where does the soul reside?
LOL! Yes, we have heads. Please show us where in the head the soul resides, exactly?
Baloney. You made that up.
Circular reasoning.
More baloney.
And, you have just added substantially to the confusion.
Nope. That would be the brain.
You already said that.
Yes, I understand Plato. Unfortunately, you don't understand reality.It is truly remarkable how one can leap out of nowhere on these forums blazing ad hom fallacies with both barrels at point blank range and still manage to miss the broad side of a barn.
It is amazing that you think you have the ability to judge what a fallacy is, and also to accuse me of the very thing you are guilty of...for instance...trolling and missing the broad side of the barn.
Get a mirror and use that to see your face. It may help to remember you're no Einstein.
Yes, I can see from your post history here why you haven't the capacity to understand what a fallacy is however I would suspect you should have full knowledge as you use them so often.
You just made another one in this post.
inside the soul
It's in the toenail.
My regular greeting is "How's ya toenails?"
G'day Kimberley! How's ya toenails love?
- somehow I knew you would find your way here. I didn't mean to imply it was the heart. I don't know what it is. As silly as it sounds to you it is still a mystery to me. And I'm not ashamed to say it.
And, it will always remain a mystery because there are no parts of the human body that can be considered a soul. It is one of the many reasons why souls have never been shown to exist.
I would certainly never argue that souls have been proven to exist. But, who knows? I have my little mystery. You already made me throw one out. I'm still pondering this one.
If we were to rely on the laws of physics in determining whether a soul can even have the capacity to exist, we have to say no, because a soul would violate a number of those laws.
If we were to rely on biology, we would be hard pressed to find anything in the human body that even resembles what is claimed to be a soul.
We can only rely on a supernatural explaination in that if the soul does exist, it would have to do so on the same plane as gods, which is something we cannot observe or detect in any way.
So, one has to believe entirely on faith that a soul exists just like they believe a god exists.Are you sure, by your own admittance that there are a lot of things you don't know, that they are not facts you are unable to force from your mind, but instead, beliefs from a religious indoctrination long ago?
That really doesn't mean anything in terms of understanding the soul, it is just philosophical gibberish.
Not that I don't take your word for those extraordinary claims which evidently appear to be studies that may show some laws of physics have been violated, as it would be something so important that would shake the very foundations of the scientific community.
Perhaps however, you refer to the weighing of tuberculosis patients by Macdougall in 1907 of which there were various outcomes, one in which the patient actually gained weight at the point of death?
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
And, are you also referring to Kirlian photography?
" The most famous effect of Kirlian photography occurred when a plant leaf was “photographed,” then a section was torn away and the leaf was rephotographed. A faint image of the torn-out section was still seen in the second photo. Since the same glass plates had been used, it is believed that moisture from the missing portion was providing the ghostly image. Since the glass plates used as dielectric material would tend to break down along the edges of the object, allowing easier passage of the discharge, that may also account for the effect. The observed “phantom leaf” effect was not found again in better-controlled experiments, but has continued to serve as a point of argument for the believers."
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Kirli … raphy.html
The 'No Hair Theorem" shows that of the only three properties of a black hole, mass is definitely one of them.
If all I need to do is equate your misinformed and faith based claims with your latter question, the answer is evident.
Have you tried using "soul" more as a psychological concept to explain a part of the human condition? Works for some.
I'm pretty sure beelzedad would comment if I used it that way too.
I don't care about names and I'm not sure my mystery is confined to the human condition. Maybe I'll just call it Bob and be done with it.I dunno, I thought it was my idea, but too lazy to find out.
OK it was me, what do I have to sign?
Hello Mr. curious, I saw a documentary the other day, (I forget it's title) but it was studying artistic"ness" in people.
Basically, they used magnets near the brain in order to change the brain waves within the individual.
Placing the magnets in certain areas, made people who were not at all creative, much better at art and creation.
Placing the magnets in a certain place on artistic people, made them lose their creativity almost entirely.
If your soul has anything to do with your personality, I think this study demonstrated that your personality is controlled or contained within the brain and can be affected using magnetism (disabling certain parts of the brain).
There is no evidence that the heart does anything other then pump blood.
The feeling you get in your heart (emotional feelings) can be down to blood pressure and chemical reactions in the brain affecting how the heart beats.
Sorry to be the one to clobber youThat is deep! Time to analyze the response. lolololo. just kidding! That is a very good answer.
You have me thinking deeply! Verrrrryyyyyyyy deeply! lolololo
How are those valid arguments? For example, to say the soul is "seated deeper" would imply it does exist and can be found. Or, if in the brain or near the heart, the soul must have been found there. Was it?
Beelzedad be nice to me.
