Does the soul exist?

[John Freestone]

We are talking about the soul and what is known, not the moon.

Oh, please, please, pretty please, let me quote you in my sig.

I have no need to accept quotations from the Qu'ran since it denies Jesus.

I have no need to accept quotations from the buybull, since it denies the laws of physics.

If you need more explaining point it out and I will try to elaborate.

No, thanks.

Everything you said here is exactly the opposite of what the scriptures teaches.

Yes. Like I suggested, try different ideas on for size. I've spent quite a long time trying to make sense of christianity; while I tried that, I didn't refuse to listen to its propositions. That would limit my imagination.

Sure you can demonstrate that by using false teachings like, staring at the sun to see the Virgin Mary next to it. <snip>

No, your limited imagination caused you to generate an example of trying on different beliefs that was still inside your basic belief system. If I had suggested something to try out, to discover whether it is a 'false teaching' or not, I'd have suggested something more like evolution, cosmology, physics, that kind of thing. I didn't know there were people who stare at the sun in order to see optical illusions next to it. I think that's a straw Virgin, but I don't care, since I'm almost done arguing with you anyway.

People who believe and are Christians see the influence of the devil in their lives as he is after the ones that have been saved; to make them fall, he is after the ones that haven’t heard the word and this is important, he has no need to show but to hide himself from the ones that reject because they are fallen already and are his.

Oh, gosh, I belong to Satan! (I'll have to put it to the tune of I belong to Glasgie)

That is a false statement it teaches us to test the spirits and says so.

Good grammar is the midwife of good sense. You don't have a clue how to test anything. Your test is either to find something in the buybull and consider it true and reject anything that might cast doubt on your cherished beliefs. Would you test the idea of ghost hauntings by listening out for creaking sounds and saying they must be ghosts, because ghosts are real, and BTW it says so in 101 Best Haunted Houses? If you stick to a single opinion, refuse to consider whether it is based on any kind of reason, reject all doubt and consider all who don't believe what you believe as in the thrall of Satan, then your beliefs are mere prejudice. You are brainwashed. Someone has intellectually abused you with religious bigotry. Apparently you have no possibility of waking up from this (god's)-spell, because you lack the ability to think of anything outside the jesus-box. That way, you try to keep yourself safe from uncomfortable reality.

Blessed is he who persecuted in righteousness sake, for yours is the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is within you.

Yeah, yeah, you're persecuted for your righteous beliefs, yada yada.

I don’t know if you will get all that I pasted on here

I get it, yes. You paste it and we all get it. That's how forums work. I've stopped reading it, because it is quotations from a ghost story, a fairytale, a piece of non-fiction. I recognised that a long time ago. Shall I begin quoting from Alice in Wonderland?

and it covers more than the OP asks,

You're not wrong there. You're just trolling for jesus. This is the last bun you get from me.

 

[Perpetual Seeker]

edge, this is simple. Please tell me why you believe the soul exists? Remember, you can't refer to the Bible, because I don't think the Bible is true.

I'm glad to hear your arguments, but it's pointless and a waste of all of our time if you only spout off verses from the Bible, because those here who believe in the Bible (you and radrook, from what I can gather), already believe in some sort of soul.

So, henceforth, let's pretend the Bible doesn't exist. It's inconsequential in this argument.

 

[John Freestone]

I have recently come to the conclusion that consciousness is an aspect of what our brain does--just as growth and change is an aspect of living things. That is, we don't "make" our consciousness, it just is because the way human brains work makes that both possible and necessary. Only a damaged brain would not have some level of consciousness. It used to bother me to think that my Self, my "soul", was just something held in the activity in my brain--but as I learn more about the brain, I realize that there's no "just" to it. The brain is amazingly complex, and it's developing and changing with my thoughts and actions! Just think, new synaptic connections are forming as I reflect on how to write this post...

Yes, I've recently firmed up my opinion along those lines too. It is amazing.

