Please define the word "soul."

[jimbo]

Hello,

Christianity is built upon this idea that when people die they don't really die but rather they go somewhere else. There seems to be precious little that supports this notion since we see that when people die they don't go much of anywhere, but instead these people lay there and decompose. Eventually the individual atoms of these people are totally assimilated back into the environment, and spread hither and yon. The fact that the dead lay immobile and rot seems to pose something of problem for the theory of an afterlife, but of course Christians and other religious believers maneuver around this problem by proposing that people have invisible "souls" that can somehow transcend death. However, the difficulty with the term "soul" is that it is not terribly clear what it is actually supposed to be. Is it an invisible gas of some kind?

So I am wondering if anyone on these boards can provide a meaningful and coherent definition of the word "soul." It is my impression that Christians and other religious believers don't really understand what they are talking about when they speak about "souls" and an afterlife. In point of fact, I think that the idea of an afterlife is complete nonsense. But then, I could be wrong. If you try to define the term "soul," I would only ask that you not bombard me with nebulous, incoherent, rambling references from the Bible, but instead provide a definition that is actually comprehensible.

Thanks.

Juan

[spl_cadet]

A rather long discussion about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm)

Or you could use this dictionary definition:
soul n.
The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
A human: “the homes of some nine hundred souls” (Garrison Keillor).
The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this network... may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin Kalb).
A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
A person's emotional or moral nature: “An actor is... often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not” (Alec Guinness).

[GrayPilgrim]

jimbo:
Hello,

Christianity is built upon this idea that when people die they don't really die but rather they go somewhere else. There seems to be precious little that supports this notion since we see that when people die they don't go much of anywhere, but instead these people lay there and decompose. Eventually the individual atoms of these people are totally assimilated back into the environment, and spread hither and yon. The fact that the dead lay immobile and rot seems to pose something of problem for the theory of an afterlife, but of course Christians and other religious believers maneuver around this problem by proposing that people have invisible "souls" that can somehow transcend death. However, the difficulty with the term "soul" is that it is not terribly clear what it is actually supposed to be. Is it an invisible gas of some kind?

So I am wondering if anyone on these boards can provide a meaningful and coherent definition of the word "soul." It is my impression that Christians and other religious believers don't really understand what they are talking about when they speak about "souls" and an afterlife. In point of fact, I think that the idea of an afterlife is complete nonsense. But then, I could be wrong. If you try to define the term "soul," I would only ask that you not bombard me with nebulous, incoherent, rambling references from the Bible, but instead provide a definition that is actually comprehensible.

Thanks.

Juan

I have a methodological question first. Since Christianity is and holds itself to be a revealed religion, that is the Bible is its source of authority, isn't asking us to define something from outside of it setting up a discussion in such a way that prevents us from being true to our system?

[jimbo]

spl_cadet,

I tried going to that Catholic Encyclopedia site, but couldn't reach it. It was too busy or something.

>>The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

What is an "immaterial entity"? How is it discernable from nothing at all?

>>The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

Yes, but what is a "spiritual nature" and how can it be "immortal"?

>>The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

What, specifically, is a "disembodied spirit"? What is it made out of and how can it exist outside of the human body?

The rest of the definitions were not really applicable to the context of the word "soul" that we are examining.

I appreciate that you provided some definitions or the word "soul." However, these definitions really do not further clarify what a "soul" is. They simply subsitute the words "spirit," "vital principle," "spiritual nature" and "disembodied spirit" for the word "soul." It still is not clear what a "spirit" or a "soul" actually is or how it can exist independantly of the body.

If you could provide more information, I would appreciate it.

Later,

Tim

[jimbo]

GrayPilgrim,

>>I have a methodological question first. Since Christianity is and holds itself to be a revealed religion, that is the Bible is its source of authority, isn't asking us to define something from outside of it setting up a discussion in such a way that prevents us from being true to our system?

I am sorry but I don't really know what you are asking. I am simply trying to determine how it is exactly that Christians think they are going to live forever.

Cheers,

Victor

[$cirisme]

I am sorry but I don't really know what you are asking. I am simply trying to determine how it is exactly that Christians think they are going to live forever.

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me." -John 15:26

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Hello,

Christianity is built upon this idea that when people die they don't really die but rather they go somewhere else. There seems to be precious little that supports this notion

Um.
The Jewish religion has the same foundation as the Christian religion. They teach that human beings are the marriage of something material (the body) and something spiritual (the spirit, or "soul", if you will). Death is the separation of one from the other.
The Bible gives plenty of indications that spirit beings live (in their spiritual way) and are conscious. This fact lends automatic credence to the notion that the human spirit, when separated from the body (death) continues in consciousness & life, albeit not human life in the intended sense (assuming that God really intended for humans to have a dual (body/spirit-soul) nature). That said, the primary hope of living beyond physical death (separation of spirit from body) rests in the promises of resurrection, which is a restoration of the body, complete with spirit even if it isn't wholly clear exactly what the spirit was up to in the interim.

So, in summary, it should come as no surprise that a human spiritual afterlife is not described in detail. Even so, it's not that hard to find evidence for it in the Bible, imo.

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>The Bible gives plenty of indications that spirit beings live (in their spiritual way) and are conscious.

But what are "spirit beings"?

>>This fact lends automatic credence to the notion that the human spirit, when separated from the body (death) continues in consciousness & life, albeit not human life in the intended sense

Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean it is automatically true. Again, I am trying to get someone on these boards to define the word "soul" in a coherent, comprehensible way.

>>(assuming that God really intended for humans to have a dual (body/spirit-soul) nature). That said, the primary hope of living beyond physical death (separation of spirit from body) rests in the promises of resurrection, which is a restoration of the body, complete with spirit even if it isn't wholly clear exactly what the spirit was up to in the interim.

So do all the atoms from every dead body reconstitute themselves and join together with this mysterious "soul" at some point in the future? How does that happen? Magic? Don't you think that this idea seems just a tad bit far-fetched?

Again: can you or someone here tell me what a "soul" is?

>>So, in summary, it should come as no surprise that a human spiritual afterlife is not described in detail. Even so, it's not that hard to find evidence for it in the Bible, imo.

I am still without a definition for the word "soul." Is any Christian capable of defining this word?

Billy

[GrayPilgrim]

jimbo:
GrayPilgrim,

>>I have a methodological question first. Since Christianity is and holds itself to be a revealed religion, that is the Bible is its source of authority, isn't asking us to define something from outside of it setting up a discussion in such a way that prevents us from being true to our system?

I am sorry but I don't really know what you are asking. I am simply trying to determine how it is exactly that Christians think they are going to live forever.

Cheers,

Victor

It is impossible for a Christian to define the soul apart from Scripture. Christians hold the Scriptrues to be normative and definitive. That is it is not only to shape our behavior bur our view of hte cosmos. So what I was trying to say is that your request would be problematic for Christians to define the soul apart from Scripture. Now this does not mean that you have or will accept the defintion, but the only consitent definiton a Christian can have, i.e. consistent with their worldview must be informed by and from Scripture.

GP

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

>>The Bible gives plenty of indications that spirit beings live (in their spiritual way) and are conscious.

But what are "spirit beings"?

>>This fact lends automatic credence to the notion that the human spirit, when separated from the body (death) continues in consciousness & life, albeit not human life in the intended sense

Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean it is automatically true. Again, I am trying to get someone on these boards to define the word "soul" in a coherent, comprehensible way.

>>(assuming that God really intended for humans to have a dual (body/spirit-soul) nature). That said, the primary hope of living beyond physical death (separation of spirit from body) rests in the promises of resurrection, which is a restoration of the body, complete with spirit even if it isn't wholly clear exactly what the spirit was up to in the interim.

So do all the atoms from every dead body reconstitute themselves and join together with this mysterious "soul" at some point in the future? How does that happen? Magic? Don't you think that this idea seems just a tad bit far-fetched?

Again: can you or someone here tell me what a "soul" is?

>>So, in summary, it should come as no surprise that a human spiritual afterlife is not described in detail. Even so, it's not that hard to find evidence for it in the Bible, imo.

I am still without a definition for the word "soul." Is any Christian capable of defining this word?

Billy

What do you mean "what is a spirit being"? Do you know what the word "spirit" means? Do you know what the word "being" means?
Nevermind. I mailed you a spirit being so that you would have an example of one. It should be there by now.

When I speak of the lending of credence to the view that a human spirit may be conscious after death, I thought it clear that we were working within a biblical worldview, just as it should be clear that if I said that sting glowed brighter when Orcs were about than when mere Goblins were about, we would be working within the Tolkien tableau.
Did you mean to ask me to prove that spirits exist, and you simply phrased your request clumsily?

You appear to be playing word games. I could do the same thing to you with regard to electrons, I suspect.

Can you explain to me why your dictionary seems to work when you look up secular terms & applications, and why it seems to fail you with regard to theological ones?

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:

What is an "immaterial entity"? How is it discernable from nothing at all?

Tim

Timbo,

1) An immaterial entity would have a personality. "Nothing" would not have a personality. That's one big difference.
2) Often, or even most of the time, there is no "discernable" difference between nothing and an immaterial entity. If an immaterial entity interacted with the material world, then perhaps that would assist in discerning between the two--*if* we assume that "nothing" cannot interact with the material world--yet some scientifical-types propose that "nothing" spontaneously generates tons of material with zero net existence (including you).
So, maybe even that won't help you seize the concept.

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:


So do all the atoms from every dead body reconstitute themselves and join together with this mysterious "soul" at some point in the future? How does that happen? Magic? Don't you think that this idea seems just a tad bit far-fetched?

Again: can you or someone here tell me what a "soul" is?



Billbo,

1) We'll see.
2) How does it happen? Well, now, I don't know. How do quantum particles form, and how does a universe begin?
And why do you ask?
3) What's "magic"? Could you give me a coherent description of what you mean by the term?
4) Far-fetched that dead persons would be resurrected? No, I don't think so. What do you mean by far-fetched? Impossible, like a universe arising from nothing, or impossible like you figuring out what "spirit"means by referring to a dictionary?

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,


When I speak of the lending of credence to the view that a human spirit may be conscious after death, I thought it clear that we were working within a biblical worldview, just as it should be clear that if I said that sting glowed brighter when Orcs were about than when mere Goblins were about, we would be working within the Tolkien tableau.

Tolkien was writing fiction--orcs don't exist in reality. However, you believe that "souls" exist. Therefore you are using a bad analogy.


You appear to be playing word games. I could do the same thing to you with regard to electrons, I suspect.

Well, these two sets of items are not really comparable. Electrons can be detected and defined. As far as I know, this is not true of "souls."

I am curious to see if Christians can define the word "soul." I want to know what Christians think that "souls" are made out of. I want to know how they think a "soul" can exist separated from a body. Feel free to quote the Bible in order to define the word "soul" if you can. My only request is that you not bombard me with random citations of where the word "soul" is used in the Bible----unless, of course, these citations go some way towards explaining in a coherent and comprehensible way what a "soul" actually is.

As I mentioned before, I don't believe in an afterlife. I see that when people die, they don't go anywhere. They tend to remain immobile and decompose. I see no evidence that a person's consciousness can exist after death and I tend to believe that all religions that promise life after death are simply playing on people's desire for immortality.

But you are free to show me I am wrong about this....

Thanks,

Jimmy

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,



Tolkien was writing fiction--orcs don't exist in reality. However, you believe that "souls" exist. Therefore you are using a bad analogy.


Poppycock. If it's a bad analogy, that is entirely your fault for searching out the portion of the analogy that is dissimilar. An analogy that is wholly similar to the thing being talked about is the very thing being talked about rather than an analogy.
An analogy will *always* vary from the thing it attempts to describe. Frodo's sword "Sting" doesn't exist in reality (we assume); yet we have it described in words that give us an idea of what it is like.

Your complaint is apparently that you can't make sense of the definition proffered for "soul". Unless you wish to offer a positive case against the coherence of the term, your inability to make sense of it is not any particular concern of mine, any more than you should be concerned that I don't think that you can show me an electron.
You've had the definition offered to you. The fact that you respond with "?" doesn't make the definition incomprehensible.




Well, these two sets of items are not really comparable. Electrons can be detected and defined. As far as I know, this is not true of "souls."


So, what you're really saying is that *as far as you know* the two sets of items are not really comparable. You haven't given a reason why, apart from personal incredulity (if the above were used in an attempt to establish the general incomprehensibility of the term, you are guilty of a logical fallacy).



I am curious to see if Christians can define the word "soul."

Are Christians somehow under a greater handicap than Merriam-Webster? Explain.




I want to know what Christians think that "souls" are made out of. I want to know how they think a "soul" can exist separated from a body.


If a Christian thinks that souls are made out of something immaterial (which should be true by definition) then we will inevitably have you complaining that we aren't *really* telling you what souls are made out of when in fact we have given you the answer in keeping with the definition. Seemingly you cannot conceive of an existent thing being non-material. I don't know how I can conquer your dissatisfaction with the definition of "soul" but I can tell you that you haven't based your dissatisfaction in reason.



Feel free to quote the Bible in order to define the word "soul" if you can. My only request is that you not bombard me with random citations of where the word "soul" is used in the Bible----unless, of course, these citations go some way towards explaining in a coherent and comprehensible way what a "soul" actually is.


Do the portions which refer to soul/spirit conflict with the definition(s) you have already been offered? Why should I bother persisting in an attempt to give you definitions when you've already got them?



As I mentioned before, I don't believe in an afterlife. I see that when people die, they don't go anywhere. They tend to remain immobile and decompose. I see no evidence that a person's consciousness can exist after death and I tend to believe that all religions that promise life after death are simply playing on people's desire for immortality.

:huh:
You "see" that they don't go anywhere? Didn't I already explain to you that the expectation that the whole entity (body & spirit) doesn't go anywhere at death, but that the one separates from the other? Please explain any perceived inconsistency within your observation that the body remains in your view while the immaterial portion (if such there is) goes elsewhere.



But you are free to show me I am wrong about this....


If you think that the fact that a body remains is inconsistent with the fact that the immaterial soul goes elsewhere at death, then you're wrong. Do I need to explain why?
;)

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>Seemingly you cannot conceive of an existent thing being non-material.

I cannot conceive of an "immaterial being" that represents a person's consciousness and personality. I am not ashamed to admit this. I don't know how one would discern such a thing from absolutely nothing.

>>So, what you're really saying is that *as far as you know* the two sets of items are not really comparable. You haven't given a reason why, apart from personal incredulity.

I am sorry-I thought I was clear. There don't appear to be comparable because we can detect and define electrons yet we are not able to do that with souls.

>>If you think that the fact that a body remains is inconsistent with the fact that the immaterial soul goes elsewhere at death, then you're wrong. Do I need to explain why?

No, I understand that Christians believe that some sort of invisible, "immaterial being" (?) that is completely undetectable leaves the body at death. I am still a little unclear on what, exactly, this is actually supposed to be though. I see zero evidence for the existence of such things. But hey, that's just me. Perhaps if I could learn what such things actually are, I could go about looking for evidence that they exist.

>>Your complaint is apparently that you can't make sense of the definition proffered for "soul". Unless you wish to offer a positive case against the coherence of the term, your inability to make sense of it is not any particular concern of mine,

I think the defintions that have been offered included the terms "immaterial entity" and "spirit" and "spirit being." These terms are not terribly helpful to me. Anyway, if you are unable to assist me in my quest for a coherent and comprehensible definition, that is fine. Perhaps some other Christian can be more helpful.

Cheers,

Hank

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:

I think the defintions that have been offered included the terms "immaterial entity" and "spirit" and "spirit being." These terms are not terribly helpful to me. Anyway, if you are unable to assist me in my quest for a coherent and comprehensible definition, that is fine. Perhaps some other Christian can be more helpful.


Hankbo,

I'll address your comments above as they deserve at a later time, perhaps, but your comment preserved above encapsulates your problem.

You imply that the definition is not coherent/not comprehensible.
Is it lost on you that the evidence for that alleged non-coherence/incomprehensibility rests solely on your opinion? You have given us no evidence to suppose that the proffered definitions aren't the paragon of coherence & comprehensibility--unless we are to suppose that if *you* don't find them satisfactory, then how could *anybody* find them satisfactory.

If you don't get around to either producing that evidence *or* curbing your unsupported intimations of incomprehensibility & the like, then you are providing me evidence that you are a troll. That, along with the fact that you've skipped over quite a few of my points to you.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimbo AKA Juan, Tim, Victor, Billy, Jimmy, Hank, Kyle (Anyone else see a multiple personality disorder emerging?) wrote:



we see that when people die they don't go much of anywhere, but instead these people lay there and decompose.

Eventually the individual atoms of these people are totally assimilated back into the environment, and spread hither and yon.


Jimbo here implies that there is something that unifies the individual atoms into something he refers to as "person, people". I have a question. What is this "person" that you speak of? All I see are individual atoms composed of individual protons, neutrons, and electrons. Why do you speak as though there is some immaterial "soul/person" that unifies the particular atoms?

Perhaps you could offer a comprehensible, coherent definition.

I'll await your response.

(Ah, reductios, you've got to love them!)

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>You imply that the definition is not coherent/not comprehensible. Is it lost on you that the evidence for that alleged non-coherence/incomprehensibility rests solely on your opinion?

I don't think it is just my opinion. I have looked into it, and I don't think anyone really understands the word. But then, I could also be wrong about this...

The big problem I have with the word "soul" is that the definitions given for the word contains terms that are themselves undefined. For example, the term "spirit," like the word "soul," is a mystery. So the term "spirit body" is incomprehensible. As far as the term "immaterial being" is concerned, it seems to be an oxymoron. The term "immaterial" functions as a negation of the term "being." To put it in simple terms, something cannot be nothing.

Because of this, I don't think that anyone who uses these terms in defining the word "soul" really knows what they are talking about. Are you going to tell me that you actually understand what these terms mean? If so, I would really enjoy it if you could try and somehow convey your understanding of the words to me.

>>If you don't get around to either producing that evidence *or* curbing your unsupported intimations of incomprehensibility & the like, then you are providing me evidence that you are a troll. That, along with the fact that you've skipped over quite a few of my points to you.

I am being quite honest when I tell you that I don't know what the word "soul" means. Of course, I don't think Christian do either. However, I am willing to be proved wrong. So far, you have not done this.

If I have skipped over any of your points, it is because 1) I thought they were related to other items I replied to, 2) I thought they were not directly related to the topic of this thread or 3) I didn't think they were particularly important.

My point in posting here is to focus on this one word and its definition. I don't have an interest in getting into a long, drawn out discussion about tangental issues that don't necessarily address the definition of the word "soul." However, if you think that I am not addressing an particulary important point, by all means bring it to my attention.

If you are not interested in working together with me to try and determine what this word actually means, or if it actually has any meaning, then perhaps someone else will stop in for a try.

Have a good one.

Gomez

[Captain Ochre]

Gomezbo,


jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

>>You imply that the definition is not coherent/not comprehensible. Is it lost on you that the evidence for that alleged non-coherence/incomprehensibility rests solely on your opinion?

I don't think it is just my opinion. I have looked into it, and I don't think anyone really understands the word. But then, I could also be wrong about this...


Hmmm. So, iyo, it's not just your opinion?
lmao.



The big problem I have with the word "soul" is that the definitions given for the word contains terms that are themselves undefined. For example, the term "spirit," like the word "soul," is a mystery. So the term "spirit body" is incomprehensible. As far as the term "immaterial being" is concerned, it seems to be an oxymoron. The term "immaterial" functions as a negation of the term "being." To put it in simple terms, something cannot be nothing.


I've been using "soul" and "spirit" interchangeably--I introduced the term "spirit" to steer you away from the term "soul" which in biblical usage more typically means "individual". You can take that usage as circular to a point, excepting that you've got more to go on than that (immaterial personality). So, your claim that the term is "incomprehensible" is incorrect, excepting as a representation of your personal opinion. We've already been *there*, of course.
Immaterial is not the negation of "being" but rather a negation of the term "material". When you identify "immaterial" with "nothingness" you simply identify yourself as a materialist/physicalist and reveal that your own pov restricts you from appreciating a different pov.



Because of this, I don't think that anyone who uses these terms in defining the word "soul" really knows what they are talking about. Are you going to tell me that you actually understand what these terms mean? If so, I would really enjoy it if you could try and somehow convey your understanding of the words to me.


Again, iyo. Thanks, Mister Logic.
I'll go further than that: Not only do *I* know what those terms mean, but *you* do as well. You're simply obstinate in jamming them into your own worldview perspective. When they don't fit your worldview perspective, you assume that the terms don't have any meaning. You wish to understand the terms?
1) Visit Merriam-Webster & look them up.
2) Take off your Materialist thinking cap for a minute or two.



>>If you don't get around to either producing that evidence *or* curbing your unsupported intimations of incomprehensibility & the like, then you are providing me evidence that you are a troll. That, along with the fact that you've skipped over quite a few of my points to you.


I am being quite honest when I tell you that I don't know what the word "soul" means. Of course, I don't think Christian do either. However, I am willing to be proved wrong. So far, you have not done this.


You haven't been "proved wrong" about what? Your personal opinion? Who cares?
You haven't made any sort of logical case that the terms aren't well understood by Christians or anybody else save for your own self. Your approach has been soft-pedaled shifting-the-burden-of-proof with a healthy dollop of argumentum ad ignorantiam ("if i don't know what it means then neither do you; prove me wrong").



If I have skipped over any of your points, it is because 1) I thought they were related to other items I replied to, 2) I thought they were not directly related to the topic of this thread or 3) I didn't think they were particularly important.


Fair enough. Simply explain to me, then, why I should regard it as important to prove that your opinion is wrong.



If you are not interested in working together with me to try and determine what this word actually means, or if it actually has any meaning, then perhaps someone else will stop in for a try.

Have a good one.

Gomez

I have, in fact, been working with you to help you determine what the word means. That really isn't your aim, however. Check what you write above. You aren't simply claiming not to know what the word means. You are asserting, without proof, that the word is generally incomprehensible and asking me (us) to prove you wrong. By doing so, you are setting aside the normal practice of logic (by shifting the burden of proof) and being disingenuous about it.
I've explained to you above how you can understand the word in two easy steps. If you cannot follow those steps, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are invincibly ignorant on this particular issue.
Cya.

[Dark Knight]

Aretha Franklin

[Sheepdog]

Did electrons exists, prior to mankind finding ways of detecting them?

was the Earth revolving around the sun even before mankind knew to abandon geocentricity?

if up quarks and down quarks were made out of even smaller sub-atomic particals, how would you know?

heck, do you believe that 1 + 1 = 2 exists? yet, there is no material existance of the concepts of ones, twos, and sums. (not to say a soul itself is only a concept, but rather there are "objects" that have no material existance. in philosophy, these are called "abstract objects" and "minds" -- abstract objects are immaterial concepts that do not interact with material objects {what we can perceive}. minds are like abstract objects in that they have no material existance, but do interact with material objects, via electical signals in the brain. a soul would be considered a mind.)

A distinction has to be made between what is, and what is perceived.

You seem to want to perceive a soul before believing, but when i think about it, we really don't perceive electrons, we see the evidence of them and conclude their existance. Christian theism proposes that the soul is the immaterial center of personality and consciousness. if Christian theism is granted true, then personality and consciousness are evidence of the soul.

[Sheepdog]

The big problem I have with the word "soul" is that the definitions given for the word contains terms that are themselves undefined.

ah, but every definition eventually reduces to undefined terms or concepts. for example, how would you define the term "red" without any visual aid? how would you define the taste of a banana?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Jimbo,
Did you see the above question by TheFiveSolas concerning the related meaning of the term "person?"

Similarly, the term "life" is often synonymous with "soul," particularly in Greek thought.

The common idea of "mind" should also not be overlooked.

Can you use these terms meaningfully, even though they do not necessarily cater to your (as yet unspecified) reductive materialistic epistemological demands?

In one sense, "soul" language can be taken as phenomenoloogical in that it describes appearances. Whether it also describes the actual components that constitute us from the standpoint of particular takes upon philosophical anthropology remains to be determined.

BTW, there are orthodox Christians who readily subscribe to mind/body physicalism, taking soul language as metaphorical accomodation to phenomena.

[Captain Ochre]

Good observations. It had occurred to me the other day that "soul-sleep" could be considered a strong nod to physicalism.

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>Hmmm. So, iyo, it's not just your opinion?
lmao.

That is what we are trying to determine I suppose. My theory is that people cannot conceptualize an "immaterial being." My theory is that the term "soul" does not make sense to you or anyone else.

>>When you identify "immaterial" with "nothingness" you simply identify yourself as a materialist/physicalist and reveal that your own pov restricts you from appreciating a different pov.

Okay. So what is a "soul" made out of if it is "immaterial"? If souls are not made out of anything, what does it mean to say that such things "exist"?

>>Again, iyo. Thanks, Mister Logic.
I'll go further than that: Not only do *I* know what those terms mean, but *you* do as well. You're simply obstinate in jamming them into your own worldview perspective. When they don't fit your worldview perspective, you assume that the terms don't have any meaning. You wish to understand the terms?
1) Visit Merriam-Webster & look them up.
2) Take off your Materialist thinking cap for a minute or two.

What is a "soul" made out of? If you can't tell me what it is made out of, then I would submit to you that you really don't know what a soul is. Realize that it is okay to say that it is a mystery and it is only something you will find out about when you die. I think that ultimately this is the only reasonable thing to say about the word.

>>You haven't been "proved wrong" about what? Your personal opinion? Who cares?

Apoarently you do. : )

>>You haven't made any sort of logical case that the terms aren't well understood by Christians or anybody else save for your own self.

What is a soul made out of? How can something "exist" if it is not made out of anything?

>>Your approach has been soft-pedaled shifting-the-burden-of-proof with a healthy dollop of argumentum ad ignorantiam ("if i don't know what it means then neither do you; prove me wrong").

Did I write that? You have that statement in quotes, but I don't think I wrote it.

Anyway, I don't think I am saying anything that is really that controversial.

>>Fair enough. Simply explain to me, then, why I should regard it as important to prove that your opinion is wrong.

I don't think the word "soul" has any referent in reality. I don't know if it is important for you or it is not important for you to convince me that such a thing does exist.

>>I have, in fact, been working with you to help you determine what the word means. That really isn't your aim, however. Check what you write above. You aren't simply claiming not to know what the word means. You are asserting, without proof, that the word is generally incomprehensible and asking me (us) to prove you wrong.

I honestly don't know what a "soul" or an "immaterial being" or a "spirit body" would be. I have no shame in admitting this. I don't think these terms make any sense. I think the following excerpt from Atheism: The Case Against God will explain why the term "immaterial being" is inherently incomprehensible:


b) The Christian God is commonly described as ''imma-
terial'' or ''incorporeal''; he is not composed of matter. Little
needs to be said concerning this characteristic, because it is
subject to the previous criticisms of negative theology. ''Imma-
terial'' tells us what God is not, that he is not composed of
matter, but it does not tell us what God is.

Moreover, the notion of an "immaterial being'' entails a
contradiction and cannot be expressed in positive terms. We
cannot imagine an ''immaterial being'' because the concept of
"matter'' is essential to our concept of "being.'' God, claims the
Christian, is a "being''-but he does not occupy space, he does
not have dimensions, and he cannot be perceived, measured or
detected in any way. And these qualifications render the concept of ''being'' vacuous.

The theologian may object here, pointing out that many
words-such as 'justice'' and ''consciousness''-do not signify
material objects. The referents of these and many other words
are immaterial, so why should the atheist complain when God is
also mid to be immaterial?

While it is true that 'justice'' and "consciousness'' do not designate material beings, the theist must remember that they do not refer to immaterial beings either. ''Justice'' is a moral abstraction derived from various aspects of man's nature and social interactions. "consciousness'' refers to the state of awareness exhibited by particular living organisms. ''Justice'' and "consciousness'' are not material entities, but they depend on matter for their existence. God, on the other hand, does not depend on matter in any way; he exists in his own right as an independent being. In this context, however, ''immaterial'' is slipped of meaning.

''Immaterial'' does not describe another kind of existence; it negates the concept of existence as we understand it. It is a mistake to suppose that all the theologian means by ''immaterial'' is that God is not composed of atoms, molecules, energy, and so on (although this is part of what he means). Translated into epistemological terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend. The basic objection to "immaterial'' is that it does nothing more than specify that man cannot understand God. To say that God is "nonmatter'' is to say that we can have no sensory experience of God and that we can never conceive of him. This characteristic, therefore, simply throws us into agnosticism.

>>By doing so, you are setting aside the normal practice of logic (by shifting the burden of proof) and being disingenuous about it.

Christians assert that people have souls. They are making the positive assertion--that souls exist. I am simply asking for a coherent and comprehensible definition of the word. I can't very well believe in something if I don't know what it is.

>>I've explained to you above how you can understand the word in two easy steps. If you cannot follow those steps, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are invincibly ignorant on this particular issue.

I went to the dictionary, and the pertinent entries were as follows:

The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

These definitions are not particulary helpful. When a soul is described as a "disembodied spirit " or an "immaterial entity" it really doesn't clarify what it actually is.

After everything is said and done, I don't think the word "soul" is anything more than a word.

Later,

Billy

[Sheepdog]

i have read some exerpts from Atheism: The Case Against God. a very good book to understand the position and arguments of a strong atheist-- however, he makes too many mistakes. for example, he classifies all that is into a dichotomy (material objects, abstract objects) when a trichotomy is more appropriate (material objects, minds, and abstract objects).

now in the light of this trichotomy, we see that the argument you quoted is in error, because human existance itself has an immaterial-bieng part to it-- the mind. the mind is not material, yet in philosophy it is what distinguishes us as beings. the material objects that don't possess minds (like desks, cars, certain Fundy Skeptics ;) ) cannot be classsified as beings, since they contain no cognative ability to reason.

heh, maybe i shoud drop by the philosophy room sometime :D

[jimbo]

Sheepdog,


now in the light of this trichotomy, we see that the argument you quoted is in error, because human existance itself has an immaterial-bieng part to it-- the mind. the mind is not material, yet in philosophy it is what distinguishes us as beings. the material objects that don't possess minds (like desks, cars, certain Fundy Skeptics ) cannot be classsified as beings, since they contain no cognative ability to reason.


I would say that the mind is the brain.

Jimbo

[Sozo]

jimbo:
Sheepdog,




I would say that the mind is the brain.

Jimbo

Does a spirit have a brain?

[Sheepdog]

jimbo:
I would say that the mind is the brain.


this would be a categorization error, as brain and mind are not the same thing, by definition. (though they are directly related).

think of a computer as an analogy to the human being. the brain of the CPU is the hardware, i.e. processor, bus, RAM, hard disk(s). however, the computer's mind is the operating system. without either hardware or software, a computer cannot function.

the hardware obviously has a physical existance; i can open up the casing to my CPU and physically touch the hard disk. this is not so with the operating system. the software on a CPU does not have a tangible material existance-- i cannot interact with Windows XP in the same way i physically interact with the hardware. Tachnically, software does sort of have a physical existance, but only as information on a disk. The more meaningful existance that we interact with is the conceptual existance. we communicate the OS what to do, and the OS either performs the task or informs us taht such a task is undoable. but, we don't communicate direclty to the OS, nor the OS to us: we communicate to the keyboard and mouse (A B Cs, and position & click), they translate our concepts into bits and bytes that the software understands. The OS in turn relays bits and bytes of information to the monitor (or speakers and perephirals as apropriate), where they are translated into some form of conceptual information we can understand.

for example, this dancing banana guy :yipee: does not have any real physical existance: there is no material banana that magically appears from the ether. what this banana is, is bits and bytes on your computer's cache, and about 50-100 pixels on your monitor screen in a certain patern: each pixel lit up by an electron stream to its respective color. your eyes relay this patern to your brain, and your mind pocesses the relayed information into the construct you perceive as a dancing banana. pretty cool, huh?

but since i tangented a little, back to the purpose of my analogy: your brain and your mind are interconnected "objects," one being material, the other being "conceptual" (for the lack of a better word). A brain can exist without a mind-- as evidence by the lifelessness of a rotting corpse. where we differ is that we Christians believe that the mind is actually a part of the soul, and the mind can exist apart from the brain, just like the number 2 exists even if there were no material existance to connect it too. i'd expect that you believe the mind can only exist in a living brain, but all this realy shows is we have conflicting philosophies; each with their conflicting presuppositions.

now, if you don't mind me hazarding a guess at the definition of a soul, in light of this:

soul
n.
an entity that exists in the category of "mind" in the material-abstract-mind trichotomy; a component of a being that transends the natural realm, yet interacts with it, which is the primary cause of reasoning and emotions in a material being. the soul is often considered separated into a unity of two subcomponents, (1) mind, which is considered the center of reasoning, and (2) "heart" (figurative definition, not literal), the center of emotion, affinity, and apathy. however, philosophies of the ancients often made no distinction between mind and heart, and considered them one entity.

