When did God put the soul in humans during evolution?

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, Vexen said:

Science and religion can coexist peacefully.

Science does not support the concept of a religiously based soul. This forum is populated by people of science. Therefore you will not find many people here to defend the concept of a soul. That should be obvious.

[Vexen]

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Science does not support the concept of a religiously based soul. This forum is populated by people of science. Therefore you will not find many people here to defend the concept of a soul. That should be obvious.

Does that mean the religions based on the concept of a soul are invalid?

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Vexen said:

Does that mean the religions based on the concept of a soul are invalid?

It means science deals with observable, testable phenomena. Souls, gods, angels, heaven, all these things are scientifically ambiguous because they can't be discussed meaningfully. Falsifiability is lacking in most religious concepts, for example.

[zapatos]

39 minutes ago, Vexen said:

Does that mean the religions based on the concept of a soul are invalid?

It means quit being obtuse.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Vexen said:

Does that mean the religions based on the concept of a soul are invalid?

It means it has nothing to do with science. Unless you can provide some evidence that this "soul" thing (whatever it is) exists.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Vexen said:

Science and religion can coexist peacefully.

Provided that religion keeps out of areas that are properly dealt with by science.
So religion has no valid place in cosmology, biology, ethics, geology, politics, education and so on.

[peterwlocke]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

You do know you are on a science forum, right?

yeah, I agree but we are on the religion side so eh.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, peterwlocke said:

yeah, I agree but we are on the religion side so eh.

So you think a bunch of religious people are going to suddenly appear and defend the concept of a soul just because we are on the religion side? 

[peterwlocke]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So you think a bunch of religious people are going to suddenly appear and defend the concept of a soul just because we are on the religion side? 

nope 

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, peterwlocke said:

nope 

Then I don't understand the purpose of your "so eh" comment.

[peterwlocke]

well, I like to see their reasoning even though I don't believe it I will still hear it it is entertaining.

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Then I don't understand the purpose of your "so eh" comment.

 

[Vexen]

Religious people think of the soul like dark matter. It hasn't been directly observed but its effects can be seen like consciousness and near death experience.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Vexen said:

Religious people think of the soul like dark matter. It hasn't been directly observed but its effects can be seen like consciousness and near death experience.

A better analogy is that religious people think of the soul like the tooth fairy, or santa claus since, while you assert it's effects can be seen, they actually cannot (whereas dark matter very much can).

[Vexen]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

A better analogy is that religious people think of the soul like the tooth fairy, or santa claus since, while you assert it's effects can be seen, they actually cannot (whereas dark matter very much can).

Okay, That's a bit better.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Vexen said:

Religious people think of the soul like dark matter. It hasn't been directly observed but its effects can be seen like consciousness and near death experience.

And this kind of misunderstanding seems to crop up a lot when religious people pretend their beliefs are rational. They put a lot of store in faith, yet they also want to claim they reached their beliefs in a reasoned manner. 

Science already has testable explanations for consciousness and NDEs, so the religious have to choose between the natural and the supernatural in cases like this.

[peterwlocke]

yeah, like faith proves nothing where is something that really proves it.

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, peterwlocke said:

yeah, like faith proves nothing where is something that really proves it.

Believe it or not, scientists don't look for proof, they look for evidence that supports the hypothesis. When enough evidence in support piles up, and no evidence against can be found, they start calling it a theory. 

It's unfair to hold religious claims to a standard of proof science doesn't follow. Proof is for philosophy and maths.

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Believe it or not, scientists don't look for proof, they look for evidence that supports the hypothesis. When enough evidence in support piles up, and no evidence against can be found, they start calling it a theory. 

It's unfair to hold religious claims to a standard of proof science doesn't follow. Proof is for philosophy and maths.

Every now and them, science does look for proof- often for proof that something does not work.
The Michelson Morley  experiment is a good example.
If the ether was real then that experiment would have shown it.

The experiment didn't; so the ether (as it had been described) doesn't exist.

[Itoero]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 7:58 PM, Vexen said:

was wondering when was the soul imparted into humans during the course of evolution?

At the first animal which was called 'human'. Maybe Homo Habilis.

[peterwlocke]

17 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Every now and them, science does look for proof- often for proof that something does not work.
The Michelson Morley  experiment is a good example.
If the ether was real then that experiment would have shown it.

The experiment didn't; so the ether (as it had been described) doesn't exist.

no i was saying that you need proof to prove something and nothing proves god

[seriously disabled]

There is no shred of proof that humans have ever had a soul.

Most people just can't accept the finality of death so they invent things, God and souls being among them.

But there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God just like there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of life beyond death.

I believe that death is the end for us.

Once you're dead you stay dead for all of eternity and that is why religion is evil: Religion prays on the weak, the poor and the gullible and makes them believe things which actually aren't true at all.

 

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

There is no shred of proof that humans have ever had a soul.

You're aware that religion does not require evidence?

 

[Phi for All]

20 hours ago, seriously disabled said:

There is no shred of proof that humans have ever had a soul.

20 hours ago, MandanMaru39 said:

There is no scientific evidence for anything resembling a soul .

You're off-topic in this thread. The table discussing whether there is a soul in the first place is three rows down on the left.

This one is discussing when a soul may have developed during evolution.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This one is discussing when a soul may have developed during evolution.

I suspect it was when confirmation bias emerged. 

[koti]

On 3/1/2019 at 9:09 PM, Phi for All said:

I'd say early to mid-twentieth century. But it wasn't God, at least not directly.

It was Ray Charles.

I have to disagree on this one Phi. It was Aretha Franklin.