Soul?

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

LG: ..... you would have to back up your statement that scripture is material with a vedic statement (or even if you don't accept the vedas, some other scriptural statement) - otherwise its not clear why we should accept your opinions as authoratative (The obvious q being why would scripture be material when it is transcendental knowledge?)

Why do I have to use vedic scripture to know that the vedas belong to the material world same as Fitzgeralds Gatsby? I haven't made any opinions concerning the 'soul' or 'spirit' and you would know that if you have read my posts. I have stated that I don't know, I have a problem with the notion of the soul and spirit and lean towards disbelief as logic moves me towards that direction but I don't pretend to know the secrets of the universe. You are the one who seems convinced but only because the vedas say so, or so and so wrote this and that a thousand years ago. You have no more to offer as far as information than the evangelist or the Islamic fundamentalist.

LG:You assert that quoting scripture is a sign of a lack of critical thinking,

Yes of course because I asked what you think or how you interpret not what you have read in the vedas.

LG: but even if you are reluctant to quote scripture (although it could help your argument if you quote a "materialistic" section of scripture as evidence), you should at least make clear what your critical reasoning is, otherwise we are just left with opinions that seem to edge on claims of confidence

Why would I quote from scripture when I don't place any belief in what was written as de facto evidence? I think the vedas has as much spirituality in it as a Henry Miller novel and almost the same amount of nonsense. The vedas were written by human beings remember? You seem to believe its the word of god and I don't. I think its people within a specific culture trying to make sense of their world. Scripture is that which is written and belongs to the material as a guide for the living but that doesnt make it correct, reasonable or even necessarily meaningful. The god you worship didn't write or say anything. The vedas etc are an existential crutch. You haven't stated one argument that would suggest in any reasonable fashion the existence of the soul. As a matter of fact it seems you have skirted the issue completely when others at the beginning of the thread offered answers which would move one to think. You offer answers where no thought is necessary...on your part that is.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG: ..... you would have to back up your statement that scripture is material with a vedic statement (or even if you don't accept the vedas, some other scriptural statement) - otherwise its not clear why we should accept your opinions as authoratative (The obvious q being why would scripture be material when it is transcendental knowledge?)

Why do I have to use vedic scripture to know that the vedas belong to the material world same as Fitzgeralds Gatsby? I haven't made any opinions concerning the 'soul' or 'spirit' and you would know that if you have read my posts. I have stated that I don't know, I have a problem with the notion of the soul and spirit and lean towards disbelief as logic moves me towards that direction but I don't pretend to know the secrets of the universe. You are the one who seems convinced but only because the vedas say so, or so and so wrote this and that a thousand years ago. You have no more to offer as far as information than the evangelist or the Islamic fundamentalist.

LG:You assert that quoting scripture is a sign of a lack of critical thinking,

Yes of course because I asked what you think or how you interpret not what you have read in the vedas.

LG: but even if you are reluctant to quote scripture (although it could help your argument if you quote a "materialistic" section of scripture as evidence), you should at least make clear what your critical reasoning is, otherwise we are just left with opinions that seem to edge on claims of confidence

Why would I quote from scripture when I don't place any belief in what was written as de facto evidence? I think the vedas has as much spirituality in it as a Henry Miller novel and almost the same amount of nonsense. The vedas were written by human beings remember? You seem to believe its the word of god and I don't. I think its people within a specific culture trying to make sense of their world. Scripture is that which is written and belongs to the material as a guide for the living but that doesnt make it correct, reasonable or even necessarily meaningful. The god you worship didn't write or say anything. The vedas etc are an existential crutch. You haven't stated one argument that would suggest in any reasonable fashion the existence of the soul. As a matter of fact it seems you have skirted the issue completely when others at the beginning of the thread offered answers which would move one to think. You offer answers where no thought is necessary...on your part that is.

Unless you provide an example of what shapes your opinions it is kind of difficult to form a response - I mean its obvious that we have different opinions - wouldn't the topic for progressive discussion be instead "what shapes your opinions?" rather than "what is your opinion?"

 

[Godless]

Unless you provide an example of what shapes your opinions it is kind of difficult to form a response - I mean its obvious that we have different opinions - wouldn't the topic for progressive discussion be instead "what shapes your opinions?" rather than "what is your opinion?"

Committing logical fallacies yet again aren't we?

Examples and explanations;

Lucy:

LG: but even if you are reluctant to quote scripture (although it could help your argument if you quote a "materialistic" section of scripture as evidence), you should at least make clear what your critical reasoning is, otherwise we are just left with opinions that seem to edge on claims of confidence

She clearly states for you to use your critical thinking of subject matter, and you resort to her by "begging the question" of what makes a freaking opinion?

