Atheists claim that there is no supreme being and no life after death right? That's fair enough but just one question to yiz: What if there is a God and there is life after death what will you do then.

But what if there isn't?

Well everything ends then abi, My beliefs here on earth help me anyway to live a fulfilling life free from stress and rancour and also gives me something to look up to and hope upon. However if there is and i know there is, then jackpot all my efforts won't be in vain. One may think of it as an insurance policy. I'm not losing anything by believing in God but rather, paying my premium by obeying him. But for one who doesn't and eventually finds Out he does exist, sorry o is all i can say!  No premium paid no insurance cover.

1k001:

Atheists claim that there is no supreme being and no life after death right? That's fair enough but just one question to yiz: What if there is a God and there is life after death what will you do then.

Try to find out which God it is, if any of teh religions got it right, and how reasonable she is.

KAG:

, and how reasonable she is.

LOL, you must really think highly of yourself if you think you'd be GOd's judge of how 'reasonable she(sic) is'. Pray, tell me, how do you intend to do that? Ask him (sorry, her) some questions about physics and mathematics, conduct an examination, and so on - am running out of ideas.

SOme posts never stop baffling me. No wonder; James 4;6

ricadelide:

LOL, you must really think highly of yourself if you think you'd be GOd's judge of how 'reasonable she(sic) is'.

I think you've gotten the wrong impression. It isn't thinking highly of oneself to be able believe that the characteristics of another being - whether of a higher station or lower one - can be determined.

Pray, tell me, how do you intend to do that? Ask him (sorry, her) some questions about physics and mathematics, conduct an examination, and so on - am running out of ideas.

A question along the lines of: "which religion got it right, if you don't mind me asking" should be a good start. Obviously, if the reply is "I'll rip you to shreds for daring to ask me a question" then I guess I'd have a prety good idea.

SOme posts never stop baffling me. No wonder; James 4;6

A baffle a day helps impress the day upon the memory. No wonder: Vladimir remembers; Waiting for Godot

the quote was; 'and how reasonable she is'
and that was what my question was directed at, not 'which religion got it right'.
maybe you should try learning addressing issues rather than skirting them. or rather, admitting you mis-spoke, or rather, mistyped.

ricadelide:

the quote was; 'and how reasonable she is'
and that was what my question was directed at, not 'which religion got it right'.

And the question was how would I determine (or "judge" the God is reasonable. The reply was, '"a question along the lines of "which religion got it right, if you don't mind me asking" should be a good start."' The God's response - if there is one - would probably give me an impression of what the God is like. Do you understand?

maybe you should try learning addressing issues rather than skirting them. or rather, admitting you mis-spoke, or rather, mistyped.

You either skimmed very quickly through my post or you just skipped the reading and zeroed in on one very small part of it. Nothing to be done if either was the case.

goal; to determine if God is reasonable or 'how reasonable GOd is'
strategy; ask him about which religion 'got it right'

how does that tell if the God is reasonable? Lets say his answer is atheism (LOL) will that tell you anything about his reasoning facilities? can't you see your assumptions; first, that he reasons the way you reason, and thus if he chooses a religion that seems unreasonable to you then he is unreasonable. You are assuming that what seems reasonable to you should seem so to him. that is arrogant and foolish.
Second, that God's 'reason' or mental capabilities is shown in the 'right religion' - can't we say that the religion in itself is seperate from his reasoning faculties? and that, rather than use reason as a yardstick for religion, he has used other things? You assume that the most 'reasonable' religion should be the 'right' one. that's not necessarily true; he can use another yardstick; emotion, deeds, foolishness, belief etc.

Indeed, human reason does not lead people to God, instead, it leads people away from him (Rom.8;7). If God were to have employed reason as the yardstick for salvation, then it would have been the exclusive of the professors and the 'wise' men of this world and that would just have sucked, LOL. Thank GOd for His wisdom (1Cor1;18 - 2;16)
we'd leave the 'wise' men and professors to their atheism religion . they are just fulfilling scriptures (Rom.1;19-22). cheers.

1k001,

You believe in a Supreme Being just incase HE/SHE turns out to be real after all.

mrmayor:

You believe in a Supreme Being just incase HE/SHE turns out to be real after all.

