I have a soul hence I exist.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Lauri said ‎"You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."--CS Lewis.


The_Flying_Skeptic says

Souls are overrated.

Michael says

Underrated, actually.

The_Flying_Skeptic

Underrated makes more sense since there is nothing to rate.

Michael
You can't rate something that isn't there. If it is underrated or overrated or rated at all, it exists. Quite simply, the soul is made in the likeness of God. God exists - just look at the world and how it was formed, there is evidence all a...round. To deny the soul is to deny the evidence and to deny God entirely. You are, in effect, saying YOU don't exist. And that's just absurd.

The_Flying_Skeptic
I'm not saying I don't exist. Descartes never said "I have a soul therefore I exist" He said "I think therefore I exist." I concur with Descartes.

Michael
Then you gotta ask, HOW did Descartes get all the info he has to think with? How did he gain the ability TO think? Who gave him the info and ability to think? HOW did he come TO exist?

The_Flying_Skeptic
Thought appears impossible without a brain... But, I know where you're getting at. You believe that your deity created everything, am I right? are you a young earth creationist?

Michael
Young earth or progressive...still sorting through the details on that one. That's a side matter. The point is that we already know that nothing can come into existence unless something else entirely outside its existence (or pre-existence) ...initiates the creation. This is just simple logic here. The soul exists because God created it. The soul (yes, a.k.a. the mind) is made in the likeness of God. It's really that simple.

The_Flying_Skeptic
Logical arguments aren't necessarily true (especially simple ones).: "all elephants are pink. I am an elephant hence am I pink." is a logical argument but we both know from experience that not all elephants are pink (where I would add that ...we both don't believe in a magical, timeless, pink elephant)

'Something else' is a very broad term. Something else is not necessarily the anthropocentric deity for that matter. 'Something else' could be an impersonal mechanism that makes universes possible that is yet to be understood. I will not believe in a god because people are too lazy to find the answers; I will not believe in the god of the gaps.

The details of your world-view are very important. If you are a YEC (young earth creationist) then you are in so deep that you'd rather believe thousands of geologists, physicists, and chemists now are wrong than believe a book that was written roughly 2,000 years ago is fallible.

[lrh9]

I have two soles.

[krazedkat]

So... Because we can "rate" this "soul" it exists? Then MARIO IS FUCKING REAL! (TheAmazingAtheist Joke)

[leo-rcc]

I'm a soul man.

[tackattack]

This is where Micheal's arguement breaks down
"Then you gotta ask, HOW did Descartes get all the info he has to think with? How did he gain the ability TO think? Who gave him the info and ability to think? HOW did he come TO exist?"

From there I would have gone-
If thinking is the workings of the mind and the mind is solely dependant on the brain why then does identity (the very essence of the word "I") not end upon brain cessation. Could the mind actually be a compilation of inner resources (a soul , mechanics of the mind, memory, etc.) all influencing each other. If the brain ceased and the identity stayed wouldn't that prove that something external to our known materialsitc reality would house that... like a soul?
So isn't it I think therefore I Am?

@krazedkat- Mario is real I saw 2 or 3 walking around downtown Atanta with Adriran. What is Mario, is he a suit, an accent, or just a concept? What am I.. a name, some clothes, a social security number, or am I the conceptualization of my parts interacting with objectifiable reality? Real is too subjective a term to throw around without defining it.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

This is where Micheal's arguement breaks down
"Then you gotta ask, HOW did Descartes get all the info he has to think with? How did he gain the ability TO think? Who gave him the info and ability to think? HOW did he come TO exist?"

From there I would have gone-
If thinking is the workings of the mind and the mind is solely dependant on the brain why then does identity (the very essence of the word "I") not end upon brain cessation. Could the mind actually be a compilation of inner resources (a soul , mechanics of the mind, memory, etc.) all influencing each other. If the brain ceased and the identity stayed wouldn't that prove that something external to our known materialsitc reality would house that... like a soul?
So isn't it I think therefore I Am?

Why do we not end upon brain cessation? We do end upon brain cessation e.i. brain cessation is termination of consciousness. Our identities 'live on' via memories of the people that knew us.

[annatar]

of course soul exists! Only, now we call it brain.

[Pippy]

will zombies start eating them soon?

[tackattack]

@TFS- There have been cases (albeit a rarity, I think I linked in an older thred, but I'm rel busy at work today so you'll have to refind them) where someone's brain waves have ceased and they have pulminotory and brain death. They were mentall dicombobulated when they woke up but they still coveyed a sense of "I am". What's I'm saying is you can alter the brain and that influence the mind. You can simulate certain symptoms of elation biochemically. You can even alter the perception of the past reality. If the mind is solely dependant on the brain for everything then when it dies, so would all aspects of mind, correct? You can not however take away the core sense of self that says "I am". Not yet at least.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

@TFS- There have been cases (albeit a rarity, I think I linked in an older thred, but I'm rel busy at work today so you'll have to refind them) where someone's brain waves have ceased and they have pulminotory and brain death. They were mentall dicombobulated when they woke up but they still coveyed a sense of "I am". What's I'm saying is you can alter the brain and that influence the mind. You can simulate certain symptoms of elation biochemically. You can even alter the perception of the past reality. If the mind is solely dependant on the brain for everything then when it dies, so would all aspects of mind, correct? You can not however take away the core sense of self that says "I am". Not yet at least.

how did they know that the brain waves were done? how long was the person out for? you should memorize the names of the scientists involved in this important experiment for me to google.

"what i'm saying is that you can alter the brain and that influences the mind"

But, you can't alter the 'mind' (because the mind is just an abstract concept that doesn't really exist) to influence the brain. (and ... we could have used alter in place of influence in both cases. alter the mind to alter the brain... influence the brain to influence the mind and vice versa...) There must be stimuli.