All living things have souls

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42 here:

1) All living things have "souls," but "soul"=/="immaterial."

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced claim is true.

[dianaiad]

From Post 10:

But then I can't prove,, empirically, that my children think I'm really neat, either, but I'm going to continue to believe they do until one of them risks my ire and tells me I'm not.

Fear does seem to be a prime motivator, and tool of some Christians.

That is not fear.

That's holy terror, and is common to all mothers theist or a, no matter what religious or philosophical system one follows.

It's one of the very few things that mothers have to use to handle kids. We ARE outnumbered. after all, even if a woman only has one kid.

I have five. I need all the advantages I can get.

[McCulloch]

Of course you cannot prove it. You cannot prove that you or I have a soul. I'll bet 1,000 tokens that you don't even know what a soul is. I certainly don't.

[yt][/yt]

The music you here is soul. I will have my 1000 tokens please as I have provided video evidence.

Only if you can demonstrate that this is what jesus had in mind when he said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

Well how 'bout that, God's a mother!

I'm still uncertain as to how such a condition lends credence to the data presented in the OP.

[dianaiad]

From Post 18:

Well how 'bout that, God's a mother!

I'm still uncertain as to how such a condition lends credence to the data presented in the OP.

Well, I certainly believe He is a PARENT, anyway.

As for the OP, hey, I was responding you you, sweetie, (and I mean that in all the best possible ways...) not the OP. I don't happen to think I need to offer you evidence sufficient to convince you in order for me to believe something.

After all, do you think you must offer evidence sufficient to convince me that there is no deity in order for you to dismiss the idea of the existence of one?

??????

Well, there y'go.

[sleepyhead]

From Post 42 here:

1) All living things have "souls," but "soul"=/="immaterial."

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced claim is true.

Hello Joey,

I can't prove it either.

Part A. We know that life appears and survives on the earth on even the most remote and hostile places. All that life, in order for us to know about it requires a body. It seems to me reasonable that other life (souls) would be produced all over the universe that wouldn't have a body.

Part B. If there are souls, would it really be that difficult if a soul wanted to experience life in flesh for a period of time, for it to inhabit a physical body.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 22 by sleepyhead]

It seems to me reasonable that other life (souls) would be produced all over the universe that wouldn't have a body.

Part B. If there are souls, would it really be that difficult if a soul wanted to experience life in flesh for a period of time, for it to inhabit a physical body.

reasonable?

How do you make the leap that:

Life exists on earth ergo souls exist all over the universe and they can experience life in the flesh for a period of time


Can you define the attributes of a soul?

Can you explain how you come to the conclusion that the soul has these attributes?

Can you verify that a soul exists?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 22 by sleepyhead]

A. Are you saying souls don't (or can't) directly interact with anything but their own bodies, even other souls?
Doesn't this make it inherently unreasonable to believe they exist by parsimony?
(or at best, a poor word to use)

B. Probably, since all these people keep telling me about how you can't use a thermometer on the spiritual, whatever that means. Why would souls have any "physical influence" at all?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 22 by sleepyhead]

A. Are you saying souls don't (or can't) directly interact with anything but their own bodies, even other souls?
Doesn't this make it inherently unreasonable to believe they exist by parsimony?
(or at best, a poor word to use)

B. Probably, since all these people keep telling me about how you can't use a thermometer on the spiritual, whatever that means. Why would souls have any "physical influence" at all?

Dark matter.

What I'm thinking here is this: we have made all these lovely observations of the world, deduced a van full of the rules that the universe seems to run by....and everybody keeps coming up against 'dark matter.'

What IS 'dark matter?'

It's this stuff in the universe that we can't see, can't touch, can't measure, can't use...it's only effect seems to be that of gravity, if that. It messes everybody up, and in fact, nobody knows what it is. It is simply called 'dark matter' because it's something nobody can see, but just has to be there in order to make the rules work.

At least, if the rules we think run the universe actually run the universe.

.........and no, I am not suggesting that spirits are 'dark matter.' I AM suggesting that deciding that if one cannot measure something, this lack of ability to measure is not proof of its non-existence.

I am suggesting that this empirical notion of 'if I can't see it, it ain't there' is, er, short sighted.

Automatic Disclaimer: no, I don't think that the inability to measure something means that it IS there.

[Zzyzx]

.

Dark matter.

What I'm thinking here is this: we have made all these lovely observations of the world, deduced a van full of the rules that the universe seems to run by....and everybody keeps coming up against 'dark matter.'

What IS 'dark matter?'

It's this stuff in the universe that we can't see, can't touch, can't measure, can't use...it's only effect seems to be that of gravity, if that. It messes everybody up, and in fact, nobody knows what it is. It is simply called 'dark matter' because it's something nobody can see, but just has to be there in order to make the rules work.

Actually, "dark matter" is only hypothesized to exist since it cannot be detected.

Likewise, "souls" are only hypothesized to exist since they cannot be detected.

There is evidence for dark matter -- its apparent effect on other items in the universe. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence of "souls" aside from human imagination or emotion. A major difference between science and religion is illustrated by the fact that astrophysicists readily acknowledge that dark matter is a hypothesis while religion often (typically) declares that souls are real and/or are known to exist.

Dark matter is a kind of matter that accounts for most of the matter in the entire universe. Dark matter is one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics. It cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[2] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass"energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[3][4] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter

At least, if the rules we think run the universe actually run the universe.

.........and no, I am not suggesting that spirits are 'dark matter.' I AM suggesting that deciding that if one cannot measure something, this lack of ability to measure is not proof of its non-existence.

I am suggesting that this empirical notion of 'if I can't see it, it ain't there' is, er, short sighted.

Automatic Disclaimer: no, I don't think that the inability to measure something means that it IS there.

Some things are detected or measured by the effects they produce. Magnetism, for example, is not directly observable but its existence and effect can be measured. Although we may not know exactly what it is, we do know how to use it (to make electric motors, compass, and refrigerator knickknacks).

Is there anything comparable for "souls" or is the evidence for such things just unverifiable opinions expressed by ancient writers (and perhaps testimonials regarding personal psychological episodes)?

[scourge99]

Just noting the great efforts theists on this thread are taking to deflect and distract from
1) defining what a soul is clearly and unambiguously.
2) providing evidence or reason in support of the existence of souls.