RE: Arguments against Soul
September 23, 2019 at 10:52 pm
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2019 at 10:57 pm by Belacqua.)
(September 23, 2019 at 10:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote: In the modern age, the word "soul" would, to most, imply life-after-death. In other words, when your brain is dead, "you" will continue to live on.
OK, that makes sense.
So the definition of "soul" you're using here is: that portion of a person which some people claim lives on after the body dies.
Quote:But, if you want to define "soul" as simply being what the brain does then I have no problem with such a definition.
I don't want to define soul that way, because that would be the same as mind, and then we wouldn't need two words. By combining the two words, we make assumptions about them that haven't been demonstrated.
Now, that portion of the person which lives on after death: how do you know that it needs electrical energy? Certainly mind does, and if you want to elide the two terms and say soul = mind, then soul does too. But if soul is not identical with mind, then how do we know that they work the same way?
In that very fuzzy blog post, it says that soul is "spirit energy." But the blog doesn't prove that "spirit energy" is related to electricity. Maybe they're different. So if it's true that "spirit energy" is at all relevant, then it remains to be proved that soul has anything to do with electricity.
As far as I'm concerned, either you have to say that there's no such thing as soul, there is only mind, or you have to acknowledge that we have no proof a soul needs electricity.
(For the record, I define soul differently. I think there's no reason to think that soul, as traditionally defined, lives on after death. Though of course some people take this as an article of faith.)
(September 23, 2019 at 10:48 pm)Succubus Wrote: Spirit energy is bollocks made up by Carrol.Ah, well, he intentionally chose a bollocks definition, and tried to show that it's bollocks. So he's proven nothing.