Souls

Originally posted by Agerg
I 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...

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 ...[text shortened]... d Z' is the collection of all things that one can associate with behaviour of cars.

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.

untrue sir, I simply ask the question that if the soul is natural, then how should we measure it? for if it is natural, then certainly there must be some way to measure qualitatively and quantitatively the aspects of the soul. Lets discuss how we will measure, and how we will define the soul. This particualr part you have been quite evavsive on, and as I suspect, lazy.

Originally posted by Doward
[b]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.

untrue sir, I simply ask the question that ...[text shortened]... define the soul. This particualr part you have been quite evavsive on, and as I suspect, lazy.[/b]

If the "soul" is natural then it is merely an extraneous term we don't require to describe the composition of, and interaction between natural processes and we measure these processes (many of them being neurons firing in my brain) as we would measure anything else (subject to the technology and scientific knowledge we possess so far to do this for each thing we want to measure).

There are two cases to consider:

case a) The "soul" is entirely natural
case b) The "soul" is not entirely natural

and the above satisfies case (a). Indeed If we consider case a) the soul is entirely natural then as far as this thread is concerned then there are no things that identify with me that cannot be described in natural terms. I.e. we're done! - what now remains is to consider case (b) that the soul isn't entirely natural.

I'm not being evasive. I'm just not pandering to your "pastor wants to preach, pastor wants to rephrase the question, pastor wants me to go away and find faith" way of addressing this question (and this question had a particular format and structure which you're trying to avoid). I'm not a member of your flock pastor, please don't treat me like one.

As I said to josephw:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate what I mean here for you, 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 not care how this god weaves it's miracles - you need only point to something I can't account for and say

"look...your hand turned into a banjo - hands don't normally turn into banjos...tell me how this is a physical process...if you can't then I win!!!"

to which I would back down and say you win. The important point here, again, is that there is no requirement for you to even say it was a miracle or supernatural; you have no need to understand the supernatural - you need only point at something not natural and demand I come up with the goods or back down.

Originally posted by Agerg
If the "soul" is natural then it is merely an extraneous term we don't require to describe the composition of, and interaction between natural processes and we measure these processes (many of them being neurons firing in my brain) as we would measure anything else (subject to the technology and scientific knowledge we possess so far to do this for each thing o avoid). I'm not a member of your flock pastor, please don't treat me like one.

great, we've established that there is either no need to continue this thread, or that the soul is supernatural, or "extra' natural if you prefer.

Since we seem to be determined that the thread should continue, then lets say for argument sake that the soul is "extra" natural.

Are there ways of measuring things that are not natural? We can measure the horsepower of a car. its torque, wheelbase and other attributes. The things we are measuring are of course physical carachteristics and physics itself. What if we were to determine the value of a car? Is that not a measurement? to be sure it is.

So how do we measure the value of a car? generally speeking market conditions determine how much we pay for a car, but that does not give us its value. You see, after we are done with a car, we trade it, then the next person does etc until it goes to the junkyard, and even then it has value as scrap.

So we can calculate the monetary value of a car over the life of a car, but that is not the same as value. For many people a car represents freedom, ability to work and a useful tool to generate income. Those things need to be included as well.

Many people value their specialty cars beyond any reason. They treat the cars better than they treat their pets, and spend inordinate amounts of money tracking down "original parts".

So we see that finding the quanitative and qualitative value for something simple like a car can be an enormous task, how much more so to find the value or measure of one's soul? Some people spend inordinate money feeding their soul, nurturing it and seeking "redemption" or reconciliation (pick your poison).

Does the soul perform any useful tasks for us (as a car might)? Good question, but to know that we need to further define what a soul is. There is a term called Tripartite. It refers to the human being as being made of three parts: body, spirit and soul. We know what comprises the body, and the spirit would be called that aprt of us that makes us alive, the spark of life (science still doesn't know how this happens).

Perhaps one way to look at it is this: Our souls are the essence of who we are. It is the complete history of what it means to be Doward. Yes if I am injured and brain functions go to nil, then that is part of my history of who or what it means to be me. It does not erase the numerous preofound thoughts I might have had, or the millions of dumb ideas I may have had. Think of the soul as the history of the being. Yet this does not completely define the soul, but it is a good start.

No lets talk about how we measure that shall we?

Originally posted by Doward
great, we've established that there is either no need to continue this thread, or that the soul is supernatural, or "extra' natural if you prefer.

Since we seem to be determined that the thread should continue, then lets say for argument sake that the soul is "extra" natural.

Are there ways of measuring things that are not natural? We can measure the ho the soul, but it is a good start.

No lets talk about how we measure that shall we?

I'm not going to waste anymore of your time. You're rephrasing my question - you're throwing your meaningless theology at me - what you conclude from the discussion phrased in those (different) terms holds no interest for me.


I care not what the supernatural soul is, I care not how we measure supernatural souls, I care only (for the sake of this discussion) that there is or isn't some aspect of me that has a manifestation in this world that cannot be measured or explained via natural means.

Or in different terms...some part of me X I identify with that would leave me stumped when asked "how do you account for X in physical terms?"

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm not going to waste anymore of your time. You're rephrasing my question - you're throwing your meaningless theology at me - what you conclude from the discussion phrased in those (different) terms holds no interest for me.


