Are we purely material beings or do we have souls?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Apr 11, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Nup Jan you have it totally arse up. The onus is on you to show that that we are separate from our body, or since it is the question in the OP, to show we have a soul.
    That's just as mythical, just as unevidenced, and just as nonsensical as saying we have any evidence for the existence of any god/s.
    We have been waiting a long time Jan for you to come up with that evidence. Methinks you are pissing into the wind.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    It should be soooo easy to find and product evidence for / of a soul

    There are thousands of medical text books, surely one would provide extensive details about a soul

    Methinks you are pissing into the wind.

    You sure it's Jan or Jan's soul?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I’ll leave that to you and Alex.
    The op asks to explain why we believe we have a soul. Can you not read?
    I have easily fulfilled that task.
    I have even gone over and beyond the question to show that we are the soul.
    Now it’s time to sit back and see what type of rebuttal, people like you will bring to the table.
    And the atheism begins!
    Well wait no longer, the evidence has already been put forward.
    Try and rebut it.
    I dare you.
    Methinks you do very little thinking.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Alex and I have simply stated fact that we have no evidence for any mythical soul.
    I've answered. Can you not read?
    Baseless rhetorical nonsensical posts and claims, do not in anyway show, indicate or prove we have a soul.
    Rebuttal rests simply on the fact that your rhetoric has achieved nothing...no evidence for any soul at all. Just regurgitated nonsense your overlords have been drilling into you.
    Atheism has nothing to do with the subject. There simply is no evidence for any soul or any other supernatural nonsense you chose to spew out.
    What evidence? Your say so rhetoric? No sorry, that's not worth the keyboard you are typing this stuff out on.
    You offer nothing, zilch, nada.
     
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You are assuming the mind is a part of the body. Can you show that it is?
    You brought it up.
    I want to see it through.
    I’ve already given my reason why I believe.
    Now I want to know why you think the mind is a part of the physical body?
    What are physical properties of mind?
    Occam’s razor suggests the explanations that require the least assumption, is usually correct.
    It favours my explanation as I have made no assumptions. You on the other hand assume the mind is is physical. An added assumption .
    Procreation.
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I beg to differ.
    That’s not rebuttal.
    Once again I have to wonder why you are here if you have no intention of discussing in a proper manner.
    If you think my points are baseless, explain why you think so by going through them. Otherwise you are just simply trolling.
    It has everything to do with your response.
    Otherwise explain how you know there is no evidence. And explain why you think my explanation is baseless rhetoric.
    So what are you here for, other than to troll?
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    This may be so but in a way it is not at all obvious that we are separate from our body...in fact the opposite appears to be the case.
    I think that you want so much to find the god story is true you jump at anything that may back up the notion that your soul goes on and your body does...it is wishful thinking unfortunately unsupported...but if you wish to believe it go ahead but why do you need to chat about it?
    Chatting will not make a soul real.
    Alex
     
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    How so.?
    So what if you do?
    Let’s see if you can come up with rebuttals.
    I’m responding to the op, in a discussion forum.
    Why are you here?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2020
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    That was shown to you in post #63, no need to keep repeating questions that have been answered.
     
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You made some vague claim that the mind is a process of the brain. IOW the mind is the brain.
    The brain is the brain. Can you show me the mind?
     
