Well, there were a few things relatively original in the video.
First of all, the language. It is in Latin, the language of the Catholic church (and 86% of Croatians identify as Catholics).
Second, I used the argument that souls, as usually imagined, contradict quantum physics. Most people imagine souls as something that can see, but can in no way be observed. But quantum physics teaches us there is no such thing as a passive observer, because things behave differently based on whether they are observed or not. I also said that suggesting, like Leibniz did, that the material and spiritual world do not actually interact, but only appear to interact, avoids this problem, but certainly goes very much against the Occam's razor. If the spiritual world does not actually interact with the physical world, why assume it exists in the first place? This argument is rarely used by atheists, but I think it is a good one.
I also used the argument that, if human beings had souls which could sense time, human beings who have been unconscious for some time would be able to tell how much time has passed. But they cannot, for them, they fall unconscious one moment and the very next moment they remember is when they are conscious again. If human beings had souls, we would expect people who are unconscious to experience long silent darkness, because parts of the brain necessary for seeing and hearing are not working, but the soul is unaffected. But we know this is not the case. I think this argument is completely original, and a good one.
When I was discussing atheism on r/latin, one person suggested me that the existence of free will proves the existence of supernatural souls, since free will cannot be accounted for by the laws of nature. So, I included my response to that in the video, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics plus basic computer science explains free will completely in terms of natural laws.
So, what do you think of my arguments?
First of all, the language. It is in Latin, the language of the Catholic church (and 86% of Croatians identify as Catholics).
Second, I used the argument that souls, as usually imagined, contradict quantum physics. Most people imagine souls as something that can see, but can in no way be observed. But quantum physics teaches us there is no such thing as a passive observer, because things behave differently based on whether they are observed or not. I also said that suggesting, like Leibniz did, that the material and spiritual world do not actually interact, but only appear to interact, avoids this problem, but certainly goes very much against the Occam's razor. If the spiritual world does not actually interact with the physical world, why assume it exists in the first place? This argument is rarely used by atheists, but I think it is a good one.
I also used the argument that, if human beings had souls which could sense time, human beings who have been unconscious for some time would be able to tell how much time has passed. But they cannot, for them, they fall unconscious one moment and the very next moment they remember is when they are conscious again. If human beings had souls, we would expect people who are unconscious to experience long silent darkness, because parts of the brain necessary for seeing and hearing are not working, but the soul is unaffected. But we know this is not the case. I think this argument is completely original, and a good one.
When I was discussing atheism on r/latin, one person suggested me that the existence of free will proves the existence of supernatural souls, since free will cannot be accounted for by the laws of nature. So, I included my response to that in the video, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics plus basic computer science explains free will completely in terms of natural laws.
So, what do you think of my arguments?
