soul???

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, it can't.

If I had to use your analogy, my answer would be "a white fur coat". Now you say, "But since you believe in the existence of white mammoths, I'd like you to elaborate on the advantages of white mammoth fur coats". When I start doing so, you go "Aha! But prove that white mammoths exist."

Why should I? My original answer was, and remains, "white fur coats". You insisted on talking about white mammoths; not me.

Saying that something is "off the cuff or convenient" isn't a counter-argument; it's just a statement of opinion. I think you know that.

If someone throws at me a point that is not substantiated in any way then I have two choices...blindly accept it, or reject it on the above grounds.
For example, KM said that we instantly travel to the end of time when we die...with this answer I can either think to myself "ah yes...that sure clears things up.....???" and accept it; or I can think "I don't believe in your time-travel hypothesis...who said this would happen? how would this happen? did you not read my post that clearly states my position on time travel or even time itself, why doesn't he refute this first?" and reject it by asking for their justification.

Not at all. If a system already contains axioms in it such that (either alone or combined with Thomism) it leads to contradictions as you raise that doesn't mean that Thomism itself (or Thomism plus certain religious traditions) cannot handle your questions. To argue that Thomism plus any possible system must withstand contradiction is an absurd ask -- I could simply add a system that already has contradictions in it and Thomism cannot remove those

But that is precisely what I am trying to ascertain...whether or not Thomism really can stand against at least my arguments!..If you choose to hybridise this system with any others to answer even just one question then it follows that in lieu of a better answer, your solution rests not only on the tenability of Thomism but also the tenability of your other system! ...If I can undermine the latter by revealing a specific and relevant contradiction that arises through this alliance then I can ask you for a better answer.** (it might be that the two are indeed compatible and you just need to present your argument more accurately)...to just sweep problems under the carpet and carry on is neither how I debate, learn, or study.

EDIT: And no, I am not identifying Christianity with Thomism. I am applying Thomistic [philosophical] notions to Christian doctrine. As I said earlier, I cannot vouch for what happens when it is applied to other religions -- nor should I be required to.

No you wouldn't have to! it may be the case that all other permutations are wrong and that this one is correct...I can't be blamed however for wanting to determine if this is not true however!


**At no point in this thread have I asked for the proof of God to meet your arguments...I do however reject the truth of all your other posts based only on the truth of just these axioms...for in this case I could equate your answers to just Have faith. Rather I would prefer that you vindicate your position with a rational and logical argument(s).

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]No, it can't.

If I had to use your analogy, my answer would be "a white fur coat". Now you say, "But since you believe in the existence of white mammoths, I'd like you to elaborate on the advantages of white mammoth fur coats". When I start doing so, you go "Aha! But prove that white mammoths exist."

Only if you base the truth of your arguments so ...[text shortened]... act I would leave it to you to tell me exactly where this white fur originates from,[/b]

As far as the original discussion was concerned, the white fur could come from anywhere (ermines, polar bears, elderly Neanderthels, whatever). The answer "white fur coats" does not depend on the existence of white mammoths. If I had answered "white mammoth fur coats" then you're right; I would have to justify the existence of white mammoths.

The point is that you took the discussion to white mammoths. The question "But what are the properties of white mammoth fur" presupposes white mammoths; it's essentially a conditional "If white mammoths exist then ...." Being reasonable does not require me to justify a conditional that you imposed. If you don't want to, drop the conditional. We can just return to generic white fur or, in this case, notions of 'soul' that do not require the supernatural.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
We can just return to generic white fur or, in this case, notions of 'soul' that do not require the supernatural.

There is a concept of the soul which does not require the supernatural? Which one is that?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Saying that something is "off the cuff or convenient" isn't a counter-argument; it's just a statement of opinion. I think you know that.

If someone throws at me a point that is not substantiated in any way then I have two choices...blindly accept it, or reject it on the above grounds.
For example, KM said that we instantly travel to the end of time ld prefer that you vindicate your position with a rational and logical argument(s).[/b]

If someone throws at me a point that is not substantiated in any way...

The problem is that you said you wouldn't accept Bible verses as substantiation. That's an unreasonable, unfair condition to impose in a discussion where (as I described by analogy in my previous post) Christian sources are part of the conditional.

did you not read my post that clearly states my position on time travel or even time itself,

I did and I don't find them tenable in a post-relativity world where time is just another axis along with the three space axes. I can see nothing wrong with the idea of time travel, especially since we're not talking about physical objects with mass that would violate physical laws of the universe.

