Would it be possible for a human couple with a soul to conceive a child without a soul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps the soul encompasses all of the above, so long as none of its attributes contradict one another. After all, we define G-d as both just and merciful, omnipotent and benevolent, omnipresent and distinct, and so on.
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
40.png
meltzerboy2:
The definition of soul cannot be limited to physical definitions,
Click to expand...
I’m not asking him to limit himself to physical definitions, I’m asking him to limit himself to a single definition.
Click to expand...
On a forum millions of words on topics like these, you are not able to intellectually distill some basic concepts.

Are we hearing you correctly?
 
goout said:
You ask for definitions. You get them. And then claim you’re asking unanswered questions.
Click to expand...
I have gotten multiple definitions, and they keep expanding every time I make a new point. It’s awfully hard to build a philosophical foundation on such shifting sands, so I am giving the soul-proponents an opportunity to firm things up.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
40.png
goout:
You ask for definitions. You get them. And then claim you’re asking unanswered questions.
Click to expand...
I have gotten multiple definitions, and they keep expanding every time I make a new point. It’s awfully hard to build a philosophical foundation on such shifting sands, so I am giving the soul-proponents an opportunity to firm things up.
Click to expand...
On a forum with millions of words on topics like these, you are not able to intellectually distill some basic concepts.

Are we hearing you correctly?
 
Last edited:
You have to wonder when confusion really becomes bad faith obstinacy.
 
goout said:
On a forum with millions of words on topics like these, you are not able to intellectually distill some basic concepts.

Are we hearing you correctly?
Click to expand...
Incorrect, it is that I am able to recognize ad-hoc reasoning.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
40.png
goout:
On a forum with millions of words on topics like these, you are not able to intellectually distill some basic concepts.

Are we hearing you correctly?
Click to expand...
Incorrect, it is that I am able to recognize ad-hoc reasoning.
Click to expand...
Your begging for clarity is embarrassing, given the information at your disposal.
 
Gosh! Again! Why do you presuppose I am confused about the very domain I have been trained in for years? It is boderline arrogance for you to judge me on something I definitely know more than you. I am not an engineer, so I will never claim to tell you you are confused about something concerning your domain of expertise, even if I disagree with you, because I do not know better. So do not sit on the other side of your screen and write nonsense like that and presuppose to judge if I am confused or not when you are not a physician. Start by learning some Humility 101, then get an MD-Degree and we will talk!!

You say it is technically impossible to bring back a death organism to life. Yes it is scientifically impossible and I said that above too. But I am a christian, before a scientist. So I believe God can resurrect, because He has resurrected before already and Has the power to do what He wants, even if our limitted medical or engineer minds refuse to accept the possibility of something out there bigger than mankind, and bigger than the Universe. It all comes down to humility. Why dont you ponder instead on how disconnected building blocks of life come together in the first place to create life, which we scientists have not been able to do although we have those building blocks at our disposal?
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Perhaps the soul encompasses all of the above, so long as none of its attributes contradict one another. After all, we define G-d as both just and merciful, omnipotent and benevolent, omnipresent and distinct, and so on.
Click to expand...
There are other factors at play beyond self-contradiction.

The “animating principle” definition implies that “whatever the explanation of animation is, that’s what the soul is” and so we are just as confident that the soul exists as we are that there is an explanation for animation (i.e. very certain.)

However if we were to combine that with the “spiritual principle” definition we are not in Kansas anymore. No longer are we just giving a name to some explanation that we know exists (even if we aren’t sure what it is) we are now asserting that the explanation must be spiritual. And insofar as we are making an assertion, we will need some evidence to back it up.
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
Write out the unified definition explicitly and completely so you don’t start adding/subtracting features to souls 3 posts from now.
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read the article?
There was a reason I posted the link…and it wasn’t just for practice.
 
Implicitly and explicitly, according to religious language and thinking, animation is based on the spiritual domain. That is, there is a connection between an animated being and its spiritual origin. Put another way, biological life ultimately depends on a spiritual source and, in this sense, the physical and the spiritual are linked. Such is not the credo of medicine per se, but it is the credo of religion.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Implicitly and explicitly, according to religious language and thinking, animation is based on the spiritual domain.
Click to expand...
Right. Hence why everyone here is desperately clinging to the fact that no one has created artificial life so far. But “religion traditionally believes this” is not a compelling argument: religion is not a "get out of jail “having to provide evidence” free card. And insofar as the soul is now a positive claim (i.e. that the supernatural is a required component of life) its credibility hangs not on who believes it, but what evidence there is for it.
 
Leferdion said:
You say it is technically impossible to bring back a death organism to life. Yes it is scientifically impossible and I said that above too. But I am a christian, before a scientist. So I believe God can resurrect,
Click to expand...
But our original discussion was about how well we understood life scientifically. You presented our inability to resurrect as evidence that we don’t understand life. I said our current inability to resurrect is not due to some shortcoming in understanding, but basic thermodynamics. You seem to have conceded this point.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
And insofar as the soul is now a positive claim (i.e. that the supernatural is a required component of life) its credibility hangs not on who believes it, but what evidence there is for it.
Click to expand...
The fact of someone actually being alive proves a soul is in place.
 
Then you obviously misunderstood me. I said our inability to create life and resurrect life from death is scientifically impossible. But God can create life and resurrect the death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top