Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308847988' post='2257720']Do you believe human beings have souls?[/quote]You may read my previous comments in the topic. However the burden of proof is on those claiming souls exist, as they have defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308848247' post='2257721'] You may read my previous comments in the topic. However the burden of proof is on those claiming souls exist, as they have defined. [/quote] There's a lot of incoherent ramblings in those comments. It is not clear to me if you believe human beings have souls. A simple [u]yes[/u] or [u]no[/u] will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Hmm... What have we here? A thread about proving teh soul? Nice. I've left my body and experienced other worlds in our universe as well as parallel universes and higher planes of existence. Once had an amesome transtemporal adventure with one of my doppelgangers in an alternate reality. Good times... There are other planes of existence that will totally blow your mind; wish I could get into it... Sorry, all I have is anecdotal evidence, but it's pretty radical anecdotal evidence. Would I ever make something like this up? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308848433' post='2257722']There's a lot of incoherent ramblings in those comments. It is not clear to me if you believe human beings have souls. A simple [u]yes[/u] or [u]no[/u] will do.[/quote]In regards to souls I wrote, "I would argue emergence. But I don't see any benefit in arguing for a soul beyond personal gratification." This is incoherent rambling to you? For you're benefit. No. At least, not in the manner I suspect you would define a soul. Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308848662' post='2257724'] In regards to souls I wrote, "I would argue emergence. But I don't see any benefit in arguing for a soul beyond personal gratification." This is incoherent rambling to you? For you're benefit. No. At least, not in the manner I suspect you would define a soul. [/quote] Good. Let's define what is being asked to prove exist, a soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308849579' post='2257728']Good. Let's define what is being asked to prove exist, a soul.[/quote]Please. The more testable or falsifiable the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1308422783' post='2255632'] Is it possible to prove that humans have souls? I read something recently in the book, why matter matters, where it said that humans must have souls based on the fact we can comprehend universal ideas, such as treeness. Can any one elaborate on this argument? [/quote] Does the book provide a definition/explanation of the soul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308829289' post='2257665'] 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.[b] This already leads me to the issue of whether something that has no matter can actually exist.[/b] I would suggest that energy/matter IS existence, without energy/matter it would simply be conceptual. [/quote] Well, that's where materialists and believers in the spiritual disagree, is it not? Something to think about: Do your own thoughts exist? Or do only the physical firing of neurons in the brain have existence? Interestingly, science has never really been able to explain consciousness, or how exactly we are self-aware. Nor can we duplicate consciousness physically. Some amazingly powerful computer hardware and software has been created, yet we have no evidence that any of it has a shred of genuine sentience, or self-awareness, in the way that human beings have. Also, do you have free will? Are you actually able to choose one thing over another? Or is that illusory? Some materialists have claimed human free will is an illusion, based on the principle that human thoughts and choices are only the result of purely physical processes (the firing of neurons, etc.). If all that is involved is physical activity, and each physical motion is caused by another, including human thoughts and choices, then the choices themselves are physically determined by prior physical motion. There is no true free will, but merely atoms, etc. knocking each other around (Think a big pinball machine for analogy. The direction a ball moves is determined by what hit it from what angle and other physical factors.) [quote]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?[/quote] "Form" is actually a philosophical term going back to Plato and Aristotle, and does not mean the same thing as a physical shape (the way we commonly use the word in English). Unfortunately, I don't have time to try to explain it in depth, and my own philosophy has gotten rusty (yeah, I know, ironic from a guy with the sn "Socrates"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [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] Depends on how you define "soul". If by soul you mean the essence of life or what causes us to be alive (biologically, I think it would be sort of like metabolism, but this is a complex subject) then the answer is no. I think the main problem here is with definitions. Aquinas' is not clear. The mind, it can be argued, can also be said to be an emergent quality. Would the soul be like the whole body's mind? Edited June 23, 2011 by xSilverPhinx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polsky215 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308803083' post='2257559']<br />I'm an atheist, I don't care what you're church considers it. But I like how you're defense of the summa is very familiar to Muslims defending the Quran. So you're blind faith, inability to address my posts, or failure demonstrate a soul... is quite honestly ridiculous. At least in context...<br /><br />To answer my own question. He called his work straw. So the greatest and irreproachable work of theology the church has to offer is... straw. Am I surprised? No.<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br /> wow no one is really addressing the content of aquinas' proof. First of all, Aquinas was not infallible, though he may have been a genius. So if there is one fallible sentence, then yes, it is by definition incoherent. But secondly, Aquinas calling his work straw is him being humble. That virtue of humility is understandably something only theists could value. That by no means makes his work actually as good as straw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1308868020' post='2257834'] <br /><br /><br /> wow no one is really addressing the content of aquinas' proof. First of all, Aquinas was not infallible, though he may have been a genius. So if there is one fallible sentence, then yes, it is by definition incoherent. But secondly, Aquinas calling his work straw is him being humble. That virtue of humility is understandably something only theists could value. That by no means makes his work actually as good as straw. [/quote] The way I see it, if he called his work "straw", then why is the Church promoting it as truth, doctrine or dogma? Maybe only Aquinas himself was aware that the matter at hand is not something that can be proved mathematically or shown scientifically, even via rational arguments. Certainly doesn't make the Church any more able. The main problem with his proof is that it's vague and abstract, and as a consequence one could substitute an idea of a soul for something similar such as 'immaterial mind', which would allow the brain to observe the universe and through observing the universe cause it to exist subjectively and therefore give it meaning*, or the 'essence of life' and it can still be just as coherent. We know for a fact that eachone of us exists and that we're observing something out there...but calling that potential the "soul" is problematic because it's a loaded word. People say that the soul lives on, how does that follow from our 'essence of life' or potential to observe the universe? Aquinas doesn't attach the word 'soul' to an actual verifiable [i]thing, [/i]just an idea. * If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Edited June 23, 2011 by xSilverPhinx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) [font="Tahoma"][size="2"]This reminds be something, ironically enough, St. Thomas Aquinas said. "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." [/size][/font] Edited June 24, 2011 by Papist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 [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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308808077' post='2257621'][b]No it doesn't demonstrate a soul.[/b] [u]That is done in the preceding paragraphs[/u]. (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][quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308847808' post='2257718']Even the Church Scholar has admitted that the [u]quoted excerpt [b]does not demonstrate the existence of souls[/b][/u]. So that's a very harsh and unfounded comment to make.[/quote][quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308926145' post='2258078'][/quote]Please... join the discussion. Demonstrate the existence of souls or offer a definition of a soul. Edited June 24, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308923538' post='2258061'] [font="Tahoma"][size="2"]This reminds be something, ironically enough, St. Thomas Aquinas said. "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." [/size][/font] [/quote] And the thing is, I think that's true You have to already know exactly what you're looking for to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now