Science does not assume anything, as you believers do. You believers are the only ones who claim to know things you do not know. You make unfounded claims about the nature of reality. You say that you know souls exist, whereas science actually makes an effort to find evidence--and we have found none. You claim that you know I am an abiotic, ethereal ghost somehow residing within my biotic, physical tissue, even though you have no evidence for it.
If tomorrow there will be a discovery about human physiology that indicates the existence of a soul, scientists would eagerly and voraciously jump all over it. They would thoroughly and unbiasedly pour investigation into it, and if the discovery proved itself to be true and its implications profound... well, that discovery would be viewed as one of the greatest in human history. It would give birth to a whole new and uncharted body of science.
Now, let's say the opposite happens. Let's say something is discovered that totally and unabashedly disproves the existence of the soul, without a shadow of a doubt. Well, you believers would immediately reject it without any further questioning. This is the nature of belief. Of faith.
The soul was mankind's first, floundering attempt at psychology. It was what we used to explain and rationalize emotion, dreams, intuition, art, et cetera. It was our first attempt, and it was formulated at a time when neurology didn't even exist. It's time we let it go and stopped thinking that we need a soul to somehow glorify and give meaning to our existence.
[ Post made via iPhone ]
Just for you (eyeroll)
deschainXIX wrote::lol: It's confirmed. R99 has the scientific education of a 3rd grader.
*sigh* Time to give a rudimentary science lecture...
Our science has advanced beyond what our homo sapien perception via the senses can give us. The existence of atoms and molecules and subatomic particles are all embraced not because we can see them with our eyes, but because their existence can be deducted with various complicated instruments.
As for air: We actually can visibly observe the effects air has on the world. We can look at fire and explosions and know that in the absence of air, neither can occur. We can observe a windy field, seeing the grass tendrils and trees swaying and being ripped back and forth by the violent passage of air molecules. Many things can be observed by the naked eye--that is why mankind knew about the concept of air long before science allowed us to genuinely study it--but now science allows us to go beyond that.
Physical matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. The reason we are not dead right now--the reason we are not in a vacuum is because we are surrounded by air; we are living in an atmosphere, a reservoir of gaseous molecules that allow terrestrial organisms to respirate. Air is matter. Try to create any vessel that won't collapse without air in it. Air has measurable pressure it can exert (this goes back to our wind idea previously). We can also measure air's weight by using a balloon. Here's a science experiment I would like you to conduct: take a balloon and measure it; then fill it up with air; measure it again; subtract your first measurement from your last. That is the weight of the air you filled it up with.
For further reading in elementary science, R99, I would reference a man named Otto Von Guericke, who did studies on air in 1654.
Now... where is your soul? I'm not even asking for direct observation or empirical evidence. I'll let that slide because I know you could never produce some. Let's just see your highly thought-out, sound reasoning for its existence. There is none of that either.
[ Post made via iPhone ]
U R RIGHT, i am no expert on science section. i cant produce a scientific proof. i am not smart , but thats not meant i am stupid. i dont have time to dig around and study. i am a hard working man. i spent 10 hours of my day working to attain a piece of paper that had an imaginary value. u think science is complete. its just a medium to understand whats happening to certain things within human grasp. can u please explain what is an atom.? did u ever seen it? as far as i know science failed to show proof, still they believing it. whats ur thought.?
If it was drawn to scale the electrons would be on the other side of a football field and never fit on a text book page and I'm pretty sure if we were to look at an atom with our eyes somehow, hypothetically, under the most powerful microscope the neutrons are not green and the protons are not blue. So I understand why that cartoon image of one is prevalent and used as a learning tool. It aids children in their basic understanding.
That cartoon image of reality, of atoms, we all learned, and think we know is wrong! It's a complete illusion! I think we can all agree on that.
This both opens and closes the door on the question of that 'thing' known as a soul. We all agree a soul isn't tangible, and yet I just said atoms aren't either. The question is, does the soul have any influence on anything? Is is measurable? Does it have a quantity? Does it have a quality?
Can you have one soul, two soul, more soul, less soul, white soul, black soul, red fish, blue fish?
deschainXIX wrote:Brief word of advice: never base belief in these things solely on what is directly perceivable with your senses.
[ Post made via iPhone ]
Brief word of advice: 5 senses isnt enough to explore universe secrets. u have to dig deep. if u dont think out of the box, u wont reach anywhere near what are we discussing here.
I seriously want someone to tell me everything I've said is wrong, just like how I learned that atoms are an illusion. I'm at the cusp of a new idea, the edge of an enlightenment, and if nobody can pull me back I'm going through.
And at the other end, there is no soul.
Pull me back if you care.
Yes, the diagram they show children is used to help understand the slightly abstract notion of the atom (which R99 obviously still needs help with). But I say again: physically seeing something with your eyes does not mean it is real. You can indirectly observe.
These things are confirmable. Mathematically and theoretically, but also pragmatically. The removal or addition of neutrons produces different isotopes, and the removal of addition of a proton produces a different element that exhibits different properties and behavior. Chemistry works, as a result--it's why you all have your various cleaning supplies and such. And we know how to build nuclear warheads whose power is derived from the heart of a split atom. I can go on and on trying to convince you people that--sorry, trying to say this with a straight face--atoms exist, but really you all can read up on it if you're interested.
[ Post made via iPhone ]
deschainXIX wrote:The removal or addition of neutrons produces different isotopes, and the removal of addition of a proton produces a different element that exhibits different properties and behavior. Chemistry works...
And the same question can be asked about the removal and addition of a soul. All this, and chemistry, has been thought of before way back when Frankenstein was written and even in modern times with the show, Full Metal Alchemist when they dabble in 'human transmutations'. They are fiction and don't prove anything other than the fact that this question has captivated our hearts and minds for years.
Everything in our universe should add up, and energy is conserved. The 'soul' doesn't. If it did, there must be a warehouse full of them just waiting to inhabit a body... well... a mind. Because even a human centipede is still 3 minds, and 3 'souls', despite being one body!
And what about the floating heads in a jar on Futurama? Does Richard Nixon have a soul?
Or what about the end of Terminator 2, when Arnold kills himself and dies... did he have a soul?
Souls and reincarnation sound awesome, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm stupid and watch to much television!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest