Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Orange Wizard]

Tell me more about how the destruction of the brain means that it destroys the soul. I don't quite grasp the leap in logic.

[k33n]

Tell me more about how the destruction of the brain means that it destroys the soul. I don't quite grasp the leap in logic.

What is the soul?

All aspects that are traditionally associated with person-hood, the mind, or soul have been medically proven to be a product of or dependent on the biology and chemistry of the brain. The evidence is overwhelming that such aspects that are associated with the concept of soul are subject to change if the physiology and chemistry of the brain changes. What and who you love, what you are passionate about. The very structure of thought and awareness. Brain damage can change who you love, your language, and even deep personal aspects of your humanity. If a region of the brain is severely damaged or removed, the aspect of your soul, mind, or person-hood is also affected.

How great a leap is it to suggest that the destruction of the brain in its entirety would also destroy the aspects of the soul that it is the cause of? What is left, given the volume of scientific and medical fact pointing to this?

As I stated earlier, it would be pure consciousnesses ( or rather, that is the only wiggle room we have given the medical knowledge we have. Consciousnesses could very well be a product of the brain as well, it just isn't known yet). Unfeeling, unthinking, unknowing, and utterly alien from what any religious narrative would consider a soul. In fact, what the religious narrative considers the soul would be what died with the brain.

Given this fact, and given the christian narrative and worldview revolves around personal immortality, we can conclude that the Christian cosmology is an entirely incorrect description of reality.

[Frumple]

... I'd rather hear about the non-existent point that anything involving the soul or afterlife became an observable and communicable phenomena, because insofar as I'm aware they haven't actually cracked that one.

Last I checked, the afterlife and related paraphernalia is unobservable to the living, incapable of being verifiable communicated about by the dead, and has absolutely no verifiably observable effect on reality. Insofar as science goes, it's a complete non-entity and entirely irrelevant -- until it starts having an actual effect on things, its nature and construction don't matter on whit. It has less effect on the scientific world than the light emitted by stars thousands of light years distant. Definitely fun to talk about, but it's about as impactful in any meaningful sense as fantasy world building.

If you're looking to cast doubt on the historical/factual accuracy of the bible, there's plenty of actual archaeological/historical inaccuracies involved, to say nothing of the whole shady nature of its construction. No need to bring in stuff science and empiricism and whatnot literally can't interact with. Bible can say whatever it wants about unobservable phenomena and science et al can't really do shit. Anyone and anything can say whatever they want to about entirely unobservable phenomena and science et al can't do shit. S'just that it's all entirely and completely irrelevant to anyone alive, and it's physically impossible to justify one account's description of the subject over another. 'Bout the most you can do is point out logical contradictions involved.

And no k, generally the response I've seen regarding physical damage and the soul is that the squishy bits are a filter, more than anything. When your brain gets damaged, it's not your soul taking damage, it's your soul/reality interaction device, or so the spiel goes.

[Orange Wizard]

fact

[k33n]

Again, I am willing to debate this and read what you have, if only you will read the arguments. When either of you are interested in a socratic attempt to find the truth, let me know. Until then, stay faithful.

[Orange Wizard]

I have read the arguments, and I can't see the leap in logic you're making. As Frumple explained, something that is not visible to the living world and does not have a physical presence cannot be explained by science. It's outside of science's jurisdiction. It raises other questions, sure, like "why the sod would you believe in something when there's literally no evidence for it to exist", but disproving it is something that is physically impossible to do.

stay faithful

It's worth noting that Frumple is not religious AFAIK, and has at many points in this thread expressed the flaws he sees in various religious viewpoints. You probably shouldn't throw him into the same basket as me.

[k33n]

I have read the arguments, and I can't see the leap in logic you're making. As Frumple explained, something that is not visible to the living world and does not have a physical presence cannot be explained by science.

So what you are saying is that you read my ( and the field of neuroscience ) claim that every aspect - except for pure consciousness - that was traditionally associated with the soul is now known to be a product of the physical brain?

Because I am challenging the false assumption that the "soul" is invisible to the living world, and the only response I am getting is "It Is Known" that it is.

EDIT: Although you have said you are not completely on board with the greek tradition, the cleanest ( and most fun, this is a game forum haha ) way of doing this for me is Socratic.

So I will say, without the blurb:

What is the soul?

[Baffler]

I have read the arguments, and I can't see the leap in logic you're making. As Frumple explained, something that is not visible to the living world and does not have a physical presence cannot be explained by science.

So what you are saying is that you read my ( and the field of neuroscience ) claim that every aspect - except for pure consciousness - that was traditionally associated with the soul is now known to be a product of the physical brain?

Because I am challenging the false assumption that the "soul" is invisible to the living world, and the only response I am getting is "It Is Known" that it is.

