The Soul
0
Total Hentai wrote...
There really is no proof we have souls. It's just a made up word. Although I would totally love it if we had one (since it implies we live after we die), I just can't find myself believing humans have souls. There's probably something like it or relative, but then again, how would I know? How would you know? This conversation would be much more interesting if we had "concrete" proof of souls. Gubi wrote...
Meh.There is no rational proof that the soul exists.
Personnally, being a fervent believer in magic(and fireballs), I would say yes, the soul exists, but because we can't proove it, I'm as useful as a fish out of water.
Also, I would say that the 22 grams you lose when you die could possibly be the air leaving our body, witnessed as the "breath of death", last action of the corpse as its lungs fold upon themselves under the weight of the thoraxic cage.
Granted yes, there is no legitimate proof of a soul. However, I was brought to this notion by thinking 'what makes me, me?'.
Essentially, we're all the same in terms of structure of the human body and what have you. Excluding the difference in genetic features between one another, what makes me different to anyone else.
In fact better idea, if we were to strip away all of our physical self and simply leave our own thought, what would make me different to anyone else? Oh, and also assume that we have more or less the same upbringing thus far.
I would then go on to postulate the concept of the soul.
0
hee hee...well as has been said, there is no way to empirically prove consciousness exists separate from the brain by using that very brain as the tool to discern the answer with. It just doesn't work.
Personally I don't buy that the brain = the mind. I've seen to much to buy into that. In particular, a few of my relatives had dementia/alzheimer's before they passed away. But right before death, like a few hours, two of them were perfectly lucid again for that brief time. At that point it wasn't their damaged brains talking. Since then I've heard many similar stories about 'deathbed lucidity', a phenomenon with no physiological explanation. Yet.
But really even that doesn't convince me. The real reason I believe consciousness exists separate yet interconnected with the brain/body is that I can't picture myself being lucky enough to get a free ticket to oblivion after I die. Way to fucking good to be true.
Personally I don't buy that the brain = the mind. I've seen to much to buy into that. In particular, a few of my relatives had dementia/alzheimer's before they passed away. But right before death, like a few hours, two of them were perfectly lucid again for that brief time. At that point it wasn't their damaged brains talking. Since then I've heard many similar stories about 'deathbed lucidity', a phenomenon with no physiological explanation. Yet.
But really even that doesn't convince me. The real reason I believe consciousness exists separate yet interconnected with the brain/body is that I can't picture myself being lucky enough to get a free ticket to oblivion after I die. Way to fucking good to be true.
0
This is from my personal standpoint: It all depends on "general relativity" heh
From the world's view: your cells die, connections grind to halt, and you die - your brain can no longer "produce" a manifestation that is "yourself"
However from the dyeng persons/mind view, things are a possibly a bit more interesting. I don't know if anybody took LSD, but it important to notice that the very concept of "time" is created by the brain itself.
Thus, when the brain dies - the concept of time is metaphorically "thrown out of the window."
Thus it quite possible to assume, that at death: one will never "experience" death, for him - time stops.
For at the last bits of seconds that a bystander may experience... for him would be an eternity.
You are eternal, or as others call it - a soul.
I think.
From the world's view: your cells die, connections grind to halt, and you die - your brain can no longer "produce" a manifestation that is "yourself"
However from the dyeng persons/mind view, things are a possibly a bit more interesting. I don't know if anybody took LSD, but it important to notice that the very concept of "time" is created by the brain itself.
Thus, when the brain dies - the concept of time is metaphorically "thrown out of the window."
Thus it quite possible to assume, that at death: one will never "experience" death, for him - time stops.
For at the last bits of seconds that a bystander may experience... for him would be an eternity.
You are eternal, or as others call it - a soul.
I think.
0
Psyche is usually a synonym of "soul", so through this logic your "soul" is your mind, your capacity to think. Your soul is your ability to ponder over your own existence "Cogito ergo sum". There the soul is the mind. Call it god, chi, psyche, ego, superego, id, whatever you want, only the fact that you can think is true, and nothing else should worry you. Which point of view you believe in (even if it is your own) is up to you.
0
neofranky wrote...
