Do We Have a Soul?

[Iacchus]

Mmmmhmmm. You do realise the statement "...there's a difference between those things which are X, and those things which aren't X" is just a wee bit vacuous, right?

Do fish live in a lake? Yes or no? Whereas do souls (if they exist) live in the spiritual world? That's not too hard to figure out is it?

 

[Z]

Do fish live in a lake? Yes or no? Whereas do souls (if they exist) live in the spiritual world? That's not too hard to figure out is it?

But fish and lakes at least exist. Souls and spiritual worlds are unproven at best, ridiculous at worst.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Do fish live in a lake? Yes or no? Whereas do souls (if they exist) live in the spiritual world? That's not too hard to figure out is it?

All I'm suggesting is there's a difference between those Iacchus sentences which are meaningful, and those Iacchus sentences which aren't meaningful.

 

[Piscivore]

Of course this goes back a few years, but you never saw the poster that said, "Your problem is obvious?" Try googling "your problem is obvious" and "poster" (actually I found it on altavista.com). You might find it to be very enlightening ... or not!

Ah, sorry I missed your reference. My cultural vocabulary doesn't extend much into the medium of "humourous posters."

 

[Z]

All I'm suggesting is there's a difference between those Iacchus sentences which are meaningful, and those Iacchus sentences which aren't meaningful.

The first are strangely absent, while the second are overly common?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The first are strangely absent, while the second are overly common?

Does a fish sh in the water?

 

[Iacchus]

But fish and lakes at least exist. Souls and spiritual worlds are unproven at best, ridiculous at worst.

It sounds very much to me like you already made "your" choice.

 

[rumblefish]

Yes, the fact is, there is nothing about us which doesn't entail belief.

except those things we are sure off..
or do you only believe that you exist?

When we're all dead and gone, will it still be possible to believe that we're still alive? Not in this world anyway. In which case we have to ask, who is it that did all this believing? And, where did "it" -- the belief-sustaining "mechanism" -- go?

it decomposed or got cremated ...depending on the funeral tradition you choose..
the brain is your BSM..belief sustaining mechanism

Could this be a possible indication that we have a soul?

no
heres your souls beliefs origins

Or, does that mean our lives are wholly illusional, and we are just figments of our own imagination?

could be,lets test this like so:

take a hard object..hammer will do,..now whack yourself on the head...and tell me was it real or just an illusion?

If anyone needs to know on what basis religions are founded, I think we may have found the answer right here.

religions were founded on BS,they all invented stories
to explain the unknown in the world.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Iacchus,

You should really try to read some Voltaire. He used to ask very interesting questions to soul believers.

 

[Piscivore]

Re: Re: Do We Have a Soul?

Iacchus,

You should really try to read some Voltaire. He used to ask very interesting questions to soul believers.

Iacchus doesn't read. He believes ignorance makes him closer to "god." He told me this himself.

 

[arthwollipot]

Do fish live in a lake? Yes or no? Whereas do souls (if they exist) live in the spiritual world? That's not too hard to figure out is it?

Fish certainly live in lakes. Also in rivers, creeks and the occasional ocean. All these things can be observed.

So do souls live in the spiritual world? Show me a spiritual world, then I'll be able to work out whether souls live in it. Without a clear observation, it is rather too hard to figure out.

It's a bit like asking whether the invisible unicorn is pink or not. I can choose to believe that the invisible unicorn is pink, despite the fact that she's invisible. I can claim that her pinkness is an invisible pinkness. But I would not be able to demonstrate it, because I can't show anyone anything that is invisible, let alone show them that the unicorn's pinkness is an invisible kind of pinkness.

You can choose to believe that a spiritual world exists in which souls live. But if you cannot demonstrate to someone else that such a world even exists, the question of whether souls live there or not is entirely vacuous.

 

[TonatiuhMoreno]

Maybe, to find a definition of "soul", we could start defining "human". What makes a being human? How can one tell a human from something else? Is there something "essentially" human?

 

[Iacchus]

The first are strangely absent, while the second are overly common?

You know what they say, about one man's trash being another man's treasure ...

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus,

You should really try to read some Voltaire. He used to ask very interesting questions to soul believers.

Hmm ... I wonder if good old Voltaire could here us right now? I don't doubt it ... the possibility of it anyway. Wouldn't that be something, eh?

 

[Iacchus]

except those things we are sure off..
or do you only believe that you exist?

Yes, but can you prove this to a dead person?

take a hard object..hammer will do,..now whack yourself on the head...and tell me was it real or just an illusion?

No, if I whacked myself hard enough I would be dead ... end of story ... Or, would that be illusion?

religions were founded on BS,they all invented stories to explain the unknown in the world.

And of this you're absolutely certain, correct?

 

[Iacchus]

You can choose to believe that a spiritual world exists in which souls live. But if you cannot demonstrate to someone else that such a world even exists, the question of whether souls live there or not is entirely vacuous.

