Evidence for a soul?
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
OKAY,
what i meant was this Cris,
i am trying to relate the existence of the REPRESENTATION of the notepad by the video memory,via video adapter in form of electrical signals.for THAT or those inside the system will define that real.so i am relating the notepad with a real say electronic notepad(inside our world).so the point is that the notepad 's representation is real for that system,but its only a representation, not part of reality of our world.
so is my point related in anyways to this?or you were talking different thing?clarify please...
bye!
what i meant was this Cris,
i am trying to relate the existence of the REPRESENTATION of the notepad by the video memory,via video adapter in form of electrical signals.for THAT or those inside the system will define that real.so i am relating the notepad with a real say electronic notepad(inside our world).so the point is that the notepad 's representation is real for that system,but its only a representation, not part of reality of our world.
so is my point related in anyways to this?or you were talking different thing?clarify please...
bye!
Zion,
I think this analogy might help.
Consider a photograph of a close friend.
When you look at the photograph do you see your friend or do you see a photograph?
What things exist? The photograph clearly exists; it is observable and measurable. But does your friend exist? This is interesting since you cannot say for sure. The friend may have died since you last saw him/her in the ‘flesh’. So making assumptions about things we see only as images is hazardous. To be precise, by looking at only the photograph you cannot say for sure whether your friend exists or not. Why is that? It is simply because you cannot observe or measure your friend at the time you are looking at the photograph. But the photographic image of him/her exists.
Now consider a photograph of Mickey Mouse. The photograph clearly exists, as was the case with the photo of your friend. But does Mickey exist? No of course not, he is a cartoon character and only images of him exist.
I’m trying to illustrate the dangers of confusing images of objects with the objects themselves. We need to separate the two. An image of an object is a real object in itself. E.g. the photograph is an identifiable object. The object identified by the image in the photograph is yet another identifiable object.
Now consider a hallucination or a dream where you see your friend. Like the photograph, the hallucination or dream is real, since (in theory) we can measure the electrical and chemical activity in the brain that causes dreams and hallucinations. So in that sense the image exists but we still cannot make any determination about the existence of your friend.
Now consider the question of a paper notepad and a PC notepad. This is very different to the image of an object and the object itself. The two types of notepad are two quite independent objects. One is not a representation of the other. The similarity is in the concept, i.e. the ability to take notes.
Summary.
An image of something is an object in its own right and exists.
The object seen in an image may or may not exist, i.e. without direct observation or measurement of the actual object you cannot make a determination. Your friend might exist but might have died, but Mickey Mouse only exists as images and does not exist as a real object.
Extending these principles to supernatural claims we can see that the objects cited by such concepts cannot be observed or measured so we cannot make any determination as to whether they exist or not. But unlike your friend, whom you know must have existed at some point or might still exist, since you have evidence by way of the photograph; the same cannot be said of anything supernatural. I.e. there is no past evidence of supernatural existence.
And while dreams and hallucinations about gods do exist (they are images) they do not offer anything that indicates whether gods (the objects in the images) exist, or whether they are non-existent objects like Mickey Mouse.
Hope that helps.
Cris
I think this analogy might help.
Consider a photograph of a close friend.
When you look at the photograph do you see your friend or do you see a photograph?
What things exist? The photograph clearly exists; it is observable and measurable. But does your friend exist? This is interesting since you cannot say for sure. The friend may have died since you last saw him/her in the ‘flesh’. So making assumptions about things we see only as images is hazardous. To be precise, by looking at only the photograph you cannot say for sure whether your friend exists or not. Why is that? It is simply because you cannot observe or measure your friend at the time you are looking at the photograph. But the photographic image of him/her exists.
Now consider a photograph of Mickey Mouse. The photograph clearly exists, as was the case with the photo of your friend. But does Mickey exist? No of course not, he is a cartoon character and only images of him exist.
I’m trying to illustrate the dangers of confusing images of objects with the objects themselves. We need to separate the two. An image of an object is a real object in itself. E.g. the photograph is an identifiable object. The object identified by the image in the photograph is yet another identifiable object.
Now consider a hallucination or a dream where you see your friend. Like the photograph, the hallucination or dream is real, since (in theory) we can measure the electrical and chemical activity in the brain that causes dreams and hallucinations. So in that sense the image exists but we still cannot make any determination about the existence of your friend.
Now consider the question of a paper notepad and a PC notepad. This is very different to the image of an object and the object itself. The two types of notepad are two quite independent objects. One is not a representation of the other. The similarity is in the concept, i.e. the ability to take notes.
Summary.
An image of something is an object in its own right and exists.
The object seen in an image may or may not exist, i.e. without direct observation or measurement of the actual object you cannot make a determination. Your friend might exist but might have died, but Mickey Mouse only exists as images and does not exist as a real object.
Extending these principles to supernatural claims we can see that the objects cited by such concepts cannot be observed or measured so we cannot make any determination as to whether they exist or not. But unlike your friend, whom you know must have existed at some point or might still exist, since you have evidence by way of the photograph; the same cannot be said of anything supernatural. I.e. there is no past evidence of supernatural existence.
And while dreams and hallucinations about gods do exist (they are images) they do not offer anything that indicates whether gods (the objects in the images) exist, or whether they are non-existent objects like Mickey Mouse.
Hope that helps.
Cris
Look around and THINK!
If you want evidence for God's existence look around you and THINK! Close your eyes and imagine an explosion occurring and visualize this explosion continuing throughout all eternal space, never to stop, for there is no friction, nor is there air in space or a thing to collide with in it's way. Now imagine eternal space (black, place) and visualize our galaxy being created by an infinite God of all existence, and THINK. You must therefore say that matter has always been, and life also. Ok, well this in no way contradicts God, but life has always been, for God is life.
Truth, Jonathan
If you want evidence for God's existence look around you and THINK! Close your eyes and imagine an explosion occurring and visualize this explosion continuing throughout all eternal space, never to stop, for there is no friction, nor is there air in space or a thing to collide with in it's way. Now imagine eternal space (black, place) and visualize our galaxy being created by an infinite God of all existence, and THINK. You must therefore say that matter has always been, and life also. Ok, well this in no way contradicts God, but life has always been, for God is life.
Truth, Jonathan
A dream is a vision as well. A dream is yet to be fulfilled in the life of a man. If you have a dream to go to Heaven, then all that is needed is the action to submit unto God, believe in Him, and keep His statutes. So I disagree with a logically correct statement, that a dream is not necessarily a vision which no action, what then is a vision before there is action, do you then call a vision a dream at the beginning for the action is yet to come. Therefore a vision is a vision of action to come, why then would a dream be considered anything different except a thing yet to come, for action before the vision (dream) is action without direction, but to destruction. Nightmare and dream go as opposites, so also does nightmare go with the description of an action before a vision, but a dream is but a thing before action, as a vision.
Truth, Jonathan
Truth, Jonathan
Jonathan,
Consider the effects of gravity in your explosion claim.
If life has always been, then there is no need of a god or a creator. Since no such beings have ever been observed or measured, then there is no reason to assume that one might exist now.
Consider the effects of gravity in your explosion claim.
If life has always been, then there is no need of a god or a creator. Since no such beings have ever been observed or measured, then there is no reason to assume that one might exist now.
Vision without Action is a Dream.
Action without Vision is a Nightmare.
This is an old Japanese proverb. You need to absorb the intention and context and not break it apart.
A vision is an ambition, a goal, a target, something worth achieving.
A dream in this context is something without substance, an unreality.
A nightmare is chaos and disaster.
Action without Vision is a Nightmare.
This is an old Japanese proverb. You need to absorb the intention and context and not break it apart.
A vision is an ambition, a goal, a target, something worth achieving.
A dream in this context is something without substance, an unreality.
A nightmare is chaos and disaster.
That is so foolish
That is so foolish. Because life has always existed does not omit God from the picture. For if God has always existed then He must have always been creating correct. There is no way life has always existed unless God existed. If God never existed (who has no beginning) there would be no existence, not even space, complete nothingness (not solid either, just non-existence). This of course is unthinkable that existence would not exist, and therefore it has no beginning.
There is order in existence, and our galaxy has a beginning. Without a creator this galaxy would not exist. Sure there could be life, but not life on an organized solar system. This life would need be unphysical and with no beginning, and so this brings the fact of God. "Life has always been", many atheists say; well I say God is life, and He has always been, so in turn they are correct. But because life has always been, this does not in any way take God from the picture of existence, this merely is stating that physical existence exists because it has always been created by God.
And you little story from this so-called proverb, is fanciful. For the use of the word dream is fantastic, it is overused and stretched in its meaning. For a dream is but a mere thought, but because a dream is a thought does not mean it will never occur in the future. Below are the definitions of the word dream:
dream (drm)
n.
A series of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations occurring involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep.
A daydream; a reverie.
A state of abstraction; a trance.
A wild fancy or hope.
A condition or achievement that is longed for; an aspiration: a dream of owning their own business.
One that is exceptionally gratifying, excellent, or beautiful: Our new car runs like a dream.
v. dreamed, or dreamt (drmt) dream·ing, dreams
v. intr.
To experience a dream in sleep: dreamed of meeting an old friend.
To daydream.
To have a deep aspiration: dreaming of a world at peace.
To regard something as feasible or practical: I wouldn't dream of trick skiing on icy slopes.
v. tr.
To experience a dream of while asleep: Did it storm last night, or did I dream it?
To conceive of; imagine.
To pass (time) idly or in reverie.
Phrasal Verbs:
dream on Informal
Used in the imperative to indicate that a statement or suggestion is improbable or unrealistic.
dream up
To invent; concoct: dreamed up a plan to corner the market.
Now because a dream is thought to be impossible does not mean it is impossible, for it is yet to come. For a vision can also be said to be impossible.
Truth, Jonathan
That is so foolish. Because life has always existed does not omit God from the picture. For if God has always existed then He must have always been creating correct. There is no way life has always existed unless God existed. If God never existed (who has no beginning) there would be no existence, not even space, complete nothingness (not solid either, just non-existence). This of course is unthinkable that existence would not exist, and therefore it has no beginning.
There is order in existence, and our galaxy has a beginning. Without a creator this galaxy would not exist. Sure there could be life, but not life on an organized solar system. This life would need be unphysical and with no beginning, and so this brings the fact of God. "Life has always been", many atheists say; well I say God is life, and He has always been, so in turn they are correct. But because life has always been, this does not in any way take God from the picture of existence, this merely is stating that physical existence exists because it has always been created by God.
And you little story from this so-called proverb, is fanciful. For the use of the word dream is fantastic, it is overused and stretched in its meaning. For a dream is but a mere thought, but because a dream is a thought does not mean it will never occur in the future. Below are the definitions of the word dream:
dream (drm)
n.
A series of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations occurring involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep.
A daydream; a reverie.
A state of abstraction; a trance.
A wild fancy or hope.
A condition or achievement that is longed for; an aspiration: a dream of owning their own business.
One that is exceptionally gratifying, excellent, or beautiful: Our new car runs like a dream.
v. dreamed, or dreamt (drmt) dream·ing, dreams
v. intr.
To experience a dream in sleep: dreamed of meeting an old friend.
To daydream.
To have a deep aspiration: dreaming of a world at peace.
To regard something as feasible or practical: I wouldn't dream of trick skiing on icy slopes.
v. tr.
To experience a dream of while asleep: Did it storm last night, or did I dream it?
To conceive of; imagine.
To pass (time) idly or in reverie.
Phrasal Verbs:
dream on Informal
Used in the imperative to indicate that a statement or suggestion is improbable or unrealistic.
dream up
To invent; concoct: dreamed up a plan to corner the market.
Now because a dream is thought to be impossible does not mean it is impossible, for it is yet to come. For a vision can also be said to be impossible.
Truth, Jonathan
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
~~~
Jonathan...
Life may not have always existed. Can you prove it either way? And simply because you or others believe that a god is "in the picture" does not make it so. You can claim it as a truth from now until the cows come home, but in the end, it is only your version of an unproveable truth.
This is an assumption, based upon other assumptions, none of which can be proven.
Prove it. Prove it in such a way that most rational people, from all walks of Life, cannot dispute it and still expect to be considered rational by their fellow men. Prove it, Jonathan. Let all who keep making such claims prove it. Prove it and be done with it. Give the readers here no reason to doubt your assertions.
Who says that God has a beginning or an end? Who says that God exists? The authors of ancient scriptures? You? Those who chose to believe and to make this or similar claims? And who are all of you that your claims are not to be questioned by those who have no use for your god or gods?
Who is making claims that non-believers, or skeptics, are foolish? The same people who have chosen to have faith in something that they cannot prove exists--but who themselves have no qualms in making non-sensical claims anyway?
Why is anything that questions the existence of a god... or questions a man's reluctance to end his faith-based dependency on supernatural entities... or questions whether or not existence has ever existed... (existence as defined by anyone) ...unthinkable??
You wish to tell others what they should or should not think? To assert that others aren't thinking?
Perhaps you have reached the conclusion that you have all the answers, and that these, your answers, should be acceptable to all?
Perhaps you'd like to give such a conclusion a little more thought?
Think about this: Those who don't accept the existence of a god are not afraid to question, and thus, typically, are not afraid to think. There is evidence of this here at sciforums. There is evidence of this on this thread alone.
~~~
Counterbalance
Re: Soul
*Originally posted by Jonathan
When God is proven the soul is proven.
...
#7 God exists!!!!!!! (He says we have a soul) Existence!!!!!!!*
The soul is already proven.
Just look in the mirror, you will see your soul.
God doesn't say we have a soul, he says we have a spirit.
We ARE souls.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(Genesis 2:7, KJV).
Since you became a living soul, you are one now, if you are still alive.
Much of the confusion about souls and death comes from thinking that a soul is a see-through version of ourselves which floats around after we die.
To prove that the confusion exists, try to establish the difference between "soul" and "spirit."
If you can't, then your definition of either is incorrect.
*Originally posted by Counterbalance
Those who don't accept the existence of a god are not afraid to question, and thus, typically, are not afraid to think. There is evidence of this here at sciforums.*
But not proof, and the evidence can be interpreted in different ways.
There are many thoughts that atheists are afarid to think.
For example, thoughts that atheists are afraid to think center around the idea of what will happen if God is real and does what he says he does.
The typical atheist says since God doesn't exist, there is nothing to think about.
However, that isn't evidence of boldness in thought, it is evidence of failing to take all possibilities into consideration.
*Originally posted by Jonathan
When God is proven the soul is proven.
...
#7 God exists!!!!!!! (He says we have a soul) Existence!!!!!!!*
The soul is already proven.
Just look in the mirror, you will see your soul.
God doesn't say we have a soul, he says we have a spirit.
We ARE souls.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(Genesis 2:7, KJV).
Since you became a living soul, you are one now, if you are still alive.
Much of the confusion about souls and death comes from thinking that a soul is a see-through version of ourselves which floats around after we die.
To prove that the confusion exists, try to establish the difference between "soul" and "spirit."
If you can't, then your definition of either is incorrect.
*Originally posted by Counterbalance
Those who don't accept the existence of a god are not afraid to question, and thus, typically, are not afraid to think. There is evidence of this here at sciforums.*
But not proof, and the evidence can be interpreted in different ways.
There are many thoughts that atheists are afarid to think.
For example, thoughts that atheists are afraid to think center around the idea of what will happen if God is real and does what he says he does.
The typical atheist says since God doesn't exist, there is nothing to think about.
However, that isn't evidence of boldness in thought, it is evidence of failing to take all possibilities into consideration.
Cris, you once said you had a "paranormal" experience personaly. Now explain to me how that occured in chemical and electronic terms. How can an independent chemical reaction or electro impulse with in one person in any way effect, alter, or cause change in another person if the two are in fact totaly seperate entitys with no form of force or energy connecting them or an unseen ability to interconect in to another persons existance.