Psyche is usually a synonym of "soul", so through this logic your "soul" is your mind, your capacity to think. Your soul is your ability to ponder over your own existence "Cogito ergo sum". There the soul is the mind. Call it god, chi, psyche, ego, superego, id, whatever you want, only the fact that you can think is true, and nothing else should worry you. Which point of view you believe in (even if it is your own) is up to you.That one of my favorite from Rene Descartes, Soul is something defines our existence, it is our overall conscience and functionality as a human, if we think, yeah we have a soul.
I'm majoring in psychology so I'm interested in this kind of stuff as we called "soul" is infinite and abstract. Even the experts was unable to find one perfect definition of soul, yet I think soul is our reflection of life, our organs and cells are connected, and they coordinated by brain, there is a part of the connection creates consciousness.
Note: Soul is different from Spirit and so it's origin.
0
Sekketsubyo wrote...
neofranky wrote...
Psyche is usually a synonym of "soul", so through this logic your "soul" is your mind, your capacity to think. Your soul is your ability to ponder over your own existence "Cogito ergo sum". There the soul is the mind. Call it god, chi, psyche, ego, superego, id, whatever you want, only the fact that you can think is true, and nothing else should worry you. Which point of view you believe in (even if it is your own) is up to you.That one of my favorite from Rene Descartes, Soul is something defines our existence, it is our overall conscience and functionality as a human, if we think, yeah we have a soul.
I'm majoring in psychology so I'm interested in this kind of stuff as we called "soul" is infinite and abstract. Even the experts was unable to find one perfect definition of soul, yet I think soul is our reflection of life, our organs and cells are connected, and they coordinated by brain, there is a part of the connection creates consciousness.
Note: Soul is different from Spirit and so it's origin.
Well, trying to define our soul is basically trying to define our consciousness, which in turn becomes really, really hard put in little words (hence the walls of text here). In the end it will fall into religious, psychological, philosophical and even personal points of view. So I think the only correct answer here would be "Believe what you want.".
0
neofranky wrote...
Sekketsubyo wrote...
neofranky wrote...
Psyche is usually a synonym of "soul", so through this logic your "soul" is your mind, your capacity to think. Your soul is your ability to ponder over your own existence "Cogito ergo sum". There the soul is the mind. Call it god, chi, psyche, ego, superego, id, whatever you want, only the fact that you can think is true, and nothing else should worry you. Which point of view you believe in (even if it is your own) is up to you.That one of my favorite from Rene Descartes, Soul is something defines our existence, it is our overall conscience and functionality as a human, if we think, yeah we have a soul.
I'm majoring in psychology so I'm interested in this kind of stuff as we called "soul" is infinite and abstract. Even the experts was unable to find one perfect definition of soul, yet I think soul is our reflection of life, our organs and cells are connected, and they coordinated by brain, there is a part of the connection creates consciousness.
Note: Soul is different from Spirit and so it's origin.
Well, trying to define our soul is basically trying to define our consciousness, which in turn becomes really, really hard put in little words (hence the walls of text here). In the end it will fall into religious, psychological, philosophical and even personal points of view. So I think the only correct answer here would be "Believe what you want.".
that was a good conclusion I admit, soul is the connection between you and your consciousness, just believe what you want to believe.
although it seems to be rather philosophical, it was without doubt- a good answer.
0
Simply put, "soul" is all of yourself. "Soul" is your electrical impulse that move your body and makes your brain think.
0
hihi i have soul :D[just put soul](http://www.imageporter.com/ngroo2bdnale/536823_345087985554552_135185883211431_961899_13644220_n.jpg.html)
0
Observe this argument.
Of the five senses, none of this can tell what a soul is. Nor can science fully explain the word "soul". If you have faith that there is a soul then there is a soul, regardless of what others say or do.
Spoiler:
Of the five senses, none of this can tell what a soul is. Nor can science fully explain the word "soul". If you have faith that there is a soul then there is a soul, regardless of what others say or do.
0
notzky wrote...
Observe this argument.Spoiler:
Of the five senses, none of this can tell what a soul is. Nor can science fully explain the word "soul". If you have faith that there is a soul then there is a soul, regardless of what others say or do.
You know that argument never actually happened right?
