06 Feb 11
Originally posted by AgergNO
I have no wish to engage you here in topics like
- Perhaps we are not ready to see our soul yet...wait until heaven, but you must first find Jesus!
- Just have faith, it'll be alright
- But the soul is an adjunct of the holy spirit and chapter blah verse blah of the Bible says blah blah
- You don't think you have a soul!?? This i ...[text shortened]... .wish my car had those!"[/hidden] What do they have to do with the engine!??? 😕[/b]
I will not argue my position the way you think I should. Besides, you have misrepresented my arguments, which leads me to believe you haven't read what I have said.
You have stated that you don't believe you have a soul because you can't sense it physically. I agreed with you that that is true. A soul is not know by the physical senses.
I have stated that I believe we have a soul, and since it cannot be know with the physical senses, then it must be known by some other means.
I haven't as yet been able to explain by what means it can be known that we have a soul, because it seems that you are unmovable from your present mindset, which is inhibiting your mind from being able to think outside the box of nerves clammed up inside your head.(not meant as an insult)
If you can't have a thought beyond the bounds you have set, then I'm banging my head against the wall trying to get through.
Listen to this please: There are two concurrent opposing thoughts occurring here. One says that all thought is confined to the bundle of neurons in our skulls. The other says that thought, while it may involve the brain on a physiological level, is influenced by, or directed by, the soul.(which I have termed as the seat of the will)
I have stated plainly that the second view cannot be substantiated by the physical senses. So therefore I suggested that in order to know, or have cognisant knowledge of the existence of the soul, one then must needs think in a different manner.
That is where you go off the deep end and accuse me of appealing to the supernatural. I'm not. It doesn't have to be some kind of mysterious magical experience know only to the special ones' of the enlightened class.
All I'm saying is you have to think outside the bounds of atheistic dogma if you're going to know you have a soul as distinct from the mortal flesh.
It is your soul that guides and directs your thoughts! Prove it to yourself.
07 Feb 11
10 edits
Originally posted by josephwI haven't misrepresented your arguments josephw, I've preempted your arguments and make a declaration that the routes you would prefer to steer this conversation are of no interest to me in this thread. I preempt you here because out of a number of discussions we've had, the evolution of said discussions tend to follow the same pattern in that you try to steer things into preachy territory (where I'm supposed to assume the role of attentive listener and attempt to have faith).
[b]NO
I will not argue my position the way you think I should. Besides, you have misrepresented my arguments, which leads me to believe you haven't read what I have said.
You have stated that you don't believe you have a soul because you can't sense it physically. I agreed with you that that is true. A soul is not know by the physical senses.
It is your soul that guides and directs your thoughts! Prove it to yourself.[/b]
Because of the constraints imposed upon us by virtue of our lack of non-physical senses there is no way to know anything about the supernatural - any attempts for you to to send the discussion down that road, i.e.
"So therefore I suggested that in order to know, or have cognisant knowledge of the existence of the soul, one then must needs think in a different manner."
Will yield only speculative answers which serve me no purpose. I seek not to choose one particular speculation out of an infinite set of them (that particular being yours), more I seek to question why I should speculate in the first case.
To this end I've posed (or at least tried to pose) my question in such a way as to remove from the set of permissible answers those that invoke wild claims which cannot possibly be substantiated without first circularly assuming the claims to be true anyway (via faith). If my position on the matter that all my thoughts and actions which give rise to *me* can be reduced to physical phenomenon is false, then it is within your capacity to show this with *at least* one counter example where I cannot find any such reduction; and it is for this reason I suggest the method you may wish to apply (arguably the only valid method you have).
I don't actually follow any "atheist dogma". The doubts and suspicions which manifest through my questions and arguments are for the most part entirely my own (it just happens to be the case they are rational objections which other atheists can also arrive at independently). I don't sit down with some handbook deciding which argument of someone elses I should cast to the theists.
I have no more requirement to prove I have a soul than I have requirement to prove I have invisible wings on my back - I assume I don't have one and throw it you guys to challenge whether I can support this position. If I fail in this endeavour then I will be unable to prevent myself from seriously considering the case there might be a supernatural aspect to my existence. However you can rest assured I will think in such ways *only* once you've cast doubt - not before.[1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) This is not a defiant choice I make here - I am forced (by the way I think and evaluate things) to hold such skepticism. Similarly I don't 'choose' to think I'm not the gingerbread man.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by AgergBang, bang, bang! lol
I haven't misrepresented your arguments josephw, I've preempted your arguments and make a declaration that the routes you would prefer to steer this conversation are of no interest to me in this thread. I preempt you here because out of a number of discussions we've had, the evolution of said discussions tend to follow the same pattern in that you try to steer ...[text shortened]... rest assured I will think in such ways *only* once you've cast doubt - not before.
