<<..In/the..scientific-method,..Occam's/razor..
is/not..considered..an irrefutable/principle..of logic..nor..a scientific_result>>

DAVID..<<..The..assumption/of..the existence..of a soul..accompanying our physical/existence..violates Occam's/razor>>

clearly..that isnt..irrefutable..
nor..via science/result..nor*..falsification..
[i..will take..that as..a comment]

<<..since..its existence..has
no discernible/effect..on..our existence...>>

i would..ask..for proof..of concept..?

i feel..that/weighing..for the..weight..of soul..
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15097#15097

is conclusive..
[and find ..that it was..never repeated
to be mainly..because..the initial results..did find weight-drop..[mass]..energy/lost.[at..the point/of death

it..[that]..must of..scared science peers
[they..control funding/plus publication
[lets examine..the numbers..*again..with open_eyes]

weight..is energy..the energy is..mass
the memory..remainders..=..mass..of..E remnants
[rem-remaining..of the lif's events..our passions life experiences..karmic damage..et..the lot..life burdens..we lived

those..who lived little..have little soul..to weigh
thus/that soul..withdraws..along with..the life spirit./.
and weighs less..than an ounce..

we must/not forget..that all this to..and
fro..is only based/on..only 6 actual attempts..[which is pathetic.

.[but..
so frightened science..
it was only ALLOWED..to be replicated..on dogs..
[that clearly have..little passion..limited/life experiences less[E-remnants]..less-emotional baggage..in their..soul

the passions..of man..are..highly energy/visible
[made visible..by their vibrational content..of the experience]

but..to fully explain..that
needs research..of how music..vibrates/resonates..octaves half octaves

ANYHOW

<<..Occam's/razor..is a principle..of parsimony,>>

meaning..<<..1...Unusual..or excessive/frugality;..
<<..extreme economy..or stinginess...

<<..2...Adoption ..of the simplest assumption>>

ie..do nothing
prove nothing..just walk away..from trying..to know

thus not/science either

<<./.economy,..or succinctness..used
in logic..and problem-solving.>>

the shortest road..is to avoid..the dead end roads
or stay at home..[economy principle]

<<It states..that among competing hypotheses>>

AHHAA..please*..
what competing hypothesis..[nuthin?]
im not noting one..so far..what have i missed?

<<the hypothesis..with the fewest
assumptions should be selected...

WHAT ASSUMPTION..presumption?

<<The application..of the principle..often shifts
the burden..of proof..in a discussion.>>

oh right got ya

<<..proceed..to simpler theories..until..simplicity..can be traded..for greater explanatory/power.>>

put sim-ploy..
when..someone else does it
its easier to dismiss..any proof as spurious..[thus avoid..ever paying for..the reproof of the principle...or/its nullification]..

the numbers..are clear here..[previous post]

,<<..The simplest..available/theory
need not be..most accurate.>>

what theory?
the razer..seems rather blunt?

<<..Philosophers//also point out..that
the exact/meaning of..simplest..*may be nuanced.>>

biased/shaded..
spun..avoided/nullified..yet never qualified?

<<..Occam's razor..is/used as a heuristic
(general guiding rule..or an observation)..
<<..to guide scientists..in the development..*of theoretical models..rather than..as an arbiter..between published models.>>

got it?
we got nothing..disproved..nothing proved..*!*

no means to verify/nor falsify
..its still clear..to me..till disproved...[atheist/science peers..panicked..]..

alternate_theories?
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15097#15097

.

Dear David,

.

Your posts are quite remarkable. I should have liked to have signed them myself.

It seems that the definition of the soul you indicate is to be found in the glossary at the back of the U.S. version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I found an interesting explanation of the “soul” concept on a French web-site.

Here are some excerpts:

“The bible defines the soul (Hebrew: nèphèsh; Greek: psukhê) as a person, an animal, or the life which animates one or the other. However, for many people the “soul” is the immaterial or spiritual part of the human being which survives the death of the physical body. For others, it is the principle of life. In fact, none of these beliefs originate from the bible.

[ Biblical references: Gen. 2:7 - I Cor. 15:45 - I Pierre 3:20 - Gen. 9:5 - Joshua 11:11 - Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 25 - Lév. 24:17, 18 - Rév. 16:3 - Ézéch.18:4 - Mat. 10:28 - Actes 3:23 - Eccl. 12:7 - Eccl. 3:19 - Héb. 4:12 - Ps. 146:4 ]

What is the origin of belief in immortal soul?

The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. His [Augustine’s] doctrine owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism. — New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp.452, 454.

The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.— Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

.

(Continued) ...

.

.

(Continued) ...

.

Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato. — Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes. — Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

The problem of immortality engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life. — The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.”
.
More or less the same information is to be found on the following Catholic forum (in English):
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=631623

.

hi banjo..i..replied your post here
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15098#15098

thanks for the link..
i edited the posts questions

aj..expects a reply..from..george..when george..has clearly/revealed his..opinion..<<./.As to the definition of soul..you quote,..it fits well..the outdated Cartesian dualism..(body and spirit..as two separate entities)..>>

not..entities..they..4/me=
spirit/astral/aural-bodies..[not mind]

<<..In..this latter/interpretation..soul..
would..correspond to..what is usually /called mind>>

for me..its like a duplicate..new body..
we use..after we ALL get 'born-again!

<<..Belief in “afterlife”..is then a belief,
<<.This is just/one..interpretation..but/less absurd..than that of a disembodied soul..flying around somewhere>>

no..they are called..empty astral shells.

re the 6..<<..Experiments..to weigh soul..or mind are>>>

clearly reveals..george dont/read my posts

so..i will reply aj<<.When someone..is quick/to..describe a concept in terms..of what it/is not,>>>

dcome onaj..george has repeatedly..gone beyond where ghe feels onsure ghround..heckhant we all..but wqe push eachother toextend ourselves[its character building..and builds upour soul[good works build the spirit boidyt..bad works cloud the astralbody

george is near white
[funny so are you]

<<..yet..yopu..can only appeal.to the mysterious
when asked to describe..what it actually is,..then it is usually safe to assume..that not only does/that someone..not know>>

george has repeatedly said that
yet..he keeps on trying..to extend from..what he knows..he isnmt sure where all this goes..but thats why he has our respect

<<<we cannot answer..a mystery with..another mystery.>>

so true..thank you
keep..pushing..me..george after all..is our host
but ilove being tested..it pushes me to think..outside my comfort zone..pushme here..

or here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0
[i..would love that]

Dear George,

I exchanged emails with a member of a small Christian sect and asked him about the tenets and the history of his sect. I also told him of my views. I thought I made it clear to him that I was only asking because I am interested in what different groups believe and why they believe it. He sent me an email which included, “I would suffer unutterable joy if you came to Christ.” I was outraged. I saw no reason why discussing each other’s views meant any attempt at conversion by either of us. What bothered me even more was that he couldn’t understand my outrage and interpreted it as hatred of Christianity.

I looked at my post after I sent it in which I questioned your view of the soul. I hoped I did not come across to you the way he came across to me. I remain horrified by missionaries and was appalled by the thought that I might be one myself.

Dear Banjo,

Much of Christian thinking comes from the Greeks. The concept of the Fall is Platonic – a degeneration from the original Ideal Form. The concept of Original Sin stems from that. It is the normative Jewish interpretation of the sin of Adam and Eve that guilt for the sin died with them, and that was the end of it. Although their descendents lived with the consequences of the sin – exile from the garden – their descendents did not share guilt for the sin and were born free of guilt.

The connection of holiness with avoidance of sex or celibacy is also a pagan and not a Jewish idea. Jesus himself is a god compatible with paganism. By the time of Jesus the Jewish concept of God had become an invisible presence with no human aspects. To see God as incarnated in human form is blasphemy in Jewish terms but quite compatible with many pagan ideas of god.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/ contains “Pagan and Christian Creeds” by Carpenter.

X. The Saviour-god And The Virgin-mother contains descriptions of the many pagan proto-Jesuses.

Dear david f,

>>Please ignore my previous post. You do not have to account for your beliefs to me. Being a secular inquisitor is no better than being a religious one.<<

I read your posts and I certainly do not see a reason to ignore them. On the contrary, they provide valuable external insights into my worldview. They are a challenge, so forgive my long reply.

As for Inquisition, there are other people, also on this OLO, whose style much more than yours resembles “inquisition”.

My brief reaction to your comments would be that they follow “logically” from the assumption that there is no Spiritual realm (or that it is reducible to the mental), in particular no God as understood by the Bible and metaphysicians/theologians expanding on it.

The opposite assumption that there is such a Spiritual realm can indeed seem superfluous, an unnecessary “hidden variable” added to our understanding (and feeling about) our human existence, and you are right to point to Occam’s razor. I borrowed the term “hidden variable” from quantum physics introduced (e.g. by David Bohm) as a price to pay for making QM deterministic. I know, hidden variables have been rejected (for reasons intrinsic to physics). So if one carries further this analogy, your side has won, but still the intention was understandable, because determinism in physics would be better, easier to live with, than indeterminism.

One argument that FOR SOME OF US could topple the Occam’s razor objection is connected with how one sees the meaning and purpose of one’s life.

(ctd)