And for good reason. Evolution, the existence of other people's brains, all physical facts about the world are scientifically based, justified in belief through evidence and observation. Faith? Is nothing. It solves nothing, it doesn't lead to truth.
Having faith in something does not, in any way, make that thing true. This is a philosophical fact.
Say you have faith that the Soul exists. That means the soul exists right? But wait, say I have faith the soul doesn't exist...doesn't that mean the soul doesn't exist then? To say faith is sufficient justification for truth forces you into a corner wherein mutually exclusive propositions can be justified just by one word.
In science, and in philosophy, faith doesn't cut it for anything.
This whole conversation reminds me of an old philosophical notion put forth by Anri Bergson came up with the notion that all things possessed an "Elan Vital" A 'Vital Force'. The presence of which distinguishes living things, from nonliving things.
One of the most ridiculed arguments put forth in favor of the concept was "To argue against the existence of Elan Vital is useless, because if you did not have Elan Vital you would not be alive to argue against Elan Vital!"
Elan Vital is currently considered one of the silliest ideas in philosophy due in major part to there being not a shred of evidence for it, beyond what it was supposed to explain. To simply call 'being alive' a 'soul' or calling it 'elan vital' does nothing at all to explain it. It simply gives it an indescribably, ambiguous label that so far, contributes nothing to our understanding, nor has a shred of evidence to support it.
I say abandon the notion entirely.
0
BigLundi wrote...
I say abandon the notion entirely.Preposterous! It's thinking like this which stagnates progression!
0
Sunduction wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
I say abandon the notion entirely.Preposterous! It's thinking like this which stagnates progression!
What progress? There is none. Again, hundreds of years, no evidence at all. Abandon it, try something new.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Sunduction wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
I say abandon the notion entirely.Preposterous! It's thinking like this which stagnates progression!
What progress? There is none. Again, hundreds of years, no evidence at all. Abandon it, try something new.
Abandon Faith?.. so I assume you don't believe in God also?.. as I said in my previous post, "If you have faith that there is a soul then there is a soul, regardless of what others say or do.", so the opposite can also be said, cause really, there isn't anyone who has any evidence that can make "soul" a "fact", so as one of the other forumer said, "Believe what you want to believe.".
0
notzky wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Sunduction wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
I say abandon the notion entirely.Preposterous! It's thinking like this which stagnates progression!
What progress? There is none. Again, hundreds of years, no evidence at all. Abandon it, try something new.
Abandon Faith?.. so I assume you don't believe in God also?.. as I said in my previous post, "If you have faith that there is a soul then there is a soul, regardless of what others say or do.", so the opposite can also be said, cause really, there isn't anyone who has any evidence that can make "soul" a "fact", so as one of the other forumer said, "Believe what you want to believe.".
No, I don't believe in god. And as I made clear earlier if your solution that faith makes something true means that two people can have faith in mutually exclusive things and they have to then both be true, faith fails as a pathway to any sort of truth.
If you care...at all, about what's true, you'd do the same thing and abandon faith as some sort of pathway.
Sure, you can believe what yo wanna believe, if you don't care if what you believe is true. The difference is that I do, and you clearly don't.
0
BigLundi wrote...
notzky wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Sunduction wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
I say abandon the notion entirely.Preposterous! It's thinking like this which stagnates progression!
What progress? There is none. Again, hundreds of years, no evidence at all. Abandon it, try something new.
Abandon Faith?.. so I assume you don't believe in God also?.. as I said in my previous post, "If you have faith that there is a soul then there is a soul, regardless of what others say or do.", so the opposite can also be said, cause really, there isn't anyone who has any evidence that can make "soul" a "fact", so as one of the other forumer said, "Believe what you want to believe.".
No, I don't believe in god. And as I made clear earlier if your solution that faith makes something true means that two people can have faith in mutually exclusive things and they have to then both be true, faith fails as a pathway to any sort of truth.
If you care...at all, about what's true, you'd do the same thing and abandon faith as some sort of pathway.
Sure, you can believe what yo wanna believe, if you don't care if what you believe is true. The difference is that I do, and you clearly don't.
I believe that what I believe is true. That is what you call faith. And I'm definitely sure that many things in this world can't be explained through only just "physical evidence" and "observation". The theory of evolution?.. physical evidence and observation you say, then who "observed" an ape turning into a man?.. there is no "physical evidence" there, if you say the fossils, who said that those fossils are really what they are?. Has anyone ever seen it?. No one. To anyone who's believing those things declared by only humans is true, isn't that already what you call faith?, you have faith that those scientists who observed and experimented on that "physical evidence" are correct based on only their theories processed by only their minds with no "physical proof", I don't mean all their works but just some of their works they did through only just speculation and estimation. We still have living monkeys and apes and as far as I know, no one has ever seen it evolve to a human. So "Having faith in something or "someone" doesn't necessarily make it true for all of us. This is a philosophical fact". as you have said.
Say, where have you learned all your knowledge on things?, Books?, Words? Web?. Aren't they all written by a person?.. so you trust and defend observations of other people, right?. You believe what they say so isn't that also faith?.. so aren't you also using your belief in those words as a pathway for the truth?..
Now, the Bible is also written by a person right?, So us Christians put our belief into that which a person also wrote, based on the apostles "observations" and if you say physical evidences, they have been with Christ and witnessed the miracles Christ has done and wrote them so we can say now that it's true right?.. the same thing when we trust words written by other people and believe them.
I'm not forcing my way of thinking to anyone neither should you force us that "We should all abandon faith.". I'm just saying that different people put their "faith" in different things we believe in so no matter what anyone says or do, the only one who can put his faith in or change where he put his faith in is the person himself.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Sunduction wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
I say abandon the notion entirely.Preposterous! It's thinking like this which stagnates progression!
What progress? There is none. Again, hundreds of years, no evidence at all. Abandon it, try something new.
Perhaps it is something which cannot be quantified in modern science, maybe that's why there is no proof?
There has been evidence though, which remains unexplained, though not directly linked to the topic of the 'soul'.
0
notzky wrote...
I believe that what I believe is true. That is what you call faith.
Right, you believe it's true, but you don't really care if it is true. I know this because you refuse to critically analyze the position of faith, as I have. Instead you wave it off and say, "Believe what you want."
If everyone believed what they wanted, and faith was our tool, we'd have no way of DETERMINING if things were true. Every 'truth' we think we have becomes nothing more than a comfort blanket we refuse to let go of because REAL truth scares us.
And I'm definitely sure that many things in this world can't be explained through only just "physical evidence" and "observation".
Sure, there's an entire philosophical field devoted to what's known as "metaphysics" Of course none of it includes things like demons and angels and goblins and souls and ghosts and all that nonsense. It's more things like, justifying a feeling one has towards a value or event.
The theory of evolution?.. physical evidence and observation you say, then who "observed" an ape turning into a man?.. there is no "physical evidence" there, if you say the fossils, who said that those fossils are really what they are?. Has anyone ever seen it?. No one.
Let's see...there's the fact that christian scientists accept the human genome mapping as all the evidence any rational person should need to accept common descent(source: Dr. Francis Collins and the Human Genome Project) Without any need to even try to appeal to transitional fossils. We can taxonomic ally tie, and confirm through genetic research, the tree of life as it appears to have evolved through history. The fossil record also confirms what the tree says we should see. There isn't a single rational reason to reject evolution, as all the science supports it.
To anyone who's believing those things declared by only humans is true, isn't that already what you call faith?
No, because it has evidence. As stated above. Also, "declared by only humans as true" So far as you know? Only humans have EVER declared something to be true.
, you have faith that those scientists who observed and experimented on that "physical evidence" are correct based on only their theories processed by only their minds with no "physical proof"
I like how DNA isn't physical proof to you. I like how fossils aren't physical proof to you. I like how when all the christians worth their salt say, "It's irrational to not accept evolution at this point" including the entire catholic church, that's insufficient reason at all for you to accept evolution.
Please, tell me WHY you don't accept it. And don't say, "There's no physical proof" because there is.
I don't mean all their works but just some of their works they did through only just speculation and estimation.
What do you think scientists do? Sit around in a lab and guess about things? If so you have a LOT of research to do.
We still have living monkeys and apes and as far as I know, no one has ever seen it evolve to a human.
And they shouldn't. Our common ancestor with them died out millions of years ago, at least as far as the fossil dates.
You're asking why we still have apes if we evolved form a common ancestor with them. Here's a similar question: "Why are there still Europeans if Americans are descended from them?" Once you can answer that question, you can answer the other.
So "Having faith in something or "someone" doesn't necessarily make it true for all of us. This is a philosophical fact". as you have said.
Say, where have you learned all your knowledge on things?, Books?, Words? Web?. Aren't they all written by a person?
Say, where have you learned all your knowledge on things?, Books?, Words? Web?. Aren't they all written by a person?
Sure, but why does that make them wrong?
so you trust and defend observations of other people, right?
Observations that systemically and observably can be seen to be valid insights. Yes.
You believe what they say so isn't that also faith?
No, it's earned trust based on a demonstrable consistency of accurate information.
.. so aren't you also using your belief in those words as a pathway for the truth?.
Nope. Try again.
Now, the Bible is also written by a person right?
Many people actually. All of them anonymous strangers you have no reason at all to believe, except for Paul when he would write in Thessalonians.
So us Christians put our belief into that which a person also wrote, based on the apostles "observations" and if you say physical evidences, they have been with Christ and witnessed the miracles Christ has done and wrote them so we can say now that it's true right?.. the same thing when we trust words written by other people and believe them.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Matthew Mark Luke and John and Peter? They weren't written by Matthew Mark Luke and John and Peter. Open up a New Living Translation bible and look at the inside cover. there's a disclaimer that, in accordance to all the biblical scholars today, nobody knows the REAL names of the people who wrote the gospels. And all of them, by the by, were written at LEAST 30-80 years AFTER the fact.
So no, these aren't writings of people who saw Jesus, these are writings of people decades later.
I'm not forcing my way of thinking to anyone neither should you force us that "We should all abandon faith.". I'm just saying that different people put their "faith" in different things we believe in so no matter what anyone says or do, the only one who can put his faith in or change where he put his faith in is the person himself.
I'm not forcing you to abandon faith. It's just my logical suggestion that you ought to if you care about truth. We don't put 'faith' in different things. I have reason and evidence to believe everything I do and to trust the people I trust. This isn't faith.
What you're doing is deciding you don't want to think critically because there's a CHANCE it could all be wrong, so screw it you'll just have faith that you have a soul and for some reason, really really believing something, in your mind, makes it the truth.
That's not the truth. That's called a self inflicted delusion.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Right, you believe it's true, but you don't really care if it is true. I know this because you refuse to critically analyze the position of faith, as I have. Instead you wave it off and say, "Believe what you want."
If everyone believed what they wanted, and faith was our tool, we'd have no way of DETERMINING if things were true. Every 'truth' we think we have becomes nothing more than a comfort blanket we refuse to let go of because REAL truth scares us.
Something isn't necessarily wrong just because you can't determine if it's true, theories weren't "true" from the start because they had no proof yet. They were, at first, couldn't be researched because people back when they started those theories had no way of proving if their theory is correct so if we say "God" and "soul" are theories, it is simply because we have yet to find a way to determine if they are true or not, so you can't just simply say that God and soul isn't true. We can also say that it is still simply not within human knowledge's grasp to find the "truth" about God and the soul.
The REAL truth doesn't scare us, well not all of us, we are just like scientists who are exploring new things and believing that our "theories" are correct and no matter how much time passes before our theory becomes a fact, those who believe in God and the soul will believe that they are true.
Sure, there's an entire philosophical field devoted to what's known as "metaphysics" Of course none of it includes things like demons and angels and goblins and souls and ghosts and all that nonsense. It's more things like, justifying a feeling one has towards a value or event.
Simple question.. the chicken or the egg, which came first?. Up until now, not every part of the world can be explained by metaphysics so as I've said, with this we can also say that the demons, the angels,goblins, ghosts and the like is still just not within the grasp of human's knowledge.
Let's see...there's the fact that christian scientists accept the human genome mapping as all the evidence any rational person should need to accept common descent(source: Dr. Francis Collins and the Human Genome Project) Without any need to even try to appeal to transitional fossils. We can taxonomic ally tie, and confirm through genetic research, the tree of life as it appears to have evolved through history. The fossil record also confirms what the tree says we should see. There isn't a single rational reason to reject evolution, as all the science supports it.
