Souls?

[Sarkus]

that simply is not true.

is the only relevant part of any argument that which suits your needs?

Relevant to THIS debate.
Obviously not relevant to all things all times - but to THIS debate.
Boris' entire post is about the incompatibility of the IMMATERIAL soul with the MATERIAL reality.

If you want to change the debate then feel free to post another thread.

 

[ellion]

It is primarily customary to answer a question, but not with another question.

these are your customs my friend. not mine.

If souls existed, then they should also have souls. What say you?

indeed, if humans have soul that we cannot identify why then not other creatures?

Do amoeba have desires? Plants? Viruses? Fungi?

yes i think they do. i dont think we would call them desires though, perhaps impulses or tendencies might be a more suitable way of describing their urges to life.

why do you?

Again, answer the question. I don't have beliefs.

it is a question i cant answer any more than you can answer; why do you belive in a soul?

In your case, I'm forced to make assumptions because you won't answer questions.

this is because you ask questions i cant answer.

Why do you believe in a soul if you don't know what it is?

see! how can i asnswer this question? why do you believe in a soul Q?

Could you please make some attempt at answering questions without other questions, it would make for what is commonly termed a 'discussion.' If you feel you don't need/want to answer questions, then don't post at all.

okay. ask a question that is not based on an assumption of what i believe.

the following question is much better.

The only relevant part of any definition of "soul" is that it is immaterial.

that simply is not true.

Then, in your humble opinion, what is the truth?

the truth is that all of the defintion has relevance.


is the following true?

the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?

no it simply is not true. why? because the brain is so much more than material. to place the brain in the context of an argument you need to know more than, it is material. why not the same for the soul?
if you where looking for a defintion of the brain in the oxford dictionary and it read;

brain (brăn)
n.
1. made of matter.

you would be a bit cynical right?

 

[c7ityi_]

Soul is an old word for the self, but since we don't know what the self is, it may be hard to understand.

 

[(Q)]

these are your customs my friend. not mine.

Then, you shouldn't be here.

why do you belive in a soul?

A soul has never been shown to exist, what exactly is there to believe?

no it simply is not true. why? because the brain is so much more than material.

What more could you possible suggest the brain be? No one has ever found anything more than material.

 

[ellion]

Q you arer just acting dumb arent you?

 

[(Q)]

Acting dumb about what?

 

[Raithere]

it should be relevant. why would it not be relevant to consider what it is that is being argued. would his argument be as acceptable if he gave as little attention to the argument form the neurological perspective? surely it would be dismissed as unsubstantiated bull.

Because the argument relies only upon the soul having a certain property (that it interacts with the human brain). Everything else about the soul is tertiary to the argument because this is the only premise regarding the soul his argument relies upon.

there are many things that interact with humans. if we do not know what it is that is being referred to, what it does, how it does it. then how can we seriously argue what it is not, what it is not doing, and how it is not doing it?

Everything that we know of that interacts with the human mind does so through certain physical pathways. The point that Boris is making is actually rather simple, there is a fundamental problem with the concept of a soul interacting with a human mind which is that there doesn't seem to be any place for this interaction to take place.

if we dont know what the soul is, how do we really know that the soul is immaterial, it could be a very subtle physical element capable of carrying information and interacting with the denser physical substances.

This point is covered already. If it is having an affect then we should be able to locate it, find where and how it interacts with the brain even if it were so subtle that we could not find the thing itself.

Imagine that for some reason we couldn't observe the eyes, they existed in some metaphysical state that we are incapable of perceiving. We would still know that something was there because we would be able to measure the reaction of the optic nerve. We would know that something that we could not perceive was affecting these neurons.

That's exactly what we would have to find in the brain to support the existence of the soul (presuming it affects the brain and isn't just pointlessly floating around and doing nothing).

if it is defined vaguely as something that we dont really know anything about how can we justify saying it is not really there?

Actually it could be there but if it isn't having an effect upon the brain what difference does it make? If it has no effect on the brain then what a person does, thinks, believes, etc has absolutely no bearing on the soul and vice versa. They would be independent and unrelated in any meaningful way.

~Raithere

 

[Sarkus]

is the following true?

the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?

no it simply is not true. .

Just being nitpicky - can you:
(a) not resort to ad hominem attacks, it is rather pathetic; and
(b) please identify the correct originator of any quotes you use.
I did not originally quote "the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?" That was you.
So unless you are referring to yourself as DORKUS, please keep the facts straight.


The fact remains, despite your unwillingness to accept it, that Boris' post is aimed purely at the "immaterial" soul.
It is THIS property that matters.
As long as your definition of "soul" includes this property then the rest of your definition is irrelevant to THIS debate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

ellion,

So how would you define "soul"?

Cris, your question should be "how does Boris define the soul?"
Because if you don't enquire, then you have no basis for believing him. Your beliefs will be foolish and irrational.

So how does Boris define the "soul"?

Jan Ardena.

 

[ellion]

I did not originally quote "the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?" That was you.
So unless you are referring to yourself as DORKUS, please keep the facts straight.

dorkus is a pseudonym for my hypothetical post used to illustrate the point that what you said was a complete fallacy.

The fact remains, despite your unwillingness to accept it, that Boris' post is aimed purely at the "immaterial" soul.

i do accept that boris' argument is aimed at the immaterial soul that is plain to see, what i dont accept is his deliniation of what an immaterial soul is, the souls functions, the souls substance, the souls processes, what are these according to boris?
all we get from boris is they are not material?
so what does he mean by not material? what are they, if they are not material?
does he mean they dont exist?
or they dont exist objectively?
what exactly is he refering too, and how exactly has he observed it?
i suspect he has not observed it,and he does not know what he is referring to?
in fact this is the crux of his argument, that he has not observed anything he could call a soul. big fucking deal!
this is the same ol' shit in a different bucket.
if his argument is to have any credibility he needs to at least identify what is meant by soul, and present some facts about its existential substance, purpose, process and function at least.

 

[enton]

I read the first paragraph and it seems stupendous lunacy for me to continue reading.

I always read what other theists ask in order to respond to their posts. You should at the very least offer the same considerations. If you don't, there is no point in you posting here at all or even being a member of this forum.

You clearly are not interested in learning anything and would much rather sit in a room clinging to your bible while rocking back and forth.

Please continue to do so, stop posting here and go away.

I remember some members (before) of God's household who quit because they felt irked in clinging to the good doctrine.

I already knew what soul is and what it means, in fact, the Bible declares that 8 souls were saved by water (that is, Noah and his wife, his three children and the wives of his children, all in all eight.)

So I'm sorry if I am an irritation to your thought. Besides, if there is a DELETE YOUR PROFILE portion I will delete my profile for your sake. Or I am requesting now the good attention of the moderators that they erase my profile if they can do so. That's my request to Cris and James_R. Thanks in advance, moderators.

 

[Sarkus]

i do accept that boris' argument is aimed at the immaterial soul that is plain to see, what i dont accept is his deliniation of what an immaterial soul is, the souls functions, the souls substance, the souls processes, what are these according to boris?

The functions / substance / processes etc are IRRELEVANT to the debate.
As soon as one claims that the "Soul is IMMATERIAL" then the arguments he puts forth are valid.
Why does it matter what the processes are?
Why does it matter what the functions are?
All that matters to the argument is that the soul is IMMATERIAL.

all we get from boris is they are not material?
so what does he mean by not material? what are they, if they are not material?

Immaterial: Not constituted of matter.

does he mean they dont exist?

He doesn't mean that by the term "immaterial" but his arguments show that if it is immaterial then it either doesn't exist or can not interact meaningfully with the material - which basically constitutes the same thing.

what exactly is he refering too, and how exactly has he observed it?
i suspect he has not observed it,and he does not know what he is referring to?
in fact this is the crux of his argument, that he has not observed anything he could call a soul. big fucking deal!
this is the same ol' shit in a different bucket.

if his argument is to have any credibility he needs to at least identify what is meant by soul, and present some facts about its existential substance, purpose, process and function at least.

Eh?
He has clearly stated a single property of "soul" - i.e. that it is "immaterial", a word that is clearly understood by most.
He has then gone on to state through his arguments how this single property, regardless of the processes, functions, etc of the "soul", leads to something that either can not exist or can not have any meaningful interaction with the body.

It is a purely logical analysis of hypothetical object (the "soul") to which the property "immaterial" has been assigned.

The "soul" could be defined as an "immaterial frying pan that drives my consciousness".
It could be defined as an "immaterial comfort blanket that keeps me safe in the dark".
It could be defined as ANYTHING immaterial - it doesn't make an ounce of difference to his arguments AS LONG AS IT IS IMMATERIAL.

Please define what your "soul" is and we'll see how it stacks up to his arguments?

 

[ellion]

Please define what your "soul" is and we'll see how it stacks up to his arguments?

if i had to say what is my soul, i would have to say it is me. i am mysoul.

 

[Lawdog]

Souls?
Argument from interaction

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate, .

NOT A VIABLE ARGUMENT, since there are no grounds to assert that an immaterial reality has no power to affect material reality. Immateriality does not imply powerlessness or remoteness from material reality. Material is space/time continuum, immaterial is not. Simply because they differ in substantial realioty does not mean that one cannot effect the other. Immaterial is not less real than material. Read your Plato

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material. .

JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT OBSERVE A TREE FALL DOWN IN THE FOREST< IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT NO FALLING TREE EXISTS.
I must go, but I will continue my refutation later...

 

[Sarkus]

NOT A VIABLE ARGUMENT, since there are no grounds to assert that an immaterial reality has no power to affect material reality. Immateriality does not imply powerlessness or remoteness from material reality. Material is space/time continuum, immaterial is not. Simply because they differ in substantial realioty does not mean that one cannot effect the other. Immaterial is not less real than material. Read your Plato.

Please give one iota of evidence of an immaterial item affecting reality.
Please.
Do.
It will be fun to read.
Even a hypothetical example would be good for a start - so we can show you how either it doesn't exist or it can not interact with any meaning.

 

[ellion]

The functions / substance / processes etc are IRRELEVANT to the debate.
As soon as one claims that the "Soul is IMMATERIAL" then the arguments he puts forth are valid.

i disagree. what does it mean to be immaterial. is consciousness material? consciousness has interaction with the brain via chemical and biological processes but is it material in the sense that boris speaks of?

Why does it matter what the processes are?
Why does it matter what the functions are?
All that matters to the argument is that the soul is IMMATERIAL.

that simply is not good enough.

as i said above if you looked for a defintion of the brain and you found the definition only stated "the brain is physical" would that suffice as a definition? i should hope not. would you then build a reasonable argument around this definition?

besides which, how does boris know the soul is immaterial like i said it could be a very nimble form of matter which is cunning enough to out wit our soul detecting machines.

Immaterial: Not constituted of matter.

so! what does it consist of? this is why the defintion given does not suffice. we need more infromation, what is it if not material? is it a principle? an idea? a perceived individuality? a relationship to a principality? a collection of personality charecteristics? what? what is it?

He doesn't mean that by the term "immaterial" but his arguments show that if it is immaterial then it either doesn't exist or can not interact meaningfully with the material - which basically constitutes the same thing.

right, so he has defined the soul in such a way that it is easily refuted by his argument, and you are willing to accept this without question, are you?

The "soul" could be defined as an "immaterial frying pan that drives my consciousness".

so the soul in this case is the stimulus that directs your train of thought. it is the relationship and the interaction that is not material the frying pan (if an objective frying pan and not an imagined one) is material but as an object it has a purpose beyond its material expression i.e the ability to drive your consciousness. and it is this immaterial aspect of the frying pan that you call the soul, yes?

 

[(Q)]

It appears Lawdog is the only theist with the balls to attempt refutation.

i disagree. what does it mean to be immaterial.

The soul is defined to be immaterial simple because all other material portions of the anatomy have been accounted for, in which their functions are not found to interact with the supernatural.

If you say that you are your soul, then you are saying your entire body interacts with the supernatural, correct?

One can possibly assume it is when you cup your hands together in prayer, thus creating a supernatural antenae of sorts? Looking up towards the sky turns on a function of the eyes that can see god?

You really have to help out here as to how you, the soul, interacts with god.

Or are you merely avoiding the subject in order not to attempt refutation, as are the other theists?

 

[c7ityi_]

You really have to help out here as to how you, the soul, interacts with god.

The body (person) interacts with the self. The mask interacts with the face. Matter interacts with the spirit (mind).

 

[Sarkus]

i disagree. what does it mean to be immaterial. is consciousness material? consciousness has interaction with the brain via chemical and biological processes but is it material in the sense that boris speaks of?

Consciousness does NOT have interaction with the brain. It IS the SUM OF INTERACTIONS of the brain with itself via the vast neural network.
It does not interact WITH the brain.
It is purely an internally driven process - that has physical inputs and physical outputs. Without input there is no internal interaction and no outputs - thus no consciousness (sum of zeros is zero).

Also see Boris' "Argument from Equivalence".

as i said above if you looked for a defintion of the brain and you found the definition only stated "the brain is physical" would that suffice as a definition? i should hope not. would you then build a reasonable argument around this definition?

Obviously the definition of "brain" and "soul" are more complex than whether or not they are matter or immaterial. That is not in dispute.

The whole of Boris' argument stems from the widely accepted understanding of the "soul" as being, among a plethora of other things, immaterial. The plethora of other things are not being questioned by Boris - he concentrates entirely on the "immaterial" nature of the soul.

besides which, how does boris know the soul is immaterial like i said it could be a very nimble form of matter which is cunning enough to out wit our soul detecting machines.

Boris doesn't know what the soul is made of.
His argument is one of countering the claim that the IMMATERIAL soul exists AND INTERACTS WITH the material body.

so! what does it consist of? this is why the defintion given does not suffice. we need more infromation, what is it if not material? is it a principle? an idea? a perceived individuality? a relationship to a principality? a collection of personality charecteristics? what? what is it?

The Soul is either MATERIAL or IMMATERIAL.
If it is IMMATERIAL - then Boris' post applies.
If it is MATERIAL then please provide evidence of it.

right, so he has defined the soul in such a way that it is easily refuted by his argument, and you are willing to accept this without question, are you?

Boris is merely starting with an assumption of the soul (that it is material) and showing how it either doesn't exist or can not interract meaningfully with the physical / material.
If you disagree with the assumption that the soul is immaterial then naturally the rest of his arguments are not applicable to your definition of "soul".
If that is the case, then your definition must include the fact that the soul is "material" (as a soul can not be both "not material" and not "immaterial" - i.e. it is either material or it is immaterial).

If you agree that the soul is immaterial then Boris' arguments apply.

Or do you think the soul is material?

 

[(Q)]

Matter interacts with the spirit (mind).

That is exactly the refutation boris has made clear, that the mind has not been found to be a spirit or interact with spirits. Did you read the opening post? If so, you should refute his points on the subject.