@Krumple,
Krumple;172508 wrote:Yeah I am aware that it was not the intention of the post. I think the question itself is not a balanced question. It presupposes that there is a soul but how can you ask questions about something for which you can not know?
So why should we assume that the soul exists and then ponder it's attributes?
I honestly don't think you can actually prove that you have love for your children though but I guess I shouldn't nitpick or I'll cause the thread to derail.
Is not the first existence that of the inquiry before that of any lastly existing resolution?
Love is firstly of an enquiry.
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 02:59 AM ----------
VideCorSpoon;172510 wrote: Maybe I place value on ownership.
Maybe you place ownership on value?
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:01 AM ----------
Krumple;172511 wrote: Where as the soul has absolutely no trace evidence and can't be determined.
Is determination then valueless?
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:06 AM ----------
Amperage;172512 wrote:The soul is a personal element much like my "liking what I like". It cannot be shown to someone, but only be.
The fact that I am here is my evidence. Without negating me, you cannot negate my soul.
I cannot show you the evidence that I like what I like....it may be the case either but would you deny my likes?
I would say Preference instead of 'like'.
And preference has much value because it is a measure of something.
A preference is measurable is measuring, what is measurable and measures certainly has claim and is claimed and this is purchase and purchase has value.
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:13 AM ----------
Krumple;172513 wrote:I like this perspective, but how would you ever determine it? How would you know if you were the self owner, or that some other being was the owner of it? How could you ever be certain? And if it were the case that some other "thing" owned your soul by what criteria would it be bound? Is there some sort of contract? Do you not have a choice in the matter? If you don't have a choice of who owns it, wouldn't you be considered a slave to that entity then?
This "thing" or we could say God.
God cannot know what does not know.
God cannot own what cannot be owned.
What cannot be owned cannot own God.
What cannot be owned or cannot own cannot be known and cannot know.
What cannot be known or cannot know cannot be owned and cannot own.
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:14 AM ----------
Krumple;172514 wrote:I had breakfast with aliens this morning. Would you object to that claim? The evidence I have is that I say that it happened. Is that not enough evidence?
So do you believe that I had breakfast with aliens this morning?
Depends on what you and I value 'alien' as.
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:18 AM ----------
VideCorSpoon;172520 wrote:Exactly! Great points! How do you really determine the value of a soul, let alone the fact that a soul could be owned, bought, sold, etc.? In my mind, it seems as though it is logical to establish that, if granted that the soul exists (and based on the contingencies of its conception), and that it could be bought, sold, etc. (basically in terms of hypothetical), then perhaps concepts of ownership could apply. I think that rarely value is objective, but most of the time subjective. Subjective theories of ownership may give some type of answer here. For example, would there be some sort of implicit ownership of my soul? Funny enough and in an amusing way, one could argue (not that I believe this, but heck the devil's advocate is an advocate none the less) that because an extended period of time has elapsed without proof of ownership, does that mean that I have full ownership of my soul? Happens with real-estate all the time, why not incorporeal real-estate! LOL!
What about morality immorality, debt and credit?
Does not morality or immorality have value?
Is this not a way and method of measurement?
What ever can be measured can be valued?