Proving A Soul?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308806024' post='2257611']Well for it to be a strawman would mean that I was misrepresenting your opinion You stated


You dismissed Aquinas outright because you felt that he wrote "an incoherent string of words" No strawman

My point is a good one. People may disagree with Aquinas. But only a fool calls him incoherent.

Now show me where you disagree with Aquinas and I'll be happy to give you all the tutelage you need to understand him[/quote]The strawman is that somehow him being cherished among Catholics makes him irreproachable. I wish you would follow this discussion.

Alright, I disagree that notorious heretics should be executed.[quote][url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm"]Summa Theologica[/url]
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication,[b][u] but also to be severed from the world by death[/u][/b]. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. [/quote]

I also disagree that Aquinas in the previously quoted statement clearly and orderly demonstrates the existence of souls.[quote]The soul has no matter. We may consider this question in two ways. First, from the notion of a soul in general; for it belongs to the notion of a soul to be the form of a body. Now, either it is a form by virtue of itself, in its entirety, or by virtue of some part of itself. If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible that any part of it should be matter, if by matter we understand something purely potential: for a form, as such, is an act; and that which is purely potentiality cannot be part of an act, since potentiality is repugnant to actuality as being opposite thereto. If, however, it be a form by virtue of a part of itself, then we call that part the soul: and that matter, which it actualizes first, we call the "primary animate."

Secondly, we may proceed from the specific notion of the human soul inasmuch as it is intellectual. For it is clear that whatever is received into something is received according to the condition of the recipient. Now a thing is known in as far as its form is in the knower. But the intellectual soul knows a thing in its nature absolutely: for instance, it knows a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone absolutely, as to its proper formal idea, is in the intellectual soul. Therefore the intellectual soul itself is an absolute form, and not something composed of matter and form. For if the intellectual soul were composed of matter and form, the forms of things would be received into it as individuals, and so it would only know the individual: just as it happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal organ; since matter is the principle by which forms are individualized. It follows, therefore, that the intellectual soul, and every intellectual substance which has knowledge of forms absolutely, is exempt from composition of matter and form. [/quote]Since this is answering the question, "Whether the soul is composed of matter and form?" I think it is nearly impossible to conclude this clearly and orderly demonstrates a soul. If there is no such thing as a soul, what does it make this quotation?



Now please give me you're tutelage... moreover on the point of execution of heretics. I really want to hear how this is irreproachable and the greatest work the church has to offer.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Jaime]

Ok we're going to take baby steps. This is only for you because I will bet all the money in my pockets that any rational person who is reading this has gotten my point several posts ago. You on the other hand are either supremely dense or are purposefully being obtuse perhaps because you think its helping you win this minor debate

Step one

you say

[quote]The strawman is that somehow him being cherished among Catholics makes him irreproachable. I wish you would follow this discussion.
[/quote]

To which I've responded in prior posts

[quote] People may disagree with Aquinas. But only a fool calls him incoherent.[/quote]

Here's the definition of irreproachable Mr Kitty

[quote]ir·re·proach·a·ble ( r -pr ch -b l). adj. Perfect or blameless in every respect; faultless: [i]irreproachable[/i] [/quote]

Did you see where I said people can disagree with Aquinas? There are Summa arguments that I've disagreed with. (I'm against slavery THERE I SAID IT) I said that only a fool would call him incoherent. I stand by that and you're demonstrating it fabulously

Step Two

[quote]Alright, I disagree that notorious heretics should be executed.[/quote] SEE NOW THERE IS A PROPER STRAWMAN!!

While I agree with you and disagree with Aquinas on this point of heresy. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ARGUMENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL.

Cam was asked for proof of the soul's existence and he provided Aquinas's argument for the soul. You (who seemed to be against strawmen arguments) respond with "I disagree with what says about heresy"!! This would make as much sense as someone saying "Airport security is too strict" and I respond with "I disagree!! We should raise the speedlimit on highways"

So let's stick to the subject shall we?

Step three

[quote]Since this is answering the question, "Whether the soul is composed of matter and form?" I think it is nearly impossible to conclude this clearly and orderly demonstrates a soul. If there is no such thing as a soul, what does it make this quotation?

