"How do we demonstrate that we have a soul?"

[grannymh]

1. One cannot prove a universal negative.
2. Just because something cannot be disproven, it is not a legitimate reason to assume that it is true. You cannot disprove the existence of the Tooth fairy, but the lack of that “disproof” is not a sufficient reason to assume that it exists…

Did I miss the announcement that the "tooth fairy’ created the world?

Furthermore, the so-called lack of that “disproof” is not part of the scientific method.

Simply put, the conclusion of any research paper depends on the evidence, methods and materials detailed in the paper. In other words, does the evidence warrant the particular conclusion which appears at the end of the research paper? Granted, some abstracts do contain the particular conclusion; however, the reader still has to ascertain that the particular conclusion is valid considering the evidence presented within the actual paper.

In real life, there is a lot more to natural science than the presence of tooth fairies.

Natural science is a gift from God which has benefited society, especially through medical research. The scientific method deserves respect.

I consider that respect for dedicated scientists is part of living a moral life. Respect is part of a basic principle of life. ----

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[capoly]

grannymh:

Did I miss the announcement that the "tooth fairy’ created the world?

I missed the announcement that the world was created at all… (some people hold it as an opinion ). Matthewmat said that the existence of the “soul” was never disproved, and therefore he took it as a legitimate hypothesis. That is what I was disputing.

The soul cannot be demonstrated, even in principle, so it is a useless, void concept.

 

[grannymh]

I missed the announcement that the world was created at all… (some people hold it as an opinion ). Matthewmat said that the existence of the “soul” was never disproved, and therefore he took it as a legitimate hypothesis. That is what I was disputing.

The soul cannot be demonstrated, even in principle, so it is a useless, void concept.

It is possible to demonstrate a spiritual principle within human nature which can be recognized by non-theists because basically a non-theist can experience the faculties of a spiritual soul which she or he believes non-existent.

One of the first tools in natural science research is observation.

If one throws out observation (which is the foundation for my opening comment) as a void useless concept because one cannot think beyond disputing hypotheses, then, of course, there is nothing more I can add to the OP discussion.

To me, and maybe not to others, the first observation is that morally ----------
The human person is worthy of profound respect. One does not have to be a theist in order to agree with that observation in some way.

 

[Matthewmatt]

I missed the announcement that the world was created at all… (some people hold it as an opinion ). Matthewmat said that the existence of the “soul” was never disproved, and therefore he took it as a legitimate hypothesis. That is what I was disputing.

The soul cannot be demonstrated, even in principle, so it is a useless, void concept.

The world wasnt created? Then how did it come into being? Thats the big question. The big bang theory which most scientists now subscribe to says that the universe had a beginning. At the big bang. So at one time the universe came into exsistance. How? From nothing? All that we have cannot come from nothing. The complexity of the universe and the complexity of a human mind from nothing?

THis shows that the hypothesis of a Creator is not so far fetched it makes sense. It can not be PROVED by Empirical Science but not even the big bang THEORY can be proved by Science. But i believe both that God created the universe and that the big band did happen.

The Soul cannot be proved either but the evidence such as how humans as opposed to animals have Justice and can love in a deep deep way, the way that we as humans can apreciate art and beauty i believe shows evidence that we have a Soul. Im not saying we can prove it but if you only believed in what you could prove than you wouldnt believe in much.

We should weigh the evidence.

To say that the universe was not created is to say that the universe was just here. It didnt have a cause it was just here. But any scientists looks at the world and would laugh at that. Look at the tree. Oh well it just got there. No. It started from a seed and grew up. Oh well the pig just got here. No it was born from another pig. The universe oh well it just was here 13.75 billion years ago and the big bang happened and it expanded all by itself. No it makes more sense to say there is a Higher Power that has designed the universe and that He created the first matter. Thus the matter then takes its course in the realm of science - big bang theory.

Not much can be proved so if you cant prove their is a Soul or their isnt a Soul if you cant PROVE God created the world or that he didnt create the world. I would rather choose the one that makes more sense (God as opposed to matter that got here by itself) and that doesnt jeopardize my eternal being. Because what if we do have a Soul. Their is evidence. Our Justice our admiration of Beauty and are love that is differant than animals. Also the creation of the universe that doesnt make sense to have just got there by itself.

Peace in Christ,
Matthew

 

[capoly]

grannymh:

It is possible to demonstrate a spiritual principle within human nature which can be recognized by non-theists because basically a non-theist can experience the faculties of a spiritual soul which she or he believes non-existent.

How can one experience a non-physical phenomenon? Also the word “spiritual” needs to be defined. It is a meaningless phrase to me.

grannymh:

One of the first tools in natural science research is observation.

Very true. Now how can a non-physical “thing” observed?

grannymh:

To me, and maybe not to others, the first observation is that morally ----------

Since you left out part of this sentence, I cannot evaluate it.

grannymh:

The human person is worthy of profound respect. One does not have to be a theist in order to agree with that observation in some way.

I disagree with such a general form. I see no reason to “respect” a sociopath. Respect should be earned, it is not a default position.

 

[capoly]

Matthewmat:

The world wasnt created? Then how did it come into being? Thats the big question. The big bang theory which most scientists now subscribe to says that the universe had a beginning. At the big bang. So at one time the universe came into exsistance.

Scientists do not agree with that. The current form of the universe started at that point. The phrase “before” the Big Bang is just a meaningless utterance, just like “to the north from the North Pole” is a meaningless phrase. Since time is an attribute of the space-time-energy-matter, there is no “before” the universe.
Matthewmat:

The Soul cannot be proved either but the evidence such as how humans as opposed to animals have Justice and can love in a deep deep way, the way that we as humans can apreciate art and beauty i believe shows evidence that we have a Soul.

There is no reason to assume anything beyond the physical reality. “Justice” is merely a dumb human concoction, which says that one “incorrect” action can be justified by another incorrect action. The difference between a “crime” and a “punishment” is simply temporal. You could simply reverse them, and say that we shall sentence someone to some jail-time, and then the person gains the “right” to perform some unlawful act.
Matthewmat:

To say that the universe was not created is to say that the universe was just here. It didnt have a cause it was just here. But any scientists looks at the world and would laugh at that.

No, they do not laugh. The universe simply exists.

 

[grannymh]

How can one experience a non-physical phenomenon? Also the word “spiritual” needs to be defined. It is a meaningless phrase to me.

Very true. Now how can a non-physical “thing” observed?

Since you left out part of this sentence, I cannot evaluate it.

I disagree with such a general form. I see no reason to “respect” a sociopath. Respect should be earned, it is not a default position.

Thank you for your response. There is nothing more that I can add to your position beyond my post 23.

 

[SerraSemper]

Again, Aristotle’s De Anima is one of the best arguments for the existence of souls. Reading this book actually was the triggering factor for a friend of mine to convert to the Catholic faith. IF you are serious about wanting to demonstrate the existence of souls, read this book (or something similar). If a 19 year old could read this book and convert, I would guess it is actually readable. God bless you.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Again, Aristotle’s De Anima is one of the best arguments for the existence of souls. Reading this book actually was the triggering factor for a friend of mine to convert to the Catholic faith. IF you are serious about wanting to demonstrate the existence of souls, read this book (or something similar). If a 19 year old could read this book and convert, I would guess it is actually readable. God bless you.

Could we pose this position in the Philosophy forum with any hope that it will be taken as an end of discussion of the topic?

The logic does not flow.

 

[capoly]

SerraSemper:

Again, Aristotle’s De Anima is one of the best arguments for the existence of souls. Reading this book actually was the triggering factor for a friend of mine to convert to the Catholic faith. IF you are serious about wanting to demonstrate the existence of souls, read this book (or something similar). If a 19 year old could read this book and convert, I would guess it is actually readable.

How can anyone take anything seriously from a 2000+ old writer, who thought that the brain was the organ to cool the blood? Aristotele was a genius of his time, but back then all he could do is engage in empty musings and make unwarranted assumptions. Time to drop it.

 

[grannymh]

Could we pose this position in the Philosophy forum with any hope that it will be taken as an end of discussion of the topic?

The logic does not flow.

Of course, this would be a good topic for the philosophy forum.
But first, let me explain the logic as I see it. In my humble opinion, the “logic” of a “life principle” is one of the reasons for moral actions. Obviously, not all people will make the leap to God.

From what I understand, Aristotle taught that every living being, including humans and animals, had a "soul’ or a spiritual principle which “formed” its life. His demonstration, which I do not know exactly, apparently works for all living beings, even the living beings of the 21st century. Humans today are not essentially different from humans in the time of Aristotle. Are we? We may know how to fly an airplane; however, our brain muscles have not moved from our sculls, etc.

SerraSemper, please correct me.

Aristotle’s demonstration is independent of the Catholic understanding of a supernatural God creating the supernatural soul; thereby inviting humans to live in happiness forever by sharing in the life of God through knowledge and love. Therefore, Aristotle’s independent demonstration can work today for anyone. The key is that some people go beyond the basic demonstration to the discovery of a supernatural being, God the Creator.

Skip to the sentence I often use to demonstrate the foundation for morality. This sentence is: “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” Catholics, along with others of different faiths, see the “soul” of Aristotle in relationship to God’s plan for eternal life. They add to Aristotle’s basic meaning. Thus, the dignity of an immortal spiritual soul is why all humans are worthy of profound respect. From a human perspective, this dignity can be seen as a reason for moral actions. From a human view point, Aristotle’s concept of “form” continues to work.

Again, SerraSemper needs to correct my personal observations. Thank you.

 

[AdamP88]

In just the same way as I can never prove there is no Deity.

Sarah x

The massive problem with this logic is that philosophy and science both point toward a first cause as the beginning of the universe. The universe didn’t create itself…something did.

 

[davidv]

How can anyone take anything seriously from a 2000+ old writer, who thought that the brain was the organ to cool the blood? Aristotele was a genius of his time, but back then all he could do is engage in empty musings and make unwarranted assumptions. Time to drop it.

Why does “old” equal wrong? Can you back up your claim that his musings on the soul are empty and made on unwarranted assumptions?

 

[capoly]

davidv:

Why does “old” equal wrong? Can you back up your claim that his musings on the soul are empty and made on unwarranted assumptions?

Philosophy is either supported by science, in which case it is superfluous, or it is not supported by science in which case it is just empty musing. The question was: “can the existence of the soul be demonstrated”? The answer is: “no”.

 

[grannymh]

Why does “old” equal wrong? Can you back up your claim that his musings on the soul are empty and made on unwarranted assumptions?

Of course “old” does not equal wrong. The early Greek civilization is one of the great contributors to civilization. The human mind cannot be limited to the joys of natural science.

Ah, one says. The spiritual soul cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, abstract concepts, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror. Unfortunately, the real scientific intellective powers are often downplayed by the technology of Professor Google.

It is true that those who can only rely on science will have difficulty demonstrating the spiritual soul. Whereas those who recognize the peerless power of the intellective soul see demonstrations everyday in our culture, in inventions, in pleasure, and in the mirror.

It is the way humans use the spiritual faculties of their soul
which is the demonstration of the soul itself.

 

[capoly]

grannymh:

Whereas those who recognize the peerless power of the intellective soul see demonstrations everyday in our culture, in inventions, in pleasure, and in the mirror.

You seem to confuse the properly materialistic working of the brain (called “mind”) with some ill-defined and hazy concept of a “spiritual soul”. We are making excellent headways into the working of the brain, using repeatable experiments, and there is no reason to assume anything beyond the concept of the mind. The mind is, of course not a physical object, in the same sense as “walking” itself is not a physical object. But that does not lend legitimacy to the assumption of some “non-physical entity”.

 

[Attempto]

Hello to all!

Only human have soul and after that we also distinguished from animals.
Humans have souls and we show it when it’s not hard for us to help our fellow man. when we love, when we make somebody happy, when we repent our sins, when we admit mistakes and simply admit how small we are before the Lord. That we have a souls also shows our feelings of joy and sadness. The soul is reflected in solidarity, in faith and in giveaway my life to other.
Also the infidels have their souls but their souls are very weak they are not kept from God because they do not feed from the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Eucharist is food of our souls.

The soul should hypothetically weigh only 21g. This is just a hypothesis.

That we can think we need a soul. Man thinks and therefore a soul is men’s property.
The soul is the most sacred or. divine part of man, the Divine breath, inhaled - injected at creation.
A man is not a man without a soul.
That we have a soul or not we do not need to prove because we are humans.

In Christ,
Attempto

Post Scriptum: Sorry for my English - it’s not my mother tongue. For me it’s really hard to express such thoughts in foreign language.

And by the way: good thoughts Matthewmatt

 

[atheistgirl]

The soul should hypothetically weigh only 21g. This is just a hypothesis.

Sarah x

 

[StrawberryJam]

Of course, this would be a good topic for the philosophy forum.
But first, let me explain the logic as I see it. In my humble opinion, the “logic” of a “life principle” is one of the reasons for moral actions. Obviously, not all people will make the leap to God.

From what I understand, Aristotle taught that every living being, including humans and animals, had a "soul’ or a spiritual principle which “formed” its life. His demonstration, which I do not know exactly, apparently works for all living beings, even the living beings of the 21st century. Humans today are not essentially different from humans in the time of Aristotle. Are we? We may know how to fly an airplane; however, our brain muscles have not moved from our sculls, etc.

SerraSemper, please correct me.

Aristotle’s demonstration is independent of the Catholic understanding of a supernatural God creating the supernatural soul; thereby inviting humans to live in happiness forever by sharing in the life of God through knowledge and love. Therefore, Aristotle’s independent demonstration can work today for anyone. The key is that some people go beyond the basic demonstration to the discovery of a supernatural being, God the Creator.

Skip to the sentence I often use to demonstrate the foundation for morality. This sentence is: “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” Catholics, along with others of different faiths, see the “soul” of Aristotle in relationship to God’s plan for eternal life. They add to Aristotle’s basic meaning. Thus, the dignity of an immortal spiritual soul is why all humans are worthy of profound respect. From a human perspective, this dignity can be seen as a reason for moral actions. From a human view point, Aristotle’s concept of “form” continues to work.

Again, SerraSemper needs to correct my personal observations. Thank you.

Hello again granny,

Moral actions have meaning without an acceptance of belief in an immortal soul.
Many actions that are deemed moral by your standards are carried out each and everyday by non believers who hold no idea that they will live forever if they…

 

[davidv]

Philosophy is either supported by science, in which case it is superfluous, or it is not supported by science in which case it is just empty musing.

You have provided no evidence that this is a true statement. I can’t accept it just on your say so.

The question was: “can the existence of the soul be demonstrated”? The answer is: “no”.

An unsupported opinion.