Do you believe in zombies?

[Sparko]

Like I said Sparko, you have no clue. No need to keep telling us that.

right.

[Christianbookworm]

Shush!!!! Don't tell him!

He doesn't know where the Holy Spirit is at! And He makes a great security system! Against demons at least.

[Sparko]

My brother keeps his soul in his garage.

2017-Kia-Soul-Turbo-front-three-quarter-in-motion-02.jpg

[Teallaura]

We are talking about the material universe, more to the point we are talking about the material body, within the which christians claim there to exist a spirit or soul. If the preposition has no meaning, then what exactly do you mean? It seems to me that what you're all saying is that it makes no sense, we can't explain it, but we just believe it anyway.

Souls and spirits are immaterial - they are NOT part of the materialist worldview at all. So no, when you ask about a soul/spirit you are by definition not asking about the material world - you're asking about something immaterial. The question is meaningless from the material POV - it only has meaning in the theist POV. The very question 'where is the soul?" - indeed, any question about souls/spirits - is a non-materialist question. You step outside you worldview into ours merely by asking it.

This is a large part, I suspect, of your frustration in arguing with Christians - you don't realize that no other worldview is as limited as the materialist. Even naturalism has a little more wiggle room - it can handle the Big Bang implications, for example, that materialism can't. you argue as a pure materialist - which wouldn't be so bad if you were arguing with other materialists, but you aren't. What is obvious from materialism is nonsense in theism - which is why arguments you find compelling, like physicality of souls, aren't at all compelling to Christians - it's not that we don't know what we're talking about, it's that you aren't realizing that your materialism is only a philosophic POV, not a proven fact. It does make sense to you - this idea that the soul must have a physical locale if it interacts with the physical world - but that's only because it's true for a materialist. For most other worldviews, especially theistic ones, this isn't the case - the assumption of materialism isn't made and the idea that the soul must reside somewhere physically is untrue. It's a simple matter of frame of reference, one that has to be agreed upon before it can be successfully debated.

It's part of why people think you're often trolling (to be fair, we've all trolled at some point) - it's a blind spot for you. I think you are sincerely trying to debate, even understand where you find you need to, which is why I'm willing to try and explain what I can - and why I keep using material analogies (dimensions). You are a concrete rational, like myself, and a hardcore materialist - that can make debating theology either challenging and fun, or an exercise in cranial impact on kiln fired earth mortared surfaces.

In answer to your question, I'm saying that you can't define it for the same reason you can't talk about 'now' in both a descending elevator and a starship - the frame of reference is different, making the comparison meaningless. yep, borrowing straight from Einstein.

[Tassman]

What I was getting at is that prepositions don't have meaning when talking about the interaction of the material and the immaterial. We use them out of convention, not literal meaning. A soul and body go together

The brain pattern IS the human being...this is what you are referring to as the 'soul' but it doesn't exist in and of itself. There's no good reason to think it can exist separate from the body...let alone eternally. When it goes you go and before it comes on, you are not here.

[Tassman]

I don't know what I am talking about? Look in the mirror buddy.

OK sure the soul is not actually in the little toe. I just made that up. But JimL, NO CHRISTIAN is going to tell you, an atheist where the soul is. It a very closely held church secret. If people like you knew where the soul is, all Christians would be vulnerable. You atheists could go around stealing our souls and holding them hostage.

[Sparko]

Who's mocking? I am being serious. Just last week a bunch of Christians in Zangtonia had their souls stolen and they were held hostage by militant atheist voodoo priests.

[JimL]

Souls and spirits are immaterial - they are NOT part of the materialist worldview at all. So no, when you ask about a soul/spirit you are by definition not asking about the material world - you're asking about something immaterial. The question is meaningless from the material POV - it only has meaning in the theist POV. The very question 'where is the soul?" - indeed, any question about souls/spirits - is a non-materialist question. You step outside you worldview into ours merely by asking it.

This is a large part, I suspect, of your frustration in arguing with Christians - you don't realize that no other worldview is as limited as the materialist. Even naturalism has a little more wiggle room - it can handle the Big Bang implications, for example, that materialism can't. you argue as a pure materialist - which wouldn't be so bad if you were arguing with other materialists, but you aren't. What is obvious from materialism is nonsense in theism - which is why arguments you find compelling, like physicality of souls, aren't at all compelling to Christians - it's not that we don't know what we're talking about, it's that you aren't realizing that your materialism is only a philosophic POV, not a proven fact. It does make sense to you - this idea that the soul must have a physical locale if it interacts with the physical world - but that's only because it's true for a materialist. For most other worldviews, especially theistic ones, this isn't the case - the assumption of materialism isn't made and the idea that the soul must reside somewhere physically is untrue. It's a simple matter of frame of reference, one that has to be agreed upon before it can be successfully debated.

