Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
37 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, ICANT, PaulK, Pressie, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,419 Year: 18,455/19,786 Month: 875/1,705 Week: 127/518 Day: 1/52 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 303 (333777)
07-20-2006 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by kalimero
07-20-2006 3:47 PM


It doesnt have to eliminate the possibility of a soul, it just has to offer a better hypotheisis to explain it (parsimony, remember?).

It just has to offer to who? Me? Certainly not. You? Whatever floats your boat.

Let me repost some of the things I've typed in the previous messages in this thread.

quote:
Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.

but it takes the principle to assume that without evidence, it does not exist and is only physical. To me, it seems to be different. I don't limit my feelings because of science.

I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist, then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.

Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.


You get where I'm comming from?

I cant actually tell for sure, I just wanted some sort of property to base a experiment on.

I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by kalimero, posted 07-20-2006 3:47 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-21-2006 10:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 258 by kalimero, posted 07-22-2006 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 271 by ramoss, posted 08-01-2006 7:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 257 of 303 (334142)
07-21-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2006 4:05 PM


Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.

I agree with this completely. It is the limiting that is called belief.
It is why I maintain that science serves as a religion for many.

I maintain that this question is misplaced. It is a philosophical question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2006 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by kalimero, posted 07-22-2006 12:13 PM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 258 of 303 (334273)
07-22-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2006 4:05 PM


It just has to offer to who?

Everyone I would hope.
Me? Certainly not.

Why not, if I gave you evidence that what you think you feel is a soul, is actually something else - wouldnt you consider that maybe you got it wrong?
Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.

spirituality? why is it different from any other hypotheisis and how can you proove that?
I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist

I never said that, and thats not how science works - science moves forward by revealing things that, preveously, were thought to either not exist or were not thought of at all, it wouldnt be able to do that if it assumed that anything not masured by science doesnt exist.
then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.

I dont, anyhting I can proove to exist objectily (tentativly) is considered science - I dont know of any other way of prooving things. So if there are thing I cant proove - it would be futile to belive in them as long as I have something prooven that explains it, though I would not stop test it (if I can). In the case of spirituality - we all agree it is unproovable (by science, whatever that means, what else is there?) so there is no reason to go on believing in it as long as there is a prooven expaination.

Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.

All truthes (tenativly) have to be prooven - do you agree?
and all that is prooven are truthes (tentativly) - do you agree?
What else exept science can proove anything?

I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically.

Then how did you proove it? What evidence do you have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2006 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2006 11:05 AM kalimero has responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 259 of 303 (334275)
07-22-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-21-2006 10:12 PM


I agree with this completely. It is the limiting that is called belief.
It is why I maintain that science serves as a religion for many.

do you have any evidence of something that is outside science?
I have already told you why its not a religion.

I maintain that this question is misplaced. It is a philosophical question.

Can you specify what question you are talking about?
If its "Do animals have souls?" then its trying to answer a scientific question and is therefore placed correctly in the science forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-21-2006 10:12 PM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-26-2006 7:40 PM kalimero has responded

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 260 of 303 (335563)
07-26-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by kalimero
07-22-2006 12:13 PM


[qs]do you have any evidence of something that is outside science.

Exactly what do you mean by outside?

I have already told you why its not a religion

As I have stated why it is.

Can you specify what question you are talking about?
If its "Do animals have souls?" then its trying to answer a scientific question and is therefore placed correctly in the science forum.

Please explain the scientific nature of the question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kalimero, posted 07-22-2006 12:13 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ramoss, posted 07-26-2006 8:45 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded
 Message 262 by kalimero, posted 07-27-2006 1:15 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3122
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 261 of 303 (335569)
07-26-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-26-2006 7:40 PM


This is the 'science' forum. In the science forums, it is asked that evidence is provided. If this was in the 'religious' section of the board, then that requirement would not exist.

So, what is the evidence of animals having souls. For that matter, what is the evidence of people having souls?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-26-2006 7:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 262 of 303 (335743)
07-27-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-26-2006 7:40 PM


Exactly what do you mean by outside?

Anything that can not be explained by science - and proove that it is so.

As I have stated why it is.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.

I agree with this completely. It is the limiting that is called belief.
It is why I maintain that science serves as a religion for many.

You have just asserted. This is based on another assertion - to which I have asked the question at the biginning of my last post.

Please explain the scientific nature of the question.

