[deccan]

Originally posted by Slick:
A soul may or may not exist. We don't even agree on what it is, much less what it is made of or how to detect it. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to disprove it. As for proof, not enough evidence there either.

This is extremely spurious logic Slick.

First of all, I believe that most reasonable people will agree that if someone A claims that an entity x exists, it is up to A to provide a positive argument that x exists, and not up to a skeptical person B to provide an argument that x does not exist. Most reasonable people will also agree that it is difficult / almost impossible to prove a negative.

Second, the term "soul" is only a nominative label. When people debate the existence of "souls", people are of course really debating the existence of some definable entity which the term "soul" denotes, not the term "soul" itself. So, if person A claims that entity "soul" exists, it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of "soul" and all debate subsequent to that will relate to that particular definition of "soul" and no other.

Of course, I admit that there are other, more subtle considerations (e.g. there is a logical difference between actively asserting the non-existence of an entity and passively denying the existence of an entity due to faulty arguments asserting its existence.)

However, the main point is that I believe that we can safely and quite reasonably say that souls, in the popularly understood sense of the term in Western culture, do not exist because all known arguments for its existence have been conclusively refuted or else are fatally flawed.