Soul cannot be created

[Bahman]

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

To be honest I can follow your argument and the way you reach to conclusion.

 

[Bahman]

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.

I agree that this is easier and better to understand.

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.

(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.

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.

If that true then soul also is in the same category as God. But I have problem with the concept of soul even if we accept that soul does not have any creator. I cannot simply relate a soul to an individual knowing the fact that soul is in spiritual realm.

Are you trying to take down the road to pantheism again?

That is one option but I have problem with that too. I cannot simply understand how we could have different experiences in this system of belief.

It’s the only thing that would make any sense about your argument as you’ve presented it.

As I mentioned I have problem with pantheism too.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

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

 

[RPRPsych]

Baa, baa, black sheep, have you got a soul?
“Yes, sir, yes, sir, I have one!
God made it for me, but it’s animal,
Unlike yours, which is rational!”

 

[adamhovey1988]

Baa, baa, black sheep, have you got a soul?
“Yes, sir, yes, sir, I have one!
God made it for me, but it’s animal,
Unlike yours, which is rational!”

Good orthodoxy. Anyway, to the OP, the Souls are not physical, and as someone pointed out, you seem to assume they are. I believe (and I would like LDS to correct me I am wrong) that Mormons do believe souls are material. So Bahman, I must ask, have you been visited by LDS missionaries lately?

 

[Bahman]

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?

The problem persist even if I agree with the first premise since the creation of soul is logically impossible as it is illustrated.

 

[Bahman]

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.

If soul has parts then I can question whether the parts are irreducible or not so we are back to the argument presented in the OP.

 

[Bahman]

The soul is not material. It appears that you assume it is material.

No, I am not assuming that soul is material.

 

[Bahman]

Good orthodoxy. Anyway, to the OP, the Souls are not physical, and as someone pointed out, you seem to assume they are. I believe (and I would like LDS to correct me I am wrong) that Mormons do believe souls are material. So Bahman, I must ask, have you been visited by LDS missionaries lately?

No I haven’t visited LDS lately.

 

[Vico]

No, I am not assuming that soul is material.

The created spiritual beings (angels) are all unique. Per Aquinas for a human person, an body must be created for the soul and it is uniquely suited to it.

 

[LethalMouse]

The problem persist even if I agree with the first premise since the creation of soul is logically impossible as it is illustrated.

So if we assume God, under the original posters version making God the first creator of all things. You say that He can not make a soul?

Okay, but within this premise can you explain how God who formed existence itself can fail to create a soul? I need to understand the concept here to engage

 

[Bahman]

So if we assume God, under the original posters version making God the first creator of all things. You say that He can not make a soul?

Okay, but within this premise can you explain how God who formed existence itself can fail to create a soul? I need to understand the concept here to engage

I think I was clear with my argument: Creation requires design and irreducible thing cannot be designed. Therefore soul and anything similar to soul cannot be created. You need to refute my argument to show contrary.

 

[Vico]

I think I was clear with my argument: Creation requires design and irreducible thing cannot be designed. Therefore soul and anything similar to soul cannot be created. You need to refute my argument to show contrary.

This is not proved, but assumed: irreducible thing cannot be designed.

 

[LethalMouse]

I think I was clear with my argument: Creation requires design and irreducible thing cannot be designed. Therefore soul and anything similar to soul cannot be created. You need to refute my argument to show contrary.

But under the qualifiers you are accepting God creating all things… save possibly the souls of men.

Now you base the arguement on the soul not being irreducible but that would also pressume infinite miniature in that there is a building block of every building block.

And if we hit a point of no more, God cannot create that. So under the theory proposed if God created all things He needed to do so out of preexisting things… which is logical fallacy.

 

[e_c]

If soul has parts then I can question whether the parts are irreducible or not so we are back to the argument presented in the OP.

Following this, you can say anything immaterial is uncreated.

And you can, along the line of mereological nihilism, say nothing physical has parts either, since ultimately we must come to some indivisible substratum, but what that would be is something “irreducible.” So physical things aren’t created either.

And yet we have variation in both physical and immaterial things. This is, first and foremost, because their essence is distinct from their existence.

Creation is that which depends on God for existence.

 

[Bahman]

This is not proved, but assumed: irreducible thing cannot be designed.

That is premise and cannot be proven. It is however self-evident. I cannot simply imagine an entity which is irreducible and have design. Can you?

 

[Bahman]

But under the qualifiers you are accepting God creating all things… save possibly the souls of men.

No, I don’t accept that God can create everything, for example soul which as it has be shown cannot be created.

Now you base the arguement on the soul not being irreducible but that would also pressume infinite miniature in that there is a building block of every building block.

I don’t understand you.

And if we hit a point of no more, God cannot create that. So under the theory proposed if God created all things He needed to do so out of preexisting things… which is logical fallacy.

The building block of every entity should be simple and without design otherwise it cannot be created. Soul is either simple or it has parts. Soul can be created in the first case but it cannot have any attribute. In second case soul is made of parts so it could be either indivisible or not. In first case soul cannot be created since parts cannot put together (you cannot reverse the process of creation). In second case soul cannot be immortal since it can be divided to its part.

 

[Bahman]

Following this, you can say anything immaterial is uncreated.

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

And you can, along the line of mereological nihilism, say nothing physical has parts either, since ultimately we must come to some indivisible substratum, but what that would be is something “irreducible.” So physical things aren’t created either.

And yet we have variation in both physical and immaterial things. This is, first and foremost, because their essence is distinct from their existence.

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

Creation is that which depends on God for existence.

This is off topic.

 

[LethalMouse]

No, I don’t accept that God can create everything, for example soul which as it has be shown cannot be created.

I don’t understand you.

The building block of every entity should be simple and without design otherwise it cannot be created. Soul is either simple or it has parts. Soul can be created in the first case but it cannot have any attribute. In second case soul is made of parts so it could be either indivisible or not. In first case soul cannot be created since parts cannot put together (you cannot reverse the process of creation). In second case soul cannot be immortal since it can be divided to its part.

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

2016 Bahman thinks things…

 

[Vico]

That is premise and cannot be proven. It is however self-evident. I cannot simply imagine an entity which is irreducible and have design. Can you?

Yes.