If there is a soul what does it do in an afterlife

[Crunchy Cat]

(1)Let me get this straight.......your saying you don't understand what evidence is - in relation to the soul?

I was saying that no evidence of a soul's existence has been given to date and a problem might be a lack of understanding of what evidence means (on the claimer's end).

(2)We aren't talking about computers or cars or candy bars for that mater....of course you could show me those because they are "tangible" items.
How about the non-tangible.

(3)All you can show me for the existence of those non-tangible items is the effect they have on other things that are tangible.
Can you shown me Love?.....Kindness?.......Joy?
Sell me a nickle's worth if you can.
Put it in a bottle so I can see it....
I want proof

An instance of Kindness and Love can be demonstrated with alturuistic and affectionate behavior.

An instance of the emotional state of love, joy, or any other emotion can be demonstrated by artificially stimulating the brains of mammals capable of experiencing these emotions. Here's an example of doing so with cats:

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/bodynervousadvanced/825

(4)Same with the soul.
Are you going to say that Love does not exist ?
Of course your not.
But you seriously want to continue this line of reasoning?
You can't prove Love exists or doesn't exist, but you want me to prove there is a soul....ok.
Intangible forces like love can only be observed by the effect they have on the tangible.

Instances of emotion's can be demonstrated by stimulating the brain and / or observing behavior.

You take that for proof all the time.
Don't astronomers see the effects of planetary bodies on other celestial objects long before they actually see the planetary bodies themselves.
Thats how they know where to focus their telescopes to look for a new planet.

Thats all the proof of the existence of the soul I'm going to give you here.
Actually, just between us now...I already gave you the answer in my previous two posts.
The proof of the soul is the effects it has on you in this dimension.

Don't try to tell anyone though once you see it, because ...let me tell you a little secret.
No one but a "soul" will believe you.

"Catch my soul, catch the very light.
Hide the moment from my eager eye.
Though you've seen them, please don't tell a soul.
What you can't see, can't be very whole."

If I was to use the example Jesus laid out for me to follow in the scriptures...
I wouldn't answer you at all, but ask you another question.

He was intentionally evasive when people asked him obstinate questions.
If you think about it I could just be doing that same thing to you.....but I'm not entirely, because I'm not entirly sure you really don't want to know.

And they spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:
The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?
And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?
But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.
And they answered, that they could not tell whence [it was].
And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

You're defining sentience as an effect and claiming (absolute truth) the cause to be a 'soul'. If humans lacked the knowledge we have today, then at best a 'soul' would be hypothetical... but most likely it would be pure speculation. With the knowedge we have today, there is plenty of supportive evidence that the brain is the cause of sentience. There is no contradictive evidence and no supporting evidence even remotely suggesting some nebulous 'soul' exists. Sorry, but you haven't provided evidence of anything except human imagination and desire.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The effects of gravity are known. Where does gravity reside, if it is known to exist?

Nobody knows. We have alot of theories whose foundation is objective evidence. Those theories are either untested or untestable at present. Eventually they will become testable and the correct theory (assuming one of them is correct) gets the glory .

Sentience and consciousness are 'effects' of the soul. That is the crux of the matter, "What is a soul?".

Let's say that we didn't have the knowledge that we do today about human physiology. We can clearly see that sentience/consciousness exists and we can define it as an effect. So what's the cause? An answer of a 'Soul' would be hypothetical at best and most likely just pure speculation and yet you would be claiming that a 'soul' objectively exists. Well human knowledge has increased dramatically since any day like the one I described and there is plenty of supportive evidence that the cause of sentience/consciousness is the brain. There is no contradictory evidence to this and there is no supportive evidence that a 'soul' exists. You can't even get it to a hypothetical state... let alone an objective conclusion. Reality simply doesn't agree with you.

 

[Sauna]

TheVisitor,

Seriously, honestly, I have no desire of any sort to see God.

Long since I had already concluded that to be so shy to reveal herself the very vision of God would be unimaginably repulsive, ugly beyond belief, so while it may be possible to survive the shock of that, in terms of privacy, with all due respect, I would rather not inflict the embarassment, not at least until I manage to achieve a commensurate sense of the same, somewhere nearer to decrepit necropsy.

I am agreed though on this business of testing, intrigued by the paradox of religion as the opium of the people contrasted with Jesus the warrior, the shameless lover of enemies and the suffering thus to be inflicted. What a merry tale, so much more of a brave sport as compared to being spoon fed by science, but what a perilously painful example to emulate!

