Arguments for the soul's existence...

Given that the brain works on a continuous info feed back system the big toes existence is essential for the brain to work it.
so why remove the big toe from the brain...[ I know you meant it as humor etc but what you have doen in jest is exactly why we have a problem with these sort or issues ]

the questions then comes up:
what is brain?
and what is body?
why distinguish between the two?
when it takes a body for the brain to function and it takes a brain for the body to function. Are they not one and the same thing?
 
However one clue that may help us here:

A persons heart can still beat with the brain not functioning - thus technically still alive even with brain death.
However if the heart stops beating it's all over red rover, finit-e
so one could argue that the centre of the body [material] is the brain [mind] and the centre of life is the heart [ soul ]
 
Quantum Quack said:
and is this not what drives philosophy in the first place? The questions or should I say the "question":
what is sentience?
what is free will?
what is the meaning of life?
what is purpose that has no meaning?
what is meaning that has no purpose?

and so on.......
Click to expand...

Philosophical claptrap such as questions to the meaning of life and purpose are for those who can't create their own purpose in life and need others to tell them what to do. The term "Sheeple" comes to mind.

Take away the soul and there is no philosophy, as there would be nothing "worth" talking about....
no poetry , no music, no meaning to existence..
Click to expand...

One can easily talk about poetry and music without injecting philosophical claptrap.
 
(Q) said:
It hasn't? :bugeye:
Click to expand...

well...what proof of the mind do you have other than what it does or allows you the ability to do?

can you "see" your mind directly? Can you detect your mind directly?

nope!

so apply the same evidencial requirements to a soul and you have your answer.
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
Philosophical claptrap such as questions to the meaning of life and purpose are for those who can't create their own purpose in life and need others to tell them what to do. The term "Sheeple" comes to mind.



One can easily talk about poetry and music without injecting philosophical claptrap.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but my android programming disallows me to see any meaning in your post what so ever...however as far as gramma is concerned .........

and

definition of "sheeple" bleep! Bleep! Bleep! [ sorry B-eeep! syntax error; string 12-a394 at line 100000000036 ]:D
[and you think I am joking yes?]
 
Quantum Quack said:
well...what proof of the mind do you have other than what it does or allows you the ability to do?

can you "see" your mind directly? Can you detect your mind directly?

nope!

so apply the same evidencial requirements to a soul and you have your answer.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it now, you're treating this as a belief. In other words, the fact that all of YOUR questions don't get answered to YOUR specifications, you immediately defer to a strawman argument and present the mystical and magical as a conclusion.

Nice try, but it won't fly.
 
(Q) said:
Oh, I get it now, you're treating this as a belief. In other words, the fact that all of YOUR questions don't get answered to YOUR specifications, you immediately defer to a strawman argument and present the mystical and magical as a conclusion.

Nice try, but it won't fly.
Click to expand...
I suppose the mind and body are both rather magical and in some ways a mystery yes?
If you can't provide evidence of the mind as you want for the soul then you will need to recant your strawman arguement..... [ oops! was that a strawman or was that a strawman' ]:)
 
Quantum Quack said:
[and you think I am joking yes?]
Click to expand...

No, you're presenting a strawman.

Can you demonstrate to me the software inside of a computer? Pick up a harddrive, take it apart and have a look for the software, do you see it? I guess it doesn't exist, then. :shrug:
 
Quantum Quack said:
I suppose the mind and body are both rather magical and in some ways a mystery yes?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

If yu can't provide evidence of the mind as yu want fro the soul then youwill need to recant your stawman arguement..... [ oops! was that a strawman or was that a strawman']
Click to expand...

So, do you want to call the mind "the soul"? Is that what you're after?
 
(Q) said:
No, you're presenting a strawman.

Can you demonstrate to me the software inside of a computer? Pick up a harddrive, take it apart and have a look for the software, do you see it? I guess it doesn't exist, then. :shrug:
Click to expand...
of course it does in the form of magnetic imprintation on a ferrous surface...[aka files and data - 1's and zeros]
 
(Q) said:
Not at all.



So, do you want to call the mind "the soul"? Is that what you're after?
Click to expand...
If the mind is capable by definition of deriving self meaning then why not call it mind, but then again why not call the mind, a soul and seeing as we can observe neither directly and only by effect we are obliged by science to call it a Body...

so in the final wash the choice of which battle you want to fight
is yours...
 
there is a major flaw in my arguement of course...have you picked it yet?
 
Last edited:
The credibility of the notion "soul" is determined by it's most commonly used definition or meaning.
And like the definition of the word or title "God" most of that definition requires faith and belief in something that can not be evidenced directly but only by effect which we attribute to these titles and labels.
One Raven has specifically asked about evidence for a soul that he has clearly defined by default as one that includes an afterlife, re-incarnation and other more mystical qualities. He isn't after evidence of our ability to find meaning or purpose but more specifically the nature of something that can only be put down to faith and belief based most often on circumstantial experiences of a few and rudimentary logic by others.

"Gotta be something after this?" type logic
"Other wise it is all in vain?" type logic

However I could contend that it is the soul that is saying these things in the first place as it requires purpose and meaning to to understand the fact that we die in the first place.
So my major flaw is one of contextual shift, I have deliberately limited my argument only to that which is known rather than that which is based on unknown and unknowable.

So I have redefined the definition of Soul away from the OP that One_raven established.

so therefore the credibility of the notion soul according to One_Ravens OP is very much in jeopardy
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
Your lack of definition of a soul?
Click to expand...
yes and no but more the manipulation of that definition to focus on the more earthy aspects of our so called "soul". This doesn't prove the souls' existence but merely attempts to limit it's existence to the Material world so to speak....which is a falacious arguement when one considers One-Ravens OP
 
Quantum Quack said:
yes and no but more the manipulation of that definition to focus on the more earthy aspects of our so called "soul". This doesn't prove the souls' existence but merely attempts to limit it's existence to the Material world so to speak....which is a falacious arguement when one considers One-Ravens OP
Click to expand...

I believe post # 10 deals with that scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top