Karma

[Sebastian Toe]

In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.

How does it do that then?
Are there any soul to body choice rules?

[Sriram]

It is a philosophical position.  Also, NDE's are good evidence for the existence of a soul. Plus....read the thread on reincarnation.

[Stranger]

It is a philosophical position.

A guess that some people like. It's not philosophy in any sort of rigorous, logically argued sense.

Also, NDE's are good evidence for the existence of a soul.

No, they don't.

Plus....read the thread on reincarnation.

Neither does anything there.

[Sriram]

Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....

[Stranger]

Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....

I suggest it's far more likely to be closer to the conclusions based on logic and evidence than to those based on your unevidenced superstitions. 

[Outrider]

Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....

Don't expect anyone else's understanding of reality to be torn away from the evidence by your isolation from that same logic.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is a philosophical position.

Ah, I see, it's just some mind games and not an actual real thing.
Got it.
For a few moments there I thought that you were proposing that it actually exists!

[Sriram]

What evidence? You actually have evidence that it is all random chance events and that there is no soul?! 

[Stranger]

What evidence? You actually have evidence that it is all random chance events and that there is no soul?!

As I said, they are not truly random but based the factors I mentioned - and of course there is evidence for those. And you are also still trying to answer an invalid question based on an unevidenced superstition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

It is true that '"Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes...".  It is only chance.

In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.

That's not philosophy, it's woo. Comforting woo for some no doubt, but woo nonetheless. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Also, NDE's are good evidence for the existence of a soul. Plus....read the thread on reincarnation.

NDEs are bullshit. Every time I tell you why they're bullshit you just run away though, so I see little point in explaining it to you again. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....

It's not "your" logic that's the problem - it's that you have no logic at all to justify your claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What evidence? You actually have evidence that it is all random chance events and that there is no soul?!

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Your appalling inability to reason is letting you down again.

[Sriram]

That's so easy. The burden of proof is always with the other guy.   

It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness. That needs proof. They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.

[Gordon]

That's so easy. The burden of proof is always with the other guy.   

It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness. That needs proof. They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.

No - it is for the 'soul' advocates to make a sound case that can be subjected to rational scrutiny, and if they can't it is perfectly reasonably to point out that they haven't. And if they want to say that their claim is 'beyond science' then they need to offer an alternative but equally robust method.

It is therefore reasonable to just dismiss some claims as fanciful woo/nonsense.

[Stranger]

That's so easy.

It is, actually.

The burden of proof is always with the other guy.   

No. It's with the person who is proposing some hypothesis or making a claim.

It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness.

In this instance, the factors that go into deciding the differences in human lives are all well documented and evidenced: nature (including genetics), nurture, and experience.

You have set up a daft question based on an unevidenced and unargued claim that there is some notion of a person that goes beyond the product of those things, in order to then question the matching between this fantasy notion and the nature and circumstances of life. You have a whole shed-load of claim justification, just make your question mean anything.

They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.

  You're never going to get proof of anything about reality. What we do get is evidence.

You've also missed the point on the burden of proof. You are the one proposing some unseen and unevidenced 'soul' exists, you burden of proof. See also Russell's teapot. And, for about the ten thousandth time, near death experiences are not evidence for a soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

That's so easy. The burden of proof is always with the other guy.

No it isn’t. The burden of proof is with the person making the truth claim – like “soul” for example.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp Sriram.

It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness.

No “materialists” aren’t. What materialists actually do is to provides cogent explanations for certain observed phenomena that don’t require a “soul” and suchlike. If nonetheless you want to argue that there is a soul, then the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that. 

That needs proof.

Straw men don’t need "proof".

They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.

No “they” don’t. They explain why NDEs tell you nothing at all about souls, an afterlife or any other woo – nothing more, nothing less. Your non-thinking is letting you down again here. 

[Sriram]

You people keep talking in circles.... 

The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....a perfectly valid hypothesis....based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world. The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory. 

You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions. It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters. There is no scientific basis in this at all.

 

[Gordon]

If the 'soul' is a hypothesis, as opposed to wishful or magical thinking, then you should be able to explain what characteristics it has and what methods could be used to test for its presence (or absence, where said asserted characteristics are absent) - but it seems 'soul' proponents can't get beyond wishful or magical thinking.

Therefore 'soul' is not a valid hypothesis: it is an invalid hypothesis that no unbiased academic researcher would take seriously in the absence of robust methods to investigate the claim. If I think back, having done a research-based higher degree (Ph.D, University of Edinburgh, 1995), had I used the word 'hypothesis' in the same way that you have here I'm pretty sure the Prof and my two supervisors would have chased me out of the room and told me not to come back until I understood the term properly.

As regards these 'NDE's', I surprised that you're still banging that drum: you've mentioned the likes of Raymond Moody before yet his 'work' isn't something I'd ever want to cite, since it is so embarrasingly flawed.

   

[Maeght]

You people keep talking in circles.... 

The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....a perfectly valid hypothesis....based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world. The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory. 

You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions. It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters. There is no scientific basis in this at all.

We don't know what NDEs and OBEs are so they can't really be used as evidence for something else.

[Stranger]

The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....a perfectly valid hypothesis...

No, it's nowhere near detailed enough to be a hypothesis. At the very best, we might describe it as a conjecture but, quite frankly, it's so vague and baseless I'm not really inclined to dignify it as much as that. It appears to be nothing but hand-waving and wishful thinking.

...based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world.

For which there are plentiful other potential explanations that don't require wild, baseless speculation

The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory. 

Neither does the invisible purple dragon in my garage.   

You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions. It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters.

Your claim does not stand up to scrutiny, because many scientists who recognise the need for proper evidence are also religious but know better than to try to mix the two.

There is no scientific basis in this at all.

There is no scientific basis for a 'soul'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You people keep talking in circles....

No "we people" don't. What we actually "talk in" is reason – a facility you seem to lack.   

The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....

No it isn't. It's a guess or a speculation or a conjecture at best, but it falls a long way short of being a hypothesis scientific purposes.

...a perfectly valid hypothesis....

No it isn't – see above.

...based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world.

NDEs as evidence for "souls" are bullshit for the reasons you always run away from when they're given to you.

The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory.

But only in the sense that Tooth Fairy "does not conflict" with your parents taking your teeth away. 

You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions.

No, the only "problem" "we people" have with it is that it's gibberish. White noise. Woo. That religions teach it too is a separate matter.   

It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters. There is no scientific basis in this at all.

More idiocy. The "scientific basis" is that the methods of science have nothing to investigate.