Human souls MUST be immortal?

[STT]

I have run into the argument, more than once, that a human soul must be immortal, but I don’t remember the details of the argument. Perhaps something to do with the soul being immaterial, but not sure. Does anybody know more about this argument?

Soul cannot be immortal if it is sustained by God.

 

[steve-b]

If it helps you to think that in order to believe that you’ve presented a valid argument, so be it. You clearly don’t understand the nature of rebuttal. I don’t have to prove your assertions wrong, I just have to show that they’re extremely unlikely to be right.

A fancy way of saying denial is your rebuttal. Backed up by your continual denial

FredBloggs:

I’ve done that, but you don’t accept it. Dogmatic, rather than rational, belief, does that to people. It is you who are in denial, my friend.

I provided evidence properly referenced. All you provided is your denial.

 

[steve-b]

Yet Josephus was reporting a historical event. The crucifixion and death of Jesus. Then he writes about the eyewitnesses recount of Jesus rise from the dead " Then appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.**"

Gorgias:

Hmm… isn’t that the part that scholars believe was a later addition to the text (i.e., a corruption of the original)?

Digging deeper, aren’t they also the same scholars who also deny Jesus even existed?

 

[Gorgias]

Digging deeper, aren’t they also the same scholars who also deny Jesus even existed?

Not exclusively.

The “Jesus-deniers” will make that claim, but they’re not the only ones saying that this part of the text is a corruption.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Digging deeper, aren’t they also the same scholars who also deny Jesus even existed?

Not exclusively.

The “Jesus-deniers” will make that claim, but they’re not the only ones saying that this part of the text is a corruption.

What I haven’t seen in criticisms, by “scholars” is that

Josephus names 12 men in his works, named Jesus

:heavy_check_mark:Jesus Christ, a testimony to him pg 379
Jesus the son of Phabet deprived of the high-priesthood pg 467
Jesus son of Ananus, his ominous clamour and death pg 582
Jesus brother of Onias, changed his name to Jason pg256
Jesus son of Sapphias, governor of Tiberias pg 497
Jesus son of Gamaliel, made high priest pg 424
Jesus the eldest priest after Ananus pg 531; 534, his speech to the Idumeans, pg 531
Jesus son of Damneus, made a high priest pg 424
Jesus son of Gamala
Jesus son of Saphat pg 518
Jesus son of Thebuthus a priest pg 586
Jesus son of Josedek pg 232

I have to ask, why do (scholars) only pick on the Jesus, Josephus writes about, called “the Christ”?

 

[FredBloggs]

A fancy way of saying denial is your rebuttal. Backed up by your continual denial

So let’s get this straight: if I point out that your assertions are in conflict with all that we know about the fallibility of eye witness testimony and human story-telling and verbal accuracy and so on, you just class it as “denial?” Because when your deeply held personal beliefs are involved, all the evidence that we have about the unreliability of human communication is suddenly invalid. Just for your specific beliefs. What a joke. Open your eyes. Open your mind.

Let me guess: for you to even countenance an alternative point of view, I can’t just point out the flaws with your one-dimensional argument; I’d have to provide alternative “eye witness” testimony. That would be interesting, I wonder if you’d treat that with the same unquestioning respect that you treat the “testimony” that you happen to dogmatically believe in.

I provided evidence properly referenced.

No: you provided scripture. A biblical verse is not evidence. Why do so many theists believe that it is? Do you believe that everything in scripture is 100% accurate and dependable?

All you provided is your denial.

That’s certainly one way of looking at it.

 

[FredBloggs]

No; that argument wasn’t asking “is there a soul?”, but rather “is there heaven?”.

A distinction without a difference, no?

Umm… riiiiiiiiiight.

So even though I’ve clarified, you’ve chosen to stick to your original view. I can think of a few reasons why that might be, but unlike you, I prefer not to pigeon-hole the intentions of others.

I don’t know. If the body – not the imagination – craves something, what does that tell you?

It tells me that the body needs the things it needs as an evolved organism, to survive. Why should it suggest anything more?

 

[John10]

Our souls are immaterial and therefore can continue to exist forever, even if we no longer have a body.

God could still destroy them, however we know He will never do that. They must be immortal or we would only enjoy a finite heaven or suffer temporarily in a finite Hell, however we know both realities are eternal and immutable.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

A fancy way of saying denial is your rebuttal. Backed up by your continual denial

FredBloggs:

So let’s get this straight: if I point out that your assertions are in conflict with all that we know about the fallibility of eye witness testimony and human story-telling and verbal accuracy and so on, you just class it as “denial?” Because when your deeply held personal beliefs are involved, all the evidence that we have about the unreliability of human communication is suddenly invalid. Just for your specific beliefs. What a joke. Open your eyes. Open your mind.

When 12 people see and experience the same exact event(s), giving the same story, iow, the same proof, the same evidence, and even the doubter in their midst, had his doubts eliminated with evidence, proof, and you still think that 's unreliable…

All I can say, that is a choice you make.

