Originally Posted by wogoga
Well, since you ask, it appears to me to be a string of non sequitur
It begins by arguing that much of the physical matter in our bodies is regularly replaced, yet we "feel" we are the same person, therefore souls. Uh, why? If I replace every brick in my house, one at a time, it will always "feel" like my house. So what?
Then it says the consciousness which emerges from each fetilised egg somehow distinguishes itself from all other near-identical fertilised eggs, therefore souls (at least I think it says so, it's rather long-winded). Again - why does this present any kind of puzzle needing souls to explain it?
Next it declares that since identical twins are born as two different consciousnesses, but have genetically identical bodies, therefore souls. That makes no sense at all unless you assume that consciousness does not arise from a brain's function but directly
from an individual's genes. Who thinks that?
Then it declares the author's definition of soul = consciousness (as far as I can tell). Unhelpful added confusion.
Finally it makes some utterly unconvincing claims that such complexity couldn't arise from the relatively small amount of information in our genes and advances some unevidenced and unsupported claims for teleology, including the spectacularly stupid idea that if we evolved by random mutation then, consistently, all advances in human knowledge must also have come about by by a similar process of random copying errors in previous knowledge. Idiotic.
So, how's that?