Arguments against Soul

[Belacqua]

So, I ask again, what was your original point?

My original point was that what Flat said about God was true if you're talking about a simple-minded version of God, and not true if you're talking about some different versions.

[EgoDeath]

My original point was that what Flat said about God was true if you're talking about a simple-minded version of God, and not true if you're talking about some different versions.

And why should anyone care? Very few people believe in those different versions of god relative to those that believe in your Sunday school god.

There being an alternative concept to the angry sky man doesn't make the existence of god any more likely.

You're just here to point out that other versions of god exist, or...?

[FlatAssembler]

God is an incoherent concept in itself, because of the Omnipotence Paradox. 

As always, this is true of the Sunday school version of God. Many Christians believe in this type.

It is not true of the God of Aquinas, Spinoza, etc. etc. etc.

It makes sense to argue against people whose understanding stopped at Sunday school. It is a straw man to pretend that's all there is.

Well, God of Aquinas and Spinoza is omnipotent, since the Ontological Argument argues for an omnipotent God. A perfect being is supposed to be omnipotent, don't you think?

---

That a majority of people may or may not believe in an idea which has no evidence behind it doesn't shift the burden of proof.

If a majority of people believes something, then perhaps there is evidence of it you are unaware of. I used to think that the Earth is flat and that everybody else believed it was round for no good reason, and that the burden of proof is on them. That was incredibly arrogant of me.

Providing one anecdotal story about a man who, supposedly, according to you, had some hallucination that coordinated with something that actually happened (a coincidence) means absolutely nothing.

Well, it's not just according to me, it's according to the Book, one of the most respected Croatian newspapers. If it were obviously wrong, why hasn't another journalist written an article debunking that story? And it's not just that story. The Maria's Shoe story is probably more famous in the English-speaking world.

I really don't think you understand how critical thinking or the scientific method works.

Well, I've published a few papers about linguistics in peer-reviewed journals, all of them being at least partly about my alternative interpretation of the names of places in Croatia, so I certainly know something about how science works.

[Belacqua]

Well, God of Aquinas and Spinoza is omnipotent, since the Ontological Argument argues for an omnipotent God. A perfect being is supposed to be omnipotent, don't you think?

I don't know what such a thing is "supposed to" be.

I can only say what others have tried to work out.

In the case of Aquinas, "omnipotent" doesn't mean he can do anything. For one thing, God is impassible and ideal, and therefore takes no action. So the idea of "doing anything" is incoherent.

Aquinas uses Aristotle's vocabulary about act and potency. Potency is the potential to do things, and act is the fulfillment of that potential. The contingent, changing world is full of potential, moving from one state to another. God, on the other hand, has no potential -- it is pure act. Actus purus. As the full activation, however, God is necessary for potentiality in the world to be fulfilled. 

I know that this sounds unconvincing as presented here -- it's a long involved argument. The key point, though, is that when Aquinas and other Christians in that tradition say "omnipotent," they mean nothing like the popular image. 

And this means that the popular complaint -- that God's ability to do anything is incompatible with supposed other attributes -- is irrelevant to this basic view.

Likewise, various versions of the ontological argument, in which God is imagined as the greatest possible thing, don't rely on "greatest" meaning "most powerful" in the sense that God is like a larger version of the Incredible Hulk. This would be anthropomorphizing, in which we imagine what a great person is like and then say God is a little greater than that.

[EgoDeath]

If a majority of people believes something, then perhaps there is evidence of it you are unaware of. I used to think that the Earth is flat and that everybody else believed it was round for no good reason, and that the burden of proof is on them. That was incredibly arrogant of me.

And while I'm totally open to that, where is it?

There's no saying that as a society we can't have the conversation... but it's sort of hard to have a conversation about such a topic when we have no evidence for the idea we're talking about, isn't it?

Well, it's not just according to me, it's according to the Book, one of the most respected Croatian newspapers. If it were obviously wrong, why hasn't another journalist written an article debunking that story? And it's not just that story. The Maria's Shoe story is probably more famous in the English-speaking world.

Okay, well I'd have to see the news story specifically to talk more about it.

Well, I've published a few papers about linguistics in peer-reviewed journals, all of them being at least partly about my alternative interpretation of the names of places in Croatia, so I certainly know something about how science works.

That's pretty cool!

But I'm just saying that, as far as proposing the idea that there is a soul, you would have to actually produce some evidence that consciousness exists outside of one anecdotal piece of evidence that doesn't actually prove anything.

Are you from Croatia? My best friend growing up here in the states was Croatian. We spent many a night finding ways to steal a bottle of his dad's homemade rakia.

[Belacqua]

as far as proposing the idea that there is a soul, you would have to actually produce some evidence that consciousness exists outside of one anecdotal piece of evidence that doesn't actually prove anything.

That's interesting. 

It's assuming that a soul is by its nature conscious, even in the absence of a body. That hadn't occurred to me, but I suppose most people think that way when they think of a soul.

As always, this goes against the Aristotelian/Thomist definition of a soul, which always and only exists in combination with matter -- i.e. a body.

[EgoDeath]

That's interesting. 

It's assuming that a soul is by its nature conscious, even in the absence of a body. That hadn't occurred to me, but I suppose most people think that way when they think of a soul.

As always, this goes against the Aristotelian/Thomist definition of a soul, which always and only exists in combination with matter -- i.e. a body.

Point being?

[Belacqua]

Point being?

The point being that you are assuming a soul, if such a thing existed, would be conscious even in the absence of a body, whereas Aristotelian/Thomists don't assume that.

[EgoDeath]

Point being?

The point being that you are assuming a soul, if such a thing existed, would be conscious even in the absence of a body, whereas Aristotelian/Thomists don't assume that.

Okay, cool. Thanks...?

[mordant]

If a majority of people believes something, then perhaps there is evidence of it you are unaware of. I used to think that the Earth is flat and that everybody else believed it was round for no good reason, and that the burden of proof is on them. That was incredibly arrogant of me.

And while I'm totally open to that, where is it?

There's no saying that as a society we can't have the conversation... but it's sort of hard to have a conversation about such a topic when we have no evidence for the idea we're talking about, isn't it?

More relevant to my mind is that there inherently CAN BE no evidence for an invisible, supernatural being. Such a thing would be outside the natural world and totally inaccessible anyway. If a god is not supernatural (or becomes part of nature by interacting with it), then it is part of the natural world and can be understood like anything else in nature. If it's supernatural, well, that's a useless and illogical concept, which means you can't even concoct and describe what would serve as convincing evidence for such a god hypothesis. A natural (non-supernatural) god is just a very powerful sentient being whose activities could be examined and assessed ... and that's not happening, either.