cuchulain

Hey, I thought of that first!

I can completely respect someone who admits they just believe it but have no proof, so long as they are like you and don't push their belief on others as fact. I wish more could do that. Or that more could simply admit they don't know, like Johnathan. I guess that's the point I am at. I don't know. Not knowing, I see no reason to act as though a soul exists.

Now...really? The first response above says that I originally made the claim in order to defeat it myself, as in straw man(false, by the way. Look at my original question and tell me where I did that). Then the very next response from you is this...which states that I asked for proof of a claim. Isn't that a little contradictory to what you wrote directly above it? You are correct. I asked for proof of the claim that a soul exists. Someone asked in this topic for the claim to be defined, so I defined it as I understood it. Let me see. First for you, is making sure I understand what is meant by a soul. So I was asked for definition of soul, told it wasn't definable, etc...then I went to the dictionary definition as a general neutral definition. SO that step is covered, yes? Second for you, determine how observable phenomenon would be effected if THE claim were true(not my claim). Well, if the claim that a soul, as defined by the dictionary, is true...it would alter my world view significantly because I would be facing evidence that intangible energies exist in a state that I did not previously believe possible. Check. Got that step down. Unless you mean how a soul would affect the world in which we live? Then we need to figure out from the definition how a soul would affect the world, and how that effect would be observable. At this time, I cannot conceive of a manner in which that would be the case. Does that mean the claim is null? Third for you, determine if observable phenomenon are effected in that way. I don't grasp that one, mererdog. Somewhere you missed a step, I believe. You forgot the proof part? I cannot determine if observable phenomenon are effected without evidence. Maybe you mean that if a soul exists it would have some impact on the physical world that we should be able to observe? The definition of soul is that it is immaterial. I do not grasp how a soul would have a material, observable impact on the world we live in. Again, does that make the claim null? Fourth, draw conclusions about the veracity of the claim. Well, from my observances(or lack of observances) on how a soul affects the world, I conclude it does not exist. That is my belief, not a statement of fact.

If WE were going to claim that...or you? I don't claim that a soul doesn't exist. I claim that I don't believe in a soul. Big difference.

I don't believe most of them. I suppose I am the opposite of your spectrum There was a member on this forum that insisted they talked to demons, angels, jesus, god...all the time. I wrote down a bible verse and set it down on my end table and asked him to ask them what verse I had written. It got ugly from there, on their part. That's my usual reaction, when I try to gauge some claim with verifiable evidence. I don't doubt that many of these people actually believe what they say, but they cannot under any circumstance reproduce their claim or verify it in any measurable manner, which makes the claim useless.

So a brief recap of the conversation to date: I ask if anyone thinks a soul exists, and what evidence or reference do they have. Someone says it does, someone else thinks it might, but no tangible proof. Someone else entirely has a problem with there being no working definition of soul. I give a definition of soul. Several people seem offended that I didn't include everyone's definition, and some suggest that it is not definable. It is specified that for the sake of this particular debate, soul can be defined as in the dictionary. Someone argues that the dictionary definition isn't good enough for whatever reason. I point out that a debate needs to have two sides agree on a definition. At this point, I am starting to think it's a ludicrous proposition to debate the existence of a soul, if we are going to get sidetracked about what definition to use and whether it's definable, and point that out. Then I get told that definitions are important when asking for proof, and never mind that I have provided a definition. This feels very circular, you know?

Did you really just ask for evidence that something doesn't exist?

Or conversely we can say that the soul that meets our definition does not exist.

I do not intend to define God, or god, or gods or Gods for everyone in every single discussion ever. I meant for the terms of this discussion, or topic...since the question was asked which God, and people wanted a definition for soul. I never said there wasn't a place on this board for polytheists, or anyone else. It certainly wouldn't be my call to make in the first place It certainly doesn't strike me as difficult, since it was asked for, to limit this particular discussion to one definition of God and soul, but apparently I am vastly mistaken. Funny...since the reset, I had a topic split by mods because a response went off topic...but there are literally pages devoted to definitions in the topic of whether there is a human soul. Just a thought...