The scientific nature of this question resides in our ability to detect the properties of a "soul" in animals - the same way we (supposedly) detect it in humans. If you response is "souls dont have properties we/science can detect" (our detection and the detection of 'science' are the same thing) - then the question is - how do you detect it and why do you think nobody (including animals) would do it (I have never detected anything like a "soul", that I cant explain though science, in me).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-26-2006 7:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 303 (336028)
07-28-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by kalimero
07-22-2006 12:07 PM


Why not, if I gave you evidence that what you think you feel is a soul, is actually something else - wouldnt you consider that maybe you got it wrong?

Sure and I have and maintain my belief.

Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.

spirituality? why is it different from any other hypotheisis and how can you proove that?

Like you typed below, its unprovable but I cannot prove that. Spirituality is something that requires faith for belief, not scientific proof.

I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist

I never said that, and thats not how science works - science moves forward by revealing things that, preveously, were thought to either not exist or were not thought of at all, it wouldnt be able to do that if it assumed that anything not masured by science doesnt exist.

I disagree but I don’t feel like arguing how science works and it is OT.

then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.

I dont, anyhting I can proove to exist objectily (tentativly) is considered science - I dont know of any other way of prooving things. So if there are thing I cant proove - it would be futile to belive in them as long as I have something prooven that explains it, though I would not stop test it (if I can). In the case of spirituality - we all agree it is unproovable (by science, whatever that means, what else is there?) so there is no reason to go on believing in it as long as there is a prooven expaination.

I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something. Now, if a proven explanation discredits something that I believe, I’ll most likely stop believing it. This hasn’t happened WRT the soul.

Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.

All truthes (tenativly) have to be prooven - do you agree?
and all that is prooven are truthes (tentativly) - do you agree?
What else exept science can proove anything?

Yes, yes, and nothing.

Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.

I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically.

Then how did you proove it? What evidence do you have?

I can’t and I have no objective evidence. The evidence I have is personal and subjective. To me, it seems like my soul exists. I have no reason to think that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, I believe in the existence of souls.

As far as the title of the thread, I believe that souls are unique to humans. I see no reason to believe that animals have souls too.


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by kalimero, posted 07-22-2006 12:07 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by kalimero, posted 07-29-2006 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 264 of 303 (336318)
07-29-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by New Cat's Eye
07-28-2006 11:05 AM


Sure and I have and maintain my belief.

So if I gave you articles like those in Message 192, Message 111 and Message 115, and definitions like those in Message 113 and Message 115, would you still maintain your belief? Of course you would - you never actualy intended to give it another thought - thats because you have faith.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

Catholic Scientist writes:

Like you typed below, its unprovable but I cannot prove that. Spirituality is something that requires faith for belief, not scientific proof.

Catholic Scientist writes:

I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something. Now, if a proven explanation discredits something that I believe, I’ll most likely stop believing it. This hasn’t happened WRT the soul.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.

Catholic Scientist writes:

I can’t and I have no objective evidence. The evidence I have is personal and subjective. To me, it seems like my soul exists. I have no reason to think that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, I believe in the existence of souls.

And yet you answer:

All truthes (tenativly) have to be prooven - do you agree? Yes

and all that is prooven are truthes (tentativly) - do you agree? yes

What else exept science can proove anything? nothing

Please explain how you think that everything true (tentatively) has to be prooven, yet you say:

I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something.

---------------------------------

As far as the title of the thread, I believe that souls are unique to humans. I see no reason to believe that animals have souls too.

Assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2006 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2006 6:08 PM kalimero has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 303 (336418)
07-29-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by kalimero
07-29-2006 12:31 PM


Of course you would - you never actualy intended to give it another thought

.|.. ^.^ ..|.

You know nothing of my intentions, and damn....talk about

quote:
Assertions.

But anyways....

That kinda pissed me off so I'll give you a real reply some other time. But just so you know, I did give it another thought. I was atheist for a while. I stumbled across my faith again though. One of the reasons I came back was because of the seemingness of the existance of my soul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by kalimero, posted 07-29-2006 12:31 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by kalimero, posted 07-30-2006 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 266 of 303 (336638)
07-30-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2006 6:08 PM


You know nothing of my intentions

I think you have made your intentions quite clear:

Catholic Scientist writes:

Like you typed below, its unprovable but I cannot prove that. Spirituality is something that requires faith for belief, not scientific proof.

Catholic Scientist writes:

I can’t and I have no objective evidence. The evidence I have is personal and subjective. To me, it seems like my soul exists. I have no reason to think that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, I believe in the existence of souls.

You dont intend on providing any kind of scientific evidence for the "soul".
-----------------------------------------------------------------

and damn....talk about
...
Assertions.

Its not an assertion when you give the expaination:

thats because you have faith.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.

I had also provided a definition of faith:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
------------------------------------------------------------------

That kinda pissed me off

I am deeply sorry if you were offended, but I do believe that if you are going to debate someone on the science forum you should avoid arguments (and this is an understatment) like:

Catholic Scientist writes:

I guess I just don’t have to have proof to believe in something. Now, if a proven explanation discredits something that I believe, I’ll most likely stop believing it. This hasn’t happened WRT the soul.

{bold mine}
------------------------------------------------------------------

WARNING - DONT TAKE THIS PART SERIOUSLY

I stumbled across my faith again though.

I dont think you can stumble across faith. By its nature, faith is the lack of something (meaningful) to stumble upon. Faith is, IMHO, the anti-thought, providing people with false hope and taking away the one thing that really makes us human - our brain. (a bit poetic, i know, but as long as we are not doing any science...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2006 6:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-31-2006 9:50 AM kalimero has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 303 (336875)
07-31-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by kalimero
07-30-2006 1:53 PM


I think you have made your intentions quite clear:
...

You dont intend on providing any kind of scientific evidence for the "soul".

Yes, that's true and I have no problem with that, and take no offense when you point that out. But that is not what you said before. Here is the part that pisses me off:

would you still maintain your belief? Of course you would - you never actualy intended to give it another thought - thats because you have faith.

I have given it another thought and I intend to give it another thought again. For you to assert that my faith is thoughtless is not cool.

I dont think you can stumble across faith. By its nature, faith is the lack of something (meaningful) to stumble upon. Faith is, IMHO, the anti-thought, providing people with false hope and taking away the one thing that really makes us human - our brain. (a bit poetic, i know, but as long as we are not doing any science...)

As someone who is claiming to have faith, let me tell you that this is not what it is like.

but I do believe that if you are going to debate someone on the science forum

I already gave you the scientific response, there is nothing to discuss. That doesn't mean that we cannot have a meaningful discusion away from the science. We might as well. Besides, maybe you can learn something from me about what it is actually like to have faith. Something more than a dictionary can tell you. But you are going to have be a little more respectful and not insult me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by kalimero, posted 07-30-2006 1:53 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by kalimero, posted 07-31-2006 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 268 of 303 (336939)
07-31-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
07-31-2006 9:50 AM


I have given it another thought and I intend to give it another thought again. For you to assert that my faith is thoughtless is not cool.

But you are going to have be a little more respectful and not insult me.

I dont understand why you get so worked up - I told you this is not an insult - not being skeptic, not giving any thought is the definition of faith:
"2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"
{bold mine}
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith

If what you meant by faith is (a) - my appologies, though that is not what you implied earlier:

Catholic Scientist writes:

Like I typed, though, some things don’t have to have proof. These are things that we must have faith in.


If what you meant by faith is (b) - then you are trying to say that you are both skeptical and not skeptical {faith} of the "soul" at the same time - this is of course a logical contradiction.

As someone who is claiming to have faith, let me tell you that this is not what it is like.

Besides, maybe you can learn something from me about what it is actually like to have faith.

I never pretended that I know what faith is (this is irrelivent),
all I said was that your use of the word faith, if used to describe your experience correctly, is contradictory to a skeptical point of view (giving it another thought) - you cant do them both.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-31-2006 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2006 1:07 PM kalimero has responded

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 4134 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 269 of 303 (337138)
08-01-2006 3:08 AM


I am still amazed that this thread had been allowed to carry on.
As a scientific question this topic is a dead end since it is not a scientificly based question. Science is a useless tool for this job. If you insist on using science to determine an answer it is your religion. That is a no brainer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by kalimero, posted 08-01-2006 6:13 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 270 of 303 (337146)
08-01-2006 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-01-2006 3:08 AM


As a scientific question this topic is a dead end since it is not a scientificly based question.

What do you mean by "a scientificly based question"? What tool would you use to answer this question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-01-2006 3:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019