Arguments against Soul

[Aegon]

Woah, watch it there.

Why?

Are you inferring that those are good music?

Jazz is objectively good, I'll fight you on this. I'll die on this cross Valk I swear.

---

Two facts must be observed:

1) The existence of an immaterial soul could be easily established by modern science, namely, remote viewing of concealed objects.

2) An immaterial soul contradicts the Conservation Laws -- Energy, Electric charge, Momentum and Angular Momentum.

I think you're giving modern science too much credit by thinking the existence of an immaterial soul can be "easily established." Remind me how much we understand our own consciousness? Don't know if what you implied is a good test for the soul is a very good test for the soul.

Not saying I think there is a tangible soul - I don't - but come on. Humble yourself a little there.

[The Valkyrie]

Why?

Are you inferring that those are good music?

Jazz is objectively good, I'll fight you on this. I'll die on this cross Valk I swear.

---

Two facts must be observed:

1) The existence of an immaterial soul could be easily established by modern science, namely, remote viewing of concealed objects.

2) An immaterial soul contradicts the Conservation Laws -- Energy, Electric charge, Momentum and Angular Momentum.

I think you're giving modern science too much credit by thinking the existence of an immaterial soul can be "easily established." Remind me how much we understand our own consciousness? Don't know if what you implied is a good test for the soul is a very good test for the soul.

Not saying I think there is a tangible soul - I don't - but come on. Humble yourself a little there.

And so to war!

[Abaddon_ire]

Belaqua... forever the contrarian, and never actually makes a single claim about what he believes. I second the idea that he's in the Christian closet.

That was long ago established.

[Jehanne]

Why?

Are you inferring that those are good music?

Jazz is objectively good, I'll fight you on this. I'll die on this cross Valk I swear.

---

Two facts must be observed:

1)  The existence of an immaterial soul could be easily established by modern science, namely, remote viewing of concealed objects.

2)  An immaterial soul contradicts the Conservation Laws -- Energy, Electric charge, Momentum and Angular Momentum.

I think you're giving modern science too much credit by thinking the existence of an immaterial soul can be "easily established." Remind me how much we understand our own consciousness? Don't know if what you implied is a good test for the soul is a very good test for the soul.

Not saying I think there is a tangible soul - I don't - but come on. Humble yourself a little there.

Wikipedia -- AWARE study

[Abaddon_ire]

K

I saw the post, Lady, he didn't answer my questions. In fact, he wasn't even talking to me in that post. You were wrong. So let's move on.

Thank you in advance @Belaqua for letting me take liberties with your quoted material. If you’d rather I knock it off, just say the word and I will certainly respect that:

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

The concept of soul as used by Aristotle makes sense to me, and requires nothing magic. If people use it in that way, it's a useful term. The modern "spirit energy" version isn't persuasive.

2. What do you think the soul is, if it does indeed exist?

It is the form of the body, as opposed to its matter. In this case "form" means more than "shape." (A newly-dead body has the same shape, but not the form, in this sense, of a living body.) Form here means shape but also the functions, interactions, and operations. The things that the body does, by its nature. When the body dies, the matter is still there (at first) but the soul is gone, because it is no longer capable of doing human things.

The only thing spooky about soul, in this sense, is the Christian idea that at death the soul is transferred from its first, fleshly body into a different body, made of some different matter. And the Christians who assert this, if they're honest, recognize that this belief about the transfer of the soul is not at all provable, but only faith-based.

2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?

It is not currently present, not detectable by electrical monitors, though it does depend throughout on a purely material world. If we could see a person's soul, we would see the entirety of what he or she is, does, has been, could be.

The view of the soul which assumes it is a wisp of material is in danger of treating people's real being as an object that can be measured and put in a jar. The classical view of the soul urges us to engage with the totality, extended to infinity, and respect that the person is far more than what can be measured.

2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

See answer to question 2., where Bel has defined the soul. Not sure why you asked this twice. So, I’m not sure what the problem is here. Is it that you don’t understand what he wrote?

Interestingly enough, I've seen him argue adamantly against the fact that he's an atheist.

Then I’m not going to speak for him on the matter any further. He told me he was, but I’ll let him clear that up for himself.

It's very relevant, how don't you see that? Are you that dense? I am really surprised here. The only claims Bel does make that we've seen so far are unsubstantiated generalizations made in an attempt to insult people.

He’s certainly welcome to his opinion of Dawkins. I know many atheists who don’t like the guy either.

~The problem is that Bel has carefully framed it to be about what OTHER PEOPLE believe. Not once did he/she identify an opinion of his/her own.

And this is a theme in all of Bel's posts. You can ask him directly if you wish. What is it that Bel believes? Go ahead, try and nail that down. You will fail to do so.

[Belacqua]

I’ll let Bel take it from here. 

I'm very pleased that you read my posts in an open-minded way, and genuinely honored that you take time to clarify them for others!

---

~The problem is that Bel has carefully framed it to be about what OTHER PEOPLE believe. Not once did he/she identify an opinion of his/her own.

My opinion is that some other people, whom I quote, have good things to say.

My tendency is to avoid treating metaphysical questions as team sports, where you choose a side and declare allegiances. Sometimes when this happens people develop a willingness to overlook errors by their teammates.

[Succubus]

I think you're giving modern science too much credit by thinking the existence of an immaterial soul can be "easily established." Remind me how much we understand our own consciousness? Don't know if what you implied is a good test for the soul is a very good test for the soul.

Not saying I think there is a tangible soul - I don't - but come on. Humble yourself a little there.

I provided a Link earlier that clearly demonstrates an immaterial soul does not, cannot, exist. It's well worth the five minute read and ends with:

There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. Once we get over any reluctance to face reality on this issue, we can get down to the much more interesting questions of how human beings and consciousness really work.

Indeed.

[Belacqua]

I provided a Link earlier that clearly demonstrates an immaterial soul does not, cannot, exist. 

But the blog post at the link doesn't prove that at all. 

Its definition of a soul is:

they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV.

Since they don't (and can't) describe what "spirit energy" is, they can't tell us anything. Is spirit energy like regular energy? Is it detectable by scientific means? (This is even leaving aside whether this is a fair description of what believers talk about.) 

Even the definition in the blog post is too ambiguous to prove anything. 

At best, the post makes a persuasive case that IF souls are made of detectable and well-understood energy of the type science studies, then we would be able to study them. 

Beyond that, it says nothing.

Like Jehanne, you declare victory by begging the question. You assert, without proof, that a soul is made of measurable energy, and then say it hasn't been measured.

[Jehanne]

Like Jehanne, you declare victory by begging the question. You assert, without proof, that a soul is made of measurable energy, and then say it hasn't been measured.

You're missing the point entirely.  Do you believe that there are individuals who are paralyzed?  (Or, do you think that they are all "faking it"?)  If so, why are there individuals who are paralyzed from the waist down?  Or, neck?  Indeed, there are those paralytics who can only blink their eyes, while others are in complete "lock-down" and have no sensory communication with the outside world.

Imagine that you are sitting in front of a piano.  You decide to strike middle C.  What caused you to do that?  Do you think that some immaterial soul caused that, or, that you chose that?  From your so-called immaterial soul to your brain to your finger to the middle C chord on the piano, please explain why the piano resonated with a middle C frequency, but, as modern Science has explained the brain to piano resonating part, just do the immaterial soul to brain part.  That's what I am really after here.

[Belacqua]

From your so-called immaterial soul to your brain to your finger to the middle C chord on the piano, please explain why the piano resonated with a middle C frequency, but, as modern Science has explained the brain to piano resonating part, just do the immaterial soul to brain part.  That's what I am really after here.

I understand that mind is at the beginning of the chain of events that make the piano note. I understand that mind exists in the presence of electrochemical events in the brain. 

I can't explain how the immaterial soul caused the piano to play, according to your definition of "soul," because I don't think you have defined "soul" at all yet. 

How is "soul" different from "mind"? How is it different from "spirit," if such a thing as "spirit energy" exists, as the blog post says?

Tell me how mind and soul are different, and I may be able to answer your question. Or do you assert that they are always the same? How do you know this? 

You continue to speak as if soul has a mind, or as if soul is the same as mind. Unless you clarify your definitions, you're not telling me anything about soul at all.