So you have defined God? Is that the only terms by which you will accept his existence?
Conservation of souls?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
If you see the same essence (spirit) in others that is you, when you understand we all come from the same source, do you lose that separation of "other"? Don't get me wrong, the other is important, at least as a concept. I mean, who would I talk to on SciForms if there were no "others"?
Musika:
I vaguely recall writing something along the lines of Indian Sovereignty over the Andaman Islanders having no visible impact on the daily lives of the Islanders, from their point of view. Hence, they could quite happily go about their daily lives as if India did not exist. If it is true that you and I are in a similar position vis a vis God (i.e. God has no visible effects on our daily lives etc.) then I think we probably agree with one another, more or less.
The Andaman Islanders might imagine some kind of external influence on their lives, but in the absence of any actual effects on them, it's all just theorising. Their imagination need not match the reality in any way. And again, if you and I are in an equivalent position vis a vis God, then how can you be confident that your beliefs about God reflect any kind of meaningful external reality?
But then you mention "reciprocation with Indian officials". To me, that implies some kind of direct contact with said officials, which would amount to an empirical demonstration of the reality of India to the satisfaction of most sensible Andaman Islanders, I would have thought.
Do you claim to have/have had an analogous "appropriate reciprocation" with your God? If so, can you show me evidence of that?
What are some others?
My memory of our conversation might be a little different to yours, I think.
I vaguely recall writing something along the lines of Indian Sovereignty over the Andaman Islanders having no visible impact on the daily lives of the Islanders, from their point of view. Hence, they could quite happily go about their daily lives as if India did not exist. If it is true that you and I are in a similar position vis a vis God (i.e. God has no visible effects on our daily lives etc.) then I think we probably agree with one another, more or less.
The Andaman Islanders might imagine some kind of external influence on their lives, but in the absence of any actual effects on them, it's all just theorising. Their imagination need not match the reality in any way. And again, if you and I are in an equivalent position vis a vis God, then how can you be confident that your beliefs about God reflect any kind of meaningful external reality?
But then you mention "reciprocation with Indian officials". To me, that implies some kind of direct contact with said officials, which would amount to an empirical demonstration of the reality of India to the satisfaction of most sensible Andaman Islanders, I would have thought.
Do you claim to have/have had an analogous "appropriate reciprocation" with your God? If so, can you show me evidence of that?
Last edited:
Haven't got the fine details but it appears that a total void containing absolutely nothing is an impossibility
Matter flips in and out of existence
At once stage enough popped into existence to form the Universe
If you wish to claim a sentient Sky Daddy was present before the Universe formed and caused the formation and NOT physics fine.
Look at the calculations, observations and measurements and point to any moment and explain to the Scientists
"See there, right there, THAT could NOT have happened without a Sky Daddy causing it to happen"
Be prepared to be carried on the shoulders of Scientists through the streets of which ever city you happen to be. As well you can expect the pope to come to you
No - your homework for the week is to work out why my answer is no
Other posters are free to put forward their views about my answer
Good luck
Everything is a creation, Michael, including the minds that set out to explain the physics of the universe. You can look at a circle and call it round, but your far from defining the Universe. Kudos to science. I love it, but I don't worship it.
That would be fun.
No - your homework for the week is to work out why my answer is no
Other posters are free to put forward their views about my answer
Good luck
No work necessary. In your universe you are nothing more than a lump of space debris. Nothing of any real significance. A freak accident. Of course I don't believe that true
Musika:
I haven't had a chance before now to respond to your posts to me from a while ago. But the theme I'd like to concentrate on is the same one as in my post immediately prior to this one.
You have made various claims about the soul, saying it is the "most intimate source of agency and identity" and that "the soul 'wears' bodies", that it "animates matter", and so on. But all this raises the following question for me: how do you know all this?
I don't understand where all this information about souls comes from. You might tell me that you read about souls in a religious text, but that merely pushes the question back a step, and I ask how the writer(s) of that text came to have that knowledge.
You agree that none of this stuff about souls is empirical knowledge. It isn't based on observation of souls, because souls are not detectable by empirical methods. So how do you know all this?
You take issue with the "reductionism" of physics, so I take it that your knowledge of the soul is based on some kind of "wholeistic" knowledge. But I'm still at a loss as to how you gained such knowledge. Understand that I don't mean you, specifically, but anybody.
Similarly with statements like this:
If the soul animates the body, doesn't that imply a connection between the non-material soul and the material body? Clearly it does, and your explanation for how that connection "works" reduces, as far as I can tell, to "God makes it work".
From my point of view, you look like you're assuming that a non-material "spark" is needed to animate life. But I'm sure you don't regard it as an assumption - or else you regard it as a justified assumption (perhaps on the basis of "life comes from life" or something like that)? Is that right?
