What is a Soul?

[Speakpigeon]

Ultimately I don't know and can't know since logic itself can't resolve it having nothing to work with. However what I do know is that a soul was never discovered among humans by humans and worse still we cannot even properly supply a valid reason as to why it should exist. Not one! The "notion of soul" does indeed mean something but those meanings are described and contained in metaphor as something consciousness created for itself. Aside from that there's nada. Whatever people want, they'll create even if it's only an empty concept to justify a desire.

That's much better.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Obviously absence of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence

Obviously?!
You should look up words in dictionaries more often.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
EB

[Gary Childress]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
EB

I'm not so sure about that. For example, if I have no evidence that the butler committed a crime, does that mean the butler did not in fact commit a crime? Theoretically there could be things we have no evidence for which may in fact be the case. Once upon a time there was no evidence for black holes, presumably they existed prior to Einstein, though. The point being, it does not logically follow that if I lack evidence on something, then that something cannot be the case.

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not so sure about that.

Yeah, most people aren't. But then again, most people don't look up words in dictionaries and most people merely repeat what they've heard somebody else repeat.

For example, if I have no evidence that the butler committed a crime, does that mean the butler did not in fact commit a crime?

No.
Did you look up "evidence" in a dictionary?
Do you know anything about the judiciary system?

Theoretically there could be things we have no evidence for which may in fact be the case.

Sure.
Look up "evidence".

Once upon a time there was no evidence for black holes, presumably they existed prior to Einstein, though. The point being, it does not logically follow that if I lack evidence on something, then that something cannot be the case.

Who said that?
I said absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Look it up.
EB

[Gary Childress]

I'm not so sure about that.

Yeah, most people aren't. But then again, most people don't look up words in dictionaries and most people merely repeat what they've heard somebody else repeat.

For example, if I have no evidence that the butler committed a crime, does that mean the butler did not in fact commit a crime?

No.
Did you look up "evidence" in a dictionary?
Do you know anything about the judiciary system?

Theoretically there could be things we have no evidence for which may in fact be the case.

Sure.
Look up "evidence".

Once upon a time there was no evidence for black holes, presumably they existed prior to Einstein, though. The point being, it does not logically follow that if I lack evidence on something, then that something cannot be the case.

Who said that?
I said absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Look it up.
EB

I did look it up. As far as I can tell, my statement stands. Did you see the word "necessarily" and how it was used in my sentence?

I mean, I agree it's a tricky topic with a great deal of nuance, there is much scientific debate concerning it but I wouldn't be so cock sure about it if I were you. Just my advice.

[Speakpigeon]

[I did look it up. As far as I can tell, my statement stands.

Then, explain from said definition why evidence that somebody committed a crime implies it's true this person committed the crime in question.

Did you see the word "necessarily" and how it was used in my sentence?

Yes. And when I say absence of evidence is evidence of absence I mean necessarily as per tautological necessity.

I mean, I agree it's a tricky topic with a great deal of nuance, there is much scientific debate concerning it but I wouldn't be so cock sure about it if I were you. Just my advice.

It's not me who said "Obviously absence of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence".
I'm just saying this opposite: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
EB

[Gary Childress]

[I did look it up. As far as I can tell, my statement stands.

Then, explain from said definition why evidence that somebody committed a crime implies it's true this person committed the crime in question.

Did you see the word "necessarily" and how it was used in my sentence?

Yes. And when I say absence of evidence is evidence of absence I mean necessarily as per tautological necessity.

I mean, I agree it's a tricky topic with a great deal of nuance, there is much scientific debate concerning it but I wouldn't be so cock sure about it if I were you. Just my advice.

It's not me who said "Obviously absence of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence".
I'm just saying this opposite: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
EB

OK. Fair enough. You win. All the evidence points to there not being such a thing as a soul. There is evidence for the absence of a soul, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How does that sound? Did I get it right?

[Harbal]

I think we should forget that a lot of people believe in the soul. Let's pretend we are hearing the concept for the first time; would we take it seriously?

[Gary Childress]

I think we should forget that a lot of people believe in the soul. Let's pretend we are hearing the concept for the first time; would we take it seriously?

I guess it would depend upon how it's framed or posited. If someone said, "maybe consciousness survives death." I might say, "maybe you are right." I don't know anything first hand about what happens after death, other than what I see of someone else's death. What I don't think I would say is, "No. You're wrong. Consciousness does not survive death." I think it would be pretty presumptuous of me to make that statement. I think it would be equally presumptuous of me to say, "Yes. You are absolutely right. Consciousness survives death." I mean, I have my suspicions against there being any kind of consciousness after death. But they are based on lack of evidence, NOT on any evidence I possess concerning the "here after" (or whatever it should be called).

[Harbal]

I guess it would depend upon how it's framed or posited. If someone said, "maybe consciousness survives death." I might say, "maybe you are right." I don't know anything about what happens after death. What I don't think I would say is, "No. You're wrong. Consciousness does not survive death." I think it would be pretty presumptuous of me to make that statement. I think it would be equally presumptuous of me to say, "Yes. You are absolutely right. Consciousness survives death." I mean, I have my suspicions against there being any kind of consciousness after death.

And would you take that approach regardless of what was being told to you? If someone said that their generator was broken and can't be fixed, but they were comforted by the thought of the current it produced when it was working still existing somewhere on a higher plane, would you keep an open mind about it? If someone said that to me I would ask for some evidence of it; if they couldn't provide any I would just forget about it.

[Speakpigeon]

OK. Fair enough. You win. All the evidence points to there not being such a thing as a soul. There is evidence for the absence of a soul, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How does that sound? Did I get it right?

The evidence seems tampered with.
EB

[Gary Childress]

I guess it would depend upon how it's framed or posited. If someone said, "maybe consciousness survives death." I might say, "maybe you are right." I don't know anything about what happens after death. What I don't think I would say is, "No. You're wrong. Consciousness does not survive death." I think it would be pretty presumptuous of me to make that statement. I think it would be equally presumptuous of me to say, "Yes. You are absolutely right. Consciousness survives death." I mean, I have my suspicions against there being any kind of consciousness after death.

And would you take that approach regardless of what was being told to you? If someone said that their generator was broken and can't be fixed, but they were comforted by the thought of the current it produced when it was working still existing somewhere on a higher plane, would you keep an open mind about it? If someone said that to me I would ask for some evidence of it; if they couldn't provide any I would just forget about it.

I don't think I would take that approach regardless. For an example, If someone said "maybe flying pink fairy unicorns exist" I would probably assume they were kidding me or joking. I mean, some things sound completely fabricated and outlandish to the point of frivolity and uselessness. However, I don't think such holds true with certain matters that are existential in nature. Death isn't something I take lightly and yes, I will wonder whether there is consciousness after death. I might even hope that there is (in spite of my current reservations). I think it's perfectly fair game for a human being to ponder the finality (or not) of death.

[Harbal]

I don't think I would take that approach regardless. For an example, If someone said "maybe flying pink fairy unicorns exist" I would probably assume they were kidding me or joking. I mean, some things sound completely fabricated and outlandish to the point of frivolity and uselessness. However, I don't think such holds true with certain matters that are existential in nature. Death isn't something I take lightly and yes, I will wonder whether there is consciousness after death. I might even hope that there is (in spite of my current reservations). I think it's perfectly fair game for a human being to ponder the finality (or not) of death.

Okay, Gary, in that case I'm going to believe in bacon sandwiches on demand after death; which seems very reasonable compared with the numerous virgins some Muslims think will be waiting for them after they snuff it. And it's not as if they would want the bacon, anyway.

It's nice to see you are still here, Gary.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think I would take that approach regardless. For an example, If someone said "maybe flying pink fairy unicorns exist" I would probably assume they were kidding me or joking. I mean, some things sound completely fabricated and outlandish to the point of frivolity and uselessness. However, I don't think such holds true with certain matters that are existential in nature. Death isn't something I take lightly and yes, I will wonder whether there is consciousness after death. I might even hope that there is (in spite of my current reservations). I think it's perfectly fair game for a human being to ponder the finality (or not) of death.

Okay, Gary, in that case I'm going to believe in bacon sandwiches on demand after death; which seems very reasonable compared with the numerous virgins some Muslims think will be waiting for them after they snuff it. And it's not as if they would want the bacon, anyway.

It's nice to see you are still here, Gary.

Yeppers.

[Dubious]

...which seems very reasonable compared with the numerous virgins some Muslims think will be waiting for them after they snuff it.

Consider it a new beginning on a planet far, far away.