  14. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    No - the mind is not the brain any more than the beat is the heart. Mind is what the brain does.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    So the mind plays a similar role in the brain, to the physical process of a beating heart?
    Is that what you’re alluding to?
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    The mind is the process of the brain, it is not the physical components of the brain; ie. frontal lobe, cortex, cerbelum, etc. The processes are thinking, imagining, etc. For example, you might have an image of your God in your mind, that image is not your brain, it is a result of the process of the brain which is called the mind.
     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You don’t know that the mind is a process of the brain. It could just as easily be a process of consciousness that connects it to the brain.
    No doubt you’re going to say consciousness is a process of the brain. Another claim you can’t possibly know via empirical knowledge, especially as no one can demonstrate what it is, how it works, or where it resides. It is a complete mystery. Hence the term “ the problem of consciousness”.
    Nice try but no cigar.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Beg and differ all you like, it is a fact: That fact being there is no evidence for a soul, or anything like a soul.
    Of course it is! Let me again say, there is no evidence for any soul, caprice? If there is then you have yet to show that evidence. What other sort of manner do you want me to post in? Simply agree with you and your preaching? Not bloody likely old fella, I did that as a 5 year old then matured to understand science and the scientific method, and the evidence that goes with it.
    I only need two points Jan, [1] You claim we have a supernatural soul: [2] You have yet to show me any evidence of such. That's it pure and simple.
    See above. In the meantime, and again, Atheism has nothing to do with the subject. There simply is no evidence for any soul or any other supernatural nonsense you chose to spew out. In other words anything supernatural is a baseless and unscientific concept. You have yet to refute that with any contrary evidence.
    The evidence available in this and other threads, show conclusively that it is actually you trolling, redefining words and generally being untruthful.
    I'll go along with the evidence.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Can you show me the soul?
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Just think it thru...there are two sides to all coins.

    Let's see you provide something worth rebutting.

    Entertainment which I thank you for providing...

    Alex
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    The symptom of the soul is consciousness. So I don’t really have to show it, as it is self-evident.
     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You should publish this painstaking scientific discovery in a science journal.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,246
    I have a digital piano.

    When I operate the keys of the piano (assuming it is switched on), sound comes out of the piano. When I stop operating the keys, the sound stops. If I turn off the power, the sound stops.

    Now, what produces the sound? Is the sound a product of the physical piano (e.g. its circuits and speakers etc.), or could it be the product of an invisible, undetectable pixie who appears whenever the power is on a a key is pushed, thus magically generating the sound?

    The answer is: it could be either or both of those things, in principle. Maybe the invisible pixie exists and is tied to the piano by a spiritual connection. Maybe when I turn the power off, the pixie is still there but it can no longer access the piano because the magical connection is interrupted. Maybe if the piano is destroyed the magical pixie will fly away to inhabit a newly-manufactured digital piano.

    What I know for sure is that if I remove the speakers of the piano, it stops making a sound. If I turn off the power, it stops making a sound. If I break the circuit boards inside it, it stops making a sound. The logical conclusion I take away from that is that the speakers, the circuit boards and a power connection are all necessary to produce the sound.

    I'm not so sure about the invisible pixie. When the piano is not making a sound, I find that there's always an identifiable physical cause for that (e.g. the piano isn't plugged into the power outlet). It is never the case that all physical parts of the piano are working perfectly but there's still no sound. If that happened, perhaps we could put it down to the absence of the required pixie. But it never happens.

    I haven't disproved the existence of the magical pixie, you'll notice. Maybe the pixie is required for the piano to operate, and failing to turn on the power (for example) is one way to make the pixie unable to operate the piano, even though the pixie is still hanging around in the ether waiting for just the right conditions to arise to allow the pixie to make the sound. But if there is an invisible pixie, then it is clear that the piano requires both the pixie and the fully-operating physical parts of the piano. Just having the pixie by itself demonstrably won't get the job done. Besides, nobody has ever experienced a piano pixie in the absence of a piano.

    So, on the one hand, we could postulate that the piano operates purely naturalistically, with the sound being produced solely by the physical components of the piano. Alternatively, we could postulate the sound is produced by the physical components and a magical pixie.

    It seems to me that the simplest explanation that fits all the observations is that the sound is produced only by the physical components. The magical pixie is a superfluous hypothesis, as far as anybody can tell. If we claim we need it then we're only complicating the explanation unnecessarily. Adding the pixie to the explanation adds nothing, in terms of what we can test.

    This is Occam's razor at work. Components alone beats out components plus pixie, because components alone is the simpler but equally powerful explanation.

    Now think. By analogy, the human body is like the piano. The brain is like the circuit boards in the piano. The outputs of the body (the speech, the movements, etc.) are like the sound that comes out of the piano. And the soul is just like the magical pixie that is imagined by some to produce that sound: an unnecessary hypothesis that multiplies entities needlessly.
     

Share This Page