If you do, then what exactly defines a soul in your view?

  • @ritswd
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know if that’s what you were implying, but I’m not at all a theist. And as a scientist, I can remind you that the scientific method is to keep researching topics that are inconclusive. To conclude something as non-existent because the research is inconclusive is not the scientific method.

    What you are doing is listening to the science indeed, and drawing faith-based conclusions that something doesn’t exist because it wasn’t proven to exist. Which is fine, a lot of people do that to base all kinds of faiths, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that you’re not.

    • Rikudou_Sage
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      It’s not inconclusive, it’s improvable which basically means “why even bother?”

      • @ritswd
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t disagree with “why even bother”. But again following the scientific method, it wasn’t proven to be improvable. Scientifically speaking, we just don’t know.

        I realize it’s not a very comforting thought, though. And I don’t mind people who believe otherwise.

        • Rikudou_Sage
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          it wasn’t proven to be improvable

          If it’s something invisible with no physical manifestation (as the soul is thought to be by the believers), it’s quite literally improvable.