Question for Cris and James R.,if possible...

Jenyar,

The biblical usage of the term ‘soul’ seems to mean either a person (material) or breath.

The breath origin seems to have occurred from simple observation – when you die you have no breath – i.e. your breath is your eternal spirit that leaves your body at death.

There appears to be mythology about breathing in evil spirits and being possessed in that way. This idea seems to have been common for millennia and quickly faded away once medical science developed to a degree where it explained the purpose and mechanism of breathing. But the term soul has persisted and the ‘breath’ concept has evolved into the duality concept, which most lay Christians take for granted.
 
I forgot,sory for misunderstanding,Cris...

Originally posted by Cris
Gravage,

I don’t remember seeing you post in this forum before but then I don’t read every thread. If you are indeed new then welcome. And thanks for giving me an excuse to state my current views, not that I really need an excuse.
I believe the term ‘god’ is so ill-defined that to say one does or doesn’t exist is significantly premature. Einstein saw God as the perfection of a universe that reveals itself in the laws of Physics, i.e. a pantheist perspective. The Deist says that a god started everything and hasn’t been seen since. And the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god is believed to be something that actively plays a role in the everyday lives of ordinary people.

The concept of a specific god tends to depend on human imagination and never on direct observation. The chances of such a fictional object with such bizarre properties, as alleged by institutions like Christianity, actually being a reality is not worth serious consideration. As Einstein said such ideas are childlike.

I’m also not swayed by the fact that large numbers of people believe such things. Most people on the planet at one time believed the world was flat. Reality and truth have no necessary correlation with a majority view. Also with the new understanding coming from Neurotheology we are beginning to see that spiritual experiences are being generated by the brain when subjected to certain conditions.

Of greater interest should be the question of a soul. As we dig deeper into neuroscience we are beginning to understand the physicality and deterministic properties of the brain. We now know that thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc can all be generated and affected by brain activity. There appears to be no place where a soul could reside or that it would have any meaningful function. If there is no such thing as a soul then what purpose would gods provide? The concepts of both souls and gods combine to offer an afterlife environment where the soul would reside after death, and there are of course numerous imaginative fantasies that revolve around this basic concept. Reincarnation is of course a variation where the god concept is usually unnecessary.

It seems likely that as we unravel the mysteries of the brain, which to date show no need of a non physical component, that we will reach a full understanding and the concept of a soul will fade into irrelevance. Once this basic foundation of most religions is shattered then the fantasies of gods should similarly fall into irrelevance shortly after.

The question is unanswerable – what does ‘god’ mean? It is just a fictional fantasy.

I don’t see that that is necessarily true. Infinity must exist otherwise nothing could ever have begun. This sets a precedent that it is possible for something to be infinite, in which case why not an intelligence.

Only if it is left to itself. If it was controlled by an intelligence with the deliberate intention of maintaining the matrix for that intelligence then the implication is that immortality is a possibility.

There is no eternal form of energy,just the energy itself.
That sounds like a contradiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravage-answer:What I meant to say is that forms of energy are not created or destroyed,they're all transformed,but since every form of energy is just ever-transforming,there is no way an entity can be at the same form forever.Nothing and none is alive in infinity and eternity,so there is no entity who lives in them(in infinity and ternity).If an entity can control all forms of energy,he/she/it still is the form of energy,and also should have the source of its consciusness.Destroy that source and you'll destroy its/her/his consciousness.If that entity can somehow transfer its/her/his consciousness,this consciousness wouldn't last forever-that consciousness would die and it will be transformed into another form of energy,and that would the end of that "all-supreme entity".So if that kind of entity exists,which I'm postively,completely sure that it doesn't,it would die and be transformed into another form of energy,like I explained above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we need to transfer consciousness into a more resilient medium, say silicon that does not suffer the fragility of biological structures. We can then look for something better after that, and so on. Perhaps we will eventually evolve into a god.
Click to expand...
 
Chris

I don't think you're being very fair to our ancestors. You can't just assert that the idea of 'soul' developed because they noticed that we stopped breathing when we die. The idea of soul developed in all sorts of ways, but mostly because they thought something continued after our death, a conclusion that has not yet been disproved, however hopeful you are that it will be.
 
This guy never ceases to amaze me... such objectivity is almost unbelievable... I guess I would agree with you on many things... except that I think faith provides knowledge. A great man once wrote; "Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see" - powerful words.
 
Canute,

I don't think you're being very fair to our ancestors. You can't just assert that the idea of 'soul' developed because they noticed that we stopped breathing when we die. The idea of soul developed in all sorts of ways, but mostly because they thought something continued after our death,
Click to expand...
Mostly? How do you know? But I agree there are many ideas for soul, but I was looking for biblical definitions. But the term ‘spirit/soul’ is derived from ‘breath’.

For example I found this earlier today - http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/soul.htm

and this - http://www.silverliningministry.com/The Soul 5.htm

and http://www.jlfoundation.net/spiritbreathsoul.html

There was also a good link describing the origins of soul/spirit which derives from “breath” but I can’t find that at the moment. It has been discussed here at some length in a prior debate. I’ll search more later.

a conclusion that has not yet been disproved, however hopeful you are that it will be.
Click to expand...
You mean in the same way that it hasn’t been disproved that Klingons, or Vulcans, or fairies, or leprechauns, or unicorns, exist, or any of an infinite variety of other fantasies.

The lack of disproof for something imaginary is as useful as a box without any sides.
 
I'm not sure I agree with your quote, but it's a well proved philosophical certainty that knowledge depends on faith.

I'm not all that objective by the way, but it annoys me a bit when people claim that science has proved anything about metaphysics (aka reality itself).
 
Canute,

Yes I understand.

But can you provide a practical, relevant, and meaningful example?

I have quoted a number of times here that we can never be certain of anything until we know absolutely everything. And until then there is an element of faith to everything we claim as knowledge.
 
Originally posted by Cris
Canute,

Yes I understand.

But can you provide a practical, relevant, and meaningful example?

I have quoted a number of times here that we can never be certain of anything until we know absolutely everything. And until then there is an element of faith to everything we claim as knowledge.
Click to expand...
I suppose that all metaphysical questions are examples. Idealism/materialism, whether the cosmos is infinite/finite, how or if it began, freewill/determinism, the nature of consciousness, what is conscious and what isn't, whether teleology plays a role in evolution etc. Perhaps even the question of whether we can know anything for certain is an example. Certainly we don't (collectively) know whether some part of us survives out death.

I'm not arguing for intellectual nihilism. We can know all sorts of things for sure (eg 2+2=4). But mostly these are not things about reality. When it comes to reality we have problems (what are mass, gravity, inertia, energy?) I feel that our education and culture lead us to rule out possibilities for all the wrong reasons and make us over estimate what we know and underestimate what we don't. We just make convenient assumptions and then act on them as if they're facts, (imo usually out of self interest).

In a way I agree that we have to know everything to know anything. But only if by 'know' you mean reason or prove. Direct knowledge is possible imo, (but perhaps even then faith in oneself is necessary).

Not sure if you know Goedel but his proofs seem to be one of the most significant limits on our achievement of certain knowledge. However those limits do not apply to systems that are sufficiently simple, so perhaps there is a way around them.

The things we don't know are not trivial. They're not just a few loose ends that we'll get around to sorting out soon, they are fundamental unknowns, and we're getting nowhere with answering many of them. Many of them are undecidable questions for some strange reason that we don't yet know. (Well, perhaps non-dual philosophers may claim to know - they say they're the wrong questions).

(Sorry - I always write too much).
 
Originally posted by Cris
Can you provide an example?
Click to expand...
I know God exists. You can simply say you don't know.
Otherwise known as self delusion.
Click to expand...
Let's not speak stereotypically - unless you'll say we're all deluding ourselves. A few paraphrases of that great man's statement is; "With faith comes proof"... or "Without faith, there is no proof"... or "There is no certitude without faith".
And again, for example?
Click to expand...
I have faith in God, I have seen evidence of God's existence. I have my proof - not yours.;) You have to prove it for yourself. Faith is personal. I've never seen God. There you go.:)
And the result is total BS.
Click to expand...
I find the use of those terms a waste of time and energy because when it comes down to it they really have too many meanings. What does cow dung have to do with anything the man said? That's what BS is to me. Simply biological. Curse words are a waste of time and energy - they are just... "vacuous"..., cathartic statments.
 
Canute,

There isn’t much you have said here that I disagree with, at least nothing worth making into an issue.

As for Goedel; Yup – I have his proof. That is not easy reading. Have you read “Goedel, Escher, Bach”, now that has some neat issues.
 
Marc,

I know God exists.
Click to expand...
That is just an unverifiable personal assertion, it isn’t an example of your claim - “I think faith provides knowledge.”

It is a demonstration of your faith, which I do not doubt, but it isn’t an example of faith providing knowledge. That you might assert that it represents knowledge for you doesn’t make it knowledge. Without some form of independent verification your claim to knowledge is indistinguishable from delusion, and your claim is simply vacuous.

I have faith in God, I have seen evidence of God's existence.
Click to expand...
Yet we can be sure that others can look at the same claimed evidence and reach a different conclusion. Without independent objectivity you can never be sure that what you choose to believe is true or not.

Faith is personal.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t that simply mean that it tells you what you want to believe?

I find the use of those terms a waste of time and energy because when it comes down to it they really have too many meanings. What does cow dung have to do with anything the man said? That's what BS is to me. Simply biological. Curse words are a waste of time and energy - they are just... "vacuous"..., cathartic statments.
Click to expand...
Yet worth your while to write a whole paragraph on the issue.
 
Chris

Yes I've read GEB. Very good stuff. I'm no mathematician so couldnt follow the more technical stuff. I felt he did everything but reach the obvious conclusion, but then I'm arrogant.:cool:

Do you know Goedel well enough to answer some questions I have?

In your reply to Marc you wrote "Without independent objectivity you can never be sure that what you choose to believe is true or not."

I would argue that when it comes to metaphysics this is not true, in fact it seems the opposite of the truth. To me this follows from what's been said above about reasoning and proof.

Two relevant Buddhist stories you might like -

When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, the cat who lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them. So the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice. Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up. Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice.
____

One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. "Look
at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really
enjoying themselves."

"You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you can't truly know
that they are enjoying themselves."

"You are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I
do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"
 
Originally posted by Canute
One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. "Look
at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really
enjoying themselves."

"You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you can't truly know
that they are enjoying themselves."

"You are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I
do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"
Click to expand...
Thats one good Zen punch.!
 
Originally posted by Cris
So Marc,

Who is this famous person?
Click to expand...
Not all great people are famous Cris as I'm sure you know, however, truthfully, I don't even know if it's a man or woman who produced it. Persons who make such statements are great in my book... the person produced the book of Hebrews in the Christian bible.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Cris
Marc,

That is just an unverifiable personal assertion, it isn’t an example of your claim - “I think faith provides knowledge.”
Click to expand...
Verification is impossible. Maybe if man develops the ability to fully empathize (feel what others feel, see what others see, know what others think they know) maybe verification will become a relevant issue.
It is a demonstration of your faith, which I do not doubt, but it isn’t an example of faith providing knowledge. That you might assert that it represents knowledge for you doesn’t make it knowledge. Without some form of independent verification your claim to knowledge is indistinguishable from delusion, and your claim is simply vacuous [I just love that word].
Click to expand...
It is incredible how cyclic these debates are - my way of saying "the issue just cannot be resolved as yet". Anyway... how do you define knowledge? I cannot exclude faith from my definition.
Yet we can be sure that others can look at the same claimed evidence and reach a different conclusion. Without independent objectivity you can never be sure that what you choose to believe is true or not.
Click to expand...
I always see this and have to ask how are you so sure? You can be a fool standing alone or a fool among many fools. For me - what matters is that you're still a fool.
Doesn’t that simply mean that it tells you what you want to believe?
Click to expand...
I prefer to say what you choose to believe. But yeah, that's exactly my point.;)
Yet worth your while to write a whole paragraph on the issue.
Click to expand...
Hopefully; I always look ahead. It might save everyone some time in the future if you get the point.
 
Last edited:
Cris,

I went through Boris' post again and besides the premise, the only poblem I have with him is the assumption that a lack of evdence about something alone is reason to conclude that this something does not exist.


Anyway, lets check out the premise: "Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. "

Even though I disagree that 'souls'(as defined bymost religions) do exist, I see absolutely no reason why a soul must be able to interact with matter/or be connected to matter. The soul is defined as immaterial; there is no definition about where exactly it lies. The entire premise is forced and thus the argument relying on the premise proves nothing except a false premise.
 
MarcAc

I'm not sure it's right to say that faith provides knowledge. It seems more accurate to say that faith provides the basis for knowledge, which is a slightly different claim. But I agree that the definition of 'knowledge' varies between people and needs a clear definition in this kind of discussion. I suggest 'certain knowledge', which excludes all varieties of guesswork.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top