And then you posit and additional entity (God), that is separate from these animating souls, that is supposedly required in addition, in order to run the whole "soul" system. Which raises the obvious next question: how do you know that God exists?
This is where I'm getting stuck. Where does this knowledge - this certainty - you claim to have, about souls and God, come from? And how does it come?
It would be circular to claim that knowledge of God is given by the very God whose existence you're trying to establish in the first place, wouldn't it? You'd just be begging the question if you were to claim that God exists because he tells you he exists (through some other non-material, unspecified, mechanism). Wouldn't you?
You make an analogy:
Would you agree that your God could be an alien species or advanced artificial intelligence controlling you as a brain in a vat, or perhaps a simulation in their computer? That kind of God would not need to be supernatural, in the sense of being empirically unexplainable, though of course that God would be inaccessible to our empirical investigation.
It strikes me as a depressing sort of worldview to hold, if so. Not that it would have any practical effects on your daily life, if it were true.
I haven't had a chance before now to respond to your posts to me from a while ago. But the theme I'd like to concentrate on is the same one as in my post immediately prior to this one.
You have made various claims about the soul, saying it is the "most intimate source of agency and identity" and that "the soul 'wears' bodies", that it "animates matter", and so on. But all this raises the following question for me: how do you know all this?
I don't understand where all this information about souls comes from. You might tell me that you read about souls in a religious text, but that merely pushes the question back a step, and I ask how the writer(s) of that text came to have that knowledge.
You agree that none of this stuff about souls is empirical knowledge. It isn't based on observation of souls, because souls are not detectable by empirical methods. So how do you know all this?
You take issue with the "reductionism" of physics, so I take it that your knowledge of the soul is based on some kind of "wholeistic" knowledge. But I'm still at a loss as to how you gained such knowledge. Understand that I don't mean you, specifically, but anybody.
Similarly with statements like this:
How is this animating force of life perceived, if not through the medium of matter?
If the soul animates the body, doesn't that imply a connection between the non-material soul and the material body? Clearly it does, and your explanation for how that connection "works" reduces, as far as I can tell, to "God makes it work".
From my point of view, you look like you're assuming that a non-material "spark" is needed to animate life. But I'm sure you don't regard it as an assumption - or else you regard it as a justified assumption (perhaps on the basis of "life comes from life" or something like that)? Is that right?
And then you posit and additional entity (God), that is separate from these animating souls, that is supposedly required in addition, in order to run the whole "soul" system. Which raises the obvious next question: how do you know that God exists?
This is where I'm getting stuck. Where does this knowledge - this certainty - you claim to have, about souls and God, come from? And how does it come?
It would be circular to claim that knowledge of God is given by the very God whose existence you're trying to establish in the first place, wouldn't it? You'd just be begging the question if you were to claim that God exists because he tells you he exists (through some other non-material, unspecified, mechanism). Wouldn't you?
You make an analogy:
This reminds me of the brain-in-a-vat scenario. It is possible, of course, that you and I are actually brains in vats, being fed "fake" sensory data by somebody else (aliens, advanced humans, AIs, you name it). But I don't claim to know that these "enablers" of my life and all my perceptions exist (if they exist). The best I can say is: they might conceivably exist. I certainly couldn't know anything about them, independently of what they chose to feed me.
Would you agree that your God could be an alien species or advanced artificial intelligence controlling you as a brain in a vat, or perhaps a simulation in their computer? That kind of God would not need to be supernatural, in the sense of being empirically unexplainable, though of course that God would be inaccessible to our empirical investigation.
Is this how you view your relationship to God? Is God the computer programmer who restricts your real choices while providing you with the mere illusion of freedom in an ultimately-artificial world?
It strikes me as a depressing sort of worldview to hold, if so. Not that it would have any practical effects on your daily life, if it were true.
In a previous post, you acknowledged that you would be willing to change your mind if it turns our that life does leave a material fingerprint, contrary to what you currently believe. I'm glad you're open to changing your mind.
But the thing is, you make the explicit claim that you have isolated a transcendent cause. You call that cause God. But how did you locate that God? Since material means can't help, you must have used transcendent means. Right? How does that work, then?
My point is that God is a dead end in terms of being an explanation of anything. Once you say "God did it", that's as far as you can go. And you haven't really increased your understanding. "God did it" is just a place holder for not understanding, as far as I can tell. I want to know how God makes souls work, and how souls make bodies work. I want a better answer than "They just do". Don't you?
Last edited:
The soul, if you choose to call it that, is the emptiness that perceives. You can observe every aspect of life--Objects, Body, Feelings, Mind--but you cannot observe that thing that is observing. That's what they mean when asking whether a knife can cut itself. It can't, nor can the the self observe its self. The Atman is the self, third eye, soul. It has no substance yet it exist for each of us--we all have it. It has no identity, it simply is, and it is universal. Everything you think you are is a ego wrapper around your true self, merely concepts of mind.
