Originally posted by rhemalogosHave I broken your improvisation run? I guess you couldn't answer them, but I won't call your bluff.
Come on mrstabby...you are much more capable than this...these questions aren't even worth responding to.
Suppose people start believing that animals have souls. Does that mean we have to all become vegetarian?
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusThank you for your response. I have an idea of what a soul is, but before I answer your question,"Are souls unique to humans?", I need to know YOUR understanding of the soul...otherwise I don't know what you are asking. Please define what you think a soul is.
You defined them before.
Use that definition of any other definition you like.
Originally posted by mrstabbymrstabby, your questions may be serious, but I want stay on topic: the unborn is ensouled at the "moment of conception" and aborting it is the killing of an innocent human being.
Have I broken your improvisation run? I guess you couldn't answer them, but I won't call your bluff.
Suppose people start believing that animals have souls. Does that mean we have to all become vegetarian?
I look forward to your further response, hopintg you will be on topic.
Originally posted by rhemalogosIt's difficult to stay on topic when you introduce the concept of a soul to the argument, which to my mind is a laughable notion. What bothers me is that you state your belief as if it were fact when you offer no solid evidence to back up your belief. A human could be ensouled at birth, or anytime after conception, depending on the philosophy you follow.
mrstabby, your questions may be serious, but I want stay on topic: the unborn is ensouled at the "moment of conception" and aborting it is the killing of an innocent human being.
I look forward to your further response, hopintg you will be on topic.
What leads you to believe that a cell gains a soul at the moment of conception? Where is your evidence for that notion?
Originally posted by mrstabbyBefore I approach your two questions, I need to understand something...
It's difficult to stay on topic when you introduce the concept of a soul to the argument, which to my mind is a laughable notion. What bothers me is that you state your belief as if it were fact when you offer no solid evidence to back up your belief. A human could be ensouled at birth, or anytime after conception, depending on the philosophy you follow. ...[text shortened]... cell gains a soul at the moment of conception? Where is your [b]evidence for that notion?[/b]
You state, "A human could be ensouled at birth or any time after conception..." AND you ask, "What leads you to believe that a cell gains a soul at the moment of conception?". So evidently you believe humans have souls. Do we agree on that?
3 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbydisregard
It's difficult to stay on topic when you introduce the concept of a soul to the argument, which to my mind is a laughable notion. What bothers me is that you state your belief as if it were fact when you offer no solid evidence to back up your belief. A human could be ensouled at birth, or anytime after conception, depending on the philosophy you follow. ...[text shortened]... cell gains a soul at the moment of conception? Where is your [b]evidence for that notion?[/b]
Originally posted by rhemalogosNot really, I'm demonstrating that if you're going to bring souls into a debate then you're opening a big can of worms. We have to be in agreement as to
Before I approach your two questions, I need to understand something...
You state, "A human could be ensouled at birth or any time after conception..." AND you ask, "What leads you to believe that a cell gains a soul at the moment of conception?". So evidently you believe humans have souls. Do we agree on that?
a) whether or not souls exist (I do not believe they do)
b) whose version of a soul we're going to go with and why that particular version
c) what their significance is and why
Otherwise we're just going to come up with the version of a soul that suits our argument and we're not talking about abortion any more. I'd prefer to keep debates in the natural world, not the supernatural.
You cannot state a belief as fact in a debate without evidence, otherwise people can make up complete BS to support their argument, and then debating becomes pointless.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSorry, Bosse, for taking so long to reply.
Psychic mitosis.
Ever since the Singularity threw up the Universe, every little particle got soul.
The words psychic, soul and the phrase "Ever since the Singularity threw up the Universe, every little particle got soul" suggest you believe in the supernatural. Is that so? If so,then...
Let"s talk about what you mean by soul. Certainly you would say the concept of soul involves a "life essence"...
This is an interesting subject, but are we going to stay on the subject? The unborn is ensouled at the moment of conception and aborting it is the killing of an innocent human being.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbymrstabby, this debate promises to be very interesting...I am very busy...may not be able to get back to you with a reply for a couple days...Have patience, please.
Not really, I'm demonstrating that if you're going to bring souls into a debate then you're opening a big can of worms. We have to be in agreement as to
a) whether or not souls exist (I do not believe they do)
b) whose version of a soul we're going to go with and why that particular version
c) what their significance is and why
Otherwise we're just g e can make up complete BS to support their argument, and then debating becomes pointless.
Originally posted by mrstabbyOk, you do not believe in the existence of souls...What do we call this substance we call "I", the "consciousness" that exists inside our physical body carrying on all sorts of non-physical activity? The physical body without this "life essence" we call "I" is only physical matter. For example, when this "life force" is gone at death, the body, as only physical matter, decays and is gone. When this "I" is present, the body functions and lives. Again, what do we call this consciouness we call person-NESS?
Not really, I'm demonstrating that if you're going to bring souls into a debate then you're opening a big can of worms. We have to be in agreement as to
a) whether or not souls exist (I do not believe they do)
b) whose version of a soul we're going to go with and why that particular version
c) what their significance is and why
Otherwise we're just g ...[text shortened]... e can make up complete BS to support their argument, and then debating becomes pointless.
Reasoning is a form of evidence...AN HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING by CK Perelman, pg 130. If you are not happy with this citation, then I'll find something else.
Originally posted by rhemalogosThe germs that cause bad breath are alive; do you think they have a "life essence" "life force" and/or "soul"?
Ok, you do not believe in the existence of souls...What do we call this substance we call "I", the "consciousness" that exists inside our physical body carrying on all sorts of non-physical activity? The physical body without this "life essence" we call "I" is only physical matter. For example, when this "life force" is gone at death, the body, as only p ...[text shortened]... an, pg 130. If you are not happy with this citation, then I'll find something else.
Originally posted by rhemalogosIf ensoulment happens at conception, what happens when a zygote splits and forms identical twins? Does each twin get a brand new soul? If so, what happens to the original soul? Does the soul itself split into two new souls? Does the soul only stay with one of the twins, so the other unfortunate twin fails to get a soul? Does God keep track of mitosis, so that whenever twinning occurs in a womb he makes sure to send down an extra soul? If so, how does he decide which twin keeps the original soul and which get the new soul?
Sorry, Bosse, for taking so long to reply.
The words psychic, soul and the phrase "Ever since the Singularity threw up the Universe, every little particle got soul" suggest you believe in the supernatural. Is that so? If so,then...
Let"s talk about what you mean by soul. Certainly you would say the concept of soul involves a "life essence"...
Thi ...[text shortened]... uled at the moment of conception and aborting it is the killing of an innocent human being.
Originally posted by bbarrHe already answered this in his own way one page ago:
If ensoulment happens at conception, what happens when a zygote splits and forms identical twins? Does each twin get a brand new soul? If so, what happens to the original soul? Does the soul itself split into two new souls? Does the soul only stay with one of the twins, so the other unfortunate twin fails to get a soul? Does God keep track of mitosis, so ...[text shortened]... soul? If so, how does he decide which twin keeps the original soul and which get the new soul?
One zygote exists and, yes, one soul...then dividing there are two zygotes...a second has been created by the division of the first...when is God unable to ensoul the second zygote as it is created instead of believing the two zygotes have to fight over one soul.
So apparently God just whips up a new soul for the second zygote. Presumably God does keep track of mitosis and does send down an extra soul (being omnipotent and omniscient he has no need to delegate). I assume that Zygote 1 keeps Soul A.