Arguments for the soul's existence...

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by one_raven, May 11, 2006.

  1. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    You are the only one who understands me...weep weep.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Note when I put my God = 'project Earth' theory in the other thread, that was ignored too as NO ONE could argue it was not possible. How could it be when we are making it possible ourselves

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyway, never mind, you read that pm yet?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595

    Roy, being mature is irrelevant as I have found. Being femme invalidates any points I make. Oh and I am ahead of my time. I am glad you note that sci fi quite often becomes sci fact.

    There is nothing implausible about my idea (idea not belief!) plausible on basis that there are millions of life forms we cannot see and numerous life forms that live symbiotically with others. I am merely offerring the thought that if we were to view the 'soul' as a seperate life form, it would explain the phenomena that others believe in, life after death, OBE's, voices from the grave, whatever...the whole shebang explained in an instance.. no more in the realm of fantasy or paranormal or supernatural, but ALL made entirely possible by one little thing, a serpate life co-existing with the human animal, I am that other life, my body is my temple...literally. My house and I are not one, but I make it look lived in!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    I would just like to let everyone know that I have read every post on this thread except this one..
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    and for this I applaud you! Amazing what moderators get away with eh?
     
  8. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    What exactly is wrong with a long post and why can't moderators make them?

    Just out of curiosity..
     
  9. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    I don't make the rules...just abide by them or feel the wrath of moderators on 'delete' spree!
     
  10. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    I think long posts that are deleted are just when someone copy/pastes an entire webpage.

    Personally I think you should take the 5 minutes to read it. It wont kill you, and you might just find it interesting.
     
  11. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    NEVER, life is too short

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    There is nothing wrong with a long post. If it were his own I would read it.

    He is quite welcome to post a link to another site - I might read it
    He is quite welcome to post a link to another thread, I might read it
    If he wants to post a link to another thread, with a note on whos posts to look out for - thats fine too.

    But this is ridiculous, where will it end. We could all just start cut and pasting huge tracts from other websites or other threads.

    It is better to just not read it.


    But mainly becauise every thread here is different. Even when they are about the same subject each one is slightly unique. If we just keep regurgetating old stuff we may as well have no new threads at all, because lets face it every subject imaginable has come up before.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Ah I see, thought I'd read it before

    Still, thanks for copy/pasting the whole thing one more time.. gave me another chance of reading it all over again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. usp8riot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    381
    I have my own beliefs and didn't know anyone like them 'til Q's post with the argument from neuropsycholoy. That's pretty much how I see the brain, as a machine, nothing else. No 'magic' involved, just a raw data machine. I used to think the energy inside of us that we get from what we eat was the soul but once the body dies, all energy is
    expended and unconverted, there is no aura of energy leaving the body, it is all used before we die and converted to heat/work, or our last supposed 'kick'.
    I think when we die, we cease to exist but only in the mind of God. A precognition in God's mind before we live and an afterthought in His mind after we die. I see it as our DNA and our 'equation' after we die. Our DNA combined with our life experiences to know who we are and what we done. Our DNA can be likened to a number and our brain summed up in a number when we go. Just as a computer program can be ran and all the information of variables can be stored as logic bits, so can the brain. At the end of our lives, God can recreate us and our experiences using the final equation, a summation of our DNA and memory, along with the variables involved in our past to judge us. And if we have done good in God's eyes and He wishes to resurrect us, he can just recreate us using that formula. Our DNA if He so wishes or the body as a whole, experiences and all. The whole universe is logic, all can be translated into numbers. Everyone should know this.

    Just as a computer works by on/off switches using logic gates, so can decisions and everything in the universe be equated to two functions in it's most simplest format, and that is yes/no, on/off, and/not, etc. Even down to the atomic function or quantum, an atom can either be attracted, or repulsed. On anything that is, can all be equated to logic. That is the law of opposites, or two. Don't know if it's a real law or not, but what I use, that everything must have an opposite to be part of the universe, an opposing force, or else it's existance in the universe would be just utter waste, to not react with anything, and that defeats the law of perfection (again, no real law, I'm sure but I use it), stating that one is not perfect without two, but each in an individual state aren't perfect until combined, as a universal state can it only be called perfect, the simplest, most efficient state a working component can be in. But the brain also uses the same logic even in it's most complex functions using the simple on/off function. To send an electrical pulse or not to. The brain and all it's functions can be equated to logical calculations just as the universe is. There is no magic going on, it is all mathematical data. But the calculations going on or that can go on can seem like magic or miracles to us, it's all logic in God's eyes. Magic is chaotic and illogical which makes for imperfection.
    Anyhow, that's a little more than I planned to post but my thoughts on the subject.
     
  15. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Did some people not read the opening post or simply not care what its author had to say?
     
  16. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    But OK I read this in the end, and here’s what I think of it

    The soul has no connection with body – where is it stated that it has. In eastern religion the soul Atman is part of Parusha, which is the observer of prakriti (nature , matter), it does not interact with it. (Bhagavad Gita.)

    Matter interacts with matter, the transcendent soul (observing) believes itself to be caught up in matter, which is only an illusion, liberation from the mortal cycle occurs from the ‘self realisation’ that we are soul and not mind and body.

    This part of your argument is invalidated.




    Eastern definition of soul – all lifeforms have soul, hence comes doctrine of ahimsa (non harm to all sentient beings) and the hindu belief that re-incarnation can take place in the form of animals. All beings have same essence.

    This part of your argument is invalidated.

    Here you have it completely the wrong way round. The soul is the human, therefore the soul acquires a body not vice versa.

    This part of your argument is invalidated.




    It seems clear to me that boris has developed his theories and then defined a version of soul that fitted his theories. Boris should try to clearly define where his definitions of soul are coming from and then apply his theories not vice versa. (oh but then his theories might not fit so well). At least my arguments are based on actual real religious concepts of soul.



    The main question for me is whether Q actually read this rubbish before posting it?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2006
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Light Travelling,

    He most probably did, saw it was anti-God/spirituality, and thought...."this will do as an argument".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jan.
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Why? After repasting the entire post, and making a puffed-up response that you didn't read it, what gives?

    Sorry, but that bit of mumbo-jumbo horsepucky does not invalidate anything other than your credibility. You've said nothing but the opposite of what is exhibited in reality.

    Reincarnation is also complete horsepucky as there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it.

    Too funny, have you any evidence whatsoever to suggest anything you've asserted or are we to simply believe you?

    So, where do souls float around until they find a body? How many souls are there in total? Where do the souls come from? Do souls think? What are souls made of exactly and how can they interact with the physical world?

    That's hilarious, "real religious concepts of soul" is an oxymoron.

    I've read it many times. It's only rubbish to those who are unable to understand it. It makes sense and easily refutes any notions of a soul theists might have.
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Jan,

    Thank you for once again raising the bar of stupidity to new heights. I know you don't comprehend anything written in that post so your response was well expected.

    You're batting a thousand!
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I wouldn't expect you to read something with so many words and syllables, and it's not likely an elementary grade version will be available anytime soon.

    So, I'll provide the short version for your pea brain to hash over the next few days:

    Souls don't exist.
     
  21. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Curiosity got the better of me. And if you didn’t like my re-post what does that tell you about your first re-post of Boris’s original post.

    But you deliberately avoid the point, which is that Boris is doing no more than knocking down straw men.;

    Where does the idea of soul come from - religion. Religion has put forward the idea of a soul, different religions having different ideas as to what this may be.

    Boris seeks to refute the religious notion of a soul. So first he must identify what notion of a soul he seeks to refute – Hindu, Muslim, etc. and probably address them individually. Preferably referencing the source texts from where he gets his definition.
    Boris has done none of this, he has created a definition of a soul himself (as far as I can ascertain) and then he proceeds to refute his own definition. So he is basically refuting an idea of soul that has never been put forward by religion in the first place.

    He sets up a row of half a dozen straw men , then eloquently knocks them down to the applause of his fellow materialists. Sorry but its just academic masturbation on the part of Boris (and you like to watch – yuk).
     
  22. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    spiritualism vs materialism

    Materialists always ask the illogical question that the spiritual must be proven by material means i.e. the material senses, or equipment that translates to the material senses.

    The spiritual is by definition that which is not material i.e. of matter. Therefore, if the spiritual were to be provable by the senses it would (by definition) cease to be spiritual. The proof would only be of a material thing. By false logic the materialist deduces that by not having material proof the spiritual is also proved not exist.

    It is like the witch ducking of the 17th C. If the accused drowns they were not a witch, if they didn’t drown they were a witch – so burn them.

    If the spiritual is objectively proven, it is material not spiritual. If not proven it is said not to exist.


    All arguments of logic between spiritualist and materialist come down to this and therefore end before beginning. That is not to say though that discourse should not take place between the two groups - but proving right and wrong will never happen.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. melodicbard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    I heard of an argument for the existence of the soul as follows.
    'We' are not our body because the atoms and molecules that make up our body will all be replaced through metabolism over the years. So what am 'I'? A soul.

    I once found this argument reasonable, but I have other views now.
    What is a soul? Maybe it is the temperary organization/complexity associated with a person.
    Or it is similar to knowledge and information, something measured with information entropy.
    It is non-physical, but it affects matter by affecting the statistical probability of events, thereby "interacting" with matter.
    Maybe it is the arrangement of the neural network making up your brain, giving you your memory and defining you. Some people lost all their memories through accident or old age, are they still the same persons? Common sense says yes, but you cannot prove he is the same man.
    And when a person dies, this organization (organism) breaks down and the entropy (randomness) increases.

    The above are just some random ideas that come to my mind.
     

Share This Page