Originally posted by Bardock42
Could be. In the same sense you could obviously say that they might posses you and tell you that you are immortal.
I highly doubt it. I'd know if evil were in me because i'd reflect it in my everyday life. I'd have a hate for life which is not the case now because I have a love for it.
Re: I am Immortal because my soul is..
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Sure my physical body will expire but my spirit will never die and i believe this about all of us.The essence of me, of all of us, is more significant than the flesh and bones that imprison it.
I truly believe that.
"Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter." -Yoda in Empire Strikes Back
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prove 1.) that things such as souls exist, and 2.) that you, indeed have one.
I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."
Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.
I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I highly doubt it. I'd know if evil were in me because i'd reflect it in my everyday life. I'd have a hate for life which is not the case now because I have a love for it.
But you think people that do not believe in God have a hate for life?
W-why do you assume that?
Originally posted by Marxman
I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.
I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.
I concur indeed.
Proof of a particular thing or a phenomenon can be only delivered if the evidence for such can be empirically collected.
To ask for a proof or soul (or god) is to ask for empirical evidence of something which cannot be empirically measured.
Pointless indeed.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I concur indeed.
Proof of a particular thing or a phenomenon can be only delivered if the evidence for such can be empirically collected.
To ask for a proof or soul (or god) is to ask for empirical evidence of something which cannot be empirically measured.Pointless indeed.
Is it pointless to talk about something like what is inside of a black hole? No empirical data can ever be collected from inside a black hole, but scientists try to talk about it all the time. The real problem is emotions. We connect our beliefs to the beliefs of others. If we didn't do this, we would have no problem.
Originally posted by Marxman
I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.
I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.
That's funny...
You are claiming it exists when there is no evidence for it except for the bible and there is no evidence that the bible is real except for the bible.
It us up to you to prove that a soul exists, the easiest way to do that is to prove that a religious book like the bible the Koran or the Torah are real. So you have fun.
It's like somebody saying that the sun revolves around the earth and all evidence to the contrary is false but then delivers no evidence and asks the people who disagree with him to prove that the evidence of the earth revolving around the sun isn't fake at all. Which is impossible because all the evidence agreeing with them is according to the first person wrong.
That's not the way you should debate. You prove your statements, you don't ask others to prove them wrong.
Originally posted by Fishy
That's funny...You are claiming it exists when there is no evidence for it except for the bible and there is no evidence that the bible is real except for the bible.
It us up to you to prove that a soul exists, the easiest way to do that is to prove that a religious book like the bible the Koran or the Torah are real. So you have fun.
It's like somebody saying that the sun revolves around the earth and all evidence to the contrary is false but then delivers no evidence and asks the people who disagree with him to prove that the evidence of the earth revolving around the sun isn't fake at all. Which is impossible because all the evidence agreeing with them is according to the first person wrong.
That's not the way you should debate. You prove your statements, you don't ask others to prove them wrong.
If you actually read my post you will see that I didn't post my opinion on this issue either way. But my statement still stands. A soul is something that can't be measured. Therefore its unprovable by scientific standards.
The proof of a soul comes from the testimonies of others. Whether you want to believe these testimonies are up to you.
Originally posted by Marxman
If you actually read my post you will see that I didn't post my opinion on this issue either way. But my statement still stands. A soul is something that can't be measured. Therefore its unprovable by scientific standards.The proof of a soul comes from the testimonies of others. Whether you want to believe these testimonies are up to you.
I don't care what your believe on the matter is but sorry for assuming.
Still my point stands, you can't ask people to prove a negative. It's up to them it exists, and testimony's from people? What people, how do they know it was a soul, how do they know anything?
And if science can't prove it then there is no real good reason for accepting it as true, except for of course your own belief system, and that can hardly be seen as proof of anything.
Originally posted by Fishy
I don't care what your believe on the matter is but sorry for assuming.Still my point stands, you can't ask people to prove a negative. It's up to them it exists, and testimony's from people? What people, how do they know it was a soul, how do they know anything?
And if science can't prove it then there is no real good reason for accepting it as true, except for of course your own belief system, and that can hardly be seen as proof of anything.
You're arguing in circles. The point is don't ask someone to prove something that can't be proven to your liking. Its pointless, because it ends a debate that has potential to be a serious, thoughtful debate.
Originally posted by Marxman
You're arguing in circles. The point is don't ask someone to prove something that can't be proven to your liking. Its pointless, because it ends a debate that has potential to be a serious, thoughtful debate.
How can you have a good debate when you can't prove anything, well you can but not in a thread where you want to prove something.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it pointless to talk about something like what is inside of a black hole? No empirical data can ever be collected from inside a black hole, but scientists try to talk about it all the time. The real problem is emotions. We connect our beliefs to the beliefs of others. If we didn't do this, we would have no problem.
Scientist speculate, and are aware of lack of proof. Most are not arrogant as to demand proof of the things they know they cannot obtain.
You (not you personally, just generally) asking anyone for a proof of something you KNOW evidence cannot be collected for, then using that to claim lack of its existence is pointless.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Scientist speculate, and are aware of lack of proof. Most are not arrogant as to demand proof of the things they know they cannot obtain.You (not you personally, just generally) asking anyone for a proof of something you KNOW evidence cannot be collected for, then using that to claim lack of its existence is pointless.
I agree, however, I think the logic they use is like this; if you cannot prove me wrong then that is proof I am right. It is realization to the extreme, and it is wrong.
Originally posted by Marxman
I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.
I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.
A negation cannot be proven, therefore the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim to substantiate it.
Originally posted by Marxman
If you actually read my post you will see that I didn't post my opinion on this issue either way. But my statement still stands. A soul is something that can't be measured. Therefore its unprovable by scientific standards.The proof of a soul comes from the testimonies of others. Whether you want to believe these testimonies are up to you.
If a soul cannot be observed, then how do you know that it exists?