FredBloggs:

Let me guess: for you to even countenance an alternative point of view, I can’t just point out the flaws with your one-dimensional argument; I’d have to provide alternative “eye witness” testimony. That would be interesting, I wonder if you’d treat that with the same unquestioning respect that you treat the “testimony” that you happen to dogmatically believe in.

Example,

If 12 people see you run a red light, and plow into another car in the innersection, and THEY give the same eyewitness story to the police, … guess what?

FredBloggs:

No: you provided scripture. A biblical verse is not evidence. Why do so many theists believe that it is? Do you believe that everything in scripture is 100% accurate and dependable?

For perspective. A short read HERE

 

[steve-b]

snarflemike:

I have run into the argument, more than once, that a human soul must be immortal, but I don’t remember the details of the argument. Perhaps something to do with the soul being immaterial, but not sure. Does anybody know more about this argument?

Soul cannot be immortal if it is sustained by God.

a soul is immortal precisely because, it IS created and sustained by God to be immortal

 

[Gorgias]

I have to ask, why do (scholars) only pick on the Jesus, Josephus writes about, called “the Christ”?

Because nobody really cares much about the other 11 guys named ‘Joshua’, maybe? The other one – the one whom we call the Christ – though… he kinda gets our attention.

So let’s get this straight: if I point out that your assertions are in conflict with all that we know about the fallibility of eye witness testimony and human story-telling and verbal accuracy and so on, you just class it as “denial?”

Only if the primary context in which you want to discredit these is the context of Jesus Christ… then, yeah.

No: you provided scripture. A biblical verse is not evidence. Why do so many theists believe that it is?

Bzzzt! Wrong. A Scripture verse is evidence. It’s a written record, and a testimony from a time and a place.

If you want to discuss whether it’s incontrovertible evidence, then that might be a productive discussion to have (i.e., the reliability and veracity of Scripture). However, to throw it out – merely because it’s part of a Jewish or Christian scriptural tradition – demonstrates some serious bias.

Why do so many theists believe that it is?

Umm… because it’s a historical, written record? When did we start throwing those out, wholesale?

A distinction without a difference, no?

Nope. There can be ‘heaven’ without human souls populating it, can’t there?

I can think of a few reasons why that might be, but unlike you, I prefer not to pigeon-hole the intentions of others.

Keep telling yourself that, brother.

It tells me that the body needs the things it needs as an evolved organism, to survive. Why should it suggest anything more?

Perfect answer. And, if the soul exists, why would we suggest anything less than that it needs things, too?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I have to ask, why do (scholars) only pick on the Jesus, Josephus writes about, called “the Christ”?

Because nobody really cares much about the other 11 guys named ‘Joshua’, maybe? The other one – the one whom we call the Christ – though… he kinda gets our attention.

That’s why I put “scholars” earlier, in quotation marks

 

[FredBloggs]

When 12 people see and experience the same exact event(s), giving the same story, iow, the same proof, the same evidence, and even the doubter in their midst, had his doubts eliminated with evidence, proof, and you still think that 's unreliable…

All I can say, that is a choice you make.

You mean, when one person says that twelve people saw and experienced the same event? Hmmm.

Example,

If 12 people see you run a red light, and plow into another car in the innersection, and THEY give the same eyewitness story to the police, … guess what?

Then, given that cars running red lights and hitting other cars is not unusual, I would be in trouble. However, if twelve people saw me die and then come back to life, … how many people would take that seriously?

Also, you’re conflating direct eye-witness testimony with thousandth-hand testimony. If someone said that someone had told them that someone else had told them that someone else had told them that someone else had told them that someone else had told them [repeat for two thousand years] that twelve people had seen me run a red light… my guess is the police wouldn’t feel particularly exercise to take it seriously.

For perspective. A short read HERE

Dude - you’re seriously asking me to take seriously a Catholic article on the veracity of scripture? No agenda there, I guess Ooh, look, here’s an Islamic article on the accuracy of the Qur’an, which says that Jesus didn’t die in the first place…

 

[FredBloggs]

Bzzzt! Wrong. A Scripture verse is evidence. It’s a written record, and a testimony from a time and a place.

If you want to discuss whether it’s incontrovertible evidence, then that might be a productive discussion to have (i.e., the reliability and veracity of Scripture). However, to throw it out – merely because it’s part of a Jewish or Christian scriptural tradition – demonstrates some serious bias.

Ok. I’d like to think my meaning was clear, but obviously not. It’s not reliable evidence.

Umm… because it’s a historical, written record? When did we start throwing those out, wholesale?

Ummm… it’s a written record of what people spent hundreds of years telling each other around the campfire in an age where people believed in magic and monsters and miracles. Let’s be clear, it’s not anywhere near the same level of veracity that we expect of reliable written testimony in today’s world.

Nope. There can be ‘heaven’ without human souls populating it, can’t there?

Yes, but that seems to me to be picking holes in an argument for the sake of it, rather than highlighting a serious flaw in the argument.

Perfect answer. And, if the soul exists, why would we suggest anything less than that it needs things, too?

