Arguments for the soul's existence...

[Sarkus]

I think (a thought not a belief) that it might be possible (might be, not is) that what most people consider to be the 'soul' is in fact a formless entity (another life form) which lives symbiotically with the human animal. So we have in effect two life forms and not one. When the human animal body dies it is therefore possible that the formless life form continues it's existance in either it's natural state or until another 'animal' host is ready for habitation.

As you seem to be so desperate for a response, ToR, here goes:

You are right, in that it seems plausible given that noone is able to disprove your idea.

It is also not a valid scientific theory - in that it can not be falsified.

To have a chance of being falsified, this other entity would have to be measurable / observed.
Until that time it remains as plausible as anything else that is immaterial, and logically consistent with something that doesn't exist.

That doesn't mean it isn't plausible - but then an infinite things are plausible. So why should this be any better than those other infinite?

So, just as it entirely possible that this Universe sits inside a jar on God's bookshelf, it is possible that you are right.

However, it lacks credibility due to the very fact that it is logically akin to the non-existent and to the infinite other things for which there is no evidence. And as such your idea is not plausible.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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.

Sounds just as effective as the 'God' virus. I claim 'Spirit' exists, 'Spirit' encapsulates all your thoughts, memories, emotions, and allows your consciousness to persist after death, 'Spirit' by it's very definition is not part of this reality therefore it cannot be detected in any way, 'Spirit' magically has a link to people, belieeeevvvee ... now go and propagate this virus, tell the non-believers that they are illogical when asking for evidence and if they logically question the necessarily measrable link between people and spirit, then tell them 'God' does it with his will (therefore non-measurable again) and that he works in mysterious ways.

 

[(Q)]

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

Sorry, you'll have to point out exactly where he does that or else you're just blowing smoke.

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.[/'quote]

I now see the problem, you're under the delusion that religion introduced the concept of the soul, that is incorrect. You have much to learn, grasshopper.

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.

That is where you're wrong again, grasshopper. He doesn't need to address anybody's version of the soul at all, he addresses the concept of a soul and how it pertains to humans.

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.

Wrong again, Boris did not create a definition of a soul - please show exactly where he states such.

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).

Well, rather then standing their crowing, why don't you point out exactly those straw men and refute them, can you???

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: The soul is made up of bioelectric energy. When a person dies, this bioelectric energy disperses but never dies.

 

[Wilmet]

Well, this is interesting! No "arguments" to share... not even sure about the "eternal" soul... but, during my half-century on this planet, I have been with a number of people at the time of their death and I have had interactions with people who have passed away so I'm quite certain that a part of us continues to exist... For how long...? I don't know.

 

[geeser]

Well, this is interesting! No "arguments" to share... not even sure about the "eternal" soul... but, during my half-century on this planet, I have been with a number of people at the time of their death and I have had interactions with people who have passed away so I'm quite certain that a part of us continues to exist... For how long...? I don't know.

I and mr randi will both give you a million dollars if you can prove that.
http://www.randi.org/

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q)

Thank you for once again raising the bar of stupidity to new heights.

There is nothing stupid about pointing out your fanatical, anti-God attitude.

I know you don't comprehend anything written in that post so your response was well expected.

The only thing you know, is that you are anti-God, and boy, you don’t half let us know.

Sorry, you'll have to point out exactly where he does that or else you're just blowing smoke.

You point it out.
He already knows what the definition of “soul” means. He told you in his last post. Go and study the Bhagavad Gita (CHAPTER 2), then maybe you’ll know also.

That is where you're wrong again, grasshopper. He doesn't need to address anybody's version of the soul at all, he addresses the concept of a soul and how it pertains to humans.

Of course he does.
How else can we discuss whether the soul is existent or not.

Wrong again, Boris did not create a definition of a soul - please show exactly where he states such.

So where did he get the idea that the spiritual soul should be detected by material means, as evidence of proof of its existence?

Well, rather then standing their crowing, why don't you point out exactly those straw men and refute them, can you?

HELLO!!

He’s already done that. Did you fail to read his post? Or is it that you don’t understand.
Do some research and get back to us.

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

There is nothing stupid about pointing out your fanatical, anti-God attitude.

Of course its stupid, I can't be out of favor or fanatical about something that doesn't exist. That would better describe you, fanatical about the non-existent.

The only thing you know, is that you are anti-God, and boy, you don’t half let us know.

But, you still don't understand what was written in the post.

You point it out.
He already knows what the definition of “soul” means. He told you in his last post. Go and study the Bhagavad Gita (CHAPTER 2), then maybe you’ll know also.

So, you have nothing of value to offer.

So where did he get the idea that the spiritual soul should be detected by material means, as evidence of proof of its existence?

He didn't, he simply offered up the explanation that IF the soul were material, it should be detectable, like anything else that is material. Seems like a pretty simple concept, don't ya think?

He’s already done that. Did you fail to read his post? Or is it that you don’t understand.
Do some research and get back to us.

No, he did not, LT merely made assertions; "the soul has no connection with the body, all lifeforms have souls, the soul is the human." Boris had already taken these concepts in hand and explained them away as not being possible. LT backfilled his assertions with mumbo-jumbo as opposed to actually argue the points made and then added that his mumbo-jumbo somehow invalidated Boris' argument.

You don't seem to understand that religioius dogma and superstitions are useless when arguing those points, since it is not the dogma that is being refuted, it is the concept of the soul.

 

[Light Travelling]

since it is not the dogma that is being refuted.

So you are not arguing against the religious concepts of soul. The Hindu concept for example.

since it is not the dogma that is being refuted, it is the concept of the soul.

Well would you be so kind as to describe for us what this 'concept' of soul is that you are talking about?? Because it must be clear to you by now that those of us with religious / spiritual beliefs are not familiar with this concept you seem to have.

So if you would be so kind - describe this "concept of the soul" that you talk of for us.....

 

[(Q)]

So you are not arguing against the religious concepts of soul. The Hindu concept for example.

What would be the point of that? The argument must first establish whether or not the soul is material, which of course cannot be established, however an argument for both is available.

Well would you be so kind as to describe for us what this 'concept' of soul is that you are talking about?? Because it must be clear to you by now that those of us with religious / spiritual beliefs are not familiar with this concept you seem to have.

I cannot, since souls do not exist.

However, 'soul' comes from the Greek word meaning 'breath, wind or air' while the word 'spirit' comes from the Latim word 'spiritus' meaning 'breath.' It essentially allowed the primitive mind to understand the difference between a live person and a dead body.

 

[spiritual_spy]

Edited

 

[usp8riot]

Let's face it and stop with all the magic and mysticism, when we die, we have no energy left in us, therefore, we're nothing. The soul is just as an indention in the framework of time/space. It is the rock in the pond. The rock has gone from that space and time but has left ripples on the pond to show something has been there. It is no more and has left it's mark on the present. What makes us what we are, our soul, is us being alive, transferring energy, and when we die, it is no more. Nothing more is created when we are created, other than the thought in God's mind, to put it in lamen's. We are just a means to transfer energy. And once we're done transferring energy, to do God's work, there is no 'soul' energy that we typically know. You won't live on in the state you are now. We are not immortal. We can only live on with God.

Our body is merely a factor in the equation. And our 'soul' merely the presence of a dead useless number that helped to arrive at the final equation. It is no longer, but you can tell by mathematical deduction that something has been there, it leaves a record. And I believe it can only be resurrected by God if He deems the body to have done good.

 

[Wilmet]

I and mr randi will both give you a million dollars if you can prove that.
http://www.randi.org/

Oh! Thanks for the offer. I'll take you up on it if someone can tell me how one goes about proving the content of unplanned conversations...?

No matter... The knowledge that I gained during conversations with people who have passed sometimes saved a life and/or brought comfort to someone who was in severe emotional distress ... In my book, money is not what's important in such instances.

 

[stretched]

I`ll say one thing for you Patriot, thats an interesting perspective. I love the ripple analogy. But I sense you need to put a name to that god. And it has to be a Biblical name?

 

[usp8riot]

I just feel the biblical God, and perhaps the Islamic God, maybe even Buddhist God is perhaps the same God I believe in. I feel most of the prophets I read who speak of God, not precisely, but summarily speak of the God I feel. There are only two decisions we can serve in life, and that is good and bad. Therefore, only two Gods. That which speaks of love, tolerance, forgiveness, and empathy, and that which is hateful, careless, unmerciful, and for the wrong choice. So really, when I look at it, I only have a choice between two sides.

 

[stretched]

Then you don`t need religion at all? Seems to just get in the way for me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course its stupid, I can't be out of favor or fanatical about something that doesn't exist.

You believe God/soul does not exist, which of course is your purogative. The problem lies in the fact that you try and force your belief by damning every opposing belief, without actually understanding what their beliefs are based on.
In other words your completely ignorant but want everyone to believe like you.

That would better describe you, fanatical about the non-existent.

Being fanatical about something has nothing to do with the actual belief, or non-belief, it is about the attitude of individuals. Your attitude is one of complete intolerence of anything outside your extremely narrow zone of perception. And your insistence that your understanding is right and all others wrong, and failure to even attempt to understand how others percieve life shows that you act like a fanatic.

But, you still don't understand what was written in the post.

What's not to understand?

So, you have nothing of value to offer.

