The divisible soul

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
The problem is as follows:

An immaterial entity cannot be physical.

The soul, according to you, is an immaterial entity.

But if it is immaterial, then it cannot be physical.

And if it cannot be physical, then it cannot have a spatial location, as everything physical has a spatial location.

However, you claimed that the soul does have a sp ...[text shortened]... ncluding (by defying common dictionary definitions) that immaterial does not imply non-physical?

And if it cannot be physical, then it cannot have a spatial location, as everything physical has a spatial location.
The soul temporarily resides within the brain. Spatial? As elusive as beauty, as unboundaried as life. Do we detect heartbeats and call them hope? Is the period the end of the sentence? Are letters next to one another words or thoughts? You decide.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]And if it cannot be physical, then it cannot have a spatial location, as everything physical has a spatial location.
The soul temporarily resides within the brain. Spatial? As elusive as beauty, as unboundaried as life. Do we detect heartbeats and call them hope? Is the period the end of the sentence? Are letters next to one another words or thoughts? You decide.[/b]

If you have problems with the meaning of a straightforward term like "spatial" I suggest you consult a dictionary or ask a reasonably intelligent friend for clarification.

Spewing out flowery disanalogies, in a feeble attempt to insinuate a problem of intractable vagueness where none exists, is the strategy of a weasal.

But maybe you are correct. Maybe your assertions are so vague that they mean nothing clear enough to even be submitted to rational scrutiny. In which case, they would hardly be worth listening to.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
If you have problems with the meaning of a straightforward term like "spatial" I suggest you consult a dictionary or ask a reasonably intelligent friend for clarification.

Spewing out flowery disanalogies, in a feeble attempt to insinuate a problem of intractable vagueness where none exists, is the strategy of a weasal.

But maybe you are correct. ...[text shortened]... ven be submitted to rational scrutiny. In which case, they would hardly be worth listening to.

I've never seen a weasel wax poetic, but perhaps I'll ask one of my reasonably intelligent friends if they have. What my flowery prose is failing to convey is the failure of using words such as "spatial." The soul is local, but cannot be nailed down to 'spatial' in the classical sense. While it resides in the brain temporarily, attempts at measuring an immaterial, invisible entity seem as futile as attempting to capture beauty.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I've never seen a weasel wax poetic, but perhaps I'll ask one of my reasonably intelligent friends if they have. What my flowery prose is failing to convey is the failure of using words such as "spatial." The soul is local, but cannot be nailed down to 'spatial' in the classical sense. While it resides in the brain temporarily, attempts at measuring an immaterial, invisible entity seem as futile as attempting to capture beauty.

Your assertion that concept "spatial" is failing is false. What is failing is *your attempt* to simultaneously apply the concepts "spatial" and "immaterial" to the soul.

Let's assume charitably that your previous assertions make sense, that they mean something worth saying. (If not, then just admit this, and let's move on.) If your assertions are meaningful in this way, then they carry implications. Now, part of being a rational human being is facing up to these implications, including facing up the unpleasant possibility that you can be wrong--by reasoning illogically or making false assumptions.

Here is one way to escape this responsibility: by saying whatever you like, and then claim that the words you use don't have any determinate meaning, in an effort to exempt your assertions for criticism. This reminds me of a child, who abides by a game's rules while they are winning, but then arbitrarily changes those to rules when another person starts winning, so they can keep on winning.

So let's try again.

If some X is "local" (as opposed to "distant" or "global" ), or if that X "resides in" a physical thing Y, then that X necessarily has spatial properties. This is implied by the meaning of the words "local" and "resides in". Otherwise put, X must be spatial if it is described by terms like "local" and "resides in" and that description is true.

Now, you declared that the soul is immaterial. If it is immaterial, then it cannot be physical. Otherwise put, it must be nonphysical. This is again implied by the meaning of the term immaterial.

Now, what does it mean to claim something is nonphysical? The only thing it can mean is this: it lacks the properties that a physical thing has. An one of these properties is this: being spatially located. So a nonphysical thing cannot be spatially located.

So, by asserting that the soul is immaterial, you are implying that it is not spatially located; and by asserting that the soul is local and resides in the brain, you are implying that it is spatially located. Now, the soul cannot be both spatially located and not spatially located. That would be a contradiction.

So, to be considered a rational individual, who is not prepared to endorse contradictions, you will have to withdraw one of your two previous assertions.

Which one will it be?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Your assertion that concept "spatial" is failing is false. What is failing is *your attempt* to simultaneously apply the concepts "spatial" and "immaterial" to the soul.

Let's assume charitably that your previous assertions make sense, that they mean something worth saying. (If not, then just admit this, and let's move on.) If your assertions are me ...[text shortened]... thdraw one of your two previous assertions.

Which one will it be?

You are forgetting the use of the word "temporarily."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are forgetting the use of the word "temporarily."

BTW, what make you of dark matter? Or F=ma²/a°, for that matter?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
BTW, what make you of dark matter? Or F=ma²/a°, for that matter?

Okay.

I'll stop beating the wall of reason against the brick head of your evasiveness.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Okay.

I'll stop beating the wall of reason against the brick head of your evasiveness.

That sounds about right: when your tactics are revealed and the gig is up, you stop playing and call the other side obstinate. For the record, however, your argument has insisted that since science is unable to measure the soul, it does not exist.

Dark matter is brought up as a way of showing the inconsistency of science. When we cannot determine the cause of something, we invent an explanation. The difference between a belief in godless science (as opposed to real science) and faith in the word of God, is that the former requires constant renovation in order to end up where the latter begins.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That sounds about right: when your tactics are revealed and the gig is up, you stop playing and call the other side obstinate. For the record, however, your argument has insisted that since science is unable to measure the soul, it does not exist.

Dark matter is brought up as a way of showing the inconsistency of science. When we cannot determine the ...[text shortened]... God, is that the former requires constant renovation in order to end up where the latter begins.

I call you obstinate because you are: you refuse to answer the straightforward questions I ask.

I never claimed that the soul does not exist because science cannot measure it.

If I did, please quote me. If not, apologize for making a false statement.