Except for those who have experienced it and, the very souls which live there of course.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus doesn't read. He believes ignorance makes him closer to "god." He told me this himself.

If I don't read, then how am I able to comprehend what you've just said and understand that you're full of crap? Indeed, how is it that I can even write about it and make you understand? Just another one of those flukes I suppose, eh?

 

[Iacchus]

Maybe, to find a definition of "soul", we could start defining "human". What makes a being human? How can one tell a human from something else? Is there something "essentially" human?

That's a very good question. In fact I just started another thread. Perhaps you would care to discuss it here ... Are We More Than Just a Machine?

 

[L7Cz]

Fun with Quotes from Iacchus...

And might I suggest you would have a very similar condition with a dead corpse? Oh, and let's not forget those folks who have NDE's which, begin nearly at the moment they are pronounced "brain dead."

Please elaborate on the concept of "dead corpse" as opposed to any other kind of corpse. And while you're at it, walk me through the semantics separating the "near death" part of NDE and "nearly" ... "brain dead." Thanks.

As long as I am here, I will know that I'm here. Anything aside from that, is irrelevant. I will continue to know, however, when I am deceased.

I'm surprised that I'm the first in this thread to suggest you offer some evidence of the claim made in the second sentence.
[mod advisory]
No suggestion is being made in this post of anyone experiencing bodily harm to prove or disprove the hypothesis, but
[/mod advisory]
it would simplify things greatly if you would tell us how you know (not believe) that you know you "will continue to know" when you are deceased, and how you could show evidence of any level of that knowledge (perhaps tell us to whom you will appear after your death, and how they will know it's really you, and not some mischevious other spirit who happened to read this forum while drifting past in the ether).

Why should evidence of the soul exist in this world -- aside from the fact that it's attached to our bodies that is -- when it doesn't exist in this world? In which case the only evidence we would have would be of its absence ... which, is exactly what I've been trying to tell you.

Where is it "attached to our bodies"? How can it be attached if "it doesn't exist in this world?" Or are our bodies multi-worldly? If so, which part extends into an "other" world? And I missed the link to the evidence of the soul's absence. Please repost it.

Does this in any way imply that Swedenborg was mad? No. It's sad you that you folks wouldn't consider that he should apply the same seriousness and discipline of mind as he did with his previous study.

Applying "seriousness and discipline of mind" has absolutely no connection with the validity of the subject under study. One may be extremely serious and disciplined about studying the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but is highly unlikely to produce useful, valid, or even coherent results from that study.

Usually, the dominant one. Or, the one which is specifically attached to my body. As for the others? They just tend to go along for the ride.

One is "specifically attached" (I assume this still refers to the soul)? Where, then, are the others attached? Is the place of specific attachment different than the place of "along for the ride" attachment?

Everything has a spirit, even inanimate things. Whether that constitutes having a soul or not, I don't know? I suspect such would be the case with all things that are living.
...snip...
As I understand, even spirits (departed souls) experience a state comparable to sleep.

So "spirit" and "soul" are different? No, they're the same. No, it's a soul until it "departs" and then it's a spirit? Departs what?

Aside from that though, I wasn't even aware that the wall existed until after I awoke.

You went to sleep, and someone built a wall right next to your bed without waking you up!?!?!

So, what does this tell us, aside from the fact that the soul is still "attached" to the body?

How does this "tell us" anything about existence of a "soul" or its attachment to the human body?

I just started another thread. Perhaps you would care to discuss it...

Been there, done that. Declined the t-shirt.

 

[Iacchus]

Please elaborate on the concept of "dead corpse" as opposed to any other kind of corpse. And while you're at it, walk me through the semantics separating the "near death" part of NDE and "nearly" ... "brain dead." Thanks.

Why?

I'm surprised that I'm the first in this thread to suggest you offer some evidence of the claim made in the second sentence.
[mod advisory]
No suggestion is being made in this post of anyone experiencing bodily harm to prove or disprove the hypothesis, but
[/mod advisory]
it would simplify things greatly if you would tell us how you know (not believe) that you know you "will continue to know" when you are deceased, and how you could show evidence of any level of that knowledge (perhaps tell us to whom you will appear after your death, and how they will know it's really you, and not some mischevious other spirit who happened to read this forum while drifting past in the ether).

I bet you really think you're being sneaky now aren't you? Evidence? Unfortunately the only evidence I have exists in the space between my ears.

Where is it "attached to our bodies"? How can it be attached if "it doesn't exist in this world?" Or are our bodies multi-worldly? If so, which part extends into an "other" world? And I missed the link to the evidence of the soul's absence. Please repost it.

Oh come on now, you mean to tell me you don't even have a clue?

Applying "seriousness and discipline of mind" has absolutely no connection with the validity of the subject under study. One may be extremely serious and disciplined about studying the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but is highly unlikely to produce useful, valid, or even coherent results from that study.

Well, I can see that you already have it all figured out. Thanks for playing.