What is our soul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2016, 11:35 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 11:19 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Null hypothesis. Drinking Beverage

If there exists zero evidence for the soul, then stating 'there is no soul' has already met it's burden. Saying that something, for which there is no evidence for, doesn't exist is just a restatement of the fact that said thing has no evidence in favor of it's existence. Something cannot be said to exist as a fact, until there is evidence for it; and thus pointing out the nonexistence of things that have no evidence doesn't require additional evidence of nonexistence. Facepalm

You're trying to rearrange words as if they were pieces in a game, without actually understanding what those words mean when they're presented. It's not a word game that you can win or draw by rearranging the words, because the ideas they represent don't work that way.
So I'm genuinely curious because I don't know. Isn't this special pleading though? Originally he said the burden of proof falls on the one with the belief. I'm curious as to why the statement "there is no soul" is not a belief? Isn't a similar statement like "the world is not flat" a belief? Just because it's a negative claim doesn't make it a not claim. I would offer that only if the claim is a claim of not knowing does it not hold a burden of proof.


Did you even bother to look up the null hypothesis? Wait, stupid question...


Can you watch YouTube? Do you understand English? Alright, then this handy little video will explain the burden of proof to you.






So unless we want to fill our Encyclopedia's up with useless and unverifiable claims like 'there exists a walrus on Pluto who juggles skulls', you likewise cannot claim that 'there exists a human soul'. Both have the same amount of evidence, in that they have both failed to meet the burden of proof for existence. There very well might be a walrus on Pluto juggling skulls, but we have no evidence that such a thing is true, thus the burden is on someone claiming such a thing is factually true and not on the person who would deny such a claim because of the lack of evidence. Thus saying that the soul doesn't exist has already met it's burden of proof. There very well might be a 'soul', but we have no evidence that such a thing is true, thus the burden is on someone claiming such a thing is factually true and not on the person who would deny such a claim because of the lack of evidence.

Now if someone were to claim that a soul will never exist, or that we will never have evidence for it, that would be a different claim with it's own burden. But nobody claimed that. All we've done is point out that souls do not exist, in that nothing called a 'soul' has ever meet the burden of proof required for existence.

This is not a difficult concept to understand. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 11:41 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 11:21 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  This is the fallacy appeal to authority I think. Just because it doesn't make sense to not question the authority doesn't mean they are right.
Edit: isn't this also special pleading as Dr. Spitzner is probably more educated than all of us aswell and is also respected by many amongst the scientific community.

He's not right because he is an authority. However unless you have specific claims that he is incorrect and sufficient evidence to back that up, he's statistically far more likely to be correct in his field of expertise than a layperson. It's not a fallacy to take into account an expert's field of expertise.

Are you just sitting there with a list of logical fallacies that you're trying to whip out at every opportunity without understanding them, or what?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 12:16 AM
RE: What is our soul?
Ok so I read this http://www.strangenotions.com/who-has-th...ssing-god/ and it appears to me that the only time the burden of proof appears in your favor is in a court and that is order to prevent tyranny but otherwise any claim at all requires proof. Any truly honest and objective person would say I don't think there is a walrus in Pluto juggling skulls but I do not know if you are right or wrong. Simply because knowing would assume you have tested the claim. Knowledge by definition has a surety to it.
No, lol I'm not just sitting by a list of fallacies, and I do understand them definitionaly. I just don't have any experience with pointing them out so I am only asking fot reassurance in my thought process.
See this also doesn't make sense, why do I have to provide evidence for doubt in a person yet you don't have to provide evidence for doubt in a point.
I know that is a double standard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 12:37 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(12-03-2016 12:16 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Ok so I read this http://www.strangenotions.com/who-has-th...ssing-god/ and it appears to me that the only time the burden of proof appears in your favor is in a court and that is order to prevent tyranny but otherwise any claim at all requires proof. Any truly honest and objective person would say I don't think there is a walrus in Pluto juggling skulls but I do not know if you are right or wrong. Simply because knowing would assume you have tested the claim. Knowledge by definition has a surety to it.
No, lol I'm not just sitting by a list of fallacies, and I do understand them definitionaly. I just don't have any experience with pointing them out so I am only asking fot reassurance in my thought process.
See this also doesn't make sense, why do I have to provide evidence for doubt in a person yet you don't have to provide evidence for doubt in a point.
I know that is a double standard.