--------------------------
Your OP:
"I'm not the first to have asked the question which will follow after the preamble...
which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???"
My answer: The part of you that cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes!
Why? Because then it wouldn't be a soul.
You're a bright young man Agerg*. Go figure. 😉
*Sincerely
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by josephwYour answer here is no more valid than
Bang, bang, bang! lol
--------------------------
Your OP:
[b]"I'm not the first to have asked the question which will follow after the preamble...
which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???"
My answer: The part of you that cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes!
Why ...[text shortened]... n it wouldn't be a soul.
You're a bright young man Agerg*. Go figure. 😉
*Sincerely[/b]
The parts of you which are hobgoblin-like!...else you wouldn't be part hobgoblin
as an answer to, "which parts of me cannot be described via non-hobgoblin-like terms?
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by AgergSuppose I think that all behaviour of all road-worthy cars can be reduced to the workings of their respective engines in some way..then you would hit back with:
I have no wish to engage you here in topics like
- Perhaps we are not ready to see our soul yet...wait until heaven, but you must first find Jesus!
- Just have faith, it'll be alright
- But the soul is an adjunct of the holy spirit and chapter blah verse blah of the Bible says blah blah
- You don't think you have a soul!?? This i ...[text shortened]... sh my car had those!\"[/hidden] What do they have to do with the engine!??? 😕[/b]
ah...but what about the painted on "go faster stripes"?
The behaviour of the car in this case promping approving/envious comments in other humans \"ooh! nice paintwork...wish my car had those!\"
What do they have to do with the engine!??? 😕
problem is that intelligence still needs to direct the car, it does not direct itself, so poor analogy.
07 Feb 11
3 edits
Originally posted by DowardWell it wasn't so much an analogy as prescriptive of how you should seek to cast doubt in my position. Secondly if an analogy, it need only preserve the relevant structure of my original question - and to this end, the only structure I need to preserve is a universal claim on my part something is true
Suppose I think that all behaviour of all road-worthy cars can be reduced to the workings of their respective engines in some way..then you would hit back with:
ah...but what about the painted on "go faster stripes"?[hidden]The behaviour of the car in this case promping approving/envious comments in other humans "ooh! nice paintwork...wish my car had thos that intelligence still needs to direct the car, it does not direct itself, so poor analogy.
(and in this case that all it\'s functionality can be reduced to the workings of it\'s engine).
. Indeed I offered in this analogy a means to refute such a universal claim by considering the behaviour of the car (via it's groovy stripes) to induce approving comments or thoughts on behalf of those who look upon it.07 Feb 11
Originally posted by AgergWhy is it that I'm the only 'theist' debating in here with you?
Your answer here is no more valid than
The parts of you which are hobgoblin-like!...else you wouldn't be part hobgoblin
as an answer to, "which parts of me cannot be described via non-hobgoblin-like terms?
Just thought of that.
You're cheating yourself. By that I mean that you set up the debate, defined the terms, and structured the argument so that an answer isn't possible.
You do realise that don't you?
How do you know that synaptic activity isn't the result of the will? In other words, how do you know that it isn't the soul that generates thought?
07 Feb 11
7 edits
Originally posted by josephwIf it is true I have a soul and this soul plays some part in the operation of *me* (beyond the redundancy of complete subservience to physical processes) then it is not the case an answer isn't possible, since some part of me must be described in supernatural terms. One need not specify what the supernatural is, they need only point to the process that cannot be described in terms of the physical - a gaping wide chasm I cannot bridge is sufficient answer. FreakyKBH has given it a good shot, and you should be able to do the same.
Why is it that I'm the only 'theist' debating in here with you?
Just thought of that.
You're cheating yourself. By that I mean that you set up the debate, defined the terms, and structured the argument so that an answer isn't possible.
You do realise that don't you?
How do you know that synaptic activity isn't the result of the will? In other words, how do you know that it isn't the soul that generates thought?