But that is precisely what I am trying to ascertain...whether or not Thomism really can stand against at least my arguments!

Base Thomism does stand against your mind-body arguments and questions of the immortal soul are not relevant because Thomism doesn't require it.

If you choose to hybridise this system with any others to answer even just one question then it follows that in lieu of a better answer, your solution rests not only on the tenability of Thomism but also the tenability of your other system!

I didn't choose to hybridise the system -- you did. You weren't satisfied with the fact that post-death soul questions didn't really need an answer with Thomism so you wanted to move the discussion to Christianity+Thomism. As I've said many times, if you don't want to do that you can always return to base Thomism. But, if you want to move the discussion to Christianity+Thomism, then Christianity is part of the conditional and you cannot expect additional justification for a constraint that was essentially imposed by you, not me. Now that would be unreasonable.

for in this case I could equate your answers to just Have faith.

Really? Point out a specific instance where such an equation happens. Don't make an accusation if you aren't willing to back it up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a concept of the soul which does not require the supernatural? Which one is that?

The Thomistic-Aristotelian notion of 'soul' as the essence (Lat. essentia) of a living being.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If someone throws at me a point that is not substantiated in any way...

The problem is that you said you wouldn't accept Bible verses as substantiation. That's an unreasonable, unfair condition to impose in a discussion where (as I described by analogy in my previous post) Christian sources are part of the conditional.

did you not read h an equation happens. Don't make an accusation if you aren't willing to back it up.

The problem is that you said you wouldn't accept Bible verses as substantiation. That's an unreasonable, unfair condition to impose in a discussion where (as I described by analogy in my previous post) Christian sources are part of the conditional.

What would I gain from this acceptance? how does this fully meet a question asked by an atheist?...why could I not choose the Gospel of the FSM instead? why can I not believe in something I just invent for that matter?

I did and I don't find them tenable in a post-relativity world where time is just another axis along with the three space axes. I can see nothing wrong with the idea of time travel, especially since we're not talking about physical objects with mass that would violate physical laws of the universe.

I am having difficulty finding the bit where the truth (or even hint) of time travel follows from relativity

Base Thomism does stand against your mind-body arguments and questions of the immortal soul are not relevant because Thomism doesn't require it.

So you say...but that the soul is not supernatural begs questions of its own...ie: why the need for our conciousness to be described by way of a soul?...what function does it perform that cannot be explained away by wholly non-soul processes?...where is it if physical?, where does this physical soul go when we die? By what mechanical methods can we detect this physical entity you refer to as a soul? (here you allude to the resurrection of Jesus & Apostle's Creed...ie: *you* choose to answer this question by aligning your Thomistic notion with another religious system)

I didn't choose to hybridise the system -- you did. You weren't satisfied with the fact that post-death soul questions didn't really need an answer with Thomism so you wanted to move the discussion to Christianity+Thomism. As I've said many times, if you don't want to do that you can always return to base Thomism. But, if you want to move the discussion to Christianity+Thomism, then Christianity is part of the conditional and you cannot expect additional justification for a constraint that was essentially imposed by you, not me. Now that would be unreasonable.

(Read my last paragraph) I have been very careful that I let only you (or others) take this debate into their own arenas...It is these arenas that I challenge yet you imply that our battles in such arenas are the result of my own desire to fight them there. You have done this with your white mammoth analogy... you claim that it would be me who instantiates the notion of white mammoth when in fact I would merely wait until you volunteered it yourself or something different.

Really? Point out a specific instance where such an equation happens. Don't make an accusation if you aren't willing to back it up

Firstly I did not assert that you have (you may have inferred from this a meaning that I did not intend) ...secondly, when you say in your first paragraph of the post I respond that not accepting quotes from the Bible is unreasonable; I would argue that this if offered as a solution is in itself something that *I* could equate to have faith...to what else could I equate such and such a point is true because the Bible says so?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Thomistic-Aristotelian notion of 'soul' as the essence (Lat. essentia) of a living being.

As far as I could tell from your rather vague explanation of 'essence', it was most definitely supernatural in nature.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]The problem is that you said you wouldn't accept Bible verses as substantiation. That's an unreasonable, unfair condition to impose in a discussion where (as I described by analogy in my previous post) Christian sources are part of the conditional.

What would I gain from this acceptance? how does this fully meet a question asked by an atheist?...why else could I equate such and such a point is true because the Bible says so?[/b]

What would I gain from this acceptance?

An understanding of how, within Christianity, the process is explained. As I said earlier, if you want a justification of Christianity itself, that's a subject for another discussion.

why could I not choose the Gospel of the FSM instead?