Does that help?
No need. I have you pegged. Unless you're telling me you found God.F - Fail - must try harder
(continued...)
I think you assume that, at some point, science will hit an inevitable wall beyond which life processes become a mystery that demands a "transcendent" explanation.
Consider how computer memories work. I imagine you'd agree that I could, in principle, provide you with a detailed description of exactly how this sentence is stored in the device on which you are reading this post, down to the level of individual electrons buzzing around in a silicon chip. Do you think that, apart from the obvious differences in the
"hardware" substrate, human memory is really that different? (Perhaps, it's worth noting here that we can build neural networks in silicon, too.)
Would you argue that a transcendent soul is needed in order for your computer to store its memory of the words that are on your screen? I'm sure you wouldn't. But, you'd argue, your computing device isn't "alive".
Is this all it comes down to - your belief that a mysterious, transcendent "spark of life" is required in biological systems? Is it your belief (I wanted to write "faith") that those biological systems will never be capable of being reduced to an equivalent silicon system?
On the other hand, if you're advocating that life has some independent agency behind it as the basis for excluding emergence as a possibility, I would expect you to have better access to a thorough breakdown of parts and functions.
At the same time, I think the weakness of your "transcendent" description is that it is more of a place holder for the unknown than an explanation. God of the Gaps: we don't know, therefore God.
Unless you know, of course - which again raises the question of how you know. (Jan Ardena scupulously and consistently ignores questions about how he knows anything that he claims to know about God. The closest he ever comes to addressing the issue is some hand-waving at "scriptures".)
My main concern here, as should be abundantly clear by this point, is with your epistemology. You claim to have knowledge of the "transcendent". My question is: whence comes this knowledge?
What knowledge I have of the causes of consciousness comes from science, and the epistemology of empiricism that goes with that. I don't see how I am "hijacking" science to foist any particular position on you. You claim knowledge that I do not have. I ask you how you come to have that knowledge, which you say is not empirical knowledge. What method did you use to gain the knowledge?
Sure, my description there was vague, but I could, in principle, go into a lot more detail about, say, how memories are formed. I could talk about brain plasticity and the specific chemical and biological processes involved in neurons making new connections, and on and and so forth.
I think you assume that, at some point, science will hit an inevitable wall beyond which life processes become a mystery that demands a "transcendent" explanation.
Consider how computer memories work. I imagine you'd agree that I could, in principle, provide you with a detailed description of exactly how this sentence is stored in the device on which you are reading this post, down to the level of individual electrons buzzing around in a silicon chip. Do you think that, apart from the obvious differences in the
"hardware" substrate, human memory is really that different? (Perhaps, it's worth noting here that we can build neural networks in silicon, too.)
Would you argue that a transcendent soul is needed in order for your computer to store its memory of the words that are on your screen? I'm sure you wouldn't. But, you'd argue, your computing device isn't "alive".
Is this all it comes down to - your belief that a mysterious, transcendent "spark of life" is required in biological systems? Is it your belief (I wanted to write "faith") that those biological systems will never be capable of being reduced to an equivalent silicon system?
Why do you think that forming an intention to raise my arm requires a fundamentally different mechanism to the one that results in a spasmodic jerking?
I'm not advocating that - yet!
On the other hand, if you're advocating that life has some independent agency behind it as the basis for excluding emergence as a possibility, I would expect you to have better access to a thorough breakdown of parts and functions.
I look forward to your description of the epistemologies you used to gain your knowledge about souls and God.
I freely concede that science does not currently have a full explanation of the "cause" of life (although I also reserve the right to say that the question is somewhat ill-posed when it is put in those terms).
At the same time, I think the weakness of your "transcendent" description is that it is more of a place holder for the unknown than an explanation. God of the Gaps: we don't know, therefore God.
Unless you know, of course - which again raises the question of how you know. (Jan Ardena scupulously and consistently ignores questions about how he knows anything that he claims to know about God. The closest he ever comes to addressing the issue is some hand-waving at "scriptures".)
I repeat: I look forward to reading your description of the epistemology that leads you to your understanding of the transcendent.
Do you feel like I've been "foisting" my beliefs on you? Can't we have a civilised discussion about our respective philosophical positions without claiming that we're each being bullied into submission by the other?
My main concern here, as should be abundantly clear by this point, is with your epistemology. You claim to have knowledge of the "transcendent". My question is: whence comes this knowledge?
What knowledge I have of the causes of consciousness comes from science, and the epistemology of empiricism that goes with that. I don't see how I am "hijacking" science to foist any particular position on you. You claim knowledge that I do not have. I ask you how you come to have that knowledge, which you say is not empirical knowledge. What method did you use to gain the knowledge?
