Souls?

[Raithere]

Boris's post is very obviously bias toward ATHEISM, as he has not been bothered to give a proper definition of the soul from religious texts.

Then provide an alternative definition that escapes the problems Boris identified.

Why is this so difficult?

~Raithere

 

[ellion]

i just want to thorw this question in and see what response i get. i am hioping to understand what is meant by boris the athiest mascot when he says immaterial.

questions about control;
what is "control"?
does "control" exist?
is "control" material?
are we affected by "control"?
do we affect control?

ask the same questions of such things as justice, hope, belief, discipline. i am aware that there are varying degrees of materiality with in these conceptions but are they actually material in themselves?

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

We know music exists and where it comes from...

But what is it, outside of the subjective mind?
Where is there an example of music occurring naturally without the aid of a musician?

So I don't understand why you compare it to the theoretical existence of a soul, of which there is not a shred of proof.

Would you recognise the proof if it did exist?
If so, how?
My point regarding music, is that, music, although it is manifested and received through the physical senses, it is not a material phenomenon.
I.E. it cannot be observed acting independantly within nature.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then provide an alternative definition that escapes the problems Boris identified.

Why is this so difficult?

~Raithere

Why?

Jan Ardena.

 

[c7ityi_]

What is it that moves your body, your hands, if not the invisible "soul"? The unmanifested side of "you". The will. What makes the signals go between your arm and your brain?

We know music exists and where it comes from...

What is a vibration and what is it that vibrates?

 

[ellion]

so in conclusion, the soul is immaterial and cannot react with the material world in any way,

this is not the conclusion this is the postulate given by boris.

then if it exists in this hallucinogenic realm, how does it react with humanity, Ah got it, in your hallucinations, in dreams, in imaginings,

where do you get hallucinogenic from, what definition of the soul are you working with? are hallucinations material?

so lets just say people have to, have faith it exists.

you say what you like, does not make any difference to the truth.

 

[the preacher]

Where is there an example of music occurring naturally without the aid of a musician?

in an echo, a cd, a radio, a tv, a voice, wind through the trees, bird song, whale song, etc....

 

[the preacher]

this is not the conclusion this is the postulate given by boris.

boris states

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.

which is the general concensus of the religious and you as it looks, because of your previous answers.

where do you get hallucinogenic from, what definition of the soul are you working with?

the definition, you quite plainly, pushed, non-existent/ immaterial thus it can only reside in the subjective : aberration, apparition, delusion, Dream, fantasy, hallucination, head trip, illusion, imagination, mirage, phantasm, phantasmagoria, phantom, pink elephant, pipe dream, trip, vision, wraith, Realm.

are hallucinations material?

no, immaterial

so lets just say people have to, have faith it exists.

you say what you like, does not make any difference to the truth.

and what is the truth

 

[ellion]

If it is not beholden to the physical laws of this Universe then it, by definition, either does not exist or CAN NOT INTERACT WITH THE PHYSICAL.
Anything that interacts with the physical HAS TO OBEY THE LAWS OF MATTER while it is interacting.

nope, sorry! if it is not beholden to physical laws, it by derfinition is not beholden to physical laws. no other premise is given "by the definition"

if the definition is {not beholden to physical laws and not able to interact} with the physical then this can be included as a "by definition" postulate.

But the matter that you claim it interacts with (i.e. the person etc) IS bound by the laws of matter.

please note carefully who is making claims here and what claims are being made?

It can only react and exist according to the laws of physics.

how do you know this?
how do you know what potential the soul has when you have not been able to observe it?
oh! Sarkus oh! thou seeker of evidence, i beseech thee demonstrate unto thou feeble of mind thy great and wonderous observations.

You can not have an IMMATERIAL item interacting with a MATERIAL item unless the IMMATERIAL item is obeying the same laws as the MATERIAL.

again this is just presumtion. there is no reason why a non material existence needs to satisfy any demand that you make of it.

But the matter that it supposedly interacts with IS restricted to the physical realm and can not defy such contraints.

i have no argument with this.

Read Boris' post again.

suck my dick!

