Does the human soul exist?

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, the Hearthwitch said:

That's the crux of the problem right there, isn't it? 

It's subjective. I can tell you that what I have seen, felt, and heard. You can choose to believe me or not to...it in no way diminishes the experience, for me. 

People say that they have heard the Voice of God, or other voices, other gods (lowercase, as a nod to the other discussion). I believe them. It's happened to me, too. 

But sadly, it doesn't ever seem to happen in a laboratory. Funny, dat. 

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.

[the Hearthwitch]

17 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

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.

I think that's totally OK, too- you don't have to believe anything, or you can believe everything. I think most of us are in-between, one way or another. I'll admit, my bias usually tends to be against anyone who declares that they have all of the answers, or the only "right" way of doing any given thing, very much including spiritual doings and religion. Or those who demand cash, to get those answers. Especially those! 

And it's OK to call crazy, well, crazy.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, the Hearthwitch said:

Maybe not all- we all know that there are reasonable exceptions to any rule- but many of them, yes. My take on it is that yes, it does sound crazy, it feels crazy, but it happens. Perhaps that puts my character (and sanity) in question.

But I don't automatically disregard it, when someone tells me that they've been spoken to by a god, a goddess, a ghost, what-have-you. Why should I? I don't think that deities are unapproachable, and I think that they approach their chosen people, too, at times, without regard for how those people may react.

 

Perhaps we could take the reliability of the witness into account.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

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?

 

My personal bias here.  If someone wishes to make a claim of objective, verifiable evidence -- no matter what it is -- I would start with the evidence.  Then, I would worry about the classification of the results.

 

In the same way, if someone actually produces a Big Foot -- dead or alive -- then we can let the zoologists classify it.

 

I have no objection to let the definition follow the objective results.  As yet, we have nothing, either way.  The soul could still exist.  We don't have convincing evidence.  

 

 

[the Hearthwitch]

26 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Perhaps we could take the reliability of the witness into account.  

Yes! That! 

[the Hearthwitch]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

My personal bias here.  If someone wishes to make a claim of objective, verifiable evidence -- no matter what it is -- I would start with the evidence.  Then, I would worry about the classification of the results.

 

In the same way, if someone actually produces a Big Foot -- dead or alive -- then we can let the zoologists classify it.

 

I have no objection to let the definition follow the objective results.  As yet, we have nothing, either way.  The soul could still exist.  We don't have convincing evidence.  

 

 

Then it boils down to belief- which was pretty much what I saw comin' on this thread anyway. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 minutes ago, the Hearthwitch said:

Then it boils down to belief- which was pretty much what I saw comin' on this thread anyway. 

 

With objective, verifiable evidence, there is knowledge.

 

Without objective, verifiable evidence, there is belief, which is a fancy word for opinion.

 

In real life, we do the best we can with what we have.  

 

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

With objective, verifiable evidence, there is knowledge.

 

There is also understanding, and you don't always need verifiable evidence to gain knowledge..  If you lived hundreds of years ago and someone explained how a gasoline engine could pull a wagon instead of a horse, you might accept that as a fact, based on understanding alone, despite having never seen a gas engine run.

 

Likewise, belief can also be substantiated via understanding, which is why I'm  convinced the bible is precisely what it says of itself.  I know what it says, and my understanding is that it's a supernatural book of, what must be, divine origin. No way any man, or any conspiracy of men, could have put this book together. It's just not possible! So just like the gasoline engine, its possible to have knowledge of a truth through understanding, without the necessity of verifiable evidence... jmo

Edited August 16, 2017 by Dan56

[mererdog]

13 hours ago, cuchulain said:

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

Yes. If we are going to claim that the soul does not exist, by any definition of the word,  I will need evidence to base the claim on.

I know what an elephant is and what effect an elephant has on the world around it. I know an elephant casts a shadow and that it has weight. I know a living elephant gives off heat and makes at least some small amount of noise. These are observable phenomenon that must necessarily be present if there is an elephant in the room. Since light passes unobstructed across the room, there is no elephant standing behind me. Since there are no footprints in the butter, there are no elephants in the fridge.

[mererdog]

15 hours ago, cuchulain said:

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?

You asked for proof of a claim. If you define the parameters of the claim, and those parameters do not match those used by the people who made the claim, you are engaging in the straw man fallacy. You are asking, in other words, for proof of a claim that no one actually made. 

If I claim there is a soul, the first step in investigating my claim is to make sure you understand what I mean by a soul, to ensure you understand what I am claiming. The second step is to determine how observable phenomenon would be effected if my claim were true. The third step is to determine if observable phenomenon are effected in that way. The fourth step is to draw conclusions about the veracity of the claim. Skip any step, and the investigation is fatally flawed.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There is also understanding, and you don't always need verifiable evidence to gain knowledge..  If you lived hundreds of years ago and someone explained how a gasoline engine could pull a wagon instead of a horse, you might accept that as a fact, based on understanding alone, despite having never seen a gas engine run.

 

Likewise, belief can also be substantiated via understanding, which is why I'm  convinced the bible is precisely what it says of itself.  I know what it says, and my understanding is that it's a supernatural book of, what must be, divine origin. No way any man, or any conspiracy of men, could have put this book together. It's just not possible! So just like the gasoline engine, its possible to have knowledge of a truth through understanding, without the necessity of verifiable evidence... jmo

 

Evidently, it is possible.  

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

10 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yes. If we are going to claim that the soul does not exist, by any definition of the word,  I will need evidence to base the claim on.

I know what an elephant is and what effect an elephant has on the world around it. I know an elephant casts a shadow and that it has weight. I know a living elephant gives off heat and makes at least some small amount of noise. These are observable phenomenon that must necessarily be present if there is an elephant in the room. Since light passes unobstructed across the room, there is no elephant standing behind me. Since there are no footprints in the butter, there are no elephants in the fridge.

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.

[cuchulain]

8 hours ago, mererdog said:

You asked for proof of a claim. If you define the parameters of the claim, and those parameters do not match those used by the people who made the claim, you are engaging in the straw man fallacy. You are asking, in other words, for proof of a claim that no one actually made. 

If I claim there is a soul, the first step in investigating my claim is to make sure you understand what I mean by a soul, to ensure you understand what I am claiming. The second step is to determine how observable phenomenon would be effected if my claim were true. The third step is to determine if observable phenomenon are effected in that way. The fourth step is to draw conclusions about the veracity of the claim. Skip any step, and the investigation is fatally flawed.

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.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I'm getting dizzy.  The simple answer is -- I don't know.       

 

[the Hearthwitch]

 I believe it does- but can't prove it empirically! (Which is fine.)

[cuchulain]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 4:29 PM, the Hearthwitch said:

 I believe it does- but can't prove it empirically! (Which is fine.)

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.  

[the Hearthwitch]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

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.  

Guess I prefer to stir the cauldron in other ways, LOL! I'm allergic to proselytizing, in most of its forms. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, the Hearthwitch said:

Guess I prefer to stir the cauldron in other ways, LOL! I'm allergic to proselytizing, in most of its forms. 

 

As it should be.  When an idea is really good, we don't have to force it on others.  They will steal it.          

[cuchulain]

19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

As it should be.  When an idea is really good, we don't have to force it on others.  They will steal it.          

Hey, I thought of that first!

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Hey, I thought of that first!

 

I doubt if there are many original thoughts left.  I first heard something similar in 1969.