Do you believe in souls?

[OliveOlivia]

@Cunt-Fistula said in Do you believe in souls?:

everything has the same soul

this is beautiful

[bye69]

@OliveOlivia I dont care if I have a soul or not. As long as I have your heart, I will be alive :smirk:

[ChaosKing]

@petrapark3r first of all sorry for the late reply, haven't been here much.

• Many people frequently experience knowing things in advance in their life, I don't know what you are talking about but I have not known a single person who can see the future. Using complex words like entropy and stuff doesn't make it the right argument. "Entropy is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work." In simple words, entropy is a measure of disorder in the sense that all systems tend to, on their own, become less ordered. I don't know how it is related to your argument.
• Well that's coz people almost think every day that something bad happened to their loved once, take an example of a soldier, soldiers do work in a dangerous situation, and their family members know that so these bad thoughts keep coming in their mind and if something bad happens it doesn't mean that something supernatural communicated to them to tell that something bad happened with their loved one.
• There is lots of evidence, lots and lots, to support that the human brain creates illusions and hallucination when it is under stress. Anyway if you are a Hindu you will see Lord Krishna, if you're a Christian you will see Jesus or Yahweh (mostly Jesus) if you're a Muslim you will see Muhammad or Allah, can't you see how every near-death experience depends on your religion. I also had some hallucinations a while ago and I can't blame them, it feels so real.
• First of all multiverse theory is still a hypothesis it's not yet a scientific theory, and I am pretty sure it doesn't say the universe is eternal it states that there may be multiple or even an infinite number of universes. Please get your facts correct. There are not "ONLY TWO OPTIONS". Please learn to say we don't know, coz we don't know the origin of the universe yet, that's the only place God is hiding rn. Please tell me who created the GOD? You are answering a simple question with another question if God created the universe who created god? The universe will be irrational, what does that even mean?
  Not a single word you said is evidence it is BS....

[pe7erpark3r]

@ChaosKing said in Do you believe in souls?:

@petrapark3r first of all sorry for the late reply, haven't been here much.

np :blush:

• Many people frequently experience knowing things in advance in their life, I don't know what you are talking about but I have not known a single person who can see the future.

I concede, that it is not that common. So I wouldn't expect you to know someone like that. There are instances however.

Using complex words like entropy and stuff doesn't make it the right argument.

Of course not.

"Entropy is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work." In simple words, entropy is a measure of disorder in the sense that all systems tend to, on their own, become less ordered. I don't know how it is related to your argument.

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.

• Well that's coz people almost think every day that something bad happened to their loved once, take an example of a soldier, soldiers do work in a dangerous situation, and their family members know that so these bad thoughts keep coming in their mind and if something bad happens it doesn't mean that something supernatural communicated to them to tell that something bad happened with their loved one.

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.

• There is lots of evidence, lots and lots, to support that the human brain creates illusions and hallucination when it is under stress. Anyway if you are a Hindu you will see Lord Krishna, if you're a Christian you will see Jesus or Yahweh (mostly Jesus) if you're a Muslim you will see Muhammad or Allah, can't you see how every near-death experience depends on your religion. I also had some hallucinations a while ago and I can't blame them, it feels so real.

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.

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.

• First of all multiverse theory is still a hypothesis it's not yet a scientific theory, and I am pretty sure it doesn't say the universe is eternal it states that there may be multiple or even an infinite number of universes.

This wasn't the point of the argument. I was simply including all common theories. I propably should have used the word "world" or "nature" though instead of universe or multiverse to make it clear what I am talking about: the natural world.

Please get your facts correct. There are not "ONLY TWO OPTIONS". Please learn to say we don't know, coz we don't know the origin of the universe yet, that's the only place God is hiding rn.

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.

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.

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.

Please tell me who created the GOD?

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?

You are answering a simple question with another question if God created the universe who created god? The universe will be irrational, what does that even mean?

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.

Not a single word you said is evidence it is BS....

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!

[ScruffyMutt]

-"There is no evidence God exsists"

="Oh yeah? Let me point at what appears to be a highly complex thing that we didn't figure out yet! That proves it because God understands it!"

-"That just prove we don't understand it yet. Like a solar eclipse, we used to think that was a sign from God. But now we understand it and know it's not a sign of God."

="Oh yeah? Well I know God is real because Miracles prove it!"

-"No, miracles prove we don't know what caused an event. It doesn't prove any god was behind it"

="Oh yeah? Well I KNOW God is real because I have faith in Him, Trust what my fellow religious peers taught me, and can feel He is real!"

I had an acquaintance once that had complete faith they could fly, devoutly trusted they would float, and knew they could because they could feel the power to fly surging through them.

They needed to pressure wash the blood off of the sidewalk after they got done shoveling up the pieces of my acquaintance.

But that's basically the basis of all of your arguments, @pe7erpark3r .

• 1- you know God is real because there are things you don't understand.

• 2- you know God is real because you see miracles (events you don't understand)

• 3- you know God is real because you feel/have faith/trust he is real.

Can you place ANY arguement In favor for the exsistence of any god without these three flawed arguments?

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in Do you believe in souls?:

-"There is no evidence God exsists"

="Oh yeah? Let me point at what appears to be a highly complex thing that we didn't figure out yet! That proves it because God understands it!"

You know up until now I was kind of convinced that atheists were rational people. You however have sunken from seemingly rational argument to insult.

This is an insult, because wether God understands anything has nothing to do with my argument, and secondly, I never said it proves anything. Also you haven't understood the important part that can be understood about the highly complex thing or you wouldn't have written "yet". But I give you this, it cannot be called proof.

-"That just prove we don't understand it yet. Like a solar eclipse, we used to think that was a sign from God. But now we understand it and know it's not a sign of God."

="Oh yeah? Well I know God is real because Miracles prove it!"

Next insult: I never said I knew God was real, and I never said that Miracles prove it. You have sunken to insult me, because you cannot counter the logic that allows me to call miracles evidence.

-"No, miracles prove we don't know what caused an event. It doesn't prove any god was behind it"

Why do you take my words into your mouth like this? This is pretty much what I said. Miracles don't prove a thing. They are simply evidence, like a cigarette on a crime scene. It might have been a passer by. It might have been the suspect...

="Oh yeah? Well I KNOW God is real because I have faith in Him, Trust what my fellow religious peers taught me, and can feel He is real!"

Next insult: I did not say this, and I would not, for this is not an argument. The argument goes as follows:

People get told an incredible story (guy killed on cross, resurrected). Believeing it gets them killed. And yet in masses they convert. Ergo: evidence of something other happening that just an incredible story being told.

I had an acquaintance once that had complete faith they could fly, devoutly trusted they would float, and knew they could because they could feel the power to fly surging through them.

They needed to pressure wash the blood off of the sidewalk after they got done shoveling up the pieces of my acquaintance.

Did you really have that acquaintance? :joy: Sorry I have a bit of a black humor, so I have to laugh about this... But yeah, I use this argument too, because it shows us, that with everything you believe you can be close to the truth, or very very far from it.

But that's basically the basis of all of your arguments, @pe7erpark3r .

No it is not, and you know it. But I wasn't even at the end of my list of evidence and yet you ran away, because you couldn't counter the logic behind me calling them evidence.

• 1- you know God is real because there are things you don't understand.

I never said I know God was real. I called these things evidence, because they fit our modern definition of evidence in our court systems all around the world.

• 2- you know God is real because you see miracles (events you don't understand)

These are not just events that I don't understand. These are some very specific things happening in some very specific places. The next kind of miracles I will mention in the other topic, will highlight this point even better.

And no I never said I knew that God was real. Stop insulting me.

• 3- you know God is real because you feel/have faith/trust he is real.

That is not an argument, which is why I did not say this. I would never call my own (or anyboy's) feeling evidence. (That was just a personal answer to a personal question) Stop putting mouths into my word. Stop insulting me.

Actually you might be insulting yourself. I mean who would put words into other peoples mouth like this?

Can you place ANY arguement In favor for the exsistence of any god without these three flawed arguments?

I never used these three flawed arguments. They are arguments you put in my mouth. And no I have no arguments for the existence of just any god. I only have arguments for evidence of the Christian God.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt Look. I'm sorry that we have gotten so far... so before this escalates any further...

I'm ready to concede that one might not call the "origin of the universe" thing evidence, because it is indeed highly complex and leads to something irrational in any case.

But I think you do understand why I call the miracles evidence. So please concede, that one can reasonably call them evidence, and I will concede that one can reasonably call them unconvincing.

This will get us both back to a rational way of communicating.

[ScruffyMutt]

It wasn't an insult. It is exactly how you sound.

" I never said it proves anything. "
It was the very first piece of evidence you have for god in our debate.

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

proof
/pro͞of/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence and proof are synonymous.

"Miracles don't prove a thing. They are simply evidence, ..."

See above.

"People get told an incredible story (guy killed on cross, resurrected). Believeing it gets them killed. And yet in masses they convert. Ergo: evidence of something other happening that just an incredible story being told."

People are told smoking and vaping are bad for you and can kill you. Yet people start smoking for the first time every day. It's irrelevant.

"Did you really have that acquaintance? 😂"
Her name was Virgina.

"And no I never said I knew that God was real. Stop insulting me."
It's the whole basis of your relegious posts. Double think/double talk doesn't work on me, Mr. Orwell

"I never used these three flawed arguments. "
These are exactly the arguments you use. Spot on.

"And no I have no arguments for the existence of just any god. I only have arguments for evidence of the Christian God."
Semantics. More double talk.
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.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in Do you believe in souls?:

It wasn't an insult. It is exactly how you sound.

" I never said it proves anything. "
It was the very first piece of evidence you have for god in our debate.

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

How can you consider picking a definition of a term that suits your argument, to be a valid argument? Here is Wikipedia's definiton:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

proof
/pro͞of/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Wiki: A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition

Evidence and proof are synonymous.

I clearly stated my definition of evidence at the beginning of the discussion. It was not synonymous with proof. You agreed with the definition. Now you are just trying to "win" the argument. Fine. You have won.

"Miracles don't prove a thing. They are simply evidence, ..."

See above.

See above.

"People get told an incredible story (guy killed on cross, resurrected). Believeing it gets them killed. And yet in masses they convert. Ergo: evidence of something other happening that just an incredible story being told."

People are told smoking and vaping are bad for you and can kill you. Yet people start smoking for the first time every day. It's irrelevant.

No it's not. Just like with smoking there is obviously something to it, that makes them risk their lives... And in contrast to smoking, the threat is much more imminent.

"Did you really have that acquaintance? 😂"
Her name was Virgina.

Sorry to hear :(

"And no I never said I knew that God was real. Stop insulting me."
It's the whole basis of your relegious posts. Double think/double talk doesn't work on me, Mr. Orwell

No it is not. There is a clear line between "knowing" and "believing". I don't know God exists, because my conviction that God is, does not match my definition of knowing. Knowing to me is knowing things like 1+1=2 or that the earth is round. Believing is trusting in something you cannot know in this way.

I am true to my words, true to my definitions. I don't say one thing and later say it means the other.

"I never used these three flawed arguments. "
These are exactly the arguments you use. Spot on.

You just want to win the argument now... you know I did not use them like this. But fine. Win.

"And no I have no arguments for the existence of just any god. I only have arguments for evidence of the Christian God."
Semantics. More double talk.
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.

You once said you wanted evidence. You meant you wanted proof, as you clearly pointed out right now, by saying evidence is synonymous to proof. There is no proof. Ergo you won, by tricking me into assuming you wanted evidence. Semantics indeed.

[ScruffyMutt]

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 😝"

[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