# Does 'the soul' exist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2003, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085 "2003-06-02T06:59:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/261 "2003-06-19T00:06:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > \*\*And despite your vehement assertions Joe Random, you have yet to provide any support for them. A property of debating, logic or cabalism, can we see some support for your assertions? > > I don’t believe it is true that " No matter where logic is being used, proving non-existance is impossible." because, as I have already pointed out, it is the work of seconds t reverse the argument. > > You then assert that this is the one exception. Very cobvenient. > > I assert that you are making this up. Now that I’ve called you out, can I see the basis for your claims? > > Or do I have to prove that you have no support? Oh hang on I can’t do that can I? \*\* Ahh…I used to use this tact as a kid too!I would argue with my best friend about what musician(s) recorded what song and after he would shove the actual 45 in my face to show I was mistaken I would, rather than admit I was wrong and was arguing for an incorrect position, spout off a bunch more nonsense(usually hostile) as a diversion before excusing myself with the standar “I have to go check in” line. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/262 "2003-06-19T00:21:10Z")
Please show us all where Joe has produced the 45 demonstrating that his assertions are correct. Let me guess, you can’t support this assertion either? ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/263 "2003-06-19T00:52:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > \*\*Please show us all where Joe has produced the 45 demonstrating that his assertions are correct. > > Let me guess, you can’t support this assertion either? \*\* Keep it up and I will just go have a chat with Snata about your chrismas lit this year. Seriously though…what assertions?Actually assertion is the wrong word…what positive exitential claism have ANY of us on the skeptic side made? ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/264 "2003-06-19T00:53:00Z")
People in the arts talk about their souls all the time - it doesn’t have to be a religion thing. Fer cryin’ out loud, watch Meryl Streep on _The Actor’s Studio_ this week, pick up an _Oprah_ magazine, go see a live play, read the _Tao Te Ching_, see Bobby McFerrin perform live if you can, he doesn’t do it very often (most stoned I’ve ever been in my life & no substances were involved). There is something in the air. Or miss it if you choose. > [@](#): > > At least, no other method of understand the world has been demonstrated to be very functional or very useful. Yes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems look like nails. I dunno, _Godless_, given the amount of swearing my Hubby aims at various referees and umpires, I’m not sure you can really use sports as a good analogy ;). Instant replay kinda shoots that easy objective reality thing in the foot, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/265 "2003-06-19T00:54:25Z")
Snata? No, no, anything but that…😃 ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/266 "2003-06-19T01:09:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > **I don’t believe it is true that " No matter where logic is being used, proving non-existance is impossible." because, as I have already pointed out, it is the work of seconds t reverse the argument.** Okay, seriously, am I typing gibberish or something? I _already_ **explained** why simply reversing the argument doesn’t work. Non-existance is a property seperate from logical negation. Have you had any education in formal logic? Because if you have, you should quickly see the difference. > [@](#): > > **You then assert that this is the one exception. Very cobvenient.** It _would_ be convienient of the exception were of _any_ use to my position _at all_. However, I am not making use of the exception. I am merely explaining to you how formal logic works. > [@](#): > > **I assert that you are making this up. Now that I’ve called you out, can I see the basis for your claims?** It’s simple logic, really. If you assert that something exists, there are two ways to prove it. The first way is to assume that the thing does _not_ exist, and show that doing so creates a logical contradiction. The second way is to demonstrate its existance through observation. For example, you could prove that unicorns exist by finding a unicorn. However, proving non-existance is trickier. We still have the same first method, of assuming that the thing _does_ exist, and showing that doing so leads to a logical contradiction. However, the analog of the second method would be to examing every, single, sub-atomic piece of the entire universe, and show that the thing in question doesn’t exist in any of those places. It’s obvious that it is possible for something to not exist without causing a logical contradiction, thus there are things that don’t exist that can only be shown to not exist by scouring all of reality for them to show that they’re not there. I’m sure you would agree that doing so is impossible. Thus proving the non-existance of non-contradictory entities is impossible. Now that I’ve explained why proving that souls don’t exist is impossible, will you please address my challenge to prove the nonexistance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? You still have the same three choices, and you can’t dodge this one forever. In the end, my advice to you would to be to actually, you know, provide a valid argument for the existance of souls. Otherwise it is simply your opinion, and I have no intention of debating _opinions_, only facts. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/267 "2003-06-19T01:21:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fessie \* > **People in the arts talk about their souls all the time - it doesn’t have to be a religion thing.** What does that have to do with this debate? We’re not arguing about whether or not people _think_ souls exists; we’re arguing about whether or not they _actually_ exist. The fact that people in the arts talk about their souls has no bearing on whether souls exist or not. > [@](#): > > **Yes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems look like nails.** And if all the problems actually _are_ nails, then anything but a hammer will yield substandard results. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/268 "2003-06-19T05:43:03Z")
So it is all just assertion then Joe. Now that we’ve sorted that out I say that the rule of logic you claim that says that one don’t have to support non existence does not exist. The great thing is I don’t have to suppot that with anything and it must be taken as truth.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085/269 "2003-06-19T06:54:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > **So it is all just assertion then Joe.** No, it’s logic. I showed, _via a logical argument_ that it is normally impossible to prove non-existance, with the only exception being proving the non-existance of logically incosistant entities. The description I gave to you of why that is so was a conversational form of a logical proof. If you accept the premises of my proof, then you must accept the conclusion, as it logically follows from the premises. Here, allow me to give you the Readers Digest condensed version of the proof: * * * A) There are two ways to prove the non-existance of an object. 1. Show that the object is logically contradictory. 2. Examine every square inch of the universe to make sure the object doesn’t exist anywhere. B) Some objects that don’t exist are not logically contradictory. C) From **A** and **B** : The only way to prove the non-existance of some objects is to scour the entire expanse of the universe for them. D) **C** is impossible. E) From **C** and **D** : Proving the non-existance of some objects requires doing the impossible. ## :: From **E** : Proving the non-existance of some objects is impossible. That is a logical proof. If you still disagree, and think that proving non-existance is always possible, then you must show me the flaw in my proof. If you retort with “I don’t have to do that at all. Your proof is just an assertion. Prove that it’s right,” then I will be forced to accept that you don’t know the first thing about logic, and thus conclude that debating with you is a waste of my time. Now then: To this point, you have been trying to keep the ball in my court, always asking me to support my position while never providing support for your own position. Well, I’m done playing that game. Now it’s your turn to support _your_ side of the debate. No more shifting the burden of proof back to me. No more demanding that I “proove” an assertion. I have provided ample support for my position, and it stands on its own logic. You now have two ways to proceed. You can attack my argument on the merits of its own logic. You don’t believe that it is impossible to proove non-existance? Okay then, **proove it**. Show me where my proof is flawed. After all, if you are unwilling to accept my assertions, even _with_ their backing of logical reasoning, then why should I accept your assertions that have no backing at _all_? The other tactic you can use is to actually provide proof, either experimental or logical, for your own position. You believe that souls exist. Again I say **prove it**. I will no longer be baited into being the only one in this debate to provide support for my assertions. The ball is squarely in your court now, **Blake** , and I have to ask, do you know anything at _all_ about logic? Can you even back up your assertions? Or is ceasingly demanding more and more proof of your opponent, all the while dismissing any proof given without understanding it, all you’re capable of? If you respond to this to say anything to the effect of, “You’re just making assertions. Prove that your assertions are correct,” then I will have to conclude that you either have no basis for making your claims as to the existance of souls, or that you have no clue as to how logic works. Either way, I will not bother to reply. If you don’t actually start _debating_ in this debate, then there’s no point in continuing. Or, to condence my entire post into a small, compact phrase (at the risk coming off as more abrasive than I really am) “Put up or shut up”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-soul-exist/179085.md?page=13)