No, it’s because you seem confused about things I wouldn’t expect medical professionals to be confused about (e.g. why bringing a dead thing back to life would be incredibly technically difficult because of basic thermodynamics, not some lack of understanding on our part.)
That’s because religious people don’t actually have any confidence in their theology. If they were confident, they would take this bet.
There have been all sorts of instances in the past where religious people made falsifiable predictions based on theology that turned out to be untrue. But because no one held them accountable, everyone just sort of glosses over that fact and thinks “well, they’ll be right next time.”
If you don’t agree, then take the bet.
It seems the argument has gone on so long precisely because people have confidence in their beliefs…or lack thereof.
I am still waiting for evidence that there is no soul. Am I going to see it?
I’m still waiting on:
because right now it seems like “soul” just means “metabolism” and living things do in fact have metabolisms.
This was answered.
The soul is what sustains life.
Death occurs when the soul leaves the body.
I not sure this has been asked, but how do you know?
And how do you know that animals have no rational and immortal souls?
So it is just metabolism!
the chemical processes that occur within a living organism in order to maintain life.
No, you are attempting to equivocate terms that are not related.
A soul is not a chemical process.
Perhaps this will help…pulled from the catechism.
The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature. Each human soul is individual and immortal, immediately created by God. The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection.
So supply a definition which actually requires that. The one that was originally provided did not.
I see you’ve edited your post with one:
See how religion has retreated from that medieval “animating principle?” Nowhere in this definition is the soul required for life in general. This definition is restricted to human souls, and asserts it is only responsible for consciousness and free will.
Except for that pesky part that tells us that death occurs when the soul is separated from the body.
You can view more here:
No it doesn’t, it says that death causes separation, not that separation causes death.
The body does not live without the soul.
The body does not live without metabolism.
Have you even bothered reading the article?
If not, I’ll move on as well. There is no need to waste my time.
I asked a fairly simple question: what is the actual definition of the soul?
So far I’ve seen:
- The original “animation of the body” definition which is fully compatible with “soul” just meaning “metabolism.”
- Your new definition of “human soul” which says nothing about the soul’s necessity for life in general (e.g. animal life) or even human life in particular (only that it separates from the body when the body dies.
- Your various assertions about souls (e.g. that the soul is not chemical, or that the body can’t live without the soul).
- Your linked article which says basically “there are multiple definitions of soul.” But they are either compatible with soul=metabolism or aren’t actually required for life.
In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person . But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man… “Soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
So pick one. Write out explicitly the definition of soul that you are actually using. And if your various assertions aren’t present in the definition itself, provide the evidence you have for making them.
Why can’t it be all?
You are trying to pigeonhole a spiritual thing into a scientific process. There are going to be problems with that.
You ask for definitions. You get them. And then claim you’re asking unanswered questions.
Seriously, how simple does the explanation need to be? At some point you need to take some human responsibility for self education.
It can be. But doing the unification is your job. Write out the unified definition explicitly and completely so you don’t start adding/subtracting features to souls 3 posts from now.
I think you expect a spiritual and religious concept (that is, the soul) to conform somehow to a biological, mechanistic concept of metabolism. While there may be certain connections, we are essentially talking on two different planes. The definition of soul cannot be limited to physical definitions, just as the definition of metabolism has no link to the spiritual domain. The Bible is not a medical or engineering book, and medicine does not present itself in a spiritual or religious context. They may be parallel phenomena but they do not intersect because they deal with different domains of experience: the physical and the spiritual.
And that causes quite a knot for materialist fundamentalists.