That's not even an appeal to an authority. It's just a guy with an opinion and another person can say otherwise. He didn't even back up anything with any research or list other than say his opinions and presumptions on the matters... Unless all of that research or ANY reasoning is hidden within his "secret knowledge club" that must be worthy to delve into.

You can say, you don't accept the notions of these arguments of burden of proof being one way or not but you're just on a different epistemological scale. Just as you would be on your knowledge of x on pluto. You could think it but thinking isn't claiming. Also, it's just as much of a fault of a person to think their inductions are signs of knowledge. There is a lot of problematic notions when you just want to bicker saying your definition is right while disengaging that someone else is arguing about something totally different with a different definition.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
12-03-2016, 12:51 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(12-03-2016 12:16 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Any truly honest and objective person would say I don't think there is a walrus in Pluto juggling skulls but I do not know if you are right or wrong. Simply because knowing would assume you have tested the claim. Knowledge by definition has a surety to it.


So apply that to a human 'soul'. We've looked for them and tested for them, and all objective and verifiable evidence points to there not being anything there. People have gone looking for a soul, and they haven't found it. In light of the complete inability for anyone to yet verify the existence of a 'soul', we are well within the scope of reasonableness to say they don't exist to the best of our knowledge.

Anyone else claiming otherwise needs evidence for their existence, or they need to shut the fuck up; or else be rightly laughed out of the room for their massive case of gullibility and credulity. You cannot have 'knowledge' that souls exists without the evidence to back it up, and lacking all evidence, it can be said thus that to our best knowledge that soul do not exist.


We have no evidence for souls (hearsay is not evidence, ancient fables are not evidence, emotions and personal 'feels' are not evidence). Thus the burden of proof fall on those claiming they do exist, not on those skeptical of their existence. Existence requires evidence, nonexistence does not; because nonexistence leaves no evidence.



(12-03-2016 12:16 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  See this also doesn't make sense, why do I have to provide evidence for doubt in a person yet you don't have to provide evidence for doubt in a point.
I know that is a double standard.


Fucking hell you are dense... Facepalm

This isn't hard, unless you're purposely being obtuse or you are already deeply invested in bullshit that is utterly undermined by the concept at hand.


Skepticism itself doesn't require evidence, and a lack of evidence invites skepticism.


You can doubt whoever you want, but the same thing applies to you as well. If I had to take a guess as to who is more likely to be right on a given subject, and my choice is between an uneducated layman (you) and a top expert in that field with decades of experience (Stenger)? You might be right, but statistically, betting on you would be stupid as hell. That's not a double standard, that's called 'being reasonable'. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
12-03-2016, 01:00 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(11-03-2016 10:33 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  I agree that the burden of proof falls on the believer or if I may add, whoever makes an assertive claim. If you can agree with this would you not agree that you claim and believe with your statement from earlier in the feed "there is no soul?" So with an assertive claim like that the burden of proof also falls on you not just me.

Quite right. However, I also meet that burden, because my position is that the null hypothesis is correct, and the null hypothesis is, by definition, the position that has already met the burden of proof.

The soul does not exist. We know this because the soul has never even been coherently defined, let alone had any evidence advanced to support the idea of its existence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if the absence is where you would expect to find evidence. And, in the case of the soul, there is nothing but absence.

Because the soul does not exist.

Quote:But referencing everything after what I commented on you just made a bunch of claims again but had no proofs or evidence behind them.

Regarding IANDS and your sources being questionable? That is transparently obvious if you even take a glance at the web site. Regarding the other, actually valid studies on NDEs? Take ten seconds on Google.

(11-03-2016 11:19 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  So I'm genuinely curious because I don't know. Isn't this special pleading though?

No.

