>>65459743>How does that leave any room for the soul? That's a totally different and incorrect, low IQ concept from dog-like-men.
You are proposing an eternal existence of life, clearly in the physical sense it's completely discarded, that only leaves room for something abstract, I call it soul because it is a concept already made, but we can call it anything, to make that abstraction Descartes simply referred to it as a "thing that thinks". It's not about religion, you have to make a concept where that eternity can be hold onto, because for there to be eternity there has to be a something.
But if you say that:>It takes instability for anything to exist in the first place
Which btw is the backwards of:>If there isn't something there cannot be "stability"
Then your idea of eternity doesn't hold, because for something to be in the first place it has to exist, and if it exists then there can not be something as stable -i.e perfect- as something that at the same time *is* and at the same time has absolute stability, because absolute stability is not compatible with one of the properties of being that we just established, i.e inherently unstable.