Does Man Really Have a Soul?

[Mr Spinkles]

HelpMe--

If I were a blind man, here is how I would test whether or not sight and colors can be sensed by others:

Take a few objects that cannot be distinguished by taste, sound, touch, feel, or smell. Ask a blindfolded subject what color each object is. Take off the blindfold. Ask again. Record the data. After 100 trials I would see the pattern in the data that all unblindfolded subject called object A "blue" and object B "red". This would lead me to conclude that other people must have an eye-sensor that can consistently differentiate between the different wavelengths of light coming from the objects.

Still waiting for scientific evidence for a soul.

 

[Scuba Pete]

2) Even if there weren't scientific explanations for emotions like love and hate, that would not be scientific evidence for a soul.

No, but it would be evidence that there is more to sentience then mere science. As of yet science can not explain the "spark". Consequently, the soul does not have to be proven scientifically for it to exist. It's been doing fine without science's help since the beginning of time.

 

[HelpMe]

Take a few objects that cannot be distinguished by taste, sound, touch, feel, or smell. Ask a blindfolded subject what color each object is. Take off the blindfold. Ask again. Record the data. After 100 trials I would see the pattern in the data that all unblindfolded subject called object A "blue" and object B "red". This would lead me to conclude that other people must have an eye-sensor that can consistently differentiate between the different wavelengths of light coming from the objects.

thanks for the response.

everyone who told you the same thing as the others are religious fanatics.only you and other blind men know the truth.your experiment does not go far enough, according to your own standards, the testimony of people whom believe other than you is to remain under a skeptic view, remember that?

as far as i can tell a man is a soul(i.e.;a soul is a breathing being).you likely mean to imply spirit as so many off course folk do erronously think they're the same thing.to which i see no point in discussing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

everyone who told you the same thing as the others are religious fanatics.only you and other blind men know the truth.your experiment does not go far enough, according to your own standards, the testimony of people whom believe other than you is to remain under a skeptic view, remember that?

It's possible that everyone who told me the same thing was a religious fanatic and they cannot truly distinguish between the red and blue objects. However, that would mean that they all guessed it correctly every single time. The odds of 100 subjects guessing correctly with a 50/50 chance each time is 50 times one half to the one hundredth power%. My skeptical nature does not allow me to treat this as a more probable conclusion than the other one--that people really do have sight.

Consequently, the soul does not have to be proven scientifically for it to exist.

Is this a roundabout retraction of your earlier claim that there is scientific evidence for a soul?

 

[HelpMe]

i know of more than 100 subjects.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i know of more than 100 subjects.

It doesn't matter--sight has been evidenced to exist, whether it exists in 100,000 or only 100 subjects. Now please, let us lay to rest this ridiculous argument and get back to my question:

What is the scientific evidence for the existence of a soul?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Is this a roundabout retraction of your earlier claim that there is scientific evidence for a soul?

This question to NetDoc has now been pointed out to him twice - I keep hoping that we can get a resolution of these obviously conflicting stances.

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

It doesn't matter--sight has been evidenced to exist, whether it exists in 100,000 or only 100 subjects...
Now please, let us lay to rest this ridiculous argument...

1-not to the blind man(a blindfolded man would be quite different[i.e.;religion proving religion{think of a religious man stepping out of the realms of his religion momentarily only to return and proclaim that a point has been proven}])
2-i agree

a soul is a living being, perhaps if you wish to engage me you would rephrase the question to ask what is implied.

does man really have a spirit?imo, yes.Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?or even in a laboratory environment?no.

 

[jewscout]

No, I wasn't saying what people should or shouldn't do. However, I do think that the reason people choose to have faith in souls and not, say, invisible pink unicorns, is because they want souls to exist. If people wanted invisible pink unicorns to exist, they would have faith in them as well. Faith, then, is no way to distinguish between that which is real and that which we imagine to be real.

I agree with you Mr_Spinkles i think the concept of the soul was created to comfort people, especially when it comes to the afterlife. I have no way of proving that the soul exists and i won't attempt to make poor arguements on it therefore my logical side would have to be willing to accept that there is no real evidence for anything i believe in. But the feeling in the pit of my stomach of there being something greater than myself working in my life will not allow me to give up what i believe in. I can no sooner give up my faith than you could give up your own personal beliefs. It would force me to ignore what my heart, and yes, my soul feels.
We'll just have to agree to disagree

 

[robtex]

It doesn't matter--sight has been evidenced to exist, whether it exists in 100,000 or only 100 subjects. Now please, let us lay to rest this ridiculous argument and get back to my question:

What is the scientific evidence for the existence of a soul?

I found this place
htpp://www.near-death.com

and i started to cross reference names with news articles including people on there who were dead for several days (according to the site) but I have nothing at this point. George Rodonaia is even a local boy (in texas) and I couldn't find anything to verify his death He did however make the wikipedia.org which seems to be pretty critical of what it puts in his site......

I also tried to find Emanual Tuwagiairmana, Jane Seymour, and Gary Busey (figured celebs would be easy) and I just got their personal accounts and no more. I wanted to post the site though cause realistically tyring to verify data on that is ......and even if it is verified it is going to support a theory as opposed to proof..but that is what I looked at for this.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is this a roundabout retraction of your earlier claim that there is scientific evidence for a soul?

Why would I retract a claim that I never made? The initial question was whether man had a soul. That the evidence had to be scientific is a recent addition to the burden of proof that you have encumbered me with. If I errantly made such a claim then I repent of it, but I would like to see proof that I did. Somehow I think this is yet just another subtle assumption which you have fallen prey to.

Science does not try to prove or disprove God. God feels about the same towards science. If God could be fully and logically proven, then there would be no need for faith. God has given each and everyone of us the information we need to come to a "right conclusion" about his existence. Our rejection of him is no reflection on God, but on our ability to perceive the supernatural around us.

Like traveling down a road, our life is filled with choices. Turn here, go straight there. Some of those choices bring us closer to God, some take us away from God. The man traveling down a winter road may have a hard time believing that Florida exists. Possibly, he doesn't see the whole picture. Possibly he does not want to go through the work involved in planning a trip to Florida. Maybe he has no idea just how great Florida is. Does his rejection of Florida affect the existence of Florida in the least?

Man not only needs faith... he worships those who have it. Maybe this is the best evidence we have that man has a soul: Man's need and worship of faith.

BTW, you might look at the forum this is in: Religious Debates and not Science vs Religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Why would I retract a claim that I never made?

Forgive me, NetDoc. After saying "perhaps you would like to provide some scientific evidence for the existence of a soul," and receiving this response from you:

There are many esoteric things that sciance can not explain.

Love, hate, sadness and happiness to name but a few.

But these emotions are no less real than God for God has inspired them. Just because science can not explain them does not nullify their validity or even their existence

The Bible claims that "God is Love". So when someone becomes more like God, then they should become more loving. This is simple cause and effect to me. Simple observations that can be made much as you can observe electricity.

...rather than this response: "There is no scientific evidence for a soul," I erroneously assumed you were attempting to provide the evidence I had requested.

Science does not try to prove or disprove God.

Finally we have an accord. Note that science does not try to prove or disprove leprechauns, either.

BTW, you might look at the forum this is in: Religious Debates and not Science vs Religion.

Scientific methodology and evidence is very important within philosophical naturalism. A lack of scientific evidence for the existence of souls must be established to make the further philosophical argument that belief in souls is unwarranted. Since this forum defines religion as "a set of beleifs or philosophy" I think my comments are acceptable in this forum. I'll check with the other Moderators just to be sure.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'll check with the other Moderators just to be sure.

Just harrassin ya man...

I have always put my science and belief in God in different boxes. And I expect that there is no way that forums could ever stay "pure" as much as we would like them to be.

 

[Scott1]

This thread looks fine to me Mr Spinkles.....

 

[Ceridwen018]

If you'd like 'pure' conversation, NetDoc, you can go to the specialized threads. Other than that, I think that a reasonable definition for 'Religious Debates' would be, "Debates about religion and issues related to it." The soul is a religious topic, and the lack of scientific evidence for it is a relative issue. Heck though, what do I know anyway?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Without scientific evidence, I see no more reason to believe in souls than leprechauns. Both beliefs find their roots in ancient mythologies. The only real difference between the two is that the latter makes some kind of prediction (i.e. that we should see little men with pots of gold) and the former is normally defined so vaguely as to make no predictions whatsoever. The most likely explanation is that souls exist wholly within the minds of an imaginative species.

 

[Scuba Pete]

`The Babel fish,' said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, `is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from his own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. `Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence than anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of thenon-existence of God. `The argument goes something like this: ``I refuse to prove that I exist,'' says God, ``for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'' ``But,'' says Man, ``The Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'' ``Oh dear,'' says God, ``I hadn't thought of that,'' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Herein lies the issue and I must say that I love this passage!

 

[Runt]

I definitely see no reason to believe we possess souls. I think the body gives rise to consciousness, memory, personality, intellect, etc, and I believe these things alone are sufficient enough to account for the spiritual gratification we feel in simply being alive. I think we confuse the sum of these things with a completely seperate (and nonexistent) element--the soul--and refuse to give up the idea because it has some comfortable implications.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

[/color][/b]

Herein lies the issue and I must say that I love this passage!

Ah, but then that troublesome Man goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself run over at the next zebra crossing, heheee. (At least, it I remember correctly.)

 

[Scuba Pete]

You are right, FIH,

that was really the best part.