You can. If the result is internally contradictory, then you will have gained nothing except that Thomism (say) is not compatible with the Gospel of FSM. If it is compatible, then you understand how, within FSM-ism, the process is explained.

I am having difficulty finding the bit where the truth (or even hint) of time travel follows from relativity

Relativity already allows for "time travel" (colloquially speaking) in the forward direction. Ever hear of the Twin Paradox?

Here's what you said earlier:

To me the concept of time is taken to extremes that it does not deserve (I do not believe in the possibility of time travel etc...). Either everything happens at once or it doesn't...

Besides the obvious flaw that "at once" in itself carries notions of simultaneity (which relativity does disabuse); one can also consider the time axis as a whole and say that, from the perspective of an external observer, everything does indeed happen "at once".

It's a bit like the difference between watching a film and having the entire film reel laid out on the table -- watched in sequence the events of the film do not happen simultaneously, but laid out on a table, the entire film can be viewed at a single glance.

but that the soul is not supernatural begs questions of its own...

Not the ones you beg, unfortunately.

why the need for our conciousness to be described by way of a soul?...

It isn't in the Thomistic view. That's the Cartesian view you're talking about.

what function does it perform that cannot be explained away by wholly physical processes?...

It determines the physical processes; the very description or "design" of those physical processes constitutes the essence or soul.

where is it if physical?

It isn't physical.

where does this physical soul go when we die?

Again, it isn't physical. If you do not hold to the supernatural, the soul ceases to be* (which is not to imply that I am saying it has a real existence as the object itself -- I'm only using the word "be" here for lack of another term) when the organism itself ceases to exist.

By what mechanical methods can we detect this physical entity you refer to as a soul?

Since it isn't physical, your question is meaningless.

(here you allude to the resurrection of Jesus...ie: *you* choose to answer this question by aligning your Thomistic notion with another religious system)

I hope you've simply forgotten the train of conversation and aren't deliberately being disingenuous here. First, I spoke of the resurrection of everyone's bodies -- not just Jesus. Second (and more importantly), I answered this after we had moved the discussion to Christianity; i.e. your assertion that I chose to answer the question with a religious answer is incorrect -- the question was already placed in a religious context before I answered it.

(Read my last paragraph)

I did and it asserted something that was false. I've assumed that's just forgetfulness on your part.

I have been very careful that I let only you (or others) take this debate into their own arenas...

No you haven't. Back on page 4 I gave you the choice of arguing the Thomistic soul strictly in the philosophical arena vs. the Christian arena -- you made the choice to go for the Christian one (🙂)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What would I gain from this acceptance?

An understanding of how, within Christianity, the process is explained. As I said earlier, if you want a justification of Christianity itself, that's a subject for another discussion.

why could I not choose the Gospel of the FSM instead?

You can. If the result is internally contradicto ristian arena -- you made the choice to go for the Christian one (🙂)[/b]

An understanding of how, within Christianity, the process is explained. As I said earlier, if you want a justification of Christianity itself, that's a subject for another discussion.

I did not ask you to describe it in terms of Christianity, I am no more inclined towards that religion than I am aligned towards Islam or Pastafarianism...you took the initiative here

Relativity already allows for "time travel" (colloquially speaking) in the forward direction. Ever hear of the Twin Paradox?

Here's what you said earlier:

To me the concept of time is taken to extremes that it does not deserve (I do not believe in the possibility of time travel etc...). Either everything happens at once or it doesn't...

Besides the obvious flaw that "at once" in itself carries notions of simultaneity (which relativity does disabuse); (??? No it doesn't!!! where does relativity disabuse this by suggesting that ALL things happen simultaneously?...you are mis-interpreting my words to suggest I meant something else) one can also consider the time axis as a whole and say that, from the perspective of an external observer, everything does indeed happen "at once".

