 |
Duration: 16:25 minutes Upload Time: 2006-12-26 11:18:25 User: picassolama :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: No "proof"...but don't count it out. |
|
Comments | |
| therealspacejunkie ::: Favorites 2007-05-07 14:48:49 Good thoughtful video - the mind of the true sceptic is that it is all true to some degree, and not simple boolean logic. Although I am an atheist (not quite as hardline as some), I am always prepared to review my ideas on new evidence. I may fall into being a "category 5" (re: Dawkins) kind of person more than a 6 or 7, as I will not 100% rule most things out. __________________________________________________ | |
| amjiva ::: Favorites 2007-02-12 21:06:02 As you say, there is no irrefutable proof of the soul. There are, though, good indications. One observation that gets overlooked is in how the consciousness is seemingly of a different nature than the body and, moreover, how it (consciousness) is beyond the jurisdiction of the bodily senses. All this gets undermined for what naturalists think is a more convenient purview on reality. __________________________________________________ | |
| picassolama ::: Favorites 2006-12-30 01:14:40 You missed the point of my post - my last words were - don't count it out - yes, through science we were able to make many discoveries - my contention is, through science, we may discover an energy we all possess, and this energy could be equated to a 'soul' - can you logically explain why the human brain is illogical? __________________________________________________ | |
| saladin185 ::: Favorites 2006-12-30 01:05:31 You argue that a soul exists, and compare it to the radiation of the atomic bomb. I'm not saying that it's a faulty analogy, BUT over time through SCIENCE we developed tools (as you mentioned) that can QUANTIFY the existence of the radiations. Whereas in contrast with a 'soul' no one has been able to use tools to identify it. Therefore it is completly illogical to ASSUME that a soul truly does exist and because of this I personally feel that is is outlandish to debate the existence of a soul. __________________________________________________ | |
| picassolama ::: Favorites 2006-12-29 18:25:40 This is not true, the spaghetti monster does not have a historical context, and it is not included in the language defining a soul, if it were, then yes - the spaghetti monster would be a valid hypothesis - given it's not, then the relevence of a sm is nonexistent. __________________________________________________ | |
| picassolama ::: Favorites 2006-12-29 12:09:38 If the soul had been labeled a spaghetti monster, then our conversation would be focused on a spaghetti monster - It's only words describing something unseen, but not unfelt - simply because you avoid feeling it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. __________________________________________________ | |
| picassolama ::: Favorites 2006-12-29 12:06:34 First, the heat from an atomic blast is not caused by radiation, it's caused by the explosion - prior to experimentation, radiation was theorized, but the effects were not known - I disagree a soul can not be 'felt' and that it does not have an effect - hate can damage, love can heal. __________________________________________________ | |
| Foeeg ::: Favorites 2006-12-29 07:56:06 well if you can't discount the possibility of a soul then by the same logic you can't discount the possibility of a spaghetti monster. __________________________________________________ | |
| Foeeg ::: Favorites 2006-12-29 07:55:03 claiming something that exist without evidence is... is like if i claim that there is a spaghetti monster within us all but no one can sense it or prove it in any way. what conclusion would you draw about me if i told you that? __________________________________________________ | |
| Foeeg ::: Favorites 2006-12-29 07:54:11 first radiation could be felt(heat), it's effects can be seen, no one who didn't know about it claims that it existed without some credible reason. when you compare it to soul it's a bit far fetched since there is no way to feel a soul or see it's effect against anything. __________________________________________________ | |
| picassolama ::: Favorites 2006-12-26 18:43:46 We do have proof people lived 2000 years ago, and we have a written record of some of those people, such as Jesus What we don't know for certain are the exact words spoken by those people. __________________________________________________ | |
| picassolama ::: Favorites 2006-12-26 18:42:23 But is the 'soul' only found in sentient beings? __________________________________________________ | |
| nuniyabidness ::: Favorites 2006-12-26 16:35:35 I always thought that the "soul" was a way for ancient man to define the reason for human sentience. __________________________________________________ | |
| fettskraag ::: Favorites 2006-12-26 12:14:16 people really dont have any proof of who lived over 2000 years ago. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment