How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul?

[sparklehorse]

From this (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=863181) thread
skepticism, noun, the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all things must be questioned according to the best principles of science, logic, and philosophy. The result of this process of questioning is that each topic is given the degree of confidence that it deserves based upon the available evidence.
...
I would be turn atheist, if scientist ever discover the metaphysics of conscious(soul) I know that it exists but it's not been explained by science, until then I cannot believe that their is no afterlife(the ultimate paycheck most people are waiting for); my theory of the 'soul' is much like the theory of gravity; it's mechanisms are from another dimension but it is only noticed and does not function in ours.

How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul?

Encarta Dictionary:

soul [sōl]
(plural souls)
noun
1. nonphysical aspect of person: the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will, regarded as distinct from the physical body
The soul is a FACT as you can notice it; it is paranormal to modern science.

I don't see that the soul as distinct from the physical body is a fact. There is no evidence for that. It is true that science knows very little about the mind or a "soul", but I don't see how you can be so sure that there is something beyond the physical body if there is no evidence for it. I guess I should be more specific. How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul that is distinct from the physical body?

[Mr TB]

How do you know their is yolk and egg white inside and egg without cracking the shell? There are no evidence for that...especially if you are the chicken?

You superior to the chicken knows that, you cracked the shell...

[texo]

And a chicken has never cracked open an egg and eaten it?

[noxibox]

A very thin needle might do to test the internals of an egg. There may also be imaging techniques that can see inside an egg.

So who can we crack open to check their yolk, err soul?

[Mr TB]

A very thin needle might do to test the internals of an egg. There may also be imaging techniques that can see inside an egg.

So who can we crack open to check their yolk, err soul?

You using techniques, it must be separate and destinct that is the requirement set in post one, i don't need to put my faith in men...

Everything you suggested is putting your faith in man... oh? and your question , your shell cracks when you die...

[ToxicBunny]

/me is amused... an egg is being used in the explanation of a soul? Thats just too funny....

Personally, when we die, we cease to exists, our life ends and the electromagnetic and whatever other signals in our brain stop... therefore our "soul" no longer exists.

[Mr TB]

/me is amused... an egg is being used in the explanation of a soul? Thats just too funny....

Personally, when we die, we cease to exists, our life ends and the electromagnetic and whatever other signals in our brain stop... therefore our "soul" no longer exists.

EXACTLY

[ToxicBunny]

So you don't believe in a soul or an afterlife douwdouw?

[LoneGunman]

re "/me is amused... an egg is being used in the explanation of a soul?"

actually, if you ever saw Angel Heart - 'eggs' getting eaten play a goodly part in the clues of the story, as the Devil chomps down on eggs (as symbols of souls)

that said - yup, no evidence anywhere for souls. You'd think of the billions of believers that die, just ONE could manage to pause and provide sufficient evidence of their existence, and the existence of a hereafter.. but NOPE..
No substantial evidence anywhere.

[Mr TB]

So you don't believe in a soul or an afterlife douwdouw?

do you understand christianity... its like science simple but complicated...

[ToxicBunny]

Ummm please.. learn the meaning of those two words.. they cannot be used to describe the same thing....

I will agree science and RELIGION have one thing in common and thats to describe the world around us, but science does it by providing evidence and reasons... religion just asks for faith...

You still haven't answered my question, cos my previous post was about there being NO afterlife, which u agreed to, so by a simple process of logic, you obviously don't believe in the afterlife.

[PeterCH]

Of course there is no PROOF for a soul. So we don't know that there
are souls (if knowing is based on evidence). We believe that there are because we believe that God
revealed himself in the way as expressed in the New and Old Testaments.
I can't prove to you that there is a soul and I can't prove God to you.
I can't prove general relativity either but anyhow even if I could
prove God I'd still feel the same. Thanks for your question.

[ghoti]

"Souls? There's no such things as soul's. Its just something moms use to scare their kids like Michael Jackson and the boogyman" Bart Simpson

[kilo39]

I don't see that the soul as distinct from the physical body is a fact. There is no evidence for that. It is true that science knows very little about the mind or a "soul", but I don't see how you can be so sure that there is something beyond the physical body if there is no evidence for it. I guess I should be more specific. How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul that is distinct from the physical body?How do you know you have a physical body? You only have a physical body because everybody agrees to it: otherwise you are an electromagnetic wave of pure energy, quantum soup. Who knows the measure of reality, the existence of the soul? Certainly not us; but then how little we know in this year 2007.

[Mr TB]

Ummm please.. learn the meaning of those two words.. they cannot be used to describe the same thing....

I will agree science and RELIGION have one thing in common and thats to describe the world around us, but science does it by providing evidence and reasons... religion just asks for faith...

You still haven't answered my question, cos my previous post was about there being NO afterlife, which u agreed to, so by a simple process of logic, you obviously don't believe in the afterlife.

Really.. mmm... flesh- your body rots, yes i agree...
soul - what happens, you say that disintegrate...fair... but
spirit - YES. that's the one! you forgot about...in afterlife...

[ToxicBunny]

I didn't forget about it.....

As far as I am concerned, our "spirit" as you call it is purely a bunch of signals in our brain/body, and it ceases when we die as the currents in our brain cease to exist....

and how do you seperate soul and spirit?

[Mr TB]

I didn't forget about it.....

As far as I am concerned, our "spirit" as you call it is purely a bunch of signals in our brain/body, and it ceases when we die as the currents in our brain cease to exist....

and how do you seperate soul and spirit?

The shell of an egg being the vehicle carrying the egg-yolk and the egg-white?

Well in that way the body is the temporary vehicle of the soul and spirit,
When the body dies , the spirit leaves the body and the soul cease to exist.

It like two colours blue + yellow= green

green= soul
blue= the body
yellow= spirit

Separate the blue and the yellow through death and there are no soul...

[ToxicBunny]

All i can say is whatever.... thats it...

[Debbie]

From this (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=863181) thread

I don't see that the soul as distinct from the physical body is a fact. There is no evidence for that. It is true that science knows very little about the mind or a "soul", but I don't see how you can be so sure that there is something beyond the physical body if there is no evidence for it. I guess I should be more specific. How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul that is distinct from the physical body?

Without the existence of soul (/consciousness (well, unconsciousness is prob more accurate)/spirit), life is reduced to a mechanical, pre-determined sequence of unescapable events.

A pre-destined fate of the world and of the individual becomes reality; and in such a reality there is no such thing as free will.

How can one reconcile the idea of free will with a reality in which the human existance/the human experience of life is reduced to a series of ultimately uncontrollable sets of causes and effects? Don't tell me that you 'still have control'- look at the nature of the implications of the mechanical reality you put forth.

[Nick333]

Without the existence of soul (/consciousness (well, unconsciousness is prob more accurate)/spirit), life is reduced to a mechanical, pre-determined sequence of unescapable events.

A pre-destined fate of the world and of the individual becomes reality; and in such a reality there is no such thing as free will.

How can one reconcile the idea of free will with a reality in which the human existance/the human experience of life is reduced to a series of ultimately uncontrollable sets of causes and effects? Don't tell me that you 'still have control'- look at the nature of the implications of the mechanical reality you put forth.

Well thought out. I'm impressed.

You can't reconcile the two concepts. One has to be tossed. Free will is a paradox because god is required to grant us free will. If there is a god (with all that is implied by that concept) there can be no free will.

The truth sucks most of the time. ;)

[Mr TB]

Well thought out. I'm impressed.

You can't reconcile the two concepts. One has to be tossed. Free will is a paradox because god is required to grant us free will. If there is a god (with all that is implied by that concept) there can be no free will.

The truth sucks most of the time. ;)

The truth sucks for those who can't handle it, if you are not converted i pray to god that he give me a chance in the afterlife to meet you...to sympathise with your poor decision making...

[Debbie]

Well thought out. I'm impressed.

You can't reconcile the two concepts. One has to be tossed. Free will is a paradox because god is required to grant us free will. If there is a god (with all that is implied by that concept) there can be no free will.

The truth sucks most of the time. ;)

Nick333-

Mechanical automation vs free will

Which side is god bundled with?

Mechanical automation can't come in degrees, correct, Nick333? It either is or it isn't, right? Hard materialism cannot compromise... yes, if that be the truth (as you see it) then damn, the truth does suck.

And if we assume such a materialism, what then of meaning? Ultimately there is none, in anything, anywhere. Something that makes you mourn, laugh, or cry with joy is only such because of your constitution which you did not select or alter, and which from hereon out you cannot select nor alter. What then becomes of education or enjoyment or the pursuits of reform/justice/punishment/upliftment? The actions to bring about these things become absolutely useless since all is predetermined and not within human control. What of growing, improving yourself, changing your own perspectives, finding happiness, being love, feeling hate, experiencing jealousy or pride? These things are not in your control. Wherein lies the logic to punish the murderer or jail the rapist?!

The assumption of materialism is not diametrially opposed to the attitude of "oh it's the gods' fault!". The ideas are one and the same, hand-in-hand in a common paradigm.

[Xarog]

Without the existence of soul (/consciousness (well, unconsciousness is prob more accurate)/spirit), life is reduced to a mechanical, pre-determined sequence of unescapable events.

A pre-destined fate of the world and of the individual becomes reality; and in such a reality there is no such thing as free will.

How can one reconcile the idea of free will with a reality in which the human existance/the human experience of life is reduced to a series of ultimately uncontrollable sets of causes and effects? Don't tell me that you 'still have control'- look at the nature of the implications of the mechanical reality you put forth.
You could be right about this. On the other hand the quantum physicists could be right and the nature of reality could be inherently random and so our choices need not be dependent on a soul to be truly free.


Well thought out. I'm impressed.

You can't reconcile the two concepts. One has to be tossed. Free will is a paradox because god is required to grant us free will. If there is a god (with all that is implied by that concept) there can be no free will.

The truth sucks most of the time.
Just who said that the concept of the soul needs the concept of God to make any sense? I do not believe that to be the case at all. I believe all life posseses a soul of some kind. I'm not so sure about the existence of God.



And if we assume such a materialism, what then of meaning? Ultimately there is none, in anything, anywhere. Something that makes you mourn, laugh, or cry with joy is only such because of your constitution which you did not select or alter, and which from hereon out you cannot select nor alter. What then becomes of education or enjoyment or the pursuits of reform/justice/punishment/upliftment? The actions to bring about these things become absolutely useless since all is predetermined and not within human control. What of growing, improving yourself, changing your own perspectives, finding happiness, being love, feeling hate, experiencing jealousy or pride? These things are not in your control. Wherein lies the logic to punish the murderer or jail the rapist?!
Very well said.

[Debbie]

You could be right about this. On the other hand the quantum physicists could be right and the nature of reality could be inherently random and so our choices need not be dependent on a soul to be truly free.

Hi Xarog,
What do you mean by this? What exactly are you juxtaposing here?

[Nick333]

Nick333-

And if we assume such a materialism, what then of meaning? Ultimately there is none, in anything, anywhere. Something that makes you mourn, laugh, or cry with joy is only such because of your constitution which you did not select or alter, and which from hereon out you cannot select nor alter. What then becomes of education or enjoyment or the pursuits of reform/justice/punishment/upliftment? The actions to bring about these things become absolutely useless since all is predetermined and not within human control. What of growing, improving yourself, changing your own perspectives, finding happiness, being love, feeling hate, experiencing jealousy or pride? These things are not in your control. Wherein lies the logic to punish the murderer or jail the rapist?!

The assumption of materialism is not diametrially opposed to the attitude of "oh it's the gods' fault!". The ideas are one and the same, hand-in-hand in a common paradigm.

It'll probably just piss you off more, but none of what you say really challenges what I said on any meaningful level.

Just because we have no free will doesn't mean that we are incapable of changing for the better. It just means some of us are not.
It doesn't mean we should not try. It does mean that we may not be capable of success.

In fact not having free will really doesn't change the human experience very much at all. It may mean we should be more compassionate towards those who appear to be incapable of changing for the better.

Isn't the concept of free will just an excuse for us to feel more deserving of what we have compared to those who haven't achieved what we have? Isn't the illusion of free will really just a creation of our egos?

There is still hope without free will. We all hope to be happier people. Some of us will be happier and some of us wont. Which is the same as saying some of us are capable of happiness and some of us aren't. The only way we can find out is by trying. So how does the human experience differ if we discard the concept of free will?

God and free will are both rationalizations for the inequities of life.

[Xarog]

Hi Xarog,
What do you mean by this? What exactly are you juxtaposing here?
Well, on the most fundamantal levels of physics, the experts in the field are having a great difficulty in actually measuring what's going on in the universe. The best they can do is to tell us what these individual subatomic particles will probably do - i.e. its all based on statistics. On the most basic level, scientists cannot actually be sure of what those particles are going to do next. They're inherently unpredictable, and in turn we can't really be sure that any of this is predestined because the 'rules' of cause and effect don't seem to apply.


In fact not having free will really doesn't change the human experience very much at all. It may mean we should be more compassionate towards those who appear to be incapable of changing for the better.
Without free will, i.e. if its all predertimined, how do your words make any difference at all? In a predertimined world, everything you do and choose was decided the moment the big bang occured. Compassion is not a choice it's just a reaction. My writing this right now would simply be the result of some cosmic chain of reaction.


Isn't the concept of free will just an excuse for us to feel more deserving of what we have compared to those who haven't achieved what we have? Isn't the illusion of free will really just a creation of our egos?
Only if you believe that everything in our lives are the result of what we would choose. You can still have free will and yet still have something bad happen to you because of no one's will - a meteorite could land on your head, for instance.


There is still hope without free will. We all hope to be happier people. Some of us will be happier and some of us wont. Which is the same as saying some of us are capable of happiness and some of us aren't. The only way we can find out is by trying. So how does the human experience differ if we discard the concept of free will?
What does hope matter if we don't choose it?

As a side note : saying that some of us will be happy and some of us will not is not at all the same as saying that some of us are capable of being happy and some of us aren't. Many people who are currently unhappy would become happy when their circumstances change - this in turn shows that some people who are currently unhappy definately have the capacity to be happy given the right circumstances.


God and free will are both rationalizations for the inequities of life.
Again, you seem to equate free will with omnipotence. Just because I choose not to die doesn't mean I'm going to live forever.

Why should free will be thus? You're creating a paradox that doesn't need to exist. Free will does not need unlimited power, and obviously since wills collide (free or not) and someone succeeds and another fails, there is more at play than mere wills.

[Nick333]

Without free will, i.e. if its all predertimined, how do your words make any difference at all? In a predertimined world, everything you do and choose was decided the moment the big bang occured. Compassion is not a choice it's just a reaction. My writing this right now would simply be the result of some cosmic chain of reaction.

That is exactly the case.



Only if you believe that everything in our lives are the result of what we would choose. You can still have free will and yet still have something bad happen to you because of no one's will - a meteorite could land on your head, for instance.

Well exactly. Our circumstances aren't the result of pure decision making. We aren't even capable of making decisions until we have received sensory stimulus to use as criteria along with genetic predispositions to make decisions.

Say you have a child born with a predisposition to aggressive behavior. In one scenario the child could be born into a violent environment where aggression is expressed violently as a norm.
In another scenario the same child is born into an environment where the norm is to channel aggression into productive activities.
Which scenario is the child more likely to achieve happiness in?



What does hope matter if we don't choose it?

I've given this sentence a fair amount of thought, and I still don't get your point.


As a side note : saying that some of us will be happy and some of us will not is not at all the same as saying that some of us are capable of being happy and some of us aren't. Many people who are currently unhappy would become happy when their circumstances change - this in turn shows that some people who are currently unhappy definitely have the capacity to be happy given the right circumstances.


So what happens if we are incapable of changing our circumstances to those which would be more conducive to our being happy? Would we then not be incapable of happiness?




Again, you seem to equate free will with omnipotence. Just because I choose not to die doesn't mean I'm going to live forever.

Why should free will be thus? You're creating a paradox that doesn't need to exist. Free will does not need unlimited power, and obviously since wills collide (free or not) and someone succeeds and another fails, there is more at play than mere wills.

Free will would require us to have a soul (something not subject to predispositions and random events). If we have a soul then why are we here ? Is it because we are compelled to be here by god or some natural law? If so then we are just as much victims of circumstance as we would be if we had no soul. Or god waved his wand and ****ed with the laws of logic.

OK so we chose to be here out of free will you might say. Well if thats the case then on what criteria did we base our decision and what predisposition was there for us to judge the criteria on? If we had a predisposition towards a desired outcome then there must be a causality for that predisposition. A random predisposition would **** up free will and a predisposition granted by god would **** it up to. Unless god waved his magic wand again.

Even if we start out with identical souls and the decision to become corpereal was the only logical choice for a soul to make, then we are left with the problem of our differing present circumstances. We could have chosen our circumstances (refer to the previous paragraph for the reason why this messes with free will). Or the circumstance could be random in which case we are just victims of circumstance yet again. Or of course god could have chosen our circumstances and waved his magic wand to sort out the free will issue again.

[Debbie]

It'll probably just piss you off more, but none of what you say really challenges what I said on any meaningful level.

Nick333, again, what makes you think I was interested in changing or challanging your beliefs? I asked you a question- in automation vs free will, what side do you think god falls on? It's a philosophical thing that you are good at explaining from your particular viewpoint so I wanted to hear what your view was. I am not angry, more bemused and excited to see what you will say. I don't get excited to see the replies of someone who posts poorly worded, confusing, grammatically incorrect, half-baked arguments. :p


Just because we have no free will doesn't mean that we are incapable of changing for the better. It just means some of us are not.
It doesn't mean we should not try. It does mean that we may not be capable of success.

Logically, there is a problem with your argument. We are dealing with an absolute- either we have free will, or we don't. No inbetween. No space for a 'some people get lucky and others don't, we should all just try in any case' argument. There appears to be a spectrum for a number of reasons I don't understand, but if we just byskip all this and go straight for the logic- free will either is, or it isn't.


In fact not having free will really doesn't change the human experience very much at all. It may mean we should be more compassionate towards those who appear to be incapable of changing for the better.

Whoa hold up. "It may mean"... looking for meaning,.. meaning which is not ultimately possible in materialism. Sure there may be temporary meaning, temporary meaning seeming (possibly even being) of no less value to the individual than ultimate meaning. But temporary meaning is temporary value nonetheless (though temporary value may actually be more valued, depending what the goal is/viewpoint is). Subscribing to materialism means foresaking the existence of ultimate meaning, which in turn means you take undue liberties when you use the phrase "it may mean" here. (You already create challanges to materialism's foundations whenever you so much as temporarily 'borrow' the idea of meaning.)

Now- "not having free will doesn't change the human experience very much"? Ok, we need to distinguish here:

1. Not having free will and not being aware of this
2. Not having free will and being aware of this

3. Not having free will, but assuming awareness of having free will
4. Having free will and not being aware of this

5. Having free will and being aware of this
6. Having free will and being aware of this and making conscious choices on:
-.1 exercising this
-.2 not exercising this
-.3 not needing to make the above choice

You say that not having free will 'doesn't change the human experience very much'. There's the obvious question hanging in the background: How would the human experience change if this were true? For that matter, how would the human experience change given any of the above 6 statements as truth? I see the human experience differently when I look through the eyes of those statements one by one. I see a difference. Some of these differences are normative and prescriptive in nature.

In one way I interpret these statements against the question of how the human experience changes, number 1 and 4 have the same implications. Likewise, 3 and 5 have the same implications; and arguably 2 and 6.3 match up. Nick, what kind of 'not having free will' are you talking about? The kind where which of the above statements are true?

[Debbie]

Isn't the concept of free will just an excuse for us to feel more deserving of what we have compared to those who haven't achieved what we have? Isn't the illusion of free will really just a creation of our egos?

It may be just an illusion of our egos. How would we know? We wouldn't be able to test this scientifically, because by it's nature it is a subjective thing (and science it not yet able to test such things). Add psychodynamics to the mix and scientifically testing the proposition that free will is "an illusion created by the ego" is even more difficult. The closest we can get, scientifically and otherwise, to testing this proposition is via self-testing (heh, pun). To know if it is just your ego creating the idea of free will, you have to have stepped outside your ego. You have to have seen your ego somewhat objectively. For that matter, you have to have acknowledged the existence of ego in the first place (Freud's ego, not pride ego). How well do you know your ego? I can't see you being able to give a "yes I know my ego" answer Nick, because you don't consider emotion to be a valid source of truth or 'knowing'. Because you can't say 'yes I know that I know my ego because I have felt that I have known my ego', you don't have a measure for testing whether free will is "an illusion of ego" or not, not even in your own unique case as the person Nick333 (unless you can say that you have tasted, smelt, touched, observed or heard your ego and from this you could determine being 'located' outside of your ego). Your trail runs cold... although granted, what you say is not negated. Your postulation that free will is a product of ego just becomes unable to be properly explored because you have closed a door to the best angles from which to explore the proposition from.

But, if you:
- assume emotion is a mechanism for knowledge/truth (which, between you, me and Xarog we have not been able to rule out yet); and
- can assume you have been able to step outside your ego; and
- can retain sufficient knowingness of ego on the matter
.....then this question of whether free will is an 'illusion of ego' or not can be properly discussed.


There is still hope without free will. We all hope to be happier people. Some of us will be happier and some of us wont. Which is the same as saying some of us are capable of happiness and some of us aren't... The only way we can find out is by trying.

I'm finding this a bit hard to follow because you say the reality is that there is no free will, but then advocate the non-acceptance of this as being fact...? Hope is saying that you don't accept what is likely to come.


So how does the human experience differ if we discard the concept of free will?

I can try answer this only after you tell me what kind of scenario exactly we are looking at, re my above 6 statements.


God and free will are both rationalizations for the inequities of life.

Maybe. Maybe not. :rolleyes:

[Debbie]

What does hope matter if we don't choose it?

I've given this sentence a fair amount of thought, and I still don't get your point.

Hope exists only in the mind. It is not something tangible. For it to exist, one has to choose for it to exist. Hope cannot exist if you don't choose for it to exist. We can't choose for it to exist if we don't have free will to make the choice for it to exist. If we think hope exists in the absence of the choice for it to exist, then that is not hope we speak of, it is something else.

[Debbie]

So what happens if we are incapable of changing our circumstances to those which would be more conducive to our being happy? Would we then not be incapable of happiness?

Only if your assumption was that changing circumstances was the only way to 'achieve happiness' (btw, when did 'achieving happiness' come into all this?). Changing circumstances may be one way towards happiness; changing perceptions of circumstances may be another.


Free will would require us to have a soul (something not subject to predispositions and random events). If we have a soul then why are we here?

Maybe we're here partly to figure out why we're here.


Is it because we are compelled to be here by god or some natural law?

Maybe we're here just to experience what it's like to be here. Maybe we're here because it would be kinda boring to not be here. Maybe we're here to realise free will. Maybe we're here to jol. Maybe we're here to experience evil, or to choose between good and evil and everything inbetween (there's the free will thing again).


If so then we are just as much victims of circumstance as we would be if we had no soul. Or god waved his wand and ****ed with the laws of logic.

We may be victims of circumstance. Slight problem in that we haven't yet even come near to determining/agreeing what exactly those 'circumstances' that led to us being here are.
----
The rest below I'll have to respond to if/when I get the chance- but great ideas you bring up and good arguments you make.


OK so we chose to be here out of free will you might say. Well if thats the case then on what criteria did we base our decision and what predisposition was there for us to judge the criteria on? If we had a predisposition towards a desired outcome then there must be a causality for that predisposition. A random predisposition would **** up free will and a predisposition granted by god would **** it up to. Unless god waved his magic wand again.

Even if we start out with identical souls and the decision to become corpereal was the only logical choice for a soul to make, then we are left with the problem of our differing present circumstances. We could have chosen our circumstances (refer to the previous paragraph for the reason why this messes with free will). Or the circumstance could be random in which case we are just victims of circumstance yet again. Or of course god could have chosen our circumstances and waved his magic wand to sort out the free will issue again.

[noxibox]

Without the existence of soul (/consciousness (well, unconsciousness is prob more accurate)/spirit), life is reduced to a mechanical, pre-determined sequence of unescapable events.

A pre-destined fate of the world and of the individual becomes reality; and in such a reality there is no such thing as free will.
That's not correct. There being nothing beyond the physical body does not reduce us to merely deterministic automatons. We're dealing with a very complex set of interactions within the brain. Consciousness could just be a consequence of the complexity of the brain. Declaring that there must be something beyond the physical because we have only a limited understanding of how the brain works is premature.

It may even turn out that we do not have free will or that it's not as free as we would like to believe, but that level of understanding of the operation of the brain is some way off yet. The research going into AI may give us some insights.

[Xarog]

That is exactly the case.
Why should I believe you?


Well exactly. Our circumstances aren't the result of pure decision making.
No one said it was. Again you seem to think that free will implies that you control reality. Well, it doesn't. Free will means being able to choose how we interpret out perceptions.


We aren't even capable of making decisions until we have received sensory stimulus to use as criteria along with genetic predispositions to make decisions.
Just because we have certain genetic predispositions does not mean that that's all we have. Where's the gene that makes us cook food? Where's the gene that made us use electricity?

And certainly, that we need input to make decisions does not prove anything. That's how thinking processes work. A computer without a stream of new information is off. It just sits there and does nothing.

Interesting thing is, though, that humans can decide what they want to process and how they want to process it.


Say you have a child born with a predisposition to aggressive behavior. In one scenario the child could be born into a violent environment where aggression is expressed violently as a norm.
In another scenario the same child is born into an environment where the norm is to channel aggression into productive activities.
Which scenario is the child more likely to achieve happiness in?
Irrelevant in terms of whether or not the child has the capacity to be happy.


So what happens if we are incapable of changing our circumstances to those which would be more conducive to our being happy? Would we then not be incapable of happiness?
No.

The circumstances could change, and in doing so the person who was previously miserable could become ecstatically happy.


Free will would require us to have a soul (something not subject to predispositions and random events).
Why? If on a fundamental level the universe is inherently unpredictable then our choices are for all intents and purposes free because at a basic level there would be no cause and effect.


If we have a soul then why are we here ? Is it because we are compelled to be here by god or some natural law?
Maybe we just want to see what its like to be human.


OK so we chose to be here out of free will you might say. Well if thats the case then on what criteria did we base our decision and what predisposition was there for us to judge the criteria on?
Maybe it was decided by flipping a coin instead.


Even if we start out with identical souls and the decision to become corpereal was the only logical choice for a soul to make, then we are left with the problem of our differing present circumstances. We could have chosen our circumstances (refer to the previous paragraph for the reason why this messes with free will). Or the circumstance could be random in which case we are just victims of circumstance yet again. Or of course god could have chosen our circumstances and waved his magic wand to sort out the free will issue again.
No. Again you assume that free will cannot be subject to circumstances. Like I've already said, you can't choose to not die if someone puts a bullet in your head.

There is only one thing we can truly choose - what we think and feel about the stimulus we receive. The rest is merely choosing to use what we have available to try to achieve an outcome we want and hoping there are no other factors which make our attempts impossible.

You're also assuming that a soul that chose to live as a human knew exactly what kind of life he was going to live.

I see Debbie got to a few of these before I did. Ignore the redundancies where appropriate. ;)

[sparklehorse]

How do you know you have a physical body?
How do you know I have a physical body. You might be talking to a computer program ;)

You only have a physical body because everybody agrees to it: otherwise you are an electromagnetic wave of pure energy, quantum soup.Sure, but in this reality, you and I do exist. Even if it is only according to our definition. We have a set of reliable and repeatable tests, that in our reality is usable and true. To us it is beautiful soup.

Who knows the measure of reality, the existence of the soul? Certainly not us; but then how little we know in this year 2007.I'll tell you what I do know. There is a high probability that you are alive and human and that you can type on a computer and are capable of doing basic human functions. This can all be proven in various ways and most people will agree to this. I cannot however tell you anything reliable about your soul and neither can you or anyone else in our reality. In our reality there is no evidence for it. Which brings me back to my question. How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul?

[noxibox]

Consciousness could just be Emergent Behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence), What is Emergent Behaviour? (http://www.beart.org.uk/Emergent/)

[Electrra]

we have cracked the shell
we know exactly what is in the body
or is the shell also invisible?

[sparklehorse]

Without the existence of soul (/consciousness (well, unconsciousness is prob more accurate)/spirit), life is reduced to a mechanical, pre-determined sequence of unescapable events.

A pre-destined fate of the world and of the individual becomes reality; and in such a reality there is no such thing as free will.

