...then how do you know it exists?
i have no problem with immaterial substances existing. just because it cannot be empirically verified does not mean it does not exist.
(1) only things that can be empirically tested can exist.
(2) the soul cannot be empirically tested.
(3) therefore, the soul does not exist.
i don't think (1) is true
It is one of numerous explanations.
Thats your opinion along with billions more and your entitled to it. But first things first the soul is flesh . We all carry a spirit within and I personnally know it to be fact . Can I prove it ? NO. Even if I could I wouldn't. That was The living words job . But Religion has pretty much destoyed those words while at the same time hiding the truth and the complete message. I would bet anything your stupid enough to believe when Alexanders library was burned you believe the scrolls were burned also . Thats so laughable that it Ironic. Have you never asked yourself why the swiss guard protects the pope. I bet you will say its because the swiss are neutral . They have been in the past. Cough ! This next war the swiss banks will be raped and plunder something that should have happened long ago.
Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance)[1] is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is a sharp incongruity or discordance that goes beyond the simple and evident intention of words or actions. There is presently no accepted method for textually indicating irony, though an irony (punctuation) mark has been proposed.
i have no problem with immaterial substances existing. just because it cannot be empirically verified does not mean it does not exist.
(1) only things that can be empirically tested can exist.
(2) the soul cannot be empirically tested.
(3) therefore, the soul does not exist.
i don't think (1) is true
If it has an effect on us, it is therefore something that can be measured.i would argue that unmeasurable or unquantifiable things can have an effect on us.
the soul is a perfect example of this :sneaky:
My sympathies for that, and this is completely unrelated to the event that you're describing, but...My grammar past away several years ago. God rest her soul.
My sympathies for that, and this is completely unrelated to the event that you're describing, but...
I love the bolded sentence. I think some others may understand why.
You wish death upon his family? :sneaky:
My grammar past away several years ago. God rest her soul.
I think it's one of those things we will never understand. How did it feel like before being born, before the body even existed? How will it feel like after death? Yes, your brain is what gives you feelings and all that, just like a the parts of a computer make it do what it does. The difference with being live beings is we have a consciousness, self awareness, freewill, etc. We could lose our sight, touch, smell, hearing etc... but still have consciousness even though you really have no clue what's going on.
There are lot of things in this world we are simply incapable of understanding fully. They are not accessible to us. I think the easiest way to put it is let's say there are 2D creatures in a 3D world, these creatures are inside a 3D box that is opened on one end facing out along the Z axis. They cannot go there as they only exist on one Z point and only have X Y to go on. Basically they are inside a square, not a box, because this box extends beyond their realm. This square represents our universe. We can go all over it physically given the proper technology, but we simply cannot go beyond that. When we die and before we were born, we were/are not physically there. Where, I don't know. Nobody does.
Yes, but like I noted, it is the only Reasonable explanation.
What you postulate is the existance of a nonmaterial phenomenon. Although the empiric argument cannot logically prove the nonexistence of a phenomenon, the fact that it is nonmaterial means that you cannot prove the existence of such either.
This is the beginning of the argument, there is no prerequisite postulate. If you chose to believe then as far as I know no argument that can state that the existence of a soul is illogical. On the contrary, if you chose to believe that it does not exist, there is no argument to suggest that it does.
Feel free to believe or not, but until a logical metaphysical argument that supports either side exist, you are unlike to convince anyone to change their mind.
What I find interesting is that throughout history, man has used religion to explain what the world. It has also been used as a tool for the discussion of ethics and morals. As a tool of societies interactions, it places a severe retribution for acts that are unethical, or counterproductive to living within a group. It established the concept of "evil", and sets a punishment for it, that requires no earthly action or even knowledge.
Without a soul, this retribution is not possible.
So the question that I always post is. What role does ethics and morals play within the construct of a physical only universe. Given the postulate of an action that would benefit the actor but cause pain and suffering to others, but would never be discovered nor would have further consequences.
Many would say that even, if "they could get away with it", they would be somehow changed or guilty. But that begs the question, can a psycopath commit evil if they get away with it, ie kill a homeless person that no one will even know is missing. This universality of evil is somehow lacking without a connection that trandscends the material world.
That has not been established. Impossibility suggests a logical inconsistency of definition. As the "soul" is not defined inconsisencies are difficult to establish. As for what prompted the first humans to concieve or percieve the existence of a soul, that is lost in prehistory, but becomes rather moot, since the concept was postulated mostlikely before human speech. We have no history of a time before the concept of a soul. Conversely, the concept of "atheism" is quite young in comparison, so the metaphysical arguments havent had as much time to mature as the religious doctrine.It simply can not be done. It is by Definition an Impossibility.
Incorrect. "Evil" is defined in the Material world, we see the consequences of it everyday. We also Punish such acts, with Material consequences, not with threats of Immaterial consequences. That's what Law is for, Jails, the Police, etc.
It is also quite ironic that some of the most Religious of Societies have the greater issues regarding "evil". If Religion were the stalwarts of Morality and Ethics, than "evil" would be a rarity rather than more common place.