I was simply answering a question. She suggested that my first statement about the OP might be the result of religious indoctrination. I didn't believe it to be and set out to explain to her what I had read.
I don't intend to argue for belief in the existence of soul. I'm calling the mystery Bob now. To alleviate any confusion.Yes, those were some of my questions, as well. All you have to do is just say what happened, what did you see or hear from the beginning to the end. Easy peasy.
Sorry to hear of your loss AE, I sat with my mom when she died as well.
I hope you are doing well now. It took me a while to get past the loss of my mom.I am doing much better, then I was from August through March. I still think about her often but I know you understand that.
I am pleased to know you are OK now, and yes I understand.
All my best to you!AEvans, my mom has been gone for nearly eleven years now and I still have moments that are very tough to get through. You're most definitely in my thoughts. Moms are tough to lose.
Geez that's generous DD, some American's seem to reckon that is the address of something else located at the lower part of the torso.
That took me a sec.
I need coffee! Fading and it's only 8.30am here!
You might have missed his reason for saying that. He probably assumed it would head a question from you off at the pass. Not choosing anywhere in particular, but everywhere in general kind of makes it hard to argue. For most people.
my soles are on the bottom of my feet
Yes, the soul has been assigned to an imaginary entity believed to reside inside the body. Good one, Jerami.
Probably, for the same reasons the body doesn't reside within a rubber ball; evidence.
I have a scientific answer.
heheheSo we found the soul eh?
Funny it is so close to the religious outlet tube.Just offering support for the graphic Harlan.
Amen.
huh?
the word put has a wide variety of connotations
try using one of them... appointed.
Now see how it reads.
I think God created man in the garden.
Saves him teleportation energies
H7760
but thats fine. I still don't see how this is a correction to anythingyep thats fine.
no damage to salvation
Pure nonsense. Show us your evidence that the body contains memory?we use only a small fraction of our brains. Yours considerably less than others.
With the first example above, the claim of believing in "the Creator-God" is entirely focused on one particular religion, while at the same time the author submits it is "Human beings", implying all humans believed in the same "Creator-God".
While the author does in fact use the word "confrontation" correctly here, it is not being used consistently in following the claims and the argument.
Confrontation can be defined as "A bold challenge; a focused comparison; bringing together for a careful comparison" which would be consistent with the argument that science and the scientific method allowed people to understand the world around them, which coincidentally put into question many religious beliefs about the world around them, hence the "bold challenge" towards believers to conciliate their beliefs with scientific findings.
Other definitions include "Discord resulting from a clash of ideas or opinions" which has been observed as the result of believers defending their faith when confronted with bold challenges and reconciliation.
And of course, there is no mention of the 'discord resulting from a clash of ideas or opinions' during the centuries prior to the existence of the scientific method and 'confrontations' with atheists.
Rather than being a conclusion drawn based on the intended latter definition of 'confrontation' we find instead a statement of exasperation, frustration and sheer desperation of the "disorder and chaos" of a belief system crumbling under the guidelines of the former definition."pinky & nose" -what a team we'd make!
Precisely! This has been my resonance from the start! "It is not necessary to consider a question nor its result, an answer. Both are relative parallels within the "Need To Know" syndication. That syn is the brain attempting to 'sort' the infinite collective strands of organic energy. To unravel the 'mystery' of something that does not need to be unraveled (nor wants to be unraveled ?) --it just wants to be revealed.
Like trying to unwrap and sort the particles of sunlight, the myth is used for cohesion (Scotch Tape) so the human does not go "pop" as that revealing is happening. At least that's my take on it. The illuminating power of the human spirit, the massivity and "pitch" of frequencies alone, needs to be filtered, through the mind so it can be experienced in the body, without "interference".
Myth is the transition, the poetry --like you said: "the moon lives in the lining of her skin"..."Let There Be Light".
James.- pinky and nose is right about appropriate...(can't seem to get rid of the annoying bugger)
That it is not necessary to decode it is absolutely right because it reveals itself at the time it is most relevant.
when life begins to get poetic, you know you are already get how it all weaves around a core desire that runs all your operating systems. That core desire, that's you.yes, despite the bugger and the grammatical errors,,,
Which can't you get rid of, the pinky or the nose?
We can find no such part.
And yet, no such thing has been found, individually as parts or a whole. Nada. Nothing. Zilch.If we followed your line of reasoning, scientists would spend much of their time searching for leprechauns and unicorns, and every other imaginative myth one can conjure.
However, that is not the case, is it?
Science has already discovered a number of laws to the universe and already understands that the supernatural claims made by believers violate those laws.
Hence, it is up to the believer to present their evidence showing how their supernatural claims not only are real but how they do not violate those laws.
