Proving A Soul?

[Aragonn]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308868739' post='2257844']
The way I see it, if he called his work "straw", then why is the Church promoting it as truth, doctrine or dogma? Maybe only Aquinas himself was aware that the matter at hand is not something that can be proved mathematically or shown scientifically, even via rational arguments. Certainly doesn't make the Church any more able.
[/quote]

St. Thomas called his work straw after he had a moment of mystical union with God. He was not saying that his work was incorrect or worthless, but rather that God was so grand and incomprehensible that no number of pages could ever begin to describe Him. If you believe in an infinite God then this makes perfect sense.

[quote]
The main problem with his proof is that it's vague and abstract, and as a consequence one could substitute an idea of a soul for something similar such as 'immaterial mind', which would allow the brain to observe the universe and through observing the universe cause it to exist subjectively and therefore give it meaning*, or the 'essence of life' and it can still be just as coherent.
[/quote]

You're just using different terms to denote the same reality. There are a lot of problems with Cartesian dualism (actually St. Thomas' explanation is a lot more in line with current neurology than Descartes'), but at its core the question is "are humans just matter?" Anyone who posits a soul, a mind, or "the essence of life" is answering in the negative to that question.

[quote]
We know for a fact that eachone of us exists and that we're observing something out there...but calling that potential the "soul" is problematic because it's a loaded word. People say that the soul lives on, how does that follow from our 'essence of life' or potential to observe the universe?

Aquinas doesn't attach the word 'soul' to an actual verifiable [i]thing, [/i]just an idea.
[/quote]

Well obviously he doesn't attach the word soul to a material thing the way we use the word "ear" to describe those things sticking out from my head. If the soul is incorporeal, which it must be, then there's nothing observable to attach the word to. You can, however, observe that humans can carry out certain functions (comprehending universals, desiring transcendence etc) that can, in principle, only be explained if we are a composite of physical and non-physical substances.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309254268' post='2259607']
St. Thomas called his work straw after he had a moment of mystical union with God. He was not saying that his work was incorrect or worthless, but rather that God was so grand and incomprehensible that no number of pages could ever begin to describe Him. If you believe in an infinite God then this makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I didn't mean it in that sense, that it was worthless or even necessarily incorrect. But that the nature of existence is really one too big to grasp, so then why does the Church claim to know particulars and pass them on as dogma, which would denote a high level of certainty?


[quote]You're just using different terms to denote the same reality. There are a lot of problems with Cartesian dualism (actually St. Thomas' explanation is a lot more in line with current neurology than Descartes'), but at its core the question is "are humans just matter?" Anyone who posits a soul, a mind, or "the essence of life" is answering in the negative to that question. [/quote]

That's what is meant by "vague". I don't see the immaterial mind as existing and "essence of life" is not something real in the physical sense either but a concepualization.

[quote]Well obviously he doesn't attach the word soul to a material thing the way we use the word "ear" to describe those things sticking out from my head. If the soul is incorporeal, which it must be, then there's nothing observable to attach the word to. You can, however, observe that humans can carry out certain functions (comprehending universals, desiring transcendence etc) that can, in principle, only be explained if we are a composite of physical and non-physical substances.[/quote]

Right, it's an idea and like all sorts of ideas it might not have an actual basis in reality. The ear is not an idea.

[Clare~Therese]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308445057' post='2255776']
I think there's a good argument to be made that it requires a transcendent soul to perceive the transcendent. However, I don't think it could possibly be proven decisively.
[/quote]

^ This.

[mortify]

Might as well get with the whole youtube posting craze

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k&feature=related[/youtube]