Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have heard of many philosophical arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on Scripture. Are there similar arguments for the existence of angels and spirits/souls?
Pascal tried to do this. He was going to prove the existance of God by the existance of the devil. So he drew a pentagram on the ground, but the experience made him afraid. His fear showed him that the spiritual realm was real.
Here's a good argument, I think, for the existence of the soul.
(P1) For any two things x and y, if they are identical, then everything that is true of x is true of y, and everything that is true of y is true of x.
(P2) There are some things true of me that are not true of my body, or any part of my body, or any physical thing in the universe at all.
(C1) Therefore, I am not identical to my body or any part of my body or any physical thing in the universe at all.
If that's true, then it seems the only thing I could be is a nonphysical thing, namely, a soul.
What are some things about me that are not true of my body? Emotions? Thoughts? Self-awareness?
What are some things about me that are not true of my body? Emotions? Thoughts? Self-awareness?
Lust, pride, ambition, anger, love, joy, peace, patience..
Actions can result from lust, but the feeling remains immaterial. The same with hate, love, or a number of other emotions.
Actions can result from lust, but the feeling remains immaterial. The same with hate, love, or a number of other emotions.
Could it not be said, though, that the source of lust is hormonal and thus material?
Though such men as Leibnitz and Wolff, Kant and Schleiermacher, admitted the possibility of the existence of an angelic world, and some of them even tried to prove this by rational argumentation, it is quite evident that philosophy can neither prove nor disprove the existence of angels. Systematic Theology; Louis Berkhof; pg. 143
Though such men as Leibnitz and Wolff, Kant and Schleiermacher, admitted the possibility of the existence of an angelic world, and some of them even tried to prove this by rational argumentation, it is quite evident that philosophy can neither prove nor disprove the existence of angels. Systematic Theology; Louis Berkhof; pg. 143
Would y'all agree with Berkhof?
Help me with P2. What are some things about me that are not true of my body? Emotions? Thoughts? Self-awareness?
Furthermore, I have the property of being such that I can possibly exist when my body doesn't. Suppose that I undergo a super-advanced medical procedure where they remove every macro-part of my body and quickly replace it with another similar part, soon after destroying the original. (If you have problems with the brain, suppose we remove particle by particle until the whole brain has been replaced and the original destroyed.) Furthermore suppose I remain conscious during the whole thing. This seems logically possible, and if it is, then I have the property of possibly existing when my body does not. So then I am not identical with my body.
If this sort of lust is hormonal, then it is natural, thus not sinful. Lust in terms of sin is an action of the mind.
Great stuff! Isn't it true that every macro-part of our bodies is replaced at the cellular level? Isn't our body, including the brain, destroyed and replaced over and over? And do not we remain conscious during the process? Could this support your argument?
If this sort of lust is hormonal, then it is natural, thus not sinful. Lust in terms of sin is an action of the mind.
I don't think this is true. It does not follow from the fact that some act A is natural that therefore some act A is not sinful.
All of my sinful behavior is natural; but clearly it is sinful.
Could you define what you mean by 'natural'?
If this sort of lust is hormonal, then it is natural, thus not sinful. Lust in terms of sin is an action of the mind.
I don't think this is true. It does not follow from the fact that some act A is natural that therefore some act A is not sinful.
All of my sinful behavior is natural; but clearly it is sinful.
Could you define what you mean by 'natural'?
By nature, I mean biological. Hormones are natural, so that their effects cannot be sinful any more than being hungry is sinful, since it is natural.
By nature, I mean biological. Hormones are natural, so that their effects cannot be sinful any more than being hungry is sinful, since it is natural.
By nature, I mean biological. Hormones are natural, so that their effects cannot be sinful any more than being hungry is sinful, since it is natural.
Why can't some biological feature of me be sinful? I obviously can be held responsible for my sin even if it is decreed that it happens; why not be held responsible for biological factors?