Soul

[Tex]

A gallon is not a liter.

I promise, I understand that. You hit at what I'm trying to communicate slightly later.

basics such as 1 being 1 or 2 being 2 dont change...

This is it. I'm not talking about systems of measurement. Not even a little. I'm talking about numbers. These basics are perceived, not invented by the human mind.

1 is 1 and 2 is 2 not because a soul. almoust every living thing can figure that out but maybe not name it, as I mentioned before and what you ignored because it challenged your point and you dont want to leave disneyland.

Correct. Even if we didn't perceive numbers, they would still exist. However, without a soul, we could not perceive them. And yes, almost every living thing can count, and while I did not address your kitty cat example, I did address the same topic to futilethewinds. All animals have a soul. However, there are abilities that they lack that we have. Therefore, there is a unique human soul.

I did not create the atom (duh), but the atom has numerical requirements in order for it to retain identity. These are not in our head. These are in reality.

aaaaaaaaaaand?! is there any point you were making with that?!

Yes. Quantity exists in reality, not in our head. Quantity also is not material.

Just curious: how old are you?

Rhythm is a kiddo because of how he acts, not how old he is. Anyway, I'm 21.

Okay. (There was an issue? Must have missed it.)

Caught me again! I'm just that regular ol' cultist hoping for you to fall into my trap!

Rule #1: Always assume a strawman about the bunch you are debating(!?) with.

Rule #2: Ignore all those that go against your arguments.

1. If you knew what a strawman was, you would know that isn't what happened. I made an argument for immaterials and only briefly talked about why option 2 doesn't work. I am leaving the rest of the thread to talk about option 2.

2. If I'm ignoring all those... then what does "all" actually mean? I don't actually think that means what you think it means.

ETA: As to the rest, you could try a mathematics college course. Blatant show of ignorance =/= proof of god.

Did you even read the title of the thread? I'm hoping to prove a soul, not God. Are we in the mathematics section? I'm not making calculations. Perhaps you should take a philosophy college course.

[Tonus]

Correct. Even if we didn't perceive numbers, they would still exist. However, without a soul, we could not perceive them. And yes, almost every living thing can count, and while I did not address your kitty cat example, I did address the same topic to futilethewinds. All animals have a soul. However, there are abilities that they lack that we have. Therefore, there is a unique human soul.

I don't understand. The human soul is what we ordinarily refer to as our mind, or our consciousness?

[Mystic]

You have to show how "We perceive numbers, therefore it means there is a soul or else we cannot perceive" is true.

Is the same true of colours?

[Something completely different]

Correct. Even if we didn't perceive numbers, they would still exist. However, without a soul, we could not perceive them. And yes, almost every living thing can count, and while I did not address your kitty cat example, I did address the same topic to futilethewinds. All animals have a soul. However, there are abilities that they lack that we have. Therefore, there is a unique human soul.

and can you prove that?

let me guess.

no

You cannot prove that it is the soul which is responsible for this and the only thing you offer is endless useless information circling arround that fact in the faint hope that your useless information hides the fact that you dont have any proof.

Now stop wasting peoples time and go away

[Whateverist]

Okay. (There was an issue? Must have missed it.)

Caught me again! I'm just that regular ol' cultist hoping for you to fall into my trap!

Nice try. No need to beat yourself up though. We just hear the pitch for that particular brand of snake oil an awful lot around here. Your pitch can be mighty convincing if someone is looking to be convinced. I'm just not one of those.

[Ryantology]

Anyway, if any unbonded oxygen atom lacks necessary quantity for whatever, it was never oxygen in the first place. Therefore, quantity matters. Further, while we can shoot electrons, we cannot shoot quantity. Quantity is in reality and is not material.

Quantity always represents something material, or it represents something which itself represents or is intended to represent something material (to whatever degree removed), even if the object described is imaginary. Quantity does not exist independent of the material world.

[Angrboda]

[LastPoet]

Did you even read the title of the thread? I'm hoping to prove a soul, not God. Are we in the mathematics section? I'm not making calculations. Perhaps you should take a philosophy college course.

I can count to way further than 11 with something called Mathematics. But if you have trouble counting to 11, you can use your toes. You will have trouble counting to 21 tough, but alas, you can get someone else to get to 40, someone else to get to 60... and so on... Ah man Math induction gives me a hardon.

As to the rest, my philosophy teacher tried to present roughly the same case you are, some odd 18 years ago. Needless to say I can imagine the tooth fairy, witches, ghosts, ET's and a shitload of imagination figments. They all lack the same: evidence. What happens to your vaunted 'soul' when a person suffers trauma that changes the brain structure, completely changing his/her personality? Here you have it if you truly want to know more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

Another thing, If you think 'studying' philosophy gives you some credit, you are wrong. You do philosophy, you don't learn it. Sure a course might help one to avoid the task of reinventing the wheel, but taking said teachings and twist them to indulge your own confirmation bias is very known characteristic of christians and their apologetics.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Since I'm dealing with a bunch of radical empiricists.

Rule #1: Always assume a strawman about the bunch you are debating(!?) with.

Given my experience here, I would say he's just about right. Even in this thread, radial empiricism seems to be the most applicable tag for the responses. Some of you are eager to point out that the concept of addition is about grouping similar entities and giving a name to the group. No has yet asked themselves the question of how you can identify a set of properties as a whole and call it one thing.

Curious Tex, why do you assume that a soul must be immaterial and not substantial? Is that a necessary property of a soul, because I don't think so.

---

...my philosophy teacher tried to present roughly the same case you are, some odd 18 years ago.

And...? You completely refuted it or what?

[LastPoet]

You might try to read my whole post Chad.