What's a soul?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

So what would you ultimately say about the chart that you posted on science and religion, where do you stand on that chart/ what are your views, and why do you say what you would say?

Edit: Knowing that humans may die out one day (assuming that living for ever isn't possible), it's safe to assume that science would only get so far and that religion seems to go way beyond where science lays now. The problem is that no one knows if religion is right, but it can't seem to be proven. I would personally trust a scientist more because they have actually worked hard to created the world that we live in now. Humans aren't proven to have had any truth communicated directly from a higher power at the time being, but the things that science creates are definatly proven to be creations of scientists.

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

Things scientists "create" are proven to be creations of science.
Things priests "create" are proven to be creations of religion.

I'm not seeing where you have a basis to just -dismiss- one as being outright inferior in all respects.

I prefer logic and science and searching for evidence more than I prefer faith to concepts that I have no particular way to prove, but then, from science I am called upon to believe all manner of things for which -I- have no proof.

Here's a question for you: If a scientist tells you of a "scientific fact" but the proof the scientist has is too far over your head for you to understand, how is believing them simply because "science is all about proof" any different from believing a priest who tells you that some things are simply not for man to have the proof of?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

Science doesn't have facts. Science has models. That's why Science improves, because it leaves room for improvement.

Also for crying out loud, I don't care how a notion is generally parsed if the parsing is wrong. Why the hell would you care? It's distressing.

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

The point I was trying to make is: When a scientist explains the "proof" they have for something, if that proof is completely above your level of comprehension, yet you believe their statement to be true, you are exercising -faith- in the veracity of the scientist and what they told you.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

True. Accepting any statement purely on authority or on the basis of character or any other such nonsensical thing is problematic no matter what form of authority or what position is occupied. I only take issue with you drawing your comparison between science and religion farther than it can actually go.

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

Once again, I wasn't trying to take it further than it could go, I was demonstrating in a more extreme way to make the point clear, that many people who are vehemantly on the side of science versus religion seem to either not notice, or refuse to acknowledge that in many cases, they are guilty of the offense for which they look so snootily down on the religious for.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Ok, I get where you are coming from. Obviously if you don't have proof that a scientist made an item or can't comprehend it, you can't believe that the scientist made the item or that how he/she made it is right. The thing is that if there is sufficient proof for one to know that a certain scientist made an item, then you would know that the scientist made that item. If you could learn about science then maybe you could possibly be on the same page as a scientist who makes items. Perhaps God made the scientist that created that item, but can you say that God made a certain item with seemingly no ways to find if that claim is right? I believe that it is more possible to see the evidence of a scientist than a religious person. Atleast if a scientist is wrong, someone would know and someone could correct his/her ways in making an item, but no one really would know if a religious person is on to anything.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

If an entire mode of thought is foreign to you then it doesn't matter whether or not debate occurs within it, you still won't be able to understand it and make informed decisions on the subject.

As for God vs. Scientist as creators, while it may be true God can't be proven to exist and a scientist can, using this to attribute the existence of any given thing to the scientist is just replacing a completely baseless inference with one based on the fallacious tendency to note things in proximity with one another and infer a connection.

That being said, contextualizing the scientist as firstly or largely a creator seems very odd at best. Unless of course concepts, models etc. = items

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: What's a soul?

Scientifically, if a theory is 100.0% true, science is flawed, because it allows for no replacement of ideas or revision of theories, which is the core law by which science was founded, right?

I stopped reading through the thread there, so I don't know if this has already been addressed.

If a theory is 100% true, does it not become a law? (i.e. Law of gravity?)

You all appear to be extremely intelligent, based on what I've read so far in this thread, and I'd like to join the discussion if I can. I may be wrong, I don't profess to know everything, but I'll comment on what I know about life from my personal experiences.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Honestly, I don't think those inferences about the world being flat deserve to be considered a theory. I don't even think that anyone followed the steps as outlined on Devonin's chart to prove that any of those flawed inferences about the Earth's shape were even true. If a theory is proven to not really be a theory, it's just a flawed idea to me and never was a theory. How can a theory even be a theory if science, testing, or the acknowledgement of countradicting evidence weren't even involved in the making of the theory?

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

Um...where in the past like, 40 posts has anyone said anything about the world being flat? (I only looked back from post 60-100, so if it was further back than that, why did it get brought up anyway?)

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

...so we always thought the Earth was round? That's just one example, and I don't want to have to name any more. Science has conflicting theories all the time; sometimes several conflicting theories trying to explain the same phenomena end up being proven false.

Sorry, I get a bit carried away and my thoughts were in the God thread. This thread just seems a little bit similar in certain aspects like the type of proof needed to prove that souls exist or don't exist. The idea of a theory should be used to better understand the universe as shown on your flow chart in the God thread instead of an assumption with no evidence (the Earth is flat) which didn't accomplish anything. I don't know if a theory could be made on souls because it's hard to know what the idea of a soul is getting at considering a soul can be used by society to represent an actual being, (perhaps) to condemn certain people in society, or any other definitions of a soul. Even if there is a definite definition of a soul as in it's like a person's body (which isn't physical), no one knows if that exists or doesn't because of what seems like the lack of any evidence. However, if a soul is used as a way to condemn others, then I guess the definition is pretty clear and straightforward. For example, "you do not have a soul" would probably be interpreted as "you are not "normal"".

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

If a theory is 100% true, does it not become a law? (i.e. Law of gravity?)

"100% true" is a dangerous phrasing. If a theory can explain a phenomenon perfectly and the tenets of the theory can be tested and confirmed in all cases where it is used empirically, then it might be considered a law.

The law of Gravity usually refers to the observed phenomenon of gravity itself. Different explanations for what causes gravity and how it works are still debated. However, the math behind, say, the inverse square law has remained almost the same even when notions about gravity progressed from a Newtonian to modern physical perspective. Because of this the observed natural process known as gravity is known as a natural law, models explaining gravity, which are less readily confirmable, are not known as law.

I hope that answers your question.

[-Live_Free-]

Re: What's a soul?

Q-Whats a soul
A-It what makes your pp get hard

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

For example, "you do not have a soul" would probably be interpreted as "you are not "normal"".

It might mean both "you are not normal" and "you are a threat". Also, while it is true that the concept of a soul can be used to demean and condemn certain individuals as well as to rationalize this and worse, the nature of human interactions period is such that this will occur with or without the concept of the soul. In fact, moving away from vitalism towards modern psychology, we still find that the terms used to describe proposed distinct psychological conditions are pejorative rather than neutral, which is to me perhaps the biggest sign that we have a long way to go before we gain meaningful understanding of how the human animal actually works.