You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Souls?
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
duh!c7ityi_ said:You don't know what a "spirit" is. It is nothing. It is like the soul.
and yet another moron, thats what Q saidc7ityi_ said:Another word for the mind.
Sarkus said: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.
Your personality, your thoughts. The ideas in your head, logic and mathematics, all immaterial, all affect us in huge ways on a daily basis.
I'm afraid you find yourself without reasonable argument.
the preacher said:duh!
and yet another moron, thats what Q said
Maybe I'm a moron, but you're an oxymoron.
(Q) said:You don't know what a "spirit" is. It is nothing. It is like the soul. Another word for the mind.
Really? I've never seen that definition for the mind before - did you just make it up?
You misunderstood nothing.
we are in the process of refutation first things first though, eh? since boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you?Q said:It appears Lawdog is the only theist with the balls to attempt refutation
no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul.If you say that you are your soul, then you are saying your entire body interacts with the supernatural, correct?
one can assume all manner of things. why do you think god lives up in the sky? why do you think i pray?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?
how do you interact with your world? many, many different ways i Assume? this is how interact with my world too.You really have to help out here as to how you, the soul, interacts with god.
how do you know what other theists are doing are you having supernatural interactions with them that inform you of their behaviour, or are you just assuming this also?Or are you merely avoiding the subject in order not to attempt refutation, as are the other theists?
You are merely quoting abstract concepts, none of which interact with us at all.Lawdog said:Your personality, your thoughts. The ideas in your head, logic and mathematics, all immaterial, all affect us in huge ways on a daily basis.
I'm afraid you find yourself without reasonable argument.
You don't interact with "maths".
You DO interact with the visual stimuli of the lines, drawings etc on the paper, crunch away in your head (all of which is a physical process), and arrive at an answer that you then physically visualise and probably store to memory, and probably write down.
The same with logic.
It is a tool - a concept.
We do not "interact" with it in any way.
These two words are merely abstract concepts to describe the physical thought process that goes on in the brain to arrive at the right answer.
We are taught that 1+1=2.
We see the physical stimuli of the letters either on the paper, the board etc. We get the physical stimuli of the teacher telling us etc.
So, in simple terms, our brain builds a physical connection in the brain such that when we see 1+1 again we know that the answer is 2.
"Maths" is an abstract concept - but at no point do we interact with it.
"Personality" is immaterial - but it is also not something that interacts. Personality is nothing more than a concept. It is the way, peculiar to each individual, in which our brain crunches all the inputs to achieve the outputs.
The inputs are physical.
The outputs are physical.
The processing is physical. It is this processing, peculiar to each of us, that is our personality.
There is no interaction with the immaterial at any point.
The fact that everyone processes the same inputs to achieve different outputs is what gives us our unique personality - but it is not something that interacts.
If you disagree with any of this, please detail to me exactly how it is that you interact with logic, with mathematics, with personality, with any of your examples.
boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you?
Boris' presentation is fine in regards to his argument. For the time being, let's work with it as if it were hypothetical, can you manage that?
no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul.
If it is not supernatural, then it must be natural and confined to the laws of the physical world. That is very much the crux of the argument.
Like all theists, they have their own interpretation of god, so it would stand to reason they have their own interpretation of the soul, as you do.
But like I said, lets work with what is there. You can always start a thread defining your interpretation of the soul and work with that. Fair enough?
why do you think god lives up in the sky? why do you think i pray?
I don't know where god lives and I don't know why you pray, I'm just using that as an example.
how do you interact with your world? many, many different ways i Assume? this is how interact with my world too.
I interact with the physical world with my physical body, just like everyone else. Can you show that your world includes the supernatural and how you interact with it?
how do you know what other theists are doing are you having supernatural interactions with them that inform you of their behaviour, or are you just assuming this also?
I'm going by the evidence presented here. Do you see any theists attempting refutation of boris' post?
Boris' presentation is fine in regards to his argument. For the time being, let's work with it as if it were hypothetical, can you manage that?
no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul.
If it is not supernatural, then it must be natural and confined to the laws of the physical world. That is very much the crux of the argument.
Like all theists, they have their own interpretation of god, so it would stand to reason they have their own interpretation of the soul, as you do.
But like I said, lets work with what is there. You can always start a thread defining your interpretation of the soul and work with that. Fair enough?
why do you think god lives up in the sky? why do you think i pray?
I don't know where god lives and I don't know why you pray, I'm just using that as an example.
how do you interact with your world? many, many different ways i Assume? this is how interact with my world too.
I interact with the physical world with my physical body, just like everyone else. Can you show that your world includes the supernatural and how you interact with it?
how do you know what other theists are doing are you having supernatural interactions with them that inform you of their behaviour, or are you just assuming this also?
I'm going by the evidence presented here. Do you see any theists attempting refutation of boris' post?
You miss the point, I fear.ellion said:since boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you?
Boris' argument is based on the assumption, held by many (so he thinks), that the soul is immaterial.
It is THIS ASSUMPTION ALONE, regardless of anything else, on which he argues.
So you should either refute this assumption, or refute his arguments based upon this assumption.
You can not refute his arguments by saying "Well, he hasn't defined the soul in sufficient detail" as his case against it relies solely on the assumption that the soul is immaterial.
Either argue against the assumption, argue against his points based on the assumption, or agree with him.
Are there other options?
look at those two words sarkus "immaterial" and "item" an item is an object like a frying pan, the immaterial is a purpose, a motive, a principle, an idea, anything not perceivable to the senses but experiential to the psyche, or simply non-existent. such as the stimulative driver of your thought train. the immaterial does not exist as a physically apprehendable object, it is something other than sensually perceptable. you cannot therfore demonstrate to the sense an immaterial itemsarkus said:immaterial item
is consciousness material in the sense that boris speaks of?sarkus said:Consciousness does NOT have interaction with the brain. It IS the SUM OF INTERACTIONS of the brain with itself via the vast neural network.
but i also think it is very relevant to have true and accurate definition of what it is that boris understands to be the soul, and this does seem to be in dispute.Obviously the definition of "brain" and "soul" are more complex than whether or not they are matter or immaterial. That is not in dispute.
but this is my point if it is not material what is it? has boris given this enough consideration to present a solid argument, if he has why does he not present a more substantial defintion? if he has not why are you even considering it as a valid position form which to argue?The plethora of other things are not being questioned by Boris - he concentrates entirely on the "immaterial" nature of the soul.
does he then know what it does? no!Boris doesn't know what the soul is made of.
does he know how it functions? no!
does he know anything else at all about it? no, i dont think he does.
but this is only because he cannot identify the illusive defined entity in which case the guy is a fucking genius right? wrong!
yes i know this. but he is missing something rather large right from the start. fact.His argument is one of countering the claim that the IMMATERIAL soul exists AND INTERACTS WITH the material body.
i dont think an assumption is th best place to begin a serious argument.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.
i dont do evidence very well i spent too much of my youth trying to conceal it. i do have picture of me that clearly shows my soul but i dont think you would recognize it as such without your spiritual vision goggles on, and these can only be aquired with lifetime subscription to the happy clappy sunday club.if it is MATERIAL then please provide evidence of it.
i agree that boris holds this percpetion of the soul, and i understand how he could come to this perception but i dont think boris has given the soul much thought.If you agree that the soul is immaterial then Boris' arguments apply.
i think it is a word that people use to describe a certain experience of themselves, some people are clear about what they are describing with that word and you can discuss things with them using that word, and we will understand each other. then there are people who use that word in different context all together and they can be quite confusing to talk to about such things. it is just a word it is not a physical item that i can love or loathe, it is an imatterial word describing immaterial expriences or it is not. it is a measurable and calculable vehicle of information of a measurable and calculable item, or it is not.Or do you think the soul is material?
what is it about boris's post that you want me to refute? again i think this is your expectation that i will see a particular weakness with boris' post or your certainty that i wont see something wrong? what is wrong with fundamental flaws in his basis for an argument as a starting point for refutation?Q said:Why not just refute boris' post instead of worrying about my perception of you?
if it is as boris states immaterial and it is as boris states presumed to interact with the brain, then the first place we should start is what the fuck is it if not material? why not know what it is we are talking about? how it exists and in what state?Q said:Boris' presentation is fine in regards to his argument. For the time being, let's work with it as if it were hypothetical, can you manage that?
