That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.
But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.
everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe
This is the only way that makes sense to approach it. Either it is and there’s an objective truth and consistency to reality, or it isn’t and there’s literally infinite possibilities so any single possibility is infinitely unlikely and there’s no reason to assume any of them are valid.
Where did I say there’s no objective truth to the universe? Say I drew some pictures on small pieces of paper and arranged them adjacent to each other on a table, and then placed my hand flat on the table, then invited you to look. You can see pictures on the table, I then ask you whether there are any pictures under my hand. You (should) answer that you don’t know. You not knowing whether there are pictures under my hand or not does nor change the objective truth of their existence. The hand represents what we don’t know about the universe, and you (at least currently) don’t have the technology to lift it.
An assertion that something does not exist does not need to be proven, since it is inherently a challenge to someone else’s assertion to something existing.
A negative can not be proven, if someone wishes to insist that a concept be considered, the burden of evidence fall upon them.
That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.
P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.
That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.
But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.
This is the only way that makes sense to approach it. Either it is and there’s an objective truth and consistency to reality, or it isn’t and there’s literally infinite possibilities so any single possibility is infinitely unlikely and there’s no reason to assume any of them are valid.
Where did I say there’s no objective truth to the universe? Say I drew some pictures on small pieces of paper and arranged them adjacent to each other on a table, and then placed my hand flat on the table, then invited you to look. You can see pictures on the table, I then ask you whether there are any pictures under my hand. You (should) answer that you don’t know. You not knowing whether there are pictures under my hand or not does nor change the objective truth of their existence. The hand represents what we don’t know about the universe, and you (at least currently) don’t have the technology to lift it.
An assertion that something does not exist does not need to be proven, since it is inherently a challenge to someone else’s assertion to something existing.
A negative can not be proven, if someone wishes to insist that a concept be considered, the burden of evidence fall upon them.
That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.
P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.
So… you define the concept of soul as being comparable with sentience?
Do you mean sentience or sapience?
They don’t know what they mean, they’re just regurgitating entry-level thought experiments.