Studies say: soul exists.

Hello Cris

Nice to see you again; I have not been about for a while. Pressures of webmastering and work. In previous posts/threads I have always argued that the soul uses the body as a "carrying case" before moving on. The soul/mind does exist, of that I am sure, and that it also develops though the ages. How or why is beyond my simple mind and none of it has to do with religion or beliefs contained therein. I cannot, nor will pretend to, put it into such exquisite terms as those previous posts above except to say that the mind will live on after the "case" defaults. What is the point of our existence here otherwise? Leave religion out of it - I am a devout born again athiest! thank god! Reincarnation? Possibly. Heaven? - anywhere is heaven after this planet. Hell? see previous sentence. :rolleyes:
 
Hi Red devil,

In previous posts/threads I have always argued that the soul uses the body as a "carrying case" before moving on.
Click to expand...
Ok but why, since our brains seem perfectly capable of doing everything people claim the soul does?

The soul/mind does exist, of that I am sure, and that it also develops though the ages.
Click to expand...
Why are you so sure? Note that is not asking why the soul exists, but what is it that has convinced you of your beliefs.

How or why is beyond my simple mind and none of it has to do with religion or beliefs contained therein.
Click to expand...
Ok I can buy that although beliefs based on the supernatural are usually considered either religious or superstitions.

… the mind will live on after the "case" defaults. What is the point of our existence here otherwise?
Click to expand...
So extend that idea to what you will be like after you die assuming your soul survives. What then is the point of your existence then? Do you see that the idea of a soul really doesn’t solve the question of ‘why are we here”. We as humans do seem very dissatisfied when answers aren’t forthcoming and we will try to fill in the blanks with anything that feels comfortable. The more pragmatic approach is to accept that there is no reason for our existence until we create one for ourselves. From my perspective our purpose of being here is of no significant difference to that of rocks.

Leave religion out of it - I am a devout born again athiest! thank god! Reincarnation? Possibly. Heaven? - anywhere is heaven after this planet. Hell?
Click to expand...
OK, organized religions we can certainly do without. But the only reason this planet is unpleasant for many is that we haven’t got our act together and solved some of the problems yet, but things are improving.

And yup – thank God for atheism!! :D

Cris
 
Xris

Quote: Ok but why, since our brains seem perfectly capable of doing everything people claim the soul does? Unquote:

Brain=mind=soul=brain - yes?



:rolleyes:
 
Red Devil,

LOL. Ok in that sense I agree that souls exist. But note that in this sense the soul dies when the brain dies, agreed?

Krys
 
Cris

No my friend - This is where I think the "soul" leaves. Upon death; the soul leave the "case" hence the out of body experiences as with the "ka" - eastern mystics, for want of a better word, can detach from their bodies and "travel" - how and why is probably the subject for a sep thread? :rolleyes:
 
You Devil,

Ha, somehow I didn't think you'd agree to that.

Ok so if brain = mind = soul, then you haven't explained what the soul does. The brain and mind do everything we need, the soul then plays no practical role. Except perhaps as a parasite of some sort.

So what does the soul do?

Cris
 
RD,

Maybe wasn't making myself too clear - I mean the soul IS the mind!
Click to expand...
Ah I see. But that is quite impossible.

1. If the mind = soul and the soul leaves when the brain dies then that must mean that the mind also leaves at the same time, since from your claim the soul and the mind are one and the same thing. But that must mean that the mind and the soul have no dependence on the brain, otherwise how could they continue to exist when the brain dies?

2. The brain is composed of some 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. These components account for all our thoughts, memories, and emotions. We have deduced this from myriads of clinical studies. But thoughts, memories, and emotions are what we call the mind, hence the conclusion that the brain = mind. Or IOW the mind is totally dependent on a physical medium. If the brain dies then the mind dies.

3. If the soul is the same as the mind then the brain has no purpose, otherwise the soul would die when the brain dies. But we know from (2) that the brain has purpose, and the mind is dependent on a live brain.

4. So from 1, 2, and 3, we can see that the mind and the soul cannot be the same if the soul can exist independently of the brain. And if the mind accounts for all our thoughts memories and emotions then what is the purpose of the soul?

So again I ask you, what is the purpose of the soul? It appears to be completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Cris
 
Cris

I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher; just an ordinary bloke with opinions. Maybe the soul/mind "uses" the brain as a vessel - I cant answer that - its just my opinion at the end of the day. If someone else believes different fair enough; same as I respect greatly your and others opinions. Without this "difference" we would need no forum to air opinions. I think the soul and mind are one and the same; using the body and brain as vessels; when the vessel sinks the mind/soul moves on. I will not be proved right or wrong until one of us is dead and somehow manages to get "back" to relate the experience!! Sorry Cris if I am unable to give a more in depth answer - I am just not qualified enough to be more specific. :rolleyes:
 
Red,

Hey no problem. I enjoyed the exchange and the opportunity to express my views as well.

Be cool.
Cris
 
Red Devil: I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher; just an ordinary bloke with opinions.
Click to expand...
Don't sell yourself short. You don't need a membership to belong to either of those groups. Each that uses observation and thinking to postulate universal thesi belongs. Some are compensated for their efforts and others are not.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Teg

Don't sell yourself short. You don't need a membership to belong to either of those groups. Each that uses observation and thinking to postulate universal thesi. Some are compensated for their efforts and others are not.
Click to expand...
er..... yeah whatever you say! Actually I did understand that haha!:rolleyes:
 
***I will not be proved right or wrong until one of us is dead and somehow manages to get "back" to relate the experience!!***

There has been much testimony about the many who have gotten "back" in spirit to relate the experience. Problem is, without the physical vessel which can be seen, many choose not to believe. Understandable.

