Let's keep it simple

[Spock]

Yes and no. It changes its appearance, but per se i.e. it is still an amoeba.

Uh-oh. I have this sneaky feeling that you equate “form” with some nebulous “essence”.

If you really want to learn a Catholic answer to your question, and not just play ‘debate chess,’ I recommend reading St. Thomas’ arguments about intellectual substances.

So far I received several different catholic answers. And Thomism is not the “officially, infallibly” endorsed philosophy of the catholic church.

Interesting, but I meant software as in the sourcecode, not the specific ‘installation’ of it.

Source code? Who cares about the source code? If you would program in Basic, there is no increment operator, you must write “x = x + 1”, if you program in “C”, you can write “x++”, which performs the same operation. On different hardware platforms the underlying “microcode” is not necessarily the same, but the actual operation will be the same. The same applies in human languages. When an English speaking person says “two” and a German speaking person says “Zwei”, the neural connections are vastly different, but the two terms mean the same thing.

So you assume.

What is there to “assume”? Is there a “walking” when the leg muscles do not move? Would you answer this question?

We’re stalemated it seems.

Sure. No surprise there.

 

[You]

Wow. That is a surprise. Most of us had dreams, about reat, or deceased people.

So you had dreams about dead people. It did not make you believe in an afterlife. Why do people from earlier ages get a bad rap, they would believe it but you would not, - because you are living in 2011?

 

[jochoa]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

I would like to share a personal understanding.

The answer is found in the simplicity of the Greatest Commandment ("…all your heart, soul, mind, and strength"), all we have to do is find more tangible relations for understanding and acceptance.

Heart=Body
Mind=Thoughts
Strength=Interactions from Body to Mind/Mind to Body* and Soul to another Soul
Soul=Essence of Being - “You”
*Perhaps, but not limited to, the Nervous System.

Please consider the following application:
Body, Thoughts, Interactions, and Essence are distinctly different entities - by any “scientific” means. Some means of “proving” these entities distinct are by:
-Appearance: ex. Your thoughts do not look like your post.
-Communications: ex. The mind can tell the body what it thinks and wants the body to do. The body can tell the mind what it feels. The interactions can tell other souls/minds/bodies/interactions about its body/mind/soul.
Each instance of entity is exactly “You.” At this point in time, your body/mind/interactions is exactly “You.” It is all the care “You” have given to it. It has been ‘shaped’ by all the interactions “You” participated. It has been ‘shaped’ by all the things you have thought.
“You” are completely in each instance of entity. Your post is exactly of your thoughts, body, and interactions combined from the beginning of “You.” If one of your thoughts had been different, “You” would have been different, and your post would have been different.
Each instance of entity is necessary to complete “You.” There is no separating the integration of body, mind, and interactions of a being, the complete and all-encompassing history of “You” is necessary to complete “You.”

Excellent Question, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[Spock]

So you had dreams about dead people. It did not make you believe in an afterlife. Why do people from earlier ages get a bad rap, they would believe it but you would not, - because you are living in 2011?

There is no “bad rap” about acknowledging that those people had very little understanding about the world. They had no idea that the brain actually gets refreshed during the “dream period” (as the body relaxes during the “deep sleep” period). They had no idea that during dreaming the neurons go into a “free-firing” mode. It is amazing how “life-like” dreams can be. Sometimes people have trouble separating the two. Those people filled the unknown world with superstition, they invented all sorts of gods (attested to by the ritual paintings).

Nevertheless, this is totally irrelevant to the purposes of this thread. I am simply interested how you guys assign a “true” of “false” value to the proposition “humans have immortal soul”. So far I saw a few methods.

 

[Ecclesia_Muris]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

I am not going to put up constraints to “limit” you in any way. Use whatever approach you want. It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist, but I am not expecting such a favorable outcome.

While there is no way to prove the existence of a soul scientifically because the soul is immaterial, we can understand however that the belief in a soul is very reasonable.

As created beings we are formed in the image of the Creator. We can see this whenever we create things because a part of us is transferred to whatever we create. This fact is recognized whenever we assigned a value to a person’s work based on who that person is and the quality of their craftsmanship. Let’s take Leonardo Da Vinci for example: His painting the Mona Lisa is world renowned and considered to be of extremely valuable, if not priceless. But what makes it priceless? Is it just the material aspects of the picture itself? Let’s say we had a copy machine that could paint on canvas the exact same painting perfectly, would it be equally valuable as the original? The answer is no because it was not touched by Leonardo’s passion, imagination, or vision and even though on a molecular level the paintings are completely identical they are however not worth the same based on immaterial qualities. One could even argue that these things are what give the painting its true value because without them who would care? Would you spend the same amount of money for a copy of Leonardo’s work as you would for an original?

As creations we likewise hold within ourselves immaterial qualities of our creator, and this is called our soul.

God Bless and please pray for me.

 

[You]

There is no “bad rap” about acknowledging that those people had very little understanding about the world. They had no idea that the brain actually gets refreshed during the “dream period” (as the body relaxes during the “deep sleep” period). They had no idea that during dreaming the neurons go into a “free-firing” mode. It is amazing how “life-like” dreams can be. Sometimes people have trouble separating the two. Those people filled the unknown world with superstition, they invented all sorts of gods (attested to by the ritual paintings).

Nevertheless, this is totally irrelevant to the purposes of this thread. I am simply interested how you guys assign a “true” of “false” value to the proposition “humans have immortal soul”. So far I saw a few methods.

1. I do not understand dreams, I live in the 21st century.
2. Calling dreams a refreshing of the brain neurons is just jargon of the 21st century for the same experience.
3. Dreams can be life like, the majority can be just dreams and meaningless, our ancestors would be well aware of this also.
4. Dreams can also be more, I would hazard a guess the interweb is full of premonition dreams.
5. I don’t remember bringing up dreams as a point in this thread.
6. My post was about the quiet thoughts in your own head about the possibility of an afterlife while in the presence of human death - the heart of a human generally wishes to believe the dead person is not lost forever.
7. The reality of the possibility of those thoughts in the human raises at the same time doubt and hope; and raises the question of whether an afterlife could be true; and the most negative response you can give yourself is that you don’t know; the most middle of the road response you can give yourself is why not, it is allowed in the human mind to consider the possibility; the most positive response is an instinctive desire to see the dead continue and a sense of mild repulsion towards one who dismisses the dead as dead and gone and non-existant.
8. Listen to your own thoughts and human instinct instead of parroting jargon which may be in fashion today but be considered the sound of ignorance in a thousand years from now.

 

[Spock]

As created beings we are formed in the image of the Creator. We can see this whenever we create things because a part of us is transferred to whatever we create.

That is a nice metaphor, but not reality.

This fact is recognized whenever we assigned a value to a person’s work based on who that person is and the quality of their craftsmanship. Let’s take Leonardo Da Vinci for example: His painting the Mona Lisa is world renowned and considered to be of extremely valuable, if not priceless. But what makes it priceless? Is it just the material aspects of the picture itself? Let’s say we had a copy machine that could paint on canvas the exact same painting perfectly, would it be equally valuable as the original? The answer is no because it was not touched by Leonardo’s passion, imagination, or vision and even though on a molecular level the paintings are completely identical they are however not worth the same based on immaterial qualities. One could even argue that these things are what give the painting its true value because without them who would care? Would you spend the same amount of money for a copy of Leonardo’s work as you would for an original?

Funny stuff. You touched upon one of my favorite pet-peeves. As a matter of fact I strongly disagree not just with you, but with almost everyone when it comes the “value” of the Mona Lisa. No doubt, it is a beautiful painting, but if there would be a way to copy it atom-by-atom, so that the copy could not be told apart from the original, it would be higly irrational to assign a different “value” to it, since there would be no way to know which one is which. You ask if I would give the same money for the copy as for the original. The answer is yes - I would not give more money for the original than I would give for the copy. And this is based upon the fact that the distinction between the “original” and the “copy” is nonsensical if no one can tell the difference. The value is not based upon something “immaterial”, it is based upon rarity and the irrational belief that the “original” is more “valuable” even if it is not more beautiful. The whole world of “art” is nothing but a huge pile of irrationality. I am sure you will disagree, but that is a natural outcome.

I happen to value something that gives me aesthetic pleasure, regardless of its “rarity”. And that pleasure has nothing to do with the artist’s “quality”.

As creations we likewise hold within ourselves immaterial qualities of our creator, and this is called our soul.

That is your view, making yet another “definition” of the soul. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Spock]

1. My post was about the quiet thoughts in your own head about the possibility of an afterlife while in the presence of human death - the heart of a human generally wishes to believe the dead person is not lost forever.

And that is precisely what “faith” is all about. Wishful thinking, even if there is no rational foundation for it. As Hebrews 11:1 puts it so eloquently: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” I don’t mind this approach, but I would hope to see it spelled out by you: we are talking here about blind faith.

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

That is a nice metaphor, but not reality.

Your telling me that a part of someone’s personality doesnst go into what they make? Someone isnt being rational.