To you and others like you, I doubt it, as I do believe in God, and you are totally intolerent of me (biggots). But I think I have value to offer to someone who is capable of using basic intelligence, instead of some simpleton reactionary mechanism, based on nothing but intolerence.

He didn't, he simply offered up the explanation that IF the soul were material, it should be detectable, like anything else that is material.

Where did he get the idea that the soul is "material."

Seems like a pretty simple concept, don't ya think?

A simpleton concept, yes.

No, he did not, LT merely made assertions; "the soul has no connection with the body, all lifeforms have souls, the soul is the human."

In every scripture, this is the understanding of what constitutes "soul". This is what is taught, just like we are taught that water has 1 atom of hydrogen and 2 atoms of oxygen.

Boris had already taken these concepts in hand and explained them away as not being possible.

Then that is his conclusion .
He cannot prove that they are not possible, he can only assert it because he cannot sensually detect it, neither does he seem capable of understanding why and how it could be possible, but not within the range of the senses.

LT backfilled his assertions with mumbo-jumbo as opposed to actually argue the points made and then added that his mumbo-jumbo somehow invalidated Boris' argument.

Well if you regard that as "mumbo jumbo" without actually trying to understand what he means, then you are an ignorant fanatic as I stated above.

Why do you post in this forum?

When will blockheads try and open their minds?

You don't seem to understand that religioius dogma and superstitions are useless when arguing those points, since it is not the dogma that is being refuted, it is the concept of the soul.

Learn what the concept is first, then argue against it.
Don't be frightened.
Yours and Boris idea of the soul is a strawman, so please don't bring it up again.

Jan.

 

[Kovak]

On the 29th of May my newborn son James entered this world traumatically after birth complications, He was perfect physically and at 38 weeks gestation but prolonged hypoxic brain injury effectively meant that he was 'brain dead.Kept alive by modern medicine where was his soul?

Where does the soul reside within? A 45yo younger relative suffers a massive heart attack & brain injury again is kept alive via modern medicine? How do we know when the soul has 'left the building'?

Obviously in the case of James when he took his last earthly breath in my hands & I felt his last heart beat he physically died, as with all humans the memory of his short life lives within our hearts NOT mind.Why do we feel this pain & suffering within, NOT in the mind as we perceive it through the senses but in the heart & physical body. Interesting, I dont know the answer...

I can comprehend the Aura as a an bio-electrical field through the Kirillian effect, that we all originated from the parodoxical original 'source of everything' of which light and its waves & colors define our physical world & resonate at many levels in our mind, bodily function etc,

Is 'the soul' a very small part of this 'source of everything' that via light speed over vast lengths of time filters back to 'the source' & allows it to somehow experience this physical life in all it pleasure & pain?

Before light, time matter & space what could have existed?
Nothing, yet it appears paradoxically that within nothing indeed did the 'something' originate.

Do we delude ourselves about a soul that transcends our death or is it a part of this universal origin?

 

[krokah]

I think (a thought not a belief) that it might be possible (might be, not is) that what most people consider to be the 'soul' is in fact a formless entity (another life form) which lives symbiotically with the human animal. So we have in effect two life forms and not one. When the human animal body dies it is therefore possible that the formless life form continues it's existance in either it's natural state or until another 'animal' host is ready for habitation.



This would explain the 'afterlife', reincarnation, aura's, OBE's, and all manner of other alleged 'supernatural' things.

If this is true then our souls would have to be around to pick out their current body, out of choice. Why would the soul pick out a body that is deformed or born in poverty. Lessons? Growth? I sometimes wonder about the luck some people have or their place in life. Maybe next time I could get with a family with a last name like Gates.

 

[Fabio4all]

I hate to answer a question with a question, but the way I view the argument is like this:

Say I were to go over to your house one day with my bud, a neurophysician. He freezes both of us (neglect problems with cryogenic freezing) and cut open both of our heads. Say he then cut both of our brains straight our of our heads, and placed my brain in your body. Say, for sake of an easier argument that you are a girl. Now he unfreezes you. What would you say would happen in this case? Would I be controlling your body, a male literally in a females body? Would it still 'be' you, but with my thinking capacity, trained responses, skills etc? Would you have my memories? Would you be in control, but have my tendencies, likes and dislikes? If you would still be you, under any other conditions, then the soul exists. If I would be controlling your body, again under any other conditions, then the soul doesn't exist. I believe that you would be controlling you, but you would have my tendencies, thinking processes, skills, and likes and dislikes. I believe that the soul is real, it's what literally controlls your body. Your brain holds memories and such, and is responsible for influencing the soul to make decisions based on experiences, preferences, and trained responses. The soul still commands the brain. The amount of control your soul has over your brain is willpower.