I like how DNA isn't physical proof to you. I like how fossils aren't physical proof to you. I like how when all the christians worth their salt say, "It's irrational to not accept evolution at this point" including the entire catholic church, that's insufficient reason at all for you to accept evolution.
Please, tell me WHY you don't accept it. And don't say, "There's no physical proof" because there is.
No, because it has evidence. As stated above. Also, "declared by only humans as true" So far as you know? Only humans have EVER declared something to be true.
I'm not rejecting the Evolution Theory.. My point here is that you believing those things and trying to defend it is already described as "Faith". No one has ever seen an ape evolving into a human yet we still believe that is true when we have not yet seen the "process of evolution" at work. No one has ever seen a soul also, there have been cases where people say they have seen it, but it can't be proven since there was no "physical evidence", after all a soul has no physical form. Also, I have misused the word "physical proof", I just wanted to say that no one has ever saw it yet we still believe on this theory. Trust in the information that was given and trust in the observations and experiments they conducted, putting your trust in those are the same as us who believe in God, putting our trust in our religion.
What do you think scientists do? Sit around in a lab and guess about things? If so you have a LOT of research to do.
I did say not all of their works right?..
And they shouldn't. Our common ancestor with them died out millions of years ago, at least as far as the fossil dates.
You're asking why we still have apes if we evolved form a common ancestor with them. Here's a similar question: "Why are there still Europeans if Americans are descended from them?" Once you can answer that question, you can answer the other.
Once you also show me that common ancestor evolving into a human being, I will not read anymore things about where human beings came from.
Sure, but why does that make them wrong?
I did not say they were wrong.
Observations that systemically and observably can be seen to be valid insights. Yes.
No, it's earned trust based on a demonstrable consistency of accurate information.
Nope. Try again.
Many people actually. All of them anonymous strangers you have no reason at all to believe, except for Paul when he would write in Thessalonians.
I meant for person to be a human being, and not a single human.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Matthew Mark Luke and John and Peter? They weren't written by Matthew Mark Luke and John and Peter. Open up a New Living Translation bible and look at the inside cover. there's a disclaimer that, in accordance to all the biblical scholars today, nobody knows the REAL names of the people who wrote the gospels. And all of them, by the by, were written at LEAST 30-80 years AFTER the fact.
So no, these aren't writings of people who saw Jesus, these are writings of people decades later.
Even if they were not written by the persons themselves, 30-80 years after the fact means that they could have been written by people who were also alive by that time and shared what they have experienced.
We won't know exactly what happened in history because none of the people living right now were alive at that time, so nobody can say that a person really wrote a book that was named to them.
I'm not forcing you to abandon faith. It's just my logical suggestion that you ought to if you care about truth. We don't put 'faith' in different things. I have reason and evidence to believe everything I do and to trust the people I trust. This isn't faith.
What you're doing is deciding you don't want to think critically because there's a CHANCE it could all be wrong, so screw it you'll just have faith that you have a soul and for some reason, really really believing something, in your mind, makes it the truth.
That's not the truth. That's called a self inflicted delusion.
notzky wrote...
Of the five senses, none of this can tell what a soul is. Nor can science fully explain the word "soul". If you have faith that there is a soul then there is a soul, regardless of what others say or do.
I quote myself again as it seems we won't reach a conclusion that will satisfy the question about the soul:D..
0
notzky wrote...
Something isn't necessarily wrong just because you can't determine if it's true, theories weren't "true" from the start because they had no proof yet. They were, at first, couldn't be researched because people back when they started those theories had no way of proving if their theory is correct so if we say "God" and "soul" are theories, it is simply because we have yet to find a way to determine if they are true or not, so you can't just simply say that God and soul isn't true. We can also say that it is still simply not within human knowledge's grasp to find the "truth" about God and the soul.
You have no idea what a scientific theory is.
Theories aren't theories UNTIL they have evidence and proofs that confirm them. So when you call "god" and the "soul" theories, you're bastardizing the word.
