How do you intend to prove they do exist?
1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
2) Showing a trend of observations supporting the "survival hypothesis"; such a hypothesis allows a theoretical grasp on the subject.
A good link to get started.
3) Also, I will use theoretical physics to back this up; found in "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".
You are beginning to know how God builds visible bodies by
compressing long waves of low potential into short high ones and then reverses that
process so that visible ones again become invisible. Science has practiced that method
of compressing waves but does not KNOW that it has been practicing it. Science
merely says, "Matter seemingly emerges from space and is then swallowed up by
space, but it may be that man will never be able to solve this great mystery of the
creative process of matter." We will slowly build up a complete explanation of this
process of Nature. Please bear with us.
4)
Here is a template for how this science may progress; there is a lot of work to do in expanding the survival hypothesis, but this helps to show how the science can be done in this field.
This is the kind of evidence that would need to be explained by that science.5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death.
At least do your research as to where these faulty words come from, and besides that it's impossible to fully prove or disprove a entirely theoretical concept such as the soul.
You keep repeating this, but it has already been addressed:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_afterlife_belief_scientificIn short, for a theory to be scientific it must be supportable by evidence. For a theory to be supported by evidence it must pass a test that could demonstrate the theory is false.
When I clicked on your links, I expected to see a well thought out hypothesis and experiments that were peer reviewed, but what I got was a 1990s website designed and written by what seems like a middle schooler.
This is the first paragraph on that website, which contains so many logical fallacies and inaccuracies...I can't even begin to explain:
"A person is seen as a physical body and an etheric personality entangled in a symbiotic relationship with the physical body functioning as an avatar for personality. This relationship is seen as enabling the personality, which has a primarily etheric point of view, to experience the physical aspect of reality from the physical body's perspective. It is speculated that the purpose of this is to enable the personality to have experiences in the physical venue with the expectation of gaining understanding about the operation of reality given the constraints of physical principles.
The personality is seen as having evolved separately from the physical body, and when the physical body is no longer able to sustain life, the personality must return its focus of attention to the etheric in a process referred to as transition; colloquially as death and dying."As I said earlier, the mind and hormones control our "personality". Happiness, Sadness, Anger, Greed, all those are determined by Hormones. Even your sex drive is determined by the hormone, Oxycotin(Also dubbed the "love hormone". Please go take basic biology...It's kind of annoying and dissapointing to have to explain these things when the information is readily available to you, but oh, you choose to believe in absolutely nonsensical theories presented on an obscure website that looks like it was created by a guy "high out of his mind".
You're worse than BADecker honestly, he at least believes in the bible, while it's also entirely false and full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and general nonsense, is a hell of a lot more plausible than the absolute garbage contained in those links.