Take that experience that you personally know to have actually happened and work backward from there. Is there something unseen and unexplainable that you know works with in you or effects you beyond physical actions?
Take that experience that you personally know to have actually happened and work backward from there. Is there something unseen and unexplainable that you know works with in you or effects you beyond physical actions?
Good point RD....we are trying to term a concept that is difficult to define. The wording put on it will alter by personal teachings, culture, language variations. Weather you refer to it as soul, spirit, conscienceness, mind, inner man.....the point is it is a part of us that is beyond and above meare physical functions and reactions.
That's only because you don't know what it is.
*Originally posted by Taken
Weather you refer to it as soul, spirit, conscienceness, mind, inner man.....the point is it is a part of us that is beyond and above meare physical functions and reactions.*
Thanks for proving my point about not knowing the difference.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(Hebrews 4:12, KJV).
Since God's word can tell the difference, and you can't, that means you're wrong.
*Originally posted by Taken
Weather you refer to it as soul, spirit, conscienceness, mind, inner man.....the point is it is a part of us that is beyond and above meare physical functions and reactions.*
Thanks for proving my point about not knowing the difference.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(Hebrews 4:12, KJV).
Since God's word can tell the difference, and you can't, that means you're wrong.
Tony I am not wrong, you are narrow minded. The words you quote are in English translated from a language we do not have words to fit so we are left with approximations and close calls. Every language differs, and people have to work from their knowledge base. The concept being held true, the language is not the point.
Why do you refer to Jesus as Lord when we know for a fact that God and Lord, definition wise, are not equivalent to the actuall name of God in GODS divinely inspired text?
Because that is the terminology that your language uses to embody the same idea that the Hebrew language imparted? Because it is what you have heard Him called your entire life due to your culture and language? Because that is the knowledge base from which you learned of Him?
Please try to keep up Honey, I'm typing slow!
Why do you refer to Jesus as Lord when we know for a fact that God and Lord, definition wise, are not equivalent to the actuall name of God in GODS divinely inspired text?
Because that is the terminology that your language uses to embody the same idea that the Hebrew language imparted? Because it is what you have heard Him called your entire life due to your culture and language? Because that is the knowledge base from which you learned of Him?
Please try to keep up Honey, I'm typing slow!
Taken
Tony1 being narrow minded - that has to be the understatement of the decade! He can only see the answers out of one solitary lil old book - at least I am broadminded enough to compare solutions in various ways and arrive at a decision on that assumption. Don't take Tony1 seriously Taken - he isn't!
Tony1 being narrow minded - that has to be the understatement of the decade! He can only see the answers out of one solitary lil old book - at least I am broadminded enough to compare solutions in various ways and arrive at a decision on that assumption. Don't take Tony1 seriously Taken - he isn't!
Taken,
The incident was around 10 years ago and involved only myself and, at that time, my 5 year old daughter. The setting was a very pleasant and relaxed country walk on a beautiful English summer day. We lived in a farming community and the trail had us in the middle of a very large fallow field. My mind was idle and relaxed. More details would be required to describe the integrity of the story, but I’ll cut it short and get to the point. I had an image in my mind and I asked her what she was thinking and she described the image I had in my mind. The thought was unrelated to anything about the walk. I couldn’t determine any reason why she and I should share the same apparent random thought at the same time unless we had linked in some way.
Coincidence is of course entirely possible and I cannot rule that out. I spent the rest of that day trying to re-create the experience but with no result. But for the sake of your question let’s assume I had a telepathic experience.
How do I explain such an occurrence? I can’t, I have inadequate knowledge about what occurred. Since I couldn’t re-create the experience then it would be very difficult to establish a truly objective scientific environment for further study. I let the matter drop.
But were we entirely separate as you suggest? Well no. While we were several feet apart we were surrounded by air molecules and bathed in intense electromagnetic radiation from the sun. We weren’t floating around either so gravity was definitely present. On a hill a few miles away was the main TV and radio transmitter for the area, so again massive amounts of more electromagnetic radiation were bombarding us.
Leading edge high-energy physics currently have theories concerning unified field theory. This it is said combines all the main four forces resulting in an energy field that flows through and around everything and is present even in the so-called emptiness of space between the stars and planets.
So could there be combinations of effects of the massive amounts of energy that was surrounding and flowing through us that could result in a stray thought being transmitted? I don’t know but I keep an open mind and hope that science will eventually discover more in this area.
Current research in neuroscience is also showing that the neuron is far more complex and subtle than was originally thought. Each neuron appears to be capable of a vast multitude of signal variations as well as being able to perform some simplistic calculations of its own. And the brain in a relaxed alpha wave state can produce high levels of electrical energy. Could these facts combined with all the other energy surrounding us have produced a thought transmission? Again this is conjecture, but possible useful areas for investigation.
Science is still relatively new and we are making new discoveries every day. It seems likely that we have a lot more to learn. If telepathy is real, although very weak, and if science can isolate and control whatever energy or method is used for such transmissions, then that might transform the way humans communicate. But now we are into science fiction. Let’s see what science can find out in terms of facts before we fantasize any further.
Cris
Yes I don’t mind trying to explore this.
The incident was around 10 years ago and involved only myself and, at that time, my 5 year old daughter. The setting was a very pleasant and relaxed country walk on a beautiful English summer day. We lived in a farming community and the trail had us in the middle of a very large fallow field. My mind was idle and relaxed. More details would be required to describe the integrity of the story, but I’ll cut it short and get to the point. I had an image in my mind and I asked her what she was thinking and she described the image I had in my mind. The thought was unrelated to anything about the walk. I couldn’t determine any reason why she and I should share the same apparent random thought at the same time unless we had linked in some way.
Coincidence is of course entirely possible and I cannot rule that out. I spent the rest of that day trying to re-create the experience but with no result. But for the sake of your question let’s assume I had a telepathic experience.
How do I explain such an occurrence? I can’t, I have inadequate knowledge about what occurred. Since I couldn’t re-create the experience then it would be very difficult to establish a truly objective scientific environment for further study. I let the matter drop.
But were we entirely separate as you suggest? Well no. While we were several feet apart we were surrounded by air molecules and bathed in intense electromagnetic radiation from the sun. We weren’t floating around either so gravity was definitely present. On a hill a few miles away was the main TV and radio transmitter for the area, so again massive amounts of more electromagnetic radiation were bombarding us.
Leading edge high-energy physics currently have theories concerning unified field theory. This it is said combines all the main four forces resulting in an energy field that flows through and around everything and is present even in the so-called emptiness of space between the stars and planets.
So could there be combinations of effects of the massive amounts of energy that was surrounding and flowing through us that could result in a stray thought being transmitted? I don’t know but I keep an open mind and hope that science will eventually discover more in this area.
Current research in neuroscience is also showing that the neuron is far more complex and subtle than was originally thought. Each neuron appears to be capable of a vast multitude of signal variations as well as being able to perform some simplistic calculations of its own. And the brain in a relaxed alpha wave state can produce high levels of electrical energy. Could these facts combined with all the other energy surrounding us have produced a thought transmission? Again this is conjecture, but possible useful areas for investigation.
Science is still relatively new and we are making new discoveries every day. It seems likely that we have a lot more to learn. If telepathy is real, although very weak, and if science can isolate and control whatever energy or method is used for such transmissions, then that might transform the way humans communicate. But now we are into science fiction. Let’s see what science can find out in terms of facts before we fantasize any further.
Cris
"Leading edge high-energy physics currently have theories concerning unified field theory. This it is said combines all the main four forces resulting in an energy field that flows through and around everything and is present even in the so-called emptiness of space between the stars and planets."
Is it then safe to say that you do believe there is in fact a common force in existance and operating upon and with in all creation although not yet totally defined, and you do not so much reject that idea but rather reject the shallow limited persona that man has attempted to assign it in their lack of knowledge of infinate things?
Is it then safe to say that you do believe there is in fact a common force in existance and operating upon and with in all creation although not yet totally defined, and you do not so much reject that idea but rather reject the shallow limited persona that man has attempted to assign it in their lack of knowledge of infinate things?