I believe that something that can’t be scientifically explain, or be given evidence is the human soul.

There is no evidence that there is such a thing as a soul, and one would have to have a clear idea of what this word means before there could be.

Do you ever wonder how is it that you could do the things you do, like seeing, hearing, remembering? Sure science can explain that there are organs like eyes, ears, and brains that make us able to do such things. But what makes it possible for you to actually experience the things that you did?

Do you mean why is there subjective experience? No one knows exactly, but we do know a great deal about how we can physically do such things as form memories and make decisions (in fact, neural nets are capable of both these things, and they are employed in computer science to make programs that can learn). We know that our subjective experience will change in response to drugs or other physical changes in the brain. We even have experiments showing that the brain starts making decisions before we are aware of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Timing_intentions_compared_to_actions

This all stands to reason if our subjective experience arises somehow from our brains (the early brain activity is the process of the person making the decision), but isn’t consistent with the idea of an immaterial observer that’s pulling the strings. In fact, it’s not clear what such a ghost in the machine would explain. It wouldn’t explain anything about consciousness, just push it back a step.

Why did you live inside your body? Why can’t you move to somebody else’s body and control it if both bodies have the same organs?

No, they don’t have the same organs, in particular they have different brains. That is why you cannot move to their body. If you want your mind in someone else’s body, you would have to somehow transplant your brain there. I don’t think the technology to do this is anywhere on the horizon at the moment.

How do you proof that somebody is even living, I mean have conscious as you do? That person could be living because his heart is beating, but can you proof that he actually “lives”?

No, I cannot absolutely prove that other people have conscious experience. I do have evidence, though. I know that I have conscious experience associated with the complex actions that I perform, and I know that I am biologically similar to the people around me, and that they behave much like I do.

To know something, you don’t have to have absolute certainty. That’s almost impossible to find. The best we can do is look at what the evidence tells us and try to devise new ways to test that.

Just like animals and plants, you know that it lives, but do you know whether they have the same conscious as we did?

We don’t. But we do have good reason to think that at least many animals are conscious, simply based on their behaviors and their biological similarity to us. We don’t know what other kinds of systems may be conscious.

The temptation for most people is to think of consciousness as if it is some irreducible entity (in fact, we know that the mental functions we have conscious experience of are modular to some degree, and can be separated by brain damage, as in patients whose corpus callosum was severed). But given the evidence that our conscious experience is caused by physical processes that we do not consider conscious, it seems more likely that it is an emergent property that exists at certain scales of organization. The classic example is wetness. We can describe what wetness is, and show that it applies to water. But we also know that a single molecule of water is not “wet” in any meaningful way. “Wet” only makes sense on the scale of many interacting water molecules. In the same way, a neuron is not conscious, but a collection of neurons organized in a particular way is.

Many people will not be satisfied unless they can believe that they are a fundamental, indivisible entity that doesn’t arise from simpler, non-conscious parts. The evidence suggests otherwise, though.

- “Could you prove to me that you know it exists? How did you come to think that it exists?”

- “If there are no solid evidences that can prove its existence, then maybe it might not even exist in the first place, don’t you think?”

- “If you’re still insisting that it really does exist, and that you are 100& sure of it, then what will your response be when I also say that I’m 100% positive that it doesn’t exist? You do need to do or say something to make my opinion change, right? You can’t just say you’re god and then expect me to believe all you said without giving me a single proof.. If you did make some miracles or something that I saw with my own eyes, then I maybe have to reconsider my opinion once more. But if you don’t, then don’t expect me to believe in what you said.. Perhaps you should start asking yourself whether the thing that you believed in is true or not, considering that no(?) “normal people” believes you.”

Well jokes apart… :) I believe that something that can’t be scientifically explain, or be given evidence is the human soul.. Do you ever wonder how is it that you could do the things you do, like seeing, hearing, remembering? Sure science can explain that there are organs like eyes, ears, and brains that make us able to do such things. But what makes it possible for you to actually experience the things that you did? Why did you live inside your body? Why can’t you move to somebody else’s body and control it if both bodies have the same organs? How do you proof that somebody is even living, I mean have conscious as you do? That person could be living because his heart is beating, but can you proof that he actually “lives”? Just like animals and plants, you know that it lives, but do you know whether they have the same conscious as we did? Well, not wanting to sound more crazy than this, but this is probably the one and only (maybe ;p) question that I really would love to know the answer of.

Your lack of knowledge of genetics and the breeding of characteristics in both domestic animals, and domestic agriculture, along with easily reproduced examples in the insect and small animal worlds in response to environment pressures is only proof of you ignorance, not you knowledge of an alternative explanation.

Specific examples fall under the description of “evidence” and they are easily provided. You were even given authors to read for the specifics. If you choose to ignore the information, that is not lack of evidence in any way.

That’s just it, there is no evidence at all given for the dragon, only the fact that it can’t be disproven- as Josh said there is evidence for love.

That says more about the current state of science than it does the current state of the world.

Yes, I have. My position is not based on ignorance, but genuine informed disagreement.

I’m often surprised at your comments about evolution. Have you read any good books on evolution apart from creationist authors? Like Bryson or Gould or Miller or Zimmer? It seems like your picture of evolution is quite a straw man.

You mean, like the evolution story.

Whose proponents will insist (with apoplexy) is testable, as long as by “test” you don’t mean something you can actually, you know, set up, do, and repeat.

I actually do think there is evidence for love, though of course it all depends on how you define love. If my wife, for example, said she loved me, but cheated on me, spoke poorly to me, and hit me at every opportunity, I would have plenty of evidence to doubt that what she is saying is true. However, if she says she loves me and her actions are consistent with that, then I have evidence that she does really love me.

So I would say the proof of love is in its actions. This is why we can say that an abusive husband doesn’t love his wife even if he claims to.

Or am I missing your point?

I agree it’s impossible to reduce everything to what can be tested scientifically. But I also think that if someone claims they get abducted, they need real evidence, otherwise we have no reason to believe them.

I’m not sure I agree his scope of evidence is “small-minded.” I’m sure he accepts more than lab-testable results. There is also evidence of history, of testimony, of logic, etc.