[/quote]

No it doesn't demonstrate a soul. That is done in the preceding paragraphs. (I told you Aquinas is tough to read. Sometimes you have to start at the top of the page) This defines whether the soul is matter or form (Aquinas argues form) His argument is whether or not the soul physically exists.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621']Ok we're going to take baby steps. This is only for you because I will bet all the money in my pockets that any rational person who is reading this has gotten my point several posts ago. You on the other hand are either supremely dense or are purposefully being obtuse perhaps because you think its helping you win this minor debate

Step one

you say[/quote] The only person in need of baby steps is you. You are being dense and purposefully obtuse. I have given my conditions, show how the quotation clearly and orderly demonstrates the existence of souls.[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) ' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621']To which I've responded in prior posts[/quote]Post it.[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621']Here's the definition of irreproachable Mr Kitty[/quote]So you are arguing that the summa theologica does have flaws?[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) ' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621']Did you see where I said people can disagree with Aquinas? There are Summa arguments that I've disagreed with. (I'm against slavery THERE I SAID IT) I said that only a fool would call him incoherent. I stand by that and you're demonstrating it fabulously[/quote]No Christianity in you're posts.[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) ' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621']Step Two

SEE NOW THERE IS A PROPER STRAWMAN!![/quote]It was an example used before and you verbatim wrote, "[i]Now show me where you disagree with Aquinas and I'll be happy to give you all the tutelage you need to understand him[/i]". Thus I asked. I do disagree with this passage.

The reason I quoted this was to show that Aquinas is not always right, even by Catholic standards. That was the admission I was looking for. So it is relevant.[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) ' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621']While I agree with you and disagree with Aquinas on this point of heresy. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ARGUMENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL.

Cam was asked for proof of the soul's existence and he provided Aquinas's argument for the soul. You (who seemed to be against strawmen arguments) respond with "I disagree with what says about heresy"!! This would make as much sense as someone saying "Airport security is too strict" and I respond with "I disagree!! We should raise the speedlimit on highways"

So let's stick to the subject shall we?[/quote]Could you please stick to what you ask? That would be nice. Following the topic.

But expecting you in "[i]apologist[/i]" mode to understand is nearly impossible.[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621']Step three



No it doesn't demonstrate a soul. That is done in the preceding paragraphs. (I told you Aquinas is tough to read. Sometimes you have to start at the top of the page) This defines whether the soul is matter or form (Aquinas argues form) His argument is whether or not the soul physically exists.
[/quote]So you agree that this doesn't demonstrate a soul... not even remotely. If that was the intention, it is incoherent. I said incoherent since it doesn't clearly and orderly demonstrate a soul's existence, in reply to the quotation offered.

Thank you for conceding.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Jaime]

[mod]Personal attack --franciscanheart[/mod]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308809645' post='2257631'][mod]Personal attack --franciscanheart[/mod][/quote]
[mod]Personal attack --franciscanheart[/mod]

[stevil]

[quote]
The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] has no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url]. We may consider this question in two ways. First, from the notion of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] in general; for it belongs to the notion of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] to be the form of a body. [b]Now, either it is a form by virtue of itself, in its entirety, or by virtue of some part of itself. If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible that any part of it should be [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url], if by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] we understand something purely [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potential[/url]: for a form, as such, is an act; and that which is purely [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potentiality[/url] cannot be part of an act, since [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potentiality[/url] is repugnant to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01224a.htm"]actuality[/url] as being opposite thereto. If, however, it be a form by virtue of a part of itself, then we call that part the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url]: and that [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url], which it actualizes first, we call the "primary animate." [/b]

Secondly, we may proceed from the specific notion of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]human[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] inasmuch as it is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url].[b] For it is clear that whatever is received into something is received according to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm"]condition[/url] of the recipient.[/b] Now a thing is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]known[/url] in as far as its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url] is in the knower. But the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] a thing in its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm"]nature[/url] absolutely: for instance, it [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone absolutely, as to its proper formal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm"]idea[/url], is in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url]. [b]Therefore the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] itself is an absolute form, and not something composed of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url]. For if the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] were composed of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url], the forms of things would be received into it as [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm"]individuals[/url], and so it would only [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url] the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm"]individual[/url]: just as it happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal organ; since [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] is the principle by which forms are individualized. It follows, therefore, that the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url], and every [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm"]substance[/url] which has [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knowledge[/url] of forms absolutely, is exempt from composition of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url]. [/b]
[/quote]
This is a very difficult statement for me to understand, even after a few reads. Whether it is because it was written in a different time where words had different meanings or whether there is implicit religious epistemology, or if the author has consciously decided to use confussion to his argument's advantage, I am unsure.
I would like to dissect this statement, work out what the assumptions are, but first I need to understand it better.
This argument at first glance looks like simply a logic puzzle. It offers no reference of objectively observed and re-creatable data. To me the conclusions do not necessarily follow from the premises and the premises have not been proven to be truths. But then again I am an Atheist and I am naturally skeptical of this stuff and it is easy to fob it off without taking the time to truly try and understand what the statement means.

