the christian soul...

C

cpt.scruffy

The Future's Coolest Guy
Registered Senior Member
so i was listening to an athiest-vs-christian argument, and what came up was the soul.

the athiest said something, from which the christian used against him. Here's what the christian used and said:

"'make an exception when it comes to the brain, no the chemical processes are NOT forced... they don't move forward, inorexably you have some sort of immaterial control over them,' and that really sounds like a soul or spirit to me"

i've seen/heard this more than once lately, where the one who argues for christianity uses the term "immaterial control" for reason, which leads to our behaviour/personality.


would you guys agree?

i really can't grasp why i haven't seen athiests argue against this point!
in my years of study, i've learned how genetics, brain development, and general growth leads to the personality of a human being!

as far as i can see, there is no "soul" to represent our personality behind the body.

our personality is a mere reflection of our biology!


ps
is there any other information that would identify the soul?
 
in relation to the subject (sorta),

scientists have managed to teleport an atom.
but their teleportation isn't really teleportation (like star trek).
rather, it is an instant replication of the atom in a different location, while the real atom is destroyed.

if somehow, scientists progress to a form of teleportation for humans and say it was me who decided to teleport.

the issue is that I myself am destroyed in the process.
so the real me is destroyed, while a new one of me is replicated instantaneously in a new location... but it isn't me. however,
he does everything the same fashion that i would do, even has the
same memory as me.

in essence, a perfect replica of me, but the real me is destroyed.

what's the case for the soul here?
 
cpt.scruffy said:
so i was listening to an athiest-vs-christian argument, and what came up was the soul.

the athiest said something, from which the christian used against him. Here's what the christian used and said:

"'make an exception when it comes to the brain, no the chemical processes are NOT forced... they don't move forward, inorexably you have some sort of immaterial control over them,' and that really sounds like a soul or spirit to me"

i've seen/heard this more than once lately, where the one who argues for christianity uses the term "immaterial control" for reason, which leads to our behaviour/personality.
Click to expand...
welcome to sciforums a step in the right direction.

firstly the issue of the soul has been refuted on numerous occasion on this site.
here
here
etc etc.
you could try getting answers from these, however I must ask do you understand what immaterial actually means, as it seems not. the arguement is flawed, that which is immaterial, can have no control over anything material, unless it is, or becomes material.
cpt.scruffy said:
i really can't grasp why i haven't seen athiests argue against this point!
Click to expand...
probably because you haven't been here.
cpt.scruffy said:
in my years of study, i've learned how genetics, brain development, and general growth leads to the personality of a human being!

as far as i can see, there is no "soul" to represent our personality behind the body.
Click to expand...
and you are perfectly correct.
cpt.scruffy said:
is there any other information that would identify the soul?
Click to expand...
none.
 
geeser said:
welcome to sciforums a step in the right direction.

firstly the issue of the soul has been refuted on numerous occasion on this site.
here
here
etc etc.
you could try getting answers from these, however I must ask do you understand what immaterial actually means, as it seems not. the arguement is flawed, that which is immaterial, can have no control over anything material, unless it is, or becomes material.probably because you haven't been here. and you are perfectly correct.none.
Click to expand...
I think what you miss is that he is addressing the awareness that enables life as the soul and not the physical counterparts of corporeal existence (which are insufficient to be established as the cause of life)
 
geeser said:
welcome to sciforums a step in the right direction.

firstly the issue of the soul has been refuted on numerous occasion on this site.
etc etc. you could try getting answers from these,
Click to expand...

thanks! not many replies here, i suppose for good reason.
still trying to figure the jist of this forum as a noob. :p

geeser said:
however I must ask do you understand what immaterial actually means, as it seems not. the arguement is flawed, that which is immaterial, can have no control over anything material,
Click to expand...

i understand what you're saying with the proper definition of immaterial.

however, my interpretation of the term's use was that
the immaterial control is the soul; the soul is immaterial according to the christian.
and even if it was a misused term, the reason for my interpretation is because the christian further summed the argument up with the soul conducting control through reason, and moreover conducting through to behaviour.

the case in point wasn't the definition, but rather in the context.
 
I think this is another case of God of the gaps. Any gap in scientific knowledge is percieved as a place God's control can enter. There can be brain controlling mechanisms based on information. Perhaps each hemisphere controls the other. Why is it that with one hemisphere removed, a person can still live, apparently fairly normally. Is the soul present in the half that was removed or the half that remains?
 
spidergoat said:
I think this is another case of God of the gaps. Any gap in scientific knowledge is percieved as a place God's control can enter. There can be brain controlling mechanisms based on information. Perhaps each hemisphere controls the other. Why is it that with one hemisphere removed, a person can still live, apparently fairly normally. Is the soul present in the half that was removed or the half that remains?
Click to expand...

Its more a question of whats the difference between a dead person and a living person sincethey are composed of the exact same organic structure
 
spidergoat said:
I think this is another case of God of the gaps. Any gap in scientific knowledge is percieved as a place God's control can enter. There can be brain controlling mechanisms based on information. Perhaps each hemisphere controls the other. Why is it that with one hemisphere removed, a person can still live, apparently fairly normally. Is the soul present in the half that was removed or the half that remains?
Click to expand...

well, one notices that there are detrimental effects when a hemisphere removed. the half-hemisphere human being, of course, would be able to live almost normally. the reason for the detrimental effects are obvious, when it comes to studying the brain.
moreover, i think the brain also tries to adapt over time.
like i said before, how the individual behaves/acts/responds is a direct reflection of biology.
 
and when the brain is suffering alzheimer's...
the patient often suffers extreme personality change.
where the hell is the soul there?
 
lightgigantic said:
then please tell what compound a living person has that a dead person does not (and then you can sell it and make lots of money bringing dead people back to life)
Click to expand...

There might be some, but that's not what I was thinking about. The body only stops working for certain functional reasons. The difference between a car that's running and a car that's off is certain conditions that aren't being met that characterize a running car (or a living being).
 
spidergoat said:
There might be some, but that's not what I was thinking about. The body only stops working for certain functional reasons. The difference between a car that's running and a car that's off is certain conditions that aren't being met that characterize a running car (or a living being).
Click to expand...
the key one being that if there is no driver, the car doesn't run at all, no matter in how good a condition it is mechanically
 
lightgigantic said:
then please tell what compound a living person has that a dead person does not (and then you can sell it and make lots of money bringing dead people back to life)
Click to expand...
It's usually the dead people that have the extra bits - clots and fluid that shouldn't be there.
lightgigantic said:
the key one being that if there is no driver, the car doesn't run at all, no matter in how good a condition it is mechanically
Click to expand...
The driver being a functioning brain?
 
Everyone dies for the same perfectly good physiological reason: lack of oxygen. Why mystify this unnecessarily?
 
lightgigantic said:
the conceived self undergoes a change but not the self as context
Click to expand...

hmm that's a good one.
okay so we undergo a subject of consciousness?
that one is always debatable for the soul, i suppose.

in terms of consciousness, i believe that that consciousness is a result of information filtration for purposes of survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top