Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Where is the soul?

  1. Top | #31
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,934
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,910
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    You are still conflating immaterial and imaginary. There is a major difference.
    That isn’t something I would ordinarily conflate. My insight is better than a little bit. My vocabulary may be lacking, but my understanding is pretty much spot on. “Immaterial” is 3-pronged while “imaginary” is 2-pronged.

    If something is real, then at the very least, there is something. That’s not the case with “imaginary.” It’s not as if there is something. So, when we purportedly speak of something, either there is something we’re speaking of or there isn’t. 2-pronged; one or the other. A dichotomy. The two categories are collectively exhaustive and there is no third option.

    “Immaterial” on the other hand is 3-pronged. This is harder to grasp, and it’s harder to argue. Even dictionaries lack the precision to help us grasp the subtle distinction. I use the term in a technical manner.

    While “material” is opposite of “not material” and two-pronged in either something is material or it isn’t (and thus not material), I argue that while “immaterial” implies “not material,” the converse is not true. Wtf, right?

    The logic I use is no different than what’s used to show “unhappy” and “not happy” are not the same. “Invalid” implies “not valid” yet not the other way around. That which is false is not true, but that which is not true is not necessarily false. Those are just more examples.

    If something exists, it’s real and thus not imaginary. “Immaterial” says more than “not material” says. “False” says more than “untrue” does. “Unhappy” is more revealing than “not happy.” “Invalid” is more insightful than “not valid.”

    If you tell me that an argument is not valid, I have no idea whether we’re talking about a deductive argument or not, but if an argument is invalid, then it’s a deductive argument, as no inductive argument is invalid (in the same sense). If a sentence is not true, it may or may not be a sentence that expresses a proposition, but if a sentence is false, then the sentence does express a proposition. The pots in my kitchen are either happy or not happy, but to say they are unhappy is to speak of them while making a category error. They are not the kinds of things that can be happy or unhappy and thus not happy.

    If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not material.
    However
    If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not immaterial.

    To say God is immaterial is to say 1) God is real and 2) God is not material. You may have a hard time seeing number 1 as true, but to say of something that it’s material or immaterial is to say there is something. There is no something to be either material or immaterial when it’s imaginary (or not real).
    That is a hell of a lot of semantic bull shit to simply say, "Yes I was wrong to offer only the options for a soul as either material or immaterial. The soul could also be completely imaginary." As I said, there is a major difference between immaterial and imaginary.

  2. Top | #32
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    2,161
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    2,752
    Rep Power
    61
    The materialist basis for disregarding claims of the soul's existence could be Alzheimers. If anything demonstrates the necessity of a functioning brain supplied with oxygen and blood and a balance of chemicals for the continuation of consciousness, identity, agency...it would be Alzheimers. If you've had the misfortune to see a relative slip into it, it is the complete erasure of memory, skills, thought, identity...quite a leap of faith to suppose that somewhere in that ravaged human shell is a gleaming soul that preserves any sort of mentality.

  3. Top | #33
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,276
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,301
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    You are still conflating immaterial and imaginary. There is a major difference.
    That isn’t something I would ordinarily conflate. My insight is better than a little bit. My vocabulary may be lacking, but my understanding is pretty much spot on. “Immaterial” is 3-pronged while “imaginary” is 2-pronged.

    If something is real, then at the very least, there is something. That’s not the case with “imaginary.” It’s not as if there is something. So, when we purportedly speak of something, either there is something we’re speaking of or there isn’t. 2-pronged; one or the other. A dichotomy. The two categories are collectively exhaustive and there is no third option.

    “Immaterial” on the other hand is 3-pronged. This is harder to grasp, and it’s harder to argue. Even dictionaries lack the precision to help us grasp the subtle distinction. I use the term in a technical manner.

    While “material” is opposite of “not material” and two-pronged in either something is material or it isn’t (and thus not material), I argue that while “immaterial” implies “not material,” the converse is not true. Wtf, right?

    The logic I use is no different than what’s used to show “unhappy” and “not happy” are not the same. “Invalid” implies “not valid” yet not the other way around. That which is false is not true, but that which is not true is not necessarily false. Those are just more examples.

    If something exists, it’s real and thus not imaginary. “Immaterial” says more than “not material” says. “False” says more than “untrue” does. “Unhappy” is more revealing than “not happy.” “Invalid” is more insightful than “not valid.”

    If you tell me that an argument is not valid, I have no idea whether we’re talking about a deductive argument or not, but if an argument is invalid, then it’s a deductive argument, as no inductive argument is invalid (in the same sense). If a sentence is not true, it may or may not be a sentence that expresses a proposition, but if a sentence is false, then the sentence does express a proposition. The pots in my kitchen are either happy or not happy, but to say they are unhappy is to speak of them while making a category error. They are not the kinds of things that can be happy or unhappy and thus not happy.

    If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not material.
    However
    If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not immaterial.

    To say God is immaterial is to say 1) God is real and 2) God is not material. You may have a hard time seeing number 1 as true, but to say of something that it’s material or immaterial is to say there is something. There is no something to be either material or immaterial when it’s imaginary (or not real).
    That is a hell of a lot of semantic bull shit to simply say, "Yes I was wrong to offer only the options for a soul as either material or immaterial. The soul could also be completely imaginary." As I said, there is a major difference between immaterial and imaginary.
    I went back and looked. I had qualified my response regarding an artifact of language. Maybe that’s what prompted this.

    But yes, the soul being imaginary is a possibility. If the soul isn’t real, it’s neither something that is material nor something that is immaterial. If we assume the soul is imaginary, and if our assumption is accurate, it would still be inaccurate to say that the soul is immaterial. Not material, sure, but not immaterial. Something that isn’t real is neither material nor immaterial, so (if imaginary), it’s not material and not immaterial.

  4. Top | #34
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    9,146
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,660
    Rep Power
    46
    Just talked to a client at work who worked for, get this:

    The Spiritual Care department.

Similar Threads

  1. Scientific Test of the Soul
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 08-18-2016, 11:08 PM
  2. Lucifer wants your soul and time is running out
    By Angry Floof in forum Freethought Humor
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 10:02 PM
  3. The Soul
    By DLH in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 11-07-2015, 12:58 PM
  4. SF and comicbook themed Hip Hop/Rap/Soul
    By tantric in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 12:00 PM
  5. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 05-29-2015, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •