Anansi,
Re: "String theory has not yet been conformed to exist either, but many scientists "believe" it does.
String Theory most certainly does exist. In fact, one of the most substantial problems with string theory is that there are actually five different versions that all exist. What doesn't exist is confirmation that any of the various versions of the theory are correct. They have, however, been tied together to form a singular theory called "M-Theory".
The problem is that you're working with two quite different concepts and trying to blur them into the same thing.
In the case of attempting to blend General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the problem is that we're searching for an explanation that fits the evidence for Quantum Mechanics and also fits the evidence for General Relativity. The evidence most certainly does exist -- mountains of it.
In regard to the soul, the explanation is being offered for evidence which doesn't exist. In valid concepts, the evidence comes first, and then an explanation is sought to explain the evidence. You're trying to explain evidence which doesn't exist, without admitting the obvious given that the evidence is missing.
In the case of M-theory; The evidence exists. We're searching for an explanation which fits the evidence. This is the mark of science.
In the case of souls; The explanation exists. The search for evidence to fit the explanation has continued to yield negative results. This is the mark of superstition.
See the difference?
---
Re: "Length of the search is not relevant, evidence may be found in the near future, we simply do not know.
Time most certainly is a factor which should be considered. When one considers the relatively simplistic assertions made for the concept of the soul, evidence should be relative child's-play to find. When you have something which is first supposed to be localized to a physical biological entity, is claimed to leave that biological entity at the time of death, is proclaimed to be energy and to be able to interact with physical mass; finding evidence to confirm the assertion should require little more than about $100 worth of equipment and the knowledge held by the average high school physics student. Were such an entity to exist, finding evidence to support the assertion would be a yawn. You know where it is claimed to be, when it's said to depart from the location asserted, what it is and that it can interact with the physical.
If one were to suggest "Svenska rays" existed and were located at specific given points, departed those points at a predictable moment, were a form of energy and could interact with the physical, it would take but a few minutes to test the idea and proclaim that there was no support for the claim that Svenka rays exist. And until evidence can be found for a form of energy which is comparably well defined and detectable, there is no reason to label the assertion anything but "false".
And yet, that's exactly what is being suggested for the "soul". The only difference is that many people have already accepted the idea of a soul and believe they will evade death through their belief. So rather than applying the logical premise of evidence to reason, and noting the complete lack of supporting evidence, they jettison their usual methods of determining whether or not a concept holds merit, simply because they don't like the answer they receive.
When the only answer you will accept is that which you've already determined to be true, despite the lack of evidence, you have isolated yourself from the truth.
If I accepted belief in 50-foot long, feathered, flying worms and believed they existed only to transport me to Nirvana upon my death, and refused to accept the complete lack of evidence for such creatures, I'd be doing nothing different than what those who insist upon belief in the soul are doing.
No matter what form of testing is performed to detect these worms, the results continually come up negative. But rather than recognize that the negative results are providing the answer, I insist that I already know the answer and until the tests provide results which agree with my foregone conclusion, I just continue to assert that the tests are flawed or incapable of providing what I insist has to be truel simply because I will not allow myself to accept it as other than true. Such a practice is devoid of intellectual honesty.
So do you believe that 50-foot long, feathered, flying worms exist? If not, why not?
---
When you open the garage door and your car isn't inside where you left it, it's best to realize that your car has been taken, even if you dearly love your car. You can continue to search for evidence that the car is still there, but when all of your tests fail to provide evidence that the car is there, intellectual honesty demands that you accept the conclusion.
If you simply adore and cherish an amazing female acquaintance and hope passionately that she holds intense feelings of affection for you, it's best to recognize the evidence when she spits at you and tells you she finds you disgusting. Continuing to insist that she really does harbor feelings of intense fondness for you, despite the lack of evidence for such feelings is simply a form of denial. It demonstrates an inability to cope with realities you dislike.
The evidence isn't wrong. And given the relative simplicity of the assertion, were it to be accurate, the evidence would be overwhelming and painfully simple to confirm.
We live in an age when even particles so small that thousands of them can slip through an atom in a second and never collide with any of the atom's mass, can not only be detected, but accurately counted. We can do this because evidence suggests they should exist and that evidence was followed to the confirmation of their existence. It took only 26-years to confirm what the evidence suggested.
We can actually listen to the remnant background radiation of the universe from an event which occurred at least 13.7 billion years ago. We can map that radiation and demonstrate that it fits the conclusions of the theory drafted before the ability to map it was developed.
We can smash a stream of sub-atomic particles into another stream of sub-atomic particles and comprehensively analyze the debris which results.
Yet you want to assert that in tens of thousands of years, we're still unable to detect the blindingly simplistic evidence which would exist if souls were real.
There is simply no merit to be found in any such assertion.
---
Re: "You have no argument regarding the abstract, simply because there has not been evidence to it's existence yet does not mean it does not exist."
Do you apply the same assertion to Leprechauns, pink, feathered mushrooms, mermaids, unicorns, spherical cubes, core-boring giant gophers, zombies, metal-eating pencil erasers, invisible buildings and gremlins?
Do you assert that those things also exist but we simply haven't found the evidence for them yet?
I think when one chooses to apply intellectual honesty before emotionalism, the answer is clear. There is no evidence for any of these things and that is exactly what we expect to find when a proclaimed entity doesn't exist. Yet you divorce yourself from exactly the same logic when it comes to souls, simply because it serves your emotional desires to do so. The concept of souls cannot be shown to be in any way, excluded from this same logical premise, yet you discard the premise regarding souls, simply because you want to believe they exist.
