• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is there a soul?

Pah

Uber all member
Victor said:
Really? You have a source. I want to read on it.

~Victor
The First Idea by Greenspan and Shanker
John Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer

All but Locke's have full secondary references

Language and Myth - The Successive Phases of Religious Thought
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=22

Language and Myth - Word magic
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=21

These show there were men before soul was designated
 

ubothsuk

Member
robtex said:
Love and hate, esctacy and joy are emotions....they have been evidenced to exist by neuroscience. Uglyness and beauty are intrepretations and emotional reactions caused by the brain again studied by neuroscience. But since you brought it up, why in your estimation is the soul unable to be measured, unevidenceable yet still believable? In addition can you give us another example of a physcical entity that is completely unmeasurable but is known to exist (besides God). That would help me qualify as to why I should accept things that are invisible and unmeasurable yet exist here on earth.
Things I haven't seen/measured:

1. Saddam Hussein

2. Osama bin Laden (ever read "1984" by George Orwell? Maybe he's in Eurasia)

3. Loch Ness Monster

4. Love

5. Hate

6. Fear

7. Stevie Nicks

8. Heaven

9. Thomas Jefferson

10. Chemotactic factors that tell cells in your body where to go, and what to do.

11. 4th, 5th, 6th,etc dimensions. (Sorry Mr. Einstein, and Mr. Hawking, but that’s the breaks)

12. The surface of the moon.

13. Snoop Dogg smoking The Chronic



By the way, as someone who sells neurological drugs for a living (14 years and counting), what you consider to be "love" is your opinion. I can say with fact that the neurotransmitters associated with what you interpret as "love" differs from person to person, culture to culture, species to species. For example, a Neo Nazi would define "love" for his "people" as the extermination of basically anyone who isn't Aryan (sp?). While he or she is expressing his or her heart-felt "love" by kicking in someone's teeth for being homosexual, you can take my word for it the neurotransmitters flowing from the presynaptic vessicle into the synaptic cleft, finally exerting their effects in their post-synaptic destination, are a little different from what happens when you kiss your mom.

So again, measure/define "love". Based on which I reading "love" is an opinion. If its a physical reaction to an external object or being, well then I guess my daughter's cat "loves" me, and my father's dog really loves my leg every time I come over (that's a whole other issue!). So I guess we are all a bunch of animals with highly developed "opinions" which makes it ok to break into my neighbors house and do unspeakable things to his family. After all, we're only talking about chemical reactions. As far as my other listings, sorry, but following this line of logic, pictures aren't good enough because I know everything. I believe everything I can taste, touch smell, and see. Unless you're taking about people in Insane Asylums who are without a doubt "seeing", "tasting", and"hearing" things that are completely unbelievable. But thats my opinion, right? Or maybe I just simply believe it because it supports my position. At least that's what I'm telling you. Thomas Jefferson is a myth like Santa. He was created by the right wing Agrarian plantation owners to further their political view points. His bones? DNA? Well, my 10 yr old can fake that one.

For all we know you are a computer made by some kids at MIT with the latest in artificial intelligence gear. I don't care what anyone says (well, only the ones who agree with me). After all were talking about a bunch of words from some so-called history books right? I mean the bible is just a book too right? There are a bunch of people in the Pacific NorthWest who believe with every ounce of their beings that Jews are using black people as muscle to destroy the white man, and take over the world starting with MONTANA!. As I am black, that’s news to me. Here's something really weird; some people think they will get rooms full of diamonds, and 50-70 virgins in the afterlife if they blow up innocent women and children as well as themselves. But hey, I haven't seen them, or talked to them, so what the heck, they don't exist.


All this sounds silly....to someone.............doesn’t it???

BTW, I really love this site and all the people who contribute to free speech. That's one thing we can all believe in isn't it? I'll be recommending it heavily. Thx.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we wil all die someday, I submit this qoute from the chubby lady in the movie 'Total Recall'--- "Get Ready for a Surprise!"
 

