1. 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?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by JohnG139, Jul 18, 2005.

  1. drew22

    drew22 invisable

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    264
    Ratings:
    +9
    Oh yes JohnG139 you are very right on about the soul however; there is no mystery about. Maitreya has revealed all, there are no more mysteries. As you explained the soul lives forever and goes to heaven or hell depending. But what is heaven and hell and also so.... we have just this life to figure this out or we go to hell? NO! reincarnation is God`s justice. The soul lives forever so it is heading toward God.. God want the soul to do that so we get to keep on trying to get to God. God is going to give as many life times as it takes. Heaven is where God is and Hell is where? Hell is with those people who do not believe in God and those people are merely at an earthy station. Is not heaven and hell with you now? Of course much dogma comes with your background but think about the justice of God and reincarnation. Maitreya is the opener of the Seven Seals and He reveals the meanings of all these things. You may find the Maitreya at www.maitreya.org
     
  2. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    hell is mankinds common grave nothing more and nothing less
     
  3. CMIYC

    CMIYC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Ratings:
    +12
    From my own experience.

    Just to inform you all, that I’m not exactly a believer even though this little incident happened to me more then once, twice to be exact. Each time it was around 10 am.

    Yep, I kid you not. I just love bible bashes, that is give them a hard time. Most of them get sent out without any knowledge of the bible and their biggest defense is, “Jesus loves you.” Well, blow me down, that sure is going to convince me as an agnostic. Hehe!

    Anyway, like I said it only has happened to me twice, considering all the door knockers I’ve had to face.



    First time it happened to me was several years ago, when I was probably only 19 years of age and more arrogant towards the possibilities of god then I am now. Two door knockers approached me, telling me about god and Jesus. Politely in a crude way, I told them where to go. Then in their last effort before I shut the door in their face they moved closer. WOW when they did, a faded enmity from my body, without any control of mine, jumped out and had a bit of a struggle against theirs. This was real without any doubt in my mind. I’m not on drugs or do I take any medication. This was the real deal and when it happened, we both took half a step backwards. The man in question disappeared in such a hurry, I had no chance to ask him if he experienced the same thing as me. Anyway, then it happened to me again around 20 years later, more recently, and a very similar situation. Except this time I got to find out if the person experienced the same thing as me. The only thing I got from this frightened person was, you are a devil, keep the hell away from me! I laughed and said well did you experience anything odd then? He just kept on walking away saying, I was evil. I said to my self, well, how I know you aren’t the evil one. I know what you people are going to think “god, see a shrink” but I can assure you, I haven’t had no other delusions apart from these two.
     
  4. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    I am not in the least bit cynical; Robtex and Cynic's answers provoked that little demon in me to respond like that;

    Comments such as :To further complicate matters the theory of the soul being invisible brings about much skepticsm. Things that are invisible to mankind usually fall under two areas:

    1) too far away to see
    2) too small to see
    and:...and the almighty invisible pink unicorn, you don't need proof that she exists... just believe it, even when you cannot prove her existence...

    Tend to make me blow a gasket - or rather, they used to; I am no longer 'bothered' by those who trash anything that isn't pinned down on an examination slide in a lab....

    Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    Man's body was formed out of the "elements of the earth," the same materials (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.) from which both plants and the bodies of the animals had been formed (Genesis 1:12,24). This unity of physical composition is a fact of modern science long anticipated by Scripture

    Though animals also possess the "breath" (Hebrew neshimah;--Genesis 7:22) and the "soul" (Hebrew nephesh;--Genesis 1:24), man's breath (same word as spirit) and soul were imparted to him by God directly, rather than indirectly, as imparted to the animals.​

    God Himself, personally, breathes into man the breath of life. This suggests that there is more here than just the giving of life. It implies the imparting of a spirit that adds to mankind a dimension others in thenatural creation lack. It is the power of mind that is imparted by a spirit.​
    Men have to gather knowledge, analyze, understand, and choose to do right as stipulated byinstruction, in its broadest sense, and law, in its more specific sense.

