Arguments for the soul's existence...

thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i read most of it. it would really help to knock down some of the bullshit people associate with their misconsceptions of the possibility of a 'soul' and i thank Q for at least trying. soul is only a word anyways and i doubt anyone here has taken nearly enough introspective time to define that word adequately. the soul is nothing like most people predict it is; it cannot be simply because there is no such thing as 'you' as an individual. you are always part of the universe around you, you always have energy flowing through you that determines your actions as a result of your physical being. so when you die, that energy is only being released back into chaos--entropy in action. but if it helps you sleep better at night, you can look at that energy as your soul because it ultimately leaves your body in a state as a result of your unique form and structure. but it is selfish to think that it belongs to you, because you belong to the universe; you are part of it as it is part of you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

just ignore the seperate life form possibility why don't you...cos you can't argue against that can you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

funny that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“To learn to read is to light a fire; every syllable that is spelled out is a spark.” ~~ Victor Hugo

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"For the benefit of Confutatis, who is rehashing old arguments, here is a rehashed old argument"

Man, you're funny.

 

Is that your final answer?

 

you're right, i can't argue against your imagination; its all in your head, i don't even know what you're talking about.

 

what part of two seperate lifeforms living symbiotically do you not understand? Do you know the meaning of word 'symbiotic' the meaning of 'life forms' the meaning of word 'two'? Which part of that simple idea is hard for you?

Too plausible for you to dispute so you alledge you don't understand. Why advertise your inability to understand plain English?

 

I think my final answer is that you don't seem to have an interest in debating with people as much as you seem to have an interest in debasing them. But I'm still reading your posts hoping you will prove me wrong.

 

What if the soul is something that could be said to be, like, conscience? Something that surpasses the irrational actions made by impulse, and condemn it within ourselves. A soul then would be something that ultimately knows right from wrong. Our free will makes us not obligated to do what "the soul" feels is right, even though it ultimately is right. Basically, everybody knows (or the soul knows, but, I think everybody is born with a soul, either they're destined to be a good person or not) what's basically right or wrong, but our personality bases the impulse of our actions, and the way we think to define what we percept as right or wrong. I'm speaking for myself when I say that within me there are different voices, making and controlling the impulses that is making me act and think the way I do. Some voices are greedy, jealoux, lazy, and angry and some are rational, reasonable, nice, comforting, cheerfull, funny and so on. They are all me, or fractures of what is ultimately my personality, and it describes why I sometimes act reasonable, sometimes stupid. I can do what the impulses (voices) tells me to. Or. I can listen (one would have to search for it and wanting to find it to know that it is there) to the deepest, hidden, but clearly obvious, spiritual and universal voice of judgement towards the actions and thoughts made by me, and the actions made towards me, things which I face every day in the thing that is my reality, and continuosly use it to be a better person, and be righteous judge of myself and others. It is always right, has never told me wrong, and is a guidance in the knowledge and the experiences I seek in my life.

As I said earlier, I believe everybody basically has this universal, judgemental voice within them, and has the choice, like everybody else, to make the decision to listen to it and live by it. The only problem with this voice is that if at one point in life, one chooses to ignore it and live by the actions and thoughts made by the impulses, it simply fades away, and one becomes the person the impulses has set one out to be. Once one has exceeded the souls limitations and boundaries of right and wrong, the only way of turning back, is through repent and remorse in consultation with the consciences standards of good and righteous actions.
Lets use the example of the conscience. A serial-killer, or a child rapist that has no remorse for the victims and the family of those he has killed or raped, is mostly said to be insane (or criminally insane that is), and gets sentenced by a judge and a jury to live a life in penitentiary. There he gets the time to think and his way of thinking (impulses) will either be just like before or gradually worse if he has no remorse, or he will get a revelation and actually regret what he has done and change his way of thinking according to the standards of the universal. judgemental conscience. Let's say he does get this revelation: my point is, that up to the point where he changed his way of thinking, for him, the conscience (or soul) was gone. He didn't realize that it was only up to him to change it, but when he did, when he searched for it, found it, and listened to it, the conscience returned, and he was filled with anger, remorse and sadness over his victims and the families to those he had killed. The rest of his life, he would have to spend in prison reflecting upon the nature of his impulses and try to change them in order to have stable, healthy mind.

An extreme, but not an unlikely example. The principle goes for every human regarding mind and impulses. And it also serves as a remarkable example regarding my defintion of a soul.

 

Who gives a flying f*** what you think of me? Can you refute the post from Boris or have you even read it? Ignore me if you wish, but do read that post.

 

The purpose of the thread is to provide a logic argument for the existence of a 'soul'. The evidence against the notion is thousands of years of claim with not even a shred of supportive evidence.

 

Actually, if anything the evidence is in favour of the existence of a soul, and the only refuttal of that evidence is a dogmatic belief that any evidence in favour of the soul must be false, because souls do not exist. Mostly the evidence is in the form of human experiences that cannot be account for by materialism.

 

I'm sorry, did you just say that the fact that humans experience reality is evidence that their consciousness persists after death?

 

I put forward a theory that this 'soul' could be a seperate life form (without form) living symbiotically within the human, what is wrong with this idea? How is it NOT possible? Is life with 'form' we cannot see impossible? Are 'symbiotic' relationships impossible?

 

Or was it that science hasn't uncovered what consciousness is therefore it persists after death?

 

I get where you're heading ToR, and it's a theory that is very plausible, and I very much agree with you.

 

What human experiences? What evidence is there for the soul?

If you read Boris' post, you wouldn't have posted that nonsense.

 

I seemed to have missed a previous post of yours which explains my ignorance to your points. But i still do not agree with it and i also think that a more calm and mature attitude would better fit you.

So it is your stance that our bodies are merely vessels of another being's intelligence, and that what we call the soul is actually this other entity? Sounds like sci-fi to me, but many times sci-fi has predicted the future accurately (though many times not as well). It reminds me of an article i read recently about how a lot of the human genome is there because of retro-virii and that it isnt actually human dna, but is still passed on from parent to offspring. wouldn't neccessarily tie into your idea, but its similar, in a way.

I would find it more plausible, though, that our body is a vessel for a non-living intelligence. perhaps 'intelligence' is not the right word for it though, maybe 'entity', or 'force' is better fit. I would posit that the naturally occuring energy flows through our systems and causes us to interact with the world as determined by our physical structure and form. In exactly the same way, the size, shape, and structure of a horn determines what frequency of vibrations are created when wind is blown through it--the wind is the inherent energy of the universe and the horn is the organism.

Everything has an effect on everything else--we can't think of ourselves as being individuals; it is selfish. Even still, i do not disagree with the notion of a soul, i just disagree with peoples' naive interpretations of the idea. A soul does not belong to a person--we all belong to the same soul and that soul is energy.

 

Again, the answer to that lies in Boris' post. Read it.

 

I wouldn't call it a theory unless it was backed up by quite a bit of supportive evidence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. As a pure idea it sounds allright. If we had some sort of seperate symbiotic life form in us that allows our consciousness to persist after we die then it would have a relationship with us to gain information about our personality and memory. If we couldn't see it, I'm sure we could create something that could (to interact with us it would have to obey the laws of physics and thusly be detectable). Cool idea.