What is the material of our soul?

[Cris]

Usp,

Ok, His/it's name is Jimmy for the politically correct out there. It is the process who drew the bow, shot the first marble, threw the ping pong ball on the proverbial mousetraps. The difference is, I will give my initial stimulus a name instead of saying, thank you for what you have started, initial stimulus that started it all.

There cannot be a beginning since you will always hit the issue of what caused the beginning, and the cause of the cause etc.

Let's all just be idiots and not know or care that something started it all.

Most of us do care, but just don’t find theist speculations credible.

We *poofed* here by nothing which triggered, or not triggered, an action.

You are still stuck on the idea that there had to be a beginning. Try thinking outside of the theist model for a while.

If some people took time away from debunking others' Gods, then they may actually find a God of their own but they spend their life in others' business telling them to stop believing and therefore, have no life of their own.

Don’t you have that reversed? Non believers don’t really have an agenda to convince the world of their position unlike Christian evangelism that does indeed deliberately interfere with others’ business.

It's just crazy how adament a lot of these Godless liberals are at trying to tell you there is no God, that it's all magic and somehow happened for no reason.

Godless liberals???? Generally non-believers don’t try to tell people there is no god only that theists can’t show there is one; quite a different perspective.

But when you step back and see it through the eyes of logic that we weren't created, that we just got here from "i don't know what the heck", then you'd see how nonsensical it would seems.

So what you are saying is that natural processes are nonsensical and that superstitions, the supernatural, and magic are perfectly sensible, is that right? You must realize that position lacks any credibility.

 

[Cris]

Usp,

Myself, I am content in knowing what I know. I do not seek much more knowledge because I have been there and know I was wrong. I had all the feelings a lot of you had.

Ahh OK. I recognize those signs and that familiar outlook. You are at the beginning of your search not the end. Looks like you’ve been impressed by some expert brain washing, so what cult has you in its grip right now.

I kept doing the problem because I got a clue when I realized you can argue for infinity and disclaim anything and in the end, all you are is a shell of cluelessness until you get off your butt and ask someone for the answer who has also been there.

Yup some Christian apologetic has you trapped and indoctrinated. You were looking for an ultimate answer, a purpose to life, and have become impatient. Science does not provide those things; science is a continuing search for truth and knowledge, and we are likely at the beginning of that journey. You have simply misunderstood science and have taken a leap of faith and now assert that God did it all.

By being further behind in the knowledge of physics and mathematics, I am further ahead because I realized to study an infinitely smaller and larger universe is in itself, infinite and you are wasting your life away when you could be doing something more important for your fellow human beings.

Science is about the pursuit of knowledge and such knowledge has proved itself extremely useful to mankind. This internet medium would not have been possible otherwise. Don’t be a hypocrite by taken the extraordinary results of science for granted and saying they aren’t worthwhile.

I used to be really into physics and math 'til I tried to debunk the christian God using those principles and I couldn't do it, in fact, I discovered God through science and math.

Looks like you failed in both physics and math, neither lead to the supernatural, and more precisely they lead in the opposite direction.

I am the only one I know of that has found God through science and math.

What experiment shows the existence of a god?

Listen to yourself, what's inside using your own judgement of what you think is wrong and right and you will see, God is the way.

It’s called fantasizing. The Lord of the Rings is also internally quite logically consistent and religionists rationalize the same way to create their fantasies. You are simply creating your own fantasy that feels consistent to you. But these things have no lasting value since they are entirely baseless; you have no factual basis for your conclusions. Science is hard, facts are hard, doing and finding those things is hard – you’ve simply given up and taken the lazy fantasy route – religion.

The way of least anger, least hate, most peace, and less chaos.

Political religious authoritarianism, inquisition, crusades, 911, terrorism, Hitler (holocaust), intolerance for other lifestyles, prejudice – all typical of religious thought.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Geez, to come into this forum claiming to believe in God is to tread into a lion cage with a steak tied on you.

It's a healthy exercise in thinking. Can't have a great looking diamond without intense heat, pressure, and a whole lot of cutting.

I kind of figured I'd get a lot of disapproval. Believing in a creator is totally screwball as opposed to not being able to figure out who created us or thinking we *poofed* here. Maybe I need to see a quack, I must be going crazy.

I boldfaced that segment of the statement for a reason as it's very-limiting to think we are 'created' or 'poofed' here.

 

[c7ityi_]

There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that 'nothing' exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist.

What exists then? What is this thing that exists? What can it be other than nothing?

They're called myths for a reason.

myth means 'ancient story'. if myth means 'false', then those ancient stories are not myths.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What exists then? What is this thing that exists?

Now you're asking the RIGHT questions !! The answer is, we haven't figured it out. There is alot we do know and even more we don't. The fun part is figuring out how to ask reality the right questions and understand the answers. Science is the best process for doing this and using evidence-based thinking will only accelerate this exploration.

What can it be other than nothing?

Something.

myth means 'ancient story'. if myth means 'false', then those ancient stories are not myths.

Myth typically means a work of fiction.

 

[Mythbuster]

Nothing is something.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hey Myth,

'Nothing' would technically be the absence of 'everything' (not a presence). An absence of a photon, for example, isn't something although conceptualizing the absence of that photon is something (the concept itself).

The point is likely moot however as there is no evidence that such an absence can be (other than an imaginary concept).

 

[Mythbuster]

Yeah i get the point. thanks.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

Ectoplasm.

 

[Mythbuster]

Ectoplasm.

Ecto..what ?

 

[c7ityi_]

Something.

'Matter' can always be divided into smaller parts, ad infinitum.

