Soul cannot be created

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
  1. Soul is irreducible.
  2. Something which is irreducible is indesignable.
  3. The act of creation requires a design.
  4. From (2) and (3) we can deduce that soul cannot be created.
 
  1. God is the Creator.
  2. Everything that is non-God is therefore created.
  3. The human soul is non-God.
  4. Therefore the human soul is created.
Welcome back B.!

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
  1. God is the Creator.
  2. Everything that is non-God is therefore created.
  3. The human soul is non-God.
  4. Therefore the human soul is created.
Click to expand...
I have problem with the first premises. It is not evident to me that God exist as a being who is the creator. Moreover, my argument is about the fact that creation of soul is logically impossible so your argument fails unless that you could show that my argument is wrong.
GEddie said:
Welcome back B.!

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Thanks. They banned my account without providing any reason. Now it is the time to work on business. 😃
 
Could you explain your premises two and three in more detail? I’m not sure exactly what they mean.
 
Usagi said:
Could you explain your premises two and three in more detail? I’m not sure exactly what they mean.
Click to expand...
  1. Something which is irreducible is indesignable: Something which is irreducible doesn’t have any part so it cannot be designed.
  2. The act of creation requires a design: The act of creation requires a design because you expect that anything have some specific attributes and function according to its design.
I hope this is enough. Just let me know if you need further explanation.
 
I thought you were gone. Again, you can prove nothing. Peace.
 
Bahman said:
  1. Something which is irreducible is indesignable: Something which is irreducible doesn’t have any part so it cannot be designed.
  2. The act of creation requires a design: The act of creation requires a design because you expect that anything have some specific attributes and function according to its design.
I hope this is enough. Just let me know if you need further explanation.
Click to expand...
If by “designable” you mean some complex, higher whole that is composed by assembling smaller parts together, as the quoted response seems to indicate, then the only thing your argument would say for certain is that God does not create by assembling parts together. This seems to be an attempt to refute modern intelligent design theory.

One may instead interpret a design along classical lines, where a design is an essence, form, or rational principle that limits existence in some way. The design/essence is not composed of parts, since essence by itself is not a complete being, but only the design by which a thing may exist. Hence creation is simply the actualization of a design, converting it from a design that has the potential to exist to one that actually does exist.

So premise 3 is mistaken because you are implicitly assuming that creation may only occur by assembling pre-existing materials together.
 
Before we debate this topic, we should at least agree on Who created the universe, the definition of God, and what a soul is, Bahman. Otherwise, we’ll have to debate the logic behind our arguments
 
Bahman said:
  1. Soul is irreducible.
  2. Something which is irreducible is indesignable.
  3. The act of creation requires a design.
  4. From (2) and (3) we can deduce that soul cannot be created.
Click to expand...
Hello, Bahman. Allow me to say that I do not have very much experience in this (perhaps the closest thing is informally theology proper, but that is not necessarily related.)
  1. Because soul is immaterial; life itself cannot be known, only observed
  2. Soul is the form of the living thing
  3. The soul is the essence of the person
  4. Soul is simply the natural projection of the physical body
  5. Soul cannot be created (soul creationism) but only generated by the body itself
 
balto said:
If by “designable” you mean some complex, higher whole that is composed by assembling smaller parts together, as the quoted response seems to indicate, then the only thing your argument would say for certain is that God does not create by assembling parts together. This seems to be an attempt to refute modern intelligent design theory.
Click to expand...
Any complex things in principal can be reduced to its irreducible parts. I however have problem with irreducible parts since they should have some attributes to allow that the whole (sum of parts) behaves in a specific way. The problem is that any irreducible part needs a design too in order have some attributes to perform a specific function yet it cannot be created since it is irreducible. That is true because something which is irreducible cannot be designed.

In simple word any attribute in an irreducible thing requires a design which is contrary to concept of irreducibility. So we are ending up with a paradoxical situation because any attribute is the result of a design yet irreducible thing cannot be designed.
balto said:
One may instead interpret a design along classical lines, where a design is an essence, form, or rational principle that limits existence in some way. The design/essence is not composed of parts, since essence by itself is not a complete being, but only the design by which a thing may exist. Hence creation is simply the actualization of a design, converting it from a design that has the potential to exist to one that actually does exist.
Click to expand...
I was not thinking along this way.
balto said:
So premise 3 is mistaken because you are implicitly assuming that creation may only occur by assembling pre-existing materials together.
Click to expand...
(3) is not mistaken. The act of creation obviously require a design, in simple word we expect that something with some specific functioning comes out of creation. This however is in contradiction by (2). So the argument stands.
 
Bahman - The soul is not “irreducible” in the way you describe. It at least consists of act and potency (so is therefore created, because it had to be put together by something prior), and it has numerous principles acting within it (vegetal, animal, rational) which have numerous operations or powers acting within them (nutritive, generative, and augmentative, in the vegetal part for instance). Furthermore, these components of the soul are not the essence of the soul itself - which is untrue of God and His attributes and Persons. There is another element of composition - essence and attributes. Additionally, the soul’s existence is not its own essence - so there is yet another way the soul is partitioned.

Therefore, this argument is bad. Bad, bad, bad. Immaterial things are not necessarily without parts - they are just without physical parts.