It's a bit like the difference between watching a film and having the entire film reel laid out on the table -- watched in sequence the events of the film do not happen simultaneously, but laid out on a table, the entire film can be viewed at a single glance.

dude, you're deriving the conclusion that time travel (in so much that something can manipulate it In this case the *something* would appear to be whatever supreme deity manages to fast track this soul to the end of the world where it is then resurrected (this was Km's assertion but you are the champion of his cause here)) is true from the premise that you can analyse the past...though if obstinately you wish to argue that from the soul's point of view it just *gets resurrected to the end of the world* then I can ask that from *our* point of view, what happens to the soul when we die? (such to deny you of this convenient answer)

Not the ones you beg, unfortunately.
A silly cheap shot but I don't think you have really met any of my questions with reasonable answers...instead make the claim that I want to argue about this or I want to argue about that just so that I will forget about the bloody questions...You just muddy the waters to hide what might embarrass you

It isn't in the Thomistic view. That's the Cartesian view you're talking about. So then whether we're utter evil sods or nice people has no bearing on the soul as it is in no way connected to our consciousness or more succinctly...me...fair enough

It isn't physical.
Cheers for clearing that up! It's neither physical or not-physical (supernatural)

Again, it isn't physical. If you do not hold to the supernatural, the soul ceases to be* (which is not to imply that I am saying it has a real existence as the object itself -- I'm only using the word "be" here for lack of another term) when the organism itself ceases to exist.


Again, by your words it is not supernatural...and it is not physical...well then from that I can infer it just *isn't*!

Since it isn't physical, your question is meaningless.
Yep...we're on the right track here! we have eliminated physical and eliminated not physical...my question really was meaningless as there is actually no such thing as a soul

I hope you've simply forgotten the train of conversation and aren't deliberately being disingenuous here. First, I spoke of the resurrection of everyone's bodies -- not just Jesus. Second (and more importantly), I answered this after we had moved the discussion to Christianity; i.e. your assertion that I chose to answer the question with a religious answer is incorrect -- the question was already placed in a religious context before I answered it.

dude, you gave this answer to my test for soul question: I suppose you could just touch each other. That's what Thomas did. this is a reference to the resurrection of Jesus.
As I keep telling you I did not move the conversation anywhere...I merely reacted to where you moved it

I did and it asserted something that was false. I've assumed that's just forgetfulness on your part.
Then you both mis-read that above and forgot what you posted earlier

No you haven't. Back on page 4 I gave you the choice of arguing the Thomistic soul strictly in the philosophical arena vs. the Christian arena -- you made the choice to go for the Christian one (🙂)

Nope... I added in parentheses : you may choose to try Islam and such if you wish... That just means try and make this notion of a physical (and you agreed it was physical when you moved into Christianity prior to this as a consequence of your wrangling with Twitehead and Pawnkeyhole.) soul work in any damned religious system you like. (if not religion then I'm still not satisfied for this need to have a soul)

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]An understanding of how, within Christianity, the process is explained. As I said earlier, if you want a justification of Christianity itself, that's a subject for another discussion.

I did not ask you to describe it in terms of Christianity, I am no more inclined towards that religion than I am aligned towards Islam or Pastafarianism...you to ...[text shortened]... n then I'm still not satisfied for this need to have a soul)[/b]

I did not ask you to describe it in terms of Christianity...

Yes, you did. Here's our conversation from pg4:

LH: So do you want to discuss the Thomistic soul in its own right or the application of this concept of the soul to Christian doctrines?

You: lets just say that in keeping with my original post, I would prefer to discuss the application of this concept of the soul to Christian (you may choose to try Islam and such if you wish) doctrines.

You were clearly asking me to discuss it in Christian terms, though it was optional to me to discuss it in other religious traditions as well.


No it doesn't!!! where does relativity disabuse this by suggesting that ALL things happen simultaneously?

Relativity disabuses the notion of simultaneity -- events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference need not be in another.


though if obstinately you wish to argue that from the soul's point of view it just *gets resurrected to the end of the world* then I can ask that from *our* point of view, what happens to the soul when we die? (such to deny you of this convenient answer)

In any point of view, the soul (or essence, generally) is not some *thing* that has an existence apart from the being itself. When the being exists, the soul is instantiated in that being; when the being doesn't exist, the soul is not instantiated.


A silly cheap shot but I don't think you have really met any of my questions with reasonable answers...instead make the claim that I want to argue about this or I want to argue about that just so that I will forget about the bloody questions...You just muddy the waters to hide what might embarrass you

Really? Then exactly what are you responding to in the next 4 paragraphs?

Please don't contradict yourself.


So then whether we're utter evil sods or nice people has no bearing on the soul as it is in no way connected to our consciousness or more succinctly...[b]me...[/b]

What you do clearly has a bearing on *who* you are; therefore it has a bearing on your essence/soul.


Cheers for clearing that up! It's neither physical or not-physical (supernatural)...

Again, by your words it is not supernatural...and it is not physical...well then from that I can infer it just *isn't*!

