Wyz_sub10

Okay. But how does that lead to:

You can still have evidence of intangible things, otherwise how would you tell if someone was getting irritated or if someone had a crush on you?

I can prove to you logic exists by applying it. As long as we agree that this process can be given the name "logic", there is no problem.

But how do you demonstrate the existence of a soul? If one cannot define what it does or how it is applied, then what the heck is it?

I don't think undressing in front of an animal is a good test for a soul. I do think defining logic, and showing how the rules lead from 'A' to 'B' is a reasonable proof.

They may be both intangible, but supplying proof for one is possible, but it does not seem possible to do so for the other.

Normal

Of course, both those things can have empirical evidence.

If that works my following example works:

There are numerous definitions out there. What if I define “soul” to mean that which is in the driver’s seat of free will? I can prove it exists by making a choice, thus proving I have a soul, no?

Again, multiple definitions cloud the concept of soul. I agree that is a poor definition, but if he defines “soul” to mean “embarrassment in front of animals”, he has thusly proved it exists. If that’s how you prove logic, however, both my example and his prove there is a soul.

What’s wrong with the proof I’ve given for a soul?

Hawkingfan

No, that proves you have a brain.

Normal

If you could isolate the part of the brain that makes choices you would have a case.

As it stands, it proves I have a soul by my definition.

yguy

Just a slight correction: I cited the capacity for embarassment as a property or attribute of the soul, not its definition.

Hawkingfan

associative cortex of the cerebrum

Wyz_sub10

Okay...show me how soul is in the driver's seat of free will? Keep in mine you are not telling me what it is - you are telling me what it does.

I can demonstrate how the brain is responsible for making decisions. Can you demonstrate how it is the soul that serves this function?

Indeed.

How has he done this? I can tell you space cabbage is responsible for the earth's magnetic field. Have I thusly proven the existence of space cabbage?

I don't see it. Maybe someone else does that can chime in. The key is that we can recognize a process - we give that process a name - logic - and it becomes "tangible" (per se).

But even if we could not agree on a name, we could agree that a process existed.

I cannot see how you have shown a soul exists, regardless of what its called. If you say the soul is "x" and it does "A", then you should demonstrate how that it. Every example I have seen of what a soul does can be easily attributed to the brain.

(I am also viewing 'soul' in the sense that it survives after death - how do you prove it then?)

It's not a proof. But as I also mentioned, it's a description of function, not substance (or essence, if you prefer).

Normal

That's an expectedly vague answer.

Normal

I carefully defined it as “That WHICH is in the driver’s seat of free will”. That is what it is, not what it does. It is the operator of free will.

What it does would be it operates free will.

You can demonstrate how a specific part of the brain might be responsible for making decisions.

If you defined space cabbage as having the same properties that cause the earth's magentic field, then showed the effects of the magnetic field, you have proven space cabbage. I don't see why not.


You define logic as “a set of principles" then proceeded to prove it exists by applying those principles. I define soul as "operator of free will" then applyed it by making a choice.

Maybe we can't agree on a name, but we agree that a process for making choices exists.

As for being applicable to life after death, there's only ever going to be one way of proving or disproving that.


Then your proof of logic is insufficent.

SimplyAtheistic

And a "soul" is a much more precise answer? Lets take away part of the cerebrum, and see what happens shall we? Now, lets take away part of the sou... oh wait a sec, we don't know what the fuck a soul is so how are we going to take part of it away. This discussion has been run into the ground, and I think everyone can agree that there is no sufficient proof to make the assertion that humans possese a soul. If you can tell me WHAT exactly a soul is, I shall continue the debate, but if you say "the metaphysical entity that is the force behind consciousness and free will", then you have already lost.
Jake