@The Vicar said:
@Cap'n Steve said:The Vicar, that is
probably the strangest argument I've ever heard. First of all, modern
science probably knows more about black holes than the brain, and yet
you apparently know enough to disprove the existence of a soul. Second,
you somehow disproved God by saying he's either not that powerful or
not that nice.
We know enough about the brain to know that it has no non-material components. You don't need to know every detail of something's mechanics to have practical knowledge. (There were studies on optics long before quantum electrodynamics was developed, for example.) We have well over a century of seeing what happens to people's personalities when different parts of their brain get damaged. As a result, we know that the soul no longer has a function.
[snip]
Wow. So now you're adding Jumping to Conclusions to your list of fallacies. I already knew about the Faulty Premises, but this is exciting. Hey, I have an idea! Why don't you throw some Ad Hominem in there and then we'll have ourselves a party!
Just because we've been studying people's brains for a century and know that damaging this part does that, doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of the soul. I think you're operating under a definition of the soul that makes your argument work, even if it isn't entirely accurate. Ooh! That means we can add Definition by Assumption to the list! Aren't you special?
You're assuming that the soul is supposed to control all these things that you say the brain controls, and therefore there's no such thing as a soul. I won't even attempt to go after that bad logic. Instead, let me propose to you this: What if the soul doesn't control any of that? What if the soul operates on some level we don't understand, causing subtle changes in the environment to influence the courses of our lives? Whether you agree or disagree with that possibility, you must admit that it is, theoretically, possible. And therefore, it is theoretically possible for the soul to exist.
Or let's take a much simpler approach, because you seem to think you understand logic better than you actually do. What if the soul cannot function properly without a properly functioning brain to work with? Then, if you insist on believing that the soul must control our sense of right and wrong (which you strongly implied), you now have a way that it can still do that and the brain can appear to do that as well.
And don't try to kid me that
there's no room in the brain for a soul. Just because science can't
detect it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The geocentric solar system
was quite popular until some Italian guy figured out how to detect
shadows on the moon.
Cute trick with the cat thing, by the way. I almost forgot Irrelevant Comparison, but thanks for reminding me! It seems to be a favorite fallacy of yours, doesn't it?