When do you get a soul? & related questions.

No - you can make perfectly valid logical assertions regarding the soul - but the soundness of the argument would rest on the soundness of the underlying premise(s).

Basically if you begin with unproven, unverifiable assertions (such as life being materially irreducible) then you can arrive at valid logical conclusions based on the premise, but which are unsound - due to the unsound nature of the premise (and by unsound I merely mean "not sound" - i.e. anything that is not sound is unsound).

I would therefore amend your statement to be with regard "sound and valid logical arguments".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

never heard of a normative description in scripture?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Normative descriptions are not "verifiably knowable truthful assertions concerning the soul" or "the process by which they can be verified."

Those would be positive or factual descriptions and no, I've never found a single verifiably knowable truthful assertion concerning the soul in scripture.

But I have found you are an endless and bountiful void when it comes to meaningful answers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no idea.
You'd have to ask someone who does...

 

Normative descriptions (or "ways that you have to be/act in order to know something") are a prerequisite for the verifiable knowable truthful assertions of anything.

If you disagree, feel free to offer an example that doesn't have this requirement

On the contrary, a discussion that heads in the direction of seeking meaningful answers while bypassing normative descriptions is a shoreless ocean.

Just imagine discussing claims of physics divorced from the practice of physicists.

Yet for some reason you insist on discussing theistic claims along parallel lines ....
:shrug:

 

My question to you is that if logic is an argument that focuses on form as opposed to content, what is an argument that focuses on content?

 

actually arguing that life is materially reducible is unsound.
Not a scrap of evidence for that claim

The argument that life is not materially reducible rests upon methodologies outside of empiricism (hence the argument really begins at the point of "does empiricism have the monopoly on all claims of knowledge?")

 

As I've already stated, numerous times, formality is but one essential element of a logical argument.
You're creating a false dichotomy.

 

-=-

LG is a false dichotomy.

 

You do not get a soul a soul gets you, for better or worse.

 

Objectively, perhaps - but it is currently sound by dint of rationality given existing evidence.

:shrug:
Care to cut your head off and carry on typing?

Oh no - that's right - all that would be evidence of is destroying the vessel in which the "giver of life" resides... and thus not evidence at all.
Oh, how silly of me.

Such a claim rests outside of science and outside of rationality.
There is no evidence other than subjective experience that, due to your teachings, you interpret a specific way rather than scrutinise rationally. You are therefore caught up in a "believe to believe" cycle yet I'm guessing you can not see that.
You also seem frightened of the statement "I do not know" - too eager to bridge the gap of understanding with your claims of the "non-material" etc. And round and round the cycle you go.

I look forward to the day you manage to break free.

 

And you are free, or at least know what true freedom is?

 

Free of such dogmatic cyclical thinking that seems to prevent some people from thinking rationally and concluding "I don't know"? I would like to think so.

Are you?

 

:shrug:

then perhaps you can suggest what this is referring to in the way of form and content.

The concept of logical form is central to logic; it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.

 

yes

its the nature of arguments that rest purely on logic to be quite flexible.

For instance

All pigs can fly
All horses are pigs

Therefore all horses can fly

:shrug:

More to the point, care to cut your head off after paying someone to stitch it back on for you after you've done the deed?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't worry

It wouldn't be the first time a person has made the mistake of ascribing eternal values to temporary objects in this world

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Given the extent of values, I wouldn't expect anything else from you

I simply posed the question whether empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge.

I can only assume that due to your teachings, you interpret a specific way rather than scrutinise rationally. You are therefore caught up in a "believe to believe" cycle yet I'm guessing you can not see that. (namely see that empiricism quite literally doesn't have the "tools" to see what it is seeing with)

Actually it appears that you are terrified by the statement "I do not know but others do" ... particularly if they come from a theistic background.

The discomfort arises from your pre-existing value system

meanwhile you remain oblivious to the tight orbit that the belief "life is materially reducible" grants

will the irony never end?

 

I thought you knew the difference between soundness and validity?

:wallbang:
I am not going to regurgitate the many posts where this has been explained to you. Your ignorance (or more likely your obstinacy?) in this regard is astounding.

Given that the universe works rather well without the need for a soul, and that you have no evidence for a soul other than your appeal to authority... how exactly do you plan to progress down a claim of rationality on your part?
And it behooves you to counter the assumption I made rather than ignore it - if you think I am incorrect?

As for your assumption - please indicate how I have not been scrutinising rationally?

I welcome it if others know and can share their knowledge with everyone else.
Unfortunately all they can come up with is an alternate description of material phenomena.

No discomfort, merely anticipation, I assure you.

No belief - just an assumption until shown to be incorrect. And given that the assumption is doing rather well at explaining most things... I have reasonable hopes that it will need no adjustments. However, when something arises for which we the assumption proves impossible to account for... the assumption will be amended.

So - any counters to the assumptions I made of you - or are you just going to continue to deflect?

 

Positive or factual descriptions are "verifiably knowable truthful assertions concerning" something and there is a "process by which they can be verified."

Just did.

 

Neither. You are the soul. The soul is you. You get a body.

 

That says exactly what I've been saying: validity is solely a function of form.

 

Sure

..... the problem is however its the opening line under the heading "Nature of logic"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!