Would you say that numbers *aren't* since they are clearly neither physical nor supernatural?


my question really was meaningless as there is actually no such thing as a soul

In the sense that the soul is not some *thing* apart from the being itself; your questions are meaningless. Just as, by your logic, numbers aren't real because there is no such thing as a number 3 apart from three balls, or three bottles, or three men etc.


dude, you gave this answer to my test for soul question: I suppose you could just touch each other. That's what Thomas did. this is a reference to the resurrection of Jesus.

This is going to be a very long day if I have to keep quoting your own words back to you. Here's the question you asked:

if we humans are physical entities when we are resurrected, one would assume that by some mechanical process we can detect their presence no?...what tests could we perform, what apparatus would we require?

My answer (including the bit you cited) referred to everyone's resurrection -- Jesus was an example.


Then you both mis-read that above and forgot what you posted earlier

Considering I've had to repeatedly quote your own words back to you, I think I have the better case to make that allegation against you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I did not ask you to describe it in terms of Christianity...

Yes, you did. Here's our conversation from pg4:

LH: So do you want to discuss the Thomistic soul in its own right or the application of this concept of the soul to Christian doctrines?

You: lets just say that in keeping with my original post, I would prefer to disc back to you, I think I have the better case to make that allegation against you.[/b]

You were clearly asking me to discuss it in Christian terms, though it was optional to me to discuss it in other religious traditions as well.

I was asking you to apply it to a religious doctrine...prior to this you were keeping within the discussion within the framework of Christianity so my phraseolgy reflected this...I see little truth in any religion and so I really have no preference...I counter any religion's ahem...*book of truth* answers with "but the Hobgobble says this book is wrong!!!" and ask you to then try again.

Relativity disabuses the notion of simultaneity -- events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference need not be in another.

So there exists a frame of reference for which the period separation of ALL events that have thus far taken place and ALL that are yet to take place has a value of 0 units? ok enlighten me

But before you do that I was actually making the statement (with the erroneous assumption that one such as your self should draw the correct inference) that either for ALL frames of reference everything happens at once OR there isn't! If there isn't then we can refer to duration that one event has to wait before it happens as 'time'...The idea that time can be manipulated does not follow from relativity

In any point of view, the soul (or essence, generally) is not some *thing* that has an existence apart from the being itself. When the being exists, the soul is instantiated in that being; when the being doesn't exist, the soul is not instantiated.

Hmm...lemme try and distill what you said into my own words:
the soul isn't a thing that exists...only beings are things that exist...when the being exists, the soul (which isn't a thing that has existance) is brought into being (without existing)...when the being doesn't exist the soul which didn't really have an existance in the first place is not brought into being...yeah, that sure clears things up for me LH, cheers!
though I don't see how it answered my question

Really? Then exactly what are you responding to in the next 4 paragraphs?

Please don't contradict yourself.
I wasn't responding to reasonable answers...a contradiction would have been: You give reasonable answers and you have not given any reasonable answers

What you do clearly has a bearing on *who* you are; therefore it has a bearing on your essence/soul.

I shall rephrase the original question:
why the need for me to be described by way of a soul?

Do you still hold to the sequence of answers:
It isn't in the Thomistic view. That's the Cartesian view you're talking about.
So then whether we're utter evil sods or nice people has no bearing on the soul as it is in no way connected to our consciousness or more succinctly...me...fair enough
What you do clearly has a bearing on *who* you are; therefore it has a bearing on your essence/soul.???😕

Would you say that numbers *aren't* since they are clearly neither physical nor supernatural?
Is zamjagjiggywiggyhasknok physical?...is it supernatural? or is it a *concept* that can be instantiated in thought via the physical workings of my brain?...the actual manifestation of this entity would have to be one of either physical or not physical however..The number three is a concept just as a soul is...it's manifestation however is physical or (for the sake of argument) it can be supernatural..Now then, in what form does the manifestation of this Thomistic soul take hmm?

In the sense that the soul is not some *thing* apart from the being itself; your questions are meaningless. Just as, by your logic, numbers aren't real because there is no such thing as a number 3 apart from three balls, or three bottles, or three men etc.
Never made the implication that numbers were't real...you're just fighting strawmen

This is going to be a very long day if I have to keep quoting your own words back to you. Here's the question you asked:

if we humans are physical entities when we are resurrected, one would assume that by some mechanical process we can detect their presence no?...what tests could we perform, what apparatus would we require?

My answer (including the bit you cited) referred to everyone's resurrection -- Jesus was an example.
Nope...change *including the bit you cited* to *what you cited* and we have an accurate account of your answer...it alluded not to everyone's resurrection.

