I drink, therefore I have no soul.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
If physical substance can alter consciousness than there is no metaphysical or supernatural element to it.

not really. That just means that the physical aspect of it can be affected by physical things....

Therefore, where is the soul?

who cares, the question was is there one.

The same argument can be made for caffeine, illegal narcotics, clinical psychiatric drugs, fatigue, etc etc.

I've experience a few bizarre deconstructions of 'self', but I still cannot prove the existence of the soul, though I believe in it. That said, I don't believe your arguments can disprove the existence of a soul either; though they were well thought out & an interesting read

I think your argument seriously flawed as others have pointed out.

If a foot's purpose is to walk and I get so drunk as to not be able to walk, I have no feet? No. I still have feet. I've just diminished their ability to do their job.

Get it?

Plus...my soul shines after a few homebrews.

Ok, there's a general consensus in those that disagree that I've somehow misinterpreted what a 'soul' is.

Can you please provide me with a concrete definition to work off of? I'm using more or less the assumed one of the majority of dualist religious and philosophical thought.

Again, how could a supernatural/spiritual process be interrupted by basic natural interference?
That would mean that the natural would have sway on the supernatural.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You're missing the point that most people are actually bringing up. Most of us are asserting that alcohol would effect how the body receives the interaction of the soul.

Also, if the supernatural world has an effect on the natural world, it only makes sense that the natural world would do the same thing to the supernatural. There's not really any reason to think that it has to be a one way street.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


your logic is flawed because you falsely assume that the "soul" can operate on a physical level without the brain.

what if your body is simply a biological machine and your brain is the control panel?

as an analogy for the "lack of inhibition" while drunk; let's say you're driving in a car. You would hit the brakes to stop and avoid accidents but you are unable to because your brake line has been cut. It appears there is no longer a driver because the car is not in control.

same thing applies to "beer goggles". Same driver; It's just a dirty windshield.

your argument fails.

reply to post by Solasis

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You're missing the point that most people are actually bringing up. Most of us are asserting that alcohol would effect how the body receives the interaction of the soul.

How? How does the body interact with the soul?

Also, if the supernatural world has an effect on the natural world, it only makes sense that the natural world would do the same thing to the supernatural. There's not really any reason to think that it has to be a one way street.

Then the supernatural world would be subject to the same laws as the natural world and thus subject to scientific inquiry and reason.

That's the reason why none of this makes sense, supernaturalists tend to be against science intruding upon their territory.

reply to post by JPhish

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

your logic is flawed because you falsely assume that the "soul" can operate on a physical level without the brain.

Your logic is flawed because you propose a soul when there is no reason to if it cannot operate without a brain.

what if your body is simply a biological machine and your brain is the control panel?

That's essentially how it is, except that the brain is also the organ that is responsible for thought, emotion, etc.

as an analogy for the "lack of inhibition" while drunk; let's say you're driving in a car. You would hit the brakes to stop and avoid accidents but you are unable to because your brake line has been cut. It appears there is no longer a driver because the car is not in control.

That's a fairly decent parallel, except that it falls short comparatively. There's no proposed and proven method so far that explains the interaction of the soul and body.

And once more, such interaction would subject the soul to natural laws.

same thing applies to "beer goggles". Same driver; It's just a dirty windshield.

The problem is that a car can't really do anything without a driver.
The human body is perfectly capable of functioning without a presupposed soul.
We don't need a 'soul' to explain anything that biology doesn't already explain, so why is it there?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Your logic is flawed because you propose a soul when there is no reason to if it cannot operate without a brain.

I did not propose a soul. You proposed the non-existence of one through erroneous logic. I merely pointed out why your logic was flawed.

That's essentially how it is, except that the brain is also the organ that is responsible for thought, emotion, etc.

undoubtedly.

That's a fairly decent parallel, except that it falls short comparatively. There's no proposed and proven method so far that explains the interaction of the soul and body.

The one I just proposed doesn’t prove anything but it is as infallible as “God”. You can’t prove it true or false.

And once more, such interaction would subject the soul to natural laws.

I contend that what people perceive as “supernatural” is merely natural processes that are misconstrued.

The problem is that a car can't really do anything without a driver.
The human body is perfectly capable of functioning without a presupposed soul.

Cars can do plenty without a driver and cars are not really that complex.

Cars are becoming more complex . . .

We have cars now that can parallel park themselves.
We have cars that stop by themselves when they detect a possible collision.
We have cars that maintain speed.
Switch gears by themselves.
Have windshield wipers that are motor powered.
Have doors that lock automatically.

Cars of the future will be perfectly capable of functioning without a driver.

We don't need a 'soul' to explain anything that biology doesn't already explain, so why is it there?

Whoa now, was the purpose of your thread to ask a question of to disprove something?

;-)

Sorry friend.

You can’t disprove the existence of the soul.

The same way you can’t disprove the existence of God.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
We don't need a 'soul' to explain anything that biology doesn't already explain, so why is it there?

That isn't completely true.

Scientifically there is no such thing as consciousness. It is just a concept.

You can never scientifically prove consciousness exists.

The brain is only a physical moving piece, ti synthesizes the message your body receives from the physical world so while it is a more complicated moving piece it does not have the ability to "feel".

The piece that "feels" is scientifically unexplainable. When people think of a soul they think of Casper with traits and characteristics. However, another way to think about it is the observing force that responds to the message that your brain creates. Logically there must be a non physical piece to "feel", otherwise we would simply be very complicated moving pieces. We would be biological robots without feeling or free will.

The existence of a "feeling" really is what proves the non physical piece that responds to the brain's message.