Evidence for a soul?

Life

I do not care what satan has told you, you are not so far away that God cannot save you. Is God's hand short that He cannot save? Listen, there is a parabel in the Bible about a father and his son. Well the son ran away and went in sin, and one day returned remorsing. But as he approached home from a distance his father would watch every morning for him to return, and his father saw him and began to run. And when they met the father layed on his son's neck with his arms wrapped around him and in much joy that his son was returned. So he celebrated his sons return. This parabel is in the Bible for an example of how God is to us, He is watching and waiting for you to come to Him. Here is how it all begins if you are unsure. First you just believe that Jesus (God) hears you, and pray to Him and repent of your sins, and thank Jesus for dying for you to cleanse you. Then accept Him by verbally praying, "Jesus I accept you as my Lord and saviour, I accept your sacrifice of your life for my sins, and I want to live the rest of eternity in your kingdom of life, and serve you in pure joy the rest of this 'blink of an eye' life, Amen". And from there, go to a church near you, and ask them the rest, they will probably willingly give you a free Bible. I suggest to you a church which baptises completely under the water, and a church which believes in the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus, Amen.

Truth, Jonathan
 
"I do not care what satan has told you, you are not so far away that God cannot save you."

Naw, I think I'm definitly damned. If my banter with Tyler and Adam about hell didn't do it... ;)

In any case, the choice to believe without evidence is irrational. I do not like to be irrational.

So, any evidence?

"Listen, there is a parabel in the Bible about a father and his son."

The prodigal son. It's also a song by the Rolling Stones.
 
Life

John 8:1-12
8:1
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
8:2
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
8:3
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
8:5
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:6
* This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:8
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
8:9
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
8:10
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Truth, Jonathan
 
Life

You see this women, Jesus forgave her because He came not into the world to heal the healed but to heal the sick. To the healed He continues to fead with life abundantly, but to the sick He continues to heal. You he also created, and therefore this applies to you also, for it is the very word which created you, and therefore you are given the gift if you will receive it, Amen. The gift is forgiveness and eternal life, Amen.

Truth, Jonathan
 
Jonathan, you're no fun. :( Most of our Christians start yelling insults by their tenth post, and you're on your 28th.....

And you have yet to damn anyone to hell. Shape up! ;)
 
Haven't read the whole thread.

Just more reference of what I know:

Qur'an (or Hadist, I forgot) says about this (free translation):
"...'And they ask you (Muhammad) about soul', Say 'soul is God's business'".

So, it seems human will never find out the existance, physical properties of the soul/spirit until the end of the human history.
Or perhaps it's a such 'challenge' for us.
 
Peace to everybody

First I must do apologize for my poor level of english.

I'm new in these fora and I'm a little concerned about some misunderstanding about science is and suposes. Science is not a religion and needs logical or empirical arguments in order to make a sentence; not this about religion: you need to do the faith desire to believe religious dogmas; so it's particulary inadequate to opose faith versus reason.
Another concerning thing is the following statement: "This scientist are not agree with me, ergo he is not a real sicentist". Dr. Sam Parnia never said "yes, the soul exist" but "when a patient is in fact in brain death and can continue thinking, it points to some kind of supervivance". This is not a crime nor a drama, it's only to respect the facts. It's specially bad for the progres of the sicence to negate all things that I cannot explain and it aproximates science to religion. One of the worst mistakes of the philosophy (in the logical positivism etape) was to believe that only exists the things taht we can observe or measure, because
1) It avoids the progress of the human knowledge cause it avoid a real world that exists independently of us which must serve us to falsate our hipothesys.
2) It mistifies the science because it create more interrogants than responses in each new theory, inyterrogants that we cannot respond yet: neither observe nor measure.
3) It forgets (and that's unforgivable) that sicencie gives NOT the reality but a model. Since the jonian filosofers the science have experimented a lot of dramatic changes in each branch. The hipotetical caracter of the science (Popper) is something that we can't forget.
4) It's impossible, from a logical point of view, quantificate or observe cosmological singularities or, more down to the earth, how many squirrels are now existing now in Britain? Does these squirrels exists?
5) My observation or measurament of the reality is allways subjected to error.
6) "Only exists what I can observe or measure" are not a medition nor a fact, so is ontologically nonsense and defends some speculative metaphysics who identifies natural sicencies description of the world with world (The real is rational, the rational is real. Hegel). But this is only a pragmatic attitude; when it's believed as true, it becomes a dogma.
Does the soul exists or not? It's possible identificate brain and mind? Actually, these are not scientific questions, because we don't have any definitive proof (probably we never get it) and we need a critical point of view in order to learnt about any frontier of human knowledge in the frontiers of phylosophy and science.
 
TO GENOCIDER, WHO WROTE: (not the whole of his message)

WHEN I READ YOUR POSTING (SEE BELOW), I WAS INTRIGUED.

Would you please tell me your favorite philosopher(s), and where you get your arguement below? I am not asking to argue; I ask only because I am interested. So, will you kindly tell me from whence these thoughts came. Do not be concerned about your English; if I cannot decipher what you say, I will ask you for help, okay. Thank you very much for your time, PMT

QUOTES: Science is not a religion and needs logical or empirical arguments in order to make a sentence; not this about religion: you need to do the faith desire to believe religious dogmas; so it's particulary inadequate to opose faith versus reason.

It's specially bad for the progres of the sicence to negate all things that I cannot explain and it aproximates science to religion. One of the worst mistakes of the philosophy (in the logical positivism etape) was to believe that only exists the things taht we can observe or measure, because
1) It avoids the progress of the human knowledge cause it avoid a real world that exists independently of us which must serve us to falsate our hipothesys.
2) It mistifies the science because it create more interrogants than responses in each new theory, inyterrogants that we cannot respond yet: neither observe nor measure.
3) It forgets (and that's unforgivable) that sicencie gives NOT the reality but a model. Since the jonian filosofers the science have experimented a lot of dramatic changes in each branch. The hipotetical caracter of the science (Popper) is something that we can't forget.
4) It's impossible, from a logical point of view, quantificate or observe cosmological singularities or, more down to the earth, how many squirrels are now existing now in Britain? Does these squirrels exists?
5) My observation or measurament of the reality is allways subjected to error.
6) "Only exists what I can observe or measure" are not a medition nor a fact, so is ontologically nonsense and defends some speculative metaphysics who identifies natural sicencies description of the world with world (The real is rational, the rational is real. Hegel). But this is only a pragmatic attitude; when it's believed as true, it becomes a dogma.
Does the soul exists or not? It's possible identificate brain and mind? Actually, these are not scientific questions, because we don't have any definitive proof (probably we never get it) and we need a critical point of view in order to learnt about any frontier of human knowledge in the frontiers of phylosophy and science.
02-23-03, 10:51 AM
 
It's not very easy for me aim to a bunch of philosophers who defends what I'm trying to say in the messagge. Probably not using english language as well as it needs, I tried to expose a few arguments and I'm not sure if you are interested in only one of them. Anyway: I'm not a very good phylosopher to think about these questions by myself! So these are the philosophers who I like best: Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Russell, Husserl, Strawson.
 
TO GENOCIDER: That is quite a list. :) You referred to Hegel, so you must read or have read much philosophy. No, I was not asking for those who backed what you said. I need no backing. It makes sense to me if I am understanding it correctly. Spinoza is my favorite. When I asked where you got your arguement, I was not clear. I apologize for that. I just wanted to know a little about what you read. You make such a good point. Are you scientist by any chance? Anyway, thank you for responding. I copied and stored your first message, for further thought. Thank you again. PMT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top