Do you believe you have a soul?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's making the grand assumption that we have the capability to measure and observe everything.

Not at all. It's making the observation that if we can neither measure or observe something then we don't know it exists and indeed it might as well not.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Hooray for low self-esteem?

I always found the whole "I'm just worm food" thing a bit strange. Surely no one in their right mind could possibly consider themselves as being nothing more than "worm food in the manufacturing stage".

Not worm food yet. But will be. There's a difference.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Not at all. It's making the observation that if we can neither measure or observe something then we don't know it exists and indeed it might as well not.

But that does not mean that people who do believe that such a thing as a soul exists are somehow intellectually inferior.

If someone in first century AD told the scientists of the day that they believed that they could harness electromagnetic energy and use it to transmit information over huge distances they'd have been called mad. Human understanding is not absolute and will never be absolute.

As such, the best solution is to consider it a hypothesis that we as of yet cannot and may not ever be able to test conclusively. As with all hypotheses, there will be those that support it (believe in a soul) and those who do not support it (do not believe in a soul).

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So the rational mind wouldn't have believed in radio waves a few hundred years ago, is what you're saying.

Probably not. Of course radio waves would have been there but there would be no reason to believe in them. The results don't justify the reasoning.

partyatmygaff wrote:

But that does not mean that people who do believe that such a thing as a soul exists are somehow intellectually inferior.

If someone in first century AD told the scientists of the day that they believed that they could harness electromagnetic energy and use it to transmit information over huge distances they'd have been called mad. Human understanding is not absolute and will never be absolute.

As such, the best solution is to consider it a hypothesis that we as of yet cannot and may not ever be able to test conclusively. As with all hypotheses, there will be those that support it (believe in a soul) and those who do not support it (do not believe in a soul).

You're comparing the metaphysical with the physical there.

In an abstract way that comparison is fine but when using it justify rationality it's not.

The person who thought they could harness electromagnetic energy was making a prediction based on solid assumptions and knowledge (given that they're aware of electromagnetic signals we can assume they have some understanding of physics and the physical world).

The soul, however, is an assumption all on it's own. There is no supporting reasons based on what we know to exist as to why a soul is at least plausible.

Is there a soul? Nobody knows.
Is it rational to believe in it? No.

I'm not saying people who believe in it are "inferior" or whatever by the way. I really don't care what people believe (most of the time anyway).

Holy Mackerel this thread is going down fast...

I don't know if I have a soul but the atoms I'm made of are as old as the universe, and was created inside a sun

I traded it for Alf pogs.

Seachmall wrote: »

Is there a soul? Nobody knows.
Is it rational to believe in it? No.

When we have no real understanding of intelligence or what constitutes it, and this intelligence is in fact what some think persists, I would say its overconfident to assert that it does not exist.

We have a hard time even finding an adequate definition for life.

Seachmall wrote: »

Actually, Teapots in space are more likely than IPU and Souls.

Simply because a Teapot is a physical structure and doesn't require an assumption of the metaphysical.

But if I had turned around to you in 1150 AD and said, "Lo, Seachmall, i'faith there waftes about me vapours that can be used for scrying and such", you'd have said "Lole, Doc, waite and I'll fetche the trepanner". Assuming that we know all there is to know, or even the majority of it, is a dangerous assumption.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Well the jury is still out but its not looking good for Einstein.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html

To go back to what I was saying earlier, no people of that time could not have tested for radio waves because they hadn't the scientific knowledge nor engineering ability to do so. It would have been impossible at their stage of development to verify whether or not radio waves existed.

Nonetheless radio waves existed then just as they do now.

So it is impossible to say with any confidence that there is no such thing as life after death. In fact saying so is the opposite of the scientific method.

Now you can argumentum ad absurdum all you like about teapots in space, but everything we don't know can be set on a scale of possibility. Life on other planets? Quite possible. Some kind of preservation of information structures after death? Less likely, but still possible. Teapots in space, invisible pink unicorns all around us? Very unlikely.

But if you want to start talking about teapots in space you can dismiss life on other planets with the same breath as you dismiss post mortem persistence.

What we have here is a backlash against organised religion, and believe me I'm no fan of organised religion, running roughshod over things that might in fact potentially be true and/or useful.

Rationality is the road, not the destination.

I'm trying to be level headed in this discussion, but there is so much misinformation in that post that I am not sure where to start, and am beginning to wonder if you are trying to wind me up.

Regarding the faster than light neutrinos - The Telegraph is not the best source of science literature. The subsequent tests were performed using the same equipment that was used in the original anomalous case. They removed one of many potential sources of error. The results have not been independently confirmed elsewhere. Those who created this result are not even suggesting that they have broken General Relativity. What is essentially happening is that they are saying "There is something wrong with our methods, we can't figure it out, we need help to find the problem".

Radio waves hundreds of years ago - In your alternate reality there is somebody who "believes" in them in that time frame. That would require some sort of observation. If you have the technology to observe them, then you have the technology to test for them, or at least to conceptualise a valid test (it doesn't matter whether or not you have the resources or technology to carry it out). In our actual reality, nobody "believed" in them because they did not even have any concept of their existence.

Nowhere did I suggest that we currently know about everything, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to posit the existence of random objects or phenomena without any evidence or observations.

Life on other planets - of course it's quite possible. We have observed both life and planets. And life on a planet. I don't see how this is even vaguely similar.

You still haven't even bothered to expand on how one would go about falsifying the soul.

RichieC wrote: »

A better grand assumption.

Because god!!!!!

Deary me. Yet again, you've followed me to another thread on boards.ie to post a contextually irrelevant and nonsensical six word long "rebuttal" with your signature tone of superiority. Quelle surprise.

If you've got an issue with me and/or my posts; kindly put me on ignore, send me a PM and "vent" as much as you'd like. This nonsense of you following me around boards.ie hijacking threads just to post your oh-so-original bite-size digs has gotten beyond annoying.