Disproving The Soul

[Neo-Scholastic]

Steven, if you break your receiver does that mean the radio waves are gone too?

[FatAndFaithless]

Steven, if you break your receiver does that mean the radio waves are gone too?

Kinda helps that we can measure, observe, predict and create radio waves..

[Neo-Scholastic]

Firstly, the OP seems to adopt an Aristotelean model of soul, that a soul is something we have...

Sorry to nit-pick you, but I think your interpretation of Aristotle is a little bit off. As I understand it, 'soul' is manifest from the hypostatic union between the form of a thing and its substance. This does not directly contradict your locating the 'soul' within the Divine Intellect. It does however, move you to a more 'gnostic' concept of the soul, or spirit, as a spark emanating from the Source.

---

Steven, if you break your receiver does that mean the radio waves are gone too?

Kinda helps that we can measure, observe, predict and create radio waves..

The brain is the device that measures, observes and predicts and creates spiritual properties. Next.

[FatAndFaithless]

Kinda helps that we can measure, observe, predict and create radio waves..

The brain is the device that measures, observes and predicts and creates spiritual properties. Next.

And if you're saying that the soul is just something that's created in our head, then great. But if you're saying its an entity or a property that actually exists, measuring or observing it is pretty important to you know...proving that it exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and since you have the equipment that "observes and predicts and creates spiritual properties", it shouldn't be too hard for you to do so. Chop chop, lay it to rest Chad, now's your chance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

-and since you have the equipment that "observes and predicts and creates spiritual properties", it shouldn't be too hard for you to do so. Chop chop, lay it to rest Chad, now's your chance.

You also have a brain, Rhythm. Your failure to use it isn't my problem.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's fine, but it looks like we're both failing to use it then, eh? You made the claim, I've entertained the claim, are you incapable of demonstrating that your brain can actually do what you -just- explicitly claimed it could do?

Remind me why I should take your claims seriously again?

[Mudhammam]

The problem with Wooters' (is that the name of a Pokemon?) argument is the leap from the intuition of soul that the physical Universe (or vice versa) has generated (which may still make it a unique 'thing') to pretending that it's something one can demonstrate to exist in any empirical sense. On this note, the materialists clearly have the advantage of scientific progress on their side.

[Dystopia]

The pokemon is called whopper, just saying.

Replying to the thread - There is no need to disprove souls and going any further than requiring evídence. Since people who claim humans possess an immaterial component called the 'soul' have never satisfied the burden of proof, we can just assume souls don't exist (yeah I'm giving you a proposition of gnossis).

From the moment someone throws out a claim without providing evidence, it should be dismissed as false until AND if substantial proof is presented

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Wooters' (is that the name of a Pokemon?)...

The family name is Dutch, but my ancestry is mostly English and Welsh. Otherwise I'm about as much of a Midwestern American as can be.

...[Wooters's] ...to pretending that it's something one can demonstrate to exist in any empirical sense.

Not quite. I would never make an empirical argument about that which can only be know subjectively. The existence of mental properties distinct from physical ones can be known by means of deduction (reason applied to experience), not empirical observation.

...the materialists clearly have the advantage of scientific progress on their side.

Perhaps you could first tell me what 'matter' is . That would help me understand how matter alone can give rise to non-physical mental properties, i.e. things like semiotic meaning.