So here is my attempt to do this. To try and understand this, to try and be open minded and to try and learn something.

1. "The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] has no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url]"
I would agree with this statement. If the soul does exist and it is within proximity of the living body and if it does consist of matter then it would be detectable and observable. But it is not. Therefore it has no matter. This already leads me to the issue of whether something that has no matter can actually exist. I would suggest that energy/matter IS existence, without energy/matter it would simply be conceptual.

2. What is meant by "soul to be the form of a body" and how significant is this with regards to understanding this statement?
Form in this instance means shape, right? How do we know that the soul is the form of a body? We don't even know that there is a soul, we can't observe it or measure it. We don't know where it is, or what size or shape it is. How can we necessarily conclude that the soul is the form of the body?

3. What is meant by "[b][b]If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible that any part of it should be [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url]", why is this impossible? Why cannot form be matter?[/b]
[/b]

[Papist]

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]Is it possible to prove that humans do not have souls?[/size][/font][/color]

[Jaime]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308809936' post='2257634']
[mod]Personal attack --franciscanheart[/mod]
[/quote]

feel free to send a letter to the union

[Cam42]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308831429' post='2257671']
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]Is it possible to prove that humans do not have souls?[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

Nope, but even theoretically, it is possible to prove that they do....but we cannot prove that they don't.

Proper logic and proper philosophy does not prove the negative, but rather proves the positive.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Cam42

[sixpence]

this used to be a nice pleasant thread before I left.....

now I've returned to find all these insults being flung around...

Edited June 23, 2011 by sixpence

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308831429' post='2257671'][color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]Is it possible to prove that humans do not have souls?[/size][/font][/color][/quote]Some may argue lack of proof is proof against.[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308835340' post='2257680']feel free to send a letter to the union[/quote]Why is it the Catholics with the most "[i]understanding[/i]" of their faith are the most unfaithful to its teachings? Honestly if you were a licensed theologian of the church, I might. Defending a position from the start that didn't demonstrate the existence of souls, in a condescending and belittling manner, is worth a complaint. [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308841535' post='2257693']
Nope, but even theoretically, it is possible to prove that they do....but we cannot prove that they don't.

Proper logic and proper philosophy does not prove the negative, but rather proves the positive.[/quote]You're still here? Do you like making stuff up?[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1308843237' post='2257699']
this used to be a nice pleasant thread before I left.....

now I've returned to find all these insults being flung around...[/quote]Regretfully. Cam42 has left his "i love you" and "i will be polite" mode to... "i will make random statements that are either unsupported or try to support it with unrelated quotations."

[Papist]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308841535' post='2257693']
Nope, but even theoretically, it is possible to prove that they do....but we cannot prove that they don't.

Proper logic and proper philosophy does not prove the negative, but rather proves the positive.
[/quote]
Yes. But if I state I have a soul, I put the burden of proof on the person that is stating I am wrong.

[Papist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308845800' post='2257705']
Some may argue lack of proof is proof against.
[/quote]
I'd say those 'some' are doing a very poor job searching for Truth.


A proof can be put in front you, as Cam had done. The fact you choose not to accept does not make it untrue.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308847680' post='2257717']I'd say those 'some' are doing a very poor job searching for Truth.


A proof can be put in front you, as Cam had done. The fact you choose not to accept does not make it untrue.[/quote]Even the Church Scholar has admitted that the quoted excerpt does not demonstrate the existence of souls. So that's a very harsh and unfounded comment to make.

[Papist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308847808' post='2257718']
Even the Church Scholar has admitted that the quoted excerpt does not demonstrate the existence of souls. So that's a very harsh and unfounded comment to make.
[/quote]
Do you believe human beings have souls?