I've heard you claim a lot of things over the past 4 pages, but you haven't backed any of it up.

The problem is the word 'God'. The theistic christian god is very easy to disprove, the deistic god is barely even a god, and needs not even be intelligent. Not to mention that the soul, afterlife, sin, virgin birth, and the very existence of Jesus are all either disprovable of very iffy.

So do it.

[Orange Wizard]

So what you are saying is that you read my ( and the field of neuroscience ) claim that every aspect - except for pure consciousness - that was traditionally associated with the soul is now known to be a product of the physical brain?

Because I am challenging the false assumption that the "soul" is invisible to the living world, and the only response I am getting is "It Is Known" that it is.

Riiiiight. The response you're getting is that you can't prove that it doesn't exist. I'm telling you that if you can't see* something, you can't prove that it doesn't exist. You're telling me that you can. I don't understand how.

*I say "see", but I mean "cannot be interacted with in any way and has no effect on the physical world in any way".

[Frumple]

You're challenging an assumption that has no verifiable truth state, not one that is false, K. The response isn't, "It is known", it's "It is assumed by its proponents, and we can't really say they're wrong or right."

And yeah, traditional aspects of the soul being attributed to states of the physical brain doesn't actually say anything about the nature of the soul.

Because you can't. Actually say anything verifiable about the nature of the soul. The claim of non-physicality no-sells the possibility of that sort of explanation. If proponents of soul-hood claim the soul is partially or in whole non-physical, all science can do is shrug and move on with moving on. That claim makes the non-physical aspects of the soul entirely outside the domain of science. Literal no connection. Also makes it mostly immune to logical analysis as well, since it's inventing its own axioms and denying the applicability of outside ones.

[k33n]

I have read the arguments, and I can't see the leap in logic you're making. As Frumple explained, something that is not visible to the living world and does not have a physical presence cannot be explained by science.

So what you are saying is that you read my ( and the field of neuroscience ) claim that every aspect - except for pure consciousness - that was traditionally associated with the soul is now known to be a product of the physical brain?

Because I am challenging the false assumption that the "soul" is invisible to the living world, and the only response I am getting is "It Is Known" that it is.

I've heard you claim a lot of things over the past 4 pages, but you haven't backed any of it up.

The problem is the word 'God'. The theistic christian god is very easy to disprove, the deistic god is barely even a god, and needs not even be intelligent. Not to mention that the soul, afterlife, sin, virgin birth, and the very existence of Jesus are all either disprovable of very iffy.

So do it.

Does the scriptural narrative - which is the only basis for believe in the christian god besides personal revelation - have any validly over other tribal and superstitious claims? No. Is there any evidence that this world, universe, or mankind was created? No, in fact the evidence disproves this. Is there evidence that there is an afterlife? No, I think the opposite is true, as I have been trying to discuss. Is it likely that a being of infinite complexity acreated then created the universe, or is it more likely that the universe acreated? Given the nature of quantum foam, the latter is very likely.

Christianity is the believe that a 'loving' god created us sick and demands for us to become well on pain of eternal punishment. It is the religion that says the only chance we have is a cage trap hallway in which we are best ignoring so we don't suffer forever. It is a religious believe system that has no more validity then any other.

I might add that I was a faithful christian for too much f my life, and this fact informs my repulsion. Despite my feelings about the religion itself I don't feel strongly against followers of it.

[k33n]

So what you are saying is that you read my ( and the field of neuroscience ) claim that every aspect - except for pure consciousness - that was traditionally associated with the soul is now known to be a product of the physical brain?

Because I am challenging the false assumption that the "soul" is invisible to the living world, and the only response I am getting is "It Is Known" that it is.

Riiiiight. The response you're getting is that you can't prove that it doesn't exist. I'm telling you that if you can't see* something, you can't prove that it doesn't exist.

But we can see it. It is neuroscience. Every aspect that we associated with the soul we can see in brain science, right in front of us. Every aspect that we associated with the soul we now understand to be part of the brains biology.

And yeah, traditional aspects of the soul being attributed to states of the physical brain doesn't actually say anything about the nature of the soul.

Are you serious?

[k33n]

-

[Orange Wizard]

that the universe acreated ... is very likely.

That doesn't make it certain.

It is a religious believe system that has no more validity then any other.

It is not necessarily invalid.

But we can see it. It is neuroscience. Every aspect that we associated with the soul we can see in brain science, right in front of us. Every aspect that we associated with the soul we now understand to be part of the brains biology.

And that means it's absolutely impossible for a soul to exist either alongside or as a transcendent part of the brain?

...

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not arguing that there is any evidence for any of these things, or that it is rational to believe in them. I'm saying that science cannot disprove them, because by nature they are beyond what science can examine.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is zero compelling reason to place belief in the totally unfalsifiable.