Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Life has too many wonderful parts for this to be hell. And if this heaven that would be the biggest disappointment of all time. All these philosophical ideas are interesting "thought experiments" but aren't based on anything. No evidence whatever.
er, yes, they are. They're based off of people's experiences (evidence) and combined with a given person's general beliefs/opinions/etc...and since those are diff for everyone and subjective to boot, no one can really say with any certainty how likely or valid such an idea is, really.
Quote:
Objectively, at least Christianity (and other major religions) are based off what is said from an ancient book.
As far as I'm aware, we also have no evidence of any mind existing without a physical part. This implies that there is no "soul" independent from our body - and thus that after our body dies and decomposes we are no more.
It implies nothing of the kind. Can't prove a negative, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakback
If there is anyone in hell, it's of their own choice. They want to be there.
I submit that perhaps such a choice by definition means they are either grossly ill informed or of questionable sanity at best - both which should excuse such a banishment for all eternity.
It implies nothing of the kind. Can't prove a negative, remember?
Oh, I can't prove that there is no soul, just like I can't prove that invisible fairies don't exist. But the fact that the notion appears contradictory to observations (the effects of drugs or brain damage on personality) is evidence against soul's existence. And so is the fact that we've never observed a non-physical mind (though we may disagree on that, of course), at least according to Occam's razor.
? The fact that drugs or brain damage can change a person's personality does not contradict the existance of a soul whatsoever. Neither does re-stating "there's no evidence of this, which is itself evidence that it doesn't exist" or Occam's razor.
Originally Posted by Roxolan As far as I'm aware, we also have no evidence of any mind existing without a physical part. This implies that there is no "soul" independent from our body - and thus that after our body dies and decomposes we are no more.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Quote:
Oh, I can't prove that there is no soul, just like I can't prove that invisible fairies don't exist. But the fact that the notion appears contradictory to observations (the effects of drugs or brain damage on personality) is evidence against soul's existence.
Such evidence is indication of interruption in the PRODUCTION and COMMUNICATION PROCESSES . . . not a change in the already produced PRODUCT. The "flames" of consciousness are different because we are "burning gas instead of wood" . . . the previous "flames" are still out there.
Quote:
And so is the fact that we've never observed a non-physical mind (though we may disagree on that, of course), at least according to Occam's razor.
That 14th century Friar gets a real workout from atheists.
By this definition, I do see it as a contradiction. The soul is supposed to exist independently of the body, and yet it appears that our thoughts and personality can be completely changed by things that only affect the body.
Of course, you could use a different definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill545
Neither does re-stating "there's no evidence of this, which is itself evidence that it doesn't exist" or Occam's razor.
The point of Occam's razor is that if there's no evidence of a soul, it adds nothing to our understanding if we assume that it exists. I realize that I worded my previous post poorly, and I apologise . I agree that it's not evidence that the soul doesn't exist, but it is a good reason for us to assume that it doesn't for all practical purposes, just like we assume that invisible fairies don't exist.
I won't quote you two, but bill545 and MysticPhD may not be well acquainted with the arguments against the soul's existence as related to the argument from altered personalities. The notion is that, having distinct major personality and flaws of character distinguish a person's soul [where the soul is the immaterial of a persons entity], what about permanent alterations of the mind that completely change a person's personality such as degenerative diseases of the mind, drug use, accidents, and congenital brain defects?
In the historical case of Phineas Gage, as he is now remembered for his incredible survival of an accident which drove a large iron rod through his head, destroying one or both of his frontal lobes, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and social functioning—effects said to be so profound that friends saw him as "no longer Gage." [His case influenced 19th-century thinking about the brain and the localization of its functions, and was perhaps the first to suggest that damage to specific regions of the brain might affect personality and behavior.]
Assuming that the personality of mind, the mindset, will go on after the body dies, within the soul, does Phineas Gage go up as a completely different person, or does his soul restore to when he knew his friends and knew his past life and appreciated it? Is Ronald Reagan in heaven as a bodiless soul restored to the time when he knew exact details on anything? Phineas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or what about anencephaly, in which a baby is born, if not aborted beforehand, with the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp, resulting in 55% of deaths. Does a soul, not distinguished by it's actions on earth, enter heaven and praise the Creator eternally? In the LONG RUN, does this not seem like a cheap way to enter the afterlife without being able to decide on your own? Does this mean the poor soul bypasses the 50% [Technically 70%+] chance of going to "Hell" by not deciding on it's own? In the grand scheme of time, the seventy or so years he or she missed out on, on this earth, doesn't matter, as they will reveleternally in another afterlife. 1 out of every 1,000 babies a year will be granted this free pass. Assuming the soul makes it into heaven, what will the soul be like considering half it's brain was never there? This is an absurd concept. Truly. Anencephaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone can rationalize all day long, but the truth is it is all guesswork that is not supported by any ancient text. Might explain why Catholicism created the concept of Limbo... out of rationalization...
The road to reason is long and difficult... but the resulting mindset is a clear and brave one.
I guess that depends on your concept of soul. From Wikipedia:By this definition, I do see it as a contradiction. The soul is supposed to exist independently of the body, and yet it appears that our thoughts and personality can be completely changed by things that only affect the body.
You seem to forget (or ignore) the fact that we ONLY know about the personality, etc. through communication with the body/brain (receiver/transmitter). We have no direct measure. If the "communication equipment" beaks down or is interfered with in other ways . . . OF COURSE the communications with us will be changed.
Quote:
The point of Occam's razor is that if there's no evidence of a soul, it adds nothing to our understanding if we assume that it exists. I realize that I worded my previous post poorly, and I apologise . I agree that it's not evidence that the soul doesn't exist, but it is a good reason for us to assume that it doesn't for all practical purposes, just like we assume that invisible fairies don't exist.
Your best friend the Friar again . . . the problem is that it applies ONLY individually . . since we each CAN have evidence personally that then adds to our understanding. The ubiquity and historical dominance and continuing tenacity of the belief FAR SURPASSES that associated with "fairies" or unicorns, or Santa Claus or Leprechauns, or . . . whatever that ADULTS might believe in. Stop using such inapt comparatives. NOTHING has the same ubiquity and tenacity as the God presumption . . . NOTHING.
You seem to forget (or ignore) the fact that we ONLY know about the personality, etc. through communication with the body/brain (receiver/transmitter). We have no direct measure.
NOTHING has the same ubiquity and tenacity as the God presumption . . . NOTHING.
You seem to ignore the fact that stating inconsistent claims without sources is not proper argumentation.
The tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny [maybe not as much as the first two], are ALL ubiquitous in millions of childrens lives up to around age 8. Which leads me to a new thread!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I agree that it's not evidence that the soul doesn't exist, but it is a good reason for us to assume that it doesn't for all practical purposes, just like we assume that invisible fairies don't exist.
Me thinks God isn't a stickler.