How can one reconcile the idea of free will with a reality in which the human existance/the human experience of life is reduced to a series of ultimately uncontrollable sets of causes and effects? Don't tell me that you 'still have control'- look at the nature of the implications of the mechanical reality you put forth.

All this talk of free will is giving me a headache :D
Would it be accurate to sum up your view as: We have a soul because we have free will?
I'm not sure we have either.

Also, how do you tie this into an afterlife (if you believe in it).



And if we assume such a materialism, what then of meaning? Ultimately there is none, in anything, anywhere. Something that makes you mourn, laugh, or cry with joy is only such because of your constitution which you did not select or alter, and which from hereon out you cannot select nor alter.Why does it have to mean anything? Even if we have no real choice in our actions, it is still very much real to us and we experience it just as if we did have free will.

What then becomes of education or enjoyment or the pursuits of reform/justice/punishment/upliftment? The actions to bring about these things become absolutely useless since all is predetermined and not within human control. What of growing, improving yourself, changing your own perspectives, finding happiness, being love, feeling hate, experiencing jealousy or pride? These things are not in your control.
Again, why is it useless because we didn't choose it. It still affects people in a real way.
Wherein lies the logic to punish the murderer or jail the rapist?!It needn't be punishment because someone chose to commit a crime. You can still argue that even if he/she didn't really choose to commit the crime that he/she is still detrimental to society and should therefore be removed from it.

[sparklehorse]

BTW. Some extra pondering ;)
Sometimes when watching a movie for the second time and something bad happens, although I know what is going to happen (no free will for the characters), I somehow still hope that things might turn out differently. You can maybe argue that they also hope for the best, and that they feel they are in control of their actions.
I know it is not, yet I still hope? Maybe hope and predeterminism is not so incompatible.

[Debbie]

Sparklehorse, your comments about hope reinforce my assumption that hope is a decision to choose to believe differently about what is to come, particularly in the face of evidence suggesting a likely unfavourable outcome.

<Hmm, again the issue of faith hangs in the background of the concept of hope, but I'm not entirely complete on where and how it fits in...>

[sparklehorse]

That's not correct. There being nothing beyond the physical body does not reduce us to merely deterministic automatons. We're dealing with a very complex set of interactions within the brain. Consciousness could just be a consequence of the complexity of the brain. Declaring that there must be something beyond the physical because we have only a limited understanding of how the brain works is premature.

It may even turn out that we do not have free will or that it's not as free as we would like to believe, but that level of understanding of the operation of the brain is some way off yet. The research going into AI may give us some insights.
I agree. The complexity of the brain and the interaction with it's environment would still be very unpredictable in a practical sense.

A very simple organism might be more predictable. I guess some will argue then that it's because it doesn't have a soul (or free will).

[sparklehorse]

Sparklehorse, your comments about hope reinforce my assumption that hope is a decision to choose to believe differently about what is to come, particularly in the face of evidence suggesting a likely unfavourable outcome.I don't think it's a decision at all. Even if I am hoping (in my movie example), I never really believe that anything is going to change. I do not decide to hope, I just do. I don't think I have any control over it. Someone else (with a more pessimistic world view) might not hope for the better. This agrees with a deterministic world, where previous influences made me an optimistic person, making me feel hope.

[Debbie]

Consciousness could just be Emergent Behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence), What is Emergent Behaviour? (http://www.beart.org.uk/Emergent/)

Emergence - a fancy way of saying there is coherent structure arising out of the interaction of reducable, constituent parts. Otherwise known as synergy. Systems theory, species-system, same line of thinking and from what I understand, essentially the same thing.

As for the question being probed here, whether consciousness is a (fortuitous?! /runs) outcome of multiple interacting parts....possibly. Can't be ruled out. Can certainly not be adequately put to the test yet either though.

[Nanfeishen]

I am returning to the original question re the soul.

The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is a self-aware ethereal substance particular to a unique living being. (Wiki)
The idea of the body containing a "soul", is inherently a religious idea, but to find out or discover the idea of Soul, we need to look at a variation, or a medly of different ideas.

Firstly lets look at East and West, in Ancient Greek the soul was referred to as the "Psyche", Aristotles works in latin tranlation use the word "Anima", which also tranlates to the word "breath".
The Latin word of the related word "spirit" like anima also means "breath".
The Biblical Hebrew word for soul is "Nepesh", meaning life or vital breath.
If we look at the Chinese idea of Qi energy, or working with Qi Energy, called "Qigong".
We take the tranlations of Qi , and we find meaning such as "life force" , "spiritual energy", "air" , "breath", or "vital breath".
The two are speaking of exactly the same thing/idea the "soul"

Secondly, we look at the body, and its energies, we have a biochemical energy that runs the bodies funtions, breaking down food into various chemical components which runs the body biologically, we also have a bioelectrical energy that works in conjuction, that sends electrical impulses to various parts of the body, governing heart rate, and brain activity, (EEG & EKG). Remove either of these energies, and the body ceases to function.

We are all built from these two components - biochemical matter and energy. The energy that animates the bodies of humans and animals is known as bioenergy – the energy of life. This force surrounds every cell like a miniature wire, providing a blueprint for the physical body and also serving as a medium for the flow of information throughout the body. Bioenergy also extends outside of the physical body, creating low frequency electromagnetic fields around us (as well as other subtle energy fields not yet recognized by science).
In a larger context, bioenergy(the soul) is an inseparable component of the Universal Energy(God, for want of a better word).

[noxibox]

(as well as other subtle energy fields not yet recognized by science).
For example?

I'd say emergent behaviour is not a fancy term. It is nicely descriptive.

Unfortunately synergy is a word that has been heavily abused so it is best not mentioned in polite, even impolite, company :)

If consciousness is something else, outside, interacting with the physical, then there should come a time when this can be tested.

[sparklehorse]

In a larger context, bioenergy(the soul) is an inseparable component of the Universal Energy(God, for want of a better word).Nice story, can you back it up with evidence?

[Mr TB]

Nice story, can you back it up with evidence?

With all due respect any of you who argue no afterlife,... willing to take that chance and have a look?.. You can not loose anything can you?

[Iwojima]

With all due respect any of you who argue no afterlife,... willing to take that chance and have a look?.. You can not loose anything can you?

So we should live in fear and only believe in something because we're afraid of some cosmic boogie monster?

I really have a problem with that type of logic. Even so many other religions have a theoretical afterlife...who is to say the Christian one is correct?

[kilo39]

How do you know I have a physical body. You might be talking to a computer program ;)
Sure, but in this reality, you and I do exist. Even if it is only according to our definition. We have a set of reliable and repeatable tests, that in our reality is usable and true. To us it is beautiful soup.
I'll tell you what I do know. There is a high probability that you are alive and human and that you can type on a computer and are capable of doing basic human functions. This can all be proven in various ways and most people will agree to this. I cannot however tell you anything reliable about your soul and neither can you or anyone else in our reality. In our reality there is no evidence for it. Which brings me back to my question. How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul?If the electron state (and the state of the atom) is only ever set upon observation then that is true for all electrons, particles everywhere. If my concrete world is actually ethereal, existing only as a state of electromagnetism then, while we may have physical bodies (and the chances are good I'm not posting to a bot) then, while your repeatable test may be verifiable the fact of the matter is; it is agreed. The fact that it is agreed has nothing to do with electromagnetic forces, they live a life of their own so to speak. And you (and I) are part of that, no matter your verifiable tests.