It's part of why people think you're often trolling (to be fair, we've all trolled at some point) - it's a blind spot for you. I think you are sincerely trying to debate, even understand where you find you need to, which is why I'm willing to try and explain what I can - and why I keep using material analogies (dimensions). You are a concrete rational, like myself, and a hardcore materialist - that can make debating theology either challenging and fun, or an exercise in cranial impact on kiln fired earth mortared surfaces.

In answer to your question, I'm saying that you can't define it for the same reason you can't talk about 'now' in both a descending elevator and a starship - the frame of reference is different, making the comparison meaningless. yep, borrowing straight from Einstein.

Seems to me that christians, or believers in spirits/souls, want to have it both ways. On the one hand you argue that the spirit is with the body, in other words it is localized, and then you go on to argue that, being immaterial, it has no location. OBP says that when new bodies are resurrected that the spirits hop back into them, you know, they are clothed with new and glorified bodies. Well, none of that actually makes sense if the immaterial spirit/soul is non-local.

[Sparko]

Seems to me that christians, or believers in spirits/souls, want to have it both ways. On the one hand you argue that the spirit is with the body, in other words it is localized, and then you go on to argue that, being immaterial, it has no location. OBP says that when new bodies are resurrected that the spirits hop back into them, you know, they are clothed with new and glorified bodies. Well, none of that actually makes sense if the immaterial spirit/soul is non-local.

Oh my! You are right! Hey Guys!!! JimL is right! Wow! we are so wrong! We have to immediately give up our faith and become materialists! Hop to it!

Thank you Jim! You have saved us from a lifetime of religiousity and delusion!

[One Bad Pig]

Seems to me that christians, or believers in spirits/souls, want to have it both ways. On the one hand you argue that the spirit is with the body, in other words it is localized, and then you go on to argue that, being immaterial, it has no location. OBP says that when new bodies are resurrected that the spirits hop back into them, you know, they are clothed with new and glorified bodies. Well, none of that actually makes sense if the immaterial spirit/soul is non-local.

That's your language, Jim - not mine.

[Cow Poke]

Why don't you help Jim work on what a boy is, before contemplating more challenging questions?

[JimL]

That's your language, Jim - not mine.

It was my words in that particular discussion with you, but it was words that you agreed with and seems to equate with christian explanations such as Adrift et al who explain that we, i.e. our spirits/souls, are given new glorified or incorruptible bodies. So, how can each of our spirits/souls be both localized and not localized.

[Teallaura]

Seems to me that christians, or believers in spirits/souls, want to have it both ways. On the one hand you argue that the spirit is with the body, in other words it is localized, and then you go on to argue that, being immaterial, it has no location. OBP says that when new bodies are resurrected that the spirits hop back into them, you know, they are clothed with new and glorified bodies. Well, none of that actually makes sense if the immaterial spirit/soul is non-local.

I know why it sounds that way to you - and you're probably not going to like the answer. You do not understand philosophic schools of thought well enough to understand that you are operating in one and that it's limiting you here.

It's not surprising, really - you are seriously hardcore in your materialism. It's odd, since materialism originates a philosophic school of thought but most true materialists have this problem where most naturalists don't.

Here's the upshot - your assumption that only the material (energy is considered material here) is real is NOT an established fact. It's an epistemological issue as well as a philosophic one. You very much believe that only the material world is real - but that is not a certainty.

Christians accept material reality - that's not the problem. What we do not accept is the materialist premise that only the material is real. This sounds foolish to you because you cannot see that materialism is an assumption, not a fact. Only in the materialist world is the soul/spirit being immaterial an issue - we aren't 'having it both ways' - we're using a completely different world view.

And while I'm already at it, let me add that most scientists aren't materialists - the majority are naturalists to some extent. Materialism is extremely limited and actually, not capable of handling much of modern science (I'm not sure it can handle quantum for that matter - it definitely can't handle singularities).

[Teallaura]

It was my words in that particular discussion with you, but it was words that you agreed with and seems to equate with christian explanations such as Adrift et al who explain that we, i.e. our spirits/souls, are given new glorified or incorruptible bodies. So, how can each of our spirits/souls be both localized and not localized.

Ooh, dang - there';s a short book that I think would help you get this.

and I can't remember the title!

The premise is a two dimensional being learns that three dimensions exist by interacting with a three dimensional being - of course, the poor guy ends up in an insane asylum. Can someone else remember the title?

[Sparko]

Ooh, dang - there';s a short book that I think would help you get this.

and I can't remember the title!

The premise is a two dimensional being learns that three dimensions exist by interacting with a three dimensional being - of course, the poor guy ends up in an insane asylum. Can someone else remember the title?

flatland?