Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (565677)	5/11/2010 5:23:51 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1577866

"This is not something you can prove or disprove." I disagree. tejek, and possibly you, restrict the idea of proof to ideas and substance which can be supported by evidence observed and replicated according to scientific method. This is an invalid test. The scientific method is functional in describing substantial phenomenon in the temporal sense, only. To ascribe a rule based in scientific method to test the existence of something eternal is limited to being able to declare the 'something' as temporal or not temporal. In this case you can only conclude the existence of a soul has to be not temporal. If it is not temporal, it falls out side the realm of scientific enquiry, rendering the prove it (scientifically) challenge rather empty. Unfortunately: non-scientific has become synonymous with not-true in some circles, but such thinking is usually only by extremists with closed minds who are more loyal to the substance of their culture than the process of scientific exploration. Scientific assumptions usually involve things that can be taken on face value, common sense, self evident to all, etc and for practical purposes go unchallenged. All scientific evidence is subject to some underlying assumptions. Scientific evidence is relative to a theory and subject to change as information or experience comes available. In that sense scientific evidence is not absolute fact but tentative in relation to competing evidence and relative to other theory. Science is wrought with irony, chaos, and parodox which may be dismissed to bring practical tools and solutions into our midsts. Scientific enquiry is a wonderful adaptive tool for human beings and it could even be said that science is of God. Unfortunately some people treat science as if it were God. Returning to the point at question (Soul), there are other forms of evidence. Even though I often see people promote the challenge to prove the existence of soul, I rarely see the same people declare as a fact, 'they know for a fact they have no soul.' I suppose someone could do that as a thought experiment and then it positions the proof onto someone else, but that is the flaw in the declaration. Soul, at least in the existence we share, is only recognizable by self aware consciousness. I have no problem declaring an awareness of my soul. I find confirmation in the 'fact' that billions and billions of other human beings have said 'yeah me too' (in so many words). That is a fact, it is replicable almost universally among billions of subjects who share the condition (humanness), across time and circumstance, with very few exceptions. That is extraordinarily profound proof for the existence of soul, not of temporal substance of course, but evidence just the same. Those few exceptions who state they have no soul are often found to be persons who are of very low credibility, and people who make a habit of posing false claims, or twisting the definitions of things to be able to make absurd claims about them. So they get factored out in the proof based on the credibility requirement. There are tests based in theological treatments but the assumption (I have a soul, and I'm willing to undergo the test(s) ) is required a priori. Individual and personal in nature, not labratory like.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (565677)	5/11/2010 5:45:18 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577866

Ted, > There you go.......you assume there is a human soul. Again, there is no evidence to support your position. This is not something you can prove or disprove. This is a philosophical discussion where you discuss the implications of one system of beliefs over another. For example, without a human soul, on what foundation do you build your system of morals, such as don't steal, don't kill, help the poor and the weak, etc.? To answer your question, I don't know. I have a strong sense of morality. Why must I attribute it to a soul? And if a person is amoral, does that mean s/he does not have a soul? The irony is I have offered to provide you with real evidence that there is something beyond this plane but you ignore it. No I haven't ignored it, Ted. In fact, we had some pretty good discussions on what you brought up, assuming I'm talking about the same thing you're talking about. But I don't see how you can reconcile your belief in the metaphysical with your belief that humans have no soul. The only thing I am question is someone making the assumption that humans have souls. There is nothing to prove that souls exist. They may well.......I just don't know and refuse to make the assumption based on [misguided] faith. From my experiences, I know that there is something beyond this plane but frankly I do not know what it is. I gain more belief from people I respect like the Obamas or Billy Graham or Oprah or good friends who have this unshakeable believe in a God and a life beyond this life.....but that's more psychological than anything else. Bottomline: on my death bed, they need to be feeding me narcotics or I will be terrified. ;-)