Sure- if you agree we have no true will or intellect or emotions- that all those actions that we call those are just then allusion and are purely materelasticly determined from the beginning of time. Why has God given us a soul- so that we can make our own choices and are not just the expression of way the atoms of the universe have made us. But again you misunderstand the soul is expressed threw those things- one might think of the action as a transducer in it’s expression. You say that the will, intellect and our emotions are purely the product of the expression of the atoms in our brain, but I say they are expressions of the soul. When some one can collect together bunches of atoms and have them act like a human soul then I will put more faith in that position. Its clear by now that our minds are not computers and that computers will never have will, intellect or emotions, they might be able to at some point mimic them as we program them to respond to input ( like 1+1 =2) and churn out a prerecorded response. But they do not have the intellect to produce the formula 1+1=2.
Then how about narrowing the definition to humans? Tell that to my grandma who died the oher day, or all those clearly dead folks in the gulf. There's definately a clear line at some point. There's not a lot of different degrees of being in buried in a coffin to rot, unless of course maybe you're buried alive. Oh I definately think it was concieved in ignorance. I'm just trying to play around with a definition that might hold true to the original idea to some degree and still squeek by the argument, mostly for sport.
Who said anything about supernatural? I think the word "supernatural" is ill-conceived, for it whatever the subject of the word is possible, it's perfectly natural. Note that in reaction to cris's post I've narrowed the definition: "the unknown element that clearly distinquishes between a person being alive or dead"
I want to read a book or e-book not that above post. I read the first paragraph and it seems stupendous lunacy for me to continue reading. Hilarious! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The complete definition of a soul is irrelevant to Boris's arguments. The only thing necessary for Boris's argument is that a soul is something that interacts with a human. If you agree that a soul does this then all of Boris's arguments apply and need to be addressed directly. If not then what does a soul do, what is it for? ~Raithere
So you believe in "the Soul" through fear of the alternative? So logical and rational of you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dogs have emotions. They can be happy, sad, angry etc. Dogs can also do some amazingly intelligent things - and some have the same intelligence and problem solving abilities as very young children (aged 2/3/4 etc). Dogs also have a will. When left to their own devices they make their own choices. One dog my family had would tell US when it wanted to go out for a walk - and we were never going to get it to go if he didn't want to. So - a non-human with the same will, intellect and emotion as a human. Does a dog have a soul? If not, why not if you think that a 1-year old human does?
Thanks for the informative response to his post. I suggest you actually read it and comment usefully on what it contains. To merely say "Hilarious" suggests to me that you really can't find anything to counter the arguments with. If you can - please share them.
1. If someone's brain wasn't functioning at all (i.e. completely flat-lined on all EM readouts) would you say the person was dead - Yes or No? 2. And if there was some/any sign of EM activity - Yes or No? If you answer No to 1 and Yes to 2 then you've already defined the "element" as being brain activity. If you say Yes to 1 then please let me know how you define death. Also - do you consider the "soul" to be immaterial? If so, then Boris' post and his arguments are valid.
"So - a non-human with the same will, intellect and emotion as a human. Does a dog have a soul?" If you really believe that a Dog has the same capabilities that humans have - then I guess there is no point in responding. Dogs have a degree of intelligence but no intellect. A predator would not survive long with out some degree of intelligence - even some spiders have more intelligence than Dogs. Life is immaterial yes, a body does not move around or have will or intelligence or emotions with out life. All animals and plants have life or what the bible calls the breath of life from God. The scriptures declare that when something dies, if it is a human being the life returns to God and other living creatures return the earth, do animals have souls- maybe but not of the same type as humankind- for God has give every living creature the Breath of Life from God, but they aren’t made in the image of God with immortality and same degree of will, intellect and emotions. With out a functioning brain, ones soul would not be able to interact with the body, even though the body is alive. Death is when the life force that animates a body can not be maintained in the body, the soul might not be in the body but cells of the body can still function if given food and water and oxygen. By faith or trust in what God has declared I consider the life and soul as immaterial. This is the purpose of revelation- to declare and teach us what we can not find out for our selves- we have no way to know what happens when something dies, we can not test for it we can’t get information it’s lost to us. Sure his arguments appear valid if there is no God, but they are not valid if there is a God. Ecclesiastes 3:19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [spirit] ; man has no advantage over the animal. 1peter2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons{Pits] to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
A dog, especially one such as a German Shepherd, has an IQ of around 30 - and acts similarly to a child of around 2 or 3. You even have to treat them in the same manner. And a dog can rescue people from fires, detect drugs and bombs. Can a 2 year-old? LOL! So you can have intelligence without intellect?? Dogs have intellect, believe me! Hmmm. Evidence of this? I'm not saying it's not true - but where's the evidence? I've never seen a spider that's been trained to do things. So, finally admitting that the "soul" is immaterial - please re-read Boris' essay / words in the first post and offer some refutation. We actually have a damn fine knowledge base of what happens. I'm not a medical expert but most doctors are taught it, all forensic bods are taught it. Let's just say it's rather disgusting, smells bad, and is good for the bacteria and wee little animals. LOL! "God exists because he does." You believe what you have been brought up to believe. And where's the evidence that he has declared anything?
