Lots of great responses, I want to reply in depth to everyone, but this would take quite a lot of time, so I will stick to short responses for now.
I concur that it is not a theological definition of a soul, I reject the theological one as a pile of very flawed nonsensical garbage. I do understand that this can create confusion I apologize for the confusion. I was presenting my own conclusions on the very broad term of “soul” in general, a very broad and vague term.
I agree NDE’s and OBE’s are not well supported scientific findings and should be dismissed.
I base this on the fact that any and all concepts of soul has zero basis or findings in reality. It only exists in our heads, part of the fake reality that exists in our heads - “brain states” - to borrow your term.
Perhaps rewording will help: souls are the product of human thought and imagination, but without anyway to observe, remains strictly within the realm of pure fantasy.
I had a similar conclusion for many years, and I still have it as part of my own meaning of life. But the answer to the age old question of “what is the meaning of life” I feel the few hints we get all point to the same conclusion: there is no meaning to life in reality.
This to me would lead me to further conclude that “love” is in the head, where the reality of it is biological programming to reproduce and safety in numbers being the primary driver of the very difficult to describe/explain open ended term.
A question I have considered as well, which further leads me to think infinite absolute nothing is an even crazier claim then infinite space.
By literal definitions I would consider this to be an oxymoron. Again, to me, adding credence to the idea there is no such thing as “absolute nothing.”
All your valid questions I have also considered and they all to me build for the case of infinite space rather then non infinite space.
I am not sure if it is possible to be precise about speculation on infinity, but I will try.
Fits what we do know about the space we can observe. Fits what is known through observation and study so far. And it most certainly fits my own thoughts/speculation other questions, like the “how did everything come to be?”
I assume most all of us can all agree that current reality in which we reside is not “nothing.” That all we have observed so far is something, we have never observed “nothing.” For space to be “finite” there would have to be “infinite nothing” surrounding it. Infinite nothing, something we humans have yet to encounter/detect in even finite amounts.
It also neatly fits/explains how everything came to be. No matter how small the odds, in infinite space, if it is possible, it can occur and it can occur infinitely.
I purposely went broad. These are not small constrained piecemeal ideas. I had no idea what the response to my posting would be, I kept it short and to the point. Let me know if you would like me to rephrase the question into something less broad.
Sure, we are talking about gravity, the force that attracts mass to mass.
Going backwards from why am I (or we) are here: a planet conducive to the formation of complex life, a planet created by gravity from available nearby mass, orbiting a sun created and maintained by gravity, with mass created from the forces of gravity from the observable parts of the big bang.
I do not understand why mass attracts mass, so that is the end point of the question of “why everything is the way things are.” To me the farthest we have gotten is mass attracts mass or if you like “the force of mass attracting mass” also known as gravity.
You are right to be dubious. I think you already know writing your response that there is no way to present objective evidence for the conclusion that space is infinite. Just like there is none for that space is finite and beyond that is infinite nothing. There is no way to even observe infinity/lack of by any method. This is strictly within the realm of unsubstantiated theory.
I am asking for what is wrong with the thoughts/ideas I presented in my original post. Yes, I agree the utter lack of objective evidence is a major issue.
I am hoping for more reasons to consider other possible answers other then simple disregarding all of it because there is no objective evidence, especially when talking about stuff where objective evidence is impossible.
I also think challenging bad ideas and beliefs is important. I am saying further investigation in the possibility of a creator god based on the information available is a waste of time, I long ago abandoned any hope that my challenging of bad idea and beliefs will change peoples mind on something they hold as strongly as their religion/god.
Was in response to:
I think this is different from the claims theist make.
I made a post about my thoughts, asked people to tell me what is wrong with my thoughts. I am making no claims, I am not telling people to believe my thoughts, but instead asking people to critique them. I picked an atheist board to avoid “because god” conversations that is not a helpful critique.
I understand the issue and importance of evidence and proof on making claims and the inherent flaw of my line of reasoning/thoughts lack evidence/proof. Are there other flaws you can point out?
Missed that, I concur, I think ego plays a huge role to MrDawn’s comment of “why most Christians believe in the bullshit that the Bible preaches.”
A tremendous amount of response, better and more then I hoped for. Thanks to everyone that took the time to respond.