Arguments for the soul's existence...

[Enmos]

isn't anyone going to 'prove' that this idea of 'soul' is not possible?

What's the point. You ain't gonna read it anyway.

 

[swivel]

What's the point. You ain't gonna read it anyway.

Exhibit A.

 

[Enmos]

Exhibit A.

Wot ?

 

[Enmos]

Exhibit B:

I won't read it and guess what Q, that is THE only thing you will EVER be right about. NOTHING you parrot off from someone else or an original thought of your own (although I know there is NO such thing) will tell me diffrent to what I know to be correct, which in fact isn't a lot. You have ZERO clue what my house of cards is, ZERO clue. And this is the way it shall stay.

Then, you admit to not wanting to learn anything and remain ignorant. Too bad, your loss.

pot calling the kettle there Q, you are in the dark and always will be.
Why would I read about the grass being blue when my own eyes have told me its green?

 

[mis-t-highs]

Using his analogies as you call them, he does, which would have been the perfect opportunity for jesus to condemn the slavery and its abuse of slaves. Isn't it more telling that he never once does.

As pointed out before, the argument from science is no argument at all.

What!

Jesus gave one commandment -- that we love others. I think that pretty well covers it for slaves.

Irrelevant, strawman. There should be no slaves to cover.

Shouldn't you have a greater knowledge of the bible than I, if you knew your bible you would know what I was talking about.Exactly it's very demeaning and disrespectful. Thus he breaks the commandment.

Jesus knew what some people would do with Mary, by making a god out of her. We can clearly see that she is just a woman, and not "the mother of God", as some claim can't we?

However, that does not take away the fact, that it's disrespectful, and demeaning, does it.

Thank you for having the good sense to see that. It's refreshing to find someone of a christian ilk, admit his mistake.lol

Jesus always referred to Mary as "woman", as He did while on the cross, and he asked the disciple John to take care of her.

What has that to do with the above statement, surely your referring to the previous quote.

so lets see what was said shall we
KJV LUKE 18,29: And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, (note: it never once says that jesus had been to bethphage and bethany before)
30: Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. (Note:lets translate, untie him/take him/steal him.)
31: And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
32: And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
33: And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? (note:why are you taking my colt/stealing my colt)
34: And they said, The Lord hath need of him. (note:so it seem they stood there dumbfounded, or were beaten down, or anything else but most certainly not through jesus arranging it earlier, unless he sent a message by pony express.)

They could say "no". The disciples apparently had the right password since Jesus wasn't there.

They probably did we have no way of knowing what was in the authors mind when he wrote it, we can only go by what is written, and that clearly shows that the owner was unaware of any previous arrangement.

So we can gather that jesus as the instigator of the crime sent his disciples to steal a colt. it is as clear as day.

Stealing is rather clandestine isn't it?

Al Capone had people killed, Hitler had people killed, Saddam had people killed, however that most likely never killed anybody themselves, are that not murderers?.

If it was prearranged then why ask "why are you taking my colt" the owner would know, wouldn't he.

the password.

Is that the password that the owner never knew. if the owner knew he would have had it ready, and been there waiting, instead it was done with stealth.
take the rose coloured glasses off, and read the paragraph again, but try not to extrapolate, and add to it, read it as is. Don't assume.

Irrelevant strawman. has no bearing on the subject in question, as I said before why was it that he only intervened when it suited the story line. would it have something to do with the authors. I wonder.

Jesus's death was convenient for those that had him killed. I can agree with that.

How so, he was martyred wasn't he, it was more convenient for his followers.

Was that your attempt at an insult, lol. That also would be a first, the religious are basically intellectually dishonest. But having said they are victims of a mind virus, so it could be a little unfair to call them dishonest, as they haven't got the good sense to know what reality is. No the bible tells me nothing it's a book of fiction, I don't use it to guide my life, that would be foolish.

So to you, a proverb means something kind of dumb.

No, I mentioned Aesops fables earlier, the NT is not a book of proverbs, it's a book of all sorts including a lot of evil doings.

and you saying you don't have that issue is a lie, as you do use it to guide your life.

But the bible doesn't make me think about killing people as it does you.

It doesn't make me think about killing, it is about killing, as is the quran. There is nothing to think about it's there in black and white.
You however see it with blinkers on and when you do things you don't consider, that you may be imposing your will on other, abusing them etc.. No the mind virus that is religion, causes you not to think about killing, you just just do it in gods name with impunity.

Oh! the arrogance of the christian to think the sun revolves around you. Steven Weinberg stated Religion, we are discussing jesus and if you like christianity. I as every non religious person have no grievance with any religious person be they christian, muslim, hindu. but what I do think is abhorrent is religion per se.

I don't know a christian that thinks that. I don't know anybody that thinks that.

But you do else you would not have said, "So what did a Christian do to you personally that leaves you feeling this way? I'd just like to know how you justify your hatred of Christians. What did they do to you? "

I am sorry that you are insulted. Maybe some christian beat you nearly to death while quoting bible verses and that would give you a very real reason to be seething with hatred toward them, as you are.

Perhaps you cant read, well you certainly don't read the bible properly, so it's to be expected.(see above quote, in regard to the religious and religion. And try to understand it, it's not hard, it's not rocket science)

Why would I want a fictional character to be there.Yes this is due to the lack of education for the masses.

but they are many different religions,

Irrelevant.

all trying to fill a need that atheists deny.

To deny a thing, you do need some assemblance of a belief in a thing.

It isn't it is just the fact that the majority of people are weak minded, easily lead, uneducated, when we correct this the rest shall follow.

THe same information is available to everyone. Nobody is writing a new bible.

Yes but some of them cant read or understand any book, some even have no idea how to gather knowledge or what is real or not.

Lack of guilt brings peace too.

Forgiving others is bigger than personal perfection.

Who said it wasn't.

Any non-religious person is always morally superior, to any religious person, due to his propensity to be moral regardless of any beliefs in gods/god or hope of reward.

It's just that non-religious people are so "me-centerred"

How so, they are not after personal gain like the religious.

then why didn't he make his own colt.You mean the colt he stole and didn't return, I think when you borrow something, you usually return it.So your idea of being honest is stating that the taking of the colt was prearranged. Yeh! thats honesty, making things up because you don't like the way they read. Yeh your honest. lol.

Being that the bible is fictional as you say, we can assume the right ending though authors did not spell it out. In the right ending the owners got their colt back. It's not like they didn't know where to look.

No thats the point you should never assume, and where did they need to look. can you point to the scripture, please. lol.

and all those people cutting down palm branches and casting them before Jesus --- that was vandalism too wasn't it?

Why was it, and what does it have to do with jesus stealing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Good thread one_raven!
Possibly this may help with your book writing...


This may have been specifically mentioned by someone else but if so I apologies for repeating in this thread.

When we look at the mind / body issue we can clearly say to ourselves that both mind and body exist, the mind exists only because we can tell we are thinking, creating, moving, dwelling etc etc...but can we observe the mind directly? No.

Yet we assume the mind exists with out a problem. We also can observe the physical body and so we assume it exists too.

However we know that we use a unproved aspect [ the mind] to observe a body with, so how much credibility do you think the observation of a body is?

As credible as the awareness of a mind by proxy. By it's effect and by it's feeling would be my answer.

If one can accept the human mind exists then one can also do the same for the soul, except the soul is our ability to feel what we experience and it grounds our minds and bodies in to this reality. [ It could be said the soul grants our thoughts and experiences value.]
So evidence for the existence of the soul is the same as evidence for the existence of the mind and onto by extension, the body....
Of course this supposes no evidence for after life experience, heaven or any other more eseoteric issues however as far as the souls existence is concerned there appears to be no doubt...

my 2 cents [mind]...worth...[soul] [ and a smiley just for fun ]

 

[Quantum Quack]

I was bruised and battered and I couldn't
feel what I felt...
I was unrecognisable to my self....
Saw my reflection in a window and didn't know my own face...
Oh Brother are you going to leave me
wasting away...
on the streets of Philadelphia........​

Streets of Philadephia....Bruce Springsteen.​

 

[Cris]

Quantum,

If one can accept the human mind exists then one can also do the same for the soul

Well, no. Mind is to brain as program is to computer. Both are entirely dependent on a physical medium for their existence. A soul though is considered independent of a physical medium and has no precedent for existence.

Perhaps the comparion with mind is not a good choice, perhaps a comparison with consciousness might be better, but that again appears not to be cohesive outside of a phsyical medium, i.e. a brain.

While we can see purpose for mind and consciousness and they fullfill the human condition, I see no purpose for soul, a proposed entity that appears to be of no value and has no basis for existence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum,

Well, no. Mind is to brain as program is to computer. Both are entirely dependent on a physical medium for their existence. A soul though is considered independent of a physical medium and has no precedent for existence.

And why do we have to suggest that the soul is somehow independent of the physical medium? Why consider the soul to be something other than a part of that physical medium?

Of course we are referring to historical religious/spirituality normally when referring to the soul but I question why we need to continue doing so?
The soul could for all intents and purposes be seen as the endocrine system of the human body and how that feels when it changes and flows.

The biggest question however is not so much how the soul may manifest in our physical forms but how it is deemed to dis-attach it self upon death and other similar scenarios. This is a bigger question and certainly a harder one to find evidence for [ if at all] But the soul can be said to exist by the same criteria that the mind can be said to exist using the same level and credibility of evidence available. A question of extent and limitations in the definition I feel.

Perhaps the comparion with mind is not a good choice, perhaps a comparison with consciousness might be better, but that again appears not to be cohesive outside of a phsyical medium, i.e. a brain.

again premised on religious thought concerning transcension, heaven, death etc etc. However for the moment just limit to the living and the soul can make quiet good sense IMO.

"ëven an athiest has a soul" ~ Jazz Muso once said. anon.

However, I appreciate your concerns and yes tend to agree in a way.

While we can see purpose for mind and consciousness and they fullfill the human condition, I see no purpose for soul, a proposed entity that appears to be of no value and has no basis for existence.

The soul could be said to provide us with the ability to feel what we feel to find value in those feelings and whilst the mind may see meaing the soul grants it value to us.

Of course the soul is defined in so many different ways and cannot be pinned down. So it is easy to rely on relgious attitudes for definition.
Apart from chat and talk I have seen no evidence that supports heaven or re-incarnation in the material world. However I see plenty of evidence of a soul in our behaviour, expression, moods, attitudes and personalities.
Something a program can never give a computer....life...

 

[Sarkus]

Of course the soul is defined in so many different ways and cannot be pinned down. So it is easy to rely on relgious attitudes for definition.
Apart from chat and talk I have seen no evidence that supports heaven or re-incarnation in the material world. However I see plenty of evidence of a soul in our behaviour, expression, moods, attitudes and personalities.
Something a program can never give a computer....life...

Define this "soul" that you see evidence for, please, that differentiates it from other terms such as "consciousness", "personality" etc.
Why do we need to use the term "soul" when it has so many potentially unwarranted connotations?

If you consider "soul" to be one aspect of someone's personality - e.g. the judgement aspect rather than meaning, as you suggested, then okay - but everyone will have their own understanding and usage that it makes the term more or less pointless / useless unless adequately defined up front.

 

[(Q)]

And why do we have to suggest that the soul is somehow independent of the physical medium? Why consider the soul to be something other than a part of that physical medium?

Why has it then NOT been detected?

However I see plenty of evidence of a soul in our behaviour, expression, moods, attitudes and personalities.
Something a program can never give a computer....life...

Have you seen WALL-E?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Define this "soul" that you see evidence for, please, that differentiates it from other terms such as "consciousness", "personality" etc.
Why do we need to use the term "soul" when it has so many potentially unwarranted connotations?

If you consider "soul" to be one aspect of someone's personality - e.g. the judgement aspect rather than meaning, as you suggested, then okay - but everyone will have their own understanding and usage that it makes the term more or less pointless / useless unless adequately defined up front.

The same approach can be used as a counter...
define "body" that does not imply soul.
Define mind? What exactly is it?
It is a luducrous situation that we have...in this subsetting of the human form into these silly little groupings IMO.

body
mind
soul

When IMO they are all one and the same thing and just conveniences of inquiry to use as part of our need to reduce the whole into component parts.
The biggest problem with the mind / Body problem is that we have distinguished between the two aspects of the one being. When there is actually no way you can actually do that, mind and body being the same thing and so to is the soul which is just another aspect of that same being. IMO

The issue, though, really comes down to the old artificail intelligence 'AI' or what is the difference betweeen a clever machine and an organic living thinker such as a human.

The answer is simply soul. [ wrap what ever definition you want around it but the conclusion is the same]
The soul allows us to expereince meaning. It allows us to find value in what we do and who we are. It gives meaning to our personality and languages.

A computer can be said to have a mind and even a personality. It can be said to be intelligent and even clever but it can not be said to be alive and have "meaning unto itself". It has no way to find value in it's own activities that has meaning. It is dead and not alive.
Evidence of the soul is every where there is life....

Comparison between
Android - Human

The android can never have self meaning or feel self meaning where as the human can. The human experiences life as self meaning which is why he is alive and not a machine.
Go through life devoid of meaning and purpose and you become our android working as a machine and not an organism...it is in our literature all over the place....

So life itself could be used as evidence for the existence of a soul.
Define life?
That woud take a few more books other than the one One_raven is writing to do.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why has it then NOT been detected?

And I counter by saying why hasn't the mind been detected ?

however you assume that it exists yes?
well detect it?
Show evidence of it's existence at the same degree you are requiring of proving the existence of a soul?
Prove the mind exists?

Now there's a challenge that seems absurd doesn't it?
well...Q and Sarkus...prove the mind exists in the same way you expect the soul to be proved.....
after all I could argue that:
The mind and intellect and our ability to imagine and cogitate and self animate are all neurologically wired and have nothing but neurology/ hormones to blame.
There is no mind the scientists scream only boddddddyyyyyy!!!!!
Body /mind problem is now solved......philosophy is now a defunct and obsolete field of enquiry.....ha

 

[Quantum Quack]

Have you seen WALL-E?

nope..... but from what I gather it shows evidence of the soul as well in our imaginings of soul driven robots!

The film "Shortcircuit" was an excellent film along similar lines.

The way Beta is used in Star trek is also. [ I think the androids name was Beta but not sure]

 

[(Q)]

nope..... but from what I gather it shows evidence of the soul as well in our imaginings of soul driven robots!

Only if you consider "sentience" to be equivalent to the soul, as that is what was inferred by the film.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Only if you consider "sentience" to be equivalent to the soul, as that is what was inferred by the film.

and is this not what drives philosophy in the first place? The questions or should I say the "question":
what is sentience?
what is free will?
what is the meaning of life?
what is purpose that has no meaning?
what is meaning that has no purpose?

and so on.......

Take away the soul and there is no philosophy, as there would be nothing "worth" talking about....
no poetry , no music, no meaning to existence..

 

[Quantum Quack]

Only if you consider "sentience" to be equivalent to the soul, as that is what was inferred by the film.

I would consider sentience to be a significant aspect of the soul and the way the soul expresses value and meaning....via the use of will....

 

[Quantum Quack]

another way of looking at this issue [a bit off topic but I think One_raven wont mind]

take a human being and take a snap shot using a camera and have a look at that snap shot os suspended animation and make some critical assessments?

What do you see?
I see a body and only a body...
What is it doing?
Absolutely nothing. not thinking, not moving and certainly not finding value.
Is it dead?
may as well be....
The photo shows a dead person yet we know temporally that it is one of a living person.
But how can we tell if the photo is not of a dead person with out some prior information?
We can't.
For they are essentially one and the same thing when time is frozen like this. What you see in the image is a lump of inanimated carbon, water and a bit or other stuff and nothing more...in the form of a person.
So whats the difference when you look at a video instead?
none except one is living and the other could very well be dead.
Think along these lines for a bit and I feel you will start to see what I am getting at....

 

[mis-t-highs]

And I counter by saying why hasn't the mind been detected ?

I think people are pretty sure where the mind resides, unless of course you think it's in the big toe. http://www.insidestory.iop.org/mri.html.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think people are pretty sure where the mind resides, unless of course you think it's in the big toe. http://www.insidestory.iop.org/mri.html.

so they can detect magentic resonancing? How does that prove that the mind exists?
All they have proved is that the body is resonating magnetic fields....yes?
And btw is not the big toe part of the mind? [ unless it is amputated it is part of the will is it not?

so why distinguish by isolating the big toe?

It is part of the whole being is it not?


see what I mean by this reducing the whole to smaller parts .....it can be such a trap....