Considering I've had to repeatedly quote your own words back to you, I think I have the better case to make that allegation against you.
You either misunderstand my words or deliberately take them out of context...I grow weary of this p;ssing contest. You have this vague and poorly thought out notion of a soul that you convince yourself just works and refuse to meet any points that might stand counter to it.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]You were clearly asking me to discuss it in Christian terms, though it was optional to me to discuss it in other religious traditions as well.

I was asking you to apply it to a religious doctrine...prior to this you were keeping within the discussion within the framework of Christianity so my phraseolgy reflected this...I see little truth in any reli ...[text shortened]... works and refuse to meet any points that might stand counter to it.[/b]

If this were a pissing contest, I think we would've been feeling somewhat relieved by now. 🙂

As I mentioned quite early on in our discussion, the problem in your "arguments" stem from the fact that you keep shifting domains. Questions involving the application of reason alone lie within the domain of philosophy; questions involving revealed truths lie within the domain of theology. You keep conflating and confusing the two. That's a domain error; it's like asking questions on art of an economist. Saying "the Quran says XYZ" in a discussion on Christian theology simply does not constitute a refutation (despite what you feel). You can certainly dispute theological points using principles of Biblical hermeneutics, history etc. -- but not a different religious tradition because the axioms of that tradition are not axiomatic in the system you are working in (whether you believe in it or not).

You can ask the question of why you should accept one theological system over another or why one is preferable to another -- but that's not a question of theology. It's apologetics or comparative religion -- which is a different domain altogether. I suggested you start another thread if you want to raise the question. But it is unreasonable to raise it after you've entered into a particular theological domain for discussion. That's just moving the goalposts.

If you don't want to enter into any theological domain and want to remain purely philosophical; then you've already got a philosophical answer and that should be enough. You can't have it both ways.


So there exists a frame of reference for which the period separation of ALL events that have thus far taken place and ALL that are yet to take place has a value of 0 units? ok enlighten me

That's easy. Any three-dimensional frame of reference orthogonal to the time axis will simply not separate events in time -- therefore they will all be simultaneous.


But before you do that I was actually making the statement ... that either for ALL frames of reference everything happens at once OR there isn't!

There isn't ... what? A frame of reference where everything happens at once? That's just a plain illogical argument.

If there isn't then we can refer to duration that one event has to wait before it happens as 'time'...The idea that time can be manipulated does not follow from relativity.

That's exactly what relativity says. Events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference need not be in another. Clocks in one frame of reference will move faster or slower than another. If I had a space-craft that travelled nearly at the speed of light I could go out and return in about 100 years without having aged a second. Wouldn't you call that time travel?


Hmm...lemme try and distill what you said into my own words...

It's basic metaphysics. All beings have two aspects to their reality -- that they exist (i.e. existence) and what they are (i.e. essence). Just because essence has a noun form doesn't mean you can attribute existence to it.


I shall rephrase the original question:
why the need for [b]me to be described by way of a soul?[/b]

In the Thomistic view of soul as essence, you can only be described by way of a soul. That's because the essence of something is precisely what a description of that thing attempts to capture.


is it supernatural? or is it a *concept* that can be instantiated in thought via the physical workings of my brain?...the [b]actual manifestation of this entity would have to be one of either physical or not physical however.[/b]

Are you claiming that numbers are merely concepts? That a group of three balls and three kittens have nothing in common if no one is observing them or thinking about them?

Think carefully before you answer. If numbers etc. are merely concepts, then they are just entities in rational minds and do not represent an element of reality.

Similarly, if you say that essence is just a concept then two pine trees have nothing in common except in the minds of rational thinkers.


You have this vague and poorly thought out notion of a soul that you convince yourself just works and refuse to meet any points that might stand counter to it.

On the contrary, it's you who has a vague (Cartesian) notion of soul at the back of your mind* and cannot open it up to meet an alternate (in fact, older!) conception. So your "points that might stand counter to it" really attack the Cartesian strawman in your head.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If this were a pissing contest, I think we would've been feeling somewhat relieved by now. 🙂

As I mentioned quite early on in our discussion, the problem in your "arguments" stem from the fact that you keep shifting domains. Questions involving the application of reason alone lie within the domain of philosophy; questions involving revealed truths d counter to it" really attack the Cartesian strawman in your head.

