gilly54

My $.02: I would think that since this is the Science and Skepticism forum, assertions and claims would be taken more seriously if they were backed up with evidence, or at least prevailing theories which have the scientific method as a basis.

Hawkingfan

You're not THAT ugly, are you?

Wyz_sub10

yguy,

You haven't answered a question that I think is critical to some of the claims you've made.

When you look into an animal's eyes, you said you see no evidence of a soul. So...what are you looking for? What do you expect to see?

Pets have a lot of character. Maybe not fish, who are fairly unintelligent, but dogs and cats do. They have moods, peculiarities, etc. I'm not suggesting they have complex needs or emotions, but they do have identity.

So what can you see in someone's eyes that indicates the presence of a soul?

yguy

In this case, there was no assertion. It was a question.

yguy

The fact that they can see me as a person.

To a dog, or most other animals, humans are gods, because we're stronger than they are. To animals like polar bears, we're nothing but lunch, because they're stronger than we are, or think they are.

Of course, if a person can lose his soul, we should expect that there are humans who see others as lunch, at least in a metaphysical sense...and we do, by cracky.

SimplyAtheistic

I think everyone should just give up on this post. Yguy has so many insane theories and utter rubbish that I don't think he even knows what the hell he is talking about. When I was participating in a one on one battle with him in this thread he stopped replying to me and all but admitted defeat. You will not convince him of anything, he has no proof, and he will not listen to reason. I mean, he thinks a soul is responsible for embarrassment!:banghead:
Jake

Wounded King

You dont have to provide evidence for a question, but a question some of the central features of which are both poorly defined and utterly lacking in evidence, such as the nature and behaviour of the soul, is essentially meaningless. You might as well ask if people being drunk isnt due to the telekinetic effects of the tap dancing mice that live in the moon on the brains biochemistry.

If you arent aware of the relevance of measurement and repetition to science in general, as you seem to be, then perhaps you dont realise that they are fundamental aspects of biochemistry. Given the many well researched neurochemical pathways there must be, given your reasoning, some point where the action of the soul enters to have an effect. This should be something which is not explained by normal biochemistry, since biochemical reactions in vitro are presumably not affected by the soul. Consequently if drunkenness can be explained simply in terms of brain biochemistry then where is the point that the soul can enter into things? How does the soul interact with its environment? You are moving the soul from something immatterial to something which can interact with the physical world which is a pretty hefty step.

My comment about evidence was primarily concerned with your previous argument, and I use the term loosely, as to the very existence of the soul, which seemed based almost wholly upon your personal intuition.

Normal

Whoa, whoever asked this question in the science forum was just asking for it. "Soul" is usually defined in a metaphysical sense, meaning NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Why oh why would you start a thread asking for empirical evidence of a soul?

It's like asking for evidence of other metaphysical things, like logic. Prove to me logic exists.

Wyz_sub10

"Logic" describes a process - a set of principles. "Soul" refers quite specifically to something that should be describable, but apparently isn't.

There is no similarity between the two - it's like trying to say "chi" and "calculating" are the same because they are intangible.

Normal

I meant "logic" and "soul" were similar in that they are intangible.