The "soul" might exist, it might not. If it "exists" then it exists in an immaterial realm that CAN NOT interact with the material realm.

the presumption is that you know what is happening on the inside of the immaterial, the fact is unless you have observed this realm you do not know what is happening in that realm.

To do so would break/counter/contravene the laws of this Universe.

the laws of the material realm are not aplicable to the immaterail. the material breaks the material laws, the immaterial is not bond to these laws.

One more time - if the soul is immaterial it CAN NOT INTERACT WITH THE MATERIAL.

why? consdiering that the soul is not restricted to any laws justify why it cannot interact with matter.

It is not the "soul" that is the limiting factor in the desire for interaction, but it is the MATTER that limits it.

matter is a limitation to itself ONLY.

If the soul interacts with matter, in any way, then this interaction MUST be observable within the matter.

again you are expecting the immatterial to behave like the material.

You can not interact with matter and not leave observable evidence.

you ??

If you doubt it, please try and think of any way in which it is not true.

doubt is non material, you would not believe i have any.

 

[Raithere]

Why?

I don't know Jan, why are you participating in this discussion in the first place?

I honestly don't understand the situation here. Perhaps you can explain. Boris presents an argument that you obviously disagree with. Fine. No problem. Why then refuse to explain why you disagree or discuss the situation further? Why the stubborn refusal to posit an alternative argument? If you're not here to discuss things, be challenged, and contribute to the exploration of ideas such as this, why are you here at all?

~Raithere

 

[Sarkus]

So a musician is someone that can create regular vibrations that have an effect within our neural pathways, illiciting emotional response?
So what differentiates "music", from noise, not considered music (such highway noise)?

Obviously you don't read posts fully - as this was explained in my post!

"It differs to "noise" in that noise is composed of irregular vibrations, although can equally illicit emotions."

We can all understand that in order to play music, we need to manipulate soundwaves, and this create a reaction in the brain. But can you tell me what music is, not how it comes about?

I'm not telling you how it comes about - I'm telling you what it IS - it IS soundwaves.

"Music" is nothing but a word that we apply to these soundwaves.

Can it be observed without the aid of a person?

WTF?

Is there an explanation for rhythm, melodies and hormonies in concordance, which occur naturally.

Yes.

It is all to do with resonant frequencies I understand, although my biology and neurology isn't exactly great. I suggest you do a search on Google (or similar).
And it surprisingly mathematical, I understand.

You say "making the music", i am interested in what music is, in the material sense, not what is used to create music.

I have told you what music is IN THE MATERIAL sense. Why do you ignore it? Why do you seemingly ignore everything that doesn't suit your argument?

You keep on repeating yourself. What is music? Where in material nature do we find music? We (humans) know how to make music, we are aware of the tools involved, but what is it?

Ho hum - here we go again. Read above.

How do these soundwaves organise themself into what we call music?
What is the natural mechanism?

Eh?
"Music" is a term that WE have generated and that we have applied. Nature doesn't determine what is music and what isn't - WE DO. We have defined music and we put things into the basket labelled "music".

But surely this cannot mean anything, as it is purely subjective?
There has to be a material, physical explanation of "music" or it cannot exist?
Right?

THERE IS!!!!!
I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU!!!
If you refuse to accept it then there is little I can do about it other than reiterate it.

To sum up.
Music is very much physical.
It is up to each individual to ascribe to these soundwaves what they consider to be "music" or not - but the physicality of what "music" is remains the same!!!

 

[ellion]

and what is the truth

true!

no, immaterial

does the hallucinated effect the mind of the hallucinator?

the definition, you quite plainly, pushed,

i have given no definition of the soul. i was asked by Q what my soul is but i gave no definition like you have imagined.

 

[water]

I honestly don't understand the situation here. Perhaps you can explain. Boris presents an argument that you obviously disagree with. Fine. No problem. Why then refuse to explain why you disagree or discuss the situation further? Why the stubborn refusal to posit an alternative argument? If you're not here to discuss things, be challenged, and contribute to the exploration of ideas such as this, why are you here at all?

The situation here is that some self-proclaimed atheists are pissy and angry and most of all, passive aggressive, and then they seek justifications for their dislike of this or that religious content.

In this, they tresspass their competences and speak of things they have no clue of, in short, they are bullshitting.

What these angry, pissy, passive aggressive atheists truly want is someone to hold them in their arms and tell them that everything is going to be alright. At the same time, they despise this desire.

And then they come to these forums, seeking compassion. And when they get it from theists, they refuse it because it just ain't good enough, coming from theists. This is their excuse to indulge in their miseries, which they like to be cynical about, and then we get nowhere.

 

[Angelic Being]

Thanks Cris!

Everyone, please take the time to read the above post carefully, especially theists.

I am a theist, I would not want to waste my time reading something that long and confusing, but I actually dont think that the soul is separate from the body simply because the original renderings of the Holy Scriptures state that thay are one and the same.

The Soul is the Body.

The Spirit is separate.

The problem is that there has been alot of confusion caused by wannabe geniuses (idiots of reality!), that today almost 99% of the world will consider applying the original definition of the Spirit as stated in The Holy Scriptures as applicable to the word Soul.

Of course you would not want ot rule out the influence of the devil on these idiots of reality.

Thank You!!!!!

 

[ellion]

Here is where you go off track. No one is trying to confine the soul to physical laws. However the body is most certainly confined to physical laws. Or is this to which you object?

my objection is really to the fact that boris has built an argument around a poor representaion of the soul.

Does the soul affect the material world? If so, this effect can be observed.

the effect may be observed but the source underlying the material cannot be observed.

Let me repeat this again so it's real clear. If it has an affect upon the physical world that effect can be detected.

in which case we need to know more about what the soul is doing to the material and how it is doing it, dont we? can you make that clearer?

Can I make it any clearer?

i would hope so.

 

[Sarkus]

But the matter that it supposedly interacts with IS restricted to the physical realm and can not defy such contraints.

i have no argument with this.

Then please explain to me, logically, how something that is restricted by the laws of physics can interact with something that is not?
Remember, the laws of physics include such wonderous things such as "conservation of energy", laws of thermodynamics etc.

Consider purely the physical realm of such an interaction.
You can not have a one-sided interaction in the physical realm.

the presumption is that you know what is happening on the inside of the immaterial, the fact is unless you have observed this realm you do not know what is happening in that realm.

I presume nothing about which there is no evidence of existence.

why? consdiering that the soul is not restricted to any laws justify why it cannot interact with matter.

Because if it interacts with matter it is THE MATTER that will break the laws of physics.

I couldn't care less what the immaterial can or can not do.
But because the matter side of the interaction IS bound by the laws of PHYSICS - to interact with an immaterial item WOULD cause that material to break the laws of physics.

Please tell me how something immaterial can interact with something material and not do so? Remember to abide by laws of conservation of energy, of momentum, laws of thermodynamics etc.
Please do tell me.
Pleeeeease, I beg you.

 

[Raithere]

The situation here is that some self-proclaimed atheists are pissy and angry and most of all, passive aggressive, and then they seek justifications for their dislike of this or that religious content.

Well you utterly failed to explain the theistic perspective which is what I was asking after. But perhaps you are correct regarding atheists in some instances. However, this is not why I am here and it is not why I ask questions. So what exactly does what you said have to do with me?

~Raithere

 

[Sarkus]

does the hallucinated effect the mind of the hallucinator?

If you think hallucinations are immaterial then this is part of the problem - they are not immaterial - they are very physical but contained with the visual elements of the brain.

Maybe everyone's understanding of "immaterial" is different.

 

[water]

Well you utterly failed to explain the theistic perspective which is what I was asking after. But perhaps you are correct regarding atheists in some instances. However, this is not why I am here and it is not why I ask questions. So what exactly does what you said have to do with me?

Ask yourself why you are wondering about what the soul is. And why you are asking these questions here, at such a forum.

Do you really want to know? Why?

 

[water]

Maybe everyone's understanding of "immaterial" is different.

Hallelujah! Now we're actually getting somewhere.