think you are having a hard time accepting that a post you adore could be wrong. A paradox exists if and only if you say that there must be a connection. Why must there be a connection?

These are the relevant general definitions I found for soul

For ease, I will refer to the definition within this post as DEF.

DEF:

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

4. A human: "the homes of some nine hundred souls" (Garrison Keillor).


SOURCE


I will again ask, why must there be a connection?

No it is not reasonable at all. This is the same as claiming you can throw a 7 with a 6 sided dice. That you can imagine something does not promote the idea to being a possibility in reality.

No it is not the same as claiming you can throw a 7 with a 6-sided dice. The reasoning why not is actually pretty simple. For throwing a dice, the variable space is completely known (1, 2,3, 4, 5, and 6); the same cannot be said for the happenings upon death-- unless of course the observer was to die. But then you and I couldn’t be having this discussion now, could we?

What does ‘same’ mean here? Do you mean the material and the immaterial, are the same? That is clearly nonsense, right?

The 'immaterial' merely implies that we cannot observe the soul in this reality because the soul exists outside this reality. Upon death however, the body ‘becomes’ the soul. Using whatever philosophies you want to you use for the destination of the soul, i.e. reincarnation, purgatory, etc, we end up with a circular relationship. The soul is the body within this reality, and the body is the soul outside this reality. They are the 'same' is a linguistic label used for brevity-- as I have already supplied what I thought was a comprehensive example.

How? Please support this assertion.

DEF

The material is the natural and if there is anything else then it is automatically supernatural. Are you trying to create another third category?

Funny man. I present the context so that you stay within context and not bring up notions of super beings, unicorns, miracles, or any other you tend to use. If you will be broaden and generalize and still stay within context, fine with me.

OK, but that is what we are discussing.

This in response to this : Once you realize this, you must therefore realize that this "immaterial" has never been shown to have a connection to the material because there need not be any connection/interaction.

How can this be what we are discussing when you have asserted time and time again that there need be connection? There does not need be a connection, and arguing for a connection merely provides a paradox that does not exist in the first place; for it is based on an incorrect premise (definition).

Realizable by what or who? If the material human is dead then that person cannot realize the material or the immaterial, right?

Are we going to have a semantic debate here? Realizable-- definable only outside this context.

Definition of what?

Soul: DEF.

I have no needs here, this is your concept that I am trying to understand.

Then maybe you should illustrate for us all what you understand the "soul" to be.

What I can’t see is what this soul is if it comes into existence at the moment of death and that there has never been a connection or interaction with the material person. It would appear to be just a separate disembodied ‘something’ that has otherwise nothing to do with the person that has just died. Or am I missing something?

The body at "birth" is both a soul and a body. Again, they are the 'same' entity.

OK fine. What is the purpose of the soul then?

Surely you don’t ask that I list the purpose of the soul in every religion/philosophy, now do you?

If there has been no information transfer then the soul has nothing to do with the person who has just died. Is that what you are saying?

LOL. I find it amusing when you argue like this. Of course this is not what I am saying. I am asserting different states of the same entity. They share the same fundamental. Words like "interaction", "transition", "connection", have absolutely no physical meaning.

Oh no, that is not an acceptable escape.

LOL. Escape from what?

Boris demonstrated a paradox and you are claiming very strongly that he is wrong. Now you are saying that you can’t show why he is wrong, and that we must accept without question what you are saying.

LMAO. I would love to for you to delineate the reasoning by which you arrived at this conclusion. I am saying that Boris demonstrated a paradox only because he based his argument on an incorrect premise. Therefore, his entire argument is illogical. I am not asking you to accept my assertion without context and thus have provided definitions and examples.

Logic is the most disciplined and powerful method of human thinking we have been able to devise. Those who criticize logic the most tend to be those who cannot use it or whose arguments are illogical. You have not demonstrated that logic has limits in this case only that your argument has no substance and is illogical.

LOL. Where did I criticize logic? Now, I cannot use logic? First of all, that statement was not in reply to anything but as a side note to you-- that you stop trying to logically disprove logically undefined premises -- 'god'. And, it is Boris' argument which is illogical by virtue of being based on an illogical premise.

Summary.
Unneeded, the above should address each one your questions and the rest deduced by elimination.