For the atheists

I disagree that it proves that. The simple fact is is that there is no way to prove it one way or the other because there is no scientific test that can be performed to show its presence or abscence. It can only be known throught direct experience.

I would question the knowledge of the person doing the experiencing - how do they know they were dead at the time? Further to which the same is true of the doctors. Of course the very fact that these people remember these things is a sign that the hippocampus was still functional. If the brain was ultimately dead, these people wouldn't remember the event, (unless a pixie inserted the memories once they were alive again).

Once the hippocampus is damaged even alive people have issues storing memories, why make the completely unfounded assumption that the dead have no problem doing the same?
 
I would question the knowledge of the person doing the experiencing - how do they know they were dead at the time? Further to which the same is true of the doctors.
Which is why it is impossible to prove either way. Of course there is still the issue of self-evidence for the experiencer.

Of course the very fact that these people remember these things is a sign that the hippocampus was still functional.
That to me seems like an assumption.
If the brain was ultimately dead, these people wouldn't remember the event, (unless a pixie inserted the memories once they were alive again).

Once the hippocampus is damaged even alive people have issues storing memories, why make the completely unfounded assumption that the dead have no problem doing the same?
BUt, I still haven't heard a good explanation as to why these experiences are occuring at all if it is a biological process or some kind of epiphenomenon. From what I gather from sceptics it has something to do with the brain malfunctioning. But, apparently the hippocampus isn't malfunctioning since memories are stored.
-----------------------------------------------------
We all seem to agree these experiences do occur. The question is whether they are real or some kind of illusion. If they are an illusion what physical processes are causing them to occur? How did they get selected for by evolution? Why is there a consistency to the experiences? If they are merely biological processes then that means sceptics should be just as likely to have them as non-sceptics (which actually is the case as far as I can tell), but the question is that why does everyone that has them, sceptics included, find them so convincing?
 
Of course there is still the issue of self-evidence for the experiencer.

This is ultimately no more useful than a guy hallucinating because of magic mushrooms telling you that what he saw was not a hallucination. While he is entitled to believe so, it doesn't help.

That to me seems like an assumption.

Not an assumption. The fact that these people remember the event must point at some level of functioning within certain parts of the brain - (again, unless one is to assert that magic was involved).

BUt, I still haven't heard a good explanation as to why these experiences are occuring at all if it is a biological process or some kind of epiphenomenon. From what I gather from sceptics it has something to do with the brain malfunctioning. But, apparently the hippocampus isn't malfunctioning since memories are stored.

Interesting New Scientist article

This explains quite a few things, including that even people that have merely fainted and are under no danger of dying can have NDE's.

[edit] Now, this last bit is very interesting. There are people that assert that there exists a heaven and souls and all kinds of similar magical things and these assertions stipulate that upon death ones soul makes its way to this heaven, (or hell). This is competely negated the second someone has an NDE at a time where there is absolutely no threat of death. So what invariably happens is those baselss claims then get supported by more baselss claims which then get supported by more baseless claims and so on - and the claimant finds himself eventually at the bottom of a very larg, inescapable pit. This is when they ignore you and pretend they never spoke to you. Sure, NDE's might be a sign of heaven or pixies, or magical wonderful aliens from the planet splurg - but let's do ourselves a favour and look at what we can first heh and then go from there. All evidence would suggest that NDE's, OOBE's and the like are activites of the brain - not of martians, gods or vampires. If you want to assert one of the former that's fine, but expect serious criticism.
 
Last edited:
Enterprise-D,

You believe television was invented to destroy religion?

Where did I say that?
And how is it possible to destroy religion?

I completely agree with Grover...organized religion needs to be brought to a close for us to advance as a species. We must realise that ethics are borne of ourselves; there is no need to promise fire and brimstone in order to command decency.

You can close organised religion all you like, but you cannot stop "religion", only transform it.

Jan...with regards to this 72 virgins rubbish.

Why is it rubbish?

Do you see any "superior" being commanding lackies to murder, and promising sexual gratification as a reward...as one whose morals are exemplar?

By superior being, I take it you mean God.
So there are heavenly planets where sexual gratification is king, and if one has such desire in his heart, and is qualified, is reincarnated to such an abode, I don't see anything immoral about that. :)

Jan.
 
grover,

Yes, the only people I know of who kill innocent people are religous zealots.

Define religious zealot.

Most of the rest of the time when an innocent person is killed is done by a clinically insane person. The difference is negligible.

There is no difference, insanity is the reason.

Of course not but if someone moves in next door to me claims that an invisible man in the sky wants them to kill and then they are going to be rewarded with 72 virgins you better believe some red flags are going off in my brain in regards to this persons sanity.

But the red flags would stay put, if the person said he killed people for sexual gratification, and justifies his vice by asserting there is no right or wrong, morals are relative.

Ever listen to what terrorists say - they claim they are explicitly killing for the glory of God.

I've never heard that. Where did you hear that?

So anyone can just claim any book as a reason to do something? Can I declare Hitler a prophet of God and declare Mein Kampf scripture?

Technically, yes, but it wouldn't last.

Yes, it is. Scripture is not a good reason. These various holy books make incompatible claims so they all can't be the inerrant word of God. If they all they are is collections of parables that contain "truths" they can't be what they claim to be - the "inerrant word of god." Sorry, but if you are going to by into the word of God hypothesis you have to pick one as correct and the others as lies because they can't all be right.

A demonstration of "incompatible claims" is what's needed here.

Yes, absolutely.

Why should they be classed as murderers?

They do. If you don't take advantae of this you actually don't believe it, which means you are not devout.

So being a devout muslim, means you disobey the object of devotion?
Don't you find that contradictory?

Would you rather be stuck on an elevator with a rational person or an irrational person?

I would prefer a rational person, who has good control of his/her irrational nature.

Yes, as a matter of fact. How many terrorsists are engineers or doctors?

How many engineers and doctors don't have nice incomes?

So your defense of religious zealots is its okay because psychopaths do it too?

That response has nothing to do with my question.

The people who did it explicitly said so.

Can you provide a link?

That's one use of the word faith. Its not really the meaning we're discussing though.

What meaning are we discussing?

Sure what you say has relevance. But I'm going to call a spade a spade and say what I see you doing is defending murder in the name of God.

By the same token I can say, what I see you doing is defending murder without the name of God.

That is precisley the problem. Think about it this way - beliefs have consequences, if I think it is okay to kill people, I am much more likely to kill people.

Very true. And if you think it is sinful to kill or harm people because it goes against the desire of Allah, you are less likely to kill people. So as you said, beliefs have consequences.

You are defending people who think it is not only okay, but one of the best things a person can do.

No. You're defending people who think it is okay to kill without doing it in the name of religion. I am merely trying to show you that such killing is exclusive to the insane.

They think that God loves them killing so much that he is going to reward them with 72 virgins. How on earth can you defend this belief system?

From a religious perspective, this type of belief is a contradictory, and you're analysis of my position appears to bear the same hallmarks.

Mine came with an off switch.

Why bother to have one if you're going keep it turned off.

Jan.
 
I disagree that it proves that. The simple fact is is that there is no way to prove it one way or the other because there is no scientific test that can be performed to show its presence or abscence. It can only be known throught direct experience.

But it does not disprove it either. Point being that there are other explanations other than "soul" that can cast reasonable doubt.


What if there were no blood in the brain. Would one expect conscious experience then?

I'm not a medical expert or a neurosurgeon...but I'd have to say, if there's no blood in the brain, after a few mins there'd be no conscious experience. IMO.
 
Enterprise-D,
Where did I say that?

You did not say it in exactly these words. However, you stated that Harris and Dawkins agenda is:
to stop the process of belief regardless of action,

then you go on to state:
and their is a plethora of scientific technology, both available, and not yet available, waiting in the wings to advance this cause.

Now in the context of the religion forum, and listening to the reactions to Harris and Dawkins, I have inferred that you think these goodly men want to destroy religion, and there are pieces of ooga-booga technology waiting to attack all ye believers.

You can hide your opinion in flowery language all you wish, I will discern it.

And how is it possible to destroy religion?

Not my problem.


You can close organised religion all you like, but you cannot stop "religion", only transform it.

Arguable, but I can see this happening. I have no faith in humanity, and you're helping...


Why is it rubbish?

As Lewis Black said "How is it possible to find that many virgins in heaven...when I can't even find one on EARTH???" :D


By superior being, I take it you mean God.

By superior being, I mean any "superior being" deity that theists have themselves defined and worshipped in any time frame, and killed in the name of.

So there are heavenly planets where sexual gratification is king, and if one has such desire in his heart, and is qualified, is reincarnated to such an abode, I don't see anything immoral about that. :)

Jan.

You are the biggest flip-flop artist I have ever seen, save perhaps LG.

1. My question was not the sexual gratification...it was: is it moral for a super being to bribe inferior beings to murder in exchange for sexual gratification?

2. In a number of other threads you have consistently brought up your distaste of your area youth involving themselves in (among other things) sexual gratification. In this light, you should find a fictional planet such as you describe above quite unpalatable, and immoral. Either that, or stop complaining about the people who are having sex on your block.
 
Enterprise-D,

Now in the context of the religion forum, and listening to the reactions to Harris and Dawkins, I have inferred that you think these goodly men want to destroy religion, and there are pieces of ooga-booga technology waiting to attack all ye believers.

Then you misunderstand my points. I said these people wish to stop the process of belief, regardless of the actions. These men (Dawkins in particular) have been granted use of television to air their beliefs, without anyone to question them. The telly is the no.1 mass indoctrinator, as proved by the cost of air time. It good technology turned ooga-booga.

You can hide your opinion in flowery language all you wish, I will discern it.

My language is very straight, not flowery in the slightest. Perhaps you cannot handle the directness, and proudly denounce it as "flowery" in an attempt to side-step it.

Arguable, but I can see this happening. I have no faith in humanity, and you're helping...

Your lack of faith appears to need effort, and help. Why would someone purposely choose not to have faith in his fellow man, to such a degree that it requires effort?

As Lewis Black said "How is it possible to find that many virgins in heaven...when I can't even find one on EARTH???" :D

Very amusing.
But pointless.

By superior being, I mean any "superior being" deity that theists have themselves defined and worshipped in any time frame, and killed in the name of.

Then that puts your whole position in a different light, meaning you only care to discuss religious institutes, not religion.

1. My question was not the sexual gratification...it was: is it moral for a super being to bribe inferior beings to murder in exchange for sexual gratification?

Before we go any further on this, i would like you to explain what you mean by "super being".

2. In a number of other threads you have consistently brought up your distaste of your area youth involving themselves in (among other things) sexual gratification. In this light, you should find a fictional planet such as you describe above quite unpalatable, and immoral. Either that, or stop complaining about the people who are having sex on your block.

If it were only my distaste i wouldn't bring it up. But the truth of the matter is that the negative side of youth culture is spiraling out of control.

I could find such a planet unpalatable, but i would have no reason to see it as immoral.
Why do you think I would?

Jan.
 
This explains quite a few things, including that even people that have merely fainted and are under no danger of dying can have NDE's.
I'd like to read a description about one of these NDEs that people get from fainting. I'd just be curous how closely they match up to someone that died.

Sure, NDE's might be a sign of heaven or pixies, or magical wonderful aliens from the planet splurg - but let's do ourselves a favour and look at what we can first heh and then go from there.
Agree.

Disagree.
evidence would suggest that NDE's, OOBE's and the like are activites of the brain
No, people are capable of coming up with hypothesis that could account for it. As far as I know there is as of yet no testable hypotheses, and therefore no actual scientific evidence(which requires a test that supports the hypothesis).
- not of martians, gods or vampires. If you want to assert one of the former that's fine, but expect serious criticism.
Of course I expect serious criticism. The primary difference I see between people that are willing to consider NDEs as possible and those that consider them as completely and utterly out of the question is that the latter group considers it a foregone conclusion that consciousness is material. There is nothing from looking the physical properties of a brain that would lead one to believe that it produces conscious experience. If consciousness is simply a physical phenomenon like other physical phenomeon why is it not subject to scientific scrutiny in the same way other physical phenomenon are. There is no more actual science supporting materialistic theories of consciousness then there is for intellignet design. If you want to act like its a foregone conclusion that consciousness is simply matter that's fine, but expect some serious criticism.
 
But it does not disprove it either. Point being that there are other explanations other than "soul" that can cast reasonable doubt.
What I'm saying is that the same arguments one can make about soul one can make about consciousness (i.e., you can't scientifically detect it). Of course we can reasonably cast doubt on soul, but the simple fact of the matter is if you die and are still conscious then you have self-evidence. Point being just because we can't provide physcial evidence of soul is not a good reason for stating it doesn't exist, because we can't find physical evidence of consciousness yet know it exists.

I'm not a medical expert or a neurosurgeon...but I'd have to say, if there's no blood in the brain, after a few mins there'd be no conscious experience. IMO.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
 
But the red flags would stay put, if the person said he killed people for sexual gratification, and justifies his vice by asserting there is no right or wrong, morals are relative.
What we are discussing is why preposterous and dangerous ideas get a free pass if they fall under the cateogry faith.


A demonstration of "incompatible claims" is what's needed here.
Jews are promised Israel by their holy book. Muslims have a duty to wage Jihad by their Holy Book.

By the same token I can say, what I see you doing is defending murder without the name of God.
Where have I?


No. You're defending people who think it is okay to kill without doing it in the name of religion.
Where have I defended it.

I am merely trying to show you that such killing is exclusive to the insane.
And I am showing why literal interpretation of scripture is insanity.

From a religious perspective, this type of belief is a contradictory,
No it isn't. They are following scripture aren't they?

Why bother to have one if you're going keep it turned off.
No Jan, the point is I don't have to be subjugated by anything I don't want to with my TV. I can turn it off.
 
Enterprise-D,
Then you misunderstand my points. I said these people wish to stop the process of belief, regardless of the actions. These men (Dawkins in particular) have been granted use of television to air their beliefs, without anyone to question them. The telly is the no.1 mass indoctrinator, as proved by the cost of air time. It good technology turned ooga-booga.

Inaccurate. They wish to stop granting religious belief the pedestal that it does not deserve. Belief is a free choice, but imposing it on others and expecting to be unchallenged is sanctimonious and frankly rude.

TV is the #1 mass indoctrinator? I beg to differ, organized religion, esp. Christianity is. 84% of the world follows some sort of theism, TV doesn't even reach that many.


My language is very straight, not flowery in the slightest. Perhaps you cannot handle the directness, and proudly denounce it as "flowery" in an attempt to side-step it.

LOL touche and good parry! :)


Your lack of faith appears to need effort, and help. Why would someone purposely choose not to have faith in his fellow man, to such a degree that it requires effort?

Huh?


Very amusing.
But pointless.

True, but sometimes we've gotta take a break right? Variety, spice and all that.

Then that puts your whole position in a different light, meaning you only care to discuss religious institutes, not religion.

This is semantics. Religion is borne entirely of humanity's inventions...deities.

Before we go any further on this, i would like you to explain what you mean by "super being".

Superior...typo.

If it were only my distaste i wouldn't bring it up. But the truth of the matter is that the negative side of youth culture is spiraling out of control.

That is your opinion...and sort of not relevant to this thread anyway, I only brought it up as comparison.

I could find such a planet unpalatable, but i would have no reason to see it as immoral.
Why do you think I would?
Jan.

In any event, you're still not answering my question. My question has nothing to do directly with the end result (the Pleasure Planet)...let's not focus on that as priority.

Do you think that it is moral for a superior being to bribe lesser beings to murder in its name, in exchange for 72 virgins (which I interpret to be sexual gratification)?
 
grover,

What we are discussing is why preposterous and dangerous ideas get a free pass if they fall under the cateogry faith.

How is believing in God a dangerous idea, outside of the believer being a dangerous person?
To think that belief in God is a dangerous idea, while ignoring real dangerous ideas, that occur on every level, everyday, almost everywhere, snowballing at speedy rate, is a dangerous idea. It smacks of a relentless conviction to stop belief in God, by any means necessary.

Jews are promised Israel by their holy book. Muslims have a duty to wage Jihad by their Holy Book.

???

g said:
No. You're defending people who think it is okay to kill without doing it in the name of religion.

Where have I?

You can work it out via your own logic.

And I am showing why literal interpretation of scripture is insanity.

This is my point, you haven't, neither did Harris, and neither does Dawkins. I've yet to meet an atheist who is prepared to. I begining to think you/they daren't. :)

g said:
They think that God loves them killing so much that he is going to reward them with 72 virgins. How on earth can you defend this belief system?

j said:
From a religious perspective, this type of belief is a contradictory, and you're analysis of my position appears to bear the same hallmarks.

No it isn't. They are following scripture aren't they?

Not if their intention is to purposely harm an innocent individual, or that they do it for the reward of heaven.

No Jan, the point is I don't have to be subjugated by anything I don't want to with my TV. I can turn it off.

TV. doesn't affect JUST you.

Jan.
 
What I'm saying is that the same arguments one can make about soul one can make about consciousness (i.e., you can't scientifically detect it). Of course we can reasonably cast doubt on soul, but the simple fact of the matter is if you die and are still conscious then you have self-evidence. Point being just because we can't provide physcial evidence of soul is not a good reason for stating it doesn't exist, because we can't find physical evidence of consciousness yet know it exists.

Consciousness after death, and I mean rigor mortis kind of death, can provide evidence of phenomena other than the existence of a soul.


Riiiight...and I'm supposed to just believe that these folk interacted with long dead relatives? Just on their say so? Because the website exists? Same problem here grover, as what you're arguing with Jan...this is merely a story with no evidence.


(Oh...and that was my quote not SL's :) )
 
How is believing in God a dangerous idea, outside of the believer being a dangerous person?
To think that belief in God is a dangerous idea, while ignoring real dangerous ideas, that occur on every level, everyday, almost everywhere, snowballing at speedy rate, is a dangerous idea. It smacks of a relentless conviction to stop belief in God, by any means necessary.
Um Jan, I'm not try to say belief in God should be stopped (and frankly I can't possibly see how anyone can think that if they've read a random sampling of my posts). What I am saying is that peoples religous beliefs should be allowed to be questioned and if people can't defend their beliefs in rational terms we should regard those beliefs as we regard other claims that aren't rational and have no evidence: delusion.

What don't you get. The Jews weren't promised Israle by a holy book or Muslims don't have a duty of Jihad against infidels?

You can work it out via your own logic.
No, I said show me where I made the claim you claim I made.


This is my point, you haven't, neither did Harris, and neither does Dawkins. I've yet to meet an atheist who is prepared to. I begining to think you/they daren't. :)
The world was not created in six days, to believe it was is insanity. To believe God impregnated a woman and then killed the baby to save the world? (by the way, Christians bleive that you have to believe this to get into heaven, so if you are Jewish or Muslim, you are going to Hell. Another example of incompatible claims).

TV. doesn't affect JUST you.
I live in the US where at any one time someone can turn the TV on and find multile religous programs, not including primetime shows like "touched by an angel." So don't pretend like TV is some kind of threat against belief in God.

[/QUOTE]
 
Riiiight...and I'm supposed to just believe that these folk interacted with long dead relatives? Just on their say so?
No, my point is that if it happened to you personally you would believe it. The exact same problems one has with scientifically proving consciousness is the same problem with claims of soul. They rely upon self-evidence and the abscence of evidence (in the way we usually use that term) is inappropriate to ask for, and therefore the abscence of said evidence proves nothing.

Because the website exists? Same problem here grover, as what you're arguing with Jan...this is merely a story with no evidence.
No, it isn't. Jan is claiming that scripture is a good means of determining truth. I am claiming that if you experienced consciousness after death that would constitute self-evidence for you (just as consciousness itself is self-evidence for you). And just because someone has no means of verifying consciousness after death for other people does not mean it doesn't occur, because as we all know consciousness itself is impossible to prove. Its a rational argument, what dont you get?
 
I'd like to read a description about one of these NDEs that people get from fainting. I'd just be curous how closely they match up to someone that died.

Nderf (http://www.nderf.org/) has around 1000 NDE accounts, (written by the claimants) some of which include people that state they had NDE's after merely fainting and being under no threat of losing their life. It's a starting point if nothing else.

Disagree.

Fine, so what evidence exactly suggests heavenly realms etc?

people are capable of coming up with hypothesis that could account for it. As far as I know there is as of yet no testable hypotheses, and therefore no actual scientific evidence(which requires a test that supports the hypothesis).

This is incorrect as I have shown a few times now on this thread. Tests have been conducted to reproduce some of the claimed occurrences of NDE's in perfectly healthy volunteers by deliberately scrambling certain senses. Further than that you have tests that show that oxygen starvation cause 'tunnel' experiences:

"Oxygen starvation can cause both tunnel and darkness experiences. The reason for this lies in the structure and functioning of the blood supply of the retina. The macula is the optical center of the retina; it has the greatest blood supply, while the flow of blood to the retina decreases with distance from the macula according to the inverse square law. Yet the oxygen consumption of each part of the retina is much the same, so oxygen starvation will cause failure of peripheral vision before causing total visual failure. Indeed, experiments with oxygen starvation in human volunteers prove this fact. This is why tunnel experiences occur only in NDEs caused by oxygen starvation, while toxins and poisons cause a “pit experience” before causing failure of vision. So oxygen starvation explains why not everyone has a tunnel experience during an NDE. Oxygen starvation also explains why the tunnel experience is not a true component of the NDE, but is instead a manifestation of the cause of the NDE (Greyson 1983). "

It is this same thing, (oxygen starvation), that causes the sense of motion or flying:

"Oxygen starvation is a common cause of brain malfunction, as well as the cause of the terminal loss of consciousness of more than nine in ten dying persons (Murray 1997). And oxygen starvation causes malfunction of muscle spindles, the sense organs that provide the brain with most of its information about body position and movement. Muscle spindles are special muscle structures sandwiched between the fibers of every muscle. There is about one muscle spindle per 1,000 ordinary muscle fibers. Muscle spindles are both sense organs and muscle fibers, sensing and transmitting to the brain sensations of weight, of movement, of falling, of floating, and of flying. Moreover, the tensing and relaxing of muscle spindles relative to the surrounding muscle fibers also generates similar sensations.
Severe oxygen starvation causes convulsions. Muscle spindles sense these movements and transmit the sensations to the brain."

(DR G M Woerlee)

There are many tests that show that NDE's are completely brain related, and yet people would rather ignore the science in preference of the emotional appeal of mystical mumbo jumbo.

I would go on to say that if NDE's only occurred to people that had died then it would be vastly more interesting. That it happens to healthy volunteers, those that have fainted and those that have drunk too many alcopops somewhat negates the value of the claims.

There is nothing from looking the physical properties of a brain that would lead one to believe that it produces conscious experience. If consciousness is simply a physical phenomenon like other physical phenomeon why is it not subject to scientific scrutiny in the same way other physical phenomenon are.

I would beg to differ. http://consc.net/online3.html is just a starting point, but it should show that it is subject to intense scientific scrutiny.
 
No, my point is that if it happened to you personally you would believe it. The exact same problems one has with scientifically proving consciousness is the same problem with claims of soul. They rely upon self-evidence and the abscence of evidence (in the way we usually use that term) is inappropriate to ask for, and therefore the abscence of said evidence proves nothing.

I do understand what you're saying, you know. However, conclusions after the NDE are an interpretation. Not necessarily the truth. This experience as it were may prompt the individual to believe in a soul...whereas my experience would lead me to believe a multiple of factoids such as:

- hearing is the last thing (external sense) to go after death, so my brain recorded everything I heard til the ears stopped processing noise
- The OBE would be my own reconstruction of what I heard, much like a dream. It would still be a unique experience to me, since no dream has ever matched those parameters...even the popular flying dream.
- The brain continues to be conscious even without external stimuli...which seems logical to me anyway; if the brain receives oxygen, there's no reason it'd stop fuctioning, even if your eyes, tongue, nose and limbs stop transmitting stimuli.


No, it isn't. Jan is claiming that scripture is a good means of determining truth.

Good point...I apologize profusely! :cool:

I am claiming that if you experienced consciousness after death that would constitute self-evidence for you (just as consciousness itself is self-evidence for you). And just because someone has no means of verifying consciousness after death for other people does not mean it doesn't occur, because as we all know consciousness itself is impossible to prove. Its a rational argument, what dont you get?

Honestly, and I'll say this openly now...my problem is if you liken a soul to consciousness, it gives theists fodder for the cannon. They'll all jump up and say "if consciousness can exist, a soul exists. Therefore God exists".

Consciousness is a state (such as a light bulb being "on"...note I didn't say emitting light..."on"), and the soul is an amorphous entity as described by popular religion. As such, consciousness isn't "impossible to prove" insofar as it requires no proof as an axiom.

"A bulb is on...how do we know this? I can see its light"
"A human is conscious...how do we know this? He reacts, breathes, articulates, moves etc"
"A human has a soul...how do we know this? err...um..."

Taking the bulb analogy further...if we were to see the 'emission' of a soul (light) from a conscious (on) human...then you have a comparison, a parallel. The soul would then be self evident.
 
Back
Top