Soul cannot be created

[balto]

(2) and (3) are my main problem too but they are true. In simple word a irreducible thing cannot be created. Soul is only one example but you face with the same problem if you even don’t believe in soul because anything which is reducible has parts so we eventually end up with a set of parts which are not reducible any more. This is a sort of problem which bothering me too so I posted it here to see if we can find a solution to it through discussion.

OK let’s work through it then. I’ll modify the argument to state all premises and generalize it a bit more:

1. Something which is reducible is composed of smaller, more fundamental parts.
2. Something which is irreducible is not the sum of smaller parts
3. All reducible things can reduce to a set of irreducible things
4. The act of creation requires combining smaller parts into a whole.
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that irreducible things cannot be created.
6. From (1), (3), and (5) we can deduce that reducible things cannot be created
7. From (5) and (6) we can deduce that nothing can be created.

The argument seems to be logically sound. The conclusion is that nothing that is created can exist. But things exist. One way out is to affirm pantheism and say that all reality is uncreated. But pantheism suffers from a whole host of other problems and you said you are not convinced by it.

So the conclusion that nothing can be created is empirically false because created things exist. So one of the premises 1-4 must be false so the conclusion no longer follows.

(1) seems to have empirical support. We know that complex created things are composed of smaller parts

One may dispute (3) and say that reducible things are infinitely reducible. This seems to be a problem because in order to explain the existence of a complex thing, one reduces it to the parts. If something is reducible then its existence is explained by something more fundamental. But if there’s nothing that is the most fundamental then the existence of the complex thing is never fully explained. So the complex thing could not exist, which is false.

If (3) is sound, then (2) is sound. So then the only other premise that could be false is (4). Why suppose that creation involves combining more fundamental things together into a whole?

At least one of those 4 premises has to be false, else you either deny reality or accept pantheism.

 

[balto]

That is the case iff you also assert:
The only things that can exist are created things

That’s essentially the pantheist option, which is why I asked if the OP considers himself to be a pantheist, but he seems unconvinced by it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That’s essentially the pantheist option, which is why I asked if the OP considers himself to be a pantheist, but he seems unconvinced by it.

But it was your assertion that:

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.

There is only way that your assertion

“if the building blocks cannot be created, then nothing can exist.”

can be true, and that is if:

“created things are the only things which can exist.”

which is a separate claim from the pantheistic position, which I understand to be

“no existing things are created”

In fact, it seems to me that your statement requires a denial of the pantheistic position.

 

[RPRPsych]

A ZEN PARABLE

Moshu and Poshu were two monks under the supervision of Master Wushu.

One day Wushu came upon the two monks quarreling.

“What is the meaning of this?” he demanded.

Shame-faced, the two monks admitted that they were arguing over who was the greatest.

Wushu shook his head. “This is not Buddha nature,” he rebuked them. “But if you insist, I shall put you both to the test. Come in, Bashu!”

A strange-looking monk, wearing a baseball cap, entered, babbling away to himself and gesticulating furiously.

“This is Bashu the Babbler,” Wushu explained. “If any of you can silence him, that man is the greatest.”

“Let me try,” Moshu said.

Bashu posed him hundreds and thousands of questions about life, the soul, God, and eternity. Moshu answered him point for point with sound teachings derived from the great books of Master Wushu and his ancestors, but Bashu kept on questioning him. Finally Moshu, exhausted, fell asleep.

“My turn,” said Poshu.

Bashu continued to pose his questions, but Poshu simply sat down before him, closed his eyes, and began to meditate. After several hours, seeing that he would receive no answer, Bashu’s face fell, and he returned to his cell, eating his baseball cap.

“Who is the man left awake?” Master Wushu asked.

“Huh?” Moshu said, opening his eyes and yawning to see a fresh-looking Poshu.

“I accept defeat,” he said shame-facedly. “Poshu, you are the greatest.”

Master Wushu was pleased with both of them.

INTERPRETATION
Wise words and fine words are like costly ointment; one must use one’s wisdom and discretion in deciding where they are apt, and where they are simply wind.

 

[Bahman]

In 10000BC people thought things, many of which were wrong.

2016 Bahman thinks things…

Did you give up arguing?

 

[Bahman]

OK let’s work through it then. I’ll modify the argument to state all premises and generalize it a bit more:

1. Something which is reducible is composed of smaller, more fundamental parts.
2. Something which is irreducible is not the sum of smaller parts
3. All reducible things can reduce to a set of irreducible things
4. The act of creation requires combining smaller parts into a whole.
5. From (2) and (4) we can deduce that irreducible things cannot be created.
6. From (1), (3), and (5) we can deduce that reducible things cannot be created
7. From (5) and (6) we can deduce that nothing can be created.

I have problem with (6) since reducible thing can be created if the parts can be created, meaning that the part have no design.

The argument seems to be logically sound. The conclusion is that nothing that is created can exist. But things exist. One way out is to affirm pantheism and say that all reality is uncreated. But pantheism suffers from a whole host of other problems and you said you are not convinced by it.

In physics strings which are not reducible and have no design can be created.

So the conclusion that nothing can be created is empirically false because created things exist. So one of the premises 1-4 must be false so the conclusion no longer follows.

Lets see.

(1) seems to have empirical support. We know that complex created things are composed of smaller parts

Alright.

One may dispute (3) and say that reducible things are infinitely reducible. This seems to be a problem because in order to explain the existence of a complex thing, one reduces it to the parts. If something is reducible then its existence is explained by something more fundamental. But if there’s nothing that is the most fundamental then the existence of the complex thing is never fully explained. So the complex thing could not exist, which is false.

That is not correct. One cannot divide a thing to infinitum.

If (3) is sound, then (2) is sound. So then the only other premise that could be false is (4). Why suppose that creation involves combining more fundamental things together into a whole?

(4) is correct too. The whole is sum of its part.

At least one of those 4 premises has to be false, else you either deny reality or accept pantheism.

I think neither are acceptable. There are irreducible things which do not have any design, so called string. The theory however is well established but it fails to describe reality as it is. This however open a way to think differently.

 

[LethalMouse]

Did you give up arguing?

A ZEN PARABLE

Moshu and Poshu were two monks under the supervision of Master Wushu.

One day Wushu came upon the two monks quarreling.

“What is the meaning of this?” he demanded.

Shame-faced, the two monks admitted that they were arguing over who was the greatest.

Wushu shook his head. “This is not Buddha nature,” he rebuked them. “But if you insist, I shall put you both to the test. Come in, Bashu!”

A strange-looking monk, wearing a baseball cap, entered, babbling away to himself and gesticulating furiously.

“This is Bashu the Babbler,” Wushu explained. “If any of you can silence him, that man is the greatest.”

“Let me try,” Moshu said.

Bashu posed him hundreds and thousands of questions about life, the soul, God, and eternity. Moshu answered him point for point with sound teachings derived from the great books of Master Wushu and his ancestors, but Bashu kept on questioning him. Finally Moshu, exhausted, fell asleep.

“My turn,” said Poshu.

Bashu continued to pose his questions, but Poshu simply sat down before him, closed his eyes, and began to meditate. After several hours, seeing that he would receive no answer, Bashu’s face fell, and he returned to his cell, eating his baseball cap.

“Who is the man left awake?” Master Wushu asked.

“Huh?” Moshu said, opening his eyes and yawning to see a fresh-looking Poshu.

“I accept defeat,” he said shame-facedly. “Poshu, you are the greatest.”

Master Wushu was pleased with both of them.

INTERPRETATION
Wise words and fine words are like costly ointment; one must use one’s wisdom and discretion in deciding where they are apt, and where they are simply wind.

I am waiting for you to eat the baseball cap

 

[RPRPsych]

I am waiting for you to eat the baseball cap

Master Wushu is pleased with you.

 

[e_c]

No, what I am saying is that anything, material or immaterial, cannot be created if it requires design and is irreducible.

You say all kinds of things. I just don’t care to do the jigsaw for you again. You don’t try to understand, you just stick with your initial syllogisms which are really, really bad, usually because they are too ambiguous. Ambiguity is the glove into which bad arguments slip their hand.

In physics there are simple irreducible entities so called strings. You can read about this here.

I’ve seen the specials on the Discovery Channel, thank you.

This is off topic.
I thought it was a thread about creation and what kinds of things can be created?

Good bye.

 

[balto]

But it was your assertion that:

There is only way that your assertion

“if the building blocks cannot be created, then nothing can exist.”

can be true, and that is if:

“created things are the only things which can exist.”

which is a separate claim from the pantheistic position, which I understand to be

“no existing things are created”

In fact, it seems to me that your statement requires a denial of the pantheistic position.

You’re not going to find me defending pantheism, as I am not a pantheist, so I don’t know what point you are trying to make. I think I was pretty clear that if one does not accept pantheism, then created things exist, and tried to list all of the OP’s options assuming a denial of pantheism. This discussion seems to be tangential to the main purpose of the thread.

 

[balto]

In physics strings which are not reducible and have no design can be created.

I’ll make the substitution for our earlier definition of “design” again here:

In physics strings which are not reducible and are not composed of parts can be created.

I am a bit confused because you opened the thread trying to argue that a soul cannot be created because it is irreducible. But now you say that strings, which are irreducible, can be created. Then that would mean that a soul could also be created even though it is irreducible.

I think you are coming around to the position that I am articulating, that creation is not necessarily a process of combining pre-existing, more fundamental parts into a larger whole.

That is not correct. One cannot divide a thing to infinitum.