As I mentioned quite early on in our discussion, the problem in your "arguments" stem from the fact that you keep shifting domains. Questions involving the application of reason alone lie within the domain of philosophy; questions involving revealed truths lie within the domain of theology. You keep conflating and confusing the two. That's a domain error; it's like asking questions on art of an economist. Saying "the Quran says XYZ" in a discussion on Christian theology simply does not constitute a refutation (despite what you feel). You can certainly dispute theological points using principles of Biblical hermeneutics, history etc. -- but not a different religious tradition because the axioms of that tradition are not axiomatic in the system you are working in (whether you believe in it or not).

You can ask the question of why you should accept one theological system over another or why one is preferable to another -- but that's not a question of theology. It's apologetics or comparative religion -- which is a different domain altogether. I suggested you start another thread if you want to raise the question. But it is unreasonable to raise it after you've entered into a particular theological domain for discussion. That's just moving the goalposts.

If you don't want to enter into any theological domain and want to remain purely philosophical; then you've already got a philosophical answer and that should be enough. You can't have it both ways.


I still hold that I'm arguing only where you and others wish to argue...You however think I'm not!...I don't want to prolongue this *I am rubber, you are glue* sort of debate so from this point forwards I will point out immediately where someone is arguing within the framework of some religion and answer accordingly. My problem with using only the *book of truth(?)* as an answer is that it really doesn't add anything to this discussion...with respect to my reason for starting this thread it resolves nothing to find that someone can surmise that in a certain holy book such and such a prophet was talking about this or talking about that...I want to know in detail how a soul is defined, and resolve any problems that may arise from it's definition...I want to see how well one's concept of a soul fits in the physical world that has it's own set of axioms

That's easy. Any three-dimensional frame of reference orthogonal to the time axis will simply not separate events in time -- therefore they will all be simultaneous.

Hmm, though just within the realms of mathematics this answer is ok (in just the same way that answering the question *what physical objects have no depth* with *any object specified in cartesian co-ordinates where the co-efficient of it's length in an axis perpendicular to the other two is zero* without suggesting where in the physical world one could find such an object)...if there was such a frame of reference that your god resided in (such that this insta-time travel concept was an acceptable answer to my questions...who else would reside here?) then one could infer that this god has knowledge of every single event that ever has and ever will happen such that any actions brought about via the usage of our *free will* was already pre-determined...this would itself question the rationale of your god (especially if you championed this argument within any established religious doctrine) with respect to the not so nice things that happen to humans and other creatures, the beliefs that they hold, and their respective fates. (given that everything is known to your god)...though this is a different debate!! (yet I posit it would lead to a contradiction in yours and anyone elses system of belief)

There isn't ... what? A frame of reference where everything happens at once? That's just a plain illogical argument.

sorry...bad phraseology, I'll try again:
But before you do that I was actually making the statement ... that either for ALL frames of reference everything happens at once OR there exists at least one frame of reference where all things don't happen all at once...Given that the latter is true we can refer to duration that one event has to wait before it happens as 'time'...The idea that time can be manipulated does not follow from relativity

That's exactly what relativity says. Events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference need not be in another. Clocks in one frame of reference will move faster or slower than another. If I had a space-craft that travelled nearly at the speed of light I could go out and return in about 100 years without having aged a second. Wouldn't you call that time travel?

This isn't really *manipulating* time though is it? (sure...in the hypothetical scenario that your slight(? 😉 ) change of mass did not prevent you approaching this speed alive, you and everything travelling at this speed would perceive the separation of any two events differently than those travelling at a different speed) you're not actually controlling it, nor does this answer suggest any way that this entity referred to as time that you espouse could ever be controlled or influenced...please don't suggest that with regard to what I put in parenthesis above I'm now trying to argue a soul has mass and would never *hit* light speed, for this would be a conclusion drawn from a premise that I haven't even stated.

It's basic metaphysics. All beings have two aspects to their reality -- that they exist (i.e. existence) and what they are (i.e. essence). Just because essence has a noun form doesn't mean you can attribute existence to it.

If it's manifestation in the physical or even supernatural(?) world is such that when we die we still live on in some form or another it really should have attributed to it an existence.

In the Thomistic view of soul as essence, you can only be described by way of a soul. That's because the essence of something is precisely what a description of that thing attempts to capture.


Ok...so I am a soul then...but if my all my actions are independent of this soul thing (that is the essnce of me?) (ie; there is nothing that we do or is done to us where the culpability lies with our ahem...essence), and it has no physical component that we can test for...then again why can't I just say that I don't have an essence/soul? exactly where and how does this line of reasoning lead to a contradiction?

Are you claiming that numbers are merely concepts? That a group of three balls and three kittens have nothing in common if no one is observing them or thinking about them?

