Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
well, anything coupled into duality becomes a complexity (complexity is the sum of simple parts, pairs of two are easier to study..but since we know about matrices, as long as we don't have too many unknowns, we can still figure out the missing piece).
So, in other words concrete evidence of proving or disproving is unattainable.
Never understood why skeptics need proof to give validation to their views. But theres not much i do understand about anything.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
So, in other words concrete evidence of proving or disproving is unattainable.
No, deductive evidence of non-existence is unattainable.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Never understood why skeptics need proof to give validation to their views. But theres not much i do understand about anything.
One who does not require that beliefs be substantiated, will simply believe anything.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEOne who does not require that beliefs be substantiated, will simply believe anything.
This does not include all whom believe in the existence in a soul. Thats a fairly loud liberty taken in your statement, assuming you believe this about all who believe in the human soul.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
This does not include all whom believe in the existence in a soul. Thats a fairly loud liberty taken in your statement, assuming you believe this about all who believe in the human soul.
I believe this about everyone who does not require that beliefs be substantiated, not necessarily about everyone who believes in the existence of a soul.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I believe this about everyone who does not require that beliefs be substantiated, not necessarily about everyone who believes in the existence of a soul.
for religous people, the lack of evidence that substantiates the belief, is infact an important aspect in many beliefs. this is apart faith, and faith is a key aspect of most religions. This does not mean these people will believe in anything blindly.
Newton was very religous, but refused that man was merely created, however, he still believed in a soul and a God, both of which have no scientific evidence of existing.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
for religous people, the lack of evidence that substantiates the belief, is infact an important aspect in many beliefs. this is apart faith, and faith is a key aspect of most religions.
How convenient.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
This does not mean these people will believe in anything blindly.
Newton was very religous, but refused that man was merely created, however, he still believed in a soul and a God, both of which have no scientific evidence of existing.
What is the difference between believing one set of outrageous claims unsubstantiated versus another?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a reference to one who is willing to believe that "donkeys can talk, people can fly, and I guy named 'Jesus' lives up in the sky," completely unsubstantiated, but requires proof of benal claims in his daily life.
if only that were my point.
apparently, you understand...hence the post.
why does it really matter if we have a soul or not. i mean one thing is a fact, we have conciousness/self awareness of a very high degree in some respects. proving it is of mystic origin or scientific wont actually LESSEN the degree or enhance the degree of this conciousness/awareness will it? its like people need validation from a higher purpose for them to EXIST when the fundamentals of their existance remain unchanged either way. all we can say is that we have SOMETHING and reguardless of origin, it shall stay with us as long as we continue to exist.
what i think people really mean when they talk about the SOUL is an awareness that can specifically live on after DEATH and the topic should be, is there life/existance after death or not.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why does it really matter if we have a soul or not. i mean one thing is a fact, we have conciousness/self awareness of a very high degree in some respects. proving it is of mystic origin or scientific wont actually LESSEN the degree or enhance the degree of this conciousness/awareness will it? its like people need validation from a higher purpose for them to EXIST when the fundamentals of their existance remain unchanged either way. all we can say is that we have SOMETHING and reguardless of origin, it shall stay with us as long as we continue to exist.what i think people really mean when they talk about the SOUL is an awareness that can specifically live on after DEATH and the topic should be, is there life/existance after death or not.
But the one thing that bothers me about the idea of a soul is that supposedly, other animals don’t have souls. It is the separation of humans from the natural world that has lead to great evil in this world, and the idea of a soul is part of that arrogant way of thinking.