The burden of proof applies to every position. It just happens that the null hypothesis, by definition, meets the burden of proof. That is why it is the null hypothesis.

Quote:Second to that literally all metaphysics is null because it is all hypothetical.

Yes. Metaphysics is and always has been nothing but baseless speculation. Worse than that, even; more often than not, it is literally just making things up. It is useless.

(11-03-2016 11:21 PM)Babakazoo Wrote:  This is the fallacy appeal to authority I think.

No. The fallacy to which you refer is properly titled the appeal to inappropriate authority - taking William Lane Craig, a known crank, as an authority on evolution just because he is a Ph.D., for example, without taking into account that his degree is in philosophy of religion, not biology.

Past a certain point of technical depth, it must be accepted that the opinions of layoersons cease to matter. I do not understand a damn thing about quantum physics. Past the barest basics, I take the word of the experts.

Of course, it is still possible that the experts are wrong, which is why it is always best to avoid making an appeal to any authority when at all possible. But, in Stenger's case, the data required to verify his work is readily available and checks out, so it isn't so much an appeal to authority as it is an appeal to verified data.

Quote:isn't this also special pleading as Dr. Spitzner is probably more educated than all of us aswell and is also respected by many amongst the scientific community.

No.

Spitzer is not a scientist. I have no idea who among the scientific community you think respects him, but I assure you that the opinion of a Jesuit priest with degrees in accounting and philosophy, as regards actual scientific research in fields where he has a blatant preconceived bias, is not worth a hot tin shit in actual academic work.

Bluntly, Spitzer is just another crank. He is peddling nonsense based on his beliefs, not science. He has no training in the relevant fields that would enable him to accurately assess the data available, and even if he did, he wouldn't care to.

The thing is, we do approach your sources with the same skeptical eye that we turn on our own.

They just don't hold up.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
12-03-2016, 01:13 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(12-03-2016 12:16 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  Any truly honest and objective person would say I don't think there is a walrus in Pluto juggling skulls but I do not know if you are right or wrong.

No. A truly honest person would say "Of course there fucking isn't. Are you high?"

We know that there is no walrus on Pluto juggling skulls. Anyone who wishes to argue otherwise is just playing games with goalposts.

Quote:Knowledge by definition has a surety to it.

We know that there is no walrus on Pluto. We know that Russell's teapot does not exist. These scenarios illustrate the absurdity of your position, not its strength.

If there is no evidence for the truth of a claim, no evidence for it where we would expect to find it, and not even a coherent mechanism which would allow it to possibly be true, the only rational position is to consider it false. Saying "yeah, but you don't really know" is pointless, silly, and only used as a means to crowbar in the "possibility" of ridiculous, unsupported positions that cannot possibly be defended any other way.

If the best defense for your position is that your opponent cannot show you the lack of something, you are admitting that there is nothing actually worth defending in your argument.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
12-03-2016, 01:20 AM
RE: What is our soul?
I guess I'll keep learning how to know. Eventually I'll be able to stand behind points better. I honestly imagine you could prove me wrong even if I were arguing a well known true fact and you were just attempting to make me wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 01:40 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 01:58 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: What is our soul?
(12-03-2016 01:20 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  I honestly imagine you could prove me wrong even if I were arguing a well known true fact and you were just attempting to make me wrong.

This only shows how much more you have to learn.


Everything is provisional.


According to a survey of Americans, it is a 'well known true fact' that god with a capitol G created the universe and all life on Earth; insofar as a majority of Americans think that it is true. Does that make it a fact? Does their opinion constitute evidence? No.

Can they be shown with evidence to be wrong beyond any reasonable doubt? Yes.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-03-2016, 02:32 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(12-03-2016 01:20 AM)Babakazoo Wrote:  I honestly imagine you could prove me wrong even if I were arguing a well known true fact and you were just attempting to make me wrong.

Well, no. Proof doesn't work that way. If what you were saying were true, I couldn't prove it to be false.

I could, however, make a damn convincing bullshit argument that might convince a number of people that I had. That has nothing to do with logic. That's all to do with writing, and, since I'm a literary history guy, I've got some experience there.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: