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

[Leferdion]

But artificial life has not been created yet. And I have tried to explain to you that we should probably have created artificial life by now if it were possible. We just cannot create life, and we cannot bring the dead back to life.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But artificial life has not been created yet. And I have tried to explain to you that we should probably have created artificial life by now if it were possible. We just cannot create life, and we cannot bring the dead back to life.

So take the wager.

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.

 

[Freddy]

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 havw spirit/soul.

There you go. If I had read what Leferdion had written before my last post then I would not have needed to write it. A simple position well put. The fact that I don’t agree with it is totally irrelevant. There’s nothing there that can honestly be disputed. You should all take a leaf out of Lef’s book.

 

[Leferdion]

Yes. I take the wager.

 

[Freddy]

But artificial life has not been created yet. And I have tried to explain to you that we should probably have created artificial life by now if it were possible. We just cannot create life, and we cannot bring the dead back to life.

Don’t ruin what you’ve said previously. Forget making life. It might be possible. It might not. The question isn’t relevant. Excuse me for a moment while I play the Devil’s Advocate…

The soul is the spiritual element of Man. It is endowed to Man by God as He sees fit. It has no material component. It is not some mysterious ‘vital elan’. What keeps a human alive are physical and chemical processes. Whether other animals have a soul or not is a moot point but as other animals are not presumably spiritual it may be asssumed not.

How does that sound?

 

[Freddy]

Yes. I take the wager.

If your position is that only God can create life, you are now betting whether God exists or not. I’m not sure that’s a wise move. If there’s a headline in tomorrow’s papers that someone has managed to do it then you’ll be in a very difficult position indeed. Although something tells me that you’ll argue along the lines of: ‘Well, of course we can do it now. We can do anything that God allows! It’s only by His grace that we have managed it. But it will be for Him to decide whether life created by man has a soul’.

This thread has God of the Gaps written all over it.

 

[Leferdion]

You are right. I did not read the last part of his wager about God filling the gaps. In good conscience I cannot accept such a wager. Well…the thread has just gone all over the place and I ll step out for now. Have a nice day guys. Japanese kappa I hereby withdraw from the wager because I did not read the full terms of the wager I however do not retract from my opinion that God is all source of life and life cannot be created without God’s participation.

 

[vz71]

My wager asserts that it is scientifically possible to create artificial life.

You need to define your terms very carefully.
What exactly is artificial life?

 

[Freddy]

JapaneseKappa:

My wager asserts that it is scientifically possible to create artificial life.

You need to define your terms very carefully.
What exactly is artificial life?

Presumably life created not by natural means. You know, when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much…

 

[Leferdion]

@Freddy and the others, thanks for your brilliant contributions. One day we will know all truth, but probably not in this life.

 

[vz71]

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.

I believe the Church position is that humans have a rational and immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.
So when we die, our soul continues on; but when an animal dies, that is the end for it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

To be classified as artificial life we need:

A system chemically synthesized from non-living components which:

• Maintains homeostasis (i.e. keeps its insides independent from its outsides)
• Performs metabolism (i.e. consumes+processes matter & energy)
• Responds to stimuli & the environment
• Reproduces & evolves

 

[vz71]

So take the wager.

Yes. I take the wager.

And I do not.
Given the time frame involved, it seems to me a meaningless act. And given the stubbornness I have seen, there is little doubt there is no intention of fulfilling it.

 

[vz71]

Presumably life created not by natural means.

Like IVF? That is life through artificial means.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Presumably life created not by natural means.

Like IVF? That is life through artificial means.

No. You’re starting with life already in the case of ivf. Take it back a step.

 

[Gorgias]

Sure. The husk couldn’t perform the “soul-processes” that a person would. But the husk doesn’t need to in order to do all the “physical body processes.” God already knows what the soul processes were, he can just puppet the husk.

Ahh… your thought experiment just moved the goalposts! OK… so it’s not just that God decides to defer ensouling the ‘husk’, it’s that He also decides to impose actions on the zombie’s behalf? You’re moving further and further from ‘reasonable question’, and nearer and nearer to ‘Hollywood science fiction’!

To suggest that God ‘puppets’ his creations moves beyond the pale of the thought experiment.

No it isn’t. Prove that it is obscene.

By definition of ‘obscene.’ It is “abhorrent to morality” and “repulsive by virtue of moral / ethical values”.

So your contention is this?

• God is good if and only if he creates souls he knows will go to hell.

No. But hey… nice try.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ahh… your thought experiment just moved the goalposts! OK… so it’s not just that God decides to defer ensouling the ‘husk’, it’s that He also decides to impose actions on the zombie’s behalf?

He doesn’t have to do any puppeting if the soul has no causal impacts on the body, but if someone were to assert that there needs to be some “supernatural animation” in order for living beings to move around, there is no reason God can’t supply that animation.

You’ve not supplied any reasons why these things aren’t possible, only derision.

No. But hey… nice try.

So then you haven’t actually supplied a reason why God wouldn’t make these husks to avoid sending souls to hell.

 

[Gorgias]

He doesn’t have to do any puppeting if the soul has no causal impacts on the body

You realize that this is a non-starter, right? Essentially, you’re saying, “if ya’ll are wrong, then there’s no problem here.”

if someone were to assert that there needs to be some “supernatural animation” in order for living beings to move around, there is no reason God can’t supply that animation.

You’re ignoring the problem, then: you’re asserting that it’s OK for God to simply treat humans as zombies, and use them as puppets. That runs counter to all that Christians believe, in terms of God and His gift of free will.

You’ve not supplied any reasons why these things aren’t possible

It’s not that they aren’t within the framework of what God is able to do, it’s that it’s beyond what God does, in terms of His nature. (And yes, the suggestion that He does otherwise is subject to derision. )

So then you haven’t actually supplied a reason why God wouldn’t make these husks to avoid sending souls to hell.

Sure, I have. It’s because it runs counter to His nature, as all-Good!

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

It doesn’t fit with the notion of God as all-good.

So your contention is this?

• God is good if and only if he creates souls he knows will go to hell.

You just cast the pall of ill-will on every parent who has conceived a child.
Your parents for instance…
They knew you would rot in the atheist ground some day, probably suffering along the way to one degree or another, then rotting in the worm-eaten ground for absolutely no discernible purpose, with no meaning, forgotten for all time.

What kind of parent does such cruel things?
Why did your parents pro-create you knowing that such evil will surely befall you?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’re ignoring the problem, then: you’re asserting that it’s OK for God to simply treat humans as zombies, and use them as puppets

Not at all, who said these “husks” would actually be “people?”