Funny stuff. You touched upon one of my favorite pet-peeves. As a matter of fact I strongly disagree not just with you, but with almost everyone when it comes the “value” of the Mona Lisa. No doubt, it is a beautiful painting, but if there would be a way to copy it atom-by-atom, so that the copy could not be told apart from the original, it would be higly irrational to assign a different “value” to it, since there would be no way to know which one is which. You ask if I would give the same money for the copy as for the original. The answer is yes - I would not give more money for the original than I would give for the copy. And this is based upon the fact that the distinction between the “original” and the “copy” is nonsensical if no one can tell the difference. The value is not based upon something “immaterial”, it is based upon rarity and the irrational belief that the “original” is more “valuable” even if it is not more beautiful. The whole world of “art” is nothing but a huge pile of irrationality. I am sure you will disagree, but that is a natural outcome.

Funny stuff because you have touched on a pet peeve of mine and that is the idea that everything has the same value, communists have the same idea and to be honest communism looks good on paper but is not logical or possible in reality. The same is true for your view regarding the Mona Lisa which is why I’m glad you’re not in the art business.

I happen to value something that gives me aesthetic pleasure, regardless of its “rarity”. And that pleasure has nothing to do with the artist’s “quality”.

Yes that’s your opinion but not fact. The fact is things are given value based on their rarity and quality. Just because you’re not a conosur doesn’t mean all of reality bends to your view or is subject to it. In fact I’m sure there is something you value and would not take a copy of and if you disagree than I think everyone here can leave this thread with the understanding that Spock is not being logical.

that is your view, making yet another “definition” of the soul. Thanks for sharing it.

Your welcome.

Live long and prosper.

Ps. I’m the OP of the above statements your replied to just so their isnt any confusion.

 

[You]

And that is precisely what “faith” is all about. Wishful thinking, even if there is no rational foundation for it. As Hebrews 11:1 puts it so eloquently: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” I don’t mind this approach, but I would hope to see it spelled out by you: we are talking here about blind faith.

Not at all blind faith. If we were just animals we would step over a corpse to our next meal. But we are not left totally blind, there is the desire to see the dead safe and a sense they are not gone. If we were blind none of this afterlife stuff would be an issue, but it is.

 

[Spock]

Not at all blind faith. If we were just animals we would step over a corpse to our next meal. But we are not left totally blind, there is the desire to see the dead safe and a sense they are not gone. If we were blind none of this afterlife stuff would be an issue, but it is.

It is still just wishful thinking without any evidence. Of course I also have the “desire” to se my dead parents again, and to tell them how much I love them, but that “desire” does not cloud the reality and does not make me believe that it “will” happen. The Hebrews 11:1 describes a blind hope for which there is no reason to believe.

 

[You]

It is still just wishful thinking without any evidence. Of course I also have the “desire” to se my dead parents again, and to tell them how much I love them, but that “desire” does not cloud the reality and does not make me believe that it “will” happen. The Hebrews 11:1 describes a blind hope for which there is no reason to believe.

I think you are confused with the idea of evidence being one thing and not another. The most, I say, the most sensitive instrument in the world if not in all of this existence is the human mind and heart. The heart being what what I understand is the center of a person.
Desire in you to see your dead parents again must not be disregarded as nothing. Obviously it is there, so it is something. Your desire is in your heart and mind, and simply because you cannot plug your brain into a computer and print out your desire so that your eyes can see it does not at all disqualify it as evidence. It is real.
If there is a Creator then He is the Creator of men whose only possessions were some stone knappings. He is their Creator also. So the evidence this Creator uses can and does transcend the computer and pipette tube world of evidence gathering. Seek His evidence in the tools men have always possessed since they were first created. Their hearts and their minds are the instruments to seek God.

 

[Neithan]

Uh-oh. I have this sneaky feeling that you equate “form” with some nebulous “essence”.

Is it not still an amoeba? Just keep it simple.

Source code? Who cares about the source code? If you would program in Basic, there is no increment operator, you must write “x = x + 1”, if you program in “C”, you can write “x++”, which performs the same operation. On different hardware platforms the underlying “microcode” is not necessarily the same, but the actual operation will be the same. The same applies in human languages. When an English speaking person says “two” and a German speaking person says “Zwei”, the neural connections are vastly different, but the two terms mean the same thing.

So if the soul is like software, say the code for ‘windows 7’ is a particular person’s intellect. It doesn’t require any particular hardware to exist, so it’s substantially dualistic. In this case, though, it would be “panpsychic” (able to operate on all computers).

What is there to “assume”? Is there a “walking” when the leg muscles do not move? Would you answer this question?

You’re assuming that mind is merely like walking. We’re saying it has something substantial - thing and not just activity.

 

[Luke_K]

Unfortunately the thread about “supernatural epistemology” died due to the usual plethora of irrelevant posts, I am proposing a simpler approach. I want to have this thread revolve around ONE question only. This question is: having a proposition “humans have an immortal soul”, how is this proposition resolved to be true or not? What method, what arguments can you bring up to show that this proposition is true or false?