In my case, that's not why i believe in God. I beleive in GOd because HE IS. you can scoff all you want.
However, one thing you should remember is that you will die. and when you die, you'd be dead for a VEEEERRRRRRRYYYYYYYYY LLLLLLOOOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG time. so you better be REALLY sure there is no God, because if there is, man,,,,,,,,
the onus is on YOU to be sure, rather than the opposite. the odds are seriously against you, and except you are REALLY SURE there is no God, which every logical person will tell you is impossible (you'd have to be omniscient to say that), then it makes perfect sense to prepare just in case there is One - although that is not the ideal situation.
SO. i don't think it is folly if one makes preparation for eternity. its perfectly sensible to prepare for journeys that last mere days. what about the journey of eternity,,,, why can't people see how valuable their souls are?
Oh well.

@ ricadelide

Agree with you wholeheartedly

1k001:

No premium paid no insurance cover.

I particularly like this analogy.

ricadelide:

the onus is on YOU to be sure, rather than the opposite. the odds are seriously against you, and except you are REALLY SURE there is no God, which every logical person will tell you is impossible (you'd have to be omniscient to say that), then it makes perfect sense to prepare just in case there is One - although that is not the ideal situation.

Ricadeline, just in case, don't forget to say your daily prayers to Wotan, Isis and Zeus as well. You know, just in case
Do you have some time left to actually live after you've worshipped those thousands of gods?

ricadelide:

SO. i don't think it is folly if one makes preparation for eternity. its perfectly sensible to prepare for journeys that last mere days. what about the journey of eternity,,,, why can't people see how valuable their souls are?
Oh well.

How do they call that logical phalacy again? Ah, yes, assuming the consequent it must be and you can throw in a [i]non sequitur [/i]as well.

nferyn:

Ricadeline, just in case, don't forget to say your daily prayers to Wotan, Isis and Zeus as well. You know, just in case
Do you have some time left to actually live after you've worshipped those thousands of gods?

LOL, don't detract from the issues at hand, remember i said; 'that is not the ideal situation' its just a cautionary statement to mrmayor, thats not what i live by.
anyways, first; there are two possible mechanisms for life as it is on earth; either things created themselves (abiogenesis, evolution etc) or someone created them. its very simple; and they are BOTH belief systems, neither of them is science.
Based on logic, i regard the latter as true, and the former as ludicrous. So, no matter what the number of religions or gods out there, there can only be One creator; the only question then is, which One is it.
So don't bring in any false anologies that are baseless into the issue; there can only be One creator
I've said before that spiritual claims can be tested; and i believe i've tested a lot of the claims out there and found one to be true. Its a common gimmick to try to class all religions as one, or say since they can not all be right, then they are all wrong. that makes no sense.
What you need to know is that, alongside many other facets of human endeavour, organised religion is designed to lead people away from the true God, not to Him. Organised religion is confused, that's why they can't seem to agree on anything. Eventually, they'd all come together under the banner of ecumenism and unification.

How do they call that logical phalacy again? Ah, yes, assuming the consequent it must be and you can throw in a non sequitur as well.

for you, its assuming the consequent; for me, it isnt. I've said it before, i have premises that you do not have. If you had the same premises you'd make the same statement. Let me explain; you assume man does not have a soul and a spirit; if i had that same veiwpoint of course this kind of statement would seem ludicrous - from what we can observe you don't really have a basis to make that assumption. But in my case i assume man has a soul and spirit and he is eternal; and i have a basis from what is observed to assume that. if you had that same premise; the statement above would make perfect sense.
we both have different assumptions built in; its just a question of 'which assumption is right'?
you see, before making categorical statements like the above; try to imagine or think about the premises the other person may have that led him to such statements - you just, then, might understand why they say what they say. Cheers.

ricadelide:

Ricadeline, just in case, don't forget to say your daily prayers to Wotan, Isis and Zeus as well. You know, just in case Grin
Do you have some time left to actually live after you've worshipped those thousands of gods?

LOL, don't detract from the issues at hand, first; there are two possible mechanisms for life as it is on earth; either things created themselves (abiogenesis, evolution etc) or someone created them. its very simple; and they are BOTH belief systems, neither of them is science.

I'm not the one detracting from the issues at hand, you are. The issue at hand is the validity of Pascal's wager, not the evolution-creation debate. Calling evolution (or rather evolutionary theory) a belief system is hogwash. It most definitely is science. You may not like it's philosophical implications, you may think the evidence isn't sufficient, but it meets all the criteria of proper science. That cannot in a million years be said about 'creation' no mater how hard you try to equivocate the two on epistemological grounds.

ricadelide:

Based on logic, i regard the latter as true, and the former as ludicrous.