The only thing my question doesn't allow is lazy theist answers which reduce to "have faith!" and I have no intention to let myself be guided in that direction.
For your last question I have no reason to give that consideration any greater weight than infinitely many other speculatave considerations. Perhaps instead Hapazash the grand Lord of Zalmanesh in the Fifth universe of Mek controls all my thoughts - perhaps he doesn't. I need only wait for you to suggest some sort of thought or thing *me* does, and then go away and check to see if I can or cannot account for it in physical terms.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate what I mean here for you josephw, suppose I say everything (not just *me* but *everything*) in this universe can always be described in physical terms, and then unfortunately for my argument some god steps in, performs a miracle, and transforms my left hand into a banjo. You could then turn round to me and say
aha! so how do you explain how your hand just turned into a banjo Agerg??? 😕
I'd be pretty stumped here - I have no way to account for this phenomenon. Note here you need not offer any account of your own - you need only cast mine in doubt!
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by Agerg"FreakyKBH has given it a good shot, and you should be able to do the same."
If it is true I have a soul and this soul plays some part in the operation of *me* (beyond the redundancy of complete subservience to physical processes) then it is not the case an answer isn't possible, since some part of me must be described in supernatural terms. One need not specify what the supernatural is, they need only point to the process that cannot ...[text shortened]... oes, and then go away and check to see if I can or cannot account for it in physical terms.
I'm trying at least.
What if you had never had a sensory input of any kind? Would 'you' remain? Would there be any thought? Do you think the life within you would die like a plant starved of light and water? Once conceived in the womb, is the life of a human being measured solely by sensory inputs?
In me is evoked a sense of pity for the individual who lives with the idea in their mind that all they are is a bag of bones and organs and nerves. Where does one get such an idea? Is it self generated or was the germ of that idea planted in their mind by another?
No soul = no life. Right? And you're ok with that? You're ok with the idea that in the grand sceme of things biological life on this planet may come to an end and the universe will go on without a second thought?
Soullessness = empty loneliness. Why bother loving or touching another when all it is is a conditioned response generated by external forces working on our senses.
Without a soul a person is no more or less different than dust.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by josephwAn answer is possible, you simply don't like the answer so wont admit it.
You're cheating yourself. By that I mean that you set up the debate, defined the terms, and structured the argument so that an answer isn't possible.
The answer (if it came from you) is that you don't know of a part of you that cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes, nevertheless you believe a supernatural part of you exists.
It is not always bad to admit ignorance on a subject, nor does it necessarily prove you or your religion wrong.
07 Feb 11
4 edits
Originally posted by josephwWell you've been trying to resist - and frame the discussion in terms you are comfortable, in terms which lead to the easy answers: "No one can answer what a soul is so just let it go" or "just have faith". On the other hand I don't see any efforts to throw me examples that might comprimise my position on this matter.
[b]"FreakyKBH has given it a good shot, and you should be able to do the same."
I'm trying at least.
What if you had never had a sensory input of any kind? Would 'you' remain? Would there be any thought? Do you think the life within you would die like a plant starved of light and water? Once conceived in the womb, is the life of a human being mea orking on our senses.
Without a soul a person is no more or less different than dust.[/b]
Your questions which follow are better suited to another thread - I don't want my question here to be sidetracked by moral or other consequences of my position on this matter. Threads which have passed that you and ephinineas have started on the so-called "meaninglessness" of atheism and what not are better suited this discussion. Make another thread if you want to rehash them again; I'm interested here in showing that my claim one need not invoke the notion of a soul is defensible. I'm not trying to show it's likeable (to other theists).
07 Feb 11
1 edit
from the OP: which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???
If something cannot be accounted for naturally then it must be....? supernatural?
I reject the premis of the argument which is why I have yet to bother trying to answer your question; just as I have dismissed the many false analogies presented in this thread.
Now, if the soul is supernatural, then no known measurement exists to quantify it nor will we ever be able to do so. If it is natural then we must first find which part of the human being is qauntitatively and qualitatively considered the soul. To be able to measure something we must first know what we are measuring, agreed? Lets start with the definition of soul. I leave it to you to define precisely what you may consider the soul to be, then we can have much fun and many interesting posts discussing how to measure it.
07 Feb 11
7 edits
Originally posted by DowardI care not here how the supernatural part of *me* operates, or the definition of what is supernatural, or the definition of what a soul is...
from the OP: which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???
If something cannot be accounted for naturally then it must be....? supernatural?