Perhaps you should try starting fewer threads which “prove” something with trite syllogisms and instead engage people in a different way. From what I can tell this kind of thread frustrates people.
 
PraiseChrist said:
Before we debate this topic, we should at least agree on Who created the universe, the definition of God, and what a soul is, Bahman. Otherwise, we’ll have to debate the logic behind our arguments
Click to expand...
God is the creator and soul is spiritual part of human being. Am I clear enough? Let me know so we can expand the discussion more.
 
Bahman said:
I have problem with the first premises. It is not evident to me that God exist as a being who is the creator. Moreover, my argument is about the fact that creation of soul is logically impossible so your argument fails unless that you could show that my argument is wrong.

Thanks. They banned my account without providing any reason. Now it is the time to work on business. 😃
Click to expand...
If you deny the first premise than your having a different discussion.

The entirety of many arguements rest with the first premise… ergo you either need to accept one with whom you discuss, OR provide a clear first premise to discuss within your stated rules. The rest is mute.

Of course you can create a first premise that allows your others to be “right” by which of course within the limited scope of discussion you would be correct.

Which means you are actually only able to or looking to debate the first premise. So why bother with subsequent shenanigans?
 
e_c said:
Bahman - The soul is not “irreducible” in the way you describe. It at least consists of act and potency (so is therefore created, because it had to be put together by something prior), and it has numerous principles acting within it (vegetal, animal, rational) which have numerous operations or powers acting within them (nutritive, generative, and augmentative, in the vegetal part for instance). Furthermore, these components of the soul are not the essence of the soul itself - which is untrue of God and His attributes and Persons. There is another element of composition - essence and attributes. Additionally, the soul’s existence is not its own essence - so there is yet another way the soul is partitioned.

Therefore, this argument is bad. Bad, bad, bad. Immaterial things are not necessarily without parts - they are just without physical parts.

Perhaps you should try starting fewer threads which “prove” something with trite syllogisms and instead engage people in a different way. From what I can tell this kind of thread frustrates people.
Click to expand...
If soul has parts or has partitions then it can not be immortal because it could reduce to its part. Are you sure of what you are staying?
 
If soul has parts or has partitions then it can not be immortal because it could reduce to its part. Are you sure of what you are staying?
Click to expand...
Having parts means that it can be annihilated. The possibility of annihilation is distinct from necessarily being destroyed upon death.

The rational soul can subsist without the body, albeit imperfectly, since the intellect is not dependent upon the body for existence (whereas non-rational souls are immediately products of the body).

This should clear the difficulty for you. I seriously suggest reading the Summa Contra Gentiles or some such work rather than rapidly throwing out all these puzzles which only confuse the issues which you intend to gain clarity on. In the time it takes you to start 3 threads, you could have read 3 pages and actually learned something.
 
e_c said:
Having parts means that it can be annihilated. The possibility of annihilation is distinct from necessarily being destroyed upon death.

The rational soul can subsist without the body, albeit imperfectly, since the intellect is not dependent upon the body for existence (whereas non-rational souls are immediately products of the body).

This should clear the difficulty for you. I seriously suggest reading the Summa Contra Gentiles or some such work rather than rapidly throwing out all these puzzles which only confuse the issues which you intend to gain clarity on. In the time it takes you to start 3 threads, you could have read 3 pages and actually learned something.
Click to expand...
A good suggestion. Here’s a link to part of the Summa Contra Gentiles: catholicprimer.org/aquinas/scg1.pdf

I think that there’s something online that you can subscribe to where they’ll send you an exerpt from the Summa Theologica every day so you’ll go through the whole Summa in a year.

EDIT: Here’s the Summa Theologica: www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/TOC.htm
 
Bahman said:
  1. Soul is irreducible.
  2. Something which is irreducible is indesignable.
  3. The act of creation requires a design.
  4. From (2) and (3) we can deduce that soul cannot be created.
Click to expand...
The soul is not material. It appears that you assume it is material.
 
Bahman said:
Any complex things in principal can be reduced to its irreducible parts. I however have problem with irreducible parts since they should have some attributes to allow that the whole (sum of parts) behaves in a specific way. The problem is that any irreducible part needs a design too in order have some attributes to perform a specific function yet it cannot be created since it is irreducible. That is true because something which is irreducible cannot be designed.

In simple word any attribute in an irreducible thing requires a design which is contrary to concept of irreducibility. So we are ending up with a paradoxical situation because any attribute is the result of a design yet irreducible thing cannot be designed.
Click to expand...
The only way in which any of the above makes any sense is if you define “design” as some kind of spec whereby smaller parts are combined to produce a new substance. Revising your original argument with this definition produces the following:
  1. Soul is irreducible.
  2. Something which is irreducible is not the sum of smaller parts
  3. The act of creation requires combining smaller parts into a whole.
  4. From (2) and (3) we can deduce that soul cannot be created.
Why do you believe 3 is true? As you’ve written your argument, you are asserting something that is quite obviously false. If everything is the sum of smaller parts, but yet the most fundamental, i.e. irreducible parts, as a matter of logical impossibility, cannot be created, then nothing can exist. Which is empirically false.

Unless you are trying to argue that the most basic substratum that underlies all of reality exists through its own nature and has no need of being created, i.e. it is God. Are you trying to take down the road to pantheism again? It’s the only thing that would make any sense about your argument as you’ve presented it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top