Explain the logic you apply then to arrive at that conclusion. I'm curious how you can possibly get there on logical grounds.

ricadelide:

So, no matter what the number of religions or gods out there, there can only be One creator; the only question then is, which One is it.

1. Why can there be only one creator?
2. Why is there a need for a creator?
3. Assuming (1) and (2), why does that make Pascal's wager valid?

ricadelide:

So don't bring in any false anologies that are baseless into the issue; there can only be One creator

So you say. I'm not so sure

ricadelide:

I've said before that spiritual claims can be tested; and i believe i've tested a lot of the claims out there and found one to be true. Its a common gimmick to try to class all religions as one, or say since they can not all be right, then they are all wrong. that makes no sense.

How do you determine the probability of yours being right? What gives you a more valid claim to truth than the followers of all these other religions?

ricadelide:

What you need to know is that, alongside many other facets of human endeavour, organised religion is designed to lead people away from the true God, not to Him. Organised religion is confused, that's why they can't seem to agree on anything. Eventually, they'd all come together under the banner of ecumenism and unification.

Your point?

ricadelide:

How do they call that logical phalacy again? Ah, yes, assuming the consequent it must be and you can throw in a non sequitur as well.

for you, its assuming the consequent; for me, it isnt. I've said it before, i have premises that you do not have. If you had the same premises you'd make the same statement.

Actually, I would not [/b]make the same statement based on identical premisses. What you do is using what needs to be proven as a premisse in your argument. That formally makes your argument logically invalid. An invalid argument remains invalid, regardless of the premisses.

ricadelide:

Let me explain; you [b]assume man does not have a soul and a spirit; if i had that same veiwpoint of course this kind of statement would seem ludicrous - from what we can observe you don't really have a basis to make that assumption.

As you know it is - in the absence of omniscience - impossible to prove a universal negative. Therefore the onus is on you, the one making a positive claim about the existence of soul and spirit, to bring sufficient and conclusive evidence for that claim.

ricadelide:

But in my case i assume man has a soul and spirit and he is eternal; and i have a basis from what is observed to assume that.

Explain to me why the assumption of soul and spirit is the most parsimonious explanation for your observations.

ricadelide:

if you had that same premise; the statement above would make perfect sense.

I don't reason from insufficiently evidenced premisses.

ricadelide:

we both have different assumptions built in; its just a question of 'which assumption is right'?

That's patently false. I don't have any assumptions, I just want evidence for your assumptions before I accept them as valid, a perfectly reasonable position.

ricadelide:

you see, before making categorical statements like the above; try to imagine or think about the premises the other person may have that led him to such statements - you just, then, might understand why they say what they say. Cheers.

That's really not the issue. Your reasoning was just logically faulty and, even under the assumption of the validity of your premisses, your argument didn't hold any water.

I'm not the one detracting from the issues at hand, you are. The issue at hand is the validity of Pascal's wager, not the evolution-creation debate. Calling evolution (or rather evolutionary theory) a belief system is hogwash. It most definitely is science. You may not like it's philosophical implications, you may think the evidence isn't sufficient, but it meets all the criteria of proper science. That cannot in a million years be said about 'creation' no mater how hard you try to equivocate the two on epistemological grounds.

let me show you what i mean; read my initial post; i said 'that is not the ideal situation', i don't live by Pascal's wager because i have evidence of the God i believe in. i was just making a cautionary statement to Mayor.
So, disregarding Pascal's wager, we're back to where we started; did everything create itself; or did someone create everything. those are the only two plausible philosphical approaches. the other one, that we are not really here and we are just imaginary, can be disregarded.
Now coming to evolution being science; i totally disagree; science is basically the study of what can be observed. there is no peculiar evidence for evolution; every asserted evidence is always disproved later on. Neither is it observed, so tell me why that should be science. Creation as well is NOT science, but it is scientific. what ultimately happens is two people are presented with the same evidence and they make two different conclusions. by and large, if one wanted to be fair, the evidence for the latter interpretation is much more overwhelming than the former. Most scientists have a naturalist worldview, and as such there is an ab initio rejection of a creator, that's why evolution is still around, because they don't have any substitute, on the other hand, all peculiar evidence for a creation is rejected because it is not mainstream.

Explain the logic you apply then to arrive at that conclusion. I'm curious how you can possibly get there on logical grounds.

its a basically simple question; if evolution is true, what will the evidence be? if a creation is true, what will the evidence be? ie if someone created things as they are, what evidence would he have left in what has been created?

1. Why can there be only one creator?
2. Why is there a need for a creator?
3. Assuming (1) and (2), why does that make Pascal's wager valid?

why can there only be one creator? what does that mean? if there is more than one creator then they'd be working together, so it still doesn't make any difference.
why is there need for a creator? if you see a building do you ask why there is need for a builder? if you see a painting, do you ask why there is need for a painter? the question is 'what are you seeing'? I see a creation, so it makes perfect sense to say there is a creator. the question then is, again, if there has been a creation, what will the evidence be?
coming to Pascal's wager - again, i don't live by it, so i don't say it is valid, however there is no denying that it is plausible and beneficial.

How do you determine the probability of yours being right? What gives you a more valid claim to truth than the followers of all these other religions?

first, its not a probability - i know you have to use that word, becuase you can never be sure of mental knowledge. and herein lies your assumption, our minds UNDERSTAND, they can never KNOW for certain, so everything has to be about probabilities; because, ultimately, how do we know that our minds are not imaginary and we are deluding ourselves. you assume that the same things apply to the spiritual - not so.
that's the difference with spiritual things; the spirit is the seat of true and certain knowledge, so its not about probabilities its about certainties; i'm not arguing to gain knowledge, i'm arguing from knowledge. that's why i'm a believer - i'm SURE of what i hope for, and CERTAIN of what i don't see physically (ie the spiritual). that doesnt mean i know everything - it only means, i don't argue about things am not definite or sure about.
the goal of spirituality is to know God and i'm certain i know him and have evidence for him all around and within me.

Your point?

my point is just the above; there is no CERTAINTY in organised religion.

Actually, I would not make the same statement based on identical premisses. What you do is using what needs to be proven as a premisse in your argument. That formally makes your argument logically invalid. An invalid argument remains invalid, regardless of the premisses.

it has been proven to me, it hasn't been proven to you. we are back to square one. 'what needs to be proven' applies to you, not to me.

As you know it is - in the absence of omniscience - impossible to prove a universal negative. Therefore the onus is on you, the one making a positive claim about the existence of soul and spirit, to bring sufficient and conclusive evidence for that claim.

what kind of evidence do you seek? laboratory evidence? what?

Explain to me why the assumption of soul and spirit is the most parsimonious explanation for your observations.

its not an assumption for me. i said 'if you assume a soul and a spirit, you'd make the same statement i made.' did you even give it a little try?

That's patently false. I don't have any assumptions, I just want evidence for your assumptions before I accept them as valid, a perfectly reasonable position.

no, it is not false. you assume everything is physical but you are wrong. You are conscious of yourself and of your mind; you are conscious of logic and of the possibility of something being true or false; the soul is the seat of self-consciousness. you have evidence for your pocessing a soul. You probably do not have evidence for your pocessing a spirit, but we can go into that later.

That's really not the issue. Your reasoning was just logically faulty and, even under the assumption of the validity of your premisses, your argument didn't hold any water.

Naah, my reasoning was not faulty and you never did consider the validity of my premises, you didnt even try.

ricadelide:

goal; to determine if God is reasonable or 'how reasonable GOd is'
strategy; ask him about which religion 'got it right'

It's a good place to start: the response can tell a person all that's needed to be known.

how does that tell if the God is reasonable?

If, like the example I gave, the response is "I'll rip you apart for asking me a question" then I suspect I would [gulp]know. If, however, the response is "the Hopi indians", then I'd probably have to ask follow-up questions - if the being doesn't mind.

Lets say his answer is atheism (LOL) will that tell you anything about his reasoning facilities?

Yes - the God likes a laugh and is most likely reasonable.

can't you see your assumptions; first, that he reasons the way you reason, and thus if he chooses a religion that seems unreasonable to you then he is unreasonable. You are assuming that what seems reasonable to you should seem so to him. that is arrogant and foolish.

Not quite. I'm assuming that being a deity that it will be able to relate things in terms that I can understand. And yes, it chooses an unreasonable religion (what? You mean Xenu is real? No way!) then yeah, I suppose that, until it shows otherwise, that the deity would be unreasonable too. And I'm not assuming that what seems reasonable to me should seem reasonable to her, I'm saying that since it is from my point of view, that she's either reasonable in light of what the word has been defined to mean or she isn't.

Second, that God's 'reason' or mental capabilities is shown in the 'right religion' - can't we say that the religion in itself is seperate from his reasoning faculties?

I'm saying the response can reveal a lot about the reasoning of the deity. The religion can e seperate from her, but her response could tell a lot.

and that, rather than use reason as a yardstick for religion, he has used other things? You assume that the most 'reasonable' religion should be the 'right' one. that's not necessarily true; he can use another yardstick; emotion, deeds, foolishness, belief etc.

I didn't say that the most reasonable religion should be the right one - I didn't even assume it. I didn't say the deity couldn't use things like emotion to judge a person, either; nor did I allude it.

Indeed, human reason does not lead people to God, instead, it leads people away from him (Rom.8;7). If God were to have employed reason as the yardstick for salvation, then it would have been the exclusive of the professors and the 'wise' men of this world and that would just have sucked, LOL. Thank GOd for His wisdom (1Cor1;18 - 2;16)
we'd leave the 'wise' men and professors to their atheism religion . they are just fulfilling scriptures (Rom.1;19-22). cheers.

Whatever helps you live your life.

ricadelide:

I'm not the one detracting from the issues at hand, you are. The issue at hand is the validity of Pascal's wager, not the evolution-creation debate. Calling evolution (or rather evolutionary theory) a belief system is hogwash. It most definitely is science. You may not like it's philosophical implications, you may think the evidence isn't sufficient, but it meets all the criteria of proper science. That cannot in a million years be said about 'creation' no mater how hard you try to equivocate the two on epistemological grounds.

let me show you what i mean; read my initial post; i said 'that is not the ideal situation', i don't live by Pascal's wager because i have evidence of the God i believe in. i was just making a cautionary statement to Mayor.

The origiinal poster was putting forward a (rather clumsy) version of Pascal's wager. You were the one sidetracking the issue by steering the attention to the evolution-creation debate. Pascal's wager remains a very weak and rather self-defeating argument in favor of Christianity. And the fact that you defended it here in this thread is a bit puzzling.

ricadelide:

So, disregarding Pascal's wager, we're back to where we started; did everything create itself; or did someone create everything. those are the only two plausible philosphical approaches. the other one, that we are not really here and we are just imaginary, can be disregarded.

The fact that you only see these two philosophical approaches (why [i]philosophical [/i]approaches, by the way?), shows that you are a bit myopic on this issue. What if time is circular or bidirectional? If that were the case, it would undermine your two approaches from the onset. By saying that everything that exists needs a creator, you are only defining a problem into existence. Reality must not, in any way, subject itself to human cognitive limitations.

ricadelide:

Now coming to evolution being science; i totally disagree; science is basically the study of what can be observed. there is no peculiar evidence for evolution; every asserted evidence is always disproved later on.

So, by your own definition, cosmology is not science, geology is not science and we can throw the whole of social sciences on the garbage heap of 'failed' science, because it does not include direct observation. Your view on science is very limited indeed and very much in contradiction with what is considered science by the majority of scientists and philosophers of science.
The Theory of Evolution is scientific because it is (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem):
* Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
* Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
* Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
* Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
* Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
* Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
* Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. ("Robust", here, refers to stability in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle
* Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.
Creationism fails on most of these criteria.

ricadelide:

Neither is it observed, so tell me why that should be science.

See above. Observation isn't the only way of reproducing results.

ricadelide:

Creation as well is NOT science, but it is scientific.

Where does it meet any of the criteria mentioned above?

ricadelide:

what ultimately happens is two people are presented with the same evidence and they make two different conclusions.

Male bovine excrement. The TOE is a scientific theory, Creationism is wishful thinking whereby the evidence is interpreted in the light of of it's presuppositions. It's not because the evidence can (barely) be made consistent with the idea of creation is anywhere contingent upon the evidence. That's not science or scientific, it is anti-scientific.

ricadelide:

by and large, if one wanted to be fair, the evidence for the latter interpretation is much more overwhelming than the former.

You really must have a vivid imagination. Anything can be made consistent with creation because of it's ineffable plasticity.

ricadelide:

Most scientists have a naturalist worldview, and as such there is an ab initio rejection of a creator, that's why evolution is still around, because they don't have any substitute, on the other hand, all peculiar evidence for a creation is rejected because it is not mainstream.

1. What is [i]peculiar [/i]evidence?
2. obviously scientists have by large a naturalist worldview. Science is a methodologically naturalist enterprise, it couldn't be anything else.

ricadelide:

Explain the logic you apply then to arrive at that conclusion. I'm curious how you can possibly get there on logical grounds.

its a basically simple question; if evolution is true, what will the evidence be? if a creation is true, what will the evidence be? ie if someone created things as they are, what evidence would he have left in what has been created?