    As a result of man having a spirit, of man having mind, man has personality and spirituality; He is capable of holiness, love, dominion, and responsibility. This requires time and experience because these qualities are acquired, not given.:)

     
  5. ubothsuk

    ubothsuk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    Although I respect your answers, I can tell you don't have a hard science background. "Genetics" hasn't "taught" us anything ( forgive if I am incorrect, but I take the word "taught" as you believing that it is something that is a 100% concrete fact). Also you forgot the word "Theory" in front of evolution. Science dictates that things are supported, not proven. Thus the rationale behind probability values in the conclusions of any respectful scientific study. In other words, if you are a person who stands by science as most atheists do, then by science's very nature, you admit that the walls of your belief system are lined with doubt. I'm not saying that's not a bad thing. Example? Well, lets take your first statement "that all componets of living organisms are made-up of the 4 dna molecules". Yes, that is scientifically supported. I'll leave that to others to find a study with the proper P values (usually a really good study supporting significance of a hypothesis will have a p (probability) value of >.005). That means the state is supported as true today, but could change the next day with a new discovery. See, the "religious" folks have something that some athesist's unknowingly proclaim everytime they state something is a "scientific fact", but can never have; faith. Is that good or bad? Dunno. But atheistic faith is an oxy-moron. But if you are an atheist referencing science, (and hey, I don't know if you're atheist or not, if you are thats cool) please understand that science always leaves doubt; that's what keeps it moving and evolving. So, although science cannot support the existance of a "soul" today, there may be one, but as yet it has not been scientifically revealed.
    So when someone references science as 100% flattly "proving" the existance or non-existance of something as do christians, muslims, buddists, etc., and they deny being apart of any of those groups, guess what...your philosophy is not very far from theirs.
    You agree? Well, if one does, then a person who sides with science rather than religion will have no problem saying that there may be a soul, but there has been no scientific evidence to date.

    )( "All I wanted was a Pepsi, and SHE wouldn't give to me!"-Suicidal Tendencies
     
  6. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,683
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    How does reference to the Invisible Pink Unicorn constitute trashing "anything that isn't pinned down on an examination slide in a lab"? Do you think the Invisible Pink Unicorn is an absurd idea? If so, I must say I'm surprised.....just because you can't see her or feel her with your physical senses doesn't mean she's not there.... ;)

    Okay, so this is what you believe regarding the soul. Now the question is, can you support these claims? :)

    ubothsuk-- I agree with your last post--you're right, science does not "prove" things, it just makes us more confident in some things than in others.

    Be careful here: there are two basic definitions of "faith" and they cannot be used interchangably. One is confidence in a person, thing, or idea. The other is belief that does not lie on reason or physical evidence. There is nothing contradictory about an atheist (or, more accurately, a philosophical naturalist) having confidence in a well-supported idea or observation. Indeed, there is nothing preventing that confidence level from reaching 99.999999% when confronted with overwhelming evidence, and it is at these high confidence levels when we are justified in calling something a "fact".
     
  7. CMIYC

    CMIYC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Ratings:
    +12
    What surprises me by a lot of you disregard and dispute science, yet you all enjoy the benefits science has brought to light. No, it wasn’t god that performed the last heart transplant or reattached a missing limb. Take a look around you, let there be light and there was light and all it took was for you to turn the switch. Until 50 year ago an average age for a woman was around 45 years of age, because of giving birth complications. Nope, it wasn’t done by prayer but by people not waiting for miracles.
     
  8. ubothsuk

    ubothsuk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    Scientific philosophy and atheistic philosophy are two different schools. I have to admit; I have only taken 101 courses in basic philosophy, so I'm not an expert on atheism. However, having a degree in Biology and, participating in advanced scientific philosophy courses, as well as completing a graduate level thesis in my junior year (I'm trying to brag, just qualifying my answers) I tell you that atheism, by and large, leans heavily on science, but science does not rely on atheism or any other "personal" philosophy. Hey, thats what the "purists" say. Therefore, from a purely scientific standpoint, while you may think it is silly to say that a pink unicorn just might live in the sky, well, science does not support that believe. Science will never say that is ridiculous (although supporters would probably says that with the doors closed after class). As far as faith having two definitions...according to whom? Philosophers? Atheists? Christians? In the eyes of pure science, anyone who claims something as FACT is relying on faith. Trust me I've tried to argue it against for 2 1/2 years in school with some the best educators in the country. Think about it; pure science is supposed to be objective. Sounds kind of "stuck up" doesn’t it? And believe it or not, there are those who claim that this pure "scientific philosophy" is completely unders-studied and is exploited by the likes of evolutionists and creationists who piggy-back on the only objective entity left. Thats why, for many who subscribe to this philosophy there is no difference between atheists and christians (or plug in your own religion here). Now, I know the christians are smiling and some atheists out there are frowning. Hey, I didn't say I agreed with it. That just a FACT. hehe
    :jam: Boom-Boom Aka-Laka-Aka Boom. Boom-Boom Aka-Laka-Boom Boom-----Was-Not-Was
     
  9. CMIYC

    CMIYC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Ratings:
    +12
    ubothsuk vbmenu_register("postmenu_199181", true);

    I don’t believe you; you claim on qualifications lacks depth. One as yourself would and should know about micro and macro science. Now, that I have pointed it out, any argument you present will contradict your present views.