I reject the premis of the argument which is why I have yet to bother trying to answer your question; just as I have dismissed the many false analogies presented ...[text shortened]... e soul to be, then we can have much fun and many interesting posts discussing how to measure it.
I care only which part of *me* cannot be defined in natural terms.
For example, perhaps my desire to eat fish might be something that cannot be defined in natural terms, you need not specify how this "supernatural" part of me does work - you need only point to it. (Of course this is an example that can be described in natural terms but one would hope you see the point).
See my second to last response to josephw. Like him you seek to frame this discussion in terms such that you can say "no one can say what a soul is because it is supernatural so your question is meaningless" - this is lazy and moreover this way of approaching the subject has zero intellectual merit. We might as well discuss your god's favourite number or what Thor does immediately after playing planet football.
As for the analogies you claim are false, analogies need only preserve relevant structure, not specific features. The relevant structure of my claim is that X can be described in terms of Y is always true for any X - the "analogy" of mine (which intended as a helpful example for your benefit) you say is false also had the structure X' can be described in terms of Y' is always true for any X' (where X and X' are members of some collection of things Z and Z' say [1]). That cars need sentient beings driving them is irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------
1) Where in this case Z is the collection of all things that the character *me* does, and Z' is the collection of all things that one can associate with behaviour of cars.
07 Feb 11
7 edits
Just to give certain theists some perspective on why I'm asking my question the way I do: Many of you think you have a supernatural soul, and think this lives on in some way after you die, and that it identifies with your own personality and character in some way. It is my suspicion that some (by no means all) of you have given the matter little thought and just leave the idea wrapped up in a little 'box' somewhere in your mind that you can point at when the opportunity presents.
I on the other hand don't think I have a supernatural soul, I think that little box of yours is empty! - Indeed I have given the matter some thought and come to the conclusion that if pressed on the issue, It can be demonstrated that for all things that can potentially be suggested by others which define *me*, my character, my actions, and so on... that have a manifestation in the universe we exist in can be described in purely natural terms either by myself or by some other person(s) who thinks similarly (and hopefully I can work alone for much of this endeavour).
If I don't think I have a soul and I am wrong, then it is not true that
all things that can potentially suggested by others which identify with *me*, my character, my actions, and so on... that have a manifestation in the universe we exist in can be described in purely natural terms
and if such is not true then it's negation is
there exists at least one thing that can potentially suggested by others which identifies with *me*, my character, my actions, and so on... that has a manifestation in the universe we exist in that cannot be defined in purely natural terms
If a theist cannot find such a counter example then I merrily, and rationally carry on thinking in the way I do. This does not prove I don't have a soul of course (perhaps people didn't look hard enough) and similarly the discovery of a counter-example and my inability to deal with doesn't prove a soul exists (it may just be due to the fact I lack either the intellect or prerequisite knowledge to handle it correctly, though it would add a strong weight of plausibility to the proposition!)
Any attempts to reframe the discussion in terms of what a soul is are pointless - it casts no doubt on my position because all the thoughts one can have about the supernatural are completely speculative - and there are infinitely many other different speculations that, without any ability to differentiate between them, are just as plausible. As such I just dismiss them a unsubstantiated conjecture and you just think I'm being closed minded. No one wins! On the otherhand you guys have here, an opportunity to cast some real doubt into my and other atheists minds (and perhaps win brownie points with your god!)...to do this you need only successfully argue one counter-example.[1]
In effect I'm throwing doen the gauntlet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Many of you will assert that I'll just redefine my terms as and when the need arises - this is not true, I will of course try to undermine the examples you give but it will not be done in a dishonest fashion.
07 Feb 11
Originally posted by DowardYou have hit the nail on the head. The term 'supernatural' is illogical. It essentially asserts two contradictory things:
Now, if the soul is supernatural, then no known measurement exists to quantify it nor will we ever be able to do so.
1. That there exists something (the supernatural entity) that follows a pattern.
2. That anything under its label is outside of investigation by pattern seekers (scientists) ie it does not follow a pattern.
Any time someone asserts that something is supernatural they are basically saying "What I am about to say does not fit with observation, but you'll have to excuse me because I am declaring that it doesn't in advance with the 'supernatural' label thus making it immune".
The problem is the speaker will soon forget the terms of the contract and later assert that the supernatural entity was not only observed but follows predictable behavior.