• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I bet I can kill your soul...

The Grave

Muse
T
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
647
Answer the following questions:-

  1. Do you agree you are made of chemicals? Namely Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Calcium etc.
  2. Do you agree these elements are 'not alive' in their 'normal' state when found outside a body?
  3. Is it true that when combined in bodies, these same "non-living" chemicals form 'living' organisms? {Us included}.
  4. And, is it a fact that all living things, when dead, still contain the same 'non-living' elements as they did when alive? {neglecting loss of limbs!}
If you answered yes to all these then your soul does not exist.

A 'human' body is built-up from small beginnings by step-wise addition of non-living elements. They interact to enable movement/reproduction etc, etc but none of this requires a soul...

If you still believe in a soul... then what is a soul? Answer that!

If there isn't (and there isn't) a soul, then obviously there is no 'soul provider'; ergo there is no god!

Animals... dogs, cats etc. all live lives. They are formed from the same basic elements, set up in the same basic way...as you are.

Yet there is only one species of animal that elevates itself to a 'higher' standing... the SUB-group of Homo sapiens known as FAITHERS.

Griff...
 
I put on my wizard hat and robe.

Just to play devil's advocate, because I'm bored, I'm going to whip out The Ship of Theseus Paradox as a reply to your argument. I don't personally believe that we have a soul, but sometimes it's more fun to play the opposite side.

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."

If the parts of the ship can be constantly replaced, then where does the identity remain? The parts were part of the ship, but then they weren't. And parts that were not part of the ship, became part of the ship.

The the same sense, if the parts can be replaced and changed, how then can we state that certain parts are or are not the being? The human body, and the mind being in a constant state of change, where does the unchanging consciousness of the being lie?

That constantly present consciousness, is the closest thing I would assume to be the "soul" they refer to. I look forward to having this argument obliterated.
 
Sorry but your argument is not valid. There are lots of problems with the dualist position but this doesn't "prove" anything.

1. Yes. I am made of chemicals (and I have a soul)
2. Agreed
3. yes these chemicals make up the body (but need not be related to the soul in any way)
4. Kind of (see wing's point on the identity problem), but even if I grant you a "Yes" it still doesn't prove that I never had a soul.

The truth of your premises don't guarantee the truth of your conclusion, your argument is invalid.
 
Only fools and horses...

Your argument reminds me of an episode of OF & H where 'Trigger' has just received an award for services to the council...

It goes something like this...:"I got this medal for having this same brush for 17 yrs... it's had 6 new handles and 8 new heads!!"

But the brush's identity was unaffected I guess...:rolleyes:

Recent research has identified that a 'personality' and 'intelligence' is defined after birth by the brain nervous connections that are 'broken', not those formed. Obvious really. You start off with lots and as you age you get less... it explains lots, including changes in personality as you age.

A man and woman are compatible early on, yet after say 20 yrs they are not. One or other or both has changed!

It is a fallacy to think you are the same 'person' at 50 as at 20. The parts of the brain are NOT replaced. The blood yes, every few months. Skin too. Not the nerves.

So there is no unchanging consciousness.

But I liked your style!

Griff...:)
 
Where is it then....

gorillapaws said:
Sorry but your argument is not valid. There are lots of problems with the dualist position but this doesn't "prove" anything.

1. Yes. I am made of chemicals (and I have a soul)
2. Agreed
3. yes these chemicals make up the body (but need not be related to the soul in any way)
4. Kind of (see wing's point on the identity problem), but even if I grant you a "Yes" it still doesn't prove that I never had a soul.

The truth of your premises don't guarantee the truth of your conclusion, your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...


All those nice elements I mentioned didn't have one...

Where's your's then? Point to it! Flash me; I'm not shy...

My argument is not invalidated... just because you 'believe' you have a soul. And see above for Wings' point.
Griff...
 
A classic "define your terms" moment.

What is this "soul" you claim to have proven does not exist?

I can prove "music" doesn't exist the same way.
 
I always considered what they thought as the soul being the awareness of myself. Of course, how they get that being something seperate from your brain rather than a function of the brain, I never understand.

Don't they ever wonder why your self-awareness is IN YOUR HEAD?
 
polaristutoring@tisc said:
All those nice elements I mentioned didn't have one...

Where's your's then? Point to it! Flash me; I'm not shy...

My argument is not invalidated... just because you 'believe' you have a soul. And see above for Wings' point.
Griff...
Click to expand...

Your argument is invalidated because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion as shown. I.e. someone can agree to all of your questions and still believe they have a soul, you haven't "proven" anything. You are asking me to prove that I do have a soul, this is quite a different thing than you "proving" I don't. You can't say I don't have a soul simply cause I can't prove that I have one. I can't prove that the external world exists, and yet it does.
 
I'm not honestly certain where I stand on this issue, but adopting a physicalist position can have very troubling philosophical consequences. For example, if I'm essentially an organic computer anything I produce is merely an output of the mechanical processes of that machine. If I paint the Mona Lisa, calculate the rate of the expansion of the universe, or make a bowl movement, I am essentially generating an output from a given input. There is no essential difference in drafting the constitution or passing gas. You cannot assign value to actions such as praise and blame because they are the inevitable outcome from a causally determined system. Essentially, the physicalist position cheapens the human condition and makes the word "meaning" an absurd concept.

Again I've not made up my mind on this particular issue, but I'm having a difficult time accepting the consequences of a physicalist worldview.

Oh, just another point here, believing in a nonphysical self (or dimension of the self at least), does not necessitate believing that that soul is somehow eternal (though many people do have this position). It seems you may have been confused on that point by what you state in the 4th premise.
 
Last edited:
Wings said:
I put on my wizard hat and robe.

