Do you believe in souls?

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in Do you believe in souls?:

I read your post in the entirety.
Here is what i I took away from it:

• "I have no other arguments except those three things so instead I'll argue symantics over 'Evidence' and 'Proof' and pretend to take the higher ground by saying you win... By saying it was some type of a symantics technicality instead of admitting I have no kind of evidence/proof of God. You win because I let you win 😝"

Well, anybody can read the whole discussion themselves anyways. I'm not done listing the evidence according to my definition, in case you want to keep posted.

I have no evidence according to your definition of evidence (which is as you said synonymous to proof). Ergo you have won.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in Do you believe in souls?:

You have no evidence for any god (including your Christian God) except for pointing at things you don't understand or pointing at other people who believe or pointing to your own belief.

Just to clarify: I did point to something nobody understands, I pointed to other people who were non-christians and then became christians, I also pointed to christians yes (I disagree with the notion that a christian scientist or doctor is not trustworthy just because he is christian), and I will point to non-believers. I never pointed to my own believe as an argument or evidence (and I would never do so), I simply told you about it.

[Zack Williamson]

This is an interesting question. However I apologize for my late reply. If we talk about philosophy, some philosophers try to explain soul with following reference

1. 'I do', 'I type'. That 'I' is addressing not to our body but it is addressing to our soul.
2. Some other philosophers describe body and self are same like fire of lamp and it's flame are same. In other words, self is illusion
   I do not support philosophical way to prove or disprove it's existence because it is difficult to understand
   So I would try to explain with my and someone else's experiences
   First certified paranormal investigator of our country recently died. The reason behind his death was lack of oxygen actually. He resolved 6000 cases. He doesn't believe in false notions and he investigated with some hi-tech equipment like full spectrum cameras and EMF detectors. Electro-magnetism is the force the keeps gravity from pushing us through the floor, chair or the earth’s crust and it is the force that binds atoms together. With this in mind, there is a very good chance that spirits/ghosts are made up of non-solid energy and thus are very likely composed of electro-magnetic energy and create EMF spikes/fluctuations when you encounter them.

Unlike God you can talk with souls with a an EMF detector. My experience in a graveyard was my waste of time because I stayed there for 2 hours in day. Although I'm attractive :smirk: but nothing happened with me and my detector. Therefore I do not believe in souls. It is prohibited to wander there in night though. Experience of two hours is not enough so I would call a light probability (but not equal to zero) that they really exist.
Edit- Now I am wholly disbeliever of souls because I have gone to graveyard five times in night but I could not find anything abnormal during my investigations. If you keep an electronic equipment near of your EMF detector, it will switch on EMF's light because your mobile has certain radiations. Therefore, making someone's fool is damn easy and people can do anything for the money. I know that people who do claim to seeing holy spirits do suffer from catharsis. Near death experiences are often caused by misfiring of brain cells which can be aggravated with drugs. Don't fighter pilots experience tunnel vision while being on High-G maneuvers ? Actually they have lack of oxygen. Lets see what causes mystical experiences of souls-
1. Taking hallucination drugs
2. Magnetic fields
3. Seizures
4. Brain injuries
5. Schizophrenia

[pe7erpark3r]

@Electrifying-Guy said in Do you believe in souls?:

With this in mind, there is a very good chance that spirits/ghosts are made up of non-solid energy and thus are very likely composed of electro-magnetic energy and create EMF spikes/fluctuations when you encounter them.

This is an interesting notion: is the soul some form of energy that might be measurable?

The western (christian) idea of the soul is, that it is that which lives on when you die. This idea includes that the soul is conscious. Apart from this christians also believed that the soul was spirit, like God, and thus not measurable and not a form of energy.

[Sij]

This post is deleted!

[pe7erpark3r]

@Sij said in Do you believe in souls?:

@pe7erpark3r said in Do you believe in souls?:

Don't just go ahead and claim things without any verification. In recent years there have been lots of muslims who had visions of Jesus and converted to christianity because of this. In fact in history there have been many accounts of people converting from other faiths to christianity, because of a vision like this. It actually happens a lot. And it also happens with near

Muslims and people of other religions also say exact same things and also give data in favour of their claims. so it doesnt really matter. i am not an atheist btw

I didn't know muslims actually believe that the profet muhammad appears to some of them in visions, so this is news to me.

This however supports my argument, that visions are not caused by your own religion or belief. Thank you for adding some info.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Do you believe in souls?:

@Electrifying-Guy said in Do you believe in souls?:

With this in mind, there is a very good chance that spirits/ghosts are made up of non-solid energy and thus are very likely composed of electro-magnetic energy and create EMF spikes/fluctuations when you encounter them.

This is an interesting notion: is the soul some form of energy that might be measurable?

This is notion of new physics. It is not a notion of any religion though.

When most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there cannot be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham's razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.

The western (christian) idea of the soul is, that it is that which lives on when you die. This idea includes that the soul is conscious. Apart from this Christians also believed that the soul was spirit, like God, and thus not measurable and not a form of energy.

Same goes for hindus and jainism. They defined soul as conscious being which is different from body. Body is made of energy but soul is energy-less and non-measurable.
If we talk about some other schools of indian philosophy here we go
There are four main views of the self in Indian philosophy. According to the Carvakas, the self is the living body with the attribute of consciousness. This is the materialistic conception of the self. The Buddhists reduce the self to a stream of thought or a series of cognition. Like some empiricists and sensationists, they admit only the empirical self. The Advaita. Vedanta. takes the self as one, unchanging and self-shining intelligence is neither a subject nor an object, neither the 'I' nor the 'me.' The Visistadvaita, Vedanta, however, holds that the self is not pure intelligence as such but an intelligent subject called the ego or the 'I' . Both these views of the self may be called idealistic in a broad sense.

[ChaosKing]

@pe7erpark3r i am replying really late. xD

Science at this point is not sure about why time runs forward. From the point of view of relativity you have four dimensions and you can compute everything forward or backward. There is no reason in relativity theory for why time should run forward. Thus one of the explicatory models for why time runs forward is entropy, for it always increases in one direction (forward in time).

The argument was that if information could run backwards in time, then entropy would increase backwards too. This obviously should not happen. Thus knowing the future contradicts the increase of entropy forward in time.

But you are perfectly right, there should be no need for even referencing why knowing the future could be supernatural. Knowing the future (if it was really so) would be evidence for something supernatural going on.

The thermodynamic arrow of time will describe it better, the arrow of time is the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. The thermodynamic arrow of time is provided by the second law of thermodynamics, which says that in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase with time. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of microscopic disorder; thus the second law implies that time is asymmetrical with respect to the amount of order in an isolated system: as a system advances through time, it becomes more statistically disordered. This asymmetry can be used empirically to distinguish between future and past, though measuring entropy does not accurately measure time. Also, in an open system, entropy can decrease with time.
If time were perfectly symmetrical, a video of real events would seem realistic whether played forwards or backwards. Gravity, for example, is a time-reversible force. A ball that is tossed up, slows to a stop, and falls is a case where recordings would look equally realistic forwards and backwards. The system is T-symmetrical. However, the process of the ball bouncing and eventually coming to a stop is not time-reversible. While going forward, kinetic energy is dissipated and entropy is increased. Entropy may be one of the few processes that is not time-reversible. According to the statistical notion of increasing entropy, the "arrow" of time is identified with a decrease of free energy.
Surely I agree that science is not sure bout lots of stuff but that doesn't make anything supernatural more valid, this is an argument from ignorance.

Have you ever talked to someone who claims to have known when a loved one died? The ones I talked to have made a convincing case, and they were normal people with normal lives who did not fear all day that something bad would happen.

So, unless you can counter each and every such experience (and not just the soldier and his wife fearing) it would be irrational to not call this evidence. It is not proof, I fully agree, because for every single instance alone there might be another explanation, but with so many cases calling it evidence is perfectly reasonable.