The world can't be made of something because something is an effect -- it requires a cause, an answer. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is nothingness. It is more logical than anything else. If being was normal, we wouldn't ask questions about it.

To explain the universe from 'something else' than nothing is not explanatory at all.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ecto..what ?

Owwwwwwwww! Who ya' gonna call... Myth-Busters!!!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

'Matter' can always be divided into smaller parts, ad infinitum.

We both don't know that is true. There might be a smallest unit of space-time and thats it. M-theory predicts this... a vibrating unit intersecting an 11 dimensional structure. Man it will be great to see if the LHC in 2007 starts validating some of these predictions.

The world can't be made of something because something is an effect -- it requires a cause, an answer.

By 'world' are we talking about Earth? How would an effect not be 'something'? It seems that the cause of Earth would be processes operating on information in reality; hence, Earth could be interpreted as an effect of reality within itself. Similarly, there is a mis-conception likely resulting from limitations in human perception that everything existing has to be 'caused'. That's not necessarily the case.

Regardless, Earth's existence is self-evident. It is something.

The only thing that doesn't need a cause is nothingness. It is more logical than anything else. If being was normal, we wouldn't ask questions about it.

There is no possible way anyone on the face of this planet could know this. We don't know that reality requires a 'cause' and there is no evidence that 'nothing' exists. What's being accepted as truth here is avoiding evidence-based thinking and falling into the all too familiar realm of religious 'belief'.

Your assertion may 'seem' logical and I suspect applying logic to it will product a completely different result. Consequently, we're in a reality where asking questions promotes adaptation and this contradicts the assertion that "if being were normal then we wouldn't ask questions about it"... that's a 'belief' again... it's completely ignoring the existing contradictory evidence that being is normal and so is asking questions about it.

To explain the universe from 'something else' than nothing is not explanatory at all.

This is a problem in thinking. A willingness to jump at an explanation with no evidence rather than hytpothesize, test, model, and analyze evidence is that brick wall of 'belief' thats going to hold people back whom use it as a means to understand reality.

 

[Cris]

C7,

Still ranting on about nothing I see.

'Matter' can always be divided into smaller parts, ad infinitum.

Philosophical nonsense. It can only be divided as far as the fundamental unit of substance, whatever that may be.

The world can't be made of something because something is an effect

It doesn’t follow that because something is an effect that it can’t be constructive. Everything is both something and an effect.

-- it requires a cause, an answer.

No it doesn’t, answers are not a necessity only a desire.

The only thing that doesn't need a cause is nothingness.

Yes it does. Nothing is the caused result when something is caused elsewhere. Nothing is entirely relative and dependent on something.

It is more logical than anything else.

Nonsense. It is total gibberish.

If being was normal, we wouldn't ask questions about it.

The desire to ask questions is not dependent on normality or abnormality. Your assertion is simply more gibberish.

To explain the universe from 'something else' than nothing is not explanatory at all.

I’m not even sure that is grammatically correct. I certainly couldn’t make any sense of it.

 

[Hapsburg]

What is the sould made of? Electical pulses and signals. That's it. That's all. Religionists have, however, interpereted the simple electric energy pulses that recieve and send information from brain to body as a "soul" of sorts. Science has proven them wrong, very blatantly, yet many of them continue to believe in pointless, senseless, and often violent beliefs..

 

[Provita]

No, im not agnostic. Im Roman Catholic, and I dont think claiming that is making me 'fresh meat for the grinder' lol. No, im not usp... check our IP's (if u can )

As for this sould bit... saying the sould has no function therefore it cannot be real makes some sense, but not completely. Whats the use of an appendix? (ofcoarse, now ull say 'what? a sould can be removed?'...) But let us remember, how do we know the sould has no use... perhaps its use is to be our guide to 'the next life' or maybe its a form of conscience; perhaps it is what makes us different from animals. We will never truely know, we can only discuss, so all arguments saying that a sould truley exists or truely does not exist is impossible, for we know nothing of a soul (assuming it exists) and we cannot prove anything of it. All we can do is discuss our views of what it is (again, granted be believe there is one.)

 

[Mythbuster]

P1. Minds are material
P2. Souls are immaterial
P3. Since souls are immaterial, our mind are material
P4. Souls can't have a mind
C. Souls doesn't exist

-by pikachu

 

[Sarkus]

Assuming humans have a "soul", it has always been a wonder of mine as to how much of the human body can be removed before the "soul" is affected?

Question 1: A person loses a limb in an accident. Is the "soul" damaged? Has part of the "soul" been lost with the limb?

Question 2: A person is paralysed from the neck down. Again - is the "soul" in any way damaged?

Question 3: A person loses everything from the neck down - but is kept alive artificially - and is now basically a "head in a jar". Is the "soul" affected?

Question 4: A living, compus mentis "brain in a jar" - sentient and mentally interactive, with technology now replacing every other part of the body. DOES THIS BRAIN IN A JAR STILL HAVE A SOUL?

If the answer to Q4 is "YES" then do you agree that the "soul" is entirely contained within the brain?

 

[Provita]

Personally (and this does not hold to everyone else) that a sould isnt in any particular place but is everywhere... and it doesnt get 'injured' ur 'destroyed' when u lose a limb or whatnot... i think you have a sould untill you die, then that soul goes somewhere else, but ofcoarse, thats my opinion and cannot be proved.

 

[Mythbuster]

Is the soul in the mind ?

P1. Minds are material
P2. God is immaterial
P3. Since God is immaterial, His mind is immaterial
P4. God can't have a mind
C. God doesn't exist

-by pikachu