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

[Leafsnail]

Well, I never said it was a sensible thing to believe.

My point is that any religious ideas whose sole argumentation is "it's impossible to disprove this" are the same.

[Phmcw]

If my brain is a radio, I can also wiggle the Bass/Treble dial and mess with the volume controls to change how the signal is received. [/stretchingthemetaphortofar]

We can observe the neural influx, and we're pretty sure they are computation. It won't take long untill we can prove that. And once again the belief will adapt.

[Orange Wizard]

Keeping up with all you ninjas sure is exhausting.

...

I'm sorry, but you literally can't prove or disprove something that claims to transcend reality. By its very nature you can't study it.

And you can't keep ignoring the arguments forever. Even the fact that you are still claiming that the soul transcends reality shows that you have yet to read the arguments we are putting forth.

I'm not ignoring your arguments. Your arguments simply don't equate to proof.

Well, I never said it was a sensible thing to believe.

The only difference between what I said and religion is time and upbringing. Possibly a bit of literature built around it, too.

And millions of peoples' beliefs, but yeah. Point taken.

Well, I never said it was a sensible thing to believe.

My point is that any religious ideas whose sole argumentation is "it's impossible to disprove this" are the same.

No? It just means they're defended in the same way. I could defend the idea of Zeus in the same manner as that of Jesus, but they're still very different ideas.

If my brain is a radio, I can also wiggle the Bass/Treble dial and mess with the volume controls to change how the signal is received. [/stretchingthemetaphortofar]

We can observe the neural influx, and we're pretty sure they are computation. It won't take long untill we can prove that. And once again the belief will adapt.

Okay.

[k33n]

Keeping up with all you ninjas sure is exhausting.

...

I'm sorry, but you literally can't prove or disprove something that claims to transcend reality. By its very nature you can't study it.

And you can't keep ignoring the arguments forever. Even the fact that you are still claiming that the soul transcends reality shows that you have yet to read the arguments we are putting forth.

I'm not ignoring your arguments. Your arguments simply don't equate to proof.

What does proof mean to a religious person?

[Leafsnail]

No? It just means they're defended in the same way. I could defend the idea of Zeus in the same manner as that of Jesus, but they're still very different ideas.

I was referring back to my previous comment.

The thing is once it's unfalsifiable that really means "It cannot have any effect on reality", because otherwise you'd be able to test it.  So instead of being wrong it's just irrelevant.

Any idea that cannot be disproved also cannot be relevant.  In my opinion appealing to unfalsifiability is a completely self-defeating argument, because an idea being irrelevant is functionally no different from that idea being wrong (in both cases you can disregard it).

[Baffler]

What does proof mean to a religious person?

Are you just going to ignore my post?

There is no evidence for the source of this matter. "It created itself" is pure conjecture. Never mind that the idea is based on the equally poorly understood phenomenon of quantum tunneling.

I've heard the arguments around evolution hundreds of times, but biochemistry and geology are new ones. Care to explain? I'll also add that you cannot disprove the existence of a soul any more than I can prove its existence. It must simply be taken on faith.

Proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. That should suffice for any reasonable person. You have pointed to a number of examples, but in only one case have you actually said anything about them beyond just saying they exist. And in that case you have ignored any further discussion on the subject, instead opting for more passive aggressive jibes at theism in general.

[Orange Wizard]

What does proof mean to a religious person?

Uh, what? That doesn't address the argument at all.

Spoiler: Answer, because you'll probably berate me if I don't (click to show/hide)

Proof means as much to a religious person as any other person.

Many people are willing to disregard proof in favour of personal theories. See conspiracy theorists and the like.

However, this does not mean that all religions and all conspiracy theories can be disproven.

Many belief systems are fundamentally unfalsifiable, so whether or not it is true is irrelevant.

No? It just means they're defended in the same way. I could defend the idea of Zeus in the same manner as that of Jesus, but they're still very different ideas.

I was referring back to my previous comment.

The thing is once it's unfalsifiable that really means "It cannot have any effect on reality", because otherwise you'd be able to test it.  So instead of being wrong it's just irrelevant.

Any idea that cannot be disproved also cannot be relevant.  In my opinion appealing to unfalsifiability is a completely self-defeating argument, because an idea being irrelevant is functionally no different from that idea being wrong (in both cases you can disregard it).

Oh, right. Sorry.
Yeah, that's certainly true. Beliefs like that only really have a bearing on how the individual concerned views and interacts with the world.

[k33n]

What does proof mean to a religious person?

Are you just going to ignore my post?

There is no evidence for the source of this matter. "It created itself" is pure conjecture. Never mind that the idea is based on the equally poorly understood phenomenon of quantum tunneling.

I've heard the arguments around evolution hundreds of times, but biochemistry and geology are new ones. Care to explain? I'll also add that you cannot disprove the existence of a soul any more than I can prove its existence. It must simply be taken on faith.

Proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. That should suffice for any reasonable person. You have pointed to a number of examples, but in only one case have you actually said anything about them beyond just saying they exist. And in that case you have ignored any further discussion on the subject, instead opting for more passive aggressive jibes at theism in general.