JohnG139

Member
Ryan2065 said:
Ever think that we are all connected on the fourth dimension? Theoretically there could be a 4th dimensional line that goes through everyone that we cannot see or feel.
The 4th dimention is time. Physics has learned little about time.
Is there a 5th dimention? Conceivable I suppose, but blind conjecture, and I am unwilling to accept as a belief the existance of a soul, for which there seems no rational basis in reality, and even less so if the foundation of this hypothesis is the baseless conjecture of some unidentified hypothetical 5th dimention. We can imagine or suppose anything we wish, but baseless imaginings are hardly adequate foundations for belief!
 
I agree with John. I do not believe there is a soul. I also agree that our language is biased....for example, the word 'sould' also means "A person's emotional or moral nature" and "The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity." Many people mistake lack of belief in a soul for the absence of an emotional or moral nature, for example....but I do feel emotions, and I do have morals (honest). :) I also cannot deny an 'animating and vital principles in humans, etc.' .....I just credit the seemingly miraculous functions of the brain, not the supernatural functions of an eternal spirit.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I just credit the seemingly miraculous functions of the brain, not the supernatural functions of an eternal spirit.
Lost me here. Can you clarify please.

~Victor
 
michel said:
Well, of course it's all hog-wash; if you can't see it, or measure it, it doesn't exist.

Love doesn't exist, neither do hate, beauty, ugliness, ecstacy, Joy............in fact, the world is not round - it's flat...
Ironically, discoveries regarding the Earth and its relation to the "heavens" (that's another one of those words I think John was referring to) have actually demonstrated the importance of observational evidence. Indeed, if it weren't for an insistence on observable evidence, many astronomers would still believe that the moon and the planets are perfect spheres orbiting in perfect circles. Few people who reject the existence of an eternal "me" spirit also reject the existence of emotions and experiences like love, hate, and beauty....they just don't attribute them to an imaginary immortal "self" construct.

michel said:
A confidence trikster has fooled you all into believing the Earth is round Satelite images are a mere construct of people who would have you believe in these myths..........oh, how you have all been taken in! - Just like we 84.8% of humans have been duped into believing in some sort of higher power.........
1) Not having belief in souls is not equivalent to rejecting "some sort of higher power" or powers. I believe in higher powers...I just don't attribute supernatural or anthropomorphic qualities to them.
2) Just like how 80-90% of humans were duped into believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth? ;)

Victor-- What I meant was, I do not deny that people experience feelings, dreams, hopes, anger, hate, love, etc. I just do not believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in an eternal spirit-entity as the cause of these experiences.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Victor-- What I meant was, I do not deny that people experience feelings, dreams, hopes, anger, hate, love, etc. I just do not believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in an eternal spirit-entity as the cause of these experiences.
What do you attribute them to?

Victor
 
Victor said:
What do you attribute them to?
There are people who have earned their PhD's for their research in one of the areas I mentioned--such as "love"--studied in a scientific context. You ask an interesting question, but with all due respect, attempting to answer it would be a pointless exercise: I would attribute human experiences to causes that can be discerned via methodological naturalism, and the scope of material on scientific research into human experiences like love, hate, etc. is enormous.

At any rate, we both already know that:
1) No, I can't explain everything in the world, and
2) No, that isn't a good reason to believe in souls, leprechauns, or a countless number of other supernatural entities. In my opinion, no explanation is better than a made-up one. ;)
 

