Conservation of souls?

[Sarkus]

Yet here you are trying to introduce problems to the very word "soul" in a thread that aims for discussion specifically on topics where all parties, at least theoretically, are assumed to be willing to accept the existence of soul. Its obvious to all what party flag you are flying.

Don't confuse having issue with a specific comment with issues with the whole.

You will find that the odds never get better or worse than 50% for each and every metaphysical phenomena to which you bring empiricism to solve.
....
regardless of it being for or against.

I have no idea who you're arguing against with this.

Online atheists levy all sorts of attacks against theism and then bid a hasty retreat to agnosticism the moment they get examined.

And no doubt bang up against agnostics already there. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and an agnostic really is an agnostic, even if he is also an atheist by dint of lack of belief.

I would never have guessed.

Well now you know, sarcastic or otherwise, so perhaps you can put your strawman away.

Its not important. What is important is that whatever stance you choose to advocate, it can be challenged in exactly the same manner you are now challenging the existence of the soul.

It is important if you don't simply want to be acknowledged as arguing against a strawman.

You have been conspicuous by your absence in any discussion I have come across where reductionist views of life are bandied about.

Such as?

Even in this thread, a vast majority of contributions are made by people who have let loose with empirically unproven notions of life ... yet they do not get a question or a challenge from you.

I have little interest in examining why they think the way they do. I've been there, briefly worn the t-shirt, and moved on, so to speak. I do, however, retain an interest in understanding why theists believe what they do.

A brief examination of your post history reveals this to most definitely be the rule and not the exception .... how else do you expect such behaviour to be interpreted?

As someone with an interest in furthering my understanding of the theist point of view, and not the strong atheist point of view, perhaps? And achieving that through challenging it? You know, interpreting it correctly, perhaps.

I guess there is the possibility that you are on the brink of changing the way you think of such problems, in which case your post history does not reflect your current state of mind. Other than that, it seems to be a page from the textbook of online atheism.

Post history such as what, exactly? Over how many years? Care to cite some actual examples? Or are you simply noting my preference for discussion topics and making a fairly sweeping generalisation?
I've been on this site for quite a while, so I'm sure you can cherry pick some doozies if that is your wish. And I have no doubt my position on many things has changed, tempered, as the years have passed. But throughout remains my interest in understanding what, and more specifically why, theists believe.

But I get it that you can't have a discussion with someone without assuming that they're a militant atheist, believing God to not exist, or that empiricism is the only way to prove or know anything. But if you actually put down your blinkers then you might see a wider range of beliefs (or lack of) than just those you imagine or want people to have. Yes, even from those who dare to challenge what you might say. And they may be challenging you not because they think they know you are wrong, but simply to see why you think you know you are right.
But hey, why not just go with your first thought, I'm sure it'll be less effort for you than engaging with more than one type of atheist.

 

[sideshowbob]

What do you accept, as a definition?

I don't accept, "the essential you" as a definition of "soul" because it doesn't say anything. It just passes the definition buck on to "essential".

I would put "soul" in the same category as elves, unicorns, magic rings, etc. - i.e. things whose existence is not supported by evidence.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I don't accept, "the essential you" as a definition of "soul" because it doesn't say anything. It just passes the definition buck on to "essential".

I would put "soul" in the same category as elves, unicorns, magic rings, etc. - i.e. things whose existence is not supported by evidence.

///
Again, this thread should not be concerned with whether souls exist. The topic depends upon assuming they do.
The essential you certainly does say something.

<>

 

[spidergoat]

Then the answer is that more souls get created. Extra ones go to other planets. I mean, as long as we are making things up...

 

[sideshowbob]

Again, this thread should not be concerned with whether souls exist. The topic depends upon assuming they do.

Substitute elves, unicorns or magic rings. We can assume that they exist until the cows come home but how can we discuss them without a definition?

The essential you certainly does say something.

Not to me it doesn't. Try saying the same thing in other words.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't accept, "the essential you" as a definition of "soul" because it doesn't say anything. It just passes the definition buck on to "essential".

It's more about ''essence'', than being essential.
The soul, is you. It is obviously essential to the body, as parts of the body, like the heart, the brain, and so on.
So ''you'', are the one who has decided you don't accept ''the essential you'' as a definition.
It is'' you'' that makes claim to your body. Without you, your body is a dead lump of stuff (including brain, heart, and so on)

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

The soul, is you. It is obviously essential to the body, as parts of the body, like the heart, the brain, and so on.

There is nothing obvious about that.

 

[origin]

There is nothing obvious about that.

When Jan says:

The soul, is you. It is obviously essential to the body, as parts of the body, like the heart, the brain, and so on.

He is saying the soul is exactly like the heart, except there is no possible way to detect it and this completely undetectable thing serves no detectable function.

So the soul is exactly like an internal organ only completely different, uh, and undetectable.

Hope that clears that up...

 

[Michael 345]

So the soul is exactly like an internal organ only completely different, uh, and undetectable.

Hope that clears that up...

You didn't mention how to cook it?

How many calories it contains?

Will it lower my cholesterol?

What does it taste like?

Will it go straight to my butt? (girlfriend asked me to put this one in)?

 

[billvon]

It's more about ''essence'', than being essential.
The soul, is you. It is obviously essential to the body, as parts of the body, like the heart, the brain, and so on.
So ''you'', are the one who has decided you don't accept ''the essential you'' as a definition.
It is'' you'' that makes claim to your body. Without you, your body is a dead lump of stuff (including brain, heart, and so on)

So "soul" is a living, working brain. Fair enough.

 

[James R]

Musika:

I am saying that when we call something "alive ", we are simply recognizing the external characteristics of the presence of the soul.

I see. So trees and grasses have souls, too, I guess. And if reincarnation occurs, then I guess we could come back in our next lives as a patches of grass, or algal blooms or something like that. Would that be correct?

Are you a believer in reincarnation yourself, if you don't mind my asking?

I'm not sure why you would think that. Given the slim numerical probability of human birth and the unique opportunities the human form of life offers, it certainly does appear to be a privilege.

My point was that there are far fewer human beings than bacteria, say. So, all things being equal, you're far more likely to be reincarnated as a bacterium than as a human being.

Actually, as I write this, a few more questions occur to me.

A lot of separate organisms are actually along for the ride, so to speak, in my human body. I have, for example, a whole lot of different types of bacteria in my gut, on my skin, in my hair, etc. etc. Does each gut bacterium have its own separate soul? Am I, in effect, a collection of souls, rather than a single soul?

Most of what we attribute to in the way of material advancement of civilization is merely a distraction at best or a refined embelishment of animal propensities at worst.

Interesting point of view, but probably off-topic for this thread. Another time, perhaps.

 

[James R]

Seattle:

The number is infinite. The souls that are not embedded in any living thing aren't doing anything.

I see. So there's a kind of store of spare souls that are doing nothing, then?

The vast majority of souls, then, never make it into a living thing.

 

[James R]

Many of the Posts in this Thread imply the existence of a soul for which I know of no evidence. The soul seems to be a myth.

That is not the topic of this thread.

My focus here is on what all these immortal souls are doing at any given time, assuming they exist as described by our theist friends.

 

[James R]

The soul, is you. It is obviously essential to the body, as parts of the body, like the heart, the brain, and so on.

Do human gut bacteria share the "you" soul, or do they have separate ones of their own? Note that they cannot, in general, live independently outside the human gut, for long.

It is'' you'' that makes claim to your body. Without you, your body is a dead lump of stuff (including brain, heart, and so on)

Can one soul own another soul? When I talk about my gut bacteria, am I wrong to claim it as mine? According to Musika, each bacterium needs its own soul, as I understand it. Do you agree with that? Or do I somehow share my soul with the bacteria?

Oh, and while you're here, could you please answer the question in my opening post? Thanks.

 

[Seattle]

Seattle:


I see. So there's a kind of store of spare souls that are doing nothing, then?

The vast majority of souls, then, never make it into a living thing.

Yes, that is correct. Just in time parts is just for manufacturing. Souls are a dime a dozen and spares are always available.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Can souls evolve?

You didn't mention how to cook it?

How many calories it contains?

Will it lower my cholesterol?

What does it taste like?

Will it go straight to my butt? (girlfriend asked me to put this one in)?

A lot of soul goes into a pound of ground beef you know.

 

[Michael 345]

Seattle:


I see. So there's a kind of store of spare souls that are doing nothing, then?

The vast majority of souls, then, never make it into a living thing.

Here's a thought

What would you call a arsehole of a soul?

A soul hole?

Or a soul who was a arsehole?

A hole soul?

 

[Jan Ardena]

1 Do human gut bacteria share the "you" soul, or do they have separate ones of their own? Note that they cannot, in general, live independently outside the human gut, for long.

If every living being is essentially the soul, or from your perspective, has a soul, then it stands to reason that if bacteria are alive, they are an individual soul.

Can one soul own another soul?

No.
Ezekiel 18:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.​

jan.

 

[Michael 345]

A lot of soul goes into a pound of ground beef you know.

I have heard of soul music?

Is that music for souls but we hear it also?

Or is it music which has its own soul?

 

[Jan Ardena]

When I talk about my gut bacteria, am I wrong to claim it as mine? According to Musika, each bacterium needs its own soul, as I understand it. Do you agree with that? Or do I somehow share my soul with the bacteria?

Oh, and while you're here, could you please answer the question in my opening post? Thanks.

More likely mistaken.

That not what he said.
Quote what he said, then we can discuss it properly.

Is the number of souls that are in existence fixed?

I doubt it.

jan.