On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there is no > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone claims the > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim must be > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > Ian
And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther eis no soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. There is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a 'field of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I know that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but that does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it hasn't been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus and Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence when the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing is so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said before many times, just because you have not detected something is not evidence that it does not exist. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
