Soul

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Great apes and even dogs can perceive the immaterial as well, does that mean they also have souls?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not convinced that any specific number doesn't have substantial content since it makes reference to a formal property of material things. However, a unit or a whole defines an immaterial form, i.e. the formal cause that allows specific numbers to exist. (Just an idea with which I'm toying and hoping you can help me flesh out.)

---

Great apes and even dogs can perceive the immaterial as well, does that mean they also have souls?

I think the OP is just a set-up. He needs to provide an ontological basis for immaterial entities before he can attribute properties to a specific immaterial entity. If he can show that a specific immaterial entity has the properties normally attributed to a 'soul' then he has made his point.

[Angrboda]

[downbeatplumb]

Since I'm dealing with a bunch of radical empiricists, I figure I need to start with something we observable. Look down. How many fingers are on your hands. Everyone counted eleven, right? Cool. So, we already have our immaterial. Eleven is a number. It's not material. You cannot go grab eleven and paint it green. You cannot throw eleven at your sister. Eleven is a quantity.

Now there are two options for this, you can either say that eleven exists in reality and we are perceiving eleven or you can say it exists in our heads.

You have eleven fingers!
Were your parents brother and sister?

[Something completely different]

[Tex]

Find your name!

You already know your argument is garbage. I wonder why you even bothered?

Oh no! He caught me! Woe is me! My argument is completely refuted by Minimalist! I only wanted to bring everyone into a cult and make them drink kool-aid!

...

Oh the novelty! Who the hell is this guy? Gosh darn, what really is real?

Oh, you caught me, too! You figured out that this opens up multiple possibilities for things you don't believe in! You better cover your eyes and not address the issue!

...

Trick fucking question. C'mon Tex, cowboy up. Be honest and explain to AF why you have to invoke the idea of an imaginary universe to allow the existence of a 'single oxygen atom'.

Finally, while you're mostly insulting me, you actually have substance to your post. The honest answer to why I invoked the idea of an imaginary universe with a single oxygen atom is because its easier to explain it like that. Really, I just need the oxygen unbonded, otherwise I have to expand the argument, and I really didn't feel like doing that in that opening post.

How do you like your oxygen atom? Would you like it here or there? Would you like it in a house? Would you like it with a mouse?

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.

I also don't need to invoke hypothetical universes to prove that my lord and saviour exists.

This really doesn't apply to my argument. By the end of the forum, I hope to make a logical case that we have a soul. That's about it.

Eyes only see material things and a soul perceives the immaterial... yeah it figures you exclude the brain.

I am going to assume this is an insult and not a counter argument, but only because I think you're smarter than what counter argument can be pulled from that.

Odd since his god only exists as a figment of his imagination.

Freaking philosophical genius right here...

[quote='fuitlethewinds']Great apes and even dogs can perceive the immaterial as well, does that mean they also have souls?

We're getting ahead of ourselves here =) Technically, yes (plants as well). However, they lack other abilities that poeple have, so there is a unique human soul (commonly called, "Rational Soul"). Historically, this is Aristotle (Greek Pagan), Avicenna (Muslim), and Aquinas (Catholic).

[quote='ChadWooters'] I'm not convinced that any specific number doesn't have substantial content since it makes reference to a formal property of material things. However, a unit or a whole defines an immaterial form, i.e. the formal cause that allows specific numbers to exist.

I thought you were a Platonist? That's all Aristotelian terminology. I'll just answer both sides. In Aristotelian philosophy, quantity isn't about form. Form and matter make the substance, then "accidents" are applied. Accidents include quality, quantity, relation, color, position, action, passion, time, and place (although I think relation includes all after it). Plato would say that the quantity is in the form, such that a triangle must have 3 edges and only 3 edges. However, in Aristotle's teachings, the triangle isn't a substance. A raccoon is a substance, a pine tree is a substance, but a triangle is not. A person usually has 10 fingers, but if they have 9, they aren't less human.

numbers are mesuring units attributed through the human mind.

Cool, you choose option two.

Oh yeah, you use a different system! which pritty much shows how variational messuring units are...

But we all use "2" and "3". Different systems is meaningless to my argument. I don't care if its 3 liters or 3 gallons, I care about 3. If I look at 3 containers, each 1 liter of gasoline (or petrol, whatever you'd like), I see 3 containers. Now, only get the 3. I don't want the containers, I just want the 3. "Three containers?" No, just 3. Not only are we perceiving containers, but we're perceiving what the group has that is not physical, quantity. If I remove a container from the group, the quantity has changed.

However, this group is artificial. I made 3 containers and the group is in my mind. But it isn't always, which is my atom example. 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.

What makes you think that there is something that any civilisation on this planet would call an argument in (that) phrase...

That statement isn't an argument.

[Mister Agenda]

And now is the part where you tear my head off and make my argument seem like complete garbage. Feel free to insult my mother and her mother as you go (except Rhythm because I've already ignored that kiddo).

Just curious: how old are you?

[Something completely different]

But we all use "2" and "3". Different systems is meaningless to my argument. I don't care if its 3 liters or 3 gallons, I care about 3. If I look at 3 containers, each 1 liter of gasoline (or petrol, whatever you'd like), I see 3 containers. Now, only get the 3. I don't want the containers, I just want the 3. "Three containers?" No, just 3. Not only are we perceiving containers, but we're perceiving what the group has that is not physical, quantity. If I remove a container from the group, the quantity has changed.

The different systems do matter because they do not weigh the same things.

A gallon is not a liter.

cultures made different systems uf messuring which messure different quanteties.
basics such as 1 being 1 or 2 being 2 dont change, but the diversity of the concepts and the differences in what people accept to be a unit is something unignoreable because it shows the difference in messuring and therefor shows how different cultures have differently influenced messuring systems.

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.

However, this group is artificial. I made 3 containers and the group is in my mind. But it isn't always, which is my atom example. 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?!

We observe things and categorise these, something that isnt limited to our species.
Even leaf cutter ants can categorise between the different plants they need to harvest.

That statement isn't an argument.

it`s not a statement it`s gibberish

[Whateverist]

Oh the novelty! Who the hell is this guy? Gosh darn, what really is real?

Oh, you caught me, too! You figured out that this opens up multiple possibilities for things you don't believe in! You better cover your eyes and not address the issue!

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

[LastPoet]

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

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

And now is the part where you tear my head off and make my argument seem like complete garbage. Feel free to insult my mother and her mother as you go (except Rhythm because I've already ignored that kiddo).

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

---

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