Again even if what you are saying is true, let's say they somehow claim that they know that something bad was gonna happen or had happened. First of all, this is only a claim. Secondly, the burden of proof lies on you and the one who is making the claim that they knew coz people tends to make lots of stories after something had happened it's in our nature.
I dunno if you have played this game or not when you were a kid, we used to sit in circle then one kid tells a story and when it returned back to them the story becomes totally different.

Don't just go ahead and claim things without any verification. In recent years there have been lots of muslims who had visions of Jesus and converted to christianity because of this. In fact in history there have been many accounts of people converting from other faiths to christianity, because of a vision like this. It actually happens a lot. And it also happens with near death experiences.

And there are lots of Christians who have converted to Islam coz had visions of Muhammad or to Hinduism coz they have visions of Krishna or Vishnu or Shiva. There are lots of Christians who think that Joseph Smith is their lord saviour, they are also known as Mormons.

But yes, I concede that there might be other explanations. However since you cannot prove that other explanations are the correct explanation, it is perfectly reasonable to call this evidence, since evidence, just like in any criminal case, can point in multiple directions.

I am not claiming anything, you're the one who is making claims so you have to provide explanations.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

Please think it trough properly. Things don't come out of nowhere. Existence is a mystery. There should be nothing, not even the possibility of something happening. Something does not come from nothing.

Yes I do know about quantum particles being created in what we call "nothing". (I add the quotes, because we actually don't understand the quantum world properly yet. We still have no quantum-gravity and we don't know how space time is related to quantum mechanics. So we are not sure about this nothing really, but thats not the actual point. The actual point is: ) Quantum particles are created all the time. There is nature to it. This is not a possibility of anything happening, it is a possibility of something very specific happening. There is a reason this happens.

So there is something, even if that something is this quantum nature which we don't understand yet. Something is there even if that something is not matter but a nature or a possibility. And from this comes something else, particles, a zero sum game.

So something does not come from nothing, something does not happen without a reason, only without a cause (at least it seems that way in the quantum world).

Maybe I'm making this a bit too complicated here. Maybe I should just say: there should be nothing. There should not even be the possibility of something. But there is something. And this something seems completely regular, logical, mathematical. So it is there for a reason. It cannot be there for no reason. It could not be there without the possiblity of being there.

I agree that we don't know everything yet, we haven't solved the realm of quantum mechanics and yes there are bubbles of energy surges in empty space what we call "nothing" matter and anti-matter get created all the time. But this is a game of probability, there is no reason for anything to happen and the reason isn't surely some primates living on a small planet in a distant corner of milky way galaxy. We are nothing more than a speck of dust in time and space.
So all the organised religions whose gods interfere in the lives of these primates are totally made by those primates and are nothing more than delusions.

Thus it cannot be, that there "once" (or before time or outside of time) was nothing. Something must have always (or rather eternally) been there, even if that something is just the nature of things.

I used the word eternal for a reason. Eternal does not mean: time that stretches forever into the past and forever into the future. Eternal would also be something that was not inside this universe, not inside time (because time is space-time, it clearly began at the big-bang according to our understanding of it – which is a consensus among scientists).

So, something must be eternal, or else there would not be anything. This something can either be nature (A quantum world from which universes pop out is one example of such an eternal nature) or it can be God.

I agree that there must be something outside our time and space that caused Bigbang to happen, but we have no evidence to state that it was "eternal" or "supernatural" and we can never know what it is (it seems like that for now but maybe our technology can advance to a level that we can see or know it), but if that something whatever it is exists, it can not interfere in our space and time.

So, something must be eternal, or else there would not be anything. This something can either be nature (A quantum world from which universes pop out is one example of such an eternal nature) or it can be God.

There is no "we don't know". We don't know how this universe came to be yes. But we do know that nature (from which this universe came to be) must be eternal, if we do not want to assume God.

No, it doesn't have to be eternal, everything will exist even if it is not eternal. This something is what we don't know and it has more probability of being a giant teapot rather than a god coz at least there is evidence that teapot exists, and the probability of it being one of the gods made up by our religions is almost zero.

Nobody did. That is the point. God is his own reason, or he has no reason. This fact, as you can clearly see, makes him irrational. Right?

If there is no God, then what is the reason for being? Nature itself. Ergo, nature itself is its own reason, or has no reason. This makes nature irrational in the same sense as God would be irrational. I hope this makes the argument clearer.

Well according to your own reasoning something can't come out from nothing so surely god cant come out of nothing.
There is no reason for being. Again all you are doing is making claims, so many claims without any scientific evidence. And how would you know that the god is a "he"?
As Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

You simply dismiss evidence by countering it each with a single argument. But evidence, just like in a criminal case, often cannot be dismissed this easily. Sometimes, just like in a criminal case, you will never know if something really is evidence or not. And as long as you cannot disprove beyond doubt that something is evidence, it is perfectly rational and fine to call it so. So don't BS me!

Well all the evidence you showed worth nothing and proves nothing, by all due respect present these so-called "evidence" in front of some scientists and win a Nobel prize or something

In the end, I will quote Richard Dawkins
“It's been suggested that if the super-naturalists really had the powers they claim, they'd win the lottery every week. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science. Either way, why are they wasting their talents doing party turns on television?

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”
― Richard Dawkins

[WHAT2020]

@OliveOlivia i honestly believe humans have souls because we as human beings are able to experience consciousness and unconsciousness, and having a soul is the difference between being conscious and unconscious. When our mind enters REM sleep, which is the level of sleep that scientists refer to as “deep sleep”, we are considered to be unconscious since we are unaware of our surroundings and have no control over our actions or what our body does during that sleep. This occurs because the soul exits the body, leading to unconsciousness, as its way of resting the body after a long day. When this happens, the body goes through the period we now refer to as “sleep”.

Psychology used to refer to “the study of the soul”, but psychologists have left the term “soul” for “mind”, changing the definition to “the study of the mind”.

[Hyde]

I believe in souls since i had a story with one

[ChaosKing]

@Hyde said in Do you believe in souls?:

I believe in souls since i had a story with one

would love to know the story.

[Hyde]

@ChaosKing when i was younger i saw a soul because i had a accident with my bycycle with 14 i was dying on this crash while broke my neck to pieces
I remember pain and blood
as i awoke in hospital someone stand next to me a nurse told me to never give up on me and that my time not came !
i started to tell the doctors about this nurse since i saw the other world before with my own eyes ..
but the doctors told me there was never someone with me
they said one nurse like her died 2 years ahead of me before i was there
but she was a good soul

[pe7erpark3r]

@idek2019 said in Do you believe in souls?:

@OliveOlivia i honestly believe humans have souls because we as human beings are able to experience consciousness and unconsciousness, and having a soul is the difference between being conscious and unconscious. When our mind enters REM sleep, which is the level of sleep that scientists refer to as “deep sleep”, we are considered to be unconscious since we are unaware of our surroundings and have no control over our actions or what our body does during that sleep.

This occurs because the soul exits the body, leading to unconsciousness, as its way of resting the body after a long day. When this happens, the body goes through the period we now refer to as “sleep”.

This is just a claim, and we should note here, that most people who believe in souls, do not believe that the souls exits the body when they sleep.

Psychology used to refer to “the study of the soul”, but psychologists have left the term “soul” for “mind”, changing the definition to “the study of the mind”.

That is because the term soul is used ambigously and can not just denote the "spirit" but also the emotional state, the mind and touch lots of other areas.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Hyde said in Do you believe in souls?:

@ChaosKing when i was younger i saw a soul because i had a accident with my bycycle with 14 i was dying on this crash while broke my neck to pieces
I remember pain and blood
as i awoke in hospital someone stand next to me a nurse told me to never give up on me and that my time not came !
i started to tell the doctors about this nurse since i saw the other world before with my own eyes ..
but the doctors told me there was never someone with me
they said one nurse like her died 2 years ahead of me before i was there
but she was a good soul

Indeed, near death experiences are an interesting thing to note when we talk about evidence for the soul. Sadly I believe the information we have about them is mixed... Some are hallucinations, others might be real, and it's hard to tell the difference.

A very interesting experience... I wonder what I would see if I almost died...

[pe7erpark3r]

@ChaosKing said in Do you believe in souls?:

Well first of all thank you for the much more respectful and recognizing answer. I see a fellow intellectual, and I see a deep understanding of physics... Is this your area of expertise?

Then I will say, this is a truly smart reply, for you have given me the only valid answer that allows you to refute my claims: You provide another definition of the term evidence, you require "extraordinary evidence".

The thermodynamic arrow of time will describe it better, the arrow of time is the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. The thermodynamic arrow of time is provided by the second law of thermodynamics, which says that in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase with time. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of microscopic disorder; thus the second law implies that time is asymmetrical with respect to the amount of order in an isolated system: as a system advances through time, it becomes more statistically disordered. This asymmetry can be used empirically to distinguish between future and past, though measuring entropy does not accurately measure time. Also, in an open system, entropy can decrease with time.
If time were perfectly symmetrical, a video of real events would seem realistic whether played forwards or backwards. Gravity, for example, is a time-reversible force. A ball that is tossed up, slows to a stop, and falls is a case where recordings would look equally realistic forwards and backwards. The system is T-symmetrical. However, the process of the ball bouncing and eventually coming to a stop is not time-reversible. While going forward, kinetic energy is dissipated and entropy is increased. Entropy may be one of the few processes that is not time-reversible. According to the statistical notion of increasing entropy, the "arrow" of time is identified with a decrease of free energy.

Again, great explanation of our current models, you definitely have a truly deep understanding of physics!

I'll dive into physics here too, so this is a bit off-topic for the "soul". IMHO the thermodynamic explanation of time seems to show a bit of a tunnel vision of current physics. We have a mathematical model here (Relativity) in which we can compute forward and backward, and we clearly have the increase of entropy as you described. But in nature, in reality, we also have causality. And I don't mean this in any abstract way, I mean you can just look out of the window and you'll see one thing cause the other... And all these causes cannot run backwards, it clearly is a forward causal chain. Entropy is simply not enough to explain causality... Well that's just my take on it anyways. An interesting topic indeed.

And let's not forget the – maybe most important causal connection for this discussion – your (and my) thoughts are also causaly linked forward, or else nothing of what any of us says would make any sense. We would not be able to draw any conclusion at all. I hope you can appreciate the weight of this fact.

Surely I agree that science is not sure bout lots of stuff but that doesn't make anything supernatural more valid, this is an argument from ignorance.

So if future events really caused events in the past – e.g. knowledge of the future that actually comes true despite being known beforehand – then that is quite the hint at something non-natural. For it means that anti-causal (!) things can happen, when instead for the scientific endeavour to make sense, we have to assume that nature is regular, causal and makes sense. But I concede, it is just evidence (by my definition), no proof, not "extraordinary evidence".

And then plays in the fact, that the predictions that are actually historical, like the children of Fatima predicting the second world war (albeit lacking in some detail, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_Fátima) and TLIG predicting the fall of the towers exactly 10 years to the day (http://tlig.org/en/messages/654/, the footnote ofc has been added after the facts...) we see a clear intention behind each profecy (convert and do good). So, this is the kind of prediction I had in mind, when I called this evidence. Now ofc again, you can dismiss this evidence either based on certain arguments, or simply by applying your definition of evidence, fair enough.

So, unless you can counter each and every such experience (and not just the soldier and his wife fearing) it would be irrational to not call this evidence. It is not proof, I fully agree, because for every single instance alone there might be another explanation, but with so many cases calling it evidence is perfectly reasonable.