For as far back as I recall there was this sense, I would call it a resentment, of being the rat in the maze, observed as if to test if I was yet to find the way out, so if you you happen to meet with the said observer upstairs, please inform that I was not best pleased with that uncomfortable combination of a Worldy Father I might rather have done without, while the Heavenly Father was for reasons best known to herself, content to leave me to it like some sort of stray dog in a temporary kennel.

Why then to be so forsaken while they know not what they do?

If God herself gets to be tested every now and then it serves her right, and I am not even sure if either of us passed or not.

 

[rjr6]

Crunchy Cat
The soul exists without the brain. You say reality dosen't bear out the existence of a Soul. Your definition of what does not exist is not clear to me.

 

[VitalOne]

TheVisitor,

I have trouble knowing how to respond to your notions. It's like adding another chapter to the Lord of the Rings where any fantasy can be considered.

I guess this also sums up my 6 years here. With all the bizarre notions you have and LG, and C7, and Vital, Adstar, sam, and Leo, etc. - it's all total creative fiction. If I ever had thoughts that religion might have something then that is certainly no longer the case. I guess I should thank all the theists here these past few years for cementing my atheism far more deeply than I could have ever done without you.

Typical atheist, even though neurologists don't even know what consciousness is, there is a 0% chance of a soul existing

I think the problem might be that it's not understood what evidence is. Let me explain this by example. If I make a claim that 'computers exist', I can provide evidence for my claim by producing an instance of a computer. This is important because producing an instance of something means that reality is verifying the claim.

Now, take a 'Soul' for example. Can you produce an instance of it?

The problem really is that a computer has an easily verifiable physical existence, where as the soul-mind does not. Eventually when science discovers the energy the mind is made of, then the soul-mind will be easily verified, when this happens, many other things will be verified.

 

[Sauna]

Typical atheist, even though neurologists don't even know what consciousness is, there is a 0% chance of a soul existing

The anology fails to fit.

I know well enough the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, but the difference between soul and unsoul?

The problem really is that a computer has an easily verifiable physical existence, where as the soul-mind does not. Eventually when science discovers the energy the mind is made of, then the soul-mind will be easily verified, when this happens, many other things will be verified.

That is convenient, reminiscent of religion more than science, to know the result before the test.

What if the mind makes the energy?

Your search will then be in vain.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat
The soul exists without the brain.

Then provide evidence that a 'soul' exists.

You say reality dosen't bear out the existence of a Soul.

Reality supports the 'source' of sentience/consciousness being the brain and nothing else at present... unless you have objective evidence of something else.

Your definition of what does not exist is not clear to me.

Your claim of 'soul'.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The problem really is that a computer has an easily verifiable physical existence, where as the soul-mind does not. Eventually when science discovers the energy the mind is made of, then the soul-mind will be easily verified, when this happens, many other things will be verified.

While I seem to lack the objective phrophesizing skills required to make such an assertion I will speculate that it will eventually be proven that consciousness/sentience is a function of the brain.

If however, my speculation is incorrect then I can certainly live with that. What about you? You have already made a claim of objective truth. If you are wrong then you effectively become a liar.

 

[VitalOne]

While I seem to lack the objective phrophesizing skills required to make such an assertion I will speculate that it will eventually be proven that consciousness/sentience is a function of the brain.

If however, my speculation is incorrect then I can certainly live with that. What about you? You have already made a claim of objective truth. If you are wrong then you effectively become a liar.

But, I'm certain that I'm not wrong, and on the contrary atheists will have to face that there is an afterlife, and religion was right all along, which many atheists can't live with. The energy, when discovered (which it has already been by past scientists) will change science forever, it will be bigger than the QM revolution, as everything without is incomplete and lacking (from biology to cosmology).

It'll probably take a few hundred years though, maybe around the year 2400 or something.

 

[Sarkus]

The energy, when discovered (which it has already been by past scientists)....

Exsqueeze me??!!?

Please - POST THE EVIDENCE!!!

 

[VitalOne]

Exsqueeze me??!!?

Please - POST THE EVIDENCE!!!

Sure, just look up Nikola Tesla's ether theories, torsion fields (Einstein-Cartan-theory, Nachalov, Parkhomov, Sokolov), Wilhelm Reich's orgone energy, Thomas G. Hieronymous's eloptic energy, etc....

Eventually there will come a point in science when this energy can no longer be ignored

 

[KennyJC]

This thread is just so damn funny. LG, RJ6, VitalOne, The Visitor... doing what the delusional do best, and seeing the universe with rose tainted specs.

You have no reputation left after thousands of years of stupidity.

Sure, just look up Nikola Tesla's ether theories, torsion fields (Einstein

Dunno about the other names. Theists always throw respectable names around, but let me just post Einsteins thoughts on a soul:

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

 

[VitalOne]

This thread is just so damn funny. LG, RJ6, VitalOne, The Visitor... doing what the delusional do best, and seeing the universe with rose tainted specs.

You have no reputation left after thousands of years of stupidity.

You're right man, you the atheists possess supreme knowledge of everything, you know all there is to know, even though neurologists themselves do not know what consciousness is, you know that there is a 0% chance of there being a soul.

Dunno about the other names. Theists always throw respectable names around, but let me just post Einsteins thoughts on a soul:

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Well I'm not really talking about that, I'm talking about a vacuum-like energy, which I believe the soul-mind is made of.

 

[KennyJC]

You're right man, you the atheists possess supreme knowledge of everything, you know all there is to know, even though neurologists themselves do not know what consciousness is, you know that there is a 0% chance of there being a soul.

You're right, there is 0% chance of a soul. In fact, an imagination could invent trillions of similar fantasies. What do you think the odds of any of them being a reality? ZERO. Just as with every religious claim, and just with a caveman developing a notion of a quark. Guesses have a 0% success rate - only by chipping away, do you suddenly gather enough evidence to come to any likely conclusion.

There is no god, and just because you can say "You don't know there is no god", doesn't mean your projected fantasy has a 50/50 chance of being a reality.

Well I'm not really talking about that, I'm talking about a vacuum-like energy, which I believe the soul-mind is made of.

No, what you have done is look for something mysterious and claim it to be the thing that your fantasy is made of.

The reasons why people like you (delusional people) have a dislike for science, is that when science delves deeper, it reduces the scope for being superstitious. A single example of this is evolution. The fact that theists refute this, is a damning indictment of their delusions, ignorance and of their dishonesty. They simply have no credability. Even one of the worlds leading creationists got ripped to shreds in court because he had nothing.

 

[geeser]

vital when a person has a brain injury, does the soul leave the body, why do some of the injured have split personalities, some no memory of anybody, some complete become a different person, etc....

 

[VitalOne]

You're right, there is 0% chance of a soul. In fact, an imagination could invent trillions of similar fantasies. What do you think the odds of any of them being a reality? ZERO. Just as with every religious claim, and just with a caveman developing a notion of a quark. Guesses have a 0% success rate - only by chipping away, do you suddenly gather enough evidence to come to any likely conclusion.

There is no god, and just because you can say "You don't know there is no god", doesn't mean your projected fantasy has a 50/50 chance of being a reality.

But this is different, you see in the field consciousness, neurologists themselves still do not know exactly what it is. Therefore it is unknown, but atheists insist that they know it all already.

I'm sure if in the past before Dinosaur fossils were found I told you that there were gigantic monsters existing millions of years ago you would laugh. You're the type of fool that easily believes what scientists say having no independant mind of your own, if you existed in the 1600s you would be claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth without questioning anything.

Its just as I said, atheists think they have knowledge of everything, they always think themselves superior. Even though in reality, many many things currently held to be true in science today will no longer be considered so.

No, what you have done is look for something mysterious and claim it to be the thing that your fantasy is made of.

The reasons why people like you (delusional people) have a dislike for science, is that when science delves deeper, it reduces the scope for being superstitious. A single example of this is evolution. The fact that theists refute this, is a damning indictment of their delusions, ignorance and of their dishonesty. They simply have no credability. Even one of the worlds leading creationists got ripped to shreds in court because he had nothing.

I have no dislike for science. Science is great, yet still incomplete. As I stated, science does not know exactly what consciousness is, yet the atheist, possessing supreme knowledge, does. Science is great, and eventually if there really is a soul there will be concrete evidence for it. Evolution is a fact in my opinion, I don't know wtf you're rambling about.

You are saying that if people have different opinions they must be delusional, it is really like stating one who favors the big bang theory is delusional and one who favors the Plasma theory isn't. To make a statement like that you must have knowledge of all.

It is quite ironic actually, you possess the same mentally as the people who condemned and hung Galileo and others, if what I believe isn't what you believe, you must be delusional.

 

[VitalOne]

vital when a person has a brain injury, does the soul leave the body, why do some of the injured have split personalities, some no memory of anybody, some complete become a different person, etc....

The body is like a machine, it acts on impulses. The brain which is part of the body is the physical tool of the mind. The mind which is immaterial exerts energy over the brain. If the brain is injured, then the body will behave differently. Memories can easily be forgotten, and it can appear as if you're a new person.

I don't see how this is an argument against the soul-mind existing. Just as EMF waves are immaterial yet interact with the material, similarly the soul-mind exists.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Strange how many "heathen" religions pray to their gods they carved of stone.

like christians?
dont be so quick to judge others.
"thou shall put no other god before me."

 

[Crunchy Cat]

But, I'm certain that I'm not wrong,...

Then it's going to be worse for you if you are (which IMO is extremely probable) assuming of course that such a proof would be available in your lifetime.

...and on the contrary atheists will have to face that there is an afterlife, and religion was right all along, which many atheists can't live with.

I am not aware of any whom couldn't; however, like the claim of 'soul' there is no evidence that an 'afterlife' exists.

The energy, when discovered (which it has already been by past scientists) will change science forever, it will be bigger than the QM revolution, as everything without is incomplete and lacking (from biology to cosmology).

It'll probably take a few hundred years though, maybe around the year 2400 or something.

Objective phophecy again... man I really hope a proof comes along in your lifetime. I suspect that to be delusional, not know it, and then be proven delusional must be quite an experience.

 

[KennyJC]

But this is different, you see in the field consciousness, neurologists themselves still do not know exactly what it is. Therefore it is unknown, but atheists insist that they know it all already.

It's not different at all. In fact it's identical to the myths and superstitions religions have been systematically inventing for thousands of years, later to be proven bullshit by science and rational enquiry. No selfrespecting neurologist would put fourth that the soul hypothesis is more likely than the Einstein view that I quoted above. In fact 'conciousness' is a collective word which describes emotions, thoughts, reaction to environment, memory etc which all can be traced to the brain. Conciousness is well established as having it's root cause within the brain. It stands up to empirical observation in every way despite the fact it's not even fully understood. And if you say that because it is not completely understood, means the soul exists I think you'll find yourself using a 'god of the gap' tactic which has never been fruitful for theists in hindsight.

I'm sure if in the past before Dinosaur fossils were found I told you that there were gigantic monsters existing millions of years ago you would laugh.

Well it would be entirely logical to call them gigantic monsters as you have just discovered evidence (fossils) of this. If however you stated that there were gigantic monsters who lived millions of years ago before we ever found any evidence of this, then I would quite rightly laugh at you. But then again, it would have to be a remarkable fluke that you guessed the truth without the requirement of any evidence. Just as our caveman guessing the existence of quarks... or you guessing the existence of a soul without any evidence.

You're the type of fool that easily believes what scientists say having no independant mind of your own, if you existed in the 1600s you would be claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth without questioning anything.

You are not a fool to align yourself with scientific consensus, because it has a proven track record. You are a fool to align yourself with pseudoscience and superstition, which a great majority of people do despite it's... shall we say, poor track record...

Its just as I said, atheists think they have knowledge of everything, they always think themselves superior. Even though in reality, many many things currently held to be true in science today will no longer be considered so.

Whoever said science was static? Current theories will be refined as more evidence trickles in, and more brand new discoveries will be made. This is no reason to discard science as it stands today because it is the most organised body of knowledge we have.

I have no dislike for science. Science is great, yet still incomplete. As I stated, science does not know exactly what consciousness is, yet the atheist, possessing supreme knowledge, does. Science is great, and eventually if there really is a soul there will be concrete evidence for it.

There is not even a scientific hypothesis to be had for the existence of a soul. The current scientific consensus quite rightly states that concious attributes such as thought, emotions, memory, awareness etc. are all within the brain as tests show. That 3 pound mass between your ears isn't for show you know - it actually does stuff.

Evolution is a fact in my opinion, I don't know wtf you're rambling about.

You know fine well what I'm rambling about. The majority of theists are either skeptical of, our outright discard evolution purely for emotional rather than rational reasons. This is the same emotional & irrational reason why people of your ilk propose the existence of a soul.

You are saying that if people have different opinions they must be delusional, it is really like stating one who favors the big bang theory is delusional and one who favors the Plasma theory isn't. To make a statement like that you must have knowledge of all.

That's not a good example at all. Afterall, they are both scientific theories which may have evidence to support them. I am thinking more of things which don't have evidence, such as all aspects of religion.

It is quite ironic actually, you possess the same mentally as the people who condemned and hung Galileo and others, if what I believe isn't what you believe, you must be delusional.

Galileo didn't come out with his claims until after he had evidence to support them. It was as usual, the theists who persecuted him for emotional and irrational reasons. No atheist (or scientists in general) would ignore evidence for the soul if infact there was any. Atheists such as me, are simply fed up with the irrational claims based on nothingness (the soul is literally nothingness according to many of its proponents), which at times overshadow's science and it's very real claims supported by evidence and experiment.

Magical thinkers are just a damn insult to genuine intellectual achievements made by mankind.