ETA: I don't believe there is any immaterial soul that exists outside of the functioning of my brain. But I do believe that there is an individual, unique essense that is "me" and which is more than just reactions to my environment by my heredity. There is choice involved, and we can either make choices and think in ways that permit us to have more choices, more freedom--or we can opt not to think, not to reflect, not to choose but only to react, and that limits our choices. I'm not speaking figuratively, here, I mean that we can either make our brains more complex, and connect stored data to more different "tags" for retrieval, or we can limit ourselves to just one tag and just one route to that information. The more you cross-connect your knowledge, the more you use what you have already learned. This is supported by recent fMRI studies of memory and cognition.

I'm not at all sure there is such an essence, nor even free will. It's perhaps not possible to demonstrate (I'd love to discuss this point more if anyone has an idea how to do that), because if everything is predetermined, so is every detail of every experiment into whether things are predetermined or not! Likewise, I wonder: if you realise how amazingly flexible and programmable your brain is, you did so because of your genetic makeup and your experiences, your education, everything that led up to that moment. Similarly, someone you try to inspire with this ability to choose more and learn more might not be able to do so. I know I could learn a massive amount more than I know if I trained my brain and read more, but I read the same amount and forget almost all of it! However, you might be right, and if consciousness is an emergent property, perhaps free will is also. Still, if you try to choose something quite arbitrary, and make sure you are making the choice, you find that the proof of free will, which seems like it ought to be obvious, evaporates. If you choose between A and B, whichever you choose, it might have been caused by things known or unknown, and it may not be possible to choose the one you "weren't supposed to", if you see what I mean.

My personal immortality is in the memories I leave in the lives of those who knew me; and if I'm extremely persistant and a little lucky, in the writing I have published that may be read long after my death. I'm perfectly okay with that.

I agree with you there except for the last bit. I'm getting more okay with it over time, but I love life so much, it's hard to imagine letting go of it easily, even though I won't be conscious after I die. It is comforting to think that my words might be read later, one of the lovely things about the net, I suppose, is that so many people can publish things and be read who wouldn't have had opportunity before.

I like the font, BTW. What is that?

 

[Space_Ed]

Hi. Sorry I've not read most of this thread, but if you would consider proof of reincarnation as proof of a soul, here is some good research into that subject:

http://www.ial.goldthread.com/clips/tucker.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RRs7fXjs_w

 

[Tricky]

Hi. Sorry I've not read most of this thread, but if you would consider proof of reincarnation as proof of a soul, here is some good research into that subject:

http://www.ial.goldthread.com/clips/tucker.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RRs7fXjs_w

Proof, yes. Anecdotes, no. These sorts of things have always failed to survive proper tests. When I was a kid, I was fascinated by The Search for Bridey Murphy, very much the same kind of thing. It was debunked.

Oh yeah, they make great TV, but they don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

[maxfrost]

I came to question the existence of a soul when I began to wonder what happpened to it when people on Star Trek beamed down to some planet. Did the soul beam down with the body? In which case this meant that it had some sort of corporal existence and, if so, where was that located? If it didn't beam down, what the hell happened to it? Did it just hang out on the ship, waiting for the body to come back? And what happened to it if the body didn't come back? Would it know the body wasn't coming back? And if it didn't beam down with the body, would you know the difference between a body with a soul and one without? I was rather disappointed that no one in the series or in any of the movies ever mentioned any of this.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I would have to admit that a lie is being told. However, delving into motives based on the evidence you have provided in order to determine malicious intent is another matter.

Then please allow me to flesh out the hypothetical scenario in greater detail.

The individual in question has posted on a forum an extensive list of famous scientists whom he states have rejected the theory of evolution by natural selection. He makes no mention of the source of this compilation, although it appears to have been obtained from a creationist website. Examination of the list quickly reveals that a huge percentage of the famous names within the list are of scientists who died, often centuries, prior to the publication of Darwin's work on evolution. The remainder of the list is composed mostly of modern day creationists and ID proponents. At this point it is assumed by most everyone that the creationist who posted the list was not really aware of its inherent dishonesty. But when others point out to him that the list of names is invalid because never being aware of something is not the same as rejecting it, the person who posted the list composes a childish lie about how his old computer somehow mixed together names from two different lists in two different files, line by line, in alphabetical order. This would seem to indicate that the person is claiming himself to be the source of the list, but that it was corrupted by technical problems. Shortly after this "my dog did my homework and thats why more than half of the answers are wrong" excuse another forum member posts a link to a creationist website presenting exactly the same dishonest list that the person claimed was a result of some sort of preposterously unlikely computer error.