I'm curious, James, what is the core essence of a being. I believe consciousness to be a function of the brain, but it would have no significance without something there the experience consciousness. Agreed?
Bowser:
Why is this "emptiness" you describe necessary? And how do you know it is there?
This suggests to me that the "thing that is observing" is an illusion, which, stripped of the religious mumbo jumbo, is not inconsistent with the teachings of certain Eastern philosophies, as I understand them. To put it in Western terms, I would say that the "you" that you perceive is an illusion that your brain conjures up for you, to provide you with a coherent narrative for what your body is doing from moment to moment. Of course, most of what your body and brain are doing from moment to moment is inaccessible to your conscious awareness. I would say that your conscious awareness consists precisely of those features that are most useful to your brain in deciding how to react to the external environment.
Maybe. How do you know all this is true?
Bowser:
Caveat: I don't claim to know this is the case. It is a working hypothesis that has not been disproven (or proven). The attraction of this hypothesis is that it does not require the introduction of mysterious additional entities and unknowable processes.
I don't see any need to take a dualistic view of consciousness. I'd say that the thing that experiences the consciousness is the same as the thing that houses the consciousness - namely, the brain. But then, I shouldn't have written that word "houses" there, should I? Because in my view, consciousness is (probably) nothing more than a function of the brain. In a nutshell, "you" are your brain, nothing more.
Caveat: I don't claim to know this is the case. It is a working hypothesis that has not been disproven (or proven). The attraction of this hypothesis is that it does not require the introduction of mysterious additional entities and unknowable processes.
Because unlike every other experience, it can't be defined, so it is considered emptiness. It experiences all, and it is the one thing that never changes. Your body and mind will grow old and feeble, but the observer will still be there. It's consistent through time. Can you deny your first-person experience?
We start by identifying with the body, then mind, constructing an ego which is nothing more than self concepts. The only thing that has permanence, never changing, is awareness--the observer. There is also a term called spiritual fire, which means to burn away the ego, or the tree of mind. Yes, this is very much Eastern philosophy/religion
Because I am that thing experiencing. There's no way to miss it. I am.
Neither do I
Indeed I am sure it would be so
Did you miss the part to earn this honour you should
Have you fullfilled this requirement?
Really? Round or square peg?
The F for Fail stands
Very interesting. VERY INTERESTING
Let me see if I can unpack this and see what I can make of it
nor can the the self observe its self.
I take this to be the soul (which I likened to the little man in the brain which gathers up the essence of you to take to heaven) This discriptive only to provide a framework for discussion
You seem to be indicating that this little man (the essence of you) has no insight into its own existence
The Atman is the self, third eye, soul. It has no substance yet it exist for each of us--we all have it.
Ummm no substance, very much the stuff required to be considered real or exist BUT the soul has not this stuff yet it, according to yourself exist
May I ask how you know HOW you KNOW it exist and the detection method used
I bet it was the new Mark IV Coombs Pressley Reciprocating Ossuary Recombinant Analogue signal analyser or some such
Soooo you cannot observe yourself. OK not sold on it
How about other people? Can they observe your soul? You seem to be implying yes because you say we all have them
Simple words as has been explained - you have to be alive to experience concessness, although you do not need to be concess to be alive
Enough enough Coffee time
Bowser:
I've known a number of people with Alzheimer's, for example, and it seems to me that in those people the "observer" went away right along with the mind. I could not discern the presence of any unchanging, unimpaired "observer" in those people.
Are you sure?
I've known a number of people with Alzheimer's, for example, and it seems to me that in those people the "observer" went away right along with the mind. I could not discern the presence of any unchanging, unimpaired "observer" in those people.
I don't see how anything about my first-person experience compels me to believe in any kind of transcendent soul.
Again, I see no reason to think that the "self" is anything other than the brain, fundamentally. The mind is a function of the brain, as far as I can tell. The brain controls the body. The ego is a way of referring to certain behaviours exhibited by brains. I see no evidence of any "never changing" awareness.
I think there is some value and insight in this, but it needn't (and doesn't always) rely on religious trappings. I don't believe that "spirituality" in this sense requires a belief in the supernatural or in the existence of a transcendent soul.
How do you know it's your transcendent soul that is observing, and not just your brain?
The others on sciforums are not fundamentally different from me. Sciforums is communication within a species, much like ants communicate within their species. We don't require any more woo-wonder at a "creator" than the ants do.
No, I have only defined supernatural, which is part of the definition of religion. I have not defined God.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
But ... that doesn't rebut my assertion that the two statements are contradictory.
How can there be a place for God in a world where there is no "hidden meaning in life or existence. It simply IS."?