We have also heard testimony that one even came "back" with vessel in tact. Still, many choose not to believe because it happened many years ago and they did not see it with their own eyes. Understandable.

P.S. According to those who have seen, you have already been proven to be correct.
 
Blonde_cupid,

There has been much testimony about the many who have gotten "back" in spirit to relate the experience. Problem is, without the physical vessel which can be seen, many choose not to believe. Understandable.
Click to expand...
Very understandable. Without any credible or verifiable evidence then anyone who is capable of rational thought will doubt such testimonies.

We have also heard testimony that one even came "back" with vessel in tact. Still, many choose not to believe because it happened many years ago and they did not see it with their own eyes. Understandable.
Click to expand...
Well no. Not only was it a long while ago but we aren’t even able to verify that those who made the testimonies were actual witnesses, let alone be able to assess whether the event actually occurred.

P.S. According to those who have seen, you have already been proven to be correct.
Click to expand...
Until someone can clearly show the difference between delusion and an actual spirit appearance then the delusion is the only believable choice, since we do know that delusions occur (we have tons of clinical evidence), but we have nothing for spirits.

Cris
 
Cris,

***Without any credible or verifiable evidence then anyone who is capable of rational thought will doubt such testimonies.***

Have you considered those of rational thought who have seen or heard for themselves? They do not doubt their own testimony.
 
Study says People studied say souls exist, 10% of the time.

1. It is impossible to remove bias from a study.
2. Without objective control the study does not exist.
3. Whilst statistics NEVER lie. Statisticians do FREQUENTLY (and like rugs and or dogs upon them).

Jan, Uh exqueeze me, but doesn't that more or less corrolate with the number of psychotics? Mind you I"m not saying (nor asking) if these patients were nuts, only that it seems to match the general per captia rate... Corrolation/=causitive

When I took Stats from the same prof I was taking econ, he asked: What is the overiding single premise of Economics? We all shook our heads, and he replied, "In the LONG run we'll ALL be dead!" it is interesting that the those who reported NDEs represent the same "population" of Cardiac survivors, isn't it?

Chris/Red Devil et al:

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean EVERYBODY isn't out to get me!" Abby Hoffman of the Chicago Seven (for those of us who remember the 1968 Democratic Convention). One bright morning he walks into NYC FBI office. This is after twenty years of successful hiding within the system and artful negotion with federal authorities. He suddenly surrenders, and promptly hangs himself?). Okay...'tell me another story...'

Now, this exact same quote can be used, and the soul can be surplanted for paranoia. In the case of the Hawking quote, Chris is so fond of, Hawking has omitted that in "proving" that there is a concievablity that the planet evolved without God, as is possible ("I always like to think there are possibilities") it could make God irrelevent. Aldous Huxley makes his point when he says, "As all gods are home made it is we who give them the power to pull OUR strings" [emphasis, mine]. Personally, I'm a borne againg Zen Pagan (uh, somebody carried me off).

Oh, there's the point [right on top of my little pin head]! Whether there IS or is NOT a god (of upper or lowercase, of good, evil, or dilitantance ie: greek, kelt, norse, or shinto--exsqueeze me, kami are NOT gods--at least not after 300 AD, anyway--trust me anybody who can house a wasps nest within his body, exchange skins at will or turn himself into solid stone qualifies in MY book) for MY life, it is utterly irrelevent.

This however does apply to the discussion. Whether there is a soul or NOT which does or does NOT survive my current body, is not going to alter the way that I choose to live my (possibly)now current life. This I have achieved by constant frequent intropection (as so inelegantly phrased by Bill W.) heated in the forge of knowlege that shall ALWAYS be incomplete, tempered in the bath of reason as I understand it, and forged with as great personal work as I can achieve and still feed myself. This doesn't mean I won't consider the issue, only that it is NOT relevent.

Now, to paraphrase Hoffman, and to statisfy Chris, Just because I'm delusional, doesn't mean my delusions are NOT real, or that you are not one of them...

Mr. K
hehe. :D
 
Blonde_cupid,

***Without any credible or verifiable evidence then anyone who is capable of rational thought will doubt such testimonies.***

Have you considered those of rational thought who have seen or heard for themselves? They do not doubt their own testimony.
Click to expand...
The old adage “seeing is believing”, despite popular opinion is not a reliable form of evidence. We know very well that optical and audible illusions can and often do occur. And the brain is very good at filling in missing details to provide what it determines is a recognizable image, or sound. In short you cannot rely on what you see and hear unless you obtain independent credible and verifiable evidence.

If someone chooses to believe something that they see without any verification then their ability for rational thought should be seriously questioned. Or they may just be ignorant that their senses and their brain can deceive them.

Now if you can find a case where someone has witnessed such an event under scientific conditions with appropriate recording instruments, together with other unbiased observers, then you might have a point. I am pretty sure no such arrangement has ever been accomplished.

Cris
 
Cris,

So, you believe the scientific method to be the only way? You believe that it is absolutely and universally valid?
 
blonde_cupid,

So, you believe the scientific method to be the only way? You believe that it is absolutely and universally valid?
Click to expand...
No. I believe it is the best we have at the current time, and has proved its worth many times. Faith has never shown anything similar and has consistently been proved wrong each time science makes new discoveries.

But I am open to anyone who can show a more reliable method, as should be the attitude of any scientist.

Cris
 
Cris,

***Faith has never shown anything similar and has consistently been proved wrong each time science makes new discoveries.***

How do you come to the conclusion that faith is wrong? Is faith testable using the scientific method?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top