Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

About Religions Premises

elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 9:56:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In a different discussion than this one, posters were asked to accept the following constraints:
1. Personhood is associated with having a soul.
2. If an unborn human doesn't have a soul, it is not a person.
3. Biological organisms can in general exist just fine without souls.
4. "Murder" can be defined as deliberately killing an organism that has a soul.
5. God creates souls, they do not come into existence automatically.
6. God has Free Will, and therefore is not obligated to create a soul just because some particular organism begins to exist.
7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor).
8. God is Loving.

Regarding item 5, Science knows this: Anything that can begin to exist as a result of purely physical events can also be destroyed by other physical events. Logically, for a soul to be immortal, this means it cannot begin to exist as a direct consequence of the purely physical process of egg-fertilization (conception). A direct Act of God is required, to create something that is immortal with respect to physical events.

-----------
Anyone who doesn't like those constraints is invited to discuss them (and any other Religious premises) here.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 10:19:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 9:56:41 AM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
In a different discussion than this one, posters were asked to accept the following constraints:
1. Personhood is associated with having a soul.

Using who's standard?? Since there is no objective way of measuring whether one has a soul, or not, how can any sort of standard like this be applied??

What if the anti-theists turn out to be right and there is no God, thus no souls?? Does that mean that no one qualifies as a person??

2. If an unborn human doesn't have a soul, it is not a person.

Again, how do we know that the unborn has no soul??

3. Biological organisms can in general exist just fine without souls.

Conclusion can't be established.

4. "Murder" can be defined as deliberately killing an organism that has a soul.

So all the defense team in a murder case has to do is challenge that the prosecution can't prove that the victim had a soul, thus they can't prove that it's actually murder??

5. God creates souls, they do not come into existence automatically.

Agreed

6. God has Free Will, and therefore is not obligated to create a soul just because some particular organism begins to exist.

I agree that He isn't obligated, but that doesn't mean that He can't, or doesn't.

7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor).

Agreed

8. God is Loving.

Agreed

Regarding item 5, Science knows this: Anything that can begin to exist as a result of purely physical events can also be destroyed by other physical events. Logically, for a soul to be immortal, this means it cannot begin to exist as a direct consequence of the purely physical process of egg-fertilization (conception). A direct Act of God is required, to create something that is immortal with respect to physical events.

-----------
Anyone who doesn't like those constraints is invited to discuss them (and any other Religious premises) here.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 11:44:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 10:19:30 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/5/2012 9:56:41 AM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
In a different discussion than this one, posters were asked to accept the following constraints:
1. Personhood is associated with having a soul.

Using who's standard?? Since there is no objective way of measuring whether one has a soul, or not, how can any sort of standard like this be applied??

What if the anti-theists turn out to be right and there is no God, thus no souls?? Does that mean that no one qualifies as a person??

If souls don't exist, then personhood requires a different definition. Simple. However, that "different discussion" mentioned above was also about the Overall Abortion Debate, in which many people holding Religious views oppose abortion on the grounds that unborn humans are persons --and persons in general are presumed to have souls. Catholic Doctrine specifically states that souls begin to exist at conception. This being the Religion Forum, that particular premise is simply accepting/stating a common view of Religions, for the express purpose of eventually examining how it fits into the abortion topic.

2. If an unborn human doesn't have a soul, it is not a person.

Again, how do we know that the unborn has no soul??

This premise is basically a logical follow-up to the first. Note that initial "If" in this premise. Obviously there is equal logic in stating that if an unborn human has a soul, then it is a person.

3. Biological organisms can in general exist just fine without souls.

Conclusion can't be established.

The same Religions that state humans are special because they have immortal souls never, so far as I know, claim that bacteria have souls. And bacteria are biological organisms. A pest-bug or a weed in the garden is a much more complex biological organism; is there widespread insistence that it has a soul? This premise merely takes the claims not made, and formalizes them.

4. "Murder" can be defined as deliberately killing an organism that has a soul.

So all the defense team in a murder case has to do is challenge that the prosecution can't prove that the victim had a soul, thus they can't prove that it's actually murder??

That constraint takes the previous concept that personhood involves having a soul, and adds it to the wide-spread notion that killing a person is murder, to reach the conclusion stated. Obviously if personhood was dissociated with the concept of "having a soul", then murder would need a different definition. Basically, this premise should be acceptable if the first premise is acceptable.

6. God has Free Will, and therefore is not obligated to create a soul just because some particular organism begins to exist.