I read the first paragraph and it seems stupendous lunacy for me to continue reading. I always read what other theists ask in order to respond to their posts. You should at the very least offer the same considerations. If you don't, there is no point in you posting here at all or even being a member of this forum. You clearly are not interested in learning anything and would much rather sit in a room clinging to your bible while rocking back and forth. Please continue to do so, stop posting here and go away.
you said you will all be happy if i can counter his argument. but i think you will not be happy, nothing i will do will make you happy, i might make you laugh, i might make you smile, but i will not make you happy, find happiness yourself and you will not need any one to give it to you.
what word would that be? what do you mean by immaterial part? i do disagree with the actuating cause bit though, the cause of life is desire. good question, and one that is not duely considered in boris argument.
it should be relevant. why would it not be relevant to consider what it is that is being argued. would his argument be as acceptable if he gave as little attention to the argument form the neurological perspective? surely it would be dismissed as unsubstantiated bull. there are many things that interact with humans. if we do not know what it is that is being referred to, what it does, how it does it. then how can we seriously argue what it is not, what it is not doing, and how it is not doing it? if we dont know what the soul is, how do we really know that the soul is immaterial, it could be a very subtle physical element capable of carrying information and interacting with the denser physical substances. if it is defined vaguely as something that we dont really know anything about how can we justify saying it is not really there? in fact it is the vagueness of the definition of that called "soul" that qualifies the argument from neurology.
what word would that be? The word of god, claimed by the theists to which it has been given, at least, their many versions of it. They have yet to agree. what do you mean by immaterial part? Without matter, form or substance - again, that to which theists claim to comprise the soul. i do disagree with the actuating cause bit though, the cause of life is desire. Do amoeba have desires? Plants? Viruses? Fungi? good question, and one that is not duely considered in boris argument. So, you are also unable to define a soul? If so, why do you believe in one?
The only relevant part of any definition of "soul" is that it is immaterial. Further, more precise, definition IS irrelevant to Boris' discussion. Boris even starts in his first paragraph by saying "Yet, souls are defined as immaterial..." and it is on this alone that he is commenting on. If one, however, feels the soul to be material - please provide evidence of it's existence.
why do you? to come correct, you dont know what i believe. making presumptions is something that you should give up Q. it is not your forte.
that simply is not true. is the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material? is the only relevant part of any defintion of a dog the fact it has hair? is the only relevant part of any defintion of the world the fact that it is not flat? is the only relevant part of any argument that which suits your needs?
are you saying that these things have a soul too? It is primarily customary to answer a question, but not with another question. If souls existed, then they should also have souls. What say you? why do you? Again, answer the question. I don't have beliefs. to come correct, you dont know what i believe. making presumptions is something that you should give up Q. it is not your forte. In your case, I'm forced to make assumptions because you won't answer questions. Why do you believe in a soul if you don't know what it is? Could you please make some attempt at answering questions without other questions, it would make for what is commonly termed a 'discussion.' If you feel you don't need/want to answer questions, then don't post at all. that simply is not true. Then, in your humble opinion, what is the truth?