Again even if what you are saying is true, let's say they somehow claim that they know that something bad was gonna happen or had happened. First of all, this is only a claim. Secondly, the burden of proof lies on you and the one who is making the claim that they knew coz people tends to make lots of stories after something had happened it's in our nature.

Agreed, the burden of proof is on me. Problem with these things is, that scientists do not take them seriously, so nobody wants to put his head on the line, for making a serious study about those. This is no argument, just saying it's difficult. And another reason for it's difficulty is that you cannot reproduce these in a lab, I mean: "we are doing a study: You sit in the lab, and while you sit there we kill your brother but we won't tell you beforehand" is not going to run well with an ethics commitee :joy:. But again, not an argument...

And then sadly it is really hard to verify people's personal accounts. You never know if they are lying. But there is a huge load of people claiming experiences with souls like (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1209795/Reincarnated-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html)... If you look for evidence confirming reincarnation you'll find a lot. Of course you'll also find sceptic's reviews of these things. It is a bit of a jungle I admit, and hard to figure out the truth, for the beforementioned fact, that these things just simply cannot be reproduced in any lab...

As a sidenote I do not believe in reincarnation, but I do believe in souls. And I tend to be very sceptic about each case I hear of too: there sure is a lot of rubbish out there :shrug:. I'm just saying it's a lot of cases... none of it "extraordinary evidence", fair enough...

I dunno if you have played this game or not when you were a kid, we used to sit in circle then one kid tells a story and when it returned back to them the story becomes totally different.

The example is not adequate, for there is no hearsay involved. It's those people making those claims themselves.

Don't just go ahead and claim things without any verification. In recent years there have been lots of muslims who had visions of Jesus and converted to christianity because of this. In fact in history there have been many accounts of people converting from other faiths to christianity, because of a vision like this. It actually happens a lot. And it also happens with near death experiences.

And there are lots of Christians who have converted to Islam coz had visions of Muhammad or to Hinduism coz they have visions of Krishna or Vishnu or Shiva.

Is this really common or are you just hypothesizing? I know it is common among non-christians to have visions of Christ. One of the first videos I found on somebody seeing muhammad was a guy who had a dream about Jesus and muhammad. I'm sure that people do halluzinate all kinds of things. When we are argumenting for a certain religion, the interesting question is which vision do happen to a lot of people out of the blue and without actively inducing it (which is what muslims actually try to do, because they believe that if they dream of muhammad, they'll go to heaven...) or living in a culture where these images are common.

But my original argument was actually agnostic of a specific religion, and I only provided visions of Jesus as a counter to you saying, that christian background makes you see christian visions or hindu background makes you see hindu visions. Apparently you agree with me that such vision tend to happen without the respective background.

There are lots of Christians who think that Joseph Smith is their lord saviour, they are also known as Mormons.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Many people believe in many things. Nobody in their right mind takes their believes themselves as evidence.

But yes, I concede that there might be other explanations. However since you cannot prove that other explanations are the correct explanation, it is perfectly reasonable to call this evidence, since evidence, just like in any criminal case, can point in multiple directions.

I am not claiming anything, you're the one who is making claims so you have to provide explanations.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

I absolutely agree with that.

Maybe I'm making this a bit too complicated here. Maybe I should just say: there should be nothing. There should not even be the possibility of something. But there is something. And this something seems completely regular, logical, mathematical. So it is there for a reason. It cannot be there for no reason. It could not be there without the possiblity of being there.

I agree that we don't know everything yet, we haven't solved the realm of quantum mechanics and yes there are bubbles of energy surges in empty space what we call "nothing" matter and anti-matter get created all the time. But this is a game of probability, there is no reason for anything to happen and the reason isn't surely some primates living on a small planet in a distant corner of milky way galaxy. We are nothing more than a speck of dust in time and space.

Yes, there is a reason for anti-matter + matter being created. What you wanted to say is: "there is no cause for them being created, it is simply a game of probability". But there is clearly a reason, a nature to it, for what is being created is matter + anti-matter, not unicorns and Godzilla. Don't missunderstand me, I'm not saying that this reason must be God or anything. I'm saying there is a law to it, it does happen randomly, but it is not random what happens – always the same happens – anti-matter and matter are being created.

So all the organised religions whose gods interfere in the lives of these primates are totally made by those primates and are nothing more than delusions.

I concede that one can come to this conclusion :smile:. And I agree that most of what people believe is made up. I wouldn't call it simply a delusion even in those cases, for it has a function and humanity is quite apt to believing there is something more. But yeah...

I agree that there must be something outside our time and space that caused Bigbang to happen, but we have no evidence to state that it was "eternal" or "supernatural" and we can never know what it is (it seems like that for now but maybe our technology can advance to a level that we can see or know it), but if that something whatever it is exists, it can not interfere in our space and time.

No, it doesn't have to be eternal, everything will exist even if it is not eternal. This something is what we don't know and it has more probability of being a giant teapot rather than a god coz at least there is evidence that teapot exists, and the probability of it being one of the gods made up by our religions is almost zero.

There is a misunderstanding here: The word eternal does not mean anything "supernatural". It is simply defined as (my words): "there is no thinkable state of reality (past/present/future/outside of time) in which something, that is eternal, is not". This is just a definition of a term, something any scientist should be familiar with. And in the case of "eternal" there must logically be something which fits this definition, may it be God or the multiverse or nature or a quantum field or at least a possiblity, or whatever. Something has to be eternal, or else there would be nothing.

Well according to your own reasoning something can't come out from nothing so surely god cant come out of nothing.

Indeed, my reasoning fails: God did not come out of anything. Therefore thinking that "God is" is irrational!

There is no reason for being. Again all you are doing is making claims, so many claims without any scientific evidence.

Indeed, my reasoning fails: Nature did not come out of anything. Therefore thinking that "Nature is" is irrational!

This is not a trick. It is simply a fact of reality: you have to be accept that the origin of existence is irrational, or you cannot be called a rational thinker.

And how would you know that the god is a "he"?

God is not a "he". That's just the way we talk about him. I could go deeper into this, but that would be off-topic, and I don't think you think that I'm stupid enough to have such a simple-minded concept of God...

As Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

You simply dismiss evidence by countering it each with a single argument. But evidence, just like in a criminal case, often cannot be dismissed this easily. Sometimes, just like in a criminal case, you will never know if something really is evidence or not. And as long as you cannot disprove beyond doubt that something is evidence, it is perfectly rational and fine to call it so. So don't BS me!

Well all the evidence you showed worth nothing and proves nothing, by all due respect present these so-called "evidence" in front of some scientists and win a Nobel prize or something

Well, times are not ready for this. There is currently a prejudice among most scientists about all supernatural. You are simply laughed at, if you even work on such things. You have no chance of being taken seriously, and thus no chance of acquiring funding, etc. So I'm assuming that one day somebody will get a noble prize for that. However not for proving souls, for spirit remains, by defintion, unprovable. But somebody will probably get a noble prize one day for documenting phenomena that involve the soul.

In the end, I will quote Richard Dawkins
“It's been suggested that if the super-naturalists really had the powers they claim, they'd win the lottery every week. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science. Either way, why are they wasting their talents doing party turns on television?

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”
― Richard Dawkins

I like Richard Dawkins. I mean there are smarter people than him (Einstein for example), but the way he presents his views is definitely genius.

Yeah, I do agree that there are no super powers or people predicting the future in the way this quote insinuates. What I believe is that God acts, and He acts in a certain way, which does not include anything like supernatural powers and makes his action really hard to prove. And I concede that none of the presented evidence fulfills your criteria for "evidence", only mine (which is the criminal case definition of the bullet laying around).

So let's stay open-minded, and admit, that God (and not some super powered hovering monk) might actually be real. Which means to at least not think, that people who believe in God, are (automatically :sweat_smile:) stupid.

[Hyde]

@pe7erpark3r I believe in it was real since the doctors told me there was a nurse died 2 years ahead of me