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimbo,
I'm still waiting to see you respond to my reductio of your argument.
The fact that you haven't even even made an attempt is quite revealing.

[jimbo]

TheFiveSolas,


Jimbo here implies that there is something that unifies the individual atoms into something he refers to as "person, people". I have a question. What is this "person" that you speak of? All I see are individual atoms composed of individual protons, neutrons, and electrons. Why do you speak as though there is some immaterial "soul/person" that unifies the particular atoms?

Perhaps you could offer a comprehensible, coherent definition.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
TheFiveSolas,



The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Jimbo

Argument by cliche?:huh:

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimbo,
I should remind you that your view is strict materialism, thus the whole cannot be greater than its parts. So, either you are equivocating on the term "greater". Or, you are unable to speak about "people/persons" without implying an immaterial "essence" that unites/unifies the individual atoms.
Therefore, my reductio still stands. Your argument can't even get itself off the ground.

[jimbo]

TheFive Solas,

>>I should remind you that your view is strict materialism, thus the whole cannot be greater than its parts.

Sorry, that is not what I believe.

Do you have a coherent definition of the word "soul" or not?

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

>>Hmmm. So, iyo, it's not just your opinion?
lmao.

That is what we are trying to determine I suppose. My theory is that people cannot conceptualize an "immaterial being." My theory is that the term "soul" does not make sense to you or anyone else.


Thanks for earnestly getting to the point.



>>When you identify "immaterial" with "nothingness" you simply identify yourself as a materialist/physicalist and reveal that your own pov restricts you from appreciating a different pov.

Okay. So what is a "soul" made out of if it is "immaterial"? If souls are not made out of anything, what does it mean to say that such things "exist"?


Once again, you are working from a Materialist perspective. Nobody is saying that the soul is "not made out of anything" except for you. According to the definition you have been offered, the soul is simply immaterial; that is, not composed of matter. As has been noted elsewhere, your own thoughts are perhaps similarly composed. You could argue that your thoughts are "caused" by various interactions of chemicals in your brain or that like, but that tends to lead to the destruction of the notion of rationality (ala C. S. Lewis' _The Abolition of Man_).
In summary, "not composed of matter=>composed of nothing" is not a logical assumption except within, say, a Materialist framework. If you assume that souls do not exist a priori, then naturally you will force the conclusion that souls do not exist (fallacy of begging the question).

<removed secondhand quotation of me; it doesn't appear to affect the context of what Billbo wrote below, which I suppose means that Billbo didn't bother to address what I wrote>



What is a &quot;soul&quot; made out of? If you can't tell me what it is made out of, then I would submit to you that you really don't know what a soul is. Realize that it is okay to say that it is a mystery and it is only something you will find out about when you die. I think that ultimately this is the only reasonable thing to say about the word.


If I can't tell you what it is made out of, then you assume that I don't know what it *is*? Non-sequitur. Your only logical conclusion is that I don't know what the soul is made out of, which I freely admit. You're still dancing around the fact that you've been given an apparently coherent definition that you simply refuse to accept based on your worldview.



&gt;&gt;You haven't been &quot;proved wrong&quot; about what? Your personal opinion? Who cares?

Apoarently you do. : )


On the contrary, you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion regarding the incomprehensibility of the soul, insofar as you don't understand it. When you broadcast the opinion that others don't understand the soul based on your own ignorance, then it isn't your opinion that I care about, it is the logical fallacy that you publicly promulgate (you don't understand it, ergo others do not understand it) that I care about. Keep your opinion, if you don't mind having an opinion based on fallacy.



&gt;&gt;You haven't made any sort of logical case that the terms aren't well understood by Christians or anybody else save for your own self.

What is a soul made out of? How can something &quot;exist&quot; if it is not made out of anything?


You have quite the knack for not interacting with the persons who respond to your thread.
What is the soul made out of? I don't know, but apparently it's immaterial.
How can something exist if it's not made out of anything? Let's see if repetition aids your understanding: Immateriality doesn't mean non-existence. If you say that's what it means, then you must accept the burden of proof that goes along with that claim.
Your question should have been: "How can something exist if it is not material?"
I don't know. What do you suppose gravitational attraction is made of?



&gt;&gt;Your approach has been soft-pedaled shifting-the-burden-of-proof with a healthy dollop of argumentum ad ignorantiam (&quot;if i don't know what it means then neither do you; prove me wrong&quot;).

Did I write that? You have that statement in quotes, but I don't think I wrote it.


You didn't write it, the above was a condensed paraphrase spiced with wee bit of hyperbole. I can reconstruct essentially the same meaning out of your own words, if you happen to like lengthy posts.



Anyway, I don't think I am saying anything that is really that controversial.


Fallacies aren't controversial, per se. They are merely fallacies. Your approach is classic argumentum ad hominem, or argument from ignorance, just as presented in the paraphrase.



&gt;&gt;Fair enough. Simply explain to me, then, why I should regard it as important to prove that your opinion is wrong.

I don't think the word &quot;soul&quot; has any referent in reality. I don't know if it is important for you or it is not important for you to convince me that such a thing does exist.


Thanks for replying to that. Your opinion, per se, is inconsequential with regard to whether or not immaterial souls exist and whether or not the term is incomprehensible generally. I don't make it my responsibility to change your opinions, but I will answer your arguments, assertions, and questions as I'm able (and/or as they deserve).



&gt;&gt;I have, in fact, been working with you to help you determine what the word means. That really isn't your aim, however. Check what you write above. You aren't simply claiming not to know what the word means. You are asserting, without proof, that the word is generally incomprehensible and asking me (us) to prove you wrong.

[QUOTE]
I honestly don't know what a &quot;soul&quot; or an &quot;immaterial being&quot; or a &quot;spirit body&quot; would be. I have no shame in admitting this.


So far, so good. You realize that the above is simply your opinion? Irrelevant to argumentation concerning the issues?



I don't think these terms make any sense. I think the following excerpt from Atheism: The Case Against God will explain why the term &quot;immaterial being&quot; is inherently incomprehensible:


Well if you trust a guy (George H. Smith) that can so royally flub up the distinction between "is" and "ought" . . .

:bonk:

Sure, let's see what George has to say.



&gt;&gt;By doing so, you are setting aside the normal practice of logic (by shifting the burden of proof) and being disingenuous about it.

Christians assert that people have souls. They are making the positive assertion--that souls exist. I am simply asking for a coherent and comprehensible definition of the word. I can't very well believe in something if I don't know what it is.


In reverse order:
1) You know what a soul is. It is an immaterial person. You simply don't know what it's made of. People didn't know what the moon was made of 200 years ago, either.
2) If you are simply asking for a coherent and comprehensible definition of "soul" then you must not be claiming that the term is incomprehensible generally. Would you agree? Would you not also agree that you have been given definitions of "soul(/spirit"? Great! Now it's up to you to logically demonstrate that they are not comprehensible--unless by "incomprehensible" you simply mean that *you* don't get it. Recall that your opinion doesn't figure in the logical discussion of the issue.



&gt;&gt;I've explained to you above how you can understand the word in two easy steps. If you cannot follow those steps, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are invincibly ignorant on this particular issue.

I went to the dictionary, and the pertinent entries were as follows:

The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

These definitions are not particulary helpful. When a soul is described as a &quot;disembodied spirit &quot; or an &quot;immaterial entity&quot; it really doesn't clarify what it actually is.


You seem to vacillate between what something *is* and what it is made of. We don't know what it's made of. You claimed that the definitions are incomprehensible. Do you find the definition you quoted above incomprehensible, or simply "not particularly helpful". Those are two different ideas, afaics. What kind of help did you want, anyway?
:)




After everything is said and done, I don't think the word &quot;soul&quot; is anything more than a word.


Argument by tautology?
;)

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
TheFive Solas,

&gt;&gt;I should remind you that your view is strict materialism, thus the whole cannot be greater than its parts.

Sorry, that is not what I believe.

Do you have a coherent definition of the word &quot;soul&quot; or not?

Jimbo

I don't understand how something can be greater than the sum of its parts without something immaterial existing.

Could you explain to us (in a coherent and non-contradictory way) how something could be greater than the sum of its parts without something immaterial existing?

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimbo,
Of course your view is strict materialism which is why you insist on asking what the "stuff" is that a soul consists of (i.e., made of). Its also the reason why you deny the existence (or coherence) of immaterial entities, etc.

You've asked what a "soul" is. I thought you would get at our definition from my reductio of your argument. Namely, a soul is that which unifies the individual atoms into a "person" or "people".

Since you asserted that something MORE than the individual atoms exists (i.e., a person or people) I once again challenge you to give a rational account of how such a thing can exist (and what it is made of) given your reductionistic (and materialistic) approach.

On a side note, you've implied that something that is immaterial cannot be differentiated from "nothing at all". I would like to ask, given your assertion, are the laws of logic material or immaterial? Are numbers material or immaterial? Is the information carried by the material particles that make up the dots on your screen material or immaterial? NOTE: Information, though carried (impressed) upon matter, is NOT the same as matter. If your answer is that they are material I will counter by asking you for their chemical makeup. If your answer is that they are immaterial I will ask how you know they aren't "nothing at all" (i.e., non-existent).

You are on the horns of a dilemma that I am sure, given your underlying presuppositions, you can't recover from.

These types of questions show how your worldview cannot rationally account for some of the things that you take for granted. As I stated earlier, until you can provide a rational account for claiming (without equivocating) that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts you can't even get your argument off the ground.

On the other hand, Christians have rational grounds for asserting (and believing) there is something "more/greater" than the sum of our parts (atoms) AND that this something cannot be described fully in physical terms. We also have rational grounds for asserting that immaterial (non-physical) objects/entities exist and are real (such as numbers, laws of logic, love, etc.)

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre and TheFiveSolas,

>>You are on the horns of a dilemma that I am sure, given your underlying presuppositions, you can't recover from.

I don't know what you are talking about. I have not yet seen a coherent definition for the word soul, except for assorted variations of "spirit," "spirit body," immaterial entity," etc. I would submit to you that when Christians and other religious believers use these terms, the have not idea of what they are talking about.

>>On a side note, you've implied that something that is immaterial cannot be differentiated from "nothing at all". I would like to ask, given your assertion, are the laws of logic material or immaterial?

You are creating a fallacy by comparing concepts with objects. Concepts can exist in people's minds without any referent in reality.

>>On the other hand, Christians have rational grounds for asserting (and believing) there is something "more/greater" than the sum of our parts (atoms) AND that this something cannot be described fully in physical terms.

Well, I believe that human beings are greater than the sum of their parts, but that does not mean I believe in a soul.

I will post more in the next few days...

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre and TheFiveSolas,

&gt;&gt;You are on the horns of a dilemma that I am sure, given your underlying presuppositions, you can't recover from.

I don't know what you are talking about.


Not surprisingly, that doesn't save you from the horns of dilemma.



I have not yet seen a coherent definition for the word soul, except for assorted variations of &quot;spirit,&quot; &quot;spirit body,&quot; immaterial entity,&quot; etc. I would submit to you that when Christians and other religious believers use these terms, the have not idea of what they are talking about.


Well, you've seen definitions, thus it is up to you to demonstrate that they are not coherent--and I haven't seen you demonstrate anything of the kind. Ball still in your court.
If you wish to say that you simply don't understand, then that's fine. When you assert that others don't understand based on your own lack of understanding, then that's a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance). If you wish us to believe that the definitions are incoherent, then you need to provide some evidence of that supposed incoherence. Fair enough? Ready when you are.



&gt;&gt;On a side note, you've implied that something that is immaterial cannot be differentiated from &quot;nothing at all&quot;. I would like to ask, given your assertion, are the laws of logic material or immaterial?

You are creating a fallacy by comparing concepts with objects. Concepts can exist in people's minds without any referent in reality.


Well, here you seem to be conflating the concepts of "real" and "incoherent" with respect to your claim. Are "souls" incoherent because they don't exist in reality? Then, the same could be said of concepts sans "real" referrent (minds, logic, and numbers, for example). If "soul" is incoherent it is for you to make that demonstration.
Still missing, last I checked.



&gt;&gt;On the other hand, Christians have rational grounds for asserting (and believing) there is something &quot;more/greater&quot; than the sum of our parts (atoms) AND that this something cannot be described fully in physical terms.

Well, I believe that human beings are greater than the sum of their parts, but that does not mean I believe in a soul.


No, it simply means that you have implicitly abandoned the most obvious avenue that you might have used to argue that a non-material thing cannot exist in reality.



I will post more in the next few days...

Jimbo

Looking forward to it.

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>I don't understand how something can be greater than the sum of its parts without something immaterial existing.

What do you mean by "immaterial"? That is a negative word. What does that actually refer to?

>>Could you explain to us (in a coherent and non-contradictory way) how something could be greater than the sum of its parts without something immaterial existing?

I think that a computer, for example, is much more valuable than the metal, plastic and silicon that it is constructed from. That is what I meant when I said the sum is greater than the parts.

I will reiterate that the problem with describing a "soul" as an "immaterial entity" is that this only tell us what a "soul" is not. It does not inform us what a "soul" actually is.

The term "soul" remains a mystery.

Later,

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

&gt;&gt;I don't understand how something can be greater than the sum of its parts without something immaterial existing.

What do you mean by &quot;immaterial&quot;? That is a negative word. What does that actually refer to?


Oh, sorry--didn't mean to confuse you with my incautious use of the term "immaterial". Allow me to rephrase:
When you say that something is more than the sum of its parts, what do you mean?
If the "more" isn't one of the parts, then what is it?



&gt;&gt;Could you explain to us (in a coherent and non-contradictory way) how something could be greater than the sum of its parts without something immaterial existing?

I think that a computer, for example, is much more valuable than the metal, plastic and silicon that it is constructed from. That is what I meant when I said the sum is greater than the parts.


What is "value"? Does "value" exist in reality? Could you explain "value" in non-contradictory terms for us? Why do you conflate "parts" with raw materials? The "parts" of a computer are frequently priced higher than the sum of the parts, in my experience.
:bonk:




I will reiterate that the problem with describing a &quot;soul&quot; as an &quot;immaterial entity&quot; is that this only tell us what a &quot;soul&quot; is not. It does not inform us what a &quot;soul&quot; actually is.


I thought that you claimed that the problem was that the term was incomprehensible.
Make up your mind.



The term &quot;soul&quot; remains a mystery.


More so than the term "valuable"?
:)

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>When you say that something is more than the sum of its parts, what do you mean?

We can take the component parts that make up a computer and throw them in a pile, and this would not qualify as a computer. We could fill a beaker with the metal, silicon and plastic that go into a computer and this would not be a computer. In other words, a functioning computer is more than the sum of it parts. A human being is made up mostly of water, but human beings are not just bags of water but are living, breathing, conscious beings.

Now, Christians and other religious believers say that human conciousness and personality can exist separately from the body as the "soul," but they don't explain what the "soul" actually is. I strongly suspect that this is because they don't know what they are talking about.

If the only definition that you can give me for "soul" is "immaterial body," "spirit body," and "immaterial being," etc., then I would suggest, again, that you don't know what you are talking about.

If you want to say that the "soul" is supernatural, that is fine. In that case, we should just agree that no one can say what it is. In the end, I think that is the only reasonable thing to say.

So is the "soul" supernatural?

>>What is "value"? Does "value" exist in reality? Could you explain "value" in non-contradictory terms for us?

It is a concept rather than object so this is an inappropriate comparison. Apparently you did not read the quote I provided earlier. Here it is again-simply replace the word "God" with the word 'soul":


Moreover, the notion of an "immaterial being'' entails a
contradiction and cannot be expressed in positive terms. We
cannot imagine an ''immaterial being'' because the concept of
"matter'' is essential to our concept of "being.'' God, claims the
Christian, is a "being''-but he does not occupy space, he does
not have dimensions, and he cannot be perceived, measured or
detected in any way. And these qualifications render the concept of ''being'' vacuous.