Please note that ineptness, clumsiness, and ambiguity are premises which do not in themselves justify a conclusion of lack of integrity. In order for that to be true the person must be lying knowingly and maliciously. The explanation being recorded for all to see-for example-doesn't necessarily mean that the liar has seen it or perceives it as we might perceive it. If indeed he perceives it as erroneous, then though he might be untrue his integrity remains intact. In short, your hypothetical doesn't provide sufficient grounds for accurately evaluation of the person's motives and reaching accurate conclusions about his character.

Well, as you can see from my above clarification of the details, my hypothetical liar was fully aware that he was lying. It is clear that he was lying in an attempt to hide the fact that he'd allowed himself to be taken in by poor evidence that he had already admitted to be of poor quality. The discovery of the source of the list demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the excuse about faulty computers was a childish lie. Thus, the person cannot claim to have made the false statement in error. He could have done so regarding the list itself, but he cannot claim that he didn't know that the excuse involving faulty software was untrue.

So given that the hypothetical person cannot reasonably claim to have told an untruth in error, would you not agree that it is correct to call him a liar?

 

[John Freestone]

Hi. Sorry I've not read most of this thread, but if you would consider proof of reincarnation as proof of a soul, here is some good research into that subject:

http://www.ial.goldthread.com/clips/tucker.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RRs7fXjs_w

Proof, yes. Anecdotes, no. These sorts of things have always failed to survive proper tests. When I was a kid, I was fascinated by The Search for Bridey Murphy, very much the same kind of thing. It was debunked.

Oh yeah, they make great TV, but they don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I have to agree with Tricky. I recently posted this link concerning Stevenson's study on another forum, which is more persuasive IMHO, plus, if you follow the link at the bottom of that page, you'll discover a bit more about how Stevenson's mind works. I'd be happy to find proof of reincarnation, the soul, or my own immortality. At some point I'm going to stop following links to supposed proofs, though. Life is too short!

I saw the youtube one on TV years ago and could easily think of several rational explanations. Certainly one case is no more than an anecdote. Wishful thinking creates all sorts of illusions for people, especially where their beloved children being specially gifted is concerned. What's more, there are so many different possible explanations, and any case could involve the combined effects of several - a little bit of cheating, wishful thinking, forgetfulness, elaboration of a story after the event, etc. - and besides all of these, out of all the billions of people who believe in reincarnation, and the presumably thousands or hundreds of thousands of reported 'past lives', we might assume that a few here and there would stack up with actual facts about a deceased person, while all the others are just forgotten with a shrug.

But what we end up with when these cases are studied carefully is not just a lack of evidence, it is a certain amount of evidence against. It is interesting, for instance, that when children report having had a past life, the details of the metaphysics match that of the local mythology (e.g. in whether they spent some time in a spiritual realm or reincarnated immediately), and that the previous incarnation almost always seems to have lived in a nearby village. The spirit realm does seem rather geographically isolated and bound by local customs.

 

[edge]

The individual in question has posted on a forum an extensive list of famous scientists whom he states have rejected the theory of evolution by natural selection. He makes no mention of the source of this compilation, although it appears to have been obtained from a creationist website. Examination of the list quickly reveals that a huge percentage of the famous names within the list are of scientists who died, often centuries, prior to the publication of Darwin's work on evolution. The remainder of the list is composed mostly of modern day creationists and ID proponents.

Well lets see, they now belive so it doesn't count?

I gave you a list ya want to go over that ground again?

I received an AB degree with high honors in physics and distinction in mathematics from San Diego State University in June 1954. After two years of graduate study in Physics and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, (1954-1956), I joined the staff of SRI International (formerly Stanford Research Institute), in Menlo Park, California where I remained almost continuously for the next 30 years. I left my position at SRI as a Senior Research Physicist in 1987 to pursue small-scale independent geophysical consulting services, and to devote the bulk of my time to Bible teaching, writing and Christian counseling.

