> These properties were never proven but simply asserted.
I wasn't talking about whether they were proven, only where the assertions came from.
> Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
No one here claimed they never tried to provide evidence, we just didn't refer to such attempts since it wasn't relevant to the conversation you joined.
> Also why draw the line between human and animal souls, what about bacteria and viruses?
In context of Catholic theology, those would probably fall under "animal" souls. Just because we didn't use those words doesn't mean they aren't considered.
> That is disingenuous, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is round whereas the concept of souls and their supposed differences have been asserted for centuries but never proven.
They have not been proven to your satisfaction, but in context of Catholic theology, evidence is provided for these, and many find it satisfactory.
> That's my problem with the concept of religion. When the tough questions are asked, the only answers given are of the special pleading kind and/or simply asserting that something is correct in a tautological way.
Maybe you're reading the wrong authors. I wonder what you think of Trent Horn. He seems like a fairly sound apologist.
> No proof necessary, how convenient!
It sounds like you've only read fluffy Protestant books from the last 30 years. No Catohlic theologian I've ever read attempts to make claims without providing evidence, even if that evidence doesn't convince you personally.
I wasn't talking about whether they were proven, only where the assertions came from.
> Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
No one here claimed they never tried to provide evidence, we just didn't refer to such attempts since it wasn't relevant to the conversation you joined.
> Also why draw the line between human and animal souls, what about bacteria and viruses?
In context of Catholic theology, those would probably fall under "animal" souls. Just because we didn't use those words doesn't mean they aren't considered.
> That is disingenuous, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is round whereas the concept of souls and their supposed differences have been asserted for centuries but never proven.
They have not been proven to your satisfaction, but in context of Catholic theology, evidence is provided for these, and many find it satisfactory.
> That's my problem with the concept of religion. When the tough questions are asked, the only answers given are of the special pleading kind and/or simply asserting that something is correct in a tautological way.
Maybe you're reading the wrong authors. I wonder what you think of Trent Horn. He seems like a fairly sound apologist.
> No proof necessary, how convenient!
It sounds like you've only read fluffy Protestant books from the last 30 years. No Catohlic theologian I've ever read attempts to make claims without providing evidence, even if that evidence doesn't convince you personally.