From: kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:10:24 GMT
	<LEET.92Sep1130256@dove.ims.com>
	<KENTD.92Sep3150607@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com>
	<LEET.92Sep9095010@dove.ims.com>
Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO
In-reply-to: leet@ims.com's message of 9 Sep 92 17:50:10 GMT


>>>>> On 9 Sep 92 17:50:10 GMT, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) said:
>>>>> On 3 Sep 92 14:06:07 GMT, kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) said:
>>>>> On 1 Sep 92 21:02:56 GMT, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) said:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:42:56 EDT, Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org (Marc Cormier) said:

Marc> Finally if there is no soul, why do we need anything else including...
Marc> .... GOD? Is this line of reasoning faulty, if so please respond.

Lee> If we have no souls, we don't need God.  Since we do have souls, the
Lee> argument is moot.  1 Corinthians 15:35-50 discusses this at length.

Kent> No, *your* argument is moot. You're trying to prove the
Kent> existence of some alleged, critical, yet non-material, property
Kent> of humans (referred to in the biblical passage mentioned above
Kent> as a "spiritual body") by assertion.

Lee> There is a critical difference between proof by assertion and proof by
Lee> revelation, but I don't believe :-) that my supplying it would change
Lee> your mind.

I share your belief :^) But it might be entertaining to hear you try to
explain it anyway :^) :^)

Lee> My original intent was to show Marc that his reasoning - as
Lee> applied, apparently, to Judeo-Christian belief - was faulty, because
Lee> that belief system does not accept the idea that a soul has a
Lee> location.  The 1 Corinthians passage distinguishes between the
Lee> "natural" (i.e., scientific, material, measurable) and the spiritual.

Okay, I can agree with that. Your quoted passage definitely bears out a
belief in Christianity that there is a non-material spiritual element of
our existence.

It does not, however, lend any sort of credence whatsoever to your
"since we do have souls" statement.

Lee> I admit that my use of "moot" was provocative, but I used it to
Lee> provoke just the sort of argument that you then provided:

No your unqualified assertion of the existence of an unobservable object/entity
was what I personally found provocative (to the point of being offensive).

Kent> I could just as easily respond "Your argument is irrelevant
Kent> since we do not have souls" and it would carry an equal amount
Kent> of proof to the verses you mention in 1 Corinthians which simply
Kent> assert the opposite and provide no verifiable properties of the
Kent> "body" in question.

Lee> "Verifiable properties" would be material, natural, and scientific,
Lee> would they not?  

By verifiable properties of the soul, I mean that it must have, and/or be
claimed to have, some kind of effect on, or verifiable relationship 
to the "owner". I'm not necessarily talking about properties in the
_strict_ scientific sense (although that is the preferred type ;^).

For example, most concepts of deity *are* meaningful, because the
posited deity is typically claimed to have properties which can be
verified or is claimed to have been the cause of observable effects in
the material world despite the claim of a spiritual, non-material,
manifestation.  This seems to be much different than what you are saying
about the soul.

Lee> Are you saying that all entities must have such
Lee> properties to exist?

No, I'm saying that all non-physical entities must have such properties
before we can make any reasonably confident decision as to whether or
not they exist. They most certainly _could_ exist (in some sense of the
word) but unless they either directly or indirectly have some real world
effect we have no way of determining that is the case and as a concept
it is largly meaningless since by definition it can not cause, or
participate in the causation of, any event in this material
plane/reality/whatever you care to call it.

Lee> I cannot provide you with verifiable
Lee> properties for the soul, because the soul lies outside of the realm of
Lee> scientific verification.

Then I have no way distinguish it from any other non-material entity
which has no observable effect. I can postulate a bazillion such
entities and all will have equal validity, proof, net effect on the
universe, etc.

This is why I can't understand how someone can expect me to accept
such statements at face value.

Kent> Statements such as yours above seriously make me wonder if one must
Kent> completely abandon reason in order to embrace the Christian faith.

Lee> It is not a prerequisite, although in some cases it certainly helps. :-)

Agreed.

Lee> <Stuff about Rationalism being invalid>

I just looked up "rationalism" in the dictionary and it most definitely
does not describe the method I use to formulate my beliefs. So we can
now eliminate the topic from the discussion, since we agree on it.

Kent> Hopefully, people who arrive at faith by discarding the one
Kent> primary facility that separates them from the "lower" entities
Kent> they supposedly rule over will be the first against the wall
Kent> when the Messiah returns.  :^P

Lee> Do you really believe that we are separated from the "lower" entities
Lee> by reason, and reason alone, or was this just sarcasm?

Yes, it was most certainly sarcasm. Naturally, I believe that there are
other properties of humans that one could use to put them at the top of
some hierarchy of living things (depending selection criteria), that's
why I used the word "primary" rather than, say, "only". Most of the
properties seem to be either directly or indirectly related to the
humans' central nervous system.
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics          * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-319            */  
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A      *   FAX: (303) 226-9556                  */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525  *                                        */
/**************************************************************************/
On SECOND thought, maybe I'll heat up some BAKED BEANS and
 watch REGIS PHILBIN..  It's GREAT to be ALIVE!!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic