You: An inanimate object can be part of a living creature. For instance, a doctor may place a rod in a broken bone to give it support. That rod becomes part of a person's body but is obviously not alive.

Aaron: I can't see how that makes any difference. The rod was placed there by man, not by nature. It has nothing to do with my argument.

You: If a doctor replaced a person's hip with a mechanical one, would that damage your argument?

Aaron: No, of course not.

You: What if an entire leg was replaced? Or both legs?

Aaron: I don't see how any of this can make a difference. Mechanical things attached to a living creature are never alive.

You: As medical science advances and we are able to replace more and more of the human body, at what point will we be able to replace so much that a person will no longer be considered alive?

Aaron: A person will always be considered alive, no matter how much is replaced. It is not the physical body but the spark of life, the soul, which defines life.

How do you respond?

  1. Can you define this "spark of life"? Go
  2. Can you define the "soul"? Go
  3. You are running in circles. Go