When do you get a soul? & related questions.

-=-

When have you seen me claim electrons exist?
Turnabout is not fair play.
The (main) reason people say you're full of shit is you won't offer anything substantial to support your claims.
 
glaucon said:
How is this relevant?
I can't see how a (purported) soul could be necessarily related to enlightenment....
Click to expand...
It wasn't about souls.

If you reread the posts you will see that stranger was just about to enlighten me as to how one can evidence something to the inimical




Blind supposition.
Click to expand...
whoa

slow down cowboy

we are just beginning at the point of theory here
;)
 
lightgigantic said:
It wasn't about souls.

If you reread the posts you will see that stranger was just about to enlighten me as to how one can evidence something to the inimical
Click to expand...



Ah.
Well then, the thread has gone off topic.
These posts should be deleted.



lightgigantic said:
whoa

slow down cowboy

we are just beginning at the point of theory here
;)
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, one cannot begin from nothing, which is what blind supposition is...
 
lightgigantic said:
It wasn't about souls.
Click to expand...


Of course it is.


lightgigantic said:
If you reread the posts you will see that stranger was just about to enlighten me as to how one can evidence something to the inimical
Click to expand...


Of course, I was not about to do such. I'm not so silly.


lightgigantic said:
as to how one can evidence something to the inimical
Click to expand...


I am open minded. You have no reason to think otherwise. I want all answers it is possible to have.


lightgigantic said:
Iwe are just beginning at the point of theory here
Click to expand...


We're not beginning anything. You're stuck in a rut. \
 
to begin with, it possesses life/consciousness
Click to expand...

You said: "It appears we have to go back to issues of theory and determine what qualities determine a "soul"".

So, let's go back to theory and determine what qualities 'determine' a soul. How do you propose it is 'determined'?

Perhaps I use a different definition, but I consider 'determine' to mean: 'to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc'.

So, kindly show me - by going back to whatever 'theory' it is how you conclude or ascertain - after reasoning and observation - that a soul exists, what qualities that soul has and how we determine that to be the case. If you don't mind.
 
Last edited:
lg,

generally before determining the validity of an assertion one has some sort of idea of the terms involved in the claim.

For instance once one has a clear understanding what is heat and what is fire, there is no need to head in the direction of proving how fire depends on heat
Click to expand...
So your specific assertion that life is dependent on souls is valid because?
 
lg,

Once again, if you think you can determine some sort of conclusion divorced from issues of application and theory, it appears you have some essential disagreement with standard pedagogical methods

“ Remember absence of any other explanation offers you no support for your fantasy. ”

I am simply pointing out that unlike you, I can actually lay claim to means of application.

The problem at the moment is that you disregard not only application but also theory as a means of coming to some sort of conclusion

(Kind of makes me wonder where you would ever be if you applied such scrutiny to the claim that life is materially reducible however)


“ You have asserted that life is dependent on a soul regardles of whatever I have said. Show how life is so dependent. ”

and lo and behold, all evidential claims begin at the point of theory
Click to expand...
You don't appear to have said anything of substance in that text.

Soooo.. the theory is that life is dependent on souls? Correct? Or have I missed something? So now we have established the theory you'll now proceed to show the evidence, correct? I'm ready - please go ahead.
 
Very few people understand what the Soul is.

There really aren't individual souls.

there is One Big Life Force. When a person achieves Spiritual Enlightenment, they realize their identity with this One Super Soul.

yes, this Big Super Soul can be imprinted with small facets -- like a Big Jewel in the Sky. One atunes to it at different levels and vibrations. The Big Soul can behave anthropomorphically -- it can appear as deceased Saints or legendary Angels.

To make the best sense out of it, I call it the Collective Consciousness. I can make the most use of it that way. Materialists acknowledge its importance and at the same time diminish it by calling it the Subconscious Mind.

Dinosaur said:
I am an atheist who is curious rather than looking for an argument. I intend to resist urges to make posts disagreeing with points of view expressed here. I do not always manage to resist temptation.

There was a recent news item relating to Catholic Church attitudes relating to abortion. The Pope was quoted as claiming that the Catholic Church had no opinion about when a human being received a soul.

The article caused me to wonder about the theist position on various related issues.
  • When does god give a soul to a human being ? Do other religions have a position on this question ?

  • Might god decide to not give a soul to some individuals? For example: A baby born with a brain lacking the frontal cortex.

  • Does god give souls to any animals such as chimpanzees, dogs, squirrels ? If not: Could he confer a soul on an animal?

  • If science managed to clone a human being, would the clone have a soul?

  • Similar to the previous question: If a scientist managed to construct a viable human being (a la Doctor Frankenstein) would it have a soul? The answer to this question might be different from the same question about a clone.

  • If science managed to build a Star Trek transporter, would the soul be reconstructed along with the body or would it travel independently of the transporter technology ? Perhaps it would be lost ?

  • The Star Trek transporter was capable of making multiple copies of a human being. If such a device made a copy, would god provide an additional soul? Would the two copies share the same soul? Would the copy not have a soul?
BTW: I do not believe that science will ever be capable of building a Star Trek transporter. Those who want to take issue with this opinion, please start a thread in one of the science-oriented forums.