The theologian may object here, pointing out that many
words-such as 'justice'' and ''consciousness''-do not signify
material objects. The referents of these and many other words
are immaterial, so why should the atheist complain when God is
also mid to be immaterial?

While it is true that 'justice'' and "consciousness'' do not designate material beings, the theist must remember that they do not refer to immaterial beings either. ''Justice'' is a moral abstraction derived from various aspects of man's nature and social interactions. "consciousness'' refers to the state of awareness exhibited by particular living organisms. ''Justice'' and "consciousness'' are not material entities, but they depend on matter for their existence. God, on the other hand, does not depend on matter in any way; he exists in his own right as an independent being. In this context, however, ''immaterial'' is slipped of meaning.

''Immaterial'' does not describe another kind of existence; it negates the concept of existence as we understand it. It is a mistake to suppose that all the theologian means by ''immaterial'' is that God is not composed of atoms, molecules, energy, and so on (although this is part of what he means). Translated into epistemological terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend. The basic objection to "immaterial'' is that it does nothing more than specify that man cannot understand God. To say that God is "nonmatter'' is to say that we can have no sensory experience of God and that we can never conceive of him. This characteristic, therefore, simply throws us into agnosticism.

Oh yeah--here is a definition of the word "value."


VALUE:

An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.

Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.

A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility” (Jonathan Alter).
Precise meaning or import, as of a word.

Mathematics. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.
Music. The relative duration of a tone or rest.

The relative darkness or lightness of a color. See table at color.

If I missed any pertinent point, let me know.

Later,

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

Hey, Jimbo, in the midst of your reply to selected portions of my post to you, you completely neglected to provide any hint whatsoever of support for the claim you keep repeating in the subject bar.

I'll be offline for a time, but I'll deal with the side-issues that you decided to concentrate on when I return. Meantime, consider supporting the claim that you keep repeated as an assertion (fallacy of argument by assertion).

:cheers:

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>Hey, Jimbo, in the midst of your reply to selected portions of my post to you, you completely neglected to provide any hint whatsoever of support for the claim you keep repeating in the subject bar.

"Immaterial entity" or "immaterial body" or "spiritual body" or "spirital entity" are not comprehensible defintions for the word "soul." Did you provide some other definition besides these? If so, I please cut and paste them here.

Thanks.

Jimbo

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Again, soul language is phenomenological; there is no need to insist upon "immateriality." When we speak of "life," "mind," or "person," we need not assume immateriality. If these other terms are intelligible, being in some wise synonyms for "soul," then "soul" itself is just as intelligible. Both in contemporary language and in Greek etymology, these terms are subject to conceptual interchange. No materialist (or anyone else, for that matter) has cause to puzzle overmuch about the meaning of "soul."

The snag seems to be the insistence upon immateriality, but the material/immaterial distinction itself is both archaic and phenomenological. We find the same situation when we consider the meaning of the word "spirit," which also meant "breath," and became a metaphor for "life" because of the obvious association between having one's lungs exchange gases and being alive. "Spirit," too, has become phenomenologically associated with "immateriality," yet, we all have come to realize that the gases we inhale and exhale are indeed material. But this needn't discredit the metaphorical or phenomenological meaning of either "soul" or "spirit." We all understand what is demonstrably meant when we speak of souls, minds, selves, lives, etc, whether such entities are thought to be composed of matter or energy. No materialist seems to blanch over the matter/energy distinction---relation, and really, a whole series of comparable binary oppositions are upon the lips of materialists, naturalists, and supernaturalists alike----oppositions such as Matter/energy, body/mind, brain/mind, matter/spirit, dead/alive, etc, etc.

[Captain Ochre]

pereynol:
The snag seems to be the insistence upon immateriality, but the material/immaterial distinction itself is both archaic and phenomenological.

Maybe it's archaic and maybe it's phenomenological, but I think we'll find that Jimbo is gunning for a snag no matter what answer he receives.

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

&gt;&gt;Hey, Jimbo, in the midst of your reply to selected portions of my post to you, you completely neglected to provide any hint whatsoever of support for the claim you keep repeating in the subject bar.

&quot;Immaterial entity&quot; or &quot;immaterial body&quot; or &quot;spiritual body&quot; or &quot;spirital entity&quot; are not comprehensible defintions for the word &quot;soul.&quot;


Why not? Did you somehow miss Mr. Till's rant regarding argument by assertion? It has been pointed out to you that you haven't presented any argument in favor of your assertion, yet you keep incorrectly maintaining that you have 1) not seen any definition for &quot;soul&quot; and 2) kept employing the fallacious argument by assertion regarding the supposed incomprehensibility of the term.
Do you seriously not understand that your position cannot be taken seriously, as it stands?



Did you provide some other definition besides these? If so, I please cut and paste them here.


Bear your burden of proof for showing any of the definitions as literally incomprehensible (not just personally, to you), and I'll take that under consideration.
:bonk:

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

&gt;&gt;When you say that something is more than the sum of its parts, what do you mean?

We can take the component parts that make up a computer and throw them in a pile, and this would not qualify as a computer.


I assume you mean you're disconnecting and perhaps breaking things, because a computer in a pile is still a computer.



We could fill a beaker with the metal, silicon and plastic that go into a computer and this would not be a computer. In other words, a functioning computer is more than the sum of it parts. A human being is made up mostly of water, but human beings are not just bags of water but are living, breathing, conscious beings.


Living? What does that mean? Could you provide a coherent & comprehensible definition of "living"?
"Conscious"? What's that? Could you provide a coherent & comprehensible definition of "conscious"? I've never seen a materialist give a coherent definition of "conscious".



Now, Christians and other religious believers say that human conciousness and personality can exist separately from the body as the &quot;soul,&quot; but they don't explain what the &quot;soul&quot; actually is. I strongly suspect that this is because they don't know what they are talking about.


That's nice. I strongly suspect that you have a taxidermized Portugese Man-o-War attached to the end of your nose. Neither suspicion advances any sort of argument, does it?



If the only definition that you can give me for &quot;soul&quot; is &quot;immaterial body,&quot; &quot;spirit body,&quot; and &quot;immaterial being,&quot; etc., then I would suggest, again, that you don't know what you are talking about.


And why would you suggest that, given that you have produced no argumentation, deductive or otherwise, in support of that assertion?



If you want to say that the &quot;soul&quot; is supernatural, that is fine. In that case, we should just agree that no one can say what it is. In the end, I think that is the only reasonable thing to say.


Ah? Hmmm? What exactly did you do to rule out all other truth-claims regarding "soul" save for the one that you're advancing (that no one can say what a soul is)?
If you relegate that latest blurtation to a mere statement of your own opinion, we can certainly overlook the fact that it has terrific potential as a self-stultifying argument.



So is the &quot;soul&quot; supernatural?


Supernatural? What's that? Could you offer a coherent & comprehensible definition of "supernatural"? Isn't that just Materialismese for "nonexistent"?



&gt;&gt;What is &quot;value&quot;? Does &quot;value&quot; exist in reality? Could you explain &quot;value&quot; in non-contradictory terms for us?

It is a concept rather than object so this is an inappropriate comparison.


If a "computer" is more than its constituent parts, then the part that is more than the consituents is a concept, also.



Apparently you did not read the quote I provided earlier. Here it is again-simply replace the word &quot;God&quot; with the word 'soul&quot;:


I did miss the quotation earlier, since I read & responded through the reply mechanism--which did not include the text. However, I've read the book it came from, and Smith can't back up his claims. I'll deal with that passage in a subsequent post; probably by tomorrow.






Oh yeah--here is a definition of the word &quot;value.&quot;


None of those definitions tell us what the greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts portion of the computer is.



If I missed any pertinent point, let me know.


Well, I think I've already mentioned this a number of times, but you haven't supported your assertion that "soul" hasn't been defined for you (your continual refusal to come to grips with that fact is astounding).
After I'm done with Mr. Smith, I'll remind you again that you haven't supported your assertion that any of the definitions is incomprehensible.

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>Living? What does that mean? Could you provide a coherent & comprehensible definition of "living"? "Conscious"? What's that? Could you provide a coherent & comprehensible definition of "conscious"? I've never seen a materialist give a coherent definition of "conscious".


Conscious:

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.

Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.

Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.

Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.

Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

You can look in a dictionary just as well as I can to find clear and understandable definitions for those words, which we are all familar with. My point, here, is that the term "soul" is not something we can conceive of or conceptualize. We have no direct experience with it. It is just a word. That is not true of any of the terms above.

>>Well, I think I've already mentioned this a number of times, but you haven't supported your assertion that "soul" hasn't been defined for you (your continual refusal to come to grips with that fact is astounding). After I'm done with Mr. Smith, I'll remind you again that you haven't supported your assertion that any of the definitions is incomprehensible.

The definitions or synonyms for the word "soul" that I have gotten from you and others are "immaterial entity," "spirit body" "spiritual body" etc. I am sorry, but I don't see how those terms make any kind of sense. For example, what is a "spirit"? Are you actually going to tell me that you know what this is? Yes?

Jimbo said: Now, Christians and other religious believers say that human conciousness and personality can exist separately from the body as the "soul," but they don't explain what the "soul" actually is. I strongly suspect that this is because they don't know what they are talking about.

>>That's nice. I strongly suspect that you have a taxidermized Portugese Man-o-War attached to the end of your nose. Neither suspicion advances any sort of argument, does it?

The only problem here is that you still have not provided an understandable definition of the word "soul." That's the whole problem.

Jimbo said: ...I would suggest, again, that you don't know what you are talking about.

>>And why would you suggest that, given that you have produced no argumentation, deductive or otherwise, in support of that assertion?

"Immaterial being" is not a comprehensible definition. This is a simple statement of fact.

>>If a "computer" is more than its constituent parts, then the part that is more than the consituents is a concept, also.

Fill a beaker with sand, metal particles and plastic beads in amounts equivalent to what would make up a computer. Set it beside an actual computer. Now, is the beaker of sand, metal and plastic particles directly equivalent to the actual computer? Yes or no? Which has more value? Which item would fetch more money if it was sold in a store?

Now, do you understand how the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, or do you need more information to help you understand this concept?

Earlier you wrote this:

>>>>I don't understand how something can be greater than the sum of its parts without something immaterial existing.

Really? Is there anything immaterial about a computer?

>>Supernatural? What's that? Could you offer a coherent & comprehensible definition of "supernatural"? Isn't that just Materialismese for "nonexistent"?

Here is the dictionary definition. Of course, I don't know that anything exists beyond the natural world. Nor, really, does anyone else.




Supernatural:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

Of or relating to a deity.

Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

Of or relating to the miraculous.



Later,


Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

&gt;&gt;Living? What does that mean? Could you provide a coherent &amp; comprehensible definition of &quot;living&quot;? &quot;Conscious&quot;? What's that? Could you provide a coherent &amp; comprehensible definition of &quot;conscious&quot;? I've never seen a materialist give a coherent definition of &quot;conscious&quot;.



You can look in a dictionary just as well as I can to find clear and understandable definitions for those words, which we are all familar with.


Jimbo,
Oh? And you couldn't do that with the definitions proffered for "soul"?
lol
What's "awareness" to a materialist? Put some "awareness" in a test tube for me, would you?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialist
Seemingly, words are well understood when you claim to understand them, and not well understood when you claim not to understand them. IMO, invincible ignorance makes a poor defense against reduction to absurdity.



My point, here, is that the term &quot;soul&quot; is not something we can conceive of or conceptualize. We have no direct experience with it. It is just a word. That is not true of any of the terms above.


If we cannot conceive of "soul"/"spirit", then I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion for how they came to be words in the first place. If it were just a collection of letters, like "uqwbtrpppv" that never appears in context, then you could say that. The very fact that it appears in context with some frequency falsifies your claim. Do we have direct experience with the center of the Earth? Is the center of the Earth incomprehensible as a result?

I'll pick up the rest of your post later, since I still owe you a treatment of the George H. Smith nonsense.

[Captain Ochre]

Jimbo quoted Smith, from _Atheism: The Case Against God_ and gave us no page numbers, iirc. All of the quotations used below were provided by Jimbo, quoting Smith.


b) The Christian God is commonly described as ''imma-
terial'' or ''incorporeal''; he is not composed of matter. Little
needs to be said concerning this characteristic, because it is
subject to the previous criticisms of negative theology. ''Imma-
terial'' tells us what God is not, that he is not composed of
matter, but it does not tell us what God is.

“Atheist” (lack of belief in a god or gods, as many like to spin it) tells us what atheists are not, but it does not tell us what atheists are. That is all that needs to be said concerning this characteristic?



Moreover, the notion of an "immaterial being'' entails a
contradiction and cannot be expressed in positive terms.

This statement of Smith’s is easily falsified. Those existent things which are not composed of matter will henceforth be referred to by the “positive” term “niktiwawa”. Next, we’ll hear that “black” isn’t a coherent term.


We
cannot imagine an ''immaterial being'' because the concept of
"matter'' is essential to our concept of "being.''

Here, Smith engages in argument by assertion, a fallacy that Mr. Till has a particular antipathy for, as I understand it. Now, granted I have separated the claim from its context, but there isn’t anything in the nearby context that supports the claim. It remains a fallacy unless Smith ends up supporting it somehow, somewhere.


God, claims the
Christian, is a "being''-but he does not occupy space, he does
not have dimensions, and he cannot be perceived, measured or
detected in any way. And these qualifications render the concept of ''being'' vacuous.

The above description of god is nothing less than a straw man, afaics. What “space” is god said not to occupy? Christian theologians teach that the creation is not the abode of God, yet theophanies occupy space & have apparent dimensionality. I have also heard of god being referred to as extra-dimensional, which is hardly synonymous with having no dimensions whatsoever. It simply recognizes the possibility of dimensions beyond those we had recently identified (up to the fourth). A theophany or miracle would seem to qualify for a detection of God right up there with detecting the gravity of a black hole.



The theologian may object here, pointing out that many
words-such as 'justice'' and ''consciousness''-do not signify
material objects. The referents of these and many other words
are immaterial, so why should the atheist complain when God is
also mid [sic] to be immaterial?

While it is true that 'justice'' and "consciousness'' do not designate material beings, the theist must remember that they do not refer to immaterial beings either.

The terms are orthogonal to composition. Smith’s current tack appears irrelevant, but we’ll see …


''Justice'' is a moral abstraction derived from various aspects of man's nature and social interactions. "consciousness'' refers to the state of awareness exhibited by particular living organisms. ''Justice'' and "consciousness'' are not material entities, but they depend on matter for their existence.

Smith goes on a question-begging tear above. How does he know that justice derives from man’s nature & not god’s nature? No need for evidence! Simply assert your opinion and hope that it is taken as fact. “Justice” and “consciousness” depend on matter for their existence? When did Smith rule out matter being dependent on non-material entities for its existence, and the non-material entities had “justice” and “consciousness” matter or not? You guessed it: He assumes this to be true a priori, thus begging the question.


God, on the other hand, does not depend on matter in any way; he exists in his own right as an independent being. In this context, however, ''immaterial'' is slipped of meaning.

''Immaterial'' does not describe another kind of existence; it negates the concept of existence as we understand it.

At last, Smith musters an argument in favor of his thesis that immateriality is incoherent. Unfortunately, he simply provides Jimbo with a flawed pattern to follow: Arguing in a circle. How do “we” understand existence? Things that exist are material (Materialism). Things that are not material don’t exist (again, Materialism).


It is a mistake to suppose that all the theologian means by ''immaterial'' is that God is not composed of atoms, molecules, energy, and so on (although this is part of what he means). Translated into epistemological terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend.

George’s best attempt yet to support his claims! Unfortunately for George, his attempt is easily torpedoed by counterexample. I have no doubt that a wakeful George H. Smith would affirm that he is able to know that he is conscious. Yet, his subjective impression is the only evidence he can come up with to make “conscious” coherent with respect to other entities. George can “know” that he is conscious, but with respect to everybody else on the planet (people, animals, rocks, oceans), he’s just guessing based on his own subjective experience. If a man could conceive of a rock having consciousness, then why couldn’t an “immaterial” being possess concsiousness (unless one were assuming the conclusion that “immaterial”=nonexistent)?


The basic objection to "immaterial'' is that it does nothing more than specify that man cannot understand God.

That is to say, it’s not a reasonable objection at all, since understanding that we cannot understand God is, in fact, a particular understanding about God. If Smith runs to the idea of exhaustively understanding God and the impossibility of doing so, then we invite him to confront Godel on the issue of the comprehensibility of the universe itself.


To say that God is "nonmatter'' is to say that we can have no sensory experience of God and that we can never conceive of him. This characteristic, therefore, simply throws us into agnosticism.

Well, it would throw us into agnosticism, if it weren’t for 1) the theological notion that we are spirit beings in a real sense ourselves and 2) an omniscient being might show greater ingenuity with respect to revelation that Mr. Smith is able to do.

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

There are several problems with your comments about the George H. Smith excerpt. For example, you compare the term "immaterial" to "atheist," saying that:


“Atheist” (lack of belief in a god or gods, as many like to spin it) tells us what atheists are not, but it does not tell us what atheists are. That is all that needs to be said concerning this characteristic?

This is a bad analogy. We can understand what atheists are-they are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack a certain belief. If I described you as an asantaist, we could understand that you were a person who lacked a belief in Santa Claus. We can conceptualize this. However, we cannot understand or conceptualize what an 'immaterial being" is at its most basic level. Again, describing something as "immaterial" tells us only what it is not. It does not tell us what it is--and that really is the problem here.


This statement of Smith’s is easily falsified. Those existent things which are not composed of matter will henceforth be referred to by the “positive” term “niktiwawa”. Next, we’ll hear that “black” isn’t a coherent term.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but I can show you what "black" is in the real world. Therefore if you are trying to make a comparison between the word "black" and the word "soul" then your analogy is false.


SMITH: We cannot imagine an ''immaterial being'' because the concept of "matter'' is essential to our concept of "being.''

Here, Smith engages in argument by assertion, a fallacy that Mr. Till has a particular antipathy for, as I understand it. Now, granted I have separated the claim from its context, but there isn’t anything in the nearby context that supports the claim. It remains a fallacy unless Smith ends up supporting it somehow, somewhere.

It is a simple statement of fact. If you don't understand why it is true, then try to conceptualize and explain what an "immaterial being" is. So far you have been unable to explain this term.


SMITH: God, claims the
Christian, is a "being''-but he does not occupy space, he does
not have dimensions, and he cannot be perceived, measured or
detected in any way. And these qualifications render the concept of ''being'' vacuous.

The above description of god is nothing less than a straw man, afaics. What “space” is god said not to occupy?...

That is the point-since God is described as an "immaterial being," "he" does not occupy space. No one really understands what this is supposed to mean.


Christian theologians teach that the creation is not the abode of God, yet theophanies occupy space & have apparent dimensionality. I have also heard of god being referred to as extra-dimensional, which is hardly synonymous with having no dimensions whatsoever.

Can you actually understand what this is supposed to mean? Do you really think that people who say this kind of stuff actually have a solid basis for making their claims and truly understand what they are saying? I mean how can an "immaterial being" be "extra dimensional"? Do you want to try and explain this concept to me?

I am not trying to be rude, I am just trying to get you to see that these terms ultimately make no sense.


It simply recognizes the possibility of dimensions beyond those we had recently identified (up to the fourth). A theophany or miracle would seem to qualify for a detection of God right up there with detecting the gravity of a black hole.

But saying that an "immaterial being" is "extra-dimensional" is not really getting us any closer to understanding what this being is.


Smith goes on a question-begging tear above. How does he know that justice derives from man’s nature & not god’s nature? No need for evidence!

Smith states what is obvious to anyone who is familar with the development of human society and culture. Typically historians and sociologists don't invoke dieties to explain human culture or behavior. The claim that notions of justice derive from some invisible, undetectable deity is simply an unsupported assertion. But we are getting way off topic here...


At last, Smith musters an argument in favor of his thesis that immateriality is incoherent. Unfortunately, he simply provides Jimbo with a flawed pattern to follow: Arguing in a circle. How do “we” understand existence? Things that exist are material (Materialism). Things that are not material don’t exist (again, Materialism).

The problem is the term "immaterial being." What does this mean? We understand what a material being such as a human or a dog is, but we cannot conceive of an "immaterial being." We have no referent for this in reality.

if you cannot come up with a better definition for "soul" than the term "immaterial being" then what more is there to say on the topic?


Smith It is a mistake to suppose that all the theologian means by ''immaterial'' is that God is not composed of atoms, molecules, energy, and so on (although this is part of what he means). Translated into epistemological terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend.

George’s best attempt yet to support his claims! Unfortunately for George, his attempt is easily torpedoed by counterexample. I have no doubt that a wakeful George H. Smith would affirm that he is able to know that he is conscious. Yet, his subjective impression is the only evidence he can come up with to make “conscious” coherent with respect to other entities. George can “know” that he is conscious, but with respect to everybody else on the planet (people, animals, rocks, oceans), he’s just guessing based on his own subjective experience. If a man could conceive of a rock having consciousness, then why couldn’t an “immaterial” being possess concsiousness (unless one were assuming the conclusion that “immaterial”=nonexistent)?

Since we cannot conceive of an "immaterial being" in the first place, it is pointless to talk about such a thing having consciousness.


Well, it would throw us into agnosticism, if it weren’t for 1) the theological notion that we are spirit beings in a real sense ourselves and 2) an omniscient being might show greater ingenuity with respect to revelation that Mr. Smith is able to do.

What is this "spirit being" you refer to? Can you conceive of what this is and explain it to me?

You mentioned that I did not provide the page number for the George H. Smith quote. I am sorry about that-the quote is taken from page 67 of the book Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York 1979. The book if available from Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087975124X/103-6081775-8941417?vi=glance


Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

There are several problems with your comments about the George H. Smith excerpt.


Well, I can hardly wait to hear you tell it.



For example, you compare the term &quot;immaterial&quot; to &quot;atheist,&quot; saying that:



This is a bad analogy. We can understand what atheists are-they are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack a certain belief.


Hmmm? So why is it a bad analogy? Spirits are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack material bodies.



If I described you as an asantaist, we could understand that you were a person who lacked a belief in Santa Claus. We can conceptualize this. However, we cannot understand or conceptualize what an 'immaterial being&quot; is at its most basic level. Again, describing something as &quot;immaterial&quot; tells us only what it is not. It does not tell us what it is--and that really is the problem here.


Your claim that "we cannot understand or conceptualize" what an immaterial being is remains argument by assertion, a fallacy.
That is the problem here; that you keep arguing fallaciously.



I don't know what you are trying to say here, but I can show you what &quot;black&quot; is in the real world.


Do it, Batman.



Therefore if you are trying to make a comparison between the word &quot;black&quot; and the word &quot;soul&quot; then your analogy is false.


Is that before or after you show me "black"?



It is a simple statement of fact. If you don't understand why it is true, then try to conceptualize and explain what an &quot;immaterial being&quot; is. So far you have been unable to explain this term.


You have failed to show that it needs explanation to anybody apart from yourself (argument from ignorance), and you have persisted in that strategy after it has been pointed out to you clearly a number of times (invincible ignorance). Fallacy, fallacy.



That is the point-since God is described as an &quot;immaterial being,&quot; &quot;he&quot; does not occupy space. No one really understands what this is supposed to mean.


Where do you get "immaterial"="does not occupy space"? Reference, please? I don't recall seeing it in any of the definitions offered in this forum.
And again, speak for yourself. If you don't know what it's supposed to mean then feel free to admit it. Don't needlessly multiply your application of fallacy by generalizing your ignorance onto every other person without justification.



Can you actually understand what this is supposed to mean?


Sure, just as much as I understand that "atheists" lack a belief in a god or gods despite the fact that this is supposedly a negative description that tells us nothing about what an atheist *is*.



Do you really think that people who say this kind of stuff actually have a solid basis for making their claims and truly understand what they are saying?


Yes. Do you have any rational reason for concluding that people don't understand what they are saying (assuming we're agreed that argument from personal incredulity does not stand up as a rational argument)?



I mean how can an &quot;immaterial being&quot; be &quot;extra dimensional&quot;? Do you want to try and explain this concept to me?


You're the one asserting that the concept of an immaterial being is incoherent. Don't you realize that the claim carries with it a burden of proof? When you make that claim and base it on your professed ignorance, you commit a fallacy. Is that clear to you? When you make that claim and suggest that I prove you wrong, you commit another fallacy. Is that clear to you?

Do I want to explain the concept to you? No, why should I? You've had it explained to you, afaics. All that's left for me to do it wait for you to take up your burden of proof for the claim that the definitions you have already been offered are incoherent/incomprehensible. Frankly, I don't see you getting anywhere with that; not even by pawning it off on George H. Smith.



I am not trying to be rude, I am just trying to get you to see that these terms ultimately make no sense.


And likewise, I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just trying to get you to see that trying to get us to see that the terms ultimately make no sense by giving us fallacious reasoning to that effect ultimately makes no sense.

:bonk:




But saying that an &quot;immaterial being&quot; is &quot;extra-dimensional&quot; is not really getting us any closer to understanding what this being is.


Why not? Because it's a negative description?
What is an "atheist", again? No different at all from a person, right? Person=atheist=person?



Smith states what is obvious to anyone who is familar with the development of human society and culture. Typically historians and sociologists don't invoke dieties to explain human culture or behavior. The claim that notions of justice derive from some invisible, undetectable deity is simply an unsupported assertion. But we are getting way off topic here...


Um? Yeah, I'd like to see those "who [are] familiar with the development of human society and culture" to make the point without begging the question, too.
Start a new thread about it, why don't you?



The problem is the term &quot;immaterial being.&quot; What does this mean?


It means lacking materiality, just as "atheist" means lacking theism. Clearer now?:)



We understand what a material being such as a human or a dog is, but we cannot conceive of an &quot;immaterial being.&quot;


We can't? Why not (watch Jimbo pull another fallacy from up his sleeve)?



We have no referent for this in reality.


So what? Does reality contain teddy bears bigger than the moon? Are you unable to conceive of a teddy bear bigger than the moon as a result?



if you cannot come up with a better definition for &quot;soul&quot; than the term &quot;immaterial being&quot; then what more is there to say on the topic?


You might consider offering a rational reason for claiming that the term "soul" is incomprehensible (to persons apart from yourself, of course. You don't need to give a reason as to why you don't get it).



Since we cannot conceive of an &quot;immaterial being&quot; in the first place, it is pointless to talk about such a thing having consciousness.


You have yet to provide any non-fallacious rationale as to why immateriality is inconceivable.
It appears that the truly pointless activity consists of waiting for you to establish a logical rationale for your claim.



What is this &quot;spirit being&quot; you refer to? Can you conceive of what this is and explain it to me?


Hmmm. You can even make it repetitive.
What, specifically, is wrong with the definitions you have already been offered? Make a complaint based in reason this time, okay? Thanks.



You mentioned that I did not provide the page number for the George H. Smith quote. I am sorry about that-the quote is taken from page 67 of the book Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York 1979. The book if available from Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087975124X/103-6081775-8941417?vi=glance


Thanks.
IMO, Michael Martin's book is probably better (I can't imagine it being worse).

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>Hmmm? So why is it a bad analogy? Spirits are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack material bodies.

Wow.

And a gouend is a fudge brownie that happens to lack a material body. Do you understand what a gouend is?

I will write more later when I have more time...

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

&gt;&gt;Hmmm? So why is it a bad analogy? Spirits are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack material bodies.

Wow.

And a gouend is a fudge brownie that happens to lack a material body. Do you understand what a gouend is?


Sure, but I couldn't tell you what it's made of or how much they cost. Is that a problem?



I will write more later when I have more time...

Jimbo

Great! Don't forget to provide a non-fallacious rationale for your claim that any of the definitions for "soul" that you have encountered is incomprehensible!
:yipee:

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>JIMBO WROTE: And a gouend is a fudge brownie that happens to lack a material body. Do you understand what a gouend is?

>>Sure, but I couldn't tell you what it's made of or how much they cost. Is that a problem?

No, you don't know what this is because it is a nonsensical object. It is meaningless to talk of an immaterial fudge brownie just as it is meaningless to talk about a immaterial body.

>>Don't forget to provide a non-fallacious rationale for your claim that any of the definitions for "soul" that you have encountered is incomprehensible!

"Spirit body" and "immaterial being" are not comprehensible definitions for the word "soul." "Immaterial" is a negative word. It tells us that something is NOT material. It doesn't tell us what it IS. That's the problem. I don't know what an "immaterial body" is and neither do you.

>>Spirits are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack material bodies.

Like I said, this is meaningless to me. I have no idea what you are talking about. Is the soul an invisible gas?

>>Do it, Batman. (show me "black")

"Black" is the color of the text in this post.

>>Where do you get "immaterial"="does not occupy space"? Reference, please?

If "something" is not made out of anything, it wouldn't occupy space.

>>Sure, just as much as I understand that "atheists" lack a belief in a god or gods despite the fact that this is supposedly a negative description that tells us nothing about what an atheist *is*.

Fallacy of the false analogy. An atheist is a biological organism, a mammal, a member of the species homo sapiens, who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That is implicit in the definition of an atheist. We know beforehand what an atheist is-a human being, a material being. Calling something an "immaterial being," however, is really telling us nothing at all about what it IS.

>>You're the one asserting that the concept of an immaterial being is incoherent. Don't you realize that the claim carries with it a burden of proof?

"Immaterial being" is a nonsensical definition. It makes as much sense as the term "square circle." I'd recommend rereading that George Smith quote I provided earlier.

>>When you make that claim and base it on your professed ignorance, you commit a fallacy.

I honestly don't know what this term "soul" means. Defintions such as "immaterial being" do not clarify what this actually is.

>>Is that clear to you? When you make that claim and suggest that I prove you wrong, you commit another fallacy. Is that clear to you?

I honestly don't know what a "soul" is and your defintions have not helped me to understand what a "soul" is. I asked for a definition for the term "soul." You and others have provided the following definitions: "Immaterial being," "spirit body," "spiritual body" and "human beings who happen to lack material bodies." These defintions don't tell me that souls are, but rather what they are not. The term "spirit" which is used in the definition of the word "soul" is undefined.

>>You have yet to provide any non-fallacious rationale as to why immateriality is inconceivable.

Because we live in a material world and our experience, language and our logic is based on the material world. When people talk about "beings" that are "immaterial," they aren't saying anything that makes sense to people living in this world. The only 'beings" that we know about are material. When the word "being" is described as "immaterial," it empties the word "being" of any conceivable meaning.

You can pretend that you know what an "immaterial being" is and what "human beings who happen to lack material bodies" are, but you don't. These defintions represent oxymorons.

Ultimately I think the best that religious folks can do is simply admit that the concept of a "soul" is a conumdrum and a theological mystery which we will never understand in this life.

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

&gt;&gt;JIMBO WROTE: And a gouend is a fudge brownie that happens to lack a material body. Do you understand what a gouend is?

&gt;&gt;Sure, but I couldn't tell you what it's made of or how much they cost. Is that a problem?

No, you don't know what this is because it is a nonsensical object. It is meaningless to talk of an immaterial fudge brownie just as it is meaningless to talk about a immaterial body.


So, once again concept X is nonsensical because you say so?
Reminder: Argument by assertion cannot count as a valid argument, and argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.



&gt;&gt;Don't forget to provide a non-fallacious rationale for your claim that any of the definitions for &quot;soul&quot; that you have encountered is incomprehensible!

&quot;Spirit body&quot; and &quot;immaterial being&quot; are not comprehensible definitions for the word &quot;soul.&quot;


That's a good reminder of your unsupported assertion. Let's see what else you've got, below.



&quot;Immaterial&quot; is a negative word. It tells us that something is NOT material. It doesn't tell us what it IS. That's the problem.


It might be the problem explaining why a Materialist (such as you appear to be) cannot wrap his mind around the idea of non-material existence, but it isn't a problem with regard to comprehensibility in any logical sense, afaics.



I don't know what an &quot;immaterial body&quot; is and neither do you.


I know what it is: The phrase is self-explanatory. Why you don't know what it is (or at least profess not to know) is the real question afaics.
As an aside, I don't know where you're drawing the term "body" from. Did you draw it from one of the definitions offered for "soul"? If so, please specify which one. If not, then kindly admit that you introduced it gratuitously.



