15 Mar 08
Originally posted by twhitehead1. i belive in the soul/spirit which returns to god on death
which doesn't make any sense at all.
So please clarify. Do you
1. believe in something that you do not wish to tell us about
or
2 believe in something that you are not able to tell us about due to the extreme complexity involved.
or
3. believe in something you actually do not understand (and therefore cannot tell us about).[/b]
2. true i do not understand the discrption you wish for me to discibe
3. do you not feel the soul/spirit of yourself within you
as for makind sence, well on that all i can say is i know the universe is vast and see it by the advances made but even tho i see it still takes me beyond my understanding
15 Mar 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadTalking about your fingers?
When I say 'I' then I am referring to the physical entity that is typing this post.
I'm agnostic about souls, but I'll try to give you something to work on.
Right, then: the soul is the principle of life in humans, animals and I daresay plants too.
16 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOf course I don't have proof, I can even prove I can't get a proof.
Do you have proof or is this something you prefer to believe in order for you to be "happier"? I don't think you're on firmer footing than those who believe that there is a "soul".
Why should I make up something and say it exists when there's no reason to do it?
Existence of souls is completely unnecessary to explain things, so I assume they don't exist until evidence of the contrary.
Saying there is as much evidence souls exists as souls don't exist , so they're equal valid viewpoints is a logical fallacy.
16 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoYou can also ask yourself, "Why should I make up something and say it doesn't exist when there's no reason to do it?"
Of course I don't have proof, I can even prove I can't get a proof.
Why should I make up something and say it exists when there's no reason to do it?
Existence of souls is completely unnecessary to explain things, so I assume they don't exist until evidence of the contrary.
Saying there is as much evidence souls exists as souls don't exist , so they're equal valid viewpoints is a logical fallacy.
Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".
Realistically, no one knows. There's so much that man doesn't know. This will likely remain true for a long time to come. Man just likes to think he knows.
16 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHe didn't make it up. Atheists did not make it up.
You can also ask yourself, "Why should I make up something and say it doesn't exist when there's no reason to do it?"
Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".
Realistically, no one knows. There's so much that man doesn't know. This will likely remain true for a long time to come. Man just likes to think he knows.
16 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI wasn't the one making it up. I'm not sure it doesn't exist, but I'm sure there's no reason for anyone to suppose it exists.
You can also ask yourself, "Why should I make up something and say it doesn't exist when there's no reason to do it?"
Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".
Realistically, no one knows. There's so much that man doesn't know. This will likely remain true for a long time to come. Man just likes to think he knows.
Why add something to the mess?
Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".
My opinion and the most wise conclusion with our present knowledge. I really don't care about it or give it some importance. It just came in the thread and I stated my opinion.
Again: why add the soul fantasy when it's not necessary to explain reality?
16 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoNo big deal. Just so long as you acknowledge that there's no proof either way. I took your response as more definitive than you seem to have intended.
I wasn't the one making it up. I'm not sure it doesn't exist, but I'm sure there's no reason for anyone to suppose it exists.
Why add something to the mess?
[b]Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".
My opinion and the most wise conclusion with our present knowledge. I really don't care ...[text shortened]... inion.
Again: why add the soul fantasy when it's not necessary to explain reality?[/b]
I guess it depends on what one views as "reality".
While there are no scientific reasons for anyone to suppose it exists, there are reasons nonetheless of which I'm sure you're at least somewhat familiar.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, the gray edged entity I call my body. Note that it is divisible.
Talking about your fingers?
I'm agnostic about souls, but I'll try to give you something to work on.
Right, then: the soul is the principle of life in humans, animals and I daresay plants too.
Give more details. Do you think such a 'principle' can exist in non-physical form? Do you realize that it is divisible (eg you can grow some plants from any one of its leaves.)
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by stokerAnd what do you think that thing is that returns to God? Can you tell us anything about it? If not, what is the point of your belief?
1. i belive in the soul/spirit which returns to god on death
Start with this: can your soul think?
2. true i do not understand the discrption you wish for me to discibe
As much detail as you can provide. I asked a number of questions regarding the soul in previous posts, none of which have been answered by anyone. A bit odd don't you think? Something so central to Christian theology and nobody wants to talk about it.
3. do you not feel the soul/spirit of yourself within you
How would I know, you refuse to tell me what it is.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have no idea. Is it relevant? What is a non-physical form?
Give more details. Do you think such a 'principle' can exist in non-physical form? Do you realize that it is divisible (eg you can grow some plants from any one of its leaves.)[/b]
Divisible? Maybe it's some kind of electro-magnetic field. Does it matter?
Defining principle as the root cause of the phenomenon in question. Jump to obvious question: Does life have a cause?
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI am not entirely sure what you are saying.
I have no idea. Is it relevant? What is a non-physical form?
Divisible? Maybe it's some kind of electro-magnetic field. Does it matter?
Defining principle as the root cause of the phenomenon in question. Jump to obvious question: Does life have a cause?
Anyway, my questions are relevant for theists, because your suggestion for a soul concept is clearly incompatible with typical theism. If you are talking about something non-theistic then why steal their word?
And what do you mean by 'some kind of electro-magnetic field'? I thought you were talking about 'the principle of life'.
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadGee whiz, paint all theists with the same brush why don't you. Sorry if I can't serve you up your typical straw man.
I am not entirely sure what you are saying.
Anyway, my questions are relevant for theists, because your suggestion for a soul concept is clearly incompatible with typical theism. If you are talking about something non-theistic then why steal their word?
And what do you mean by 'some kind of electro-magnetic field'? I thought you were talking about 'the principle of life'.
Stealing their word? They didn't come up with it in the first place. It's one of the oldest words around. And I'm working straight from the OED, as it happens.
What do you understand by 'the principle of life'? To me, it would indicate the fount and origin of life ... which might be some kind of field, who knows. I simply assume that life has an origin. Perhaps you disagree, in which case do share -- it would be interesting to hear a view in which life has no point of origin.