When do you get a soul? & related questions.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
It appears we have to go back to issues of theory and determine what qualities determine a "soul".
Otherwise its kind of like one could go on ad infinitum about what is the evidence of hydrogen being present in water with a person who has has a vague sense of what is hydrogen.
(If you don't think its valid to term life as a quality of the soul, there's no scope for beginning an investigation of evidence)
actually, you are at wits end in trying to deem life as dependent on some sort of material combination ... mainly because there are no means of application to follow whatever theory you come up with as conclusive
Doesn't matter whether we are discussing the soul, physics or car mechanics
if you insist on neglecting theory and bypassing application in order to come to a conclusion, I can't help you
Circular unreasoning & evasion.
LG, you are proof that 1 could go on ad infinitum.
It's high time you support your assertions or shut up.
LG, you are proof that 1 could go on ad infinitum.
It's high time you support your assertions or shut up.
Last edited by a moderator:
At the moment you have an argument that evidence should be capable of being established in the minds of the inimical.
Needless to say, it doesn't make for progressive discourse ......
:shrug:
lg,
Remember absence of any other explanation offers you no support for your fantasy.
You have asserted that life is dependent on a soul regardles of whatever I have said. Show how life is so dependent.
What? Irrelevant. Where is your proof that a soul of any form exists and where life is dependent upon it?
Remember absence of any other explanation offers you no support for your fantasy.
You have asserted that life is dependent on a soul regardles of whatever I have said. Show how life is so dependent.
-=-
LG
You do not establish any thing at all.
You don't make for progressive discourse. You're stuck in a rut.
LG
You do not establish any thing at all.
You don't make for progressive discourse. You're stuck in a rut.
Its a standard of pedagogy
Theory -> practice -> conclusion
There's no requirement for me to prove myself outside of your average teaching model
Hence you have what is termed in the industry "proactive interference"
Once again, if you think you can determine some sort of conclusion divorced from issues of application and theory, it appears you have some essential disagreement with standard pedagogical methods
I am simply pointing out that unlike you, I can actually lay claim to means of application.
The problem at the moment is that you disregard not only application but also theory as a means of coming to some sort of conclusion
(Kind of makes me wonder where you would ever be if you applied such scrutiny to the claim that life is materially reducible however)
and lo and behold, all evidential claims begin at the point of theory
to begin with, it possesses life/consciousness
Perhaps we can swap roles and you can show the path to enlightenment
You can pretend to be a physics professor and I will pretend to be an inimical high school drop out who's essential response to anything you say is "Yer fullashit"
please establish how an electron exists
/let the progress begin
-=-
So sayeth LG.
That settles it.
So sayeth LG.
That settles it.
generally before determining the validity of an assertion one has some sort of idea of the terms involved in the claim.
For instance once one has a clear understanding what is heat and what is fire, there is no need to head in the direction of proving how fire depends on heat
:shrug:
How is this relevant?
I can't see how a (purported) soul could be necessarily related to enlightenment....
Blind supposition.