Indeed. My view is that there is no such thing as a soul; but even if there were, to claim that the existence of food demonstrates the existence of immortality is nonsensical. Talk about your post-hoc justification of things already asserted

 

[Gorgias]

Ok. I’d like to think my meaning was clear, but obviously not. It’s not reliable evidence.

Ahh… now we have an assertion we can work with!

OK, then: why is Scripture not reliable, in your opinion?

it’s a written record of what people spent hundreds of years telling each other around the campfire

Fine. When I sit around the campfire, I tell the youngsters the stories of the 1979 Pirates’ World Series victory, and the Super Bowl victories of the Steelers in the 70s and 80s. Why are those narratives unreliable?

Let’s be clear, it’s not anywhere near the same level of veracity that we expect of reliable written testimony in today’s world.

It’s not written in the same way that journalism is written today. Got it. You’re not addressing your complaint that it’s not reliable, though.

even if there were, to claim that the existence of food demonstrates the existence of immortality is nonsensical. Talk about your post-hoc justification of things already asserted

Hold on a second: you’re granting an assertion for the sake of argument (that is, “ok, if there’s such a thing as a soul…”). Now that we’ve granted that assertion, we must ask “what is the purpose of that soul?” Immortal life is a reasonable answer, not a “post-hoc justification”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When 12 people see and experience the same exact event(s), giving the same story, iow, the same proof, the same evidence, and even the doubter in their midst, had his doubts eliminated with evidence, proof, and you still think that 's unreliable…

All I can say, that is a choice you make.

You mean, when one person says that twelve people saw and experienced the same event? Hmmm.

Example,

If 12 people see you run a red light, and plow into another car in the innersection, and THEY give the same eyewitness story to the police, … guess what?

Then, given that cars running red lights and hitting other cars is not unusual, I would be in trouble. However, if twelve people saw me die and then come back to life, … how many people would take that seriously?

Also, you’re conflating direct eye-witness testimony with thousandth-hand testimony. If someone said that someone had told them that someone else had told them that someone else had told them that someone else had told them that someone else had told them [repeat for two thousand years] that twelve people had seen me run a red light… my guess is the police wouldn’t feel particularly exercise to take it seriously.

For perspective. A short read HERE

Dude - you’re seriously asking me to take seriously a Catholic article on the veracity of scripture? No agenda there, I guess Ooh, look, here’s an Islamic article on the accuracy of the Qur’an, which says that Jesus didn’t die in the first place…

Every once in awhile, and only awhile, i accommodate discourse with an atheist, knowing in advance, it usually goes nowhere. Looks like that “Awhile” in this case, has run it’s usual course.

 

[STT]

a soul is immortal precisely because, it IS created and sustained by God to be immortal

To me immortal means something which persists to exist on its own.

 

[FredBloggs]

Every once in awhile, and only awhile, i accommodate discourse with an atheist, knowing in advance, it usually goes nowhere. Looks like that “Awhile” in this case, has run it’s usual course.

Me too, in the reciprocal. I know I’m not going to change your mind using logic and reason, as yours is a position that was arrived at through other means. It was fun, sort of.

 

[FredBloggs]

Ahh… now we have an assertion we can work with!

Always nice to be patronised, thanks for that

OK, then: why is Scripture not reliable, in your opinion?

For all the reasons I’ve already posted in this thread. If you weren’t paying attention, go back and catch up; I’m not listing them all again.

Fine. When I sit around the campfire, I tell the youngsters the stories of the 1979 Pirates’ World Series victory, and the Super Bowl victories of the Steelers in the 70s and 80s. Why are those narratives unreliable?

Firstly, they probably are unreliable, to some minor extent. But even assuming that your campfire stories are emotionless exposition of the bare facts. Now consider your audience tells your stories around a different campfire, and that audience tells the stories, as they understood them, around yet another campfire. Repeat this thousands of times. Are you seriously telling me you think your version of events would be accurately portrayed in the final version?

It’s not written in the same way that journalism is written today. Got it. You’re not addressing your complaint that it’s not reliable, though.

I think I am. I’m not talking about the style, I’m talking about the motive, the method, the fact that modern testimony is not thousandth-hand campfire stories. It’s properly documented at source. And even then, we see that eye-witness testimony turns out to be surprisingly unreliable, and multiple eye-witnesses often provide different versions of events. Don’t take my word for it, do your own research if you dare to challenge your assumptions. This is the first Google result, there are hundreds more, and most of them contain references to peer-reviewed studies. Which you can feel free to arbitrarily dismiss

Hold on a second: you’re granting an assertion for the sake of argument (that is, “ok, if there’s such a thing as a soul…”). Now that we’ve granted that assertion, we must ask “what is the purpose of that soul?” Immortal life is a reasonable answer, not a “post-hoc justification”.

No - we absolutely don’t have to ask, “what is the purpose of that soul?” Why must there be a purpose? To assume there is, is merely begging the question. Why are there planets? Well, there just are. They serve no purpose. (Although that may be a bad example, as theists tend to think that the earth was created for mankind to live on )

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

a soul is immortal precisely because, it IS created and sustained by God to be immortal

To me immortal means something which persists to exist on its own.

Are you thinking a soul creates itself?