You should first define your terms precisely. What is 'creation' exactly and what is the Theory of Creation? How does it meet the standards for being a scientific theory?
If this is established, then we can evaluate whether or not Creation Theory or the TOE explains the evidence better.
You still didn't answer my question: How do you arrive at the TOE being ludicrous and creation to be true on logical grounds?

ricadelide:

1. Why can there be only one creator?
2. Why is there a need for a creator?
3. Assuming (1) and (2), why does that make Pascal's wager valid?

why can there only be one creator? what does that mean? if there is more than one creator then they'd be working together, so it still doesn't make any difference.
why is there need for a creator? if you see a building do you ask why there is need for a builder? if you see a painting, do you ask why there is need for a painter? the question is 'what are you seeing'? I see a creation, so it makes perfect sense to say there is a creator. the question then is, again, if there has been a creation, what will the evidence be?

In the cases you mentioned you can infer a builder and painter based on prior observations. Nothing of that sort is the case for the natural world. Your naive view that there is a creator is just an expression fo your personal incredulity and your refusal to really consider the evidence for the TOE.

ricadelide:

coming to Pascal's wager - again, i don't live by it, so i don't say it is valid, however there is no denying that it is plausible and beneficial.

I have to assume here that you really didn't read my reply. In view of your credentials, I refuse to consider the other possible explanation.

ricadelide:

How do you determine the probability of yours being right? What gives you a more valid claim to truth than the followers of all these other religions?

first, its not a probability - i know you have to use that word, becuase you can never be sure of mental knowledge. and herein lies your assumption, our minds UNDERSTAND, they can never KNOW for certain, so everything has to be about probabilities; because, ultimately, how do we know that our minds are not imaginary and we are deluding ourselves. you assume that the same things apply to the spiritual - not so.

Great. Now you define the spiritual in such a manner that it becomes impervious to examination. Something is so because I say it is?

ricadelide:

that's the difference with spiritual things; the spirit is the seat of true and certain knowledge, so its not about probabilities its about certainties; i'm not arguing to gain knowledge, i'm arguing from knowledge. that's why i'm a believer - i'm SURE of what i hope for, and CERTAIN of what i don't see physically (ie the spiritual). that doesnt mean i know everything - it only means, i don't argue about things am not definite or sure about.
the goal of spirituality is to know God and i'm certain i know him and have evidence for him all around and within me.

Do you have any idea how silly all of this sounds?

ricadelide:

Your point?

my point is just the above; there is no CERTAINTY in organised religion.

And there is certainty in un-organised religion?

ricadelide:

Actually, I would not make the same statement based on identical premisses. What you do is using what needs to be proven as a premisse in your argument. That formally makes your argument logically invalid. An invalid argument remains invalid, regardless of the premisses.

it has been proven to me, it hasn't been proven to you. we are back to square one. 'what needs to be proven' applies to you, not to me.

No, you're just using invalid logic. It may very well have been proven, but that's inconsequential to your faulty argument.

ricadelide:

As you know it is - in the absence of omniscience - impossible to prove a universal negative. Therefore the onus is on you, the one making a positive claim about the existence of soul and spirit, to bring sufficient and conclusive evidence for that claim.

what kind of evidence do you seek? laboratory evidence? what?

As if laboratory evidence is the only evidence. Before I accept your claim, I first need to see something that properly validates your claim.

ricadelide:

Explain to me why the assumption of soul and spirit is the most parsimonious explanation for your observations.

its not an assumption for me. i said 'if you assume a soul and a spirit, you'd make the same statement i made.' did you even give it a little try?

So you're basically refusing to substantiate your claim. It is valid because you declare it to be valid

ricadelide:

That's patently false. I don't have any assumptions, I just want evidence for your assumptions before I accept them as valid, a perfectly reasonable position.

no, it is not false. you assume everything is physical but you are wrong.

No I don't make that assumption. I just don't accept your assumption on face value

ricadelide:

You are conscious of yourself and of your mind; you are conscious of logic and of the possibility of something being true or false; the soul is the seat of self-consciousness. you have evidence for your pocessing a soul. You probably do not have evidence for your pocessing a spirit, but we can go into that later.

You just define something into existence. That's not very convincing.

ricadelide:

That's really not the issue. Your reasoning was just logically faulty and, even under the assumption of the validity of your premisses, your argument didn't hold any water.

Naah, my reasoning was not faulty and you never did consider the validity of my premises, you didnt even try.

Assuming the consequent is the formal logical phalacy you have committed. You cannot ever use what needs to be proven as premisse in your argumentation.