That every traditional aspect of the soul is now proven to be a product of biology, and also that these aspects of the soul are changed and destroyed based on the state of this biology leaves one conclusion. The only response either of you have give is: nuh-uh.

Biochemistry is the big one that both shows that emotions, memory, and person-hood ( the soul ) are impermanent products of the brain, as well as proving the reality of evolution via our genome. Geology shows that the earth was created in the proto-planetary disc that surrounded the early sun, without an intelligent designer.

[Frumple]

leaves one conclusion.

This statement is false. The other conclusions are "partially or wholly immaterial soul" Your denial of the possibility of the immaterial is as much a "nuh-uh" as someone else's assertion of that possibility. You cannot justifiably deny the existence of the non-physical (in the sense of "Outside reality") any more than you can justifiably assert it. No observable interaction == no justification either way.

If you wanted to say, "leaves one conclusion justifiable by an appeal to empiricism", you would be probably be making a true statement, though.

Seriously, the correct response for an empiricist or a scientist to the concept of an immaterial object isn't, "This is not true", but, "This cannot be said to be true or untrue, and is thus irrelevant to me." This includes immaterial souls, intelligent designers, and a myriad of related concepts. The person seeking scientific justification cannot say they do not exist, they can only say that investigation into their existence is not scientific and that their existence or nonexistence is of no concern.

Sweet non-existent zeus, this is basic reasoning, not some kind of fancy argument. You cannot determine the truth value of something you cannot test, and you cannot test something you cannot observe. If a thing is immaterial, it cannot be observed, cannot be tested, and its truth state is "N/A". Its state of proof is "unprovable". That's about as far as a person can go with it.

[Graknorke]

Outside reality

Okay how about this: If it's outside reality, it doesn't exist.

I mean, being outside of what exists and being inside of what exists are mutually exclusive. And honestly I don't see how anyone could have a problem with people listing off what cannot exist by definition.

[Frumple]

Okay how about this: If it's outside reality, it doesn't exist.

It's fine to make that assumption and live with it (in fact, I would suggest to most people that they do), but claiming to justify (/prove) it doesn't exist is something else entirely

Beyond that, there's stuff in reality that is functionally identical to stuff that isn't -- things we cannot and, insofar as we're able to tell at the moment, will never be able to interact with (light cones are a hell of a thing). They're observably equivalent to non-existent and yet in reality. If we say a thing is without being able to produce any more justification for that statement than we could for an immaterial object, it somewhat undermines our objection to the immaterial object.

I mean, being outside of what exists and being inside of what exists are mutually exclusive.

Fair amount of christian doctrine actually explicitly disagrees with that, heh.

[TD1]

Inside reality: it's real.

Outside reality: not real.

Not real: does not exist.

[Descan]

Um, I have a problem with the soul-as-radio-station analogy...

If your soul is unaffected by your body, i.e. brain-damage can't destroy your soul, then neither can experience, eh? It's all just modifying the brain, one destructively but there's nothing saying experience can't be destructive as well, mental trauma and all that. So what pops out at the other end? Is it you? What kind of personality does it have? Since all our personality is derived from genetics and experience, predisposition being the genetics, what makes whatever intangible creature controlling my body and brain "me"? Is it just gonna be a blank baby-level personality? Is it going to be an "idealized" personality? What if I don't like that version, what if I LIKE my flaws?

Not to mention if you DO suddenly change personality, whether by brain damage or whatever, even if somehow a personality is transferred to the soul, which of those personalities take precedence? The one pre-damage, or the one who will exist when the body finally dies and the souls zips off to sip pina colodas with Jesus?

Like, all this talk being "Oh if your antennae is busted, that doesn't destroy the radio station!" falls apart when you take the analogy further, because what is the music here? Eh? It's your personality, or consciousness, or whatever. But that comes from the brain. So it's more like playing a CD in your radio, or MP3. So the music *does* go away when it's all destroyed, the CD is busted, and file is corrupted, and what point does the radio station have at that juncture?

[Frumple]

Not a single living person has an actual clue in regard  to the answer to any of those questions, Desc.

[k33n]

leaves one conclusion.

This statement is false. The other conclusions are "partially or wholly immaterial soul" Your denial of the possibility of the immaterial is as much a "nuh-uh" as someone else's assertion of that possibility. You cannot justifiably deny the existence of the non-physical (in the sense of "Outside reality") any more than you can justifiably assert it. No observable interaction == no justification either way.

If you wanted to say, "leaves one conclusion justifiable by an appeal to empiricism", you would be probably be making a true statement, though.

Seriously, the correct response for an empiricist or a scientist to the concept of an immaterial object isn't, "This is not true", but, "This cannot be said to be true or untrue, and is thus irrelevant to me." This includes immaterial souls, intelligent designers, and a myriad of related concepts. The person seeking scientific justification cannot say they do not exist, they can only say that investigation into their existence is not scientific and that their existence or nonexistence is of no concern.

Sweet non-existent zeus, this is basic reasoning, not some kind of fancy argument. You cannot determine the truth value of something you cannot test, and you cannot test something you cannot observe. If a thing is immaterial, it cannot be observed, cannot be tested, and its truth state is "N/A". Its state of proof is "unprovable". That's about as far as a person can go with it.

... but we can test it, and have.