Can you point to a single thing I have said in this thread that leads you to this conclusion, given that I have repeatedly made very clear that I have no dog in this fight, and that the ways in which I have suggested for souls to exist hardly lend themselves to anything worth “wanting” at all? If in fact the soul operates as I believe it is more likely to, if in fact it exists at all, there’s certainly no payoff for the earthly Stoid that I am busy being - she will be dead.
You are just operating from your own prejudice that this conversation cannot possibly be interesting to anyone independent of an agenda that involves a particular answer or outcome, and you are wrong.
"Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. "
And that’s this thread from top to bottom, and my argument is against that, more than anything else. Which makes sense, given my OP…which you might want to read. (hint: it’s not “There IS an afterlife and souls DO exist!”)
But something will live on. If you aren’t arguing based on wishful thinking I’d like to know why you are suggesting that something that there is no evidence for and there is much evidence against is real. Do you believe that an invisible zombie hovers behind you when no one is looking? Why don’t you? Someday we’ll have the evidence to prove the invisible zombie is there! Why are you suggesting that it isn’t real? You can’t know it isn’t real! :rolleyes:
My prejudice is against people arguing rubbish. If you are staking a claim that souls exist based on a neutral stance, well that’s even worse than just doing it because you are religious. At least those people are working to save their delusions. Your argument without that is simply sloppy.
I got it. But you are the one postulating something with no evidence. And something that goes against the evidence we do have. Your argument is exactly as persuasive as saying, “Dragons are real, and someday we’ll have the technology to penetrate their cloaking magic.”
Don’t you see how meaningless that argument is? Offer evidence or relegate the idea to the trash heap. If we someday find the dragon decloaking particle, well then it will be reasonable to believe in it. Until then it’s simply wishful thinking.
Your questions are answered by reading the OP (and opening your mind).
I recognize that many people need to have an agenda, a side, a purpose for arguing things, being interested in things, but I’m not one of them. I am often motivated by nothing except curiosity and a desire to know and understand more. Because of this, I am immediately skeptical of arguments (especially those lacking citations to reputable evidence!) that are offered as absolutes without room for error or further possibility. (See my prior post, hello.)
Regarding citations: it’s very interesting to me the number of people coming into this thread to announce that it has been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven, with absolutely no room for error or modification, that souls do not exist, there is no afterlife, and every other thing associated with such ideas is absolute fantasy - to the same extent that say, the existence of gravity has been proven.
Because it seems pretty obvious that if it had been scientifically, conclusively and irrefutably proven with no room for error or modification, there would be at least one or two solid, reputable, well known and respected citations readily available - after all, that’s pretty big news to be keeping under wraps.
What does “logically impossible, given the science of the day” mean? If your cite said it was physically impossible given the science of the day, it would make sense, but as it stands it doesn’t.
I trust you think Dragons are equally likely as an afterlife? You believe in every possible thing in the universe, right? Unicorns. Wizards. Trolls. The Tron Universe. The X-Men. Grape Ape.
You believe in all those things just as much as the afterlife, right? They are all possible, right? Can’t disprove them, can you?
It’s being claimed that souls cannot exist, and this has been demonstrated logically in this thread repeatedly. Whilst a physical afterlife is theoretically possible, it has never been observed to happen, and if it has, it’s up to the observer to provide a cite.
If someone wrote that an invisible dragon standing behind you cannot exist, would you be as vehement concerning proof of the claim? How much time would you spend arguing that we just can’t know that an invisible dragon is hovering right behind you?
How much time would you waste even considering the possibility that an invisible dragon is hovering right behind you?
Did you mean to quote me? I’m saying that the invisible soul dragon cannot exist.
I do, however, thing Invisible Soul Dragon would make an awesome band name.
Read the page I quoted from, he explains it better than I can.
Although I think it speaks for itself - you are arguing from knowledge only of “the science of the day”, without any allowance that science will continue to advance, and that advance might lead to new information and understanding, exactly the way it has previously. I covered this in the OP…this IS the damn OP, for god’s sake!
As long as you demonstrate that you are not actually paying attention to what I’m actually saying, I really can’t have a discussion with you. If YOUR agenda is to come in and “prove” that there is no afterlife, okay. Done. Bye.
But the PURPOSE OF THE THREAD is to DISCUSS HOW WE DECIDE WHAT RATES AS PROOF OF ANYTHING, including dragons, souls and an afterlife.
Obviously just about everyone has found this a cripplingly subtle distinction.
I’m coming from possibility, you are coming from rigid certainty. I think the first one who has the responsibility to cite is the one making rigidly certain assertions. If you disagree, I’m open to an argument for your disagreement.