Are we purely material beings or do we have souls?

Correlation is not causation. Minds being correlated with bodies does not imply any causation between them. You may never personally find the Indian fellow who answers your customer service calls either, but that doesn't mean he only exists in your phone. There are many things unknown, and unknowable, to science. That's just reality. The null hypothesis is that no two things have any relationship but the evident. That the cessation of one cannot be assumed to cause the cessation of the other without actual evidence to that particular end. Parsimony would dictate that you cannot make a positive assertion in either direction, because there is evidence of neither.

Your scientism assumptions are just that.

Again, the null hypothesis is that minds are not caused by brains, unless you have conclusive evidence otherwise. You have zero basis to make any assertions about personal experience after the brain dies. If you did, you having such experience would contradict your claim. See how that works?

Agreed.

You asked "why you believe in them, and to present your best evidence for their existence". I'm saying there is no material evidence and that belief requires none. You don't need to find the fellow in India to believe he exists.

For one, conclusive evidence that choices are generated by the brain, like the debunked Libet-type experiments tried to.

That's why I prefer to talk about the null hypothesis or even parsimony. Too many think Occam's razor means that the simplest answer is usually correct, but that's a very naive understanding. The null hypothesis is that, if people have internal, subjective experiences not related to the body or its stimuli, perhaps there is some duality. Unjustified relationships are not parsimonious, otherwise we could just assume a theory of quantum gravity and call it a day.

Preferring to assume an answer that satisfies your scientism is not parsimonious.

Like I said, the brain is the switchboard. Like the wires, it carries the signal. You know, like the invisible electromagnetic waves. Certainly you don't doubt those simply because they are invisible.

All subjective and anecdotal. Nothing that you would find compelling.

Processing stimuli and controlling autonomous bodily functions is a far cry from explaining subjective experience.
Again, who said there was any positive evidence for the soul? You're the one making positive assertions here. So tell me, where does the onus lie? If you don't like that answer to that, simply quit making positive assertions.

Of course you don't understand the personal experiences that lead a vast majority of the world's population to believe in a soul, but you should at least be able to acknowledge that such experiences probably exist. Otherwise, you must have a rather sad outlook of most of the world being delusional for no apparent reason. Would likely make it a scary place for you.

Again, my experience would not be compelling.

No, I just know the futility. It's not compelling and admittedly only my personal belief, which means that any appeals for evidence are lost on me. Not sure what anyone would have to gain from it, unless they have nagging doubts about their own disbelief and are desperately seeking something to cling to.

To what end? So you can bicker about something that I readily admit is not scientific evidence? I don't see the point.

Hence the "if".

You said "evidence of any flavour".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not my opposition that debunked those experiments.

No, I didn't. Learn to read or quit erecting straw men.

Neither can be evidenced by science. So again, what material evidence do you have that you love your family? It's okay if you can't answer. That doesn't mean you don't love your family. I'm happy to believe you if you tell me you do, without any evidence at all.

"we don't know yet" is scientism. It's an unjustifiable belief in science, which itself states that some things are forever beyond its methodology.
Cute how you think all beliefs should somehow be justified by scientific evidence. Again, where is such evidence that you love your family?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What? Do we have souls? My belief is that there is One Soul that shines through Each of Us.
The best analogy I've heard of is that of the Sun shining through a stained glass window (like that of a church).

 

Perhaps this is the question you are referring.

All things are observable: the external environment (world), physical sensations (body), emotions and thoughts (mind). The only thing I can't observe directly is the witness of all else--for lack of a better word...awareness/consciousness. It is elusive in the sense that a finger can't scratch its own itch. You can't know it as you know all else, because it is the light at the core of your being. It is the "I" in You. It is my belief that that "I" is Universal and is at the core of each of us.

I have no evidence, just an understanding.

Was that helpful?

 

So SC does not know this, so it can't know that

Got it

So byeeee

So far it seems you have some sort of belief - anybody out there work out exactly what? - but your not going to post it because

OK byeeee

Give you 0.5% for the hint of lime/lemon flavour

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They arn't debunked.....The mind stems from the brain. Get used to it [no pun intended]

Like most creationists, and like your bible, you post as cryptic as possible to justify your nonsense and dribble.

Quite irrational to link love with your God simply because neither are concepts that can be defined. God being the result of myth and being supernatural and unscientific, differs somewhat from love which is simply an emotion like hate or sadness.

Ahaa, we have another Jan, redefining words to support his agenda. We don't know yet, means exactly that, as yet we don't know but tomorrow with the advent of a verifiable QGT, we might know. God on the other hand is a supernatural concept and by definition, unscientific.

I didn't say that...stop being so dishonest. The physical nature of the universe, and all in it is justified and explained via the scientific method. Love as explained is simply a human emotion.

 

Beings don’t have souls.
Beings are souls, in a biological suit we call the body.

You have a mind.
You are not the mind.

 

Are you quoting Yoda?

 

Quite.

 

In one post, you managed to demonstrate one of the most self-defeating narratives I've seen today. And, I'm sure you'll post more of them.

 

The metaphysical cannot be addressed with scientific methodology. And?

Yes, they are. Go look up the latest studies on the Libet-type experiments.

Again, no accounting for your comprehension unless you have specific questions I can answer.

You're avoiding the question.

The methodology of science puts some question forever beyond it. This is rather trivial. Who ever said God was scientific? That's a bizarre notion.

So you can wholly account for love through physical processes? Doesn't that make any love for your family completely insignificant?

 

Is unscientific at best, and mythical at worst. No evidence, no proof, nothing, zilch for anything remotely pointing to any existence of any mythical soul.

No thank you.'The brain controls basically all human functions, consciously and/or unconsciously. If you believe this stems from some mythical soul, that we cannot see or feel, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such a mythical entitiy.

My comprehension is OK, even in the face of dishonest and obtuse discussions with the likes of yourself and Jan.

No I am not. But anyway I'll answer it again and put your confusion down to your lack of comprehension...Quite irrational to link love with your God simply because neither are concepts that can be defined. God being the result of myth and being supernatural and unscientific, differs somewhat from love which is simply an emotion like hate or sadness.

Let me be even more blunt...Speaking generally of course, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know: Religion are/is mythical explanations stemming from pre-science days.

I'm accounting for nothing, including your dishonesty, which seems to be a trait often used by believers and creationists.
Again, the physical nature of the universe, and all in it is justified and explained via the scientific method. Love as explained is simply a human emotion. Perhaps once again, your comprehension is limited?

 

Or, any methodology, yet some people actually believe in it.

 

The thread asks if we are purely material beings, or, do we have souls (meaning non material). If we “have”souls, then we are purely material beings with souls, and your question becomes impossible to answer effectively.
My assertion was a correction of the question.

I don’t have to believe it. I would have to believe otherwise. I would have to think up explanations as to why I believed it. As it stands I know I am separate to anything I own, or regard as belonging to me.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, that's one to think about.

 

What evidence is that?