Think carefully before you answer. If numbers etc. are merely concepts, then they are just entities in rational minds and do not represent an element of reality.

No... I specifically mentioned that the manifestation of the number three would have to take a physical or even supernatural form. this manifestation could take the form of three physical cats, three spiritual(?) shields and so on...it could take the form of the written number three on paper such that our physical brain upon understanding it may then wrestle with this concept and perhaps use it to bring about it's manifestation elsewhere (even on the same physical piece of paper such that it would serve as a blueprint not only to ourselves but perhaps to others)

Similarly, if you say that essence is just a concept then two pine trees have nothing in common except in the minds of rational thinkers.

Hopefully my answer above shows that this is not my reasoning here, and that you mis-understood me

On the contrary, it's you who has a vague (Cartesian) notion of soul at the back of your mind* and cannot open it up to meet an alternate (in fact, older!) conception. So your "points that might stand counter to it" really attack the Cartesian strawman in your head.

Throughout this debate it never once entered my head that something that is more than just a concept can have neither a physical or non-physical (supernatural) form or not even exist in the first place...I simply don't agree with this assertion at all and would ask you for further justification...what may be strawmen as you put it arise because your soul concept has not been sufficiently defined yet (trying really hard not to enter in a slanging match here)

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]As I mentioned quite early on in our discussion, the problem in your "arguments" stem from the fact that you keep shifting domains. Questions involving the application of reason alone lie within the domain of philosophy; questions involving revealed truths lie within the domain of theology. You keep conflating and confusing the two. That's a domain error; i really hard not to enter in a slanging match here)[/b]

such that this insta-time travel concept was an acceptable answer to my questions... who else would reside here?

Could be anyone. I don't need to know the names and addresses of every man, woman and child in England -- just the ones who impact (or would be expected to impact) me.


if there was such a frame of reference that your god resided in ... then one could infer that this god has knowledge of every single event that ever has and ever will happen such that any actions brought about via the usage of our *free will* was already pre-determined ...

This one has been asked and answered many times before. As bbarr would point out, this only matters when one is working with a libertarian notion of free will; with a compatibilist notion there is no contradiction. Further, philosophers like bbarr hold that libertarian free will is flawed (irrespective of whether there is a God or not).

In any case, I don't hold to a deterministic notion of free will (though my account cannot be called libertarian because I use a different notion of causality). Knowing something does not cause it -- even when that something is in the "future" (a meaningless concept for a being outside time -- I use a person looking at a filmstrip as an analogy).


This isn't really *manipulating* time though is it?

That's exactly what it is. Every observer has his own "clock". That clock can be manipulated relative to other clocks -- making it go faster or slower. To the observer, time is indeed being manipulated.


If it's manifestation in the physical or even supernatural(?) world is such that when we die we still live on in some form or another it really should have attributed to it an existence.

You've asked this question before and I've already answered it from both philosophical and Christian theological perspectives.


Ok...so I am a soul then...

No -- you are a being. You have two aspects to your being -- your soul/essence (what it is that you are, what makes you you) and your existence (the fact of your existence).


but if my all my actions are independent of this soul thing (that is the essnce of me?) (ie; there is nothing that we do or is done to us where the culpability lies with our ahem...essence), and it has no physical component that we can test for...then again why can't I just say that I don't have an essence/soul? exactly where and how does this line of reasoning lead to a contradiction?

The culpability lies with you; i.e. your being. The being cannot exist without an essence (i.e. it cannot be "pure existence", it has to be something or some set of properties that exists) -- therefore your actions and their consequences are not independent of your soul.

The contradiction is that you keep talking of the essence as though it were a real being apart from you (in your physical instantiated mode of existence). That's a misunderstanding of 'essence'.


No... I specifically mentioned that the manifestation of the number three would have to take a physical or even supernatural form.

An essence is, likewise, always instantiated in physical or "supernatural" "form". With humans, the soul (i.e. the essence) is always instantiated in physical "form".


Throughout this debate it never once entered my head that something that is more than just a concept can have neither a physical or non-physical (supernatural) form or not even exist in the first place...

You're not thinking about what "concept" means. If a concept is simply something* in the minds of rational beings, then isn't it true that three cats and three balls of string have, in reality, nothing* in common? If, on the other hand, you assert that they do have a real property (that of being composed of three objects or that of being an instantiation of the number '3'😉 in common, then that property holds regardless of whether rational minds perceive it or not. Further, that property is quite real even if the property, in itself, does not have a "pure" physical or supernatural "form".