Just jump off a tall building and find out for yourself, I suppose.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Just jump off a tall building and find out for yourself, I suppose.

That would show us how gravity works. It would not show us anything about an afterlife.

Your comments were questionable on charity, and clearly ignorant of science.

 

[jochoa]

It would be nice if someone could bring up an argument which would be convincing to an atheist…

I find this particular challenge very fascinating, and since my earlier post lacked proof of the ‘immortal’ soul, I would like to try again.

Proof in Four Parts: 1-Proof of Being Prior to Universe 2-Proof of Free-Will and Desires 3-Compensation for other Natural Laws 4-Proof of Immortal Soul

Prior to Universe Beginning to Expand…
→ the Laws of Entropy, Physics, Thermodynamics, and others must have been set because they naturally occur.
→ there must have been a thing that possesses all the energy and resources of the universe
→ there must have been a thing that set the universe in motion

It is clear that some things must have existed/set in place prior to the beginning of expansion, therefore we can now consider some aspects of the beings of the universe.

Life, Free-Will and Desires
→ Some beings of the universe innately possess Life, therefore there must be a Law regarding Life
→ Some living beings of the universe innately possess Free-Will, therefore there must be a Law regarding Free-Will
→ Some living beings have particular innate desires of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Knowledge, therefore there must be a Law regarding these Desires.

Now we must go back and account for the revealed Laws.

In the beginning there was…
→ a system of Laws which govern the universe.
→ a state of being of Perfect Peace, Happiness, and Energy
→ a joining of the system of Laws and the Perfect state of being
→ a thing that caused the universe, set the Laws of the universe, and set it in motion.

Now to reveal the proof of the Immortal Soul
In the beginning there was…
→ A being of Perfect Peace, Happiness, and Energy (Father/‘mindset’)
This being wanted to share this blessed state, therefore it devised…
→ a System of Laws, begotten of the Perfect Being (Son/‘body’)
The Perfection and the System of Laws had to be distinct, but one, therefore…
→ the two were joined to one another by the power of a distinct being (Holy Spirit/‘strength’)
→ It was the oneness of the three distinct entities…(God/Soul/‘essence’)
which purposed the Universe, set the Laws of the Universe, and powered the Universe.
And…this complete being existed before the universe and without the need for universe, therefore, this being is Immortal.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks for the excellent thought-provoking question.

 

[Spock]

Is it not still an amoeba? Just keep it simple.

Names are just names.

So if the soul is like software, say the code for ‘windows 7’ is a particular person’s intellect. It doesn’t require any particular hardware to exist, so it’s substantially dualistic. In this case, though, it would be “panpsychic” (able to operate on all computers).

Who says that is can exist without some hardware?

You’re assuming that mind is merely like walking. We’re saying it has something substantial - thing and not just activity.

You can say whatever you wish to say. What is your evidence for it? If it is not just an activity but a THING, you can observe it and measure it, and then you can present your proof, not just some measly evidence.

 

[atheistgirl]

I dont have all the wonderful intellectual terminology you guys do, but I’ll give my take on it anyhow

I don’t think there’s the slightest piece of evidence that there is an immortal soul. If we live on at all, it is in the genes and the memories of our offspring.

When we die out as a species, which I think we surely will, that, as they say, will be that!

That’s good enough for me

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think there’s the slightest piece of evidence that there is an immortal soul. If we live on at all, it is in the genes and the memories of our offspring.

When we die out as a species, which I think we surely will, that, as they say, will be that!

In other words you believe we are biological machines incapable of controlling ourselves because all our behaviour is determined by our genes and our environment. In that case your belief is determined by our genes and our environment - and therefore irrational… That is the height of simplicity - or the depths of simplisticity!

 

[atheistgirl]

In other words you believe we are biological machines incapable of controlling ourselves because all our behaviour is determined by our genes and our environment. In that case your belief is determined by our genes and our environment - and therefore irrational… That is the height of simplicity - or the depths of simplisticity!

Oh dear no. We are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves. That is absolutely self evident as I think you know. Some better than others it has to be said, but that’s just the nature of the beast
But it’s true I dont have an external force, or belief, I look to to control my behavior. To me, if Im completely honest here, it seems rather irrational to look to some external force for guidance on how to live your life - because, regardless of what you believe this force is telling you, you will still be contrained by whatever society says it will accept.
So for example, if you wanted to live as a hermit, no problem. If you felt you were being called by this force to walk around the streets naked, with shaven head, flagallating, and screaming at the top of your voice about the love of (insert external force’s name) and a call to repent, you’ll be arrested, and possibly brought to the attention of the mental health services. Nothing to do with your message, but we wont tolerate public nudity, no matter what force or diety says so

Sarah x