You can say that these things aren't within human knowledge's grasp, but here's the thing: We're only justified in believing something when we have sufficient reason to believe it. Making something up and then shrugging and saying, "We might never have any evidence for it." isn't providing a reason to believe it.
The REAL truth doesn't scare us, well not all of us, we are just like scientists who are exploring new things and believing that our "theories" are correct and no matter how much time passes before our theory becomes a fact, those who believe in God and the soul will believe that they are true.
In order for something to be a theory it has to be falsifiable. Your belief in a god and the Soul are unfalsifiable because you don't require any evidence to believe it,and all naturalistic efforts to explain what they're supposed to explain is dismissed as "faith based claims" according to you. You don't have a 'theory' you have a guess that you refuse to let go of.
Simple question.. the chicken or the egg, which came first?. Up until now, not every part of the world can be explained by metaphysics so as I've said, with this we can also say that the demons, the angels,goblins, ghosts and the like is still just not within the grasp of human's knowledge.
The egg. Simple answer. Chickens aren't the only things to lay eggs. Their ancestors did it too. Also yeah, you can say all those things are beyond human knowledge, but this is you, admitting that we have no reason to believe them. So when you admit we have no reason to believe something beyond wanting to, why do you think this is sufficient to establish truth?
I'm not rejecting the Evolution Theory.. My point here is that you believing those things and trying to defend it is already described as "Faith". No one has ever seen an ape evolving into a human yet we still believe that is true when we have not yet seen the "process of evolution" at work.
Because we have a shit ton of evidence to suggest it.
Your level of evidence required for something to not be faith based is rediculous. Under your system, if a murderer is on trial, there isn't any evidence that they're guilty unless the jurors themselves saw the murderer do it. You reject forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence, expert witness accounts of plausibility, all because, "Well the jury didn't SEE it happened, so it's all just faith based." No. No it's not.
No one has ever seen a soul also, there have been cases where people say they have seen it, but it can't be proven since there was no "physical evidence", after all a soul has no physical form.
What does it mean to be not physical? So far that appears to be a nonsense statement.
Also, I have misused the word "physical proof", I just wanted to say that no one has ever saw it yet we still believe on this theory. Trust in the information that was given and trust in the observations and experiments they conducted, putting your trust in those are the same as us who believe in God, putting our trust in our religion.
The reason we can still believe in the theory is because there is a mountain of evidence to point to it, not because we 'want' to believe it, not because we have 'faith'. Faith is when we DON'T have evidence for something, yet believe it anyhow.
It's not the same kind of trust. Sorry. I have reason and evidence and consistency to trust scientists, you don't have any such thing when it comes to trusting in god, or a soul.
Once you also show me that common ancestor evolving into a human being, I will not read anymore things about where human beings came from.
Yet again, you're being obtuse. Just because you can't see a video of it happening in real time(which is an absolutely absurd thing to do) doesn't mean there isn't sufficient evidence to say this is true. The closest common ancestor is Nakalipithecus nakayamai. Why does taxonomy and DNA and all the evidence in the world not count if you don't have a video of it happening in real time? That makes no sense.
I did not say they were wrong.
You said it's all just faith. Which means you seem to think all the evidence in the world doesn't render any position any more right than another position also taken on faith. That's absurd.
Even if they were not written by the persons themselves, 30-80 years after the fact means that they could have been written by people who were also alive by that time and shared what they have experienced.
We won't know exactly what happened in history because none of the people living right now were alive at that time, so nobody can say that a person really wrote a book that was named to them.
So you don't know exactly what happened, therefore it did happen. Look up the logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance". Just because we don't know exactly what DID happen doesn't mean you're in any way justified in asserting what you think happened. If it worked like that then I could plug anything I wanted into any gap in knowledge that we have. What happened before the big bang? Great Uncle Arklefunk was playing beer pong with a friend and lost, the temper tantrum when he lost was so insane that his head exploded, and that became the universe.
See? And by your logic, since we don't know what did happen, I'd be perfectly justified in believing that kind of absurdity.
I quote myself again as it seems we won't reach a conclusion that will satisfy the question about the soul:D..
I have already satisfied the question: too many problems, no evidence or answers, abandon the notion entirely.