When did definitions of words become optional? When I went to school, I had a set list of words to define. If I put whatever I wanted in the blank, I got it wrong. I just don't get what's so difficult about this. If a person wants to use their own personal definition, they certainly shouldn't expect everyone else to adhere to it.

I think of myself as a full time minister. The way I define minister agrees with the dictionary under verb(go figure): attend to the needs of (someone) I generally tend to the needs of many people, sometimes people I know and sometimes strangers. But like John Lennon said, "Better recognize your brother, everyone you meet" I think of myself as a passive minister. Strange sounding, now that I type it. I am what I am on a regular basis, and if there is nobody around that I can tell is in need, then I am not actively ministering. If I see someone who needs help, I try. I guess I am semi active in that I volunteer my services and time on a regular basis. I help out at food pantries. Church doctrine means absolutely nothing to me. I am a stoic, which really doesn't have ministers of the "faith" that I can determine. Generally speaking, stoics act in accordance with what they believe to be right. If I see someone drop a $20 I tell them, if I find money in the parking lot of Walmart(and I did recently, like a month ago) I take it to the service desk(at Walmart, they have a policy of holding on to the funds for a certain amount of time then if nobody claims it they donate the money to Children's Miracle Network). If I see someone with a flat tire and it looks like they might need help, I stop and help. I have jump started many a car, and have pushed a few off the road so that someone could try to fix a problem as well.

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: an adored, admired, or influential person Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal : the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal That wasn't difficult at all. Addendum : Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic: (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities that are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. When expressed as a decimal, a rational number has a finite or recurring expansion

The discussion has become about definitions, and how they differ, and how that difference can lead to misunderstandings. Case in point. I say that it's like comparing apples and oranges. I mean it in the terms of the phrase... idioms.thefreedictionary.com/compare+apples+and+oranges : to examine the similarities of things that are completely different. Usage note: Usually used to explain that two things cannot be compared. I think mererdog misused the phrase, or misunderstood it at the least, or deliberately altered it's common usage to make a point. He used it as an actual comparison of fruit, instead of the common usage. So when I say case in point, we disagree about this because of differing definition, it's because he just exemplified my point that we are debated two separate things with the same words, and getting no where as a result. You are quite right that we could discuss the differences and come to an understanding. mererdog appears to me to be a very able person in communications terms, at least so far as explaining himself. I believe myself capable of altering my definition...but if you read up a ways, we were discussing the difficulty of defining the soul if everyone used different definitions and I suggested as a compromise to use an arbitrary source such as a dictionary...and then we are right back where we started. There are several topics that people are simply not willing to concede any points on, which makes defining the subject of discussion difficult. Christians would most likely define the soul differently than an Atheist, who would define it differently than a Wiccan, and they each might insist that theirs is the correct definition. In a case like that, we can either agree to an arbitrary source, change our own definition to match someone else's, or understand that the debate will not progress. Maybe there are other options, but I don't see them.

Case in point: we disagree about this, because of differing definition.

How do we define anything? We come to a consensus about it's meaning. How do we come to a consensus about it's meaning? It gets discussed, it gets considered, and when a definition is agreed upon it is added to the dictionary.( merriam-webster.com/help/faq-words-into-dictionary ) So...the dictionaries definition is accurate(in terms of the definition of the word accurate). It is other people's definition which might be flawed. They should be willing to conform their definition to the standard of a dictionary, in my opinion. But that is their own choice. To me it seems simple. To you perhaps it does not, or maybe you are simply debating for the sake of testing my theories? Or some other reason. I understand that. To debate something, we need a working definition of that something, in this case Soul. Now, I could use my definition, and you could yours. They might not match. How to make sure they match? Use an outside, relatively arbitrary source, such as in a dictionary. If the one or both people absolutely refuse to conform their definition, then they have no basis for a debate as to the existence of the soul. They are each debating a different thing. And that means the debate is pointless. In order to have a point, they must agree on a definition of the term they are debating. Otherwise it's comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.