As to the matter of the soul: the Universe is infinite(?) billions of galaxies; isn't it rather ego-centric to think we are all there is, or equally so, that we don't matter? Plain fact: if electromagnetic reality is the real reality then the physical body is just more of the same. If that reality is as far away from this (to the extent we don't experience it) then who is to preach on the reality of the soul?

[Mr TB]

So we should live in fear and only believe in something because we're afraid of some cosmic boogie monster?

I really have a problem with that type of logic. Even so many other religions have a theoretical afterlife...who is to say the Christian one is correct?

Why are you friends then asking for evidence if they are to afraid to go and have a look for themselves...

My logic tells me if you have fear in going to have a look... it is a proven thing :D

[bwana]

NB - some o/t dialogue has been removed.

[dotVIBE]

Why are you friends then asking for evidence if they are to afraid to go and have a look for themselves...

My logic tells me if you have fear in going to have a look... it is a proven thing :D

umm, please justify this remark for me. What was it in Iwo's post that lead you to the conclusion that he fears the afterlife? Maybe i'm stupid but try as I might, I just can't make the connection. Unless of course you are making a totally unfounded assumption? but why would you do that?

[Debbie]

I'd say emergent behaviour is not a fancy term. It is nicely descriptive.

Yes well, now that I've actually looked at your second link ('What is emergent behaviour') you are right, it is a better description. (The termite command is beautiful!)


Unfortunately synergy is a word that has been heavily abused so it is best not mentioned in polite, even impolite, company :)

Ok, since we are both aware of each other's framework, I'm sure you can understand why I use 'synergy' more freely, and why I wouldn't know this :)


If consciousness is something else, outside, interacting with the physical, then there should come a time when this can be tested.

Yes.

[Debbie]

Well, on the most fundamantal levels of physics, the experts in the field are having a great difficulty in actually measuring what's going on in the universe. The best they can do is to tell us what these individual subatomic particles will probably do - i.e. its all based on statistics. On the most basic level, scientists cannot actually be sure of what those particles are going to do next. They're inherently unpredictable, and in turn we can't really be sure that any of this is predestined because the 'rules' of cause and effect don't seem to apply.

Yes, but now what are you juxtaposing that with? :confused:

[Nanfeishen]

Nice story, can you back it up with evidence?

Lets see, we will look at two theories, Zero point Energy, and the Epr Paradox, i will not go into explaining them , you can read them yourselves, although this short 2 pager is a good introduction to the other two
Creative Energy article (easy Reading)
http://www.innerself.com/Creating_Realities/creative_energy.htm

Zero point Energy:
http://www.liberatapublishers.com/zeropointe.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_energy
EPR Paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

The problem comes in, in the fact that humanity, wants something more , they want a romatic notion, a reason, a definative answer to life, so they dredge up an idea of a "heaven" or an "afterlife".
Humanity is not mature enough to deal with the truth, in that we are all interconnected, and that we all have the ability to change the world around us through our own energy. Not through work and labour, but through our thoughts and minds.
People want to feel that they, themselves, the me ,the I, the individual is important, they dont want to know that they the individual is not important, that what is important is the whole, the collective energy , the cosmic whole. People are afraid of a loss of individuality in the collective, it has been drummed into us through books, the media, our religions, our politics, that the idea of a collective whole is a bad idea, and leads to the loss of individuality.
In fact the opposite is actually more real, it places more responsibility on the individual, and the individual becomes more important to the whole , bringing its own uniqueness and characteristics into the nature of the whole, and the stronger the characteristics of the individual , the greater the benefit and effect on the whole.
Our physical existence is the place and time by which a part of the energy of the whole experiences a physical existence, and thereafter returns to the cosmic whole, taking its experiences with it and either affecting the whole, by becoming one with the whole, or is rejected by the whole and discarded due to its negative influence of the whole. (Mankinds Heaven, merging, Mankinds hell, rejection)
The concept of "God" creating man in his image, is correct if we consider that the physical body carries the energy of "the soul", and it is that soul, that is the "image", or energy of "God", or the cosmic whole.
So the "soul" evolves through its experiences in the physical, and returns to the cosmic whole, and the cosmic whole "learns" from the experiences of the "soul".

[Mr TB]

umm, please justify this remark for me. What was it in Iwo's post that lead you to the conclusion that he fears the afterlife? Maybe i'm stupid but try as I might, I just can't make the connection. Unless of course you are making a totally unfounded assumption? but why would you do that?

My honest believe is, always being in search for evidence quite clearly mean you distrust everyone else, not trust anyone else is clearly an indication of fear... any objection?

Why do you think drug smugglers in CALI stayed behind walls 25ft high, because they trust the next person?...

[noxibox]

With all due respect any of you who argue no afterlife,... willing to take that chance and have a look?.. You can not loose anything can you?
That's just silly. Those who think there is an afterlife should have no trouble going to take a look. I'll wait here while you go look.

[noxibox]

It seems often there are attempts to extrapolate the probability that governs things at the quantum level to things on the macro scale. It is true that various particle states each have a probability. But it is also true that some states are far more likely than others. It was, however, always emphasised to us that this did not apply to large objects consisting of many particles. For one thing the probabilities are summed so the more likely states eventually become nearly certain.

[dotVIBE]

My honest believe is, always being in search for evidence quite clearly mean you distrust everyone else, not trust anyone else is clearly an indication of fear... any objection?

Why do you think drug smugglers in CALI stayed behind walls 25ft high, because they trust the next person?...

I am always searching for the truth, or "evidence" as you call it. This certainly does not mean that I distrust everyone. There are lots of people I trust.

Drug smugglers are irrelevant to this debate. They live in fear because they know that death and pain is waiting for them in this life. The afterlife has nothing to do with it.

[dotVIBE]

back on topic.

@noxi

Please clarify that last statement of yours. Do you mean that that the inherent "probability state" of particles can equated to being the "soul" of the particle? Or is it that the likelihood of us as humans having souls is so high that it becomes near certain? Or what?:confused:

[Mr TB]

I am always searching for the truth, or "evidence" as you call it. This certainly does not mean that I distrust everyone. There are lots of people I trust.

Drug smugglers are irrelevant to this debate. They live in fear because they know that death and pain is waiting for them in this life. The afterlife has nothing to do with it.

Maybe you are confused, i did not say "TRUTH" is "EVIDENCE" or "EVIDENCE" is "TRUTH". I can speak the truth without providing evidence. The requirement by you of "EVIDENCE" is actually an insult because the requirement placed by you tells me you think i am a "LIAR".

[Mr TB]

That's just silly. Those who think there is an afterlife should have no trouble going to take a look. I'll wait here while you go look.

Is raises the fear of god in you, does it not?

[dotVIBE]

Maybe you are confused, i did not say "TRUTH" is "EVIDENCE" or "EVIDENCE" is "TRUTH". I can speak the truth without providing evidence. The requirement by you of "EVIDENCE" is actually an insult because the requirement placed by you tells me you think i am a "LIAR".

Asking you for evidence is NOT calling you liar. How can I call you a liar? I hardly know you? The fact that I do not have a blind faith is pertinent to me, not to you. I will always be looking for truth and, unfortunately, I require evidence. Don't you think I wish I could have blind faith in having a soul, and believing that my being will go on living? I'd love to!
But for ME it's not that simple. Until I find an acceptable theory that convinces ME of the fact that we as humans have souls, I will go on looking.

