Why human soul is immortal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
runningdude said:
The human soul does not decay.

It is like a glass full of water; at death, the glass is emptied. The flesh decays, and only a ghost is left. At the reserection, glass is refilled, and our flesh is restored and glorified.
Click to expand...
Or vanishes as glass get empty. How could you prove these things?
 
Sophie111 said:
Unfortunately that cannot be proven - which is probably quite pertinent in a Philosophy forum.
Even Aristotle, who invented the type of “soul talk” the Church has adopted, did not actually hold this according to the scholars. The Church (ie Aquinas) simply extended his very few and ambiguous side notes and assumed that he did.
Click to expand...
Does God has a proof for that? If yes, why the Church isn’t aware of it?
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
Well it is an answer to your question. Maybe you should phrase your question more specifically!
Click to expand...
Anything in “Why anything exist?” refer to God too.
Click to expand...
Essence and Existence are the same in God (Aesity)
http://www.saintaquinas.com/article4.html
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
Essence and Existence are the same in God (Aesity)
Essence and Existence are the same in God
Click to expand...
You need to prove that existence of God is necessary. We don’t have a proof for existence of God yet.
Click to expand...
There are five ways given by St.Thomas of Aquinas:
  1. The First Way: Argument from Motion
  2. The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
  3. The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
  4. The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
  5. The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm
 
The soul is not energy…at least if you are speaking of the energy defined by modern Physics.
If you are not using the term as defined by Physics then it is essentially meaningless for a philosophic discussion as there are as many waffley meanings as there are new agers.

“Energy” is not a serious term in Aristotelian or Thomist philosophy.
 
Last edited:
While Catholic teaching is that the existence of God can be proven by reason it has, as far as i know, never taught that anyone has accurately formulated such a proof.

Aquinas’s 5 Ways are no longer widely considered the silver bullets they once were…especially the First Way.
 
Thomism is just one among many philosophical traditions in the Church.

I personally don’t view it as the best one for understanding the Catholic doctrine on soul immortality.

But I often get flayed on this forum for being a Thomist-sceptic.
 
Last edited:
Vouthon said:
Thomism is just one among many philosophical traditions in the Church.

I personally don’t view it as the best one for understanding the Catholic doctrine on soul immortality.
Click to expand...
What is the best one?
 
That’s my point, there isn’t a “best” one. Its down to personal inclination.

There is no need for a Catholic to interpret their faith through the lens of Aristotelianism, despite this being common as a result of Thomistic influence in the last few centuries (Thomism actually remained, for quite some time, e a doctrine held principally by Dominican theologians before hitting the mainstream in the late nineteenth century under the pontificate of Leo XIII).

Indeed, I discern a move away from this paradigm post-Vatican II, towards a more patristic-Augustinian and Bonaventurian model (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was especially indebted to St. Bonaventure).

As Pope St. John Paul II stated in an encyclical:
“ The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others .” -( Pope St. John Paul II. "Fides et ratio, 49 )
Click to expand...
See:

books.google.co.uk

Jesus, Interpreted

In this sequel volume to his Dark Passages of the Bible (CUA Press, 2013), author Matthew Ramage turns his attention from the Old to the New Testament, now tackling truth claims bearing directly on the heart of the Christian faith cast into doubt by contemporary New Testament scholarship: Did...
books.google.co.uk
Fr. Ratzinger struggled to relate with the thought of Aquinas early in his career, but he found a like-minded partner in Bonaventure…It is likely that what Ratzinger describes as an “anti-Thomism” in St. Bonaventure exerted its influence upon him insofar as Bonaventure was wary of a theology that would rely too heavily upon the thought of Aristotle…
Click to expand...
But watch, I’ll get verbally slaughtered in a moment or two for daring to say this…
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
There are five ways given by St.Thomas of Aquinas:
  1. The First Way: Argument from Motion
  2. The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
  3. The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
  4. The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
  5. The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments
Click to expand...
I already made my objections to these proofs.
Click to expand...
OK, but I answered you question: “Why does anything exist?” even though you do not agree with it.
 
If we return to the original patristic definition, it is really rather straightforward.

God created human beings as a perfect unity of body and soul. Nonetheless, disembodied souls exist in an intermediate conscious state between death and resurrection.

In other words, body and soul are distinct (material/immaterial) yet integrated into/are a single whole, for which reason the the soul can still exist separately after death in a temporary state. Body and soul are, however, united in creation, redemption and ultimately eternal life.

We thus affirm that (1) body and soul are distinct (2) that the soul can exist apart from the body and (3) that they are one whole.

Whether or not you wish to understand this according to Augustinian holistic-dualism or Thomism or another framework is a philosophical decision on your part but is not per se contingent upon the basic truths outlined in the Church’s deposit of faith
 
Last edited:
TJChristiandeist said:
If you believe there is such a thing as a soul, and it is impossible to destroy it then it must be made of energy. Nothing to do with new age.
Click to expand...
??? This seems absurd.
You are essentially saying that if a religious dogma is true it must be explicable in terms of Newtonian science.

That is a deep misunderstanding/confusion of the domains of both science and religion…which precisely defines new age “science” and new age “religion”.

One may as well use the word “force” to describe spirits also, a word which most new agers use just as inappropriately from a Newtonian perspective.
 
???
Is english a 2nd language perhaps?
Can you provide a complete question with context.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
???
Is english a 2nd language perhaps?
Can you provide a complete question with context.
Click to expand...
Yes, English is my second language.

Let’s start with this question: Is there any proof for existence of God at all? What do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top