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.
I must have missed it. Link to the post. It can’t be the article, because it gave more than one definition, and you didn’t specify which was yours.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
(e.g. why bringing a dead thing back to life would be incredibly technically difficult because of basic thermodynamics, not some lack of understanding on our part.)
Click to expand...
This sort of comment
is at the very least very premature if not invalid
if one is only committing human Mind to The Known Physical Realm
w/o consideration of other Domains…
 
Who said anything about human minds? I’m pretty sure bringing a mouse back would be sufficient to prove my point.
 
EndTimes said:
This sort of comment
is at the very least very premature if not invalid
if one is only committing human Mind to The Known Physical Realm
w/o consideration of other Domains…
Click to expand...
The entire argument breaks down to one of “there are no souls because I can imagine it may be possible someday, maybe…”
 
vz71 said:
Since the souls of animals are not the same as those for humans, it would not.
Click to expand...
Since my original point was about the invalidity of the medieval “animates the body” definition of soul (not the human-specific definition you introduced later,) it would.
 
Last edited:
[Would it be possible for a human couple with a soul to conceive a child without a soul?]

Without some forthcoming in your opinion/definition IS the Soul… that Q is N/A
 
Leferdion said:
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.
Click to expand...
I assume “I said our inability to create life and resurrect life from death is scientifically impossible.” is some kind of typo, and you mean “We can’t create/resurrect life because it is scientifically impossible.”

So accept my wager:
JapaneseKappa said:
I’m willing to make a bet with you. If these scientists are unable to create a fully synthetic cell by 2035, I will concede your point. If, on the other hand, scientists do create a fully synthetic cell, then you will admit you were just making the tired old “God of the gaps” argument, and that God was never necessary to explain any life-processes.
Click to expand...
But because you have made such a todo about your credentials I will add an extra term: you must also admit that all your medical training has not made you a competent evaluator of biological research.
 
Sounds like you’re avoiding something…
JapaneseKappa said:
I asked a fairly simple question: what is the actual definition of the soul?

So far I’ve seen:
  • The original “animation of the body” definition which is fully compatible with “soul” just meaning “metabolism.”
  • Your new definition of “human soul” which says nothing about the soul’s necessity for life in general (e.g. animal life) or even human life in particular (only that it separates from the body when the body dies.
  • Your various assertions about souls (e.g. that the soul is not chemical, or that the body can’t live without the soul).
  • Your linked article which says basically “there are multiple definitions of soul.” But they are either compatible with soul=metabolism or aren’t actually required for life.
In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person . But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man… “Soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Leferdion said:
Every child born of a woman has a soul. However, if a child were by some scientific experiment fabricated in a test tube without being born by a woman, it would probably not have a soul, would just be a mass of cells and tissues, which will probably die after a couple of weeks/months.
Click to expand...
We’ve already agreed that the soul corresponds to the criteria we associate with life. If something has a soul then we class it as being alive. The reverse is applicable. If something has all those criteria and it’s alive then it must have a soul.
 
Leferdion said:
animals do not have souls
Click to expand...
So are we cancelling the previous determination that a soul has all the criteria we associate with life? This is a slippery definition…we need to something with which we can all agree.
 
There you go again, now you assume I am not a competent researcher 😂 Empty assumptions without basis. Or do you want me to lecture you on the abcs of research methodology?
No need to have a constructive discussion with you because you obviously have a very inflexible way of thinking and automatically assume any body who doesnt think like you is wrong.
I wonder if you came here thinking christians were stupid and science explains everything, so I took the liberty of letting you know that even scientists can be christians and both are not mutually exclusive. I hope you checked that list above of renowned scientists who were catholics.
Have a good day and may God open your eyes and mind by grace to the truth.
 
Leferdion said:
There you go again, now you assume I am not a competent researcher
Click to expand...
I assume nothing. I asked you to take my wager. My wager asserts that it is scientifically possible to create artificial life. You claim otherwise. If artificial life is created, I ask that you admit you are not an effective evaluator of what is scientifically possible.
 
Honestly, all I can say is God creates life. And human beings have souls. I however cannot say for certainty if the soul is attached to the body at the moment of conception, thereby giving it life or if it comes in a couple of weeks later. I have to read what the theologians or saints have said about it. As for animals having souls, I do not think so ( I am sorry if I wrote up there as if it was fact, its just my opinion) because I believe what sets us humans apart from animals is that we have a soul (since we were created in God’s image) while animals dont. If we were to assume animals have souls, then it is also safe to assume bacteria or unicellular organisms have souls. That is a little far fetched in my opinion.
My position on the topic is all men born of a woman have souls, God gives life to animals and plants too but these may not have souls and what sets man apart from the animal, plant or unicellular organism is that man is created in the image of God, and does have a spirit/soul.
 
Last edited:
It might be worth pointing out that another thread deals with whether intelligent animals have rational souls. By inference it appears that souls can be rational or not as well. And the question assumes that animals have souls.

The longer these threads go on the harder it appears to be to define what a soul is. If I were a Christian I would stay WELL away from anything biological and simply suggest that it’s the spiritual component of Man and suggest that anything else is unknowable. Y’all seem to be making a rod for your own backs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top