While writing the above, a thought occurred to me about the Catholic position on when a soul is conferred. The Catholic Church directs that in the event of serious problems during child birth, the baby be saved if a choice must be made. With modern medical technology, this is a very trivial issue: A choice is hardly ever required.

I think the emphasis on saving the baby rather than the mother is based on the concept of original sin. The baby has never been baptized to erase the burden of original sin, condemning the soul to hell or purgatory or some such punishment. To be consistent, the Catholic Church should adopt the view that the soul is conferred during the birth process. Otherwise, the proper sacrament (baptism, I think) could be performed prior to labor to erase (forgive?) the original sin in the event that the baby died before being baptized.
Click to expand...
 
-=-

Maybe he is.
After pointing out this was going way off topic & resisting doing the same, I got caught up in it.
Finally someone posted on topic. According to the OP, this thread wasn't meant to be about proof.
 
The term "soul" as used in the OP assumes the concept of duality. I.e. a 1 to 1 relationship between a physical body and something imaterial that it depends upon somehow, e.g. a symbiotic relationship, or perhaps a dependent parasite.

The idea is that this soul is the entity that represents the essense of "I" and is considered immortal. The question then becomes when do these two entities come together to make the whole.

The Christians believe it occurs at conception and the Muslims believe it is some weeks later. Curiously this is why Bush tried to outlaw stemcell research and limit science while the perceived backwardness of Islam embraced such research.

But before we can truly address the OP we need to understand what this "soul" thing is and how it relates to the physical. For example LG maintains that every living cell requires a "soul" to keep it alive. In which case a "soul" never enters a person but is an integral part of life, e.g. something alive cannot occur without this essential component.

In Leo's case, soul is more like "The Force" in the Star Wars movies, and somehow our physical body's have some type of networking connection with this universal entity. The concept of a soul entering the body again makes no sense in this case.

So once we have established the ideas the next step should be justifications and evidence, which is somewhat where we are in the topic.
 
Somewhat returning to the OP again I question that the body has any need for a soul so the question of when has no relevance.

The time of conception has a very basic problem, what happens when the embryo splits several days after conception and become two individuals? I.e. Identical twins. Does one have a soul a one does not? No one would accept that so conception is not the definitive moment.

What about split brain scenarios where the connection between the two halves of the brain have been severed through either necessary surgery or injury? Studies here show two distinct personalities emerge in the same individual. Did a new soul appear or does one personality not have a soul, or does the soul split.

All of these problems vanish once we realize that the physical body and personality have no dependence on imaterial souls. Psychologists have extensive case studies of personaility being dependent on brain health, genes, and function. A soul here provides nothing of value. In which case we should eliminate personality from the list of soul properties. The same can be said for memory. In which case if the dual concept of soul provides nothing in the way of personality or memory, then what does the soul do? Seemingly nothing.

That brings us back to - what the heck is a soul and why is it needed?
 
I more wonder why the soul needs a body.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. The soul concept is based on ignorance of how consciousness is caused. If indeed a soul is the essence of consciousness and can exist externally to a body then why the heck would it ever need a body?

Bear in mind that the soul idea by far pre-dates modern science and any notions of brain function or neural networks. If the ancients knew what we know now would the soul concept ever have arisen?
 
If the ancients knew what we know now would the soul concept ever have arisen?
Click to expand...

Of course not but we should also understand that the ancients didn't really mention 'souls' in the way that modern day theists do. As far as the bible goes, the words translated as 'soul' or 'spirit' all mean "breath" and merely represented a fact of life, (the living breathed and 'contained' breath, the dead did not). That modern day theists think it means invisible inner living you's is their own problem.
 
Leo Volont said:
Very few people understand what the Soul is.

One Big Life Force.

One Super Soul.

Big Super Soul

Big Jewel in the Sky.

I call it the Collective Consciousness.

Materialists acknowledge its importance and at the same time diminish it by calling it the Subconscious Mind.
Click to expand...

What I see from your post, Leo, is that you merely wish to place on a pedestal and over-dramatize the somewhat mundane. It may have appeared as something 'bigger-than-life' long ago, mysterious and mystical, but is simply the fundamental workings of the mind.

In other words, you sound like the Sham-Wow guy trying to sell a piece of cloth.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
-=-

I more wonder why the soul needs a body.
Click to expand...

Two reasons:

One I think is more along the lines that it's a dead person that really needs a soul. Not too many cadavers have been seen ascending into heaven or descending into hell. Perhaps our ancestors also saw how much trouble making the connection from this world to the next was going to be for a carcass. There was a need to fill in a blank so to speak.

The second reason is to make sure you get rewarded or punished for your time on Earth. However you would need reason one before two since it is tough to punish a corpse.

The solution was to have everyone carry a soul around for a lifetime ensuring that the transitional phase takes place. It was simply logical to have a soul if one believed you lived forever in some other realm.

The soul seems to have no other purpose than to act as the vehicle that transports your essence to another place. It's a freeloading consciousness that awakens and springs into action upon the death of the individual. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top