I care not what the supernatural soul is, I care not how we measure supernatural souls, I care only (for the sake of this discussio ...[text shortened]... with that would leave me stumped when asked "how do you account for X in physical terms?"

run away little boy, your philosophy is as hollow as your soul. There was zero theology in my above post. you asked I answered. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you didn't get a legitimate one.

Originally posted by Doward
run away little boy, your philosophy is as hollow as your soul. There was zero theology in my above post. you asked I answered. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you didn't get a legitimate one.

There was zero theology in my above post
wikipedia says no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_%28theology%29


You didn't like my question and saw fit to answer your own (different) question with a sermon, (with lengthy off-topic preamble leading up to your punchline).

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]There was zero theology in my above post
wikipedia says no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_%28theology%29


You didn't like my question and saw fit to answer your own (different) question with a sermon, (with lengthy off-topic preamble leading up to your punchline).[/b]

the term Tripartite is useful in distinguishing between body, soul and essence of life. There was nothing preachy about my post, there was trinitarianism, Islam, Hinduism or anything remotely religous. You lost this argument and now you cry foul...like I said...hollow

Originally posted by Doward
the term Tripartite is useful in distinguishing between body, soul and essence of life. There was nothing preachy about my post, there was trinitarianism, Islam, Hinduism or anything remotely religous. You lost this argument and now you cry foul...like I said...hollow

I do not understand how

Person A: "excuse me theists, what is the answer to question X?"
Person B: "Wouldn't you prefer to ask about Y?"
Person A: "No thanks...I'd prefer to ask question X if you don't mind"
Person B: "Ah but Y is a much better question"
Person A: "No thanks Y serves me no purpose I care only about X here"
Person B:: "Yeah but I don't really like question X, Y is much better!"
.
.
.
and so it continues
.
.
.
Person A: "Please...I am only concerned about X; Y is a different topic and it doesn't interest me"
Person B: "oh no no no no! you don't wanna be asking about X! you wanna ask about Y!!...yes Y is much better!!! Here let me ramble on at you all about Y"[/b]
Person A: "meh! 😞 "

Is an example of person A (me) losing an argument. Perhaps it's fundy logic(?) or something! 😕




No part of your ramble included any parts about *me* (or *you*) that I (or you) identify with that cannot be described in natural terms...nor was there any response compatible with my initial question:
which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???

Originally posted by Agerg
I do not understand how

[b]Person A: "excuse me theists, what is the answer to question X?"
Person B: "Wouldn't you prefer to ask about Y?"
Person A: "No thanks...I'd prefer to ask question X if you don't mind"
Person B: "Ah but Y is a much better question"
Person A: "No thanks Y serves me no purpose I care only about X h ...[text shortened]... ot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???[/b][/b]

re-read, it is all there.

Originally posted by Doward
re-read, it is all there.

Already did...I asked X and you answered Y

X still stands unresolved. Your input no longer holds my interest.

Originally posted by Agerg
Already did...I asked X and you answered Y

X still stands unresolved. Your input no longer holds my interest.

so be it, live in your self delusion

Originally posted by Doward
so be it, live in your self delusion

No delusion here; OP question remains unresolved. Cheerio!

Originally posted by Agerg
No delusion here; OP question remains unresolved. Cheerio!

Just to reiterate:logic cannot have any empirical part. One cannot use universal laws to define experience and vice versa. The reason none of us answered your question in the way you framed it is because it is inherently illogical. Material philosophy is either physics or it is ethics, what you are asking is neither. Meanwhile you try and cram Formal philosophy (logic) in sideways. Creating a htread called "soul" and then refusing to debate on any theological or supernatural level is ...illogical. That's why you lost.


Maybe with a few decades of life under your belt some of this will sink in, until then Cheerio!

Originally posted by Doward
Just to reiterate:logic cannot have any empirical part. One cannot use universal laws to define experience and vice versa. The reason none of us answered your question in the way you framed it is because it is inherently illogical. Material philosophy is either physics or it is ethics, what you are asking is neither. Meanwhile you try and cram Formal philosop ybe with a few decades of life under your belt some of this will sink in, until then Cheerio!

If I was trying to ascertain what a soul *is* then you would be correct; logic would play no part.Reveal Hidden Content
The discussion in this thread however is not concerned with what a soul is; it is concerned with the necessity of introducing a notion to describe our characters and actions which is supernatural.

My claim is that this supernatural element introduced by theists which you refer to as a "soul" is wholly redundant, and that every action, thought, or process on my part as I affect and am affected by the world around me can be described in purely natural terms. The theist here has three choices. They can

a) say "no, you're wrong!" and try to 'substantiate' this with scriptural and theological arguments which carry no weight to a person who doesn't believe.
b) concede that my position is not unreasonable and walk away leaving me to my material formulation of a person's actions/thoughts, and carrying on with their supernatural formulation (that cannot be disproven)
c) they can challenge my position by pointing to some aspect of my character for which the supernatural *necessarily* plays some part (somehow). If they are successful here then I shall not be able to describe this in natural terms.

I am not interested in case (a), that line is more relevant to the other soul thread I made for your benefit.