I agree that He isn't obligated, but that doesn't mean that He can't, or doesn't.

True, but whichever Choice He makes, to create or not-create a soul, we should be able to assume His Choice is based on some particular reason, and isn't done whimsically (else a lot of humans wouldn't have souls!).
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 11:46:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 9:56:41 AM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
In a different discussion than this one, posters were asked to accept the following constraints:
1. Personhood is associated with having a soul.
2. If an unborn human doesn't have a soul, it is not a person.
3. Biological organisms can in general exist just fine without souls.
4. "Murder" can be defined as deliberately killing an organism that has a soul.
5. God creates souls, they do not come into existence automatically.
6. God has Free Will, and therefore is not obligated to create a soul just because some particular organism begins to exist.
7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor).
8. God is Loving.

Regarding item 5, Science knows this: Anything that can begin to exist as a result of purely physical events can also be destroyed by other physical events. Logically, for a soul to be immortal, this means it cannot begin to exist as a direct consequence of the purely physical process of egg-fertilization (conception). A direct Act of God is required, to create something that is immortal with respect to physical events.

-----------
Anyone who doesn't like those constraints is invited to discuss them (and any other Religious premises) here.

what you call soul, I think all life has one, a sort of recording of existence.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 11:52:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
For a being that transcends human comprehension, and surpasses logic, how is it we manage to make claims on how he behaves and what powers he has?

By making any argument related to God's behavior you undercut his divinity...and furthermore, assume that he is bound by logic...and by such limitations, how can he be a God?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 12:46:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 11:46:40 AM, Websterremembered wrote:

what you call soul, I think all life has one, a sort of recording of existence.

Well, now we might need to discuss the definition of "soul". I'm aware of several. The premises under discussion, however, refer to "immortal souls", which are a specific thing that needed some clarification (separate paragraph at end of list).

So, a Question: If God creates souls for every single living thing, then what makes a human soul superior to, say, a bug's soul, such that most humans can swat a mosquito without guilt? Isn't it simpler to assume the bug doesn't have one?
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 12:52:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 11:52:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
For a being that transcends human comprehension, and surpasses logic, how is it we manage to make claims on how he behaves and what powers he has?

By making any argument related to God's behavior you undercut his divinity...and furthermore, assume that he is bound by logic...and by such limitations, how can he be a God?

One need not be that extreme to be considered godly. Remember, the Aztecs had some legends about a white God, and when Cortez arrived, that gave him an advantage.

So, what of the possibility that souls are made in God's Image, that souls are offspring of God? Wouldn't they have some Godly abilities, in addition to being immortal? They say "Knowledge is Power" --and perhaps the only real difference between God and souls is their relative amounts of education....
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 10:08:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 11:52:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
For a being that transcends human comprehension, and surpasses logic, how is it we manage to make claims on how he behaves and what powers he has?

Exactly

By making any argument related to God's behavior you undercut his divinity...and furthermore, assume that he is bound by logic...and by such limitations, how can he be a God?

Nothing can be unbound by logic, since it wouldn't exist. In this way, we shouldn't think of logic as physical laws. But rather whatever is possible can exist.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 8:26:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 10:08:43 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/5/2012 11:52:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
For a being that transcends human comprehension, and surpasses logic, how is it we manage to make claims on how he behaves and what powers he has?

Exactly

That is not necessarily so. Just because Religions make various claims about God, that doesn't mean Religions have any idea what they are talking about. God may be superior to the physical world, but mathematics is about abstract things. So, not even God can make "1+1" add up to anything other than "2". As a result of us mere humans manipulating abstractions, we now have Gödel's Proof, which shows that it is mathematically impossible for true "omniscience" to exist. And the tools of logic are similarly abstract, and so things such as "If A=B, and if B=C, then A=C" is something that not even God can refute. A proper "sudoku" puzzle has exactly one solution, and not even God is going to find a different solution.

Religions may not like such notions, but, so what? That's what they get for making claims that were never backed up by evidence!

By making any argument related to God's behavior you undercut his divinity...and furthermore, assume that he is bound by logic...and by such limitations, how can he be a God?

Nothing can be unbound by logic, since it wouldn't exist. In this way, we shouldn't think of logic as physical laws. But rather whatever is possible can exist.

As previously mentioned, God can be God by simply being more powerful than the physical Universe. Even descriptions like this may be adequate:
htt.....ww.skrause.org/humor/academichierarchy.shtml :)
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!