Travis Calvert

Username: Additional_Goose_556

​

Redditors: Redditor4 (atheist), Redditor5, Redditor6

​

Subreddit: DebateAnAtheist

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Preface: This is what atheists do when you are more skeptical than an atheist.

 

After I challenged Redditor4 on their claim about souls, two more Redditors jumped in at their defense. Notice how these people act when I hold the pressure.

​

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor4:

No one has ever shown a "soul" even exists...

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

No one has ever shown a "soul" even exists...

​

That sounds like quite a big statement.

​

How do you know no one has ever shown a soul to exist? Have you seen everything everyone has ever shown?

​

Or do you mean no one has ever shown you a soul exists?

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor5:

"Shown" in the scientific sense, dingus.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

"Shown" in the scientific sense, dingus.

​

Where did you come from, bud? and why did you call me a dingus?

​

How do you know what Redditor4 meant? Are you assuming? But if you're assuming, then are you calling me a dingus because I didn't assume the same thing as you?

 

Are you twisting Redditor4's words into something you can support? How would you know if that's what you're doing? Maybe Redditor4 is a dingus and didn't mean what you think they meant; or maybe you're the dingus!

​

Even in a scientific sense, how does one know it hasn't ever been shown? Have you seen everything everyone has ever scientifically shown? What if it was forgotten or suppressed?

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

[Redditor5 left the chat]

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor6:

sigh while I disagree completely with how Redditor5 went with an ad homonym, they are not incorrect. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists. Period. All attempts to prove it have been disproven or are fraudulent.

​

​

Even in a scientific sense, how does one know it hasn't ever been shown?

​

We would know about it. There would be discussions in the scientific communities about the soul, just as there is about the cell or the electron. People would be scrambling to study it. Whole schools of (legitimate) thought would exist that could detail the properties of a soul, what it does, where it sits in our body, etc etc.

​

​

Have you seen everything everyone has ever scientifically shown?

​

Does not matter. Just because I have not, does not mean it has or has not been demonstrated.

​

​

What if it was forgotten or suppressed?

​

Science would eventually rediscover it. Let's pretend our entire civilization was completely wiped out tomorrow. No one alive to interpret or translate any of what we have learned so far. Poof. It's aaaaaaall gone for good. Let's further pretend that in millions of years later another species on this planet takes our 'place' and as is inevitable, also starts to learn about the world around them. How would they do it? Applying the basics of the scientific method as we do now, but from absolute square zero. Discovery would build on discovery and eventually some (admittedly not all, even now some of what we've discovered we would not be able to rediscover again, because the opportunity to learn about it doesn't exist anymore) of what we knew through the scientific method would be rediscovered.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

sigh while I disagree completely with how Redditor5 went with an ad homonym, they are not incorrect.

​

Redditor4 said: "No one has ever shown a 'soul' even exists"

​

Redditor5 said, (I paraphrase): "Redditor4 meant that in a scientific sense"

​

Redditor6 said, (I paraphrase): "That is correct (Redditor4 indeed meant that in a scientific sense)"

​

Before we move on, how do you know what Redditor4 meant? Are you assuming? Are you twisting their words into something you can support?

​

It seems to me like you were guessing what they meant, but telling me as if your guess was a certain fact. Is that the case? There is currently no mention of science in Redditor4's comment.

​

​

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists. Period. All attempts to prove it have been disproven or are fraudulent.

​

How do you know this? Are you some sort of "science master" that is aware of all science everywhere? Can you prove what you claim?

​

Exactly how many attempts have there been to prove it? How many were fraudulent? Can you tell me how many people have attempted it, and how many attempts each one of them have made? or do you actually know nothing about all of the cases?

 

How do you know someone has never secretly proven it without releasing it to the public?

​

​

Even in a scientific sense, how does one know it hasn't ever been shown?

​

We would know about it. There would be discussions in the scientific communities about the soul, just as there is about the cell or the electron. People would be scrambling to study it. Whole schools of (legitimate) thought would exist that could detail the properties of a soul, what it does, where it sits in our body, etc etc.

​

Who is "we"? How do you know much of this isn't already happening in secret communities?

​

We wouldn't necessarily know about it. So how do you know it has never happened?

​

Or, are you saying that if someone anywhere in the world scientifically proved it, then "we" all would somehow instantaneously know about it by necessity?

​

​

Have you seen everything everyone has ever scientifically shown?

​

Does not matter.

​

It matters to me; that's why I'm asking the question. You're claiming something has never existed (that is, scientific evidence for a soul), yet it hasn't been established that you've searched everywhere for it. So how do you know it hasn't happened?

 

Are you just going by some kind of faith?

​

​

Just because I have not, does not mean it has or has not been demonstrated.

​

Right, and I'm interested in how you think you know it's never been scientifically shown. Has it been demonstrated that it has never been scientifically shown?

​

Are you just pawning your guesses off towards me as if it's absolute truth?

​

​

What if it was forgotten or suppressed?

​

Science would eventually rediscover it. Let's pretend our entire civilization was completely wiped out tomorrow. No one alive to interpret or translate any of what we have learned so far. Poof. It's aaaaaaall gone for good. Let's further pretend that in millions of years later another species on this planet takes our 'place' and as is inevitable, also starts to learn about the world around them. How would they do it? Applying the basics of the scientific method as we do now, but from absolute square zero. Discovery would build on discovery and eventually some (admittedly not all, even now some of what we've discovered we would not be able to rediscover again, because the opportunity to learn about it doesn't exist anymore) of what we knew through the scientific method would be rediscovered.

​

So apparently if it has happened and been forgotten, then science would eventually rediscover it. But you also teach that science would not rediscover everything. So how do you know this specific thing is one of the things that science would eventually rediscover?

​

How do you know a past civilization hasn't scientifically shown souls to exist, and our civilizations just haven't rediscovered it yet?

​

You made the claim that it has never been scientifically proven. I'm not seeing much more than mere assertions.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor4:

To clarify I did mean that within the realm of science there has been no evidence shown of the existence of a soul. Until that changes, it is logical to proceed on the assumption there is none.

​

However if someone was to come up with a hypothesis, test it, repeat it, test it, have others test it, and show there was a soul, well that would be monumental.

​

But as of yet, they have not.

​

Is it possible that someone did in the past? Given the level of scientific discovery in the past and their lack of access to what we have, doubtful. I'd even say next to impossible.

​

You of course would argue that perhaps some did and we lost all that knowledge. That in itself is a baseless assertion as we have zero proof of such a society in the slightest.

​

And round and round and around we go.

​

Unless you have some evidence that it was shown in the past and can be tested, we can dismiss it.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

To clarify I did mean that within the realm of science there has been no evidence shown of the existence of a soul.

​

Thank you for your clarification. Some people have apparently been using eisegesis on your comment before you clarified it, though they will not admit.

​

Again, how do you know there hasn't been any evidence? Are you also some kind of "science master" that is aware of all science everywhere?

​

Or, are you going by some kind of faith? It is so far quite a baseless assertion.

​

​

Until that changes, it is logical to proceed on the assumption there is none.

​

It is logical to proceed on the awareness that there might be some.

​

Just to note: to assume there is none because it hasn't been proven would be to proceed by the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

​

Appeal to Ignorance: Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

 

It seems like you actually aren't sure if there has been no evidence shown of the existence of a soul. It's like you're just pawning your guesses off towards me as if it's absolute truth.

​

​

However if someone was to come up with a hypothesis, test it, repeat it, test it, have others test it, and show there was a soul, well that would be monumental. But as of yet, they have not.

​

How do you know they have not? Are you just going by some kind of faith? It is so far quite a baseless assertion.

​

​

Is it possible that someone did in the past? Given the level of scientific discovery in the past and their lack of access to what we have, doubtful. I'd even say next to impossible.

​

Yes it is possible. Do you think it is possible or impossible? The logical law of excluded middle means it is either possible or it isn't. If you claim it is impossible, then how do you know that? If you claim it is possible, then you're arguing against your original claim. Even saying it is "next to impossible" implies it is possible, which argues against your original claim.

​

- "It has never been proven".

​

- "It is next to impossible that it has been proven in the past".

​

Are you saying it is possible that it has been proven after saying it has never been proven? Is this a subtle shift in your position? That would be monumental.

​

They might have had even better equipment for proving certain things than we have now. How do you know they all had a lack of access to what we have? are you going by some kind of faith? It is so far quite a baseless assertion.

​

​

You of course would argue that perhaps some did and we lost all that knowledge. That in itself is a baseless assertion as we have zero proof of such a society in the slightest.

​

That's not a baseless assertion in the sense that it's based on a logical possibility. I'm in accordance with logic by saying it might have happened, yet I'm not claiming it did or didn't happen. You seem to be flirting with a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) by claiming "There is no evidence. Until there is, it is logical to assume it didn't happen." Is that a fair assessment?

​

How do you know we have zero proof? Do you mean you specifically have zero proof? There could be people who have proof of such past societies. Are you going by some kind of faith? It is so far quite a baseless assertion.

​

​

And round and round and around we go.

​

You can portray this as if we are just going in circles, but I am making great progress in our debate.

​

​

Unless you have some evidence that it was shown in the past and can be tested, we can dismiss it.

​

You say "unless" I have evidence we can dismiss it, as if we are incapable of dismissing evidence. But that is false. We are capable of dismissing either way.

​

We can dismiss your bold claim that it never happened. You can also concede it. Or, of course, support it, instead of arguing against it.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

[Redditor4 left the chat]

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor6:

You can portray this as if we are just going in circles, but I am making great progress in our debate.

​

And I have never laughed so hard in my life. Your needlessly accusatory tone has led your conversation straight into a wall. You need to learn more about the scientific method, the burden of proof, the null hypothesis and much more. But this is all above my and other's pay grade here so the 'debate' is now over. But you keep doing you.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

And I have never laughed so hard in my life. Your needlessly accusatory tone has led your conversation straight into a wall. You need to learn more about the scientific method, the burden of proof, the null hypothesis and much more. But this is all above my and other's pay grade here so the 'debate' is now over. But you keep doing you.

​

I imagine others would like to see you answer my questions and justify your claims (or concede them) after you finish picking at tones and where you think my level of knowledge is.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor6:

I made no claims that need justification, you just thought that I did.

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

Redditor6 said: "I made no claims that need justification, you just thought that I did"

 

Redditor6 also said: "There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists" (Negative claim)

​

Redditor6 also said: "All attempts to prove it have been disproven or are fraudulent" (Positive claim)

​

Those claims need justification according to my standards. We have different standards for the burden of proof.

​

According to my standards, the burden of proof is (simply put) equally on everyone who makes a claim. You claim space aliens don't exist? The burden of proof is on you to show it. Can't show it? Don't claim it. Don't know what you're talking about? Don't pretend you do.

​

You said you made no claims that need justification after you made both negative and positive claims.

 

So what types of claims do require justification according to your standards?

​

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor6:

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists.

​

An observation, not a claim. (// Dear viewers, that is hilarious.) I will admit the word absolutely should not have been used.

​

​

All attempts to prove it have been disproven or are fraudulent.

 

Another observation, not a claim. Even if they where claims, I did address them:

​

We (Yes, foolishly I included myself, a layperson, inside of a royal we that I meant as the greater scientific community) would know about it. There would be discussions in the scientific communities about the soul, just as there is about the cell or the electron. People would be scrambling to study it. Whole schools of (legitimate) thought would exist that could detail the properties of a soul, what it does, where it sits in our body, etc etc.

​

And Redditor4 chipped in as well:

​

However if someone was to come up with a hypothesis, test it, repeat it, test it, have others test it, and show there was a soul, well that would be monumental. But as of yet, they have not.

​

Meaning, if there WAS any evidence of a soul it would be huge deal to the scientific community. Nobel prizes would be given out for such an important discovery. It would open so many new fields of study scientists would be scrambling to study. Not to mention having to throw out existing fields like neurology and psychology. Things WOULD be different. They're not. Current scientific understanding has no need for a soul and can adequately explain the world we live in without such supernatural beliefs.

​

If souls existed, I would assume we all (or at least most) would have them and we wouldn't be able to hide that fact any more than we can hide that we have eyes. This sort of fact would not and could not be suppressed by some secret scientific cabal if one existed. It also would not matter if it was once discovered and forgotten either. The soul would still exist even if there was not a scientific explanation. Could Marie Curie have hidden the fact that atomic radiation existed before she and her husband were able to accurately describe what was? It was already killing people seemingly without explanation. Did our lack of understanding about the germ theory of disease prevent it from working in our ignorance of it? Of course not.

​

This is one of those instances where the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when there is no evidence to be found when one would expect to find it. I and others are perfectly justified in this case to say that scientific evidence for the soul does not exist, even if I personally have not tracked or handed a list to you of every single failed attempt to prove it. That's not how this works.
 

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Additional_Goose_556:

You said the debate was over. What happened? This is confusing. Will you concede that statement if you are just going to continue the debate?

​

Your level of engagement is disappointing. I imagine our audience would like to see you engage with me more. I have established logical issues with your position along with so many great questions that you are ignoring.

​

Here's a question: How do you know mainstream science hasn't unknowingly discovered the soul and just calls it by another name, not fully understanding what it is and how it works?

​

​

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists.

​

An observation, not a claim.

​

Claim: To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain.

​

Are you stating it as truth that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists? or are you just "observing possibilities" out loud? or what?

​

​

I will admit the word absolutely should not have been used.

​

So you concede your original statement. Now it is: "There is no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists."

​

Is that a fair assessment of what you meant? You're still saying there is no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists, so my questions are still relevant.

​

It seems like you speak in an authoritative manner until you are pressed to provide support for your position; it is as if you are making claims and getting by, but then calling them observations when you are challenged, as if that will take away the burden of justifying your position. Is this the case?

​

If not, then why have you avoided supporting your position for so long, and why has your tone changed?

​

After challenging you, your statements have been consistently sounding weaker and weaker. Consider the change in your tone from your first message after being challenged:

​

Pre-challenged:

​

"There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists. Period."

​

​

Post-challenged:

​

"Here's an observation; there is no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists - but I'm not claiming this. Period."

​

Is that a fair assessment of your changes?

​

You do want to be taken seriously, right? So now that you have demonstrated your messages are mere observations and not claims, how can one determine what is a claim and what is a mere observation in your writings? At this point, I am skeptical. Anything you state might be labeled as mere observation once under scrutiny. Is there any authority in your observations? or do you have no points to make?

​

Will you define your uses of "claim" and "observation" for clarity?

​

​

All attempts to prove it have been disproven or are fraudulent.

​

Another observation, not a claim.

​

Are you stating it as truth that all attempts to prove it have been disproven or are fraudulent? or are you just "observing possibilities" out loud? or what?

​

​

Even if they where claims, I did address them: We (Yes, foolishly I included myself, a layperson, inside of a royal we that I meant as the greater scientific community)...

​

So you foolishly included yourself. Does that mean you are not actually a part of that community? If so, then how do you know so much about a community you aren't a part of? But if not, then how was it foolish to include yourself?

​

​

...would know about it.

​

Begging the question; circular logical fallacy.

​

​

There would be discussions in the scientific communities about the soul, just as there is about the cell or the electron.

​

Begging the question; circular logical fallacy.

​

​

People would be scrambling to study it. Whole schools of (legitimate) thought would exist that could detail the properties of a soul, what it does, where it sits in our body, etc etc.

​

Begging the question; circular logical fallacy.

​

​

And Redditor4 chipped in as well: However if someone was to come up with a hypothesis, test it, repeat it, test it, have others test it, and show there was a soul, well that would be monumental. But as of yet, they have not.

​

Begging the question; circular logical fallacy.

​

​

Meaning, if there WAS any evidence of a soul it would be huge deal to the scientific community. Nobel prizes would be given out for such an important discovery. It would open so many new fields of study scientists would be scrambling to study.

​

How do you know this?

​

​

Not to mention having to throw out existing fields like neurology and psychology.

​

How do you know this?

​

​

Things WOULD be different.

​

How do you know this? Perhaps things are the way they are now because souls have been scientifically shown to exist. Can you prove that is not the case?

​

​

They're not. Current scientific understanding has no need for a soul and can adequately explain the world we live in without such supernatural beliefs.

​

How do you know mainstream science hasn't unknowingly discovered the soul and just calls it by another name, not fully understanding what it is and how it works?

​

​

If souls existed, I would assume we all (or at least most) would have them and we wouldn't be able to hide that fact any more than we can hide that we have eyes.

​

Why not?

​

​

This sort of fact would not and could not be suppressed by some secret scientific cabal if one existed.

​

Why couldn't it? You assert it, but how about you try proving it? I can easily assert the opposite. It could look like this:

​

This sort of fact could be suppressed by some secret scientific cabal if one existed.

​

​

It also would not matter if it was once discovered and forgotten either. The soul would still exist even if there was not a scientific explanation. Could Marie Curie have hidden the fact that atomic radiation existed before she and her husband were able to accurately describe what was? It was already killing people seemingly without explanation. Did our lack of understanding about the germ theory of disease prevent it from working in our ignorance of it? Of course not.

​

I ask, "how do you know this?", but you answer, "we would know this", and then you shove a bunch of assertions in there. That is circular reasoning - another one of the informal logical fallacies you apparently cling to. You are beginning with what you ought to be ending with. You are assuming what you ought to be proving.

​

​

This is one of those instances where the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when there is no evidence to be found when one would expect to find it. I and others are perfectly justified in this case to say that scientific evidence for the soul does not exist, even if I personally have not tracked or handed a list to you of every single failed attempt to prove it. That's not how this works.

​

The absence of evidence is not evidence. It is an absence of evidence. From the first letter in that passage to the last, you're justifying your own appeal to ignorance; a logical fallacy.

​

So, how do you think it works? Anything you say is automatically justified?

​

Justification works according to standards. In saying "that's not how this works", you blatantly refuse to acknowledge my standards in our discussion. Is that a reasonable thing to do? I can do what you're doing; I can refuse to acknowledge your standards and appeal to mine. We can argue back and forth in a ridiculous manner:

​

"That's not how it works."

​

"Yes, that is how it works! I am right, and you are wrong. I am justified, and you are not."

​

"No, it's not."

​

"Yes, it is."

​

Now what? Do you see how it looks when someone else does it? How would we get anywhere?

​

​

This is one of those instances where the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence...

​

How? When...

​

The soul would still exist even if there was not a scientific explanation.

​

Can you correct me?
 

​

------------------------------------------------------------

Redditor6:

You said the debate was over. What happened?

​

Because I am a fool who just can't resist trying to help people whom I realize way to late are honestly beyond help or at least not worth wasting my time. This will be the final reply and you will be blocked from now on. I am not a scientist. I am a layperson who has an interest in science. One can understand the methodologies used by scientists and the greater scientific community without actively engaging and 'doing' science you know. Just as I can understand the basics of how my car works without being a mechanic or an engineer. They teach this stuff in GRADE SCHOOL if you paid attention.

​

​

After challenging you, your statements have been consistently sounding weaker and weaker.

​

Because I am not an established communicator, I am just some layperson on the net talking to whom I also assume is a layperson on the net. Yes, I will make mistakes and say things I should not have. No one is perfect. I have admitted my original comment that triggered you was poorly worded and more authoritative than I was warranted in making.

​

​

Your level of engagement is disappointing. I imagine our audience would like to see you engage with me more. I have established logical issues with your position along with so many great questions that you are ignoring.

​

WTF are you talking about? What audience? I've been answering you every single time. You have been rejecting and ignoring my explanations, twisting my words, accusing me of fallacies I am not making and being in general a very dishonest interlocutor. You seem only interested in being contrarian rather than honestly communicating anything. I'm unsure if you've been watching but you've been downvoted every time you've opened your mouth and let word salad spew forth. I've had enough salad for the rest of the week, thank you.

​

​

Here's a question: How do you know mainstream science hasn't unknowingly discovered the soul and just calls it by another name, not fully understanding what it is and how it works?

​

First of all, define the soul. What are we even arguing about at this point? What I think of when someone mentions a soul is some very vaguely defined immaterial part of yourself, your personality, your awareness or whatever that survives the death of the body and either 'moves on' somewhere unknown or possibly into another body if you believe in reincarnation. The problem is, as I've said before, we have no evidence of this phenomenon occurring at all let alone it occurring and we don't know why. So no, I do not think it has been discovered and called something else.

​

​

Is that a fair assessment of what you meant? You're still saying there is no scientific evidence that shows a soul exists, so my questions are still relevant.

​

The point you are missing is that I am not making claims of absolute certainty here, you are accusing me of doing so. I am simply completely unaware of scientific evidence that shows the soul exists, and in fact aware of many other fields of study that point to the conclusion there is no room in our current understanding for the soul to exist at all. Just as I don't have to be 100% certain leprechauns don't exist to disbelieve in their existence, I am equally sure the soul does not exist, and thus the scientific community couldn't discover it if they looked. All of the rest of the nonsense you've spouted on this subject is immaterial.

​

​

The absence of evidence is not evidence. It is an absence of evidence.

​

As I said, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence if one would expect to find evidence. As I've tried to explain numerous times, the existence of the soul would be a very big deal, easily on par with germ theory of disease was. What changed when this was discovered? Suddenly illness and disease was more explainable by microscopic living organisms and viruses than ghosts, demons, devils or what ever other crazy nonsense we used to think. Did we know everything about how it all worked? No, there was a lot of unknowns still, but we could be certain that it wasn't demons or anything like that. Again I have tried to outline this fact to you but you just simply ignore and say "but how do you know that?" like a petulant child rather than realizing what I'm trying to tell you.

​

​

Can you correct me?

​

Have tried multiple times, not trying any further. You're not interested in changing your position just being contrarian in the hope as I am right now, that people just give up rather than try to correct you so that you can pretend to put another debate victory on your belt buckle. Knock yourself out, have a good life, and please open your mind in the future.
 

​

------------------------------------------------------------