&gt;&gt;Spirits are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack material bodies.

Like I said, this is meaningless to me. I have no idea what you are talking about. Is the soul an invisible gas?


Whether or not the term is meaningless to you is meaningless to me. You have asserted that the term is "incomprehensible" and beyond that you have asserted that I don't understand the term. You seem oblivious to the fact that the reasoning you present in favor of your proposition stands as demonstrably (and demonstrated to be) fallacious, as you continue your groundless assertion unabated.



&gt;&gt;Do it, Batman. (show me &quot;black&quot;)

&quot;Black&quot; is the color of the text in this post.


To whatever degree the text is a color, it isn't absolutely black. If the color value of the text itself did not exist, it would still be legible as negative space on the field of white. Put truly black text on a field of nothing (more true black, iow), and it cannot be read visually.
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Computer_Science/2002/Color.asp



&gt;&gt;Where do you get &quot;immaterial&quot;=&quot;does not occupy space&quot;? Reference, please?

If &quot;something&quot; is not made out of anything, it wouldn't occupy space.


Oh, iow, you have no reference and you are continuing with your fallacy of argument by assertion? Perhaps you think that if you argue via assertion enough times your argument becomes non-fallacious by virtue of repetition? Alas! It is not so!



&gt;&gt;Sure, just as much as I understand that &quot;atheists&quot; lack a belief in a god or gods despite the fact that this is supposedly a negative description that tells us nothing about what an atheist *is*.

Fallacy of the false analogy. An atheist is a biological organism, a mammal, a member of the species homo sapiens, who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That is implicit in the definition of an atheist.


Assuming that a pencil sharpener lacks beliefs, a pencil sharpener is just as much an atheist as anybody. It is correct that contextually our "-ist"-suffixed words refer to persons, thus the *only* content that atheist gives us regarding what an "atheist" actually *is* comes from the negative aspect of the term. Strictly speaking, I wasn't making an analogy, but providing a counterexample to your claim that a negative term doesn't tell you what something is. You have a habit of insisting that existent things must be material (tho not in so many words). I could as easily insist that *real* people believe in a god or gods and provide you a vivid illustration of why your approach isn't getting anywhere.



We know beforehand what an atheist is-a human being, a material being. Calling something an &quot;immaterial being,&quot; however, is really telling us nothing at all about what it IS.


You mean that human beings are not not material?:smile:
You're just playing a word-games, Jimbo. Both are actually positive terms of classification (if you drop your Materialist presuppositions). Let's take the category of existent things. Let's subdivide it into two categories, material things and immaterial things. So, the allegedly "negative" term positively puts a given existent thing into the category of immateriality.

Unless you demonstrate that immateriality is an impediment to existence, rather than merely asserting it as fact, your words on the topic are so much spittle-laden hot air.



&gt;&gt;You're the one asserting that the concept of an immaterial being is incoherent. Don't you realize that the claim carries with it a burden of proof?

&quot;Immaterial being&quot; is a nonsensical definition. It makes as much sense as the term &quot;square circle.&quot; I'd recommend rereading that George Smith quote I provided earlier.


If Smith wore his presuppositions any further out on his sleeve, we should expect to see them caked underneath his fingernails.
Refute my reply to Smith, or don't refer me to the quotation again.



&gt;&gt;When you make that claim and base it on your professed ignorance, you commit a fallacy.

I honestly don't know what this term &quot;soul&quot; means. Defintions such as &quot;immaterial being&quot; do not clarify what this actually is.


If you honestly don't know what the term means, that's fine. Just say so and drop the more grandiose versions of your claim.
When you make that claim (that the term is incomprehensible generally) and base it on your professed ignorance, you commit a fallacy. Is that clear to you? Answer the question, please.



&gt;&gt;Is that clear to you? When you make that claim and suggest that I prove you wrong, you commit another fallacy. Is that clear to you?

I honestly don't know what a &quot;soul&quot; is and your defintions have not helped me to understand what a &quot;soul&quot; is.


Well, Jimbo, that's the breaks. If either your intellect is too strapped to take on the concept, or my talent for explanation is insufficient to fan your flames of understanding, maybe that's just the breaks.
However, I'll take what I can get: I've given you some very good reasons to retract your claim that 1) you haven't been given a definition of "soul" 2) you haven't been given a comprehensible definition of "soul" (excepting one that you find personally incomprehensible) and 3) the term soul is (generally) incomprehensible.

If you can bring yourself to merely claim that you don't know what "soul" is/means, then I'll be free to conclude that I may well be incapable--through my own limitations--of enabling you to understand it.



I asked for a definition for the term &quot;soul.&quot; You and others have provided the following definitions: &quot;Immaterial being,&quot; &quot;spirit body,&quot; &quot;spiritual body&quot; and &quot;human beings who happen to lack material bodies.&quot; These defintions don't tell me that souls are, but rather what they are not. The term &quot;spirit&quot; which is used in the definition of the word &quot;soul&quot; is undefined.


I'd like for you to link to the post(s) that supposedly used the definitions "spirit body" and "spiritual body", please. I believe that your recollection is erroneous--unless you're simply providing more evidence of Trolldom.
An soul (spirit, more properly) is a being lacking body. An atheist is an "ist" lacking theism. If one term is incomprehensible based on a negative aspect of description, then so is the other. Oops! Maybe not--you could still argue that "being" is the negative for non-being.



&gt;&gt;You have yet to provide any non-fallacious rationale as to why immateriality is inconceivable.

Because we live in a material world and our experience, language and our logic is based on the material world.


Baloney.
1) Show me a perfect circle.
2) Logic deals in possible worlds, not merely the material.
3) The argument that logic is contingent of materiality is yet another fallacious argument by assertion, which you needlessly (and impotently) expand on below.



When people talk about &quot;beings&quot; that are &quot;immaterial,&quot; they aren't saying anything that makes sense to people living in this world. The only 'beings&quot; that we know about are material. When the word &quot;being&quot; is described as &quot;immaterial,&quot; it empties the word &quot;being&quot; of any conceivable meaning.


(Repetition of arguments by assertion, as noted by Yours Truly, above)



You can pretend that you know what an &quot;immaterial being&quot; is and what &quot;human beings who happen to lack material bodies&quot; are, but you don't. These defintions represent oxymorons.


You can pretend that your assertions that don't know what an immaterial being is and that the definitions are oxymorons aren't fallacious arguments through & through, but I doubt that a person with mild or greater skill in the use of logic--even if sympathetic to your pov--would buy it.

You say that the definitions are oxymorons: Prove it; don't just assert it. Do you know how to construct deductive syllogisms? Demonstrate via logical progression that the terms are internally contradictory.
Don't continue to bore me with your bald assertions, puh-lease. There's no challenge when you don't even try to use more than one or two fallacies (over & over again).



Ultimately I think the best that religious folks can do is simply admit that the concept of a &quot;soul&quot; is a conumdrum and a theological mystery which we will never understand in this life.


Opinion noted. Still absent: Non-fallacious support for the contention that soul/spirit is incomprehensible.
Now you've added the claim that certain definitions are oxymoronic. I expect you to support that contention beyond the assertion phase also--unless you wish to recant?:brow: Make sure that you link to the specific post containing the definition that you attempt to show as contradictory.
Good luck. Feel free to neglect replying to the specific content in this particular post. The challenges are before you: Refute my treatment of Smith, and support your claims (mentioned in the preceding paragraph).

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,



JIMBO WROTE: No, you don't know what this is because it is a nonsensical object. It is meaningless to talk of an immaterial fudge brownie just as it is meaningless to talk about a immaterial body.

So, once again concept X is nonsensical because you say so?

It is nonsensical because it makes no sense. Is that clear enough? : ) An immaterial fudge brownie is a nonsensical concept. Are you actually going to look me in the eye and tell me straight to my face that you can conceptualize an immaterial chocolate fudge brownie with immaterial walnuts in it? Really? How does such a thing taste? What does it look like? How does it smell? What is its texture? What is it made out of? Where is the recipe for immaterial chocolate fudge brownies? Come on, Captain Ochre. The only kind of chocolate fudge brownie that human beings and human language is capable of describing are chocolate fudge brownies that that exist in the material world that we live in. Pretending that an "immaterial chocolate fudge brownie" is a coherent and comprehensible concept is pointless.


It might be the problem explaining why a Materialist (such as you appear to be) cannot wrap his mind around the idea of non-material existence, but it isn't a problem with regard to comprehensibility in any logical sense, afaics.

Well, the simple fact is that you cannot explain "non-material" existence. Are you actually going to pretend that you can conceptualize a immaterial chocolate fudge brownie, with immaterial walnuts in it???


JIMBO WROTE: I don't know what an "immaterial body" is and neither do you.

I know what it is: The phrase is self-explanatory. Why you don't know what it is (or at least profess not to know) is the real question afaics.

First of all, as you suggested further on in your post, no one here offered that term as a defintion or synonym for the word "soul." Be that as it may, I think the point is the same-I think we are talking past each other. Yes, the two words make sense apart from one another. You understand what the term "immaterial" means, and you understand what the term "body" means, but I submit that you do not understand what an "immateral body" would be. That is okay though because no one does. Our concept of a body is of a flesh (and bone) biological structure with form and shape. When the word "immaterial" is put in front of the word "body," it strips the concept of "body" of meaning. What is a "body" that isn't made out of anything? Are you actually going to pretend that you know? If you object and say that it is made out of something, but that you don't know what that something is, then how have you advanced anyone's knowledge of what this thing is? How have you shown that you know what it is?

And yes, I do recall what you wrote about my "materialist" POV.
I have no apologies for seeing this as a world and a universe that is based on matter and energy. I see no evidence of any other kind of "existence." Read what Smith said again because I don't think you are really understanding his point:

''Immaterial'' does not describe another kind of existence; it negates the concept of existence as we understand it. It is a mistake to suppose that all the theologian means by ''immaterial'' is that God is not composed of atoms, molecules, energy, and so on (although this is part of what he means). Translated into epistemolop'cal terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend. The basic objection to "immaterial'' is that it does nothing more than specify that man cannot understand God. To say that God is "nonmatter'' is to say that we can have no sensory experience of God and that we can never conceive of him. This characteristic, therefore, simply throws us into agnosticism.

You objected to this statement by Mr. Smith thusly:


George’s best attempt yet to support his claims! Unfortunately for George, his attempt is easily torpedoed by counterexample. I have no doubt that a wakeful George H. Smith would affirm that he is able to know that he is conscious. Yet, his subjective impression is the only evidence he can come up with to make “conscious” coherent with respect to other entities. George can “know” that he is conscious, but with respect to everybody else on the planet (people, animals, rocks, oceans), he’s just guessing based on his own subjective experience. If a man could conceive of a rock having consciousness, then why couldn’t an “immaterial” being possess concsiousness (unless one were assuming the conclusion that “immaterial”=nonexistent)?

I must say that I have a hard time understanding your objection. However, your objection seems to rest on the term "immaterial being," which is a term that is still in question. This term is still not coherently defined. While we understand what a rock is, we really cannot conceive of how it could have consiousness, and, more importantly, we do not understand what an "immaterial being" is so we absolutely cannot conceive of how it could have consciousness.

Read this again--I think this boils the whole problem down to its essence:

Translated into epistemolop'cal terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend.


As an aside, I don't know where you're drawing the term "body" from. Did you draw it from one of the definitions offered for "soul"? If so, please specify which one. If not, then kindly admit that you introduced it gratuitously.

The defintions and synonyms I have gotten for the word "soul" from people on this board have included "spirit beings," "immaterial entity," "disembodied spirit" and so on. We did discuss the term "immaterial being" because of the Smith quote. Then I was comparing "immaterial fudge brownies" to an "immaterial body," a term that no one on this board introduced. I am sorry if I have implied that anyone here used that term to as a synonym for the word "soul."

I know I have not responded to every last thing you wrote, but I must rest my weary body now.

Later,

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
It is nonsensical because it makes no sense. Is that clear enough? : )


Clear that you're either presenting your mere personal opinion--which is irrelevant to a supposed general incomprehensibility--or presenting a bald assertion for which you have still provided zero non-fallacious argumentation despite my avid cajoling. Maybe you get to it eventually below--but I'm not going to get my hopes up.



An immaterial fudge brownie is a nonsensical concept.


Why, because you say so (again)?
:rofl:



Are you actually going to look me in the eye and tell me straight to my face that you can conceptualize an immaterial chocolate fudge brownie with immaterial walnuts in it? Really?


Yes, and yes. You, otoh, will continue to conclude that if you don't understand it, then nobody can. Probably because you're the best and the smartest and nobody has an imagination to compare to yours, eh?



How does such a thing taste? What does it look like? How does it smell? What is its texture? What is it made out of? Where is the recipe for immaterial chocolate fudge brownies?


Like a fudge brownie. :duh:
Maybe it would look like a fudge brownie, maybe it would be invisible. Could be either, or it could be something else. :duh:
Smells like a fudge brownie.
Has a texture like nothing.
Don't know what it's made out of--therefore it couldn't exist?
Nor do I know the recipe--therefore it couldn't exist?



Come on, Captain Ochre. The only kind of chocolate fudge brownie that human beings and human language is capable of describing are chocolate fudge brownies that that exist in the material world that we live in. Pretending that an &quot;immaterial chocolate fudge brownie&quot; is a coherent and comprehensible concept is pointless.


The pointless activity is your insistence on advancing your "argument" based on raw assertion. I've been very patient in explaining to you that your approach is unsatisfactory from a logical standpoint. From this point, I'm going to be more dismissive of that approach when you take it. I'll identify it as argument by assertion & move on.



Well, the simple fact is that you cannot explain &quot;non-material&quot; existence.


Why should I need to explain it? If you can't explain an object of infinite density with zero volume (or any volume, ftm), does that mean that black holes cannot exist, or simply that you cannot describe them using ordinary human language?
Oh, neither? What a surprise.



Are you actually going to pretend that you can conceptualize a immaterial chocolate fudge brownie, with immaterial walnuts in it???


Sure, why not? Anything to help you begin to shoulder your burden of proof, my friend.



First of all, as you suggested further on in your post, no one here offered that term as a defintion or synonym for the word &quot;soul.&quot; Be that as it may, I think the point is the same-I think we are talking past each other. Yes, the two words make sense apart from one another. You understand what the term &quot;immaterial&quot; means, and you understand what the term &quot;body&quot; means, but I submit that you do not understand what an &quot;immateral body&quot; would be. That is okay though because no one does. Our concept of a body is of a flesh (and bone) biological structure with form and shape. When the word &quot;immaterial&quot; is put in front of the word &quot;body,&quot; it strips the concept of &quot;body&quot; of meaning.


Well, if only somebody had used that particular definition, you would have produced your most sensational attempt yet to justify calling the concept incomprehensible. Unfortunately you didn't use any of the definitions that you were offered for purposes of your demonstration. That makes the demonstration utterly useless, wouldn't you agree? Care to try it with one of the definitions you asked for and received?

You continue to go on about immaterial bodies. Sorry, but I consider that a rabbit trail. Get back to the points that I had challenged you on with my previous post to this thread, please.



And yes, I do recall what you wrote about my &quot;materialist&quot; POV.
I have no apologies for seeing this as a world and a universe that is based on matter and energy. I see no evidence of any other kind of &quot;existence.&quot; Read what Smith said again because I don't think you are really understanding his point:

''Immaterial'' does not describe another kind of existence; it negates the concept of existence as we understand it. It is a mistake to suppose that all the theologian means by ''immaterial'' is that God is not composed of atoms, molecules, energy, and so on (although this is part of what he means). Translated into epistemolop'cal terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend. The basic objection to &quot;immaterial'' is that it does nothing more than specify that man cannot understand God. To say that God is &quot;nonmatter'' is to say that we can have no sensory experience of God and that we can never conceive of him. This characteristic, therefore, simply throws us into agnosticism.

You objected to this statement by Mr. Smith thusly:



I must say that I have a hard time understanding your objection. However, your objection seems to rest on the term &quot;immaterial being,&quot; which is a term that is still in question.


Why is the term still in question? On what grounds?



This term is still not coherently defined. While we understand what a rock is, we really cannot conceive of how it could have consiousness, and, more importantly, we do not understand what an &quot;immaterial being&quot; is so we absolutely cannot conceive of how it could have consciousness.