As if some inanimate object was in her head, "soul" and she doesn't know were her opinions come from. It comes from her critical thinking bud! Her own thoughts, her own mind, lack of supernaturalism bs, you spout as soul! It's true that you really don't understand logical, critical thinking, it's becoming apparent!
Circulus in Probando
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

 

[lightgigantic]

Committing logical fallacies yet again aren't we?

Examples and explanations;

Lucy:

She clearly states for you to use your critical thinking of subject matter, and you resort to her by "begging the question" of what makes a freaking opinion?

As if some inanimate object was in her head, "soul" and she doesn't know were her opinions come from. It comes from her critical thinking bud! Her own thoughts, her own mind, lack of supernaturalism bs, you spout as soul! It's true that you really don't understand logical, critical thinking, it's becoming apparent!
Circulus in Probando
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

clearly she thinks scripture is an imagination - that is her opinion -

I was asking her to refer to something in scripture that she would declare to be imagination - that is the basis for her opinion

If a person cannot present the basis of their opinion (which is what good debate is all about) then they have a baseless opinion

 

[Godless]

clearly she thinks scripture is an imagination - that is her opinion -

Then is it not up to you to show evidence that they are not? So she asked for you to contradict her opinion with evidence!

 

[lightgigantic]

Then is it not up to you to show evidence that they are not? So she asked for you to contradict her opinion with evidence!

thats why I am asking for her to provide the basis for her opinions rather than formulate a redress based on my speculation on what her basis is.

 

[imaplanck.]

Thats a no then?:bugeye:

 

[BicPen]

Hello,

Best season's greetings.




Pls tell me;


1.Whether soul exists?


2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?


3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?


Best wishes

No you don't have a soul

 

[Kumar]

Sometimes, color of an object is considered as its sprit, complexion as costitution. Probably, emitted or reflected spectrum from body at death=soul, distorted or from dead body (if no light at death)=ghost.

Can this be thought in science?

How?

Whether an emitted or reflected spectrum from any object does not tell about that object eg. photo?

 

[Kumar]

1.Whether soul exists?
The fact that soul is rather a modern word should already give you a clue. It does not exist. The ancient greeks used some kind of definition of alive that people often confuse with soul, but it wasn't what we call soul.



2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?

Depends entirely on your definition of soul. Soul is a human concept. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.


3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?
well, indeed. can they have a soul.

Why colour or emitted/reflected spectrum from any object/body be considered as its sprit/soul? Complexion indicates consitution & temprament.

 

[lightgigantic]

No you don't have a soul

To the Soul
Is anyone there
if so
are you real
either way are you
one or several
if the latter
are you all at once
or do you
take turns not answering
is your answer
the question itself
surviving the asking
without end
whose question is it
how does it begin
where does it come from
how did it ever
find out about you
over the sound
of itself
with nothing but its own
ignorance to go by

W. S. Merwin

 

[Kumar]

when the soul is active, it manifestion in matter can be verified (like the distinction between a dead person and a living one - its quite obvious)

Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry) has ventured this

Matter by itself

1. Inert and dead
2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures
3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states
4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter
5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation
6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal)
Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain)

Matter associated with Life

1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc)
2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form
3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role
4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism)
5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction).
6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age)
7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles

In one most ancient religion( Jain), living beings are considered with one sense to five senses. Plants, fire, soul, air,water..are indicated as "one sense livings". Humans, most animals as five sensed. http://www.jainworld.com/education/lesson3.asp

 

[Kumar]

Try to Evaluate scientifically and peseudoscientifically:

if Soul= emitted/reflected color/spectrum from body at death somewhat sunlight from sun in known EM spectrum?

or

Photos/images

or

equal to possible "prime force or its modified form"

or

Children

or

whatever can make his/her clone(DNA)

or
shedded skin particles.

or
remains after death

or

good/bad work done during life

or

words spoken during life

or
otherwise(explain)

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Why colour or emitted/reflected spectrum from any object/body be considered as its sprit/soul? Complexion indicates consitution & temprament.

I don't think it can be considered as its spirit/soul.

 

[Kumar]

I don't think it can be considered as its spirit/soul.

Why?

Then, what can be other possibility in science(pls look list in my last post)?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Without defining the soul it is pointless to look for its 'emissions'.

 

[Kumar]

Soul: the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.

Sunlight can tell about sun.

Many spritual indications can be different in words or as shown from its real logic/science.

 

[Kumar]

Retinal molecule - straightens in response to a photon γ (light), of the correct wavelength