We agree on this, which is good.

(4) is correct too. The whole is sum of its part.

But you are denying (4) by saying that strings are irreducible (i.e. not composed of parts, according to our earlier definitions), but yet they can be created. Then the claim that “an act of creation requires combining smaller parts into a whole” is not true.

I think neither are acceptable. There are irreducible things which do not have any design, so called string.

Again, substituting our definition of design in:

There are irreducible things which are not created by assembling smaller parts, so called string.

The theory however is well established but it fails to describe reality as it is. This however open a way to think differently.

I don’t know enough about string theory to comment in any further detail, but since you are willing to accept that strings are an aspect of reality that cannot be divided into smaller parts but are nonetheless real, you seem to be rediscovering the distinction between material and formal causes. Strings cannot have a material cause since they are not decomposable (having a material cause means that it can be reduced to smaller parts), but yet have a real definition (i.e. a formal cause). A soul would be in the same category as a string since it is a formal cause.

 

[Bahman]

Yes.

Can you elaborate further if you can imagine an entity which is irreducible and has design?

 

[Bahman]

I’ll make the substitution for our earlier definition of “design” again here:

In physics strings which are not reducible and are not composed of parts can be created.

I am a bit confused because you opened the thread trying to argue that a soul cannot be created because it is irreducible. But now you say that strings, which are irreducible, can be created. Then that would mean that a soul could also be created even though it is irreducible.

The issue is whether the irreducible entity requires design.

I think you are coming around to the position that I am articulating, that creation is not necessarily a process of combining pre-existing, more fundamental parts into a larger whole.

There is no problem in creation of entity which is irreducible and has no design.

We agree on this, which is good.

Cool.

But you are denying (4) by saying that strings are irreducible (i.e. not composed of parts, according to our earlier definitions), but yet they can be created. Then the claim that “an act of creation requires combining smaller parts into a whole” is not true.

I didn’t say that string cannot be created. They have no design and they are irreducible.

Again, substituting our definition of design in:

There are irreducible things which are not created by assembling smaller parts, so called string.

The issue is that if the an irreducible entity has design. If it doesn’t have then it can be created.

I don’t know enough about string theory to comment in any further detail, but since you are willing to accept that strings are an aspect of reality that cannot be divided into smaller parts but are nonetheless real, you seem to be rediscovering the distinction between material and formal causes. Strings cannot have a material cause since they are not decomposable (having a material cause means that it can be reduced to smaller parts), but yet have a real definition (i.e. a formal cause). A soul would be in the same category as a string since it is a formal cause.

The problem with material world is resolved but we still have the problem with the soul.

 

[Bahman]

Good bye.

I am open to argument. I am sorry if you could not understand the problem related to this thread. You said good bye so I cannot help it any more.

 

[Vico]

Can you elaborate further if you can imagine an entity which is irreducible and has design?

An entity with the simplest essence is such.

Collins Dictionary
design (noun) an end aimed at or planned for; intention; purpose
irreducable (adjective) not able to be brought to a simpler or reduced form
form (noun) (philosopny) essence as opposed to matter

 

[Bahman]

An entity with the simplest essence is such.

Collins Dictionary
design (noun) an end aimed at or planned for; intention; purpose
irreducable (adjective) not able to be brought to a simpler or reduced form
form (noun) (philosopny) essence as opposed to matter

I need an example.

 

[Vico]

I need an example.

An angel. Angels are not bodies, nor have bodies naturally united with them, but are perfectly intellectual substances. For a creature, the essence is different from the existence, as potentiality is to act.

 

[Bahman]

An angel. Angels are not bodies, nor have bodies naturally united with them, but are perfectly intellectual substances. For a creature, the essence is different from the existence, as potentiality is to act.

It is impossible to create an angel since an angel is irreducible yet it has attributes (it has design). Please read OP. The argument goes along if you only replace soul with angel.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

A confusion of categories. Properties unique to the category of material beings (irreducibility) do not apply to the category of spiritual beings.

Elevate the categories to created things and one might claim:
Spiritual beings and material beings can be annihilated.
Therefore, spiritual and material beings that can be annihilated are created.

 

[Vico]

It is impossible to create an angel since an angel is irreducible yet it has attributes (it has design). Please read OP. The argument goes along if you only replace soul with angel.

I did read it, that is why I am posting. There you posted that “Something which is irreducible is indesignable.” which you said later is as assumption. I am giving an example that is counter to your assumption, by showing the definitions of the words used. Something which is irreducable (the simplest form: essence) is designable (has intention, purpose) according to the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Vico View Post
An entity with the simplest essence is such.

Collins Dictionary
design (noun) an end aimed at or planned for; intention; purpose
irreducable (adjective) not able to be brought to a simpler or reduced form
form (noun) (philosopny) essence as opposed to matter