Argument by assertion (fallacy).



Read this again--I think this boils the whole problem down to its essence:

Translated into epistemolop'cal terms, ''immaterial'' stands in contradistinction to the knowable; it designates that which man cannot perceive or comprehend.


I concur: Smith boils the issue down to its essence. The essence of the issue is that both of you assume your conclusion. The material is all that exists, therefore immaterial things do not exist owing to the "fact" that they contradict your worldview. This is circular reasoning in the classic sense.



The defintions and synonyms I have gotten for the word &quot;soul&quot; from people on this board have included &quot;spirit beings,&quot; &quot;immaterial entity,&quot; &quot;disembodied spirit&quot; and so on. We did discuss the term &quot;immaterial being&quot; because of the Smith quote. Then I was comparing &quot;immaterial fudge brownies&quot; to an &quot;immaterial body,&quot; a term that no one on this board introduced. I am sorry if I have implied that anyone here used that term to as a synonym for the word &quot;soul.&quot;


Thank you.



I know I have not responded to every last thing you wrote, but I must rest my weary body now.


That's fine--perhaps you didn't see that I actually encouraged you to ignore the greater part of the content of my reply in favor of supplying support for your bald assertions.
I hope you rest well.
:cheers:

[TheFiveSolas]

I'm still waiting to see Jimbo even attempt to defend his assertion that there is some thing (I purposely separted these words for emphasis) that unifies ALL the individual atoms that make up his body. He asserts that he is MORE (greater) than atoms and I agree, however such an assertion makes sense in my worldview, whereas it doesn't comport with his. On a side note, to claim that there is something MORE than, or greater than, the individual parts is to assert that there is something SUPER natural about the thing in question. :idea:

Also, Jimbo earlier quoted a definition that included terms like (sensations, thoughts, aware, mentally perceptive, alert, awake, will, perception, etc.), none of which can be described in physical/material terms.

For example, what are thoughts? How about information such as that carried by the dots that make up the screen you are reading from? The fact of the matter, and you know it, is that there are MANY things that are not reducible to the physical/material. So, you are left with a dilemma, either they are IMmaterial, or they are SUPERnatural. However, this is precisely what your philosophy is trying to avoid. It is evidence that your worldview cannot account for the very things you take for granted.

So, when speaking of thoughts, for example, are they reducible to the physical components? Can you tell me what thoughts are made of? If not, then it is PROOF that in spite of your assertions to the contrary, immaterial things can and do exist. I'll await an answer that is CONSISTENT with your worldview (i.e., it cannot appeal to immaterial or (super)natural attributes).

[Captain Ochre]

TheFiveSolas:
I'm still waiting to see Jimbo even attempt to defend his assertion that there is some thing (I purposely separted these words for emphasis) that unifies ALL the individual atoms that make up his body. He asserts that he is MORE (greater) than atoms and I agree, however such an assertion makes sense in my worldview, whereas it doesn't comport with his.

Jimbo did make a half-hearted (imo) attempt to justify his statement by using the analogy of a disassemble computer not being a "computer". Thus, he appears to introduce function as the existent something, or perhaps (though his statements don't seem to add up to this) the arrangement/information content of the material components.
To me, he seems to be equivocating. The physical arrangement of something exists, but physical arrangements exist independently of the item, conceptually. Sounds to me like he may realize that he stuck his foot in it, so he's working around the issue.

[TheFiveSolas]

Captain,
Jimbo's analogy fails since EVERYTHING that a computer does can be explained in purely mechanistic/physical terms, however this is NOT the case with things like: information, consciousness, perception, "persons/people", awareness, thought, etc. These are in an entirely different category altogether, which means that Jimbo is making the logical fallacy called category error.

For instance, a computer makes "decisions" based upon its programming. If the programming is known, the outcome is also able to be determined. However, unless Jimbo wants to equate human beings with deterministic machines (with no personal choice as to how they act/react) I'll merely have to keep pointing out that he hasn't addressed my critique in the slightest.

As an aside, Jimbo quoted a definition that utilized the idea of "will", however, according to HIS worldview, what exactly is a will, where is it located, what is it made out of, and how does it work? From what I learned double majoring in biology and chemistry ALL atoms/chemicals act/react in FIXED ways due to their inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc. Thus, no matter (no pun intended) how you assemble atoms together there is no way that they, in and of themselves, start to CHOOSE or WILL to act/react in one way over and against another. Herein lies the fatal error of a purely materialistic/physicalistic model like the one that Jimbo naively adheres to.

[Captain Ochre]

TheFiveSolas:
Captain,
Jimbo's analogy fails since EVERYTHING that a computer does can be explained in purely mechanistic/physical terms, however this is NOT the case with things like: information, consciousness, perception, &quot;persons/people&quot;, awareness, thought, etc. These are in an entirely different category altogether, which means that Jimbo is making the logical fallacy called category error.

For instance, a computer makes &quot;decisions&quot; based upon its programming. If the programming is known, the outcome is also able to be determined. However, unless Jimbo wants to equate human beings with deterministic machines (with no personal choice as to how they act/react) I'll merely have to keep pointing out that he hasn't addressed my critique in the slightest.


:smile:
I agree that he's in the frying pan and likely headed straight for the fire, but I'm eager to see him make his own case prior to being refuted. He needs to practice getting beyond the assertion phase of things, as you've no doubt noticed.



As an aside, Jimbo quoted a definition that incorporated the idea of &quot;will&quot;, however what exactly is a will? Where is it located, what is it made out of, and how does it work? From what I learned double majoring in biology and chemistry ALL atoms/chemical act/react in FIXED ways due to their inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc. Thus, no matter (no pun intended) how you assemble atoms together there is no way that they, in and of themselves, start to CHOOSE or WILL to act/react in one way over and against another. Herein lies the fatal error of a purely materialistic/physicalistic model like the one that Jimbo naively adheres to.

Agreed, and the appeal to quantum indeterminacy leads to a dead end, also.
I'm a tad worried we'll chase him away--should we start deliberately misspelling words or doubling our typos to boost his confidence, you think?

[TheFiveSolas]

Captain,
ROFL, I had a formal debate with a professor of philosophy last year and he appealed to quantum indeterminancy as an attempt at "rescuing" freedom of will/choice. I pointed out that the most it could do was to introduce a random, thus irrational, component to human behavior. In addition, I pointed out that he had NO epistemological foundation for even CLAIMING to know that certain events happen without a cause. In order to make good on such a claim he would have to have the mind of God, knowing all things, in order to KNOW that a certain event had absolutely no preceding cause whatsoever! Lastly, he was exhibiting his ignorance of Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle. It states that we cannot know all the variables associated with subatomic particles. It does NOT state that some variables are completely random in the sense that they happen without any preceding cause.

I was shocked that this sort of fallacious argument was being put forward by someone that should have known better.

[Captain Ochre]

TheFiveSolas:
Captain,
ROFL, I had a formal debate with a professor of philosophy last year and he appealed to quantum indeterminancy as an attempt at &quot;rescuing&quot; freedom of will/choice. I pointed out that the most it could do was to introduce a random, thus irrational, component to human behavior.


That's non-rational rather than irrational--let us benefit from the mistake of C. S. Lewis.
:smile:



In addition, I pointed out that he had NO epistemological foundation for even CLAIMING to know that certain events happen without a cause. In order to make good on such a claim he would have to have the mind of God, knowing all things, in order to KNOW that a certain event had absolutely no preceding cause whatsoever! Lastly, he was exhibiting his ignorance of Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle. It states that we cannot know all the variables associated with subatomic particles. It does NOT state that some variables are completely random in the sense that they happen without any preceding cause.


That's a common enough understanding, in my experience.



I was shocked that this sort of fallacious argument was being put forward by someone that should have known better.

If I may paraphrase an internet acquaintance: "Being very intelligent is not a sure protection against stupidity."
I'm out: Sleep beckons.
Have an excellent day/night/whatever.

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,


Care to try it with one of the definitions you asked for and received?

Please select the definition that you think is the most intelligible, coherent and understandable. I want to make sure that you select the very best one that you know of and that there is at least an agreement between us on what this definition is.


Agreed, and the appeal to quantum indeterminacy leads to a dead end, also. I'm a tad worried we'll chase him away--should we start deliberately misspelling words or doubling our typos to boost his confidence, you think?

No, all you have to do is keep pretending that you understand what an immaterial chocolate fudge brownie is, with all those yummy immaterial roasted walnuts in 'em. Or insist that your statement "(s)pirits are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack material bodies" actually informs us, in a comprehensible way, what "spirits" are. In the same vein, you might also proclaim, to one and all, that you know what a square circle is.

All The Best,

Jimbo

[jimbo]

TheFiveSolas,



Jimbo's analogy fails since EVERYTHING that a computer does can be explained in purely mechanistic/physical terms, however this is NOT the case with things like: information, consciousness, perception, "persons/people", awareness, thought, etc. These are in an entirely different category altogether, which means that Jimbo is making the logical fallacy called category error.

For instance, a computer makes "decisions" based upon its programming. If the programming is known, the outcome is also able to be determined. However, unless Jimbo wants to equate human beings with deterministic machines (with no personal choice as to how they act/react) I'll merely have to keep pointing out that he hasn't addressed my critique in the slightest.

I am sorry but I don't think you understand what my point was. Captain Ochre made the statement that he didn't believe anything could more than the sum of its parts without something immaterial being involved somehow (If I misunderstood his point, he is, of course, free to correct me). I explained that a computer is generally more useful and more valuable than a beaker filled with all the granules and grains of the silicon, plastic and metal that would be used in its construction. In this sense, a computer is more than the sum of its parts. I hope this point is clear now. I never thought this would be such a controversial idea.

Later,

Your good friend Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,



Please select the definition that you think is the most intelligible, coherent and understandable. I want to make sure that you select the very best one that you know of and that there is at least an agreement between us on what this definition is.


On the contrary, pick the standard dictionary definition that you find the weakest. My position is that you cannot make your case against the weakest target. Go for it, Champ.



No, all you have to do is keep pretending that you understand what an immaterial chocolate fudge brownie is, with all those yummy immaterial roasted walnuts in 'em.


Or is it you pretending not to understand?
Until you build a case based on logic, it's your word against mine, and that's a stalemate, leaving your claim fallaciously supported (that is to say, unsupported).



Or insist that your statement &quot;(s)pirits are people, first and foremost, human beings who happen to lack material bodies&quot; actually informs us, in a comprehensible way, what &quot;spirits&quot; are.


I gave that in the form of counterexample, suggesting that you agree that "atheist" is an incoherent term since what is supposed understood around the negative description (lacking belief in a god or gods vs. lacking a material body) is the same thing (a person). So, either you're special pleading or begging the question or both (fallacy in each case).
Should I accept arguments that are fallacious, Jimbo (maybe just if they're your arguments?:smile:)?



In the same vein, you might also proclaim, to one and all, that you know what a square circle is.


Indeed I could, and then you could construct a deductive syllogism showing that the concept is incoherent. So, why haven't you done that in this case, without fallacy?

Posturing doesn't cut it.

[Sher]

~~A soul is immaterial ... it exists without matter.~~

Now, if you do not think that this is an "intelligible, coherent and understandable" definition ... I would ask you to give a basic reason why it is not intelligible, coherent and/or understandable.


Then I would ask that you to keep that reason in mind, and please provide me with an "intelligible, coherent and understandable" definition for the following terms:[list=1]
Concept
Idea
Thought
Antimatter
Energy
Wind
Air
[/list=1] Thank you.


{edit: oops... sorry for "dragon" up an older thread ... that's the result of the "related topics"}

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67461#post67461)
SherBear:

{edit: oops... sorry for &quot;dragon&quot; up an older thread ... that's the result of the &quot;related topics&quot;}

It could serve as a reminder to Jimbo that he's left an iron in the fire for quite awhile . . .
:wink:

[Sher]

What the heck? Bump ... because I feel like it.

Come on Jimbo... aren't you up for defining these little words for me? Just 7 little intelligible, coherent and understandable" definitions?

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 09:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76901#post76901)
SherBear:

What the heck? Bump ... because I feel like it.

Come on Jimbo... aren't you up for defining these little words for me? Just 7 little intelligible, coherent and understandable&quot; definitions?

Jimbo, dimbo, all-arms-akimbo
Mumbo, jumbo, Dikembe Mutumbo

Where are ya, lad?

Maybe it's time for a pm campaign?

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

As far as I can see you still have not defined the word "soul." I understand your desire to turn this whole discussion around on me, but I am really not into little games like that. The fact remains that no one knows or understands what the word "soul" means.
That is the point that you don't seem to understand.

Cheers,

Michaelangelo

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77285#post77285)
jimbo:

Captain Ochre,

As far as I can see you still have not defined the word &quot;soul.&quot;


If true, so what? I was quite willing to use the definitions provided by others, while you're still apparently insisting that the term wasn't defined.
Here's what spl_cadet posted:
The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

He posted this very early in the thread, and you have kept insisting that the term hasn't been defined, even while addressing the definitions by claiming that you either don't understand the definition, or by claiming (without support) that the definition is supposedly incomprehensible. IOW, you are fallaciously arguing by assertion. Farrell Till could tell you that, and he'd even be right this time.

"What is an "immaterial entity"? How is it discernable from nothing at all?"

"Yes, but what is a "spiritual nature" and how can it be "immortal"?"

Bold comments, which are responses to nonexistent/supposedly incomprehensible definitions, by Jimbo.

As I've mentioned to you before, iirc, you have no warrant for claiming that the term hasn't been defined. Your persistence in doing so makes you either a liar or invincibly ignorant.
You do have the option of claiming that the definitions are nonsensical, but without argumentation in support of that claim, your comments need not be taken seriously.

Do you want to be taken seriously?



I understand your desire to turn this whole discussion around on me, but I am really not into little games like that. The fact remains that no one knows or understands what the word &quot;soul&quot; means.
That is the point that you don't seem to understand.


You're right, I don't understand that supposed "point" because it has been advanced as a bald assertion, and (iirc) has been supported on the basis of argument from ignorance--which is another fallacy.
For some reason it doesn't seem to bother you to employ the same fallacies over and again.
That's one of the symptoms of invincible ignorance, btw.

Argument by assertion is a form of the "Begging the Question" fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
The definition doesn't make sense to you, therefore nobody understands it?
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.htm

Will you ever address your logical fallacies, Jimbo? Will you ever join the discussion that you initiated instead of playing a game of infinite regress combined with logical fallacies?

[Jezz]

jimbo:
As far as I can see you still have not defined the word &quot;soul.&quot; I understand your desire to turn this whole discussion around on me, but I am really not into little games like that. The fact remains that no one knows or understands what the word &quot;soul&quot; means.
That is the point that you don't seem to understand.
So it is a fact that no one knows or understands what the word "soul" means? I guess that I must not exist then. :smile:

I haven't read this whole thread, so I'm sorry if someone has already made the point that I'm about to make. What follows is my understanding of what the "soul" is. But before I get into that, a little bit about computers.

jimbo, most probably you typed up your post on a computer system. You're probably aware that every computer system consists of two separate and indispensible parts:

1. The hardware.
2. The software.

The hardware is the material part of the computer system. It is made up of fundamental physical particles. It has mass. You can see it, and you can touch it. If you make a new piece of computer hardware, it is distinct from other pieces of hardware by virtue of the fact that it is made out of different atoms. Hardware eventually wears out and ceases to function, or is destroyed.

The software is the immaterial part the computer system. It is not made up of fundamental physical particles - it exists as an abstract concept, independently of any physical manifestation. It does not have mass. You can't see it or touch it - you can only see or touch the hardware on which it is running (if any). Nevertheless, software is still a very real thing. You can run the same piece of software on different computers, and it is still the same piece of software. Being immaterial, software never wears out - it is therefore in a very real sense immortal. Even if you destroy all the hardware in the material world, someone can come along 10, 100, or 1000 years later, build a new piece of computer hardware, and write and install the same piece of software - again, in a very real sense, the immortality of software allowed the entire computer system to be brought back - even though the hardware is completely new (and possibly improved). The fact that software is immaterial does not mean that it doesn't exist in a meaningful sense.

If a computer system did not have software, then it's only real use would be as a paperweight. On the other had, a computer system without hardware cannot be physically observed in the material world. A functioning computer system must have both hardware and software.

