(August 16, 2014 at 2:35 am)Michael Wrote: What this reveals is perhaps the importance of presuppositions. Start with materialistic presuppositions and you will, unsurprisingly, reach a materialistic conclusion.Answer these questions:
-where is the soul is located?
-what is it made of?
-what purpose does it serve?
-how can we detect the presence of a soul?
And if you could answer these questions with evidence that fits the parameters of our reality, I'm quite sure that materialists will adopt the idea of a soul.
Quote:Start with presuppositions that allow for the metaphysical, that allow for God, and you will allow room for other conclusions. Both are internally consistent. Each of us must follow the path that is most persuasive to us.Uh, no, it's not consistent. And you know why? Because it offers room for subjective definitions. Where is the soul?
"It's in our chest region!", says person A.
"No, it's in our brains!", says person B.
"That's nonsense, the soul exists outside of our physical body!", says person C.
What proper conclusions can be made here if these people can't agree with each other?
And if you decide to go on the "the soul is immaterial" card, I'll have to stop you, because everything that is not made out of matter or does not interact with it is pretty much non-existent. Ignoramus has already pointed out that, no matter what explanations you offer to those who believe in a soul, they will always twist and change definitions in order to suit their argument. Yet another example of the inconsistency in this way of thinking.
