What is the purpose of life? (page 10)

Viviane

I used the generic term because there's a branch that only accepts or includes the acceptance of logic (philosophy). That's called Logical Positivism.

True enough, but you didn't discuss that narrow branch. By any measure, what you claimed posovitism is, isn't it.

So, show how your definition is the same as what you claim it is, specifically, what nicolau posted. We're waiting.

There's a new term being used interchangeable to classical (from Comte) Positivism: Scientism.

Scientism isn't a new term and it's not interchangeable.

I don't think Cofty and Viviane are logical positivists because the philosophy of soul is presented with logical consistency and both deny the logical conclusion of the soul.

So far, you've demonstrated quite capably that you've no idea what posovitism is, so no idea why you think you have a valid opinion on it.

Either way, you've also presented no logic that leads to the conclusion of "souls exist". You've simply said your god gave some animals souls and then forced them into bestiality and incest. Hardly logic.

They even can't admit the soul it's not a subject for the scientific method.

First, there's nothing to admit. Second, you used science in your attempt to prove a soul. Why should I "admit" something shouldn't be done when you tried to do it?

They clearly advocates the universal use of scientific method and don't recognise any other form of knowledge as valid.

That is such lying bullshit. You keep saying it because it's all you've got. You're a typical theist, no idea WTF you are talking about and running around lying about other people at the drop of a hat. Sadly, it's exactly what to expect from people like you.

JW_Rogue

Your purpose is what you want it to be.

It is true that everything we do will eventually be rendered meaningless by the passage of time. The whole universe will cease to exist at some point, by which time mankind will likely be long gone. No one asks, what purpose did the Dinosaurs have? Why should man be any different?

Our actions will likely only effect a small group of people for a short period of time. Still, in the present we each must decide what and who we find important. What kind of person do we want to be? What effect will we have?

Dunedain

"To crush your enemies - See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

John_Mann

Either way, you've also presented no logic that leads to the conclusion of "souls exist".

Yes I agree. But I was not talking about logic in that sense.

I was talking about logical consistency inside philosophical systems about soul.

But there's logical consistency in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and that's alone doesn't prove they have real existence.

But logical consistency is required to systems that harbour truth. JWism, for example, doesn't have internal logical consistency. That's what I was talking about. There's logical consistency in several philosophical theories of soul.

You've simply said your god gave some animals souls and then forced them into bestiality and incest. Hardly logic.

Well that's not what I meant. I accept the Thomistic theory of soul.

In short it says that there's 3 kinds of soul.

The first one is the vegetative soul, found in plants and simple forms of live.

The second is the sensitive or animal soul. Animals have both vegetative and sensitive souls. In Jewish theology is called Nefesh Habehamit. In Latin is called Anima.

These two souls are material, not made directly by God but evolved from matter created directly by God in the Big Bang (BTW this elegant scientific theory was created by a Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre). They're not independent from body (Soma) and are mortal. I think computer software someday will be equivalent to the highest level of these mortal souls.

The anatomically modern humans evolved into the highest level of the animal soul. Acquiring by evolution IMHO, what is called in a psychology theory, the bicameral mind.

One of these anatomically modern humans with bicameral mind in some point in recent history received the third kind of soul.

This soul is created directly by God, since the first one to the every human being conceived now. This soul is immortal and is named Psyche in Greek (equivalent to Neshamah in Jewish theology). The first anatomically modern human who received this soul is Adam and his offspring received this soul directly by God since then. His first sons and daughters married another anatomically modern humans without Psyche, but it was not bestiality because they shared the same kind of bodies and mortal souls. From this point the humans with Psyche had a evolutionary advantage and the other humans became extinct (by killing and/or assimilation).

There's Pneuma too but it's another discussion...

Basically that's my view on soul.

Dunedain

Um, to whoever "disliked" me, that's not my quote, its from the Conan the Barbarian movie, from the 80's.

Maybe you would appreciate the quote more, if you heard it spoken with Arnold Shwarzenagers voice, lol.

John_Mann

Crom laughs from his mountain!

Viviane

Yes I agree. But I was not talking about logic in that sense.
I was talking about logical consistency inside philosophical systems about soul.

Internal logical consistency exists whether we are talking about the soul, Harry Potter or math. You've demonstrated none.

Well that's not what I meant. I accept the Thomistic theory of soul.

Well, no you don't. This is where knowing what you are talking about comes in handy. No such thing actually exists. At best, you have the Aristotlean view of a natural body with the capacity to act because of a soul. You've already declared that humanoids can act without souls, so you shot your own argument in the foot. That's where knowing critical thinking and logic come in handy. It helps you to stop from arguing against yourself.

In short it says that there's 3 kinds of soul.

Yeah, that's totally 100% bullshit lies from you, no need to address anything lies you say.

John_Mann

Well, no you don't. This is where knowing what you are talking about comes in handy. No such thing actually exists. At best, you have the Aristotlean view of a natural body with the capacity to act because of a soul.

Yes, this is the Thomistic view on soul. Is based on Aristotle indeed.

http://www.cts.org.au/2000/soulsandspirits.htm

You've already declared that humanoids can act without souls, so you shot your own argument in the foot.

I didn't said that. I said animals, humanoids and anatomically modern humans can live without the immortal soul (Psyche) but not without the mortal souls (vegetative and sensitive or Anima).

Anyway every human alive today has a Psyche.

Ruby456

john mann - this is interesting

This soul is created directly by God, since the first one to the every human being conceived now. This soul is immortal and is named Psyche in Greek (equivalent to Neshamah in Jewish theology). The first anatomically modern human who received this soul is Adam and his offspring received this soul directly by God since then. His first sons and daughters married another anatomically modern humans without Psyche, but it was not bestiality because they shared the same kind of bodies and mortal souls. From this point the humans with Psyche had a evolutionary advantage and the other humans became extinct (by killing and/or assimilation).

now I would call this the developed imagination at work. In this notions of God enable individuals to adopt a pov from above, from below via satan and his demons, from in between via spirits of dead ancestors ... and this would indeed confer evolutionary advantages.

cofty

It's just incredible that somebody can write that sort of stuff in the 21st century in all seriousness, and somebody else can call it "interesting".

Utter bollocks is what it is. Believe any sort of fantasy you like but please stop calling it scientific or even logical.

What is the purpose of life?

Share this