Does the soul exist?

[edge]

I guess when your perception of reality ends you will know.

Read some of the cases of N.D.E.s from people who where pronounced dead and see if it doesn't jive.

 

[Perpetual Seeker]

I guess when your perception of reality ends you will know.

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?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I wish edge could simply state his beliefs instead of bombarding us with ambiguous biblical quotations.

I've read enough of Edge to state that I honestly don't think he's capable of that. I'm not being facetious, I just don't think he's capable of the sort of organization of thought required to construct a cogent, empirical argument.

 

[Olowkow]

Pilots who have to qualify on the centrifuge at up to 9 G's have NDE's all the time. Many hospitals actually put a poster with a secret word on it on top of a tall cabinet in the operating room. If someone is actually out of body, they should be able to read the poster. So far, no brass ring.

 

[gdnp]

Edge:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Could you reconcile that with this, from the Apostle's creed:

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

If Jesus descended into hell, rose on the third day, and did not ascend into heaven until the Ascension 40 days later, why did he say Today thou shalt be with me in paradise? Wasn't the "descending into hell" one of these "Go to hell. Go directly to hell. Do not pass go. do not collect $200" type of things? Or did they leave out a line?

 

[skepticalbeliever]

I find the prospect of not existing past the point of death to be scary. Being a believer would seem to give you a sense of hope in times when things are rough. I think faith is a gift. I don't know there is a heavin, but the hope that one exists makes me happy.

 

[Toblerowned]

I've been becoming more skeptical lately, but one of those ideas I've been having trouble with letting go of is the soul, mostly because it is a really scary idea that there may be no soul.

For those who used to believe in such, how did you come to think that there is no soul?

I really have no argument right now to point to the possibility of there being a soul. But i'm curious how those who have previously believed in it, came to discard that belief, as well as some things that come with that belief, such as stories of hauntings, for example. These things can sound quite convincing sometimes if you don't know what can actually be happening.

I did think of a few things, but am not so sure I can express them very well. For instance, does science know yet specifically which part of the brain is responsible for consciousness? It doesn't seem like a localized, single focus sort of thing. For instance, if I ask myself where exactly my consciousness or awareness is located, I can narrow it down to the region of the head, but that's about as far as it goes.

Further, one could ask what exactly the self is. I don't think the thoughts are it, just because they are so transitory. I would argue that the self is this consciousness I've mentioned above, that I don't exactly know the location of.

It's hard, because I don't think anyone really knows yet what creates consciousness. That is, we've not been able to recreate consciousness, or to break it down in any meaningful fashion, except that it seems that we know now what part of the brain is probably responsible for the personality, and so forth. But that's not everything there is to consciousness.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence with this one, but am completely open to any arguments either way. I just want to find the truth, no matter what that might be.

You bring up some very interesting questions, some of which I ask myself all the time. I have found that many answers lie in Buddhism, or more specifically, what it teaches. From what I understand, the soul is the conscious, or mind, or God, or whatever it is you'd liked to call it. That part was answered rather easily The key question though, is what makes it. What makes mind? It is a burning question that I have myself. If mind makes everything, what makes mind? It is the exact question that people ask about God. If God made everything, what made God? To be honest, I don't have that answer.

In Buddhism, it is believed that your soul, or conscious carries on into the after life. It is something that cannot die, or be destroyed. Whether or not you have a body to put it in, it is there.

Enlightenment comes from an absence of all outside influences. It is not just an absence of desire as one user may have suggested. And reaching enlightenment does not occur when you want to reach it. I have read that it's a state of mind. A state where truth is very clear, and there is nothing cloudy about anything. We don't argue that there are different states of mind, so enlightenment is quite possibly just another state. It's even possible that it's access to what the soul is.

Some scientists believe that in fact, the brain has the blueprint for the soul. And it's only a matter of time before it's found out, given that we know little about it. Some say that it's never going to be found, because no one part controls it. Either way though, I think that scientists believe that the brain has the answer, and that the soul isn't some separate force within you. It's your body, and while the answer may be an extraordianry answer, there is nothing supernatural about it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I find the prospect of not existing past the point of death to be scary. Being a believer would seem to give you a sense of hope in times when things are rough. I think faith is a gift. I don't know there is a heavin, but the hope that one exists makes me happy.

That's understandable, but my opinion is that the reality is indifferent of what we believe or not believe. Not only that but, additionally, if the conscious does indeed vanish into nothingness, then worrying about it now is a waste of mental energy because ultimately, it just means that when you die, there will be no conscience, thus, you will not worry about anything because there will be no you to realize that you're not existing anymore. You will just vanish into a black emptyness, a dreamless eternal sleep. The greatest peace you could ever achieve, for there will be no worries.... for there will be nothing to worry about and no individual to worry about it.

But people, instead of feeling happy about that prospect, they worry. Why? Too much attachment to the self.

 

[edge]

Gdnp, The apostles might have said that, But what did Jesus say?
I am going by what Jesus said as he specified, not apostles on this one.
We seen the resurrection as a three day event what did they see it as, time wise from the other side?
How do they know he was in hell for the three days we witnessed?
In eternity he could have done a thousand things in the three-day timeline that we witnessed passing by and in what order, I would have to say, first he commits his spirit to the father which means where God is obviously residing, so I would say heaven first where the Father is, or connects back to the Trinity, then if he even needed to go into (hell), or rather the darkness it had to be the second thing he did, that seems to be the order of things as others are resurrected after Jesus is.

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Later because in the flesh he, (Jesus), was incorruptible both his body and his spirit so both ascended.
What form these other saints are in is unknown, right off the top of my head, there might be more on this but I’m tired now.
What else you got?

Here’s more:

4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " 8Then they remembered his words.

If he’s not in the tomb he had already risen in the spirit at death, he says; “Into your hands I commit my spirit”, then resurrected on the third day and walks out in the flesh and spirit and walks out of the tomb, then he is risen again, the ascension, when more than 500 witness this, both body and spirit.


So like I said, “, I would have to say, first he commits his spirit to the father which means where God is obviously residing, so I would say heaven first where the Father is,”

 

[Mashuna]

Not seeking debate on this but since you asked here is the brief answer::

The individual's personality gifted with a new spirit body

BTW
Most professed Christians believe in the invisible immortal soul as being discussed on this forum. So the above view is presently held by a minority.

Fair enough. I'm not sure of the distinction between soul and personality in this terminology, but I'm not that worried about getting into a debate on this either.

 

[Perpetual Seeker]

edge, you do realize that both the words hell and grave were translated from the word sheol, right? Basically, that there is no difference between grave and hell, as used in the Bible?

Just a little trivia.

 

[Tricky]

I find the prospect of not existing past the point of death to be scary. Being a believer would seem to give you a sense of hope in times when things are rough. I think faith is a gift. I don't know there is a heaven, but the hope that one exists makes me happy.

You've just described in a nutshell why religion exists. Call it wish for afterlife or call it fear of death, it amounts to the same thing. Almost all creatures strive to stay alive. It is pretty much one of life's most basic instincts. When our awareness evolved enough to consciously recognize the finality of death, humans expanded their drive to stay alive by envisioning and believing in life after death. There's no evidence for such a thing, but it makes them happy.

I admit, it is not pleasant to realize that when you die, that's the end, but on the whole, I prefer hard, uncomfortable truth over pleasant fantasies. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

 

[John Freestone]

I should have bolded everything oh well....

Since Christian mythology has already been rejected by the OP, and I don't read fables much anyway, and with the lines having numbers attached to them, making it even harder to read, and especially knowing I've read enough of this kind of thing to reject it myself, no, you shouldn't have 'bolded' everything.

 

[Perpetual Seeker]

Since Christian mythology has already been rejected by the OP, and I don't read fables much anyway, and with the lines having numbers attached to them, making it even harder to read, and especially knowing I've read enough of this kind of thing to reject it myself, no, you shouldn't have 'bolded' everything.

But, didn't you know books with numbered lines makes it true?

Or, something.

 

[John Freestone]

I wish edge could simply state his beliefs instead of bombarding us with ambiguous biblical quotations.

Yeah, it's like we're still stuck in the interminable Stupid Ages that have lasted from several million years ago until the Enlightenment. I mean, it's fine for people to believe in these geographically and temporally limited myths if they want to, but they should just recognise that there are probably thousands of different religious schemes, especially if we include verbal tradition. Why do we have to discuss some description of 'soul' from the xtian tradition? Why not pick a tribe from Africa or Indonesia or the Americas? Maybe because using our brains and actually doing some thinking about comparative religious concepts of the soul might shed light on its essential meanings to human beings (rather than just one tribe who happened to get lucky - sometimes - and spread across far too much of the globe with their particular silly stories), and might shed light on its evolutionary usefulness as an invention and its ontologically ephemeral, unreal nature.

Thank Bod there are actually some Christians who don't spend their whole lives inside the box reciting their particular creed, but they must feel quite sick of the ones who do. I feel sorry for the narrow-minded ones especially. They have clearly been brainwashed so much with one philosophy that they are unable to suspend belief in it long enough to consider alternatives or, if they do, they immediately fear the wrath of God or the wrath of those who taught them, who may even be long dead themselves.

As you suggest, Brian-M, the words are ambiguous, and if they do have some useful meaning, it is only going to be discovered by putting it in context and alongside other philosophies, from Aristotle to Materialism to Zen.

 

[John Freestone]

But, didn't you know books with numbered lines makes it true?

42. Oh yeah, I forgot.

 

[Perpetual Seeker]

42. Oh yeah, I forgot.

Made my day.

Oh, concerning Christians being lucky, let's not forget their willingness to, you know, insert Pagan traditions for convenience, and to look more attractive, and then later on to keep people from reading too much, because, you know, only those priests have the ability to understand all this philosophical stuff.

I'm calling this the evolution of religion. Only the most manipulative survive.

 

[John Freestone]

This pretty much says it all by Jesus himself.

Please may I have this to quote in my sig? It's priceless. You seem to be forgetting the actual human author of the words, who is not thought to be Jesus by any Biblical historian, AFAIK. It doesn't say it all by Jesus himself, or God himself. Someone - fully human even by Christian mythology - sat down with some parchment or velum or clay or something and MADE IT UP!

Jesus knew the new covent was to take place and that changed eveything, no sleeping.
What was preached in the O.T. ended.

That sleeping stuff ended:

Judgment is done in the spirit, self-judgment first then a second judgment for the unredeemed.
The ones in darkness, the ones that sleep, may be the unredeemed.
This is exactly what the medical field tells us about N.D.Es.

No it isn't.

Sorry but that's not what is written we all are more.
You telling me you don't understand still?

I understand just fine pretty much the basic place you're coming from, although you don't actually say in your own, simple, English words what you believe. I understand that you are spouting what 'was written', but you're only looking at what was written within the religion you were given, taught, or decided to take on for yourself. Lots of other things were written too. You should read some of them sometime and get over yourself. Your opinion here seems quite off-topic and just takes us all away from the intended purpose of the thread. Find somewhere appropriate to evangelize. You're just trolling.

If you appealed to perpetual seeker, saying that you thought it was a mistake to become skeptical about Christianity and the soul, and explained why you believed it other than that it was written by Jesus, that might not be quite so rude. He doesn't seem to want your religion anymore. I imagine he wants it less and less the more you say. You're a rubbish evangelist.

 

[John Freestone]

Made my day.

Glad to hear it. Slow day?

Oh, concerning Christians being lucky, let's not forget their willingness to, you know, insert Pagan traditions for convenience, and to look more attractive, and then later on to keep people from reading too much, because, you know, only those priests have the ability to understand all this philosophical stuff.

I'm calling this the evolution of religion. Only the most manipulative survive.

Survival of the fattest, perhaps. Evolution by natural deception. Oh I'm on form today!

 

[Radrook]

Fair enough. I'm not sure of the distinction between soul and personality in this terminology,

Soul as understood by the majority of professing Christians is an immortal spirit creature that was given a body. Once that body is used up, then what's left behind is that creature.

Other professing Christians, the minority, believe that once the body is used up, the person can come to life again via having his personality and consciousness transferred to a new body. It can either be a spirit one or another material one.


Some have taken issue with this latter view by stating that what is being described isn't a resurrection but a re-creation. However, the professed Christians who prefer this particular understanding have no doubt that the biblical God has the ability to infuse the same consciousness into new bodies and that what is being replicated is indeed the person himself albeit with a new body.


BTW

Personality is data expressed in such a way via behavior as to make a person identifiable. It constitutes feelings, memories, skills, preferences, faults and virtues.

....but I'm not that worried about getting into a debate on this either.

Well, if there is an aversion to debate it isn't based on inability or fear of not being right in my views. It's due to the time-wasting uselessness. When debaters feel they being hemmed into a corner via logic they shift into the "I don't see!" mode and begin claiming obscurity regardless clarity.


Just one ruse among many which is cunningly deployed. As the debate continues, other tactics are used such as strawman, where the debater creates his own arguments, attributes them to his opponent and begins to vehemently attack them. Equivocation, where the same terms are given other meanings and the debater argues against those chosen irrelevant meanings. Two wrongs make a right, where the debater attempts to justify behavior based on previous similar behavior by those conveniently and arbitrarily tagged as representative of the opposing view. Card stacking, where the debater puts on blinders and presents only one side of the story or data while totally ignoring the opposing information from the same source. Snowing, where the debater does what Oliver North did in order to evade dealing with questions. etcetera.


If one plows through all that by ignoring it and continuing to be rational, then one can expect to be a participant in the magnificent finale when the debater commences to heckle jeckle and vent emotional steam via disgorging a seemingly interminable barrage of insults. Which inspires me into using the glorious ignore button in order to reduce the bedlam on my screen.

So if I know the outcome-why would I want to submerge myself in that kind of exercise in futility?