Some of the areas of my professional and personal experience and interest include the following:


Auroral radar clutter, meteor trail communication, lunar radar reflections.

Ionospheric physics and radio propagation studies

Natural and artificial ionospheric effects

Rocket launch and re-entry trail phenomenology

Over-the-Horizon radar development

Radar and communications effects from high altitude nuclear explosions

Very high RF power generation by spark gap switching techniques

Ball lightning and Nikola Tesla studies

Electromagnetic propagation in the earth

Development of ground penetrating radar (GPR) systems

Electrical and gravity methods in geophysics

Electrical methods for underwater detection and location

High frequency seismic sounding for archaeology and geophysics

Computer conference on unusual geological features on Mars

Geophysical methods applied to archaeology: Egypt, Israel, and the US

Tomographic HF methods for location of plastic utility pipes

Measurements-while-drilling (MWD) technology

Geophysical methods for tunneling machine technology

Non-constancy of the velocity of light investigation

Search for legendary treasures using geophysical methods

You go to his library and you'll find more, not only are they still living but he has the ones that have died in Christ in there too.

http://www.ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml

 

[Frozenwolf150]

That the biblical evidence doesn't stand for non-Christians and the godless is to be expected.

The hypocrisy of your statement has been duly noted. The "biblical evidence" edge posted was intended to support the very conclusion about the soul, the mainstream Christian concept of an immortal soul that survives death and goes to heaven, which you have spent the better part of this thread railing against. You even went so far as to chastise people for arguing against this 'strawman,' and lecture them on the true nature of skepticism. One can only speculate that you either deliberately misrepresented your own beliefs for the sake of being contentious, or you don't really agree with the "biblical evidence" you're defending. You can't have it both ways.

Who was it that busted a gasket over the suggestion that the bible has multiple interpretations?

 

[billydkid]

No, I know what Radrook believes. We merely disagree on one point, or two.
Any proof I could give you... and I have, no amount will suffice for you.

Come on, even you have to admit that posting quotes from a religious text that you happen to hold in high regard is not proof of anything by any rational standard.

 

[edge]

So basically, you're right, but can't prove it, but we should just believe you because...

Well that's where I'm lost. Why is your belief any truer than others? What if those Hindus are right?

The Hindus are right but not about all, they believe in a soul and have perfected mediation methods for the soul to leave the body, that in it's self is evidence for the persons doing that practice which for Christians is a no, no…

Let me clarify::
What was it Jesus said on the cross?

Forgive them father for they know not what they do.

The first thing he does is, He prayed for us, forgiving us.
Forgiving us is part of the plan.



Then looking at his mother he says woman behold your son.
He knows that she knows, what’s about to happen, other than just his death.
Believe in what he is about to accomplish because obviously she is also versed in the Hebrew prophecies and by saying behold your son, Jesus was being empathic.

Embrace each other it’s going to get ugly.

Father, father.. Why have you forsaken me?
This is when the sting of the separation of the father from the son takes place.
He had to experience the separation in the flesh for the redemption of our sins to know what we are going to experience. It is part of the divine plan for us when we experience physical death and separation from life..
He is suffering before his death and it was ugly and painful.
At that moment he was taking on the sins of everybody that ever lived and some say at this point is when he is in hell to redeem those from the past and to minister to them.

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[d]
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Then he comes back and says:

Into your hands I commit my spirit.
Then his prayer is answered.
So the first place his spirit goes is to the father he is the only one that can go to the father in spirit first.



It is finished.

At this point he is with the father. Not three days later.

At this point he has accomplished the new covenant, so any body that dies after this point that believes in Jesus like the criminal next to him on the other cross, that dies after Jesus dies, is redeemed and taken up in the sprit and made new. One was lost and one was saved, when it was accomplished, then on the day of the crucifixion he was in heaven/paradise with Jesus with God the father.

After this, he has died on the cross, and the graves of others are opened that were saintly, they have been judged and before Jesus is resurrected, he was there in shoel, hell what ever you want to call it, darkness, basically they at that time believed it was a dirt nap, which is true since the people before the redemption died and couldn’t follow the law and be perfect, they had to sleep they had nowhere to go with the exception of a very few, they had nowhere to go, they weren’t with out sin but believed in God the father. The only one that proved that you could be without sin was Jesus.

