Souls?

[Sarkus]

The fact of the matter is, the lottery does exist and the chances are 100% that someone will win the lottery. The odds are quite different for a universe to come into existence out of, in your opinion, nothing.

I do not claim the universe came out of "nothing". I have no idea what was here before the Universe.
I make no claim as to what was here before the Universe - and I can not know.
And because I do not, and can not know, I make no claims.

There is lots of evidence for a creator, you are just choosing to ignore it or at least choose to find some alternartive explanation for the observed evidence.

An alternative explanation that doesn't require the existence of some unprovable, unobservable, invisible deity.

 

[KennyJC]

Consider the law of the conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely be transferred from one form to another. The Big Bang and all the energy released. Where did it all come from as something cannot be come from nothing, except by transcendental means?

Consider the universe as a your system. According to thermodynamics a system must be defined by an environment. What is your environment? Why did the universe (or multiverse as some physisits would allude to) come into existence in the first place?

Consider the diversity of nature. Mathematicians have calculated that the chance of life emerging as a product of random chemical reactions is 1:1e80000, i.e. no chance. Consider a protein molecule and its complexity and consider the the ingredients and energy one would need to bring this basic building block of life into existence.

God is not merely a cruch. Evidence does exist for His existence. The choice of how to interpret the evidence is up to the individual.

Perhaps. But that is still no excuse to follow religious dogma and quote every letter in the bible as truth.

 

[LightEagle]

I do not claim the universe came out of "nothing". I have no idea what was here before the Universe.
I make no claim as to what was here before the Universe - and I can not know.
And because I do not, and can not know, I make no claims.

The univese, according to the commonly accepted theory, started as a singularity (or singularities), i.e. a mathimatical point of infinite density and energy, amongst other things. What the laws of science cannot explain is how that energy got there. The choice now is to believe a Divine Being put it there and caused the whole thing and the other is the assumption that we will be able to explian it later in time.

Consider the fact that man has evolved its greater intelligence in less than a million years, a feat no creature on earth has ever managed, even when they existed over 200 million years. The choice now is to accredit this to a Divine Being or to assume we will be able to explian it later in time.

Concisider the diversity and extreme complexity of nature. The complexity of even a single protein or polymer molecule. The choice is ascribe this to a Divine Being or once again to assume we will be able to explian it later in time.

Consider the information contained in a DNA strand which "tells" each cell to do as it does and makes each organism what it is. Once again, the same choice present itself.

Consider now what makes us human. We have the ability to reason. We love in a way no other animal can, i.e. we can choose against our impulses. We can choose to love our wife, even though she has been raped or been burnt beyond recognition. We do not live by the law of survival of the fittest. Evil exists. Good exists. These are not traits of matter. Matter can not choose to be good or evil. Where did good and evil come from if not from a Divine Being?

Perhaps. But that is still no excuse to follow religious dogma and quote every letter in the bible as truth.

I do not belive the dogma because it points me to a God, I belive the dogma because I believe in God. I believe that our interaction with God is not a set of rules as is common belief, but a relationship. There is a vast difference between the two. One is judgmental, the other leads to compassion.

 

[Sarkus]

The univese, according to the commonly accepted theory, started as a singularity (or singularities), i.e. a mathimatical point of infinite density and energy, amongst other things. What the laws of science cannot explain is how that energy got there. The choice now is to believe a Divine Being put it there and caused the whole thing and the other is the assumption that we will be able to explian it later in time.

Firstly, the singularity theory is indeed just a theory.
Secondly, why are there only the two options?
Why is it either "GOD did it" or "We'll know later on"?
What about "We might never know"?

I am happy that there are things about the Universe, about existence, that we will never know.
The one thing I will not revert to is a belief in God to fill in the blanks.

Consider the fact that man has evolved its greater intelligence in less than a million years, a feat no creature on earth has ever managed, even when they existed over 200 million years. The choice now is to accredit this to a Divine Being or to assume we will be able to explian it later in time.

Duly considered.
And duly rejected as evidence of a Divine Being.
I don't assume anything. Either we will explain it later, or we won't. Indeed we might never explain it - and I'm happy with that.
But I'm interested as to why you instantly reject all current theories on the matter and assign it to the work of a "Divine Being".

Concisider the diversity and extreme complexity of nature. The complexity of even a single protein or polymer molecule. The choice is ascribe this to a Divine Being or once again to assume we will be able to explian it later in time.

Duly considered.
And duly rejected as evidence of a Divine Being.
I still prefer the theories that don't require the belief in the unknowable and for which there is no evidence.