    The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

    Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

    The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

    1. Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunction in-between species. The new emerging proposal is the quantum jump. Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump.

    This is a bigger stretch than gradual evolution. Based on his idea, simple pond microbes would have the same DNA encoding as humans and science has proven that this is not the case. Primitive life forms have far less genetic material than more complex animals such as a mammal. Gould’s leap of faith also does not account for varieties of different species. If environment is the trigger and we all have the same DNA, the jump should be to the same creature. Plus we can plainly observe that this reaction does not occur today. Moving from a warm weather climate to a cold weather climate doesn’t trigger a different type of offspring.

     
  10. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,667
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    With respect; the three you mention are architects, but they are talking philosophy;

    "Heinrich Klotz and Christian Norberg-Schulz have noted similarities between the thoughts of the American master architect, Louis I. Kahn and the German "Existentialist" philosopher, Martin Heidegger1). Norberg-Schulz has done the most to establish this philosophical connection between the architect and the philosopher."

    QUOTE Robtex "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. "I am not; I have no intention of killig you - oh, you mean as in laughter ? - Good, laughter is the best medicine.............

    I was not in the slightest reversing my philosophy; the point that I made in the other thread is still valid; in this one, I am merely agreeing with you;
    "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."

    What some of you intellectuals fail to see is the obvious; we are not talking about matter which is related to our cognitive powers.

    1)Yes, I agree that the soul is not composed of DNA molecules, and is invisible (Though there are some who claim to see them - but let's forget that here)
    2)Yes, the soul is not projected to be microscopic yet is considered unseeable WITH OUR HUMAN EYES AND ACROSS A SPECTRUM THAT WE AS MORTALS CAN Sense.
    3) Yes, 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."Because it was designed by GOD as a 'fully operating one and only version' of something produced by him - it needs no refinement - it is perfect in construction.

    I refer to Metaphysical entities; you want everything to remain within the boundaries of Physics.

    This is why the Atheist and the theist will never have common ground upon which to agree. If I understand correctly, You feel that everything around us is visible, explainable by science and that everything that you cannot see with the aid of instrumentation of some sort doesn't exist.

    I would liken the difference between the two ways of thought to that of the definition of the Cynic. (I am sure you know it, but to recap) One who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

    Your physical entities are tangible - you can 'cost' them; you can put them in tidy little boxes, clearly labelled.........

    My metaphysical entities are not tangible, I cannot give them a value, a measurment - but they Have a value, and I recognise that value.;)
     
  11. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,763
    Ratings:
    +1,147
    On the cognative powers that are attritubtes of our brain.
    Please qualify the invisblity of the soul. If one cannot see it which senses can they detect it with and historically how has it been detected in the past?

    You say the soul is a perfect construction and has by theists been stipulated as the source of human moraltiy. In christianty man seeks redemption from original sin. If the soul is tarnished with sin than how can it be perfect?

    Even without science you are stipulating that the soul is existant yet undetectable , unqualifable yet existant competive and thus redundant with functions of our brain yet existant.
     
  12. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,683
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    Well I think Aretha Franklin has got a lot of soul. Do you agree?

    Perhaps there can be some common ground afterall. :)
     
  13. ubothsuk

    ubothsuk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    First, I don't really care what you believe about my qualifications. It's irrelevant. I stated them to qualify my answers. I can sit around and quote a bunch of books and authors word-for-word, but I've got other things to do, and quite frankly I try to tailor my answers so that everyone can participate regarless of the formal educational background. I did not go into any detail regarding evolution vs. creationism. The topic (I thought ) was about the existance of the soul. The ability to PONTIFICATE profusely and quote lots of stuffy books does not qualify ones education or experience, either in school or just by life exeriences. I know quite a few moronic PhD's, and many wise and intelligent people who have never gone to college. So, while I value my education, I don't flaunt it or tell someone that their wrong because of a lack or difference of one. Secondly, it quite obvious that you began forming your rebuttal while you were reading mine. Otherwise you would have plainly seen that I agree with you! I was not discussing science micro, macro or otherwise. I was talking about "Scientific Philosophy" and its supporters. It deals with very basic concepts. One being that there is no such thing as "proof" only