The Human Soul Likely Doesn't Exist.

My argument consists of arguing for the likelihood of three simple principles. These principles I believe are difficult to deny outright and cannot be denied without taking some unlikely, uncomfortable, and absurd positions. If we are to accept the likelihood of these principles, we must accept that a soul likely doesn’t exist. This argument is my rendition of J. J. C. Smart’s argument. My Case Against The Soul Principle 1: Mental events cause physical events. Principle 2: Physical events have physical causes. Principle 3: There is no causal overdeterminism. Defense of P1: This principle is very hard to deny. It seems blatantly obvious. When I want to debate something, my mental will causes my physical body to control the computer to initiate it. Without my mental event, this debate wouldn't have happened. This principle should be accepted as true, as our introspection tells us it is true, unless we find some powerful argument against it. This principle is prima facie likely and justified. Defense of P2: Part of this principle stems from the philosophical problems of two fundamentally different substances interacting. For two things to interact there must exist a connection between the objects. However, if the two objects are defined as so fundamentally different, then it cannot make any connection between the two intelligible. This can be understood with an analogy of colors. Let the two colors be two different substances. Any connection between the two cannot be explained. This implies that substances need to be causally closed. Another difficulty with denying the second principle is that it would be denying well established science. The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept that states “the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed”[1]. If we have a non-physical cause for a physical event, this would be an addition of energy. Something such as a the soul causing our body to move would mean the body would have energy added to it with no conservation. This principle is likely due to the philosophical problems its negation entails and because it is likely the fundamental concepts in physics are true. Defense of P3 Causal overdeterminism states there are two causes for one event. An instance of causal overdeterminism would be this. Two snipers are hired and funded by two completely independent men to kill the same target. The two snipers shoot at the same time and both bullets hit the target at the same time. Or wearing a belt and suspenders at the same time when wearing one would be enough. Overdeterminism would state that there is a physical cause for an event and a mental. This is because of Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor states "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”[2]. We can see clearly that this overdeterminism is a huge violation of this principle. It also seems overdeterminism is unlikely because it seems absurd to state that if I didn’t have the mental event of hunger my body would still cook and eat food while my mind would be wondering what is happening. Principle 3 is likely due to Occam’s razor and the general absurdity of the idea. What this entails If we are to accept these principles we must reject the likelihood of the human soul. If we accept that mental events cause physical events and that physical events have physical causes, we must accept that there is no soul or that the soul is another cause of these events. Since principle 3 holds, we reject the likelihood of overdeterminism and must affirm the resolution. Thanks and now to Con. Remember, Con in your round you don’t address these arguments. You present your own arguments against the resolution, as rebuttals don’t begin until round 3. Sources [1] . http://www.grc.nasa.gov... [2] . http://math.ucr.edu...