Just to play devil's advocate, because I'm bored, I'm going to whip out The Ship of Theseus Paradox as a reply to your argument. I don't personally believe that we have a soul, but sometimes it's more fun to play the opposite side.

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."

If the parts of the ship can be constantly replaced, then where does the identity remain? The parts were part of the ship, but then they weren't. And parts that were not part of the ship, became part of the ship.

The the same sense, if the parts can be replaced and changed, how then can we state that certain parts are or are not the being? The human body, and the mind being in a constant state of change, where does the unchanging consciousness of the being lie?

That constantly present consciousness, is the closest thing I would assume to be the "soul" they refer to. I look forward to having this argument obliterated.
Click to expand...

That actually sounds a lot like emptiness and no-self in Buddhism.
 
gorillapaws said:
I'm not honestly certain where I stand on this issue, but adopting a physicalist position can have very troubling philosophical consequences. For example, if I'm essentially an organic computer anything I produce is merely an output of the mechanical processes of that machine. If I paint the Mona Lisa, calculate the rate of the expansion of the universe, or make a bowl movement, I am essentially generating an output from a given input. There is no essential difference in drafting the constitution or passing gas. You cannot assign value to actions such as praise and blame because they are the inevitable outcome from a causally determined system. Essentially, the physicalist position cheapens the human condition and makes the word "meaning" an absurd concept.

Again I've not made up my mind on this particular issue, but I'm having a difficult time accepting the consequences of a physicalist worldview.

Oh, just another point here, believing in a nonphysical self (or dimension of the self at least), does not necessitate believing that that soul is somehow eternal (though many people do have this position). It seems you may have been confused on that point by what you state in the 4th premise.
Click to expand...

Just as I can look down and see the individual parts of something, I can also look up and see how they work together to form something new.

I create an idea and a purpose for a painting. Each brush stroke has specific mathmatical qualities, they can be measured and the paint from each brush stroke is composed of certain atoms.

But, as I look at the painting as a whole, I see something new. Just because the painting is made of physical elements, doesn't mean that the painting has to lose it's value or meaning to me.

I know what's going into the painting when I stroke my brush against the canvas, but that doesn't eliminate the whole that I see in my mind's eye nor the meaning I have for that painting. Those individual parts come together to form something new and unique that they wouldn't be by themselves, that's how I see it, anyway.
 
Wings said:
Just as I can look down and see the individual parts of something, I can also look up and see how they work together to form something new.

I create an idea and a purpose for a painting. Each brush stroke has specific mathmatical qualities, they can be measured and the paint from each brush stroke is composed of certain atoms.

But, as I look at the painting as a whole, I see something new. Just because the painting is made of physical elements, doesn't mean that the painting has to lose it's value or meaning to me.

I know what's going into the painting when I stroke my brush against the canvas, but that doesn't eliminate the whole that I see in my mind's eye nor the meaning I have for that painting. Those individual parts come together to form something new and unique that they wouldn't be by themselves, that's how I see it, anyway.
Click to expand...

It's not the physical medium that you are producing that's the problem, you're trying to assign meaning to something that is essentially the predetermined output of a machine. As such, my scribble is no more meaningful than Picasso.
 
polaristutoring@tisc said:
Recent research has identified that a 'personality' and 'intelligence' is defined after birth by the brain nervous connections that are 'broken', not those formed. Obvious really. You start off with lots and as you age you get less... it explains lots, including changes in personality as you age.
Click to expand...

Would you cite that please?

thanks!
 
Wings said:
I always considered what they thought as the soul being the awareness of myself. Of course, how they get that being something seperate from your brain rather than a function of the brain, I never understand.

Don't they ever wonder why your self-awareness is IN YOUR HEAD?
Click to expand...

Because the Magic Sky Pixie chained it there, until Wonderson comes and sets you free.
 
gorillapaws said:
I'm not honestly certain where I stand on this issue, but adopting a physicalist position can have very troubling philosophical consequences. For example, if I'm essentially an organic computer anything I produce is merely an output of the mechanical processes of that machine. If I paint the Mona Lisa, calculate the rate of the expansion of the universe, or make a bowl movement, I am essentially generating an output from a given input.
Click to expand...
That is assuming a philosophical determinism from causal events. In a causal world there can be a determination made as to which factors might have played a role in creating an outcome. And if we think there might be sensitive dependence upon initial conditions (chaos) then there is wiggle room, because of the cascade of small changes in the initial conditions. Especially since each determined moment becomes and new initial condition. Events need not be a train rail, they could be more like a drop of water rolling on a rough surface.
There is no essential difference in drafting the constitution or passing gas.
Click to expand...
That is some passing of gas. Dueling wind pipes, eh?
You cannot assign value to actions such as praise and blame because they are the inevitable outcome from a causally determined system.
Click to expand...
That is also getting into the volitional argument. Pseudorandom and causal , random and causal can coexist.
Essentially, the physicalist position cheapens the human condition and makes the word "meaning" an absurd concept.
Click to expand...
I think it gives a whole new meaning to the wonderful nature of being. It is truly grand.
Again I've not made up my mind on this particular issue, but I'm having a difficult time accepting the consequences of a physicalist worldview.
Click to expand...
In discussions with the infamous and now banned HammeGK, we came to the conclusion that mental monism and materialism as essentially the same, they are separate ontologies with the same consequences. In mental monism the parts of the universe are made of mind. In materialism they are dead bits. The consequences are the same.
Oh, just another point here, believing in a nonphysical self (or dimension of the self at least), does not necessitate believing that that soul is somehow eternal (though many people do have this position). It seems you may have been confused on that point by what you state in the 4th premise.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom