soul???

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you go back and read what I wrote when I was defining the Thomistic 'soul', you'll see that I said that all living beings have souls.

ah but you also said: you (and therefore your essence as well) images God in a privileged way (because of its rational and even spiritual nature) that a spider's does not. such that my soul is supposed to be different from that of cats, dogs or spiders...but yes Lucifershammer, here I stand corrected 🙂
I could have worded my response better to convey the message I wanted but without this error

Also overlooked the point that though you argue the soul need not have any spiritual connotation it is both rational and *spirtitual* in its nature...with regards to your argument, very important and I should not have overlooked that in my subsequent posts 😉

Originally posted by Agerg
ah but you also said: you (and therefore your essence as well) images God in a privileged way (because of its rational and even spiritual nature) that a spider's does not. such that my soul is supposed to be different from that of cats, dogs or spiders...but yes Lucifershammer, here I stand corrected 🙂
I could have worded my response better to convey ...[text shortened]... o your argument, very important and I should not have overlooked that in my subsequent posts 😉

I thought about this yesterday, and I think part of the trouble you're having with this discussion is that you seem to want to discuss religion when we're discussing philosophy and philosophy when we're discussing religion.

As to the process? that is what Christianity is all about. Haven't you heard of growth in Christ or the Holy Spirit ?, it's all there for anyone to read, it's not a secret!

AGERG ---I want details...fine details...details that are rational to me as one who is highly skeptical of the supernatural...details that are not offered in your bible

One thing that makes this difficult is because God's spirit is so close to us and so intimately woven into our existence that it's like trying to look at your own sunglasses whilst looking through them at the same time. The bible says that in Him we live and move and have our being. This means that today , right now the Holy Spirit is with you involved in your life and trying to influence your life in such a way that you willl find Christ.

Have you ever felt all warm inside and felt so in touch with nature and the universe that you have a got a glimpse of who you are and what humanity could be like if only we weren't so busy hating each other instead of loving each other. The chances are the Holy Sprit wasn't that far away from you.

If you have ever felt , however briefly , that something a christian or Jesus has said has struck you and stopped you in your tracks for even a minute the chances are it was God giving you a little nudge.

In the end you have to find your own way because it's a very intimate and personal thing. But if you talk to christians you will come across thousands of "fine details".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I thought about this yesterday, and I think part of the trouble you're having with this discussion is that you seem to want to discuss religion when we're discussing philosophy and philosophy when we're discussing religion.

The two are not mutually exclusive 😉 It is you who leads and myself following in this debate (such as it should be when one asks a question and another answers)...at any point where you counter my argument with something that is either religious or philosophical in nature I shall simply look for ways that the flaws in such argument can be revealed.

Originally posted by knightmeister
As to the process? that is what Christianity is all about. Haven't you heard of growth in Christ or the Holy Spirit ?, it's all there for anyone to read, it's not a secret!

AGERG ---I want details...fine details...details that are rational to me as one who is highly skeptical of the supernatural...details that are not offered in your bible

One t thing. But if you talk to christians you will come across thousands of "fine details".

One thing that makes this difficult is because God's spirit is so close to us and so intimately woven into our existence that it's like trying to look at your own sunglasses whilst looking through them at the same time. The bible says that in Him we live and move and have our being. This means that today , right now the Holy Spirit is with you involved in your life and trying to influence your life in such a way that you willl find Christ.
It could also be difficult because few have been trained (or have the facility) to answer these questions within your (or other) religious organisations such that they are able to resolve all of the problems I have brought forward as well as those that others have posed too. They tend to brush them off or dissolve one question they like best in quagmire of (usually philosophical) counter-questions such that the original motivation for asking the question, and zeal with which it was asked is lost...any others are then hopefully long since forgotton. If you consider what makes an atheist so you might perhaps realise that this sort of answer carries little weight (if any)

Have you ever felt all warm inside and felt so in touch with nature and the universe that you have a got a glimpse of who you are and what humanity could be like if only we weren't so busy hating each other instead of loving each other. The chances are the Holy Sprit wasn't that far away from you.
but I do not attribute such a thing to a god or holy spirit...some people will not stop hating other people, some would like nothing more than for innocent (and even religous) people to suffer some horrifically painful and tragically lethal affliction of their own engineering. At such points when I think that life is ok or pretty good it just means that there have been much worse times that I compare it to...To me life is about about maintaining my own existance and making sure it is enjoyable enough such that it seems a worthy pursuit...I do not rule out the possibility that by some abominable act of mal-humanity or nature my existance could be brought to an end most unpleasantly... Still no religious connotation

If you have ever felt , however briefly , that something a christian or Jesus has said has struck you and stopped you in your tracks for even a minute the chances are it was God giving you a little nudge.
I simply don't agree with this statement...ignoring the possibility that it rules out all people of a non-christian (but still religious) pursuasion; with the vast majority of statements it is just you and others *saying so* whilst I still have the rational option to find a more economical answer that is not compatible with your belief...If you could show me with a well reasoned case (one that satisfies my need to have reconciliation with the little details you would like to avoid) how there could be no option other than what you say however 😉...

In the end you have to find your own way because it's a very intimate and personal thing. But if you talk to christians you will come across thousands of "fine details".
Unfortunately that would seem to suggest that you cannot meet my questions.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I thought about this yesterday, and I think part of the trouble you're having with this discussion is that you seem to want to discuss religion when we're discussing philosophy and philosophy when we're discussing religion.

LF,

Does the Thomistic soul change as one's mental and physical properties change?

Originally posted by Agerg
See...this is yet another thing that bugs me about religion...this concept of an eternal soul...The big [b]*me* or mind behind a physical body.

Firstly, when did I get my soul? (did it get taken away from me whilst in the sperm and egg stage of my life?) where did it come from? where is it? what is it made of? how *in detail* does it work?..pleas ...[text shortened]... ral entity such as my soul could be influenced by physical devices??? again, please elaborate[/b]

My view is the soul is you. Your mind & body transport you to communicate to the world. Your question on physical devices which can influence this, I would say anything that can affect your body & mind.

Pain is good example. If you were to wake up every morning to get smacked in the head, then that could have large consequences on who you are.

Control by others which causes suppression. It causes people to be unable to get out of themselves the problems that their soul has, leaving the person confused and probably dangerous. This is how I think terrorism is made. First through maybe accidental suffering on their souls, and then maybe people trying to fix up/excommunicate what they have no ability to do(suppression).

Environments with high expectations can take a person on a downhill slide, even if it would have been only for a period in life that they would have otherwise got through. If those around suffering souls seek humility and understanding over their own ignorance & superiority as a god then world would be a better place.

[sorry, I didn't read any other posts but just thought I'd give a quick few views]

Originally posted by Agerg
The two are not mutually exclusive 😉 It is you who leads and myself following in this debate (such as it should be when one asks a question and another answers)...at any point where you counter my argument with something that is either religious or philosophical in nature I shall simply look for ways that the flaws in such argument can be revealed.

The two are not mutually exclusive

They're not identical or conflatable, either.

at any point where you counter my argument with something that is either religious or philosophical in nature I shall simply look for ways that the flaws in such argument can be revealed.

The problem arises when you bring in "flaws" from the wrong domain. For instance, with a philosophical discussion of 'soul', bringing in Christianity-specific or Islam-specific objections or "flaws" is fallacious. Similarly, when discussing the Christianity-specific 'soul', it is equally fallacious to bring up Islam or FSM or whatever as an objection or "flaw". Ditto when you bring up Cartesian dualism when dealing with Christian doctrine explained in terms of Thomistic/Aristotelian substance etc.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The two are not mutually exclusive

They're not identical or conflatable, either.

at any point where you counter my argument with something that is either religious or philosophical in nature I shall simply look for ways that the flaws in such argument can be revealed.

The problem arises when you bring in "flaws" from the wrong d g with Christian doctrine explained in terms of Thomistic/Aristotelian substance etc.[/b]

The problem arises when you bring in "flaws" from the wrong domain. For instance, with a philosophical discussion of 'soul', bringing in Christianity-specific or Islam-specific objections or "flaws" is fallacious. Similarly, when discussing the Christianity-specific 'soul', it is equally fallacious to bring up Islam or FSM or whatever as an objection or "flaw". Ditto when you bring up Cartesian dualism when dealing with Christian doctrine explained in terms of Thomistic/Aristotelian substance etc.

My initial questions were of a tangible nature, your solution resides in the philosophical notion of the Thomism system (which you seem to in some ways hybridise with Christianity)...if it is to really be an answer to my questions (such that it's evasion of all the problems that have not been met is justified) then it must co-exist with and not contradict any systems that you would apply it to by virtue of this being such a solution.
You are free to take this discussion wherever you choose but remember that if my questions can be evaded by asserting they are not relevant, then I shall ask for and explore your justification of this assertion...If your argument slips such that it relies upon certain (though I suspect hopefully forgotton) tangible elements of the system that has no relevance then you can't blame me for trying to stop you.

As I've said before and I'll say it again...I won't accept off the cuff or convenient answers

To put it another way LH, If I was to ask what is the best piece of clothing to protect you from the elements in winter then you saying (for arguments sake) a magic cloak would require that this magic cloak was clearly defined, did not engender any contradictions, and that it is a feasable solution to my problem of best clothing to wear in winter. A magic cloak being internally consistant within the realms of fantasy does not make it consistant within the physical world for which it needs to be viable.

This analogy can and will be applied to your Thomistic soul concept

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]The problem arises when you bring in "flaws" from the wrong domain. For instance, with a philosophical discussion of 'soul', bringing in Christianity-specific or Islam-specific objections or "flaws" is fallacious. Similarly, when discussing the Christianity-specific 'soul', it is equally fallacious to bring up Islam or FSM or whatever as an objection or "fl ...[text shortened]... before and I'll say it again...I won't accept off the cuff or convenient answers[/b]

Saying that something is "off the cuff or convenient" isn't a counter-argument; it's just a statement of opinion. I think you know that.

if it is to really be an answer to my questions (such that it's evasion of all the problems that have not been met is justified) then it must co-exist with and not contradict any systems that you would apply it to by virtue of this being such a solution.

Not at all. If a system already contains axioms in it such that (either alone or combined with Thomism) it leads to contradictions as you raise that doesn't mean that Thomism itself (or Thomism plus certain religious traditions) cannot handle your questions. To argue that Thomism plus any possible system must withstand contradiction is an absurd ask -- I could simply add a system that already has contradictions in it and Thomism cannot remove those.

EDIT: And no, I am not identifying Christianity with Thomism. I am applying Thomistic [philosophical] notions to Christian doctrine. As I said earlier, I cannot vouch for what happens when it is applied to other religions -- nor should I be required to.

Originally posted by Agerg
To put it another way LH, If I was to ask what is the best piece of clothing to protect you from the elements in winter then you saying (for arguments sake) a magic cloak would require that this magic cloak was clearly defined, did not engender any contradictions, and that it is a feasable solution to my problem of best clothing to wear in winter. A mag ...[text shortened]... ch it needs to be viable.

This analogy can and will be applied to your Thomistic soul concept

No, it can't.

If I had to use your analogy, my answer would be "a white fur coat". Now you say, "But since you believe in the existence of white mammoths, I'd like you to elaborate on the advantages of white mammoth fur coats". When I start doing so, you go "Aha! But prove that white mammoths exist."

Why should I? My original answer was, and remains, "white fur coats". You insisted on talking about white mammoths; not me.

Originally posted by Agerg
Firstly, when I saw this:
[b]The soul is supposed to have a mass of 21 grams. Its chemical composition is still unknown.
my initial thought was "bollox" 😉 ...reading that wiki link shows that most people would regard this claim as *dubious*...very VERY dubious...with regards to clearing other things up...it merely talks about the faith of differ ...[text shortened]... logical or rational answers?...again please refrain from convenient or off the cuff answers.[/b]

To answer your question…no, it is not possible. This is so because the Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 “…for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Therefore as an athiest, no answer involving faith in God will satisfy you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, it can't.

If I had to use your analogy, my answer would be "a white fur coat". Now you say, "But since you believe in the existence of white mammoths, I'd like you to elaborate on the advantages of white mammoth fur coats". When I start doing so, you go "Aha! But prove that white mammoths exist."

Why should I? My original answer was, and remains, "white fur coats". You insisted on talking about white mammoths; not me.

No, it can't.

If I had to use your analogy, my answer would be "a white fur coat". Now you say, "But since you believe in the existence of white mammoths, I'd like you to elaborate on the advantages of white mammoth fur coats". When I start doing so, you go "Aha! But prove that white mammoths exist."

Only if you base the truth of your arguments solely on the premise that white mammoths exist...(If you could prove that they exist, or argue instead that they once existed and provide the details of how we can still benefit from it's legacy now, or that this fur has been synthesised in such a way that it parallels the characteristics of the fur of an animal you'd refer to as white mammoth etc... and then explain to me why it is superior then your argument would be reasonable)

Why should I? My original answer was, and remains, "white fur coats". You insisted on talking about white mammoths; not me.

But here you are assuming that I would volunteer the notion of white mammoth when in fact I would leave it to you to tell me exactly where this white fur originates from,