Consider the information contained in a DNA strand which "tells" each cell to do as it does and makes each organism what it is. Once again, the same choice present itself.

Duly considered.
Again, why should this, like all your other examples, lead me down the path of believing in a Divine Being for which there is no evidence?
Unless of course you think the complexity of nature, the information in a DNA strand etc, IS evidence for such? If so then you are foolishly mistaken: they are evidence of nothing more than themselves, of complexity itself, and for the complex to exist.
If you read anything else into it then you assume far too much.

Consider now what makes us human. We have the ability to reason. We love in a way no other animal can, i.e. we can choose against our impulses. We can choose to love our wife, even though she has been raped or been burnt beyond recognition. We do not live by the law of survival of the fittest. Evil exists. Good exists. These are not traits of matter. Matter can not choose to be good or evil. Where did good and evil come from if not from a Divine Being?

Duly considered.
And duly rejected as evidence of a Divine Being.
Good and evil come from sociological conditioning that each of us endures through birth to death, built up over time to enable the ever increasing society to live together in harmony. Combine that with survival instinct and you get Good and Evil.
Our ability to reason comes from our increased intelligence.
Other intelligent creatures (especially pigs) can also reason remarkably well, though obviously not with the complexity of humans.
Since there are no other equally intelligent animals we can only make the assumption that it is this intelligence that enables us to reason.
You also forget the massive effect that language has had on the development of our intelligence and ability to reason.
Without language everything was physical.
We do not live by the law of survival of the fittest because the survival of our species does not depend upon it.
We do NOT love in a way no other animal can. We are not, for example, the only creatures who generally mate for life - although some creatures are better at it than humanity. We are also not the only animals who have emotions.

I do not belive the dogma because it points me to a God, I belive the dogma because I believe in God. I believe that our interaction with God is not a set of rules as is common belief, but a relationship. There is a vast difference between the two. One is judgmental, the other leads to compassion.

You do not believe all this is evidence because you think it points to God - you believe all this is evidence BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN GOD and want there to be evidence.

If you did not believe in God you would be in a better position to realise that all this supposed "evidence" is not what you think.

You see evidence of God where there is none.
You are blinkered by your desire to believe.

 

[valich]

I am surprised at the length of tis thread considering how long the initial post was.

The "soul" is a hypothetical postulation created to explain the unexplanable and has no scientific basis. It has not, and cannot, be proven that a "soul" exists. It is a concept. It is used to explain life after death and brain functions and spiritual phenomena. Our minds created the concept of the "soul," not the other way around. And we originally created this concept to explain what we were unable to explain. Now that we have more-and-more explanations through factual scientific ways that can be equally seen and proved by anyone else, including the person standing right next to you, the belief in the concept of the soul diminishes.

What the heck is a "soul." Life after death? Life before death? A continuous spiritual presence or overlying part of the brain - or mind - that exists for eternity? Immortality? All of these are hypothetical postulations.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I am surprised at the length of tis thread considering how long the initial post was.

The "soul" is a hypothetical postulation created to explain the unexplanable and has no scientific basis. It has not, and cannot, be proven that a "soul" exists. It is a concept. It is used to explain life after death and brain functions and spiritual phenomena. Our minds created the concept of the "soul," not the other way around. And we originally created this concept to explain what we were unable to explain. Now that we have more-and-more explanations through factual scientific ways that can be equally seen and proved by anyone else, including the person standing right next to you, the belief in the concept of the soul diminishes.

What the heck is a "soul." Life after death? Life before death? A continuous spiritual presence or overlying part of the brain - or mind - that exists for eternity? Immortality? All of these are hypothetical postulations.

*************
M*W: Maybe it's bioelectric energy that occupies our bodies when we're alive and leaves when we are dead.

 

[valich]

But you're still just speculating - trying to find an explanation. Search through to the origin of your belief and what do you find? Influenced to believe in the soul since childhood, from your parents, then through school, church and friends. Do away with all of that and where does that leave you? Would you still have a belief in a soul today? In today's world with all the other more believable - and proveable - explanations that we have today?

 

[c7ityi_]

What the heck is a "soul."

Another word for the self.

Life after death? Life before death? A continuous spiritual presence or overlying part of the brain - or mind - that exists for eternity? Immortality? All of these are hypothetical postulations.

The self (life) does not die, only the external covers must be changed when they get old, since they had a beginning. Just like the life in a tree, it inhales the life from the leaves now at autumn, then on the spring, the life ("self", God) exhales the life back to the leaves again. And later the life from the tree is taken back also. This is the "breath of god". So the "soul" is God, life itself.

 

[valich]

Another word for the self.

The self (life) does not die, only the external covers must be changed when they get old, since they had a beginning. Just like the life in a tree, it inhales the life from the leaves now at autumn, then on the spring, the life ("self", God) exhales the life back to the leaves again. And later the life from the tree is taken back also. This is the "breath of god". So the "soul" is God, life itself.

Why would we need another word for the self, and another more confusing one at that, with all sorts of untenable implications?

"The self(life) does not die"? Again, nothing more than a religous postulate without any proof. Where did you ever get such an idea? See my posting above.

"only the external covers must be changed when they get old." Why not just have plastic surgery!

"So the "soul" is God." I think that God might even want to argue with you on that point! Anyways, even the belief in God is a human hypothetical postulate that originated with cave man's worship of the sun, then turned into a spiritual supernatural force, then turned into a whole pantheon of Gods with the Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans, until certain kings and rulers outlawed them, and the major religions that you have today is the result of that historical trend.

 

[Cris]

C7,

The self (life)

These are two separate concepts and do not seem to be interchangeable. “Self” is better defined as the emergent property arising from a threshold level of neural complexity resulting in self awareness. Life on the other hand is best defined in terms of carbon based biological organisms, most of which do not have self awareness.

does not die,

Since the “self” is dependent on neural networks and a functioning brain then clearly the self will die when its supporting biology dies.

only the external covers must be changed when they get old,

The reincarnation fantasy.

Just like the life in a tree, it inhales the life from the leaves now at autumn, then on the spring, the life ("self", God) exhales the life back to the leaves again.

Well no, that is perhaps poetic but otherwise gibberish. You have used the term “life” four times in the same sentence and each time have it mean something different.

And later the life from the tree is taken back also. This is the "breath of god". So the "soul" is God, life itself.

Well no. Life is a bio-chemical process, fragile, transient, and very mortal - at least for the moment.

 

[Cris]

Valich,

Nice posts.

 

[KennyJC]

I don't know who are the biggest fools here: C7 with the usual nonsensical junk, or people trying to persuade the lunatic by using facts and meaning.

 

[valich]

Ya know, I'm just spontaneously replying to all this. But this post "Just like the life in a tree, it inhales the life from the leaves now at autumn, then on the spring, the life ("self", God) exhales the life."

Well, I have to compliment him/her on the excellent poetry, and it even touches my heart, but....He should stick to writing poetry and not religous dogma or beliefs.

"then on the spring, the life ("self," God) exhales the life back to the leaves again." I hope God doesn't catch a cold and cough while exhaling else we all might be infected by some sort of disease! Talk about living in a fantasy land! Have all the posts been like this?

This guy is clearly out-of-touch with the real world and living in some sort've fantasy Disneyland. Or should I say Dizzyland?

 

[valich]

I don't know who are the biggest fools here: C7 with the usual nonsensical junk, or people trying to persuade the lunatic by using facts and meaning.

Now this is really a lunatic comment in itself. Now what else do you propose to use to change, influence, or cure a lunatic or insane person with other than facts and rational reasoning, of which yourself you are not using!

 

[Cris]

Lighteagle,

The univese, according to the commonly accepted theory, started as a singularity (or singularities), i.e. a mathimatical point of infinite density and energy, amongst other things.

Well no. That is the layman’s perception of what science says. The current state of cosmology includes numerous theories, most of which do not assume that the universe began as a singularity.

What the laws of science cannot explain is how that energy got there.

That’s why science continues to search.

The choice now is to believe a Divine Being put it there and caused the whole thing and the other is the assumption that we will be able to explian it later in time.

No that is a very poor approach. A better plan would be to allow science to continue to search until we know. Fantasy speculations about ancient gods does not appear to fulfill any useful purpose.

Consider the fact that man has evolved its greater intelligence in less than a million years, a feat no creature on earth has ever managed, even when they existed over 200 million years. The choice now is to accredit this to a Divine Being or to assume we will be able to explain it later in time.

Again – science is the proven means we have to discover knowledge. Gods have no support.

Concisider the diversity and extreme complexity of nature. The complexity of even a single protein or polymer molecule. The choice is ascribe this to a Divine Being or once again to assume we will be able to explian it later in time.

Consider the basic laws of physics and chemistry and at least a basic understanding of the periodic table and you will see how these basic very simply laws of attraction and repulsion can account for all the complexity that you now see that has had billions of years to develop. Again there is no support or reason to introduce fantasy mysticisms.

