The Case for the soul.

[ChaosRain]

Logic. You can't prove logic to be true scientifically, since you must assume logic works to do science in the first place.

We assume that logic works, because without logic working, nothing would ever progress - and this would lead to a rather fruitless existence. It's a necessary assumption that nobody could disagree with. Thus, I think that logic is necessarily scientifically valid.

[Jedidiah]

No, but you should at the very least have empirical evidence for it.

That is pretty stupid statement for someone who already denies empirical evidence for God.

[Truthseeker]

Really? Prove the above. Prove that only things that are demonstrable by scientific means are valid or true.

I suspect Seer knows that the assertion that {only statements of fact "verified" by science can be true} is in itself not established by science. Therefore, {it}should not be taken to be true. It may be a meaningless assertion in fact.

[ChaosRain]

That is pretty stupid statement for someone who already denies empirical evidence for God.

I've never been presented with empirical evidence for God, so your point is invalid.

At least, not empirical evidence that cannot be better attributed to non-supernatural and far more reasonable causes.

[phank]

I've never been presented with empirical evidence for God, so your point is invalid.

At least, not empirical evidence that cannot be better attributed to non-supernatural and far more reasonable causes.

You may be asking the wrong question. If you insist on teleological thinking, then gods are a necessity. If everything MUST have a purpose, and since nature and all natural things have nobody else's purpose, there must be at least one god, perhaps many, to be "purpose-havers" so as to create the context within which teleological thinking makes sense.

Consider the question "why is the sky blue?" This question is more devious than it looks, because even the most detailed explanation of Rayleigh scattering (the cause of the color we see) doesn't answer the question! The question wasn't HOW is the sky blue, nor was it What is the MECHANISM by which the sky is blue. Instead, the question is What is the purpose of making the sky blue? And THAT question can't be answered directly, because it's a leading question - it requires you to buy into the assumption that there IS a purpose before you can answer it.

So we can see that the "empirical evidence for god" is all the purposes behind everything that is and all that happens in our universe. Which is nothing more than assuming that one or more gods exists, and saying that all that exists is empirical evidence for this assumption. You can't defeat tightly circular reasoning empirically.

[ChaosRain]

You can't defeat tightly circular reasoning empirically.

Indeed not.

[seer]

Show me something that is not scientifically valid that is true, and then we can discuss this. You have the Burden of Proof, not me.

No Chaos, don't try and turn it around - I asked you to prove that only things that are demonstrable by scientific means are valid or true. If you believe that then certainly the burden is on you.

And on another thread concerning you reasoning ability you said:Perhaps it is; I have no way of knowing that. However, from what I have seen, it does not appear to be clouded.

So you believe that your reasoning ability is valid apart from scientific proofs. So you take that by faith.

[seer]

I suspect Seer knows that the assertion that {only statements of fact "verified" by science can be true} is in itself not established by science. Therefore, {it}should not be taken to be true. It may be a meaningless assertion in fact.

Yes, it is a double standard.

[ChaosRain]

No Chaos, don't try and turn it around - I asked you to prove that only things that are demonstrable by scientific means are valid or true. If you believe that then certainly the burden is on you.

Alright, and I have. All available evidence points toward scientifically valid things being the only things that are true. There have been no things listed that go against this trend, and thus, my burden is fulfilled. Until something is listed that is not scientifically valid that is also true, I rest my case. This is a classic twisting of the burden of proof; what I'm really claiming is negative - the nonexistence of things that are true, separate from scientific validity. You have the burden to prove that there is at least one thing that is valid, regardless of scientific validity.

And on another thread concerning you reasoning ability you said:Perhaps it is; I have no way of knowing that. However, from what I have seen, it does not appear to be clouded.

So you believe that your reasoning ability is valid apart from scientific proofs. So you take that by faith.

Then I misspoke - as we are often prone to do. Rather, I should have said that all available evidence points toward my reasoning capabilities being valid - nobody has yet demonstrated my reasoning to be invalid. I take nothing by faith.

[seer]

Alright, and I have. All available evidence points toward scientifically valid things being the only things that are true. There have been no things listed that go against this trend, and thus, my burden is fulfilled. Until something is listed that is not scientifically valid that is also true, I rest my case. This is a classic twisting of the burden of proof; what I'm really claiming is negative - the nonexistence of things that are true, separate from scientific validity. You have the burden to prove that there is at least one thing that is valid, regardless of scientific validity.


Then I misspoke - as we are often prone to do. Rather, I should have said that all available evidence points toward my reasoning capabilities being valid - nobody has yet demonstrated my reasoning to be invalid. I take nothing by faith.

Can you prove scientifically that your reasoning ability is valid? Can you prove scientifically that you love your mother?

Now lets go back to the OP, and I will quote Dr Sam Harris:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.

If we look for consciousness in the physical world, all we find are increasingly complex systems giving rise to increasingly complex behavior—which may or may not be attended by consciousness. The fact that the behavior of our fellow human beings persuades us that they are (more or less) conscious does not get us any closer to linking consciousness to physical events. Is a starfish conscious? A scientific account of the emergence of consciousness would answer this question. And it seems clear that we will not make any progress by drawing analogies between starfish behavior and our own. It is only in the presence of animals sufficiently like ourselves that our intuitions about (and attributions of) consciousness begin to crystallize. Is there “something that it is like” to be a cocker spaniel? Does it feel its pains and pleasures? Surely it must. How do we know? Behavior, analogy, parsimony.[7]

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

[ChaosRain]

Can you prove scientifically that your reasoning ability is valid? Can you prove scientifically that you love your mother?

Not at the moment, no. However, to reject that reason can be scientifically validated would be to fall prey to an argumentum ex silentio fallacy. I am certainly not an expert in these fields.

I can most certainly prove that I love my mother. It's all in the brain, man.

[seer]

Not at the moment, no. However, to reject that reason can be scientifically validated would be to fall prey to an argumentum ex silentio fallacy. I am certainly not an expert in these fields.

Ok, so you do believe that things can be true that have not been scientifically validated .

I can most certainly prove that I love my mother. It's all in the brain, man.

Really - OK, prove it scientifically.

[ChaosRain]

Ok, so you do believe that things can be true that have not been scientifically validated .

I didn't say that. I simply stated that I am unable to scientifically validate my reasoning capabilities at the moment. I am not conceding; I am simply admitting my incapability.

Really - OK, prove it scientifically.

Electrochemical reactions that occur within my brain, upon the introduction of visual stimuli - I.E., the sight of my mother.

[seer]

I didn't say that. I simply stated that I am unable to scientifically validate my reasoning capabilities at the moment. I am not conceding; I am simply admitting my incapability.

.

Yes, but you are still, at this moment, willing to accept that you cognitive abilities are true and valid apart from scientific justification.

Electrochemical reactions that occur within my brain, upon the introduction of visual stimuli - I.E., the sight of my mother.

Prove that those electrochemical reactions point to love rather than hate. Then prove that the wiring in your brain is producing A rather than B.

There really is a thin line between love and hate - at least in the brain, scientists have shown. A new study reveals that the brain's "love" and "hate" circuits share identical structures. Both include regions known as the putamen and insula which are linked to aggression and distress.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz3JcwFliYi

[ChaosRain]

Prove that those electrochemical reactions point to love rather than hate. Then prove that the wiring in your brain is producing A rather than B.

The mere fact that I am not enraged by the sight of my mother proves that there is at least some distinct difference in the brain between love and hate. It may be subtle, as you say, but there is a distinction. Emotions are controlled by the brain, and the fact that two similar emotions may share some wiring, does not make them the same emotion. This isn't even an argument from you.