[Nanfeishen]

It seems often there are attempts to extrapolate the probability that governs things at the quantum level to things on the macro scale. It is true that various particle states each have a probability. But it is also true that some states are far more likely than others. It was, however, always emphasised to us that this did not apply to large objects consisting of many particles. For one thing the probabilities are summed so the more likely states eventually become nearly certain.

If two particles react on an almost instantaneous level on the quantum level, it should also work on the macro level.
The only difference, is that you have to introduce another quality, and that is one of time, the time it would take for each particle to affect the others in that object.
One particle , would have to "search" for the one to effect due to the density of the object, that one would have to "search" for the next etc, thereby reducing the instantaneous to a time frame, depending on the density of the object in question.

[Mr TB]

Asking you for evidence is NOT calling you liar. How can I call you a liar? I hardly know you? The fact that I do not have a blind faith is pertinent to me, not to you. I will always be looking for truth and, unfortunately, I require evidence. Don't you think I wish I could have blind faith in having a soul, and believing that my being will go on living? I'd love to!
But for ME it's not that simple. Until I find an acceptable theory that convinces ME of the fact that we as humans have souls, I will go on looking.

For most people it is not that simple. The evidence is available, THE BIBLE , i see you say oh no!, but have you really take a proper look at it?
The O/T being the shadow and the N/T the substance?
The symbolics of the tabernacle..., the tent covered with 4 colours why?, it refers to the 4 gospels... Why were the tentpens hit only halfway into the ground.? It refers to the fact that christ will be resurrected... and you can go on and on... This Book is not written by 40 men odd but by god himself...

[ToxicBunny]

douwdouw : you need to understand that for alot of people the bible is NOT evidence, it is a story at best.. Evidence is something that can be seen and repeated by people, the bible is not something that would classify as evidence in any completely scientific study....

[dotVIBE]

exactly

[Tux]

douwdouw : you need to understand that for alot of people the bible is NOT evidence, it is a story at best.. Evidence is something that can be seen and repeated by people, the bible is not something that would classify as evidence in any completely scientific study....

I personally think the bible should not be taken literally. Rather use it as a guide. Wheter you believe everything in it happened or not.

[jano]

Very interesting article in Time:
The Mystery of Consciousness (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html)

[dotVIBE]

I personally think the bible should not be taken literally. Rather use it as a guide. Wheter you believe everything in it happened or not.

That's how I always understood it. Not a scientific document, but a guide to life.

[Mr TB]

I personally think the bible should not be taken literally. Rather use it as a guide. Wheter you believe everything in it happened or not.

As you wish GRU, you only have to study the symbolics etc. in the story etc. to realise it is impossible to be a story...

Its like the guys tossing up their so called evidence for evolution and want me to accept their theories.

The bible is even more impossible if you start to really study it in detail, taking the symbolism, the numerics, the prophecies etc. into account...

The bible is one book compiled over about 1500 years?
Only fools discard it...

[Tux]

As you wish GRU, you only have to study the symbolics etc. in the story etc. to realise it is impossible to be a story...

Its like the guys tossing up their so called evidence for evolution and want me to accept their theories.

The bible is even more impossible if you start to really study it in detail, taking the symbolism, the numerics, the prophecies etc. into account...

The bible is one book compiled over about 1500 years?
Only fools discard it...

So because it is 1500 years old, you believe everything in a book compiled by men, yet you discard everything written by hindus or the egyptians, which is even older.
And like you they believed their religion came from their god/gods

I never said the bible was impossible. Some of the stuff in it has to be true. I just dont believe everything in it. It's a guidebook to me. Just as I use things from buddhism as a guide.

[noxibox]

Please clarify that last statement of yours. Do you mean that that the inherent "probability state" of particles can equated to being the "soul" of the particle? Or is it that the likelihood of us as humans having souls is so high that it becomes near certain? Or what?:confused:
No, I am just saying that it is erroneous to extrapolate quantum behaviour to large objects. Large objects are made of many quantum particles and things are averaged out, i.e. although some particles may be in some unusual or unexpected state, overall the large object will be in a stable, predictable state. Don't know if this makes it any clearer.

I believe I got my probability statement wrong - I thing they're multiplied not added.

[dotVIBE]

gotcha,

no reference to whether there is such a thing as a soul, just some quantum theory.:D

[sparklehorse]

If two particles react on an almost instantaneous level on the quantum level, it should also work on the macro level.
The only difference, is that you have to introduce another quality, and that is one of time, the time it would take for each particle to affect the others in that object.
One particle , would have to "search" for the one to effect due to the density of the object, that one would have to "search" for the next etc, thereby reducing the instantaneous to a time frame, depending on the density of the object in question.Not that I'm an expert on quantum physics, but from what I do know, you seem to know even less...
Anyway, this thread is dodo infested. Might as well close it :(

[Nanfeishen]

Not that I'm an expert on quantum physics, but from what I do know, you seem to know even less...
Anyway, this thread is dodo infested. Might as well close it :(

I was possing a question along with a possibility, i dont know S*** about quantum physics, other than a few books and articles i have read, so was hoping to get a little more info, and possibily some clarity on your statement,
And unless it is relative to the posted thread thought process, i generally ignore the lesser life forms, and those of the species who babble and gurgle about psycotic illusions and dreams.;)

[Neo]

The symbolics of the tabernacle..., the tent covered with 4 colours why?, it refers to the 4 gospels... Why were the tentpens hit only halfway into the ground.? It refers to the fact that christ will be resurrected...

dodo, you're getting more absurd by the moment. Have you actually listened to yourself, half-driven tent-pens a sign of Jesus' resurrection?

Pray, do tell, how the hell did you come up with this? And the four colours = four gospels. Show me how you deduced the one from the other.

But of course you can't. You just don't realise that you repeat, verbatim, whatever was brainwashed into you.

Form your own thoughts, please. It's not that painful.

[Iwojima]

Hehe, that conjures up an image of douwdouw sitting in front of a psychologist who is administering the ink blot test (Rorschact Test...or something similarly spelt).

"An inky 4 colored blob! It must be something about the four gospels!!!"

Tentpens hit only hafway into the ground? Maybe some d o o s got lazy or the ground was hard.

[Mr TB]

Hehe, that conjures up an image of douwdouw sitting in front of a psychologist who is administering the ink blot test (Rorschact Test...or something similarly spelt).

"An inky 4 colored blob! It must be something about the four gospels!!!"

Tentpens hit only hafway into the ground? Maybe some d o o s got lazy or the ground was hard.

The tabernacle had 3 entrances called , the door, the truth and the life...
Christ said i am the door, i am the truth and i am the life, no one comes to the father but through me...

Sin closed mankind's spiritual eyes, mankind only sees life through natural eyes, once born again you start to see through your spititual eyes again...

[phenom]

TO SPARKLEHORSE, I was not necessarily referring to a paranormal ghost-like soul,

My definition of the 'SOUL'
the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will;

If the soul is physical(3D) or not physical(another dimension/realm) is currently Unknown to science, that which is keeping my from Atheism.

'Sparklehorse' may just be a robot without consciousness, free thought, feeling, and will. Is 'Sparklehorse' a robot or may 'sparklehorse' have a soul?