Actually, it begins with an observation. What is the observation of souls?
No, it is not a working hypothesis, by definition. It is an unfounded belief, by definition.Every scientist who endeavors to answer questions and understand the world around them would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, it is the offering of such evidence that is the central problem.
Yes, but that is a strawman fallacy. Answers to questions regarding observations and hard evidence are far removed from the process and understanding of answering theological questions, hence cannot be compared.
As well, the unanswered questions of the former are not likely to have answers associated with the latter.
And, if the claims of believers in the supernatural are so abundant and forthcoming amongst the billions who make them, we would have at the very least managed to capture something along the way as far as an observation or some evidence.
Again, another strawman fallacy. Atoms were proposed to explain observations and hard evidence, an effect that could be measured.
You can't make that a comparison to the invisible and undetectable concept of a soul.
Strawman fallacy. What does this have to do with anything?
You have not explained what exactly is "observable" or defined any kind of categories.
Have a good look at the definition of a 'working hypothesis' and how it used in the scientific method to see why it can't be.
Then, how pray tell, can souls be known to exist if they are well beyond our ability to investigate?
What exactly was observed in order to make a proposal in the first place?I've never been a fan of the strawman fallacy term. Sounds Wizard of Oddish.
What observations led to the proposition of the existence of the atom in 400 BC. ? Sure, it wasn't anything like what we know, but you say they observed something. Why did it take over a thousand years for others to observe the same thing and go in search of it?
Midwives? They saw something the doctors did not. Why did it take hundreds of years for their observations to be observed by others?
I realize these are physical things and the concept of spirit is spiritual. But the same thing applies. Some have perceived something that others have not. As with the above examples, it would certainly follow that, if proven, it would apply to all; whether they see it or not.
People see a little something and they spruce it up with imagination. That's human nature. But it does not negate the fact that something may be there.
As to working hypothesis. I'm using this definition; a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument. As with all things, its simply a matter of how you choose to see it. Simply because you do not use the same definition does not mean this one won't function within a sentence.
And I did not mean to imply that souls are known to exist. They aren't. Hence the wording of the OP. Where do you think they reside.Allow me to introduce you to this website and all the links contained therein:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Whenever you write a post and make any claims, refer to that website to see if your claims are valid and that your arguments are credible. After a short while, you will learn those fallacies and no longer use them in your posts. This will greatly increase the valid content and credible claims you present.
They didn't take a thousand years to go searching for it, they simply needed to know what to look for and then develop the technology to observe the cause of the effect.
Let's also not forget the church's support of the sciences in the past thousand years, also.
Where did you get that one about midwives? My understanding is that Semmelweis came up with handwashing.
No, it would not apply. It would have to be shown to exist. Period. What others claim to perceive is entirely irrelevant. Check the fallacy page for that one.
But, it in no way suggests something is there, either. Fallacy.
As opposed to how reality does or does not exhibit it?
In ones imagination.I will certainly review the website further. But, I don't concede that I am using faulty reasoning. I'm pretty sure that's not the case on this one. You simply choose to draw a line that might be further south than it needs to be. Or, you may be right. Who knows. I would have to tread crazy ground to find an argument to continue so: I bow to your superior argumentative skills only.
But, thanks for being so civil about the disagreement. That's apparently not in fashion today on some of these threads.
I would agree. The success rate of working towards and possessing the mind of a child is a measurable effect we can observe here daily.
Geeze the spammers are early this weekend.
nailed these two.
- 83
Where does evil come from?
Theists often times have trouble defending God against gratuitous evil, such as a person burning to death slowly with no clear reason the suffering has to be so severe. In any event, there is another problem that...
- 305
What MAKES you "THINK" you are JUST a physical body with NO spirit ???
This question, ONCE properly answered and understood, will FOREVER change your opinions regarding the Time Honoured Subject of LIFE AFTER DEATH.The challenge is for YOU to PROVE you have NO soul, no spirit, and...
- 36
How to know the mystery of Life ?
> Mystery lies within You.> Explore the Mystery, by handling the situations of life.> Bring awareness to the Actions of life.> Plan your Schedule in Advance> Add Different techniques to your Schedule. (...
- 158
Where does faith come from? How do you know you're right?
I feel that believing in one religion is not practical. Likewise, there is no way of knowing if there is one God, or any God for that matter. I'm not saying there's not either, though I do trust science it only goes so...
- 107
Proof Of God?
Some people here in the forums have discussed the existence of God, stating that they have seen no proof, while others have proclaimed there is proof all around. If you do not search your heart, mind and soul, then no...
- 64
Where does evolution leave God ? article by...
The Wall Street Journal asked to famous authors, Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins, to respond to this question. Here are their independent answers.These are short articles, to the...