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

[Frumple]

... testing the immaterial is literally impossible, k. We have no means of interaction or observation. We've tested the claims regarding material souls or material aspects of souls, and basically found them lacking. There's more to the concept, and for partially or wholly immaterial souls, the portions of them that are immaterial are untestable. There exists no test for what you physically cannot interact with.

[k33n]

... testing the immaterial is literally impossible, k. We have no means of interaction or observation. We've tested the claims regarding material souls or material aspects of souls, and basically found them lacking. There's more to the concept, and for partially or wholly immaterial souls, the portions of them that are immaterial are untestable. There exists no test for what you physically cannot interact with.

How hard is it to understand that it isnt immaterial just because you say it is?

[Frumple]

Apparently as hard as it is to understand that saying it isn't immaterial doesn't make it so, either.

[k33n]

Apparently as hard as it is to understand that saying it isn't immaterial doesn't make it so, either.

None of us have said it without evidence.

[Graknorke]

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 guess that's one of those intrinsic differences in thought then. Because I very much require something to be real to exist. The idea of a thing that exists but doesn't is... well something that doesn't exist at all.

And I'm not exactly sure what you're alluding to in the second paragraph, but things that are purely speculation based of previous theories are presented as such, rather than an absolute fact you should kill and die for. That's one of the major differences. Bringing up something untestable is far more palatable when you admit it is, rather than claiming you know it's completely true.

[Descan]

I know, Frumple. I'm saying these are logical failings of the idea of radio-station souls.

[Frumple]

Eh, not so much logical failings as... I guess explanatory ones? A mechanism being unknown doesn't necessarily entail it's logically contradictory or whatev'. Does mean the available explanation is incomplete, but that's about it.

I guess that's one of those intrinsic differences in thought then. Because I very much require something to be real to exist. The idea of a thing that exists but doesn't is... well something that doesn't exist at all.

Yeah, more or less. About the only difference in my stance is that instead of saying it doesn't exist, I just say we can't say and it thusly doesn't particularly matter (until such a point that we can say, anyway). Stuff moving away from us at the speed of light (well, the stuff that's sufficiently far out, anyway) is roughly in the same state of existence/importance as the immaterial soul, insofar as I'm concerned (until we figure out a way to catch up, anyway).

Bringing up something untestable is far more palatable when you admit it is, rather than claiming you know it's completely true.

Oh aye. The issues surrounding that is why the differences and interactions between faith and knowledge are such big deals in theology.

[Leafsnail]

I think there's a philosophical case to be made that if something cannot interact with reality in any way then it's not real.  So if you start describing something that's not observable, even in principle, then you're describing something that doesn't exist.

Like I mean, how is such a completely non-interacting object any different from a fictional one?

[Frumple]

Insofar as we are concerned, it's not. Insofar as the object itself is concerned, we can't really say. We got no way to telling what the zog the object is, what it's like, if it exists, if it is or is not fictional, etc., etc., etc. Can make whatever assumptions we like about it, though!

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Is this a derail?
I'm not sure and a bit too lazy from doing random stuffs to read the past 5 pages that I've missed

[Leafsnail]

Surely the only sensible frame of reference for statements about reality is our own one, though.  Otherwise you're just splitting hairs, because "X could possibly exist" is a null statement when anything, even things that are demonstrably impossible in our reality, could exist to itself.

[k33n]

A mechanism being unknown doesn't necessarily entail it's logically contradictory or whatev'.

Except when the mechanism is known.

[Frumple]

Surely the only sensible frame of reference for statements about reality is our own one, though.  Otherwise you're just splitting hairs, because "X could possibly exist" is a null statement when anything, even things that are demonstrably impossible in our reality, could exist to itself.

I'd pretty much agree with you, sure (well, instead of "sensible" I'd use "relevant" but eh, details), but there's plenty of folks that wouldn't. From my perspective, they can be fun to talk to, but get mostly ignored until they produce something equivalent to a steam engine.

... and yeah cryx, it's a bit of a derail into related metaphysics and a bit of rhetoric/logic.

[k33n]

Surely the only sensible frame of reference for statements about reality is our own one, though.  Otherwise you're just splitting hairs, because "X could possibly exist" is a null statement when anything, even things that are demonstrably impossible in our reality, could exist to itself.

I'd pretty much agree with you, sure (well, instead of "sensible" I'd use "relevant" but eh, details), but there's plenty of folks that wouldn't. From my perspective, they can be fun to talk to, but get mostly ignored until they produce something equivalent to a steam engine.

... and yeah cryx, it's a bit of a derail into related metaphysics and a bit of rhetoric/logic.

Considering how complicated religious ideas can get, I would say that it has all been completely on the topic of Christianity.

[Orange Wizard]

Well, not really, seeing as (as was cited earlier) many modern theologians dismiss the idea of a soul anyway.