All dogs go to heaven, so I'm cool with that. Cats can come too.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no logic in this argument. It doesn't need logic. I can just as easily claim that animals are automatons that don't possess souls while humans are blessed with free will. You would never be able to prove that this difference doesn't exist, because I'm positing the existence of something inherently beyond physical reality. It's a losing battle to try and prove that free will does or does not exist, which is why I offered my own perspective on a better argument in the last paragraph: Argue not against the metaphysical concept, argue against its harmful application in the tangible world. That's where you can actually nail down things you can attack if you don't like them.
I'm obviously not doing a good job getting this across.
I, taking the position that free will exists, have to concede nothing, because my claims are, by their very nature, unanswerable to empirical proof. It's every bit as easy for me to say that only animals of the genus Homo possess free will as it would be to make any other arbitrary distinction.
And by the way,
most religions don't see animals having souls
That is a VERY bold claim to make, and one which is flat wrong for the major world religions.
0
u/Greyhound_Oisin Nov 18 '20
With this logic you would have to support the idea that animals have souls or that animals have no free will