If you believe in gravity, then why not a soul, or spirit?

[Light]

I'll just use 'spirit' interchangeable with 'soul' here.

The spirit, could be said to be an intangible, invisible force, which can effect material bodies.  Gravity, also an intangible, invisible force which can effect material bodies.

So then, if gravity is something easily accepted, why would the concept of a spirit be disregarded so easily?

[Davin]

Drop a rock, now show me similar evidence for a soul. That is why gravity is accepted and a soul is not.

[OldGit]

OMFSM, is it really worth explaining this?  Oh well ...

Gravity has obvious effects which can be measured and predicted.  The mathematics are simple and clear, and they work.

Spirit?  What the hell is that?  Not definable, not measurable or observable, no laws so no predictions possible.

I find it amazing that anyone bright enough to write - albeit with weak spelling and punctuation - can even ask this question.

[Stevil]

We know that objects with greater mass exhibit stronger gravitational force.
We know that as the distance gets further, the gravitational force gets weaker.
We know this through empirical tests, modeled as mathematical formula used to accurately predict future observed events.

Your turn...

[Asmodean]

I'll just use 'spirit' interchangeable with 'soul' here.

The spirit, could be said to be an intangible, invisible force, which can effect material bodies.  Gravity, also an intangible, invisible force which can effect material bodies.

So then, if gravity is something easily accepted, why would the concept of a spirit be disregarded so easily?

First of all, what makes you think I actually do believe in gravity? Just the fact that I'm an atheist who likes pet rats and is married to science?

I know gravity exists, of course, just demonstrating that your entire question is based on an assumption.

To answer your question in as few words as I can be bothered to type out, gravity is necessary in explanation of the natural world and its existence is demonstrated and verified. The kind of spirits that don't make you pull down your pants and dance on the table after a few bottles... You know what I mean... Are neither necessary nor demonstrated or verified.

[Whitney]

Was this a serious question?

[Light]

OMFSM, is it really worth explaining this?  Oh well ...

Gravity has obvious effects which can be measured and predicted.  The mathematics are simple and clear, and they work.

Spirit?  What the hell is that?  Not definable, not measurable or observable, no laws so no predictions possible.

I find it amazing that anyone bright enough to write - albeit with weak spelling and punctuation - can even ask this question.

Not measurable?  So then, since your sense-of-self is also not measurable, definable, or observable,  it must not exist?

[Light]

Drop a rock, now show me similar evidence for a soul. That is why gravity is accepted and a soul is not.

Well, you typed this response, that could be evidence.  Unless, you believe gravity, or atoms, or electromagnetic forces can explain why you wrote what you did.

[Light]

Was this a serious question?

Yes.  All my posts are serious.  I respect everyone's time they put into their responses, if they're thoughtful, and I'm not here to purposefully waste anyone's.

[Asmodean]

Not measurable?  So then, since your sense-of-self is also not measurable, definable, or observable,  it must not exist?

if(soul == selfAwareness){
soul=1;
}
else soul=0;

[squidfetish]

Not measurable?  So then, since your sense-of-self is also not measurable, definable, or observable,  it must not exist?

In the interests of clarity, are you now using 'sense-of-self' as another term for 'soul' or have the goalposts moved?  How would you personally measure it and what units would you use?  Is mass, distance or time involved at all?  I'm not sure if you are actively arguing for the existence of the soul or not.

To paraphrase Don Cupitt (probably badly), the soul (Hebrew, (nephesh; Greek, psyche; Latin' anima) was seen by the ancients as the principle of biological life, sentience and movement - without a 'soul' the body was just dead meat.  The soul was usually associated with the blood - when a man died and his blood seeped into the earth, it went down to the underworld and left him effectively soulless and dead.  Some said that this soul yearned to be resurrected and 'clothed' in a new body.  We have since identified the functions of blood and established that donating blood to a safe level, or other reasonable loss of blood has no real adverse long-term effects on the rest of the human being, and the blood is eventually replaced by the body.   So in terms of biology and the original concept of the soul, the argument for a 'soul' isn't really going anywhere.

[AnimatedDirt]

According to the biblical acct of the creation of Man (Adam)

the LORD God formed the man* from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Other versions translate living being as living soul.

So the easiest most elementary way of viewing this is:

Dirt + Breath of Life = Living Soul

These two things brought together by God MAKE a "soul".
No ethereal soul came down from heaven.  The text seems quite clear to me.  More so, Genesis 1:24 says that animals are also 'souls'.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:...

The Hebrew word nephesh here is translated to creature.  So the land is to produce living souls.
See also Genesis 1:30 and Job 33:4

[Light]

Not measurable?  So then, since your sense-of-self is also not measurable, definable, or observable,  it must not exist?

In the interests of clarity, are you now using 'sense-of-self' as another term for 'soul' or have the goalposts moved?  How would you personally measure it and what units would you use?  Is mass, distance or time involved at all?  I'm not sure if you are actively arguing for the existence of the soul or not.

I'm trying to point out, that people seem to readily accept and rely on concepts which are intangible, not quantifiable, and non observable all the time.  So then , why would believing in a soul, or spirit, seem like such a stretch?

[Gawen]

Not measurable?  So then, since your sense-of-self is also not measurable, definable, or observable,  it must not exist?

In the interests of clarity, are you now using 'sense-of-self' as another term for 'soul' or have the goalposts moved?  How would you personally measure it and what units would you use?  Is mass, distance or time involved at all?  I'm not sure if you are actively arguing for the existence of the soul or not.

I'm trying to point out, that people seem to readily accept and rely on concepts which are intangible, not quantifiable, and non observable all the time.  So then , why would believing in a soul, or spirit, seem like such a stretch?

I can't show you gamma rays but I can show the effects of it. I can't show you a soul either, nor the effects of it. Equating "Gravity exists, therefore soul exists" is as idiotic as saying "Gamma radiation exists, therefore God".

[AnimatedDirt]

I can't show you gamma rays but I can show the effects of it. I can't show you a soul either, nor the effects of it. Equating "Gravity exists, therefore soul exists" is as idiotic as saying "Gamma radiation exists, therefore God".

Are we simply ignoring that each person is a soul, as opposed to having a soul?