Most people will by now have guessed why I had the diversion to discuss the workings of computer systems. Let's go back to the above discussion, and make the following substitutions:

"computer system" = "human being"
"hardware" = "body"
"software" = "soul"

The body is our hardware - the material aspect of our existence. You can see it, touch it, and it has mass. It wears out, and can be destroyed.

The soul is our software - the immaterial aspect of our existence. You can't see the soul, or touch it, and it doesn't has mass. Nevertheless, the soul is still a very real thing. And like computer software, the soul doesn't wear out - it is immortal. And it can be moved from body to body, just like a soul can be moved from hardware to hardware.

Many readers will balk at that last sentence. So I'm going to back it up with some examples:

1. Many people will have seen the movie "Vice-Versa" or one of many movies/TV episodes that use the same basic plot. What happens is that two people "switch bodies". Now, if their material bodies have not swapped, which part of the people has swapped? Answer: their immaterial aspects - ie, their souls.

2. Star Trek and other sci-fi series often have the concept of a transporter. The basic operation of a transporter is usually explained something along the following lines: at the sending end, the transporter decomposes the object to be transported, and then sends the "blueprints" of the object to the receiving end. The receiving end then reconstitutes the material components of the object that was sent. As a result, the object at the receiving end is materially different to the object at the sending end - made up of different atoms and molecules. Yet when people are transported in this way, they are still the same person after they have been transported even though they have a body that is made of a completely new set of atoms and molecules. If their body is completely different, what is it that makes them still the same person? The answer: they still have the same soul. The soul was transferred from the body at the sending end and into the body at the receiving end during the transportation process.

3. Ok, the previous two examples at least show that the concept of a soul being transferred between different bodies is not a foreign concept, even if only in the world of fiction. But are there any real-world examples of a soul being transferred between different bodies? Well, the short answer is yes. As a matter of fact, we are all living examples. Our bodies are constantly changing - swapping molecules and atoms with those of our environment. As a result, our bodies are much different now than they were at conception, or at birth, or 10 years ago, or 1 week ago, or even an hour ago. It is estimated that we have a completely new set of atoms and molecules constituting our body every 7 years or so. So the body we have now is a completely different body to the one we had 7 years ago. Yet, we are still the same person. How? Because when we changed our old bodies for new, our soul was transferred from the old body into the new body.

A human being without a soul is simply a dead body. A soul without a body isn't capable of doing anything. A human being must have both a body and a soul in order to be alive.

Some points to ponder, in support of the above:
-Physiologically speaking, there is not a whole lot of difference between a body of a person recently dead, and the body of that same person just prior to death. So what is it that is different? The answer: the soul has departed the dead body. Much like the difference between a computer that is switched on and running and one that has been switched off - the hardware is still the same, but the software has departed the system, and hence the system is dead.

-We all intuitively understand this definition of soul, whether we realise it or not. The definition is deep in-built within our psyche. This is very easy to demonstrate. Do the following:
*Point to your leg. Ask yourself whose leg it is. Answer: it's yours.
*Point to your head. Ask yourself whose head it is. Answer: it's yours.
*Point (metaphorically, not physically :smile:) to your brain. It's yours.
*Point to your entire body. Whose is it? It's yours.
Now, if your material body is all that there is to your existence, then who is the person that is claiming to own your material body? Answer: that person is your immaterial soul, which is claiming ownership of your material body. We understand this separation between "us" (ie, our soul) and our material body on a deep subconscious level, even if our consciousness tries to distort it.

-The fact that our bodies continually and thoroughly change, yet somehow we still remain the same person. If our material bodies was the full extent of our existence, then we wouldn't be the same person when our body changes. The fact that we remain the same person despite completely swapping our material bodies every 7 years indicates that there is something immaterial which gives us our identity. That immaterial something is our soul.

The short version of all of the above: the soul is the difference between a human being and a corpse.

Moral of the story: jimbo, just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it isn't true, and nor does it necessarily mean that noone else understands it. :smile:

[sandlewood]

Can you tell me what is the difference between “consciousness” and “soul”?

Do animals have souls?


Jezz, I’m not convinced of your explanations, including the analogy to software. Software is material. A computer program, assuming it is stored in RAM, consists of electrons. There is nothing immaterial or undetectable about software.

But I won’t lose your point that software is also an abstract concept. Software is not just random electrons. It is electrons placed in a particular order so that they cause a particular desired sequence of events. That ordering or pattern is also contained in our brains. So if a computer is destroyed, we can program another using our brains. However, our brains are similar to computers. Thoughts consist of electrons and chemicals interacting. There is nothing immaterial about thoughts, or about thoughts about software. If you physically destroy the computer and the brain, the software is gone.

It seems I’ve only asserted that thoughts are material. One could also assert that they are immaterial. But at this point, I think, the analogy to the computer software is dissolved because it really depends on whether you think that the human mind is immaterial. And so the analogy to a computer and software begs the question.

Another issue is what we mean by “the software is gone” when the brain and computer are both destroyed. Can the abstract concept still exist in a sense? If I arrange eight chairs into a circle, do I have an extra thing which is a circle? Is there anything more there than just eight chairs? I don’t think this is the sense we mean when we’re talking about the soul. I think the word is meant to suggest that there is something else that exists that is not abstract in the way that a circle is an abstract concept.

So the question comes back to whether or not consciousness and thought are immaterial. (I’m using the words “consciousness” and “soul” interchangeably here because I don’t yet see what the difference is.) I think there is significant readily-available evidence to suggest that consciousness is not immaterial. We can observe changes in electric flow and chemical balance correlated with thoughts and mental state. When the brain is physically affected—such as when parts of the brain are physically destroyed or removed—the mental state is also affected. There has never been any evidence of the connection between mind and brain that would be necessary if the mind were immaterial in a mind-body duality. The mind seems to depend on material—the mind resides only in the brain and nowhere else. Before we were born, we were not conscious and this corresponds to our brains not physically existing. As our brains physically develop in infancy, our consciousness emerges correspondingly. Our likes, dislikes, and behavior change as we get older and our body and brain physically change.

This evidence leads one to believe that there is no immaterial component at all. The mind is the brain. The mind and consciousness are the electrons, the nerve cell arrangement, and the chemicals that make up the physical brain.

Regarding your TV show examples, yes, they are only fiction for entertainment. They contribute nothing to the argument.

Not all body cells are different every seven years. Particularly, it has long been accepted that the brain in particular does not grow new cells after maturity. However, I happened to come across this article that says there is now evidence that brain cells do grow after maturity. ( http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/99/q4/1014-brain.htm ) But I think these are to handle new abilities or memories, not to replace old cells. Either way, I believe that it is the pattern of brain cells that forms our memory and conscious. If new brain cells grow to replace the old ones while keeping the same pattern, then the consciousness would not change.


04-24-2003 @ 08:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77569#post77569)
Jezz:
A human being without a soul is simply a dead body.

A dead body with a soul is a also dead body. A live body without a soul is a live body. All just assertions. A dead body is a dead body.


A human being without a soul is simply a dead body.

Has there ever been evidence of a soul without a body? Where is the evidence to support not only the notion that a soul can exist outside a body but that, if it could, it can’t do anything without a body? And if a soul can’t do anything without a body, then what about after death? Aren’t souls disembodied in heaven? Oh yes, God will make new bodies. But then aren’t those bodies immaterial? If there are physical, then they must exist somewhere. Until there is some support for all this, I consider it wild fancy.


A human being must have both a body and a soul in order to be alive.

How about a human being with consciousness, but without a soul?


-Physiologically speaking, there is not a whole lot of difference between a body of a person recently dead, and the body of that same person just prior to death. So what is it that is different? The answer: the soul has departed the dead body.

The answer: the brain has stopped functioning physically. Electrical impulses stop. Much more likely, given the observable evidence.


Much like the difference between a computer that is switched on and running and one that has been switched off - the hardware is still the same, but the software has departed the system, and hence the system is dead.

The software has not departed. (Where did it whisk off to? Did it float through the outer plastic package of the IC?) Rather, the electricity stopped flowing physically. Much like a brain, yes.


-The fact that our bodies continually and thoroughly change, yet somehow we still remain the same person. If our material bodies was the full extent of our existence, then we wouldn't be the same person when our body changes. The fact that we remain the same person despite completely swapping our material bodies every 7 years indicates that there is something immaterial which gives us our identity. That immaterial something is our soul.

Again, our brain cells do not change. And if they did, the extent to which we stay the same person is based on the pattern of networked nerve cells in our brain, which stays the same. When the brain is physically disturbed, the mental state changes.

[jimbo]

Sandlewood,

I agree with your points. Every evidence indicates that consciousness is simply an aspect of brain function. Lose the brain, and consciousness disappears. There just aren't any good explanations of how consiousness can exist outside of the brain.

Cheers,

Brooks

[Seasanctuary]

Jimbo wrote:

Christianity is built upon this idea that when people die they don't really die but rather they go somewhere else. There seems to be precious little that supports this notion since we see that when people die they don't go much of anywhere, but instead these people lay there and decompose. Eventually the individual atoms of these people are totally assimilated back into the environment, and spread hither and yon. The fact that the dead lay immobile and rot seems to pose something of problem for the theory of an afterlife, but of course Christians and other religious believers maneuver around this problem by proposing that people have invisible "souls" that can somehow transcend death. However, the difficulty with the term "soul" is that it is not terribly clear what it is actually
supposed to be. Is it an invisible gas of some kind?

It's quite possible to be a Christian without believing in body/soul dualism. That is, a Christian can believe that the body is all there is of a person and that the mind is what the brain "does." The same, I suspect, as your typical materialist would understand a person's existence.

In fact, there are movements in Christianity to embrace this very thing. "Soul" becomes very synonymous with "life." This meaning is already present in our language, e.g. "35 souls were lost today in a jetliner crash."

Animals besides human are given equal status as "souls."

The afterlife happens after God resurrects your physical body and makes you alive again. There was, in a very real sense, NOTHING of you left in existence outside of God's memory between your death and resurrection.

Christians who believe this look at the body/soul dualists as not trusting God's power to resurrect. They claim dualists don't allow for any real death if some ghost has to linger around in order for God to bring the person back from half-death.

They blame Greek influence on Jewish thought for the "eternal, separate soul" idea being introduced into Judaism/Christianity.

An excellent bit of justification for all of these ideas is found in Genesis 2. Christian translators of the KJV intentionally obscured the verbal similarities in the text in order to uphold the dualist position that makes a separate soul a distinction of humans.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof." Gen 2:19

The interesting part is that "living soul" and "living creature" are from the same Hebrew words.

The NIV leaves the animals reference as "living creature" but changes the human reference to "living being." Now THAT sounds a lot more like "soul" is just a description of something alive rather than an inscrutible immaterial substance.

Young's Literal Translation puts both as "living creature."

Darby's Translation actually names both as "living soul."

I would say the Gnostic sects were most successful in conforming the Great Church in this area. With their emphasis on immaterial spirit being good and the physical being bad, of course dead Christians would be cruising around somewhere in their Hellenic spirit vessels.

I admit there is a bit of support for this in the NT scriptures themselves...as there is a bit of support for most of the popular Jewish sects' ideas here and there. Of course, I don't require the Bible to be harmonious. The non-dualist Christians have a strong a Biblical case as anyone else.

And they don't have to defend their ideas of a vague immaterial sort of "soul." I do think this plays up God's power as a resurrecting force far more than holding onto a human immortality of the soul.

[sobocop]

Hello,

Christianity is built upon this idea that when people die they don't really die but rather they go somewhere else. There seems to be precious little that supports this notion since we see that when people die they don't go much of anywhere, but instead these people lay there and decompose. Eventually the individual atoms of these people are totally assimilated back into the environment, and spread hither and yon. The fact that the dead lay immobile and rot seems to pose something of problem for the theory of an afterlife, but of course Christians and other religious believers maneuver around this problem by proposing that people have invisible "souls" that can somehow transcend death. However, the difficulty with the term "soul" is that it is not terribly clear what it is actually supposed to be. Is it an invisible gas of some kind?

So I am wondering if anyone on these boards can provide a meaningful and coherent definition of the word "soul." It is my impression that Christians and other religious believers don't really understand what they are talking about when they speak about "souls" and an afterlife. In point of fact, I think that the idea of an afterlife is complete nonsense. But then, I could be wrong. If you try to define the term "soul," I would only ask that you not bombard me with nebulous, incoherent, rambling references from the Bible, but instead provide a definition that is actually comprehensible.

Thanks.

Juan


Juan;

There is matter - and there is that which is non-material. These non-material, conscious units are "spiritual beings" (souls.)

[Simeon]

Hello,

Christianity is built upon this idea that when people die they don't really die but rather they go somewhere else. There seems to be precious little that supports this notion since we see that when people die they don't go much of anywhere, but instead these people lay there and decompose. Eventually the individual atoms of these people are totally assimilated back into the environment, and spread hither and yon. The fact that the dead lay immobile and rot seems to pose something of problem for the theory of an afterlife, but of course Christians and other religious believers maneuver around this problem by proposing that people have invisible "souls" that can somehow transcend death. However, the difficulty with the term "soul" is that it is not terribly clear what it is actually supposed to be. Is it an invisible gas of some kind?

So I am wondering if anyone on these boards can provide a meaningful and coherent definition of the word "soul." It is my impression that Christians and other religious believers don't really understand what they are talking about when they speak about "souls" and an afterlife. In point of fact, I think that the idea of an afterlife is complete nonsense. But then, I could be wrong. If you try to define the term "soul," I would only ask that you not bombard me with nebulous, incoherent, rambling references from the Bible, but instead provide a definition that is actually comprehensible.

Thanks.

Juan

I believe in Body, Soul and Spirit, and accordingly, let's start with:

The Soul

The Hebrew term for “soul” is nephesh, found more than 780 times in the Old Testament. Because of the variety of contextual meanings, it is not always rendered by the English word “soul.” The King James Version uses 28 different words by which to translate the original term. Nephesh, therefore, signifies different things, depending upon the passage in which it occurs.

Similarly, in the Greek New Testament, the original word for “soul” is psuche, found 103 times. Our modern word “psychology” derives from this Greek term.

Read more: Here are some uses of “soul” in the Scriptures. (www.christiancourier.com/questions/soulSpiritQuestion.htm)

Curve Ball for Atheists:

Soul of man as strengthened by the Spirit! Yes! See Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16; 6:17.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Hello,

Christianity is built upon this idea that when people die they don't really die but rather they go somewhere else. There seems to be precious little that supports this notion since we see that when people die they don't go much of anywhere, but instead these people lay there and decompose.

Key to this belief is that we are more than just material beings. Who we are is remembered and recreated.


Eventually the individual atoms of these people are totally assimilated back into the environment, and spread hither and yon. The fact that the dead lay immobile and rot seems to pose something of problem for the theory of an afterlife, but of course Christians and other religious believers maneuver around this problem by proposing that people have invisible "souls" that can somehow transcend death. However, the difficulty with the term "soul" is that it is not terribly clear what it is actually supposed to be. Is it an invisible gas of some kind?

Many Christians have been influenced by the Greek notion of soul, which is totally distinct from our body. I think that more representative of the Hebraic notion of Soul is Eastern Orthodox writer, Christos Yannaras.
http://www.assumptionaz.org/On%20The%20Soul.doc


So I am wondering if anyone on these boards can provide a meaningful and coherent definition of the word "soul." It is my impression that Christians and other religious believers don't really understand what they are talking about when they speak about "souls" and an afterlife. In point of fact, I think that the idea of an afterlife is complete nonsense. But then, I could be wrong. If you try to define the term "soul," I would only ask that you not bombard me with nebulous, incoherent, rambling references from the Bible, but instead provide a definition that is actually comprehensible.

You'll agree that what matters is to understand how Jesus and the writers of the OT and NT used the term soul?

dlw

[sobocop]

The soul is immaterial, weightless, and visible as a dime to quarter-sized APPARENT "sphere" of colorful, twinkly phenomena, colors beyond the human spectrum.

There is no "aura" other than what I just described.

It is immortal, can run the body from a distance, but is almost ALWAYS located within the head (centered), near the bottom of the brain.

Contrary to confused Christian descriptions, the "person" IS his "soul."

You ARE a soul, you don't "have" one.

Almost everyone on earth has their identity confused with that of the body, and are wrongly obsessed with having IT "resurrected."

Best,

Sobocop