NO AFTERLIFE (Page 3)

lori100: theis can't prove he exists, so he doesn't

Zanjan: TIU wrote: "Big difference from book says X to "GOD says X"."

Point: there was an author and I had no cause or reason to challenge it. Words won't change change the object.


"We didn't create trees or the Sun or rocks or any multitude of things that have a known *essence* .

You don't know what their essence is. No one can describe "life" by using a DNA profile; dead things have viable DNA too.


"Well we're not different from animals as we are an animal......."

Physically, yes, were an animal, yet our brain has more parts than any animal. These extra parts facilitate activities animals can't perform. Mentally, we can be far more beastly than the most terrifying and disgusting of all animals. OR, we can be far more beautiful and benevolent than any other creature on earth.


"there are many non-human animals which have intellect."

Unless you've got a personal friend who's an extraterrestrial from another solar system, that doesn't work.
Animals have a brain and a spirit - as such, they have no capacity to detect or analyze anything beyond their physical senses and simple emotional feelings. For this reason, they're classified in a different kingdom of existence.

Animals have varying degrees of intelligence but not an intellect.

"This doesn't follow."

The brain works only with bodily functions, delivering messages to the tissues using chemical and hormonal signals via the nerves, which fire via electromagnetic impulses. If there's any interruption in these neural pathways, there is no message.

The brain can receive limited data from external physical sources but doesn't know what to do with it other than to store it and associate it with an emotion.

Kill those nerves, there's no message; but the soul doesn't lose its ability to communicate and process data no matter how many nerves are killed. The physical body is like a car - when the car breaks down, the driver (soul) is unaffected. It can still travel to its destination.

Perhaps it's only you who's not following.

TheismIsUntenable: "Point: there was an author and I had no cause or reason to challenge it."

Courts do and for good reason. It's called hearsay and it is notoriously unreliable.

"You don't know what their essence is. No one can describe "life" by using a DNA profile; dead things have viable DNA too."

I know exactly what the Sun is comprised of - its essence. What are you talking about????

"Physically, yes, were an animal, yet our brain has more parts than any animal."

No, no it doesn't.

[In light of these findings, she argues that the human brain is actually just a linearly scaled-up primate brain that grew in size as we started to consume more calories, thanks to the advent of cooked food.

Other researchers have found that traits once believed to belong solely to humans also exist in other members of the animal kingdom. Monkeys have a sense of fairness. Chimps engage in war. Rats show altruism and exhibit empathy. In a study published last week in Nature Communications, neuroscientist Christopher Petkov and his group at Newcastle University found that macaques and humans share brain areas responsible for processing the basic structures of language. [Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-our-brains-special/#:~:text=The%20human%20brain%20is%20unique,%E2%80%9Ccrowning%20achievement%20of%20evolution.%E2%80%9D

intellect: the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters.

Crows are incredible puzzle solvers. They meet this with ease.

I've still yet to read any evidence for the soul. You're just asserting that it exists without any reason for suspecting that it exists.

Zanjan: "What are you talking about????"

I was referring to trees - thus, essence of life. By the way, essence doesn't necessarily mean composition of elements. No room to discuss that here but look it up.

The studies you refer to are nothing new to mankind. Moderns have almost totally lost touch with nature; except for a few, they have to relearn it.

The ancients were very connected to nature and could easily pick out which spiritual traits we shared in common. These belong to the base (elementary) nature - we share them as animal features.

When speaking of character, we're not talking about that - we're talking about man's *second* nature - the higher nature expressed by the soul. The thing you don't believe exists.

Give a crow a rubik's cube and see what he does with it. Dogs can unlock doors and turn on the lights.

"No, no it doesn't."

Please explain your assertion.

TheismIsUntenable: Our brain doesn't contain any additional parts not found in the rest of the animal kingdom. That was the entire point of sharing that article.

You just keep asserting more and more things but providing zero evidence. All I'm asking for is evidence. I'm open to being persuaded on these matters, but when you go from one bald assertion to the next we're not getting anywhere.

You've dodged the scenario I provided which made it explicitly clear I think what you need to do.

Two people, identical in appearance and action. One has a soul, one doesn't. How do you determine that?

Until you resolve this, you're just operating on assumption.

Zanjan: It seems you've never seen the architecture of the human brain next to any animal's brain. You'll need to look through some medical diagrams.

Obviously, we share the same brain parts that govern whatever the animals can do but we have more than that.

The human cerebral cortex (forebrain) accounts for 80% of the total brain mass; whereas in animals, their neocortex is comparatively small yet with no significant difference in size compared to their other brain regions. Consequently, animals are not self-aware - that is, when they see their own reflection, they don't recognize the image as being themselves.

The human brain has millions more neurons than any other creature. Due to the space required, human brains have complex wrinkles and folds, and the way they're folded is critical to degree of cognition. On the other hand, most animal brains are smooth. Some animal brains look absolutely nothing like a brain at all.

"You just keep asserting more and more things but providing zero evidence."

Every time you made an assertion and I questioned you, asking for an explanation, you declined.

I resolved your trick question. However, I see you're unable to grasp those concepts - can't get blood out of stone. You might as well move on.

GeraldtheGnome: I see that more mistakes have been made . What's with this essence bit ? There is no soul. You can't show that anyone has a soul. Humans are animals, there's no us and them involved at all. Some animals know that a what they see in front of them is a reflection and some don't. A lot of them are very self aware, a lot of animals are greater in certain ways than humans even by the way that they think. I had to study what happens with the brain and things to do with what is referred to as cognitive therapy a while ago. The current human subspecies on Earth has an average cranial capacity than at least one other subspecies yet they are extinct and we are here. Neanderthals are claimed to believe in an afterlife but that is assumed by those with religious bias and not just by religious people.

TheismIsUntenable: So Zanjan went from saying the human brain has different parts to saying that particular parts are more substantial. This is an enormous distinction. She was entirely WRONG.

Secondly, this new bit has already been addressed in the source I posted...things are "scaled up" linearly. There isn't some proportional distinction either. Again, she is WRONG.

It is beyond clear at this point that she has ZERO evidence for souls.

Zanjan: " the human brain has different parts to saying that particular parts are more substantial"

Go look at a shark brain or a bird brain - they don't have many parts that humans have. They're both animals. Ape brains are much closer to the human brain structure than dog/cat brains.

I never mentioned brain volumes - an Elephant's brain is bigger than ours relative to its body size but is constructed very differently from ours.

"she has ZERO evidence for souls."

Where is your evidence for absence of souls in humans?

I gave evidence for souls in humans - not in animals. They don't have souls.

GeraldtheGnome: I just saw more errors made. Humans are animals, no one has a soul, not a human and not any other animal either.

GeraldtheGnome: No one knows if there is an afterlife either, any claim that there is just is wishful thinking and nothing more than that. Sure it's possible but you can't prove that there is just like no one can prove that there is not an afterlife.

TheismIsUntenable: You haven't given an evidence at all. Evidence isn't required to be skeptical of a claim. You own this burden, it is yours alone and so far you've provided nothing.

Zanjan: "Evidence isn't required to be skeptical of a claim."

Evidence to the contrary is.
It's not a challenge unless you have material to supply for the challenge.

TheismIsUntenable: If I were making the claim that souls don't exist then you'd be right of course. I'm not doing that. I'm noting that distinct lack of evidence in its favor and remaining skeptical as a result.

You always begin with skepticism when existence is concerned. That's just how it works.

Zanjan: You're noting your rejection of the evidence supplied thus far.

Let's look at your acceptance rate:

“There isn't any evidence for the soul.” (p2)

“I guess I don't understand what a soul is” (p2)

“…..you can toss the word soul in the garbage.” (P2)

“I've still yet to read any evidence for the soul.” (p3)

“All I'm asking for is evidence. I'm open to being persuaded on these matters,” (p3)


There's enough evidence to prove to us you're not at all open to being persuaded

TheismIsUntenable: I think those are all accurate statements. You began discussing souls. I asked for evidence because I'm not aware of any.

You offered an explanation of what a soul is by saying it's the same as the concept of intellect. That's why I stated that you can throw it in the garbage as it is simply label swapping an already existing word.

So far no evidence has been provided, just blind assertions about what a soul IS not any evidence in its favor.

Zanjan: One knows a living thing by its fruits. One is aware of the existence of a thing by the affect it has on whatever is around it. One doesn't have to understand a thing to operate it. These are manifest truths. The evidence I supplied meets these criteria.

However, you've denied all of them, some without an excuse.

That's fine, I'm not here to persuade you - just answer your questions and ask you some as well.

Skepticism is founded on the presence of other evidence that's not compatible with an assertion being made.

TheismIsUntenable: And you've yet to identify an effect of a soul that is observable that isn't summarily dismissed by other causes.

For instance, name an effect that a person with a soul experiences that a person without a soul does not (or rather CANNOT) experience.

Zanjan: That's a moot question ..........unless you're applying the N. American Indigenous view that all living beings are "persons" - the bear people, the tree people etc.

I'll give you two workable, real life scenarios.

Ancient peoples thought earth was the center of the universe. Reason: he observed the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, beginning its travels each day in a new position as it moved through the seasons. He noticed the stars in the night sky whirled around in a circular fashion, with the earth being the central point of view.

These observations were accurate but wrong.

Once you know what the brain and soul are, it's easy to observe their actions. Every moment one breathes, their brain and soul are active 100% of the time. Once their body dies, it can no longer physically express what their soul is doing.

You've observed there's no communication between you and them. Your observation is accurate but wrong.

TheismIsUntenable: Observations weren't wrong in any of those scenarios. The explanations were wrong.

You offer not even an observation, so we're not even to the point of explanation.

GeraldtheGnome: I just keep seeing errors appear on here.

Zanjan: TIU, science is all about making observations - it's how we mentally process those observations that makes us question the current explanations. This is how optical illusions work - what you see is accurate; how you understand it depends on one's intellectual athleticism, so to speak.

Zanjan: TIU, have you ever been in love? If so, was that love returned?

TheismIsUntenable: We have objective tools to make observations. It's not subjective.

Again you have not provided a single observation in favor of souls.

Zanjan: Tools don't make observations. Someone needs to operate the tools and observe what they register. So, to observe means "to read". This is how the Quran was delivered.

I'm continuing to provide evidence - pay attention and don't be impatient.

Please answer my question.