When do you get a soul? & related questions.

Cris said:
So do we all agree now that the assertion that there are souls is illogical? I.e. there isn't a logical argument that can be formulated to show the truth of such an assertion.
Click to expand...
No - you can make perfectly valid logical assertions regarding the soul - but the soundness of the argument would rest on the soundness of the underlying premise(s).

Basically if you begin with unproven, unverifiable assertions (such as life being materially irreducible) then you can arrive at valid logical conclusions based on the premise, but which are unsound - due to the unsound nature of the premise (and by unsound I merely mean "not sound" - i.e. anything that is not sound is unsound).

I would therefore amend your statement to be with regard "sound and valid logical arguments".
 
lightgigantic said:
never heard of a normative description in scripture?
Click to expand...

Normative descriptions are not "verifiably knowable truthful assertions concerning the soul" or "the process by which they can be verified."

Those would be positive or factual descriptions and no, I've never found a single verifiably knowable truthful assertion concerning the soul in scripture.

But I have found you are an endless and bountiful void when it comes to meaningful answers.
 
swarm said:
Normative descriptions are not "verifiably knowable truthful assertions concerning the soul" or "the process by which they can be verified."
Click to expand...
Normative descriptions (or "ways that you have to be/act in order to know something") are a prerequisite for the verifiable knowable truthful assertions of anything.

If you disagree, feel free to offer an example that doesn't have this requirement

Those would be positive or factual descriptions and no, I've never found a single verifiably knowable truthful assertion concerning the soul in scripture.

But I have found you are an endless and bountiful void when it comes to meaningful answers.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, a discussion that heads in the direction of seeking meaningful answers while bypassing normative descriptions is a shoreless ocean.

Just imagine discussing claims of physics divorced from the practice of physicists.

Yet for some reason you insist on discussing theistic claims along parallel lines ....
:shrug:
 
glaucon said:
LG, I really do think that we're not disagreeing with each other, but rather that the semantics are getting in the way...
Click to expand...

My question to you is that if logic is an argument that focuses on form as opposed to content, what is an argument that focuses on content?
 
Sarkus said:
No - you can make perfectly valid logical assertions regarding the soul - but the soundness of the argument would rest on the soundness of the underlying premise(s).

Basically if you begin with unproven, unverifiable assertions (such as life being materially irreducible) then you can arrive at valid logical conclusions based on the premise, but which are unsound - due to the unsound nature of the premise (and by unsound I merely mean "not sound" - i.e. anything that is not sound is unsound).
Click to expand...
actually arguing that life is materially reducible is unsound.
Not a scrap of evidence for that claim

The argument that life is not materially reducible rests upon methodologies outside of empiricism (hence the argument really begins at the point of "does empiricism have the monopoly on all claims of knowledge?")
 
lightgigantic said:
My question to you is that if logic is an argument that focuses on form as opposed to content, what is an argument that focuses on content?
Click to expand...

As I've already stated, numerous times, formality is but one essential element of a logical argument.
You're creating a false dichotomy.
 
lightgigantic said:
actually arguing that life is materially reducible is unsound.
Click to expand...
Objectively, perhaps - but it is currently sound by dint of rationality given existing evidence.
Not a scrap of evidence for that claim
Click to expand...
:shrug:
Care to cut your head off and carry on typing?

Oh no - that's right - all that would be evidence of is destroying the vessel in which the "giver of life" resides... and thus not evidence at all.
Oh, how silly of me.

The argument that life is not materially reducible rests upon methodologies outside of empiricism (hence the argument really begins at the point of "does empiricism have the monopoly on all claims of knowledge?")
Click to expand...
Such a claim rests outside of science and outside of rationality.
There is no evidence other than subjective experience that, due to your teachings, you interpret a specific way rather than scrutinise rationally. You are therefore caught up in a "believe to believe" cycle yet I'm guessing you can not see that.
You also seem frightened of the statement "I do not know" - too eager to bridge the gap of understanding with your claims of the "non-material" etc. And round and round the cycle you go.

I look forward to the day you manage to break free.
 
Signal said:
And you are free, or at least know what true freedom is?
Click to expand...
Free of such dogmatic cyclical thinking that seems to prevent some people from thinking rationally and concluding "I don't know"? I would like to think so.

Are you?
 
glaucon said:
As I've already stated, numerous times, formality is but one essential element of a logical argument.
You're creating a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...
:shrug:

then perhaps you can suggest what this is referring to in the way of form and content.

The concept of logical form is central to logic; it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.
 
Sarkus said:
Objectively, perhaps - but it is currently sound by dint of rationality given existing evidence.
Click to expand...
yes

its the nature of arguments that rest purely on logic to be quite flexible.

For instance

All pigs can fly
All horses are pigs

Therefore all horses can fly

:shrug:



Care to cut your head off and carry on typing?
Click to expand...
More to the point, care to cut your head off after paying someone to stitch it back on for you after you've done the deed?

:D
Oh no - that's right - all that would be evidence of is destroying the vessel in which the "giver of life" resides... and thus not evidence at all.
Oh, how silly of me.
Click to expand...
Don't worry

It wouldn't be the first time a person has made the mistake of ascribing eternal values to temporary objects in this world
;)

Such a claim rests outside of science and outside of rationality.
Click to expand...
Given the extent of values, I wouldn't expect anything else from you
There is no evidence other than subjective experience that, due to your teachings, you interpret a specific way rather than scrutinise rationally. You are therefore caught up in a "believe to believe" cycle yet I'm guessing you can not see that.
Click to expand...
I simply posed the question whether empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge.

I can only assume that due to your teachings, you interpret a specific way rather than scrutinise rationally. You are therefore caught up in a "believe to believe" cycle yet I'm guessing you can not see that. (namely see that empiricism quite literally doesn't have the "tools" to see what it is seeing with)


You also seem frightened of the statement "I do not know" -
Click to expand...
Actually it appears that you are terrified by the statement "I do not know but others do" ... particularly if they come from a theistic background.

The discomfort arises from your pre-existing value system
too eager to bridge the gap of understanding with your claims of the "non-material" etc. And round and round the cycle you go.
Click to expand...
meanwhile you remain oblivious to the tight orbit that the belief "life is materially reducible" grants

I look forward to the day you manage to break free.
Click to expand...
will the irony never end?
 
lightgigantic said:
its the nature of arguments that rest purely on logic to be quite flexible.

blah blah ...

Therefore all horses can fly
Click to expand...
I thought you knew the difference between soundness and validity?

More to the point, care to cut your head off after paying someone to stitch it back on for you after you've done the deed?
Click to expand...
:wallbang:
I am not going to regurgitate the many posts where this has been explained to you. Your ignorance (or more likely your obstinacy?) in this regard is astounding.

I simply posed the question whether empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge.

I can only assume that due to your teachings, you interpret a specific way rather than scrutinise rationally. You are therefore caught up in a "believe to believe" cycle yet I'm guessing you can not see that. (namely see that empiricism quite literally doesn't have the "tools" to see what it is seeing with)
Click to expand...
Given that the universe works rather well without the need for a soul, and that you have no evidence for a soul other than your appeal to authority... how exactly do you plan to progress down a claim of rationality on your part?
And it behooves you to counter the assumption I made rather than ignore it - if you think I am incorrect?

As for your assumption - please indicate how I have not been scrutinising rationally?

Actually it appears that you are terrified by the statement "I do not know but others do" ... particularly if they come from a theistic background.
Click to expand...
I welcome it if others know and can share their knowledge with everyone else.
Unfortunately all they can come up with is an alternate description of material phenomena.

The discomfort arises from your pre-existing value system
Click to expand...
No discomfort, merely anticipation, I assure you.

meanwhile you remain oblivious to the tight orbit that the belief "life is materially reducible" grants
Click to expand...
No belief - just an assumption until shown to be incorrect. And given that the assumption is doing rather well at explaining most things... I have reasonable hopes that it will need no adjustments. However, when something arises for which we the assumption proves impossible to account for... the assumption will be amended.

So - any counters to the assumptions I made of you - or are you just going to continue to deflect?
 
lightgigantic said:
Normative descriptions (or "ways that you have to be/act in order to know something") are a prerequisite for the verifiable knowable truthful assertions of anything.
Click to expand...

Positive or factual descriptions are "verifiably knowable truthful assertions concerning" something and there is a "process by which they can be verified."

If you disagree, feel free to offer an example that doesn't have this requirement
Click to expand...

Just did.
 
lightgigantic said:
:shrug:

then perhaps you can suggest what this is referring to in the way of form and content.

The concept of logical form is central to logic; it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.
Click to expand...

That says exactly what I've been saying: validity is solely a function of form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top