The definitions tell us that "soul" = "nesphesh" in the Hebrew Old Testament and "psyke'" in the Greek Bible and say "mind" is what they refer to. You do not doubt that we all have mind, right?
Yes. If one is willing to apply convoluted interpretations, then we could just as easily be discussing fudge ripple ice cream, I suppose.
Not so convoluted. "soul (sōl)n.1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. 2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state. 3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human." Or psy·che[SUP] 1[/SUP] (sī′kēn.1. The spirit or soul. 2. Psychiatry The mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's responses to the social and physical environment.
That is absolutely one that cannot be successfully argued against, as you are merely expressing your opinion and as such, don't need any proof for such private opinions.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The Federalist Number Fifty-One.
Presumption on the part of that author. That author within all likelihood has never been to heaven or had any dealing with "angels" and their ability to govern anything. In other words, that author cannot substantiate his claim.
I agree to disagree, simply because socialism merely requires social morals for free to achieve a secular and temporal Commune of Heaven on Earth, to accomplish.
The soul exists in some context, which is universally agreed on by philosophers. The definition of soul, is the immaterial part of a human. Otherwise, a homonym of "essence". What does "essence" mean? the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc. Now, common sense would tell us inward nature exists in some form, correct? In philosophical terms, nature is the flow of the world. Or in Greek, "breath". What defines our soul is what gives us life. According to most philosophers, the soul is the psyche of the person. The function that controls all aspect. Which scientists lead to believe is the creator of the mind. We actually don't know the very start of organisms yet. We know scientifically that we start from atoms, but its really not that simple, is it? What creates the atom? Scientists would say micro atoms, but what creates those. This is acknowledged by many to be the soul. The start. The control of our psyche. The immaterial thing that gives life to us. Perhaps I should of clarified on the word immaterial though. What does it mean to be immaterial? From my understanding, it means that it is not made of matter. It only exists within terminology. Whether the soul means the "start" or the actual psyche of a human, I will state, is still debated. What we know for sure, is that the soul is not a physical entity. It is non-physical, but existent. Therefore, the soul can exist in a number of contexts, all of which are subjective. But until someone can prove that there is no immaterial essence within a human, the status quo will lead us to believe the soul exists.
Philosophers are very useful for picking lint out of bellybuttons. You refer to your mind as your soul. That is not the standard definition of the word. Your mind is transient and natural. A soul would be eternal and supernatural, if it existed.
Ok. I could claim that it may take a division of Angels or a battalion of Arch-Angels to help us achieve a Heaven on Earth where no longer have a need for the Expense of Government. I can't substantiate it; but it may be good for my propaganda and rhetoric along that line of reasoning.
Now that is what I like to see on this forum. Complete honesty and straight forward acknowledgments of intent.
Well, there are many subjects discussed on this section of the forum, therefore, it is only reasonable that there would be opposing views on some of those subjects. Which "opposing view" are you specifically referencing?
Are you suggesting that people in that category are not being straight forward and honest or that they simply are not providing anything "better to offer"? Of course, you should hopefully realize that "better" is subjective and, in the mind of those in that category you specified, what they offer might be considered by them as "better" than what you have offered.
usually, those of the opposing view resort to more fallacies. fewer fallacies, in my opinion must result in better answers.
Now you are showing that your perspective is based on 'logic' and that perspective is compared to those who either do not desire to use that same form of logic that you use, else they have no knowledge of logical operations. Is this also saying that your sense of what is "better" is also based on that 'logic'.? If it is, then you are being illogical, because 'desire', 'want', 'better', 'worse', 'right', 'wrong' all stem from emotional attachment to the thing desired or the thing being evaluated for value.
You misinterpreted what I said then. I know of not one theory that equates the mind and soul on similar grounds. They are often confused, but indeed unique to each other.
Please post a link to the particular dictionary wherein you gain your justification for that statement.
Read my post. The soul is the "breath" of a human. Do you know the very start of an organism? What created the cell or atom? That is the soul. Its really more simple than you think. Philosophers, theologians, and scientists simply disagree on what the soul is. Remember, the start is the soul. Nothing more or less to it.
