Active Users:321 Time:09/04/2025 05:40:43 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" Burr Send a noteboard - 14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM
It's an empty placeholder for an explanation. Science at least provides a partial explanation of the unknown by describing the boundaries of what we know. If you say the soul is whatever human qualities haven't yet been discovered by science, then the soul theory is falsified every time a scientific discovery about humanity is made.


I'm just saying a soul is an explanation, if an unprovable one (as things stand). Think of it less as a "scientific theory" and more of a "philosophic idea" :P


But what I'm saying is that it's not even an unprovable explanation, because it's not an explanation at all. Positing a spiritual soul is no more an explanation than positing a nonsense wordthing like uqweroiuejr. "The uqweroiuejr lies on a uqweroiuejr-like plane of existence and explains knowns X, Y, and Z, even if we can't prove it." Whether it's provable or not doesn't even matter, because we haven't yet said anything meaningful other than implying that we can't yet explain X, Y, and Z. As a philosophic idea, the soul is useful only as a placeholder, not as an explanation.

Note: I'm not necessarily trying to persuade you to agree with me. As a practical matter, it may be that some brains more efficiently by assuming the existence of spiritual substances. In fact, maybe on some subconscious level my brain does believe in spiritual substances and makes me the better off for it. I'm just trying to clarify why I don't bother believing in them on a conscious, rational level.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 14/09/2009 at 08:17:51 PM
Reply to message
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe? Lordling - 14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM 886 Views
no, it is mostly hydrogen *NM* random thoughts - 14/09/2009 02:43:47 PM 273 Views
No *NM* Insolitus - 14/09/2009 03:01:32 PM 252 Views
not a chance *NM* clam - 14/09/2009 03:23:02 PM 253 Views
yes (in as much that we could choose to define it that way) LadyLorraine - 14/09/2009 03:31:40 PM 683 Views
On a gut level, I think all substance is teleologically tied to one or more kinds of consciousness. Burr - 14/09/2009 04:03:31 PM 619 Views
aaah but who says we can percieve all there is to percieve in relation to our persons? LadyLorraine - 14/09/2009 04:14:08 PM 593 Views
But merely positing a soul (as a spiritual substance) doesn't actually explain anything. Burr - 14/09/2009 07:46:35 PM 560 Views
i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" LadyLorraine - 14/09/2009 07:50:27 PM 619 Views
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" Burr - 14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM 622 Views
Carts and horses. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:10:22 PM 752 Views
No *NM* Monkey - 14/09/2009 05:14:33 PM 255 Views
Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? jh - 14/09/2009 05:27:09 PM 620 Views
Re: Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? Lordling - 14/09/2009 06:20:45 PM 606 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things Matrimony Cauthon - 14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM 644 Views
That sounds very like gnosticism in many ways. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:17:51 PM 651 Views
No. *NM* Entophile - 14/09/2009 07:06:59 PM 247 Views
define "spiritual'. Avendesora - 14/09/2009 07:36:18 PM 572 Views
Rum. Craig - 14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM 631 Views
YES! *NM* Elaine - 16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM 279 Views
How are we not married? *NM* Craig - 19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM 253 Views
Bigamy laws. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 19/09/2009 03:49:59 PM 239 Views
My Achilles heel! *NM* Craig - 19/09/2009 07:30:06 PM 259 Views
Timing *NM* Elaine - 21/09/2009 12:51:37 PM 253 Views
My Achilles ankle! *NM* Craig - 21/09/2009 08:14:42 PM 268 Views
Your Face. *NM* jh - 21/09/2009 08:21:44 PM 254 Views
My Achilles face! Craig - 07/10/2009 09:40:36 PM 523 Views
No *NM* Dragonsworn - 14/09/2009 09:09:16 PM 240 Views
No *NM* Camilla - 14/09/2009 09:31:14 PM 255 Views
Yes, vodka. *NM* Stephen - 14/09/2009 10:02:19 PM 238 Views
Substance? Great Lord of Chaos - 14/09/2009 10:08:04 PM 588 Views
Yeah, boobs. Vodalus - 15/09/2009 01:51:44 AM 580 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably. Joel - 15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM 614 Views
Look, don't put words in my mouth. jh - 15/09/2009 04:50:13 PM 637 Views
Sorry. Joel - 15/09/2009 05:14:10 PM 562 Views
Re: Sorry. Burr - 17/09/2009 09:20:58 PM 545 Views
People over-complicate this, it's a sort of animal abuse Isaac - 15/09/2009 09:03:01 PM 603 Views
Nicely put. *NM* everynametaken - 17/09/2009 01:57:44 AM 236 Views
Very nicely put. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/09/2009 06:57:57 PM 231 Views
A sublte nuance most modern materialists miss. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:21:33 PM 824 Views
I think there may be platonic forms defining purpose Sports_Gambler - 16/09/2009 06:27:36 AM 529 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause. Joel - 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM 710 Views
One little correction Isaac - 20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM 705 Views
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists. Joel - 07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM 746 Views
Nay. Burr - 20/09/2009 07:04:47 AM 534 Views
Re: Nay. Joel - 07/10/2009 11:55:28 AM 641 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes