- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 10,101
- Reaction score
- 2,990
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Crazy, baby.
I can understand why someone would think that
Crazy, baby.
First of, your argument is just as positive assertion as mine. You are saying, there is no afterlife. I'm saying there is afterlife. That is two different theories, like there is life on other planets or there isn't life on other planets. Or Newtons theories vs Einsteins theories.
Now there is some evidence that there is life on other planets, because we know the size of the universe and it's likely it has happened somewhere else because of the size. Let's pretend we didn't and it could range from 100 lightyears to infinite. Then scientifically we would have to say, we don't know if there is inteligent life or not. The fact that there is no evidence for life on other planets doesn't mean there is no life out there.
So your argument about positive assertions is illogical.
How? Neurons fire in our brains and give signals to other parts of the body, who then gives signals back so the brain can do something else. This could in theory make a functioning body, who interacted with it's surroundings. But where is the feeling of existence? Neurons only transmit electrical signals. There has to be something else.
They are not fundementally different persons. It just looks like they are, because they behave differently after the brain damage.
Souls are not the sum of your personality, feeling or ideas. Those are in your brain. Souls are the governing body, it is what gives you the feeling of existence. If you placed my soul into another brain, I would have a completly different personality because I have different ideas and memories. I wouldn't even know that I have been someone else.
Not necessarily. For instance my life on other planets example, show clearly that in many cases is wrong. We can't assume there is no life on other planets, even if we didn't know the size of the universe.Here's a nice quote about the difference between what I'm arguing and what you're arguing:
"[W]hen it comes to using observational evidence to argue for existence (a positive claim) or non-existence (a negative claim), you can't prove a negative, whereas you can prove a positive. (Here I'm using "prove" to mean "establish with certainty".) ... And I think that this is what people typically mean when they state that "you can't prove a negative". I also think that the imbalance in the difficulty of demonstrating non-existence compared to existence is a strong argument that the burden of proof should be on those who claim the existence of something."
No, it can't. Electrical impulses doesn't give any feelings of existence and can't explain it. How do neurons explain that you can only see through one brain? It can't explain the feeling at all.Essentially, I'm making an Occum's razor argument here. My feeling of existence is sufficiently explained as the product of neurons firing in a given pattern. It's unnecessary to add a soul. So until I'm shown something that is not sufficiently explicable by the aforementioned neurons, I have no need to add a soul. The fact that you use the term "feeling" of existence suggests exactly that. It's a feeling. And all feelings can be attributed to materialistic explanations.
If you're placed into someone else's body, and consequently have a different personality, different memories, etc., then you are a different person. All that remains of your former self is the "feeling of existence." And again, this, as a feeling, is sufficiently explained by your neural chemistry. There is nothing left that requires an explanation.
All of these nurons firing, etc... this is all a function of the laws of physics.Essentially, I'm making an Occum's razor argument here. My feeling of existence is sufficiently explained as the product of neurons firing in a given pattern. It's unnecessary to add a soul.