Only one was and was pure enough, where all others failed and still do this also proves that even in this world a human can be sinless. God is showing us it can be done but knows we aren’t capable in the flesh unless we have pure faith.
This is the purpose for the crucifixion.
To take on all the sins, past present and future for all that ask for this, and for all to believe in Jesus and his sacrifice.
So this is why you can’t say that he’s lying about the thief.
I would have to say hell is darkness or sleep when Jesus went to hell the light of God went with him and darkness even covered the earth.

If it was all accomplished he redeemed the ones that were sleeping from the past that rose as soon as it was accomplished.

moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
The earth shook and the rocks split.
The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

They too were taken up in spirit and after Jesus was resurrected they also went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

 

[edge]

Come on, even you have to admit that posting quotes from a religious text that you happen to hold in high regard is not proof of anything by any rational standard.

Well from my point of view, not believing isn't rational and who said spiritually had to be rational since it's faith based.
It is innate. You just have to recognize it. The longing for something more that is proved to just believers.
To be more than dirt!

 

[Perpetual Seeker]

edge, you don't understand. I don't care what the Bible says. I want to know how you know this is all true, and not some made up fable.

Please don't quote the Bible in responding to me, because it doesn't prove anything except your ability to copy and paste.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Hindus are right but not about all, they believe in a soul and have perfected mediation methods for the soul to leave the body, that in it's self is evidence for the persons doing that practice which for Christians is a no, no...

I've asked the following question of others and have never received an answer:

When a person's soul leaves their body and goes to another location and they see, hear, smell etc. just as if their body was there, by what mechanisms are they receiving these sensory inputs? If their souls are able to "see" independently of their physical eyes then why can't blind people use this ability to replace their lost vision?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well from my point of view, not believing isn't rational and who said spiritually had to be rational since it's faith based.
It is innate. You just have to recognize it. The longing for something more that is proved to just believers.
To be more than dirt!

But what about all those other people who believe in faiths that are contradictory to yours and insist that they recognize an innate certainty of the truth of their faith in the same way that you do? Convince us that your "just so" beliefs are any more valid that theirs.

 

[Tricky]

But what about all those other people who believe in faiths that are contradictory to yours and insist that they recognize an innate certainty of the truth of their faith in the same way that you do? Convince us that your "just so" beliefs are any more valid that theirs.

One of Edge's more persistant delusions is that all religions say essentially the same thing. In this, as in almost everything he expounds on, he is a beacon of willful ignorance.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Let's try a different approach. edge, we all know about the initial claims that originate in the bible. What I would ask is that you provide some external evidence that supports this claim. Taken as a whole, the bible makes the claim about the existence of the soul, which is why it can't be used to support its own claim without committing the circular logic fallacy. This is also why I would require that this evidence be something from outside the bible itself. One might argue that the bible is a collection of books by different authors, and that later authors agreed with earlier authors, but this still says nothing in terms of evidence.

In other words, saying that Quote B from the bible proves Quote A true is not a valid way to support your claim.

Well from my point of view, not believing isn't rational and who said spiritually had to be rational since it's faith based.
It is innate. You just have to recognize it. The longing for something more that is proved to just believers.
To be more than dirt!

Are you admitting that your belief in a soul is strictly personal and purely subjective? If those are your criteria for belief, then how is anyone else supposed to know or relate to what's going on inside your own mind?

 

[edge]

You don't understand it is personal to everyone.

Fiery Darts are flying and that's in there too.
I’ll go over to the other side and ask them.



Just kidding, we already have gone over N.D.E. cases O.B.E.s also that support these conclusions.

You guys want personal stories?
I remember everything we talked about before, do you?
You’ll say it’s the mind when clearly the stories are telling something different.
So in short the evidence for out of body or near death I have experienced is… or does relate to the stories, that the bible describes, no doubt in my mind… and from what others described, those stories are similar and or are also the same.

Been there done that.

 

[John Freestone]

Alice: There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things.

Queen: I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.