this does not mean they have to conform our interpretation though.If it is not supernatural, then it must be natural and confined to the laws of the physical world. That is very much the crux of the argument.
who are "they"?Like all theists, they have their own interpretation of god, so it would stand to reason they have their own interpretation of the soul, as you do.
anyway i can work with personal interpretations but it is important they are recognised as such.
i can work with what is there so long as there is a recognition that what is there is incomplete.But like I said, lets work with what is there. You can always start a thread defining your interpretation of the soul and work with that. Fair enough?
i dont pray Q. why do you think i pray?I don't know where god lives and I don't know why you pray, I'm just using that as an example.
why do you consider my world to be of a supernatural nature? my world is alive, that is all? i do not consider it is supernatural.I interact with the physical world with my physical body, just like everyone else. Can you show that your world includes the supernatural and how you interact with it?
okay, fair enough. it is a pretty tight argument if you overlook the fact that soul is misrepresented.I'm going by the evidence presented here. Do you see any theists attempting refutation of boris' post?
If there is no "immaterial" soul/life then there can be no choice, and every thought and action and
emotion is a product of the first milliseconds of the big bang and the beginning of our universe.
Why theists believe in a soul or being alive or the self -is that God has given us the ability to be
greater than the mere sum of the atoms of our body - with out an "immaterial" component, then
there is no possibility that anything as any effect to change what is - every thing is as it can only
be.
So no use spending time worry about- its just your predetermined fate to argue and worry about
the soul. I pity you then, marked from the begging of time without hope or ability to effect any
thing.
emotion is a product of the first milliseconds of the big bang and the beginning of our universe.
Why theists believe in a soul or being alive or the self -is that God has given us the ability to be
greater than the mere sum of the atoms of our body - with out an "immaterial" component, then
there is no possibility that anything as any effect to change what is - every thing is as it can only
be.
So no use spending time worry about- its just your predetermined fate to argue and worry about
the soul. I pity you then, marked from the begging of time without hope or ability to effect any
thing.
why not know what it is we are talking about? how it exists and in what state?
Boris' post indicates that the soul cannot be material, in other words, not of nature, immaterial, nonexistent. He argues based on that. If one feels the soul is material and exists in nature, one can refute his post.
this does not mean they have to conform our interpretation though.
Your interpretation or theists in general? It is the theists version he argues, the supernatural. Why not argue your version?
who are "they"?
Theists, I already said that.
anyway i can work with personal interpretations but it is important they are recognised as such.
Excellent, argue your personal interpretation. That would be fine.
i can work with what is there so long as there is a recognition that what is there is incomplete.
Fill in what you feel is incomplete and argue that.
why do you consider my world to be of a supernatural nature? my world is alive, that is all? i do not consider it is supernatural.
The soul is considered the supernatural, in other words, not existing in nature, that is, unless one can show it does.
okay, fair enough. it is a pretty tight argument if you overlook the fact that soul is misrepresented.
It's a rock solid argument. But please, stand your interpretation of the soul up against his argument and see if it is valid. Represent yourself so that there is not misrepresentation in your mind. That is only fair and that is all anyone can ask.
I will sit pleasantly by and say nothing unless you want me to - is it a deal?
Boris' post indicates that the soul cannot be material, in other words, not of nature, immaterial, nonexistent. He argues based on that. If one feels the soul is material and exists in nature, one can refute his post.
this does not mean they have to conform our interpretation though.
Your interpretation or theists in general? It is the theists version he argues, the supernatural. Why not argue your version?
who are "they"?
Theists, I already said that.
anyway i can work with personal interpretations but it is important they are recognised as such.
Excellent, argue your personal interpretation. That would be fine.
i can work with what is there so long as there is a recognition that what is there is incomplete.
Fill in what you feel is incomplete and argue that.
why do you consider my world to be of a supernatural nature? my world is alive, that is all? i do not consider it is supernatural.
The soul is considered the supernatural, in other words, not existing in nature, that is, unless one can show it does.
okay, fair enough. it is a pretty tight argument if you overlook the fact that soul is misrepresented.
It's a rock solid argument. But please, stand your interpretation of the soul up against his argument and see if it is valid. Represent yourself so that there is not misrepresentation in your mind. That is only fair and that is all anyone can ask.
I will sit pleasantly by and say nothing unless you want me to - is it a deal?