Replies

• 

  Roaring Lovely May 11, 2021 at 6:10am

  What if we attempt an explanation, e.g. that a soul is a polarization in the 'matter-antimatter' potential. Then the photograph is explained in the same way we explain the so called 'delbruck scattering'. The photograph of a soul is a rare 'light to light' interaction. However the traditional (non)explanation only hits at contradiction when it attempts to explain what happened to the light as it boomeranged to the camera yet the soul is supposed to be 'non physical'! In otherwords ironically, every evidence actually contradict the traditional view of 'soul' or 'spirit'! We must abandon this view! There is no clear-cut difference between matter (hence science ) and things to do with spirit (hence sirituality).
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 11, 2021 at 5:53am

  Similar thing happens in the so called UFOs. People say 'we saw something flying that science cannot explain, therefore it is a UFO'. That is why the debunkers laugh off! A lack of scientific explanation is not a knowledge of ETs, souls etc. We cannot rely on ignorance of scientists to justify our beleifs. Such means that they get the more irrelevant the more the knowledge advance!
  
  Meanwhile thevm very same UFOs are also said to be photographed, meaning that they affect light! Now such cannot be 'magics'. In other words the concept of 'magic' as 'the unphysical' is problematic!
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 11, 2021 at 5:35am

  

  Such things are often said and yet when I try to explain a soul, as 'an entity that can reflect light', people revert to the usual 'soul is not physical' nonsense. Either everything is physical or nothing is physical! If a soul can affect the photographic plate, then at least there is an aspect of it that must be explained. We must explain what happened to light when they hit the soul. We need a scientific theory of what a soul is. We must completely drop the traditional approach where things to do with soul is exempted because 'they are beyond understanding'. This approach needlessly leads to inconsistencies.