"Existential" questions outside the boundaries of knowledge?
Someone recently said to me: "There is no evidence for a soul or a God, but there is no evidence against the existence of such things either. Since neither are falsifiable, they can't be subject to scientific testing. As a result, it is simply a matter of opinion." Also went on to say: "Existential questions do have answers. It's just that there is no one right answer, but various ways of answering them which satisfy a multitude of cultures and societies.You are assuming souls are empirical. I would argue that the concept of a soul is not empirical and can't be tested for, as it has no physical form. Hence, one does not need evidence to believe he has a soul. However, one does not need evidence to believe he doesn't have a soul."
Is there a name for this argument? I already explained that you could apply the same logic to any magical thing e.g., Unicorns, angels, and zombies which would be ridiculous. I notice people who don't really want to "loose" in a discussion usually resort to this, which I always feel is a cop out. I always think to myself you know this is bullshit but I'm not erudite enough to explain in detail why this argument fails. As I understand it we want to believe things in practical terms as often as possible, we don't live under the assumption that the existence of a unicorn is unknowable, we generally agree that their is no such thing. Off course nothing can be said with absolute certainty but that's really just jumping through intellectual hoops and solid position on the existence of something. I hear this even from relatively smart people, as far as I can tell it's basically fence riding and being neutral not wanting to take sides.