may

Well-Known Member
JohnG139 said:
If the soul is the creature itself, and presumably continues on after the body dies, how can this be if it is insubstantial? If it is some 'undetectable' energy, how can it recognise other souls? To say that something is indetectible is ubsurd.
Everything, I repeat everything that exists, has characteristics, or properties, and is therefore recognizable and detectable for those properties.
It is inconceivable that something could exist and be devoid of characteristics or properties, therefore, if a soul has independent existance, it cannot be insubstantial, but must consist of matter, or energy.
Sorry, May, but biblical references go no distance in convincing me of anything.
thats because it doesnt continue on after the body dies , humans do not have an immortal soul it is not a bible teaching only a false teaching not based on accurate biblical knowledgeand look haw many are misled by this teaching
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
robtex said:
Love and hate, esctacy and joy are emotions....they have been evidenced to exist by neuroscience. Uglyness and beauty are intrepretations and emotional reactions caused by the brain again studied by neuroscience. But since you brought it up, why in your estimation is the soul unable to be measured, unevidenceable yet still believable? In addition can you give us another example of a physcical entity that is completely unmeasurable but is known to exist (besides God). That would help me qualify as to why I should accept things that are invisible and unmeasurable yet exist here on earth.
Part quote taken from:-

"a second essay, "Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture", Norberg-Schulz proposed to bring to fulfillment Kahn’s "immature" theory with the thought of Martin Heidegger.8) Heidegger’s philosophy provides the appropriate means to further the "incomplete" exegesis of Kahn’s oeuvre as well as to give to the architect’s words systematic depth and greater philosophical sanction. In this essay, Norberg-Schulz focuses attention on Kahn’s various uses of the verb "to express". He claims that Kahn’s theory of "expression" is not about self-expression. In Kahn’s theory of expression Norberg-Schulz recognizes that a rudimentary "language of architecture" is being constructed by the architect. He, thus, examines Heidegger’s writings concerning "language", "poetry", "art" and "dwelling" in order to complete Kahn’s frustrated attempt to develop a "language of architecture".

Norberg-Schulz explains that language as poetry creates concrete "existential space".
He reports howHeidegger defined "existential space" as "the fourfold".9) Heidegger’s "fourfold", an analysis of world: "earth, sky, mortals and divinities", possesses a unified dynamic tension between structural concepts and concrete descriptions.10) By creating concrete "existential space", language as poetry, art and architecture allow humankind "to dwell".11) "To dwell" is to exist in "the basic character of Being": in "the fourfold", in "existential space". Therefore, Norberg-Schulz reminds that for Heidegger "language" is "the house of Being".12)


Although Norberg-Schulz gives Kahn credit for initiating the search for an architectural language, ultimately a quest for "existential space", he says that the architect never achieved a complete existential structure of world and space:
8Whereas Heidegger gives considerable attention to the structure of the world, Kahn hardly refers to this basic problem. Indirectly, however, we understand that he considers the world as having an essential structure (" a rose wants to be a rose"). His notion of space is similarly concrete. It comes forth in the statement that "a space which knows what it wants to be is a room".13)



9To understand the difference in Kahn’s thought from Heidegger, it is necessary to look more closely at the architect’s world view and its influence upon his expressionist aesthetic theory.

Kahn’s weltanschauung was founded upon an intuition of a transcendent and omnipresent ground within and behind all physical reality -- a World Soul that he called psyche. Psyche is a unity consisting of antithetical aspects -- thought and feeling. This ineffable source underlying all creation, he explained, possesses an a priori existence will or more clearly articulated, an eternal willing to be. He said:


10I think of psyche as being a kind of prevalence—not a single soul in each of us—but rather a prevalence from which each one of us always borrows a part . . . and I feel that this psyche is made of immeasurable aura, and that physical nature is made of that which lends itself to measurement. I think that psyche prevails over the entire universe.14)

The psyche is expressed by feeling and also thought and I believe will always be unmeasurable. I sense that the psychic existence will calls on nature to make what it [psyche] wants to be.15).




........
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Part 2.

11The a priori existence will within psyche, Kahn explained, is the beginning of "form . . . a world within a world"16) Form is a particular psychic predisposition to be. It consists of ideal and inseparable abstract elements which invoke a nature, "what a thing wants to be"17). Being beyond physical and measurable existence, this psychic entity is never completely realized in concrete terms. Thus, form has infinite potential for expression. According to Kahn, form manifests through unconscious and conscious agencies called thresholds, instruments and at other times singularities 18). It is revealed most dramatically in non-conscious nature through the phenomenal source of light, the sun:".............






8) Christian Norberg-Schulz, "Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture", Oppositions 18 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, Fall 1979), 28-47.








9) Norberg-Schulz, "Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture", 36-37. "In Being and Time he says, ‘in as much as any entity within-the-world is likewise in space, its spatiality will have ontological connection with the world . . . . In particular we must show how the aroundness of the environment . . . is founded upon the worldhood of the world.’ In his later writingHeidegger solves the problem, defining space in terms of earth and sky, that is, as an interrelation of the concrete places which are present between earth and sky. To Heidegger ‘space’ is therefore not anabstract, mathematical concept, but a concrete structure within the world."

Norberg-Schulz, "Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture",36. Norberg-Schulz explains that Heidegger achieved this, however, without analyzing the properties of the concrete structure of world. He explains: "Already in Being and Time Heidegger had analyzed "discourse" as one of the basic existential structures. Thus he said, ‘The intelligibility of Being-in-the-world expresses itself as discourse.’ Moreover he stresses that ‘discourse is existentially equiprimordial with state-of-mind and understanding’ and that ‘in discourse being-with becomes explicitly shared.’ We are, in other words, discourse. ‘The way in which discourse gets expressed is language.’ Language therefore does not primarily serve communication, but discloses the basic existential structures. Primarily language speaks, and ‘man only speaks as he responds to language.’"

10) Norberg-Schulz, "Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture",41.

11) Norberg-Schulz, "Kahn, Heidegger and the Language of Architecture", 40-41. "To him [Heidegger] ‘dwelling’ means something more than to reside in a place; it means how ‘mortals are in the fourfold,’ that is, an authentic relationship between man and the existential structures. Thus dwelling becomes ‘the basic character of Being.’ Furthermore he says, ‘Dwelling keeps the fourfold in that with which mortals stay: in things. Dwelling preserves the fourfold by bringing the presencing of the fourfold into things.’ That means, man dwells when his able to embody the basic existential structures in things such as buildings or places (locations). In fact Heidegger says that a location (place) ‘installs the fourfold.’ As an art, architecture helps man to dwell in the true sense of the word, that is, poetically. ‘Poetry build up the very nature of dwelling. Poetry and dwelling not only do not exclude each other; on the contrary, poetry and dwelling belong together, each calling for the other.’ As poetry, ‘the nature of building is letting dwell.’ Thus Heidegger discloses the basic existential importance of architecture: ‘Man dwells in that he builds.’"





"and I feel that this psyche is made of immeasurable aura" - Is that enough for you Rob ?-;)




I have no way of gauging the professionalism of mssrs Kahn, Heidegger and Norberg-Schulz - but I would suggest that they are authoritative, in their fields
 

ubothsuk

Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
There are people who have earned their PhD's for their research in one of the areas I mentioned--such as "love"--studied in a scientific context. You ask an interesting question, but with all due respect, attempting to answer it would be a pointless exercise: I would attribute human experiences to causes that can be discerned via methodological naturalism, and the scope of material on scientific research into human experiences like love, hate, etc. is enormous.

At any rate, we both already know that:
1) No, I can't explain everything in the world, and
2) No, that isn't a good reason to believe in souls, leprechauns, or a countless number of other supernatural entities. In my opinion, no explanation is better than a made-up one. ;)
Sounds to me that you are saying that:
1) Because one cannot apply a zealot-like litmus test that is subjectively (so much so that one feels their litmus is completely objective) founded on ones ideology, or provide an answer in the face of a challenge, the exercise in deemed "pointless".
2) PhD's or other highly educated people have studied the issue of "love"or other highly debatable, and as long as they support one's position, they are credible. Never mind if they are outnumbered by millions. Everybody else is wrong, and one does not have to prove it.
3) If one cannot explain the "world" from one's OWN position, using only the tools that one believes in (all others must be substandard), then the world is impossible to explain.
4) One may not know all the answers, but answers that do not meet one's approval are automatically wrong, and are based on fantasy.

If I didn't know any better, I would think that I was talking to a Christian or Islamic extremist. I'm not saying the position is right or wrong, I'm just making an observation. The former is based on FAITH. You don't have to believe in a soul, but you certainly cannot explain its ABSCENCE. True scientific philosophy dictates that nothing can be proved, only supported. In order for something to be proven and true, like saying that a ball thrown up in the air will always return to the ground because to gravity, you would have to have the ball do that for ETERNITY. Thus, the rational for Chi Squared analysis, or the Cruscal-Wallace statisical variances tests to name a couple. I would even throw it the ever popular Meta-Analysis.
Bottom line? Well in my own experiences , and I only use these two groups 'cause its 4am and I tired, Atheists and Christians are like Democrats and Republicans; both have valid and invalid points but refuse to meet in the middle. Neither gives credibility the moderates in order to save face.
Is there a soul? Yeah, probably. Is it like some floating entity like one reads in the bible? Probably not. Does a soul go to "heaven"? Maybe not in the biblical sense. Maybe the soul goes to or becomes part of , an unrealized dimensional shift. But hey, thats based on faith as well. The only ones that know the real truth are dead.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
Michel in response to your last post:

That website is about architechture. Heinrich Klotz is a german architech and christian is a architechtural historian from norway. Louis and Kahn are both american architechs. The website is about how making artistic buildings make them feel and design.

The end result--the buildings are real. We can see them touch them, taste them (yeech! bricks taste bad), smell them (the wood or stone). Four out of our 5 senses. The soul we experience with zero out of our five senses. You are comparing a building that was can see touch, small and taste and the emotions associated with it to a soul which we can not experience with our 5 senses.

But it does bring up an interesting point that is espcially true for christianty. Talk about magnifcant buildings. I have to say that churches are some of the most magnificant buildings to look at. Down here in the south, espcially in some of the small texas towns the churches are the grandest buidings around. I never thought about it until now but maybe that is a way those who practice the religion manifest it from that which they find unevidencable and the emotions it inspires intangable to that which is grandly visiable and becomes tangable.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
ubothsuk in response to your post genetics has taught us that all componets of living organisms are made-up of the 4 dna molecules, adenine, thymine, guanine cytosine. Nothing that has been attributed as living has failed to have any of these molecules. Furthermore all of these molecules are measurable by humans not only by science but if large enough by sight because there are enough of them much of the time to make a big enough living, growing structure for a human to see.

Evolution has taught us that from the simplist molecules mutations have caused other organisms to form and those organisms differ from the original ones. Furthermore all of the more complexed organisms, including mankind have all componets of it evolved from a simpler form.

Knowing these two things, and they are known the secular community, the soul fall outside the paradigm and thus loses feasabilty on these points:

1) the soul is not projected to be composed of dna molecules yet is considered to be living
2) the soul is not projected to be microscopic yet is considered unseeable.
3) the soul has no proposed evolutionary link but is projected to have always been the same since the beginnning of time a complexed entity that has no less complexed ancestor that inspired it.

It is not so much proving it doensn't exist as it is realizing that it falls completly outside the bounderies of biology and genetics and has no evidencable theories to support its existance.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
robtex said:
ubothsuk in response to your post genetics has taught us that all componets of living organisms are made-up of the 4 dna molecules, adenine, thymine, guanine cytosine. Nothing that has been attributed as living has failed to have any of these molecules. Furthermore all of these molecules are measurable by humans not only by science but if large enough by sight because there are enough of them much of the time to make a big enough living, growing structure for a human to see.

Evolution has taught us that from the simplist molecules mutations have caused other organisms to form and those organisms differ from the original ones. Furthermore all of the more complexed organisms, including mankind have all componets of it evolved from a simpler form.

Knowing these two things, and they are known the secular community, the soul fall outside the paradigm and thus loses feasabilty on these points:

1) the soul is not projected to be composed of dna molecules yet is considered to be living
2) the soul is not projected to be microscopic yet is considered unseeable.
3) the soul has no proposed evolutionary link but is projected to have always been the same since the beginnning of time a complexed entity that has no less complexed ancestor that inspired it.

It is not so much proving it doensn't exist as it is realizing that it falls completly outside the bounderies of biology and genetics and has no evidencable theories to support its existance.
I would go along with that.:)
 

robtex

Veteran Member
You are killing me michel. In the floating finger pic thread you make a point about asking why we should believe in something that is unproducable and here you reverse your philosophy.

If it matters one way or the other in your religion Jesus rose from the dead into a living body. If there really were such thing as a soul he wouldn't have need to come back to life in a physcial body. He would have just lived on as a soul. The fact that his physical body was resurrected suggests that maybe early christians or pagans who were prospects for conversion or God felt there was a need for the physical body to return in order to have life again. I am guessing JC had to be resurrected cause many people either didn't buy into or know about the soul theory and just thought we were flesh and bone. at the time the story was told which was about 58-60 ad in writing according to wikipedia.
 
ubothsuk said:
Sounds to me that you are saying that:
1) Because one cannot apply a zealot-like litmus test that is subjectively (so much so that one feels their litmus is completely objective) founded on ones ideology, or provide an answer in the face of a challenge, the exercise in deemed "pointless".
I'm sorry, but could you clarify exactly what it "sounds" to you that I am saying? What is a "zealot-like litmus test that is subjectively founded on ones ideology"? Evidence is my litmus test....without it, I find little reason to believe in a claim.

ubothsuk said:
2) PhD's or other highly educated people have studied the issue of "love"or other highly debatable, and as long as they support one's position, they are credible. Never mind if they are outnumbered by millions. Everybody else is wrong, and one does not have to prove it.
No, that is not what I am saying, but for the record, that many people believe in something is not good evidence for that "something". This is the classic appeal to majority fallacy.

ubothsuk said:
3) If one cannot explain the "world" from one's OWN position, using only the tools that one believes in (all others must be substandard), then the world is impossible to explain.
No, you have misunderstood me. I neither believe nor suggested that the world is impossible to explain.

ubothsuk said:
4) One may not know all the answers, but answers that do not meet one's approval are automatically wrong, and are based on fantasy.
No. "Answers" that do not have any evidence to support them *could* be correct. I just find no reason to believe in those answers.

It sounds to me like you are putting words in my mouth. :(

ubothsuk said:
If I didn't know any better, I would think that I was talking to a Christian or Islamic extremist. I'm not saying the position is right or wrong, I'm just making an observation. The former is based on FAITH. You don't have to believe in a soul, but you certainly cannot explain its ABSCENCE.
Nor can I explain the "ABSCENCE" of gremlins or mermaids. In fact, I'm not even sure what it would mean to explain the "ABSCENCE" of something. I do not, however, interpret this as a good reason for belief in these entities.

ubothsuk said:
Is there a soul? Yeah, probably. Is it like some floating entity like one reads in the bible? Probably not. Does a soul go to "heaven"? Maybe not in the biblical sense. Maybe the soul goes to or becomes part of , an unrealized dimensional shift. But hey, thats based on faith as well. The only ones that know the real truth are dead.
Assuming, of course, that dead people have the capacity to "know" things. :cool:
 

Theodore

Member
I do believe that we have a soul. Life would be pointless without one.
Our soul is contained within our body until death. At that point it is freed from the physical form.
We reside in the Astral (heaven) until it is time to come back. We then incarnate into a new body and start the whole thing over.
The soul has three coverings or sheaths:
The physical body, the thing we all know and see.
The astral body. This is our covering of energy. It's just like the physical body but much more subtle. When people see a ghost, they are seeing somebody's astral form.
The causal body. This is a very fine covering of thought. When the soul only has a causal body it is very close to God.
When the soul is finally able to shed all three coverings through spiritual evolution, it becomes one with God. This is the final freedom or emancipation. Revelation 3:12 - Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
 
Top