@Frthough

Hehe… it was philosophical question regarding the existence of the soul.
There is of course no such thing as a soul.

“We” are only the memories of what we experienced. “We” are only observers of what our sub-consciousness does. Our ability to contemplate and direct is very limited in comparison. More than 90% of our brain function we have no control over.

And that only sits in a small part of the brain. Everything is stored electro chemically, and all our thinking and experiencing are electro chemical processes.

“We” are a network of millions of connected neurons. The rest of our body is just there to support the neurons and can be replaced.

The exception is our genitalia that carry our chromosomes. However that is still not “us”. Just the method we procreate our genetics.

@Hanno

There is of course no such thing as a soul.

All world views ultimately boil down to two: whether design is a product of a Designer or whether design is a product of a cosmic accident. Those who subscribe to the former are seeing things based on logic and reason and not just blind faith. When those who subscribe to the latter world view ridicule those who subscribe to the former as irrational believers in fairy tails, it is nothing but intellectual contempt.

"Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on." ~Dr David Berlinski

@eschatologyguy

Who Designed the Designer? All things have to have a cause right? So if the Big Bang had to have an initial cause,, who caused your Designer?
Please use logic and reason to explain.

I have an invisible 1000 pound elephant in my back yard. Proof its non existence please.
Using your burden of proof, it exists.
So does any god I can imagine. Since you cannot prove they don’t exist, it means they are all real.

So no. Just because it cannot be proven something does NOT exist, it does not mean it actually exist.

So much for logic and reason.

The rest that Berlinski says is just nonsense and have been debunked many times.

Has any religion explained the emergence of its gods or why they are there? Not even close.
Universe fine tuned for life? How does that proof god?
If you understood even the basics of evolution (for which there is vast amounts of evidence), you would know that the life adapted to the universe. Not the other way around.
Physicists and biologists only believe that can be proven. Religions does not even enters the equation here. To state that scientists will believe “anything” is patently dishonest.
Has the Bible or other religious texts taught us what is moral? Have you read the Bible…. No condemnation of slavery. God murdering children just for teasing an old man. Murdering babies under two just because they are not Jews. Shall I go on?

Has secularism in the 20th century been a force for good? Hell yes! Compare that with the Roman Catholic Church the previous 2000 years and Islam the previous 1400.
The less religious a country, the less child abused and rape. Compare secular Scandinavia (before the recent religious immigrants) with Islam Saudi Arabia or Christian Nigeria…. Or any other country you wish.

Is there a narrow and orthodox view in religion? Absolutely.

Is religion irrational? Absolutely! Religion tells us the earth is 4000 years old. Snakes can talk. Virgins can conceive. Should I go on?

Is Berlinski’s frivolous contempt of evidence based science intellectual contempt? Dead on!

And then, even if you somehow get to prove some kind of unnatural power, it still does not prove the original question: does souls exist.

@Hanno

And then, even if you somehow get to prove some kind of unnatural power, it still does not prove the original question: does souls exist.

I did not set out to "prove" the existence of a Creator. To me that is self-evident. There are many things humankind recognizes that cannot be proven by science. But their existence can be inferred. Hyper dimensional space, for one.

Berlinski, himself a physicist, wrote that in response to Dawkins' career of shaming Christians. Berlinski is not a Christian. He just does not want to be outright dismissive of things he does not fully understand.

Your world view of yourself being a product of a cosmic accident does not give you license to ridicule those who do not agree with your world view. I thought we would agree to disagree, but you seem to be hell-bent on ridiculing (this is your 3rd strike on me personally) those who believe in a Creator as irrational. It is not. It has its own inferred logic. Theoretical Physicists have posited "theories" that we are living in a digital simulation, and that there ought to be a Consciousness as a requirement for our reality to exist. These are not even religious people. And I am not disagreeing with them. The more they publish their new findings, the more comfortable Genesis reads to me.

The soul's existence can neither be proven nor disproven with just our five senses. Maybe it will require your having the personal experience of finally departing from this earth to be able to determine for yourself if the soul indeed exists. Until then, please be civil.

@eschatologyguy

Interesting that you enter a discussion between to others. Then you accuse me of “intellectual contempt “.

When I do respond and answer the accusations you make against me, you respond by accusing me of ridiculing me when you did it in the first place.
Then you reprimand me and tell me to be civil.
All the while completely ignoring my questions and mis presenting Big Bang theory.

So merely pointing out the issues with your arguments you used to justify the existence of a soul, I am being uncivil.

And this is now supposed to be a “third strike” against you. For merely disagreeing with you and asking questions you cannot answer?
Third strike when twice before I responded to your attacks on me.
Not to mention the extreme judgmental posts on me regarding libertarianism. Something you know very little about but comment as if you have the world knowledge on its

You are a hypocrite.
You brazenly attack scientific agnosticism (not atheism!) and when I respond with questions you cannot answer you accuse me of being uncivil.

Rather my questions and not personally attack me.

@Hanno

Interesting that you enter a discussion between to others. Then you accuse me of “intellectual contempt “.

When you say I as a believer in a Creator am delusional, isn't that contemptuous? I am not attacking you, I am defending myself from your contempt towards me. I guess you lied to simply agree to disagree. So long then.

@Frthough
Thanks, read the summary of Psycho cybernetics.
It is impressive the same way 1984 is, it was written before these ideas became mainstream.

My physiology explanation how the brain and the body work is the same as the psychological explanation how people behave.

“We” are our brains, or rather a small part of our brains. The operator is the whole brain, “we” our consciousness is only a small part of that operator.

@Frthough American English has become so laced with profanity its hard to recognize anymore.