Consider the information contained in a DNA strand which "tells" each cell to do as it does and makes each organism what it is. Once again, the same choice present itself.

So take a closer look and you will see that most of the code in DNA is junk, the leftover remnants of millions of years of evolution that didn’t result in constructive mutations. Also take a closer look at the metabolic pathways in a human cell, or pretty much any cell – it is a diabolic mess – with overlapping and often redundant and conflicting processes, fully consistent with the countless mutations and changes one would expect from evolutionary processes. Again this does not in any way lead us to consider supernatural forces were the result, or if they were then they were incredibly incompetent.

Consider now what makes us human. We have the ability to reason. We love in a way no other animal can, i.e. we can choose against our impulses. We can choose to love our wife, even though she has been raped or been burnt beyond recognition. We do not live by the law of survival of the fittest. Evil exists. Good exists. These are not traits of matter. Matter can not choose to be good or evil. Where did good and evil come from if not from a Divine Being?

To the contrary, have you never owned a dog? They most clearly can experience emotions and many would consider love. A dog also knows when it does good and bad and often makes conscious decisions either way.
Our ability to reason, the result of evolution providing larger brains, enables us greater potential for survival. But in the end everything comes down to survival of the fittest, in our case it is those with the smarter minds that are the fittest. Or were you confused by the primitive idea of physical strength only?

 

[valich]

We no longer consider the unexplained DNA as "junk" DNA, or as leftover remains. We're finding a purpose, but that does not subtract from your argument. Clearly the person that you are replying to knows nothing about the basic aspects about the proven facts of evolution! This thread is ridiculous!

 

[KennyJC]

Now this is really a lunatic comment in itself. Now what else do you propose to use to change, influence, or cure a lunatic or insane person with other than facts and rational reasoning, of which yourself you are not using!

I've learned that the fanatics on this religion forum do not understand facts. Wether they do not wish to understand logic and reason or just can not get their head around it due to their religious education, I don't know.

Here's a question: Has any devout christian on this forum been converted to being agnostic or atheist due to having conversations on this forum?

 

[(Q)]

The univese, according to the commonly accepted theory, started as a singularity (or singularities), i.e. a mathimatical point of infinite density and energy, amongst other things. What the laws of science cannot explain is how that energy got there. The choice now is to believe a Divine Being put it there and caused the whole thing and the other is the assumption that we will be able to explian it later in time.

Then the most obvious choice would be the latter, since the first choice has been used so many times before, only to be replaced with scientific theory.

How many times must theists use that tired argument before they realize 'Divine Beings' don't put anything anywhere?

 

[c7ityi_]

Why would we need another word for the self, and another more confusing one at that, with all sorts of untenable implications?

Because you don't know what the "self" is.

Again, nothing more than a religous postulate without any proof.

There is proof.

Where did you ever get such an idea?

common sense.

Anyways, even the belief in God is a human hypothetical postulate that originated with cave man's worship of the sun, then turned into a spiritual supernatural force, then turned into a whole pantheon of Gods with the Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans, until certain kings and rulers outlawed them, and the major religions that you have today is the result of that historical trend.

Yeah, the understanding about God has matured a bit, for some people. Others become atheists because they can't understand the new ideas.

“Self” is better defined as the emergent property arising from a threshold level of neural complexity resulting in self awareness.

There is no reason for a "mind" to appear from neurons or whatever. The neurons are inside the mind!

What do you mean by self? The person? I'm not talking about the person. I'm talking about the impersonal self. The person dies of course, it's a part of the body, a reflection. But the existence, the feeling of "I am" does not die.

You have used the term “life” four times in the same sentence and each time have it mean something different.

No, I meant the same thing each time.

Life is a bio-chemical process, fragile, transient, and very mortal - at least for the moment.

The body is not life, it's just combinations of particles. What created the body and what makes the body alive is life.

I hope God doesn't catch a cold and cough while exhaling else we all might be infected by some sort of disease!

God is not a body, so he can't catch a cold, only the bodies he uses (like humans) can.

This guy is clearly out-of-touch with the real world and living in some sort've fantasy Disneyland. Or should I say Dizzyland?

nah. you just don't have enough experience about this to understand it.

 

[c7ityi_]

And stop calling me crazy!!!!! if you don't agree with my views, or if you don't understand what I'm talking about, why don't you just ignore or ask me wtf i mean, behave like intelligent individuals for once!!!