[phenom]

How do you know that there is such a thing as a soul that is distinct from the physical body?

I don't; but i also don't know if the soul indistinct from the physical body, or if the different realm soul is what drives the physical body.

I do know that the soul exists; how (distinct and connected or indistinct) is unknown.

The key for Atheists to win me, is to explain the metaphysics of the soul.

[Neo]

The tabernacle had 3 entrances called , the door, the truth and the life...
Christ said i am the door, i am the truth and i am the life, no one comes to the father but through me...

Sin closed mankind's spiritual eyes, mankind only sees life through natural eyes, once born again you start to see through your spititual eyes again...

Thought we were talking about the half tent-pens? And the four colours?

What did Christ say about this?

Admit it, you're sucking this out of your thumb......

[sparklehorse]

TO SPARKLEHORSE, I was not necessarily referring to a paranormal ghost-like soul,
My definition of the 'SOUL'
the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will;
If the soul is physical(3D) or not physical(another dimension/realm) is currently Unknown to science, that which is keeping my from Atheism.
I am curious at the (what seems to me contradictory) statements you make. You say that you are not an atheist, so you believe in some sort of god. And it somehow ties in to your inability to explain the "soul".

If by soul you mean 'the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will', like above, there is nothing paranormal or metaphysical about it. There is still a lot that needs to be explored and science still has a long way to go in understanding the mind, but the basic principals are well understood and follows well known physical laws.


skepticism, noun, the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all things must be questioned according to the best principles of science, logic, and philosophy. The result of this process of questioning is that each topic is given the degree of confidence that it deserves based upon the available evidence.
...
I would be turn atheist, if scientist ever discover the metaphysics of conscious(soul) I know that it exists but it's not been explained by science, until then I cannot believe that their is no afterlife(the ultimate paycheck most people are waiting for); my theory of the 'soul' is much like the theory of gravity; it's mechanisms are from another dimension but it is only noticed and does not function in ours.

Yet you say there is something paranormal and/or metaphysical to the soul, which is why you believe in some sort of god. Why do you think that? By your own definition, I do not give it any degree of confidence, since there is no available evidence.

[sparklehorse]

I was possing a question along with a possibility, i dont know S*** about quantum physics, other than a few books and articles i have read, so was hoping to get a little more info, and possibily some clarity on your statement,
And unless it is relative to the posted thread thought process, i generally ignore the lesser life forms, and those of the species who babble and gurgle about psycotic illusions and dreams.;)
Sorry, my post now seems a bit harsh, forgive me, I'm human ;)

But recently I see this a lot, especially with the new age crowd. Quantum physics is not even well understood by top scientists, and it is easily twisted to support any number of strange and misguided notions.

Please read this, it deals with Quantum Consciousness, Universal Life Force, Evidence of Mind etc. (dodo, this is how people properly debate)
Debates: The Great Afterlife: Michael Shermer v. Deepak Chopra (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html)

PS. A very fitting quote:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
-- Abraham Lincoln

[phenom]

Yet you say there is something paranormal and/or metaphysical to the soul, which is why you believe in some sort of god. Why do you think that? By your own definition, I do not give it any degree of confidence, since there is no available evidence.

Dear sparklehorse, My argument is that the Soul may ultimately be paranormal, or on the contrary it may be natural and indistinct. I did say that it has not been explained by science, thus the soul may still be distinct and connected, it may also be indistinct.

My argument is that the soul may be distinct and connected or may be indistinct and natural, this is because, it's workings are still yet not understood through science thus the soul exists but how(direct or indirect) remains a mystery .

[sparklehorse]

Dear sparklehorse, My argument is that the Soul may ultimately be paranormal, or on the contrary it may be natural and indistinct. I did say that it has not been explained by science, thus the soul may still be distinct and connected, it may also be indistinct.

My argument is that the soul may be distinct and connected or may be indistinct and natural, this is because, it's workings are still yet not understood through science thus the soul exists but how(direct or indirect) remains a mystery .We're going around in circles. :o
What makes it a mystery? You still believe in some sort of afterlife or god, so there is an element of the supernatural to your belief in the soul. I want to know what you base this belief on. ;)

From http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html:

...there is no paranormal or supernatural; there is only the normal and the natural… and mysteries yet to be explained.

[JBFRobisher]

Do animals have souls?

[sparklehorse]

Do animals have souls?
Depends on how you define souls. If you mean in a godly/afterlife sense, probabably not. They have no need for religion. That is a human trait.

If you mean the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will, then certain animals do, to some extent.
It is interesting, that the animals that behave soulless, will also be the same animals that have relatively primitive brains (crocodiles/sharks/birds). But the animals that do appear more soulful, have more developed brains (dolphin/elephant/chimp).

[noxibox]

If the soul is physical(3D) or not physical(another dimension/realm) is currently Unknown to science, that which is keeping my from Atheism.
The two have little to do with each other. If you're a theist then you believe in gods. If you're not a theist then you're an atheist. Neither has anything to with souls.

And we need to stick to a definition of what constitutes a soul. We can define consciousness arising as a natural result of the complexity of our brains as a soul we can define a separate non-physical entity as a soul. Not both

[Nanfeishen]

@ Sparlehorse, no worries :)
A very good book if you can lay your hands on it is "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav
The Words Wu Li, are the Mandarin Chinese for what we call physics, and tranlate to "Patterns of Organic Energy" , in my mind a far more apt description of physics, than what we westerners call it.

[sparklehorse]

Agreed, but a proper definition is difficult. As one of my friends put it (http://forum.skeptic.za.org/index.php?topic=126.msg585#msg585): 'A dictionary or encyclopedia will give a definition for soul as it is commonly understood in the same way in which it will provide a description of, say, dragon, and for the same reason.'

By soul in this thread, I would mean in the religious sense. The soul that survives the physical body.

[Mr TB]

Thought we were talking about the half tent-pens? And the four colours?

What did Christ say about this?

Admit it, you're sucking this out of your thumb......

Sucking it out of my thumb, :) you really think so?, do you want me to stun you a bit more?.. This tabernacle carefully studied have shoulders, ribs, thighs and feet! Yes man is a shadow of what is to come...oh my... but now you think i am really crazy!!, No sir study the bible it is so wonderful!

[JBFRobisher]

but now you think i am really crazy!!,


No, we realised that quite a while ago. If you do want anyone to take you even semi-seriously I suggest spell-checking your sig.

[dotVIBE]

If you do want anyone to take you even semi-seriously I suggest spell-checking your sig.

That has have been mentioned like at least 3 times. I know I did. Dude just doesn't seem to care. weird.

[sparklehorse]

How do you ignore posts that reply to someone on your ignore list? :rolleyes:

[JBFRobisher]

That has have been mentioned like at least 3 times. I know I did. Dude just doesn't seem to care. weird.

Said dude's posts are not very good advertisements for his religion.

[dotVIBE]

no kidding.

[Neo]

Sucking it out of my thumb, :) you really think so?, do you want me to stun you a bit more?.. This tabernacle carefully studied have shoulders, ribs, thighs and feet! Yes man is a shadow of what is to come...oh my... but now you think i am really crazy!!, No sir study the bible it is so wonderful!

No, I just want you to substantiate a claim you made. So please show us, in the bible, where it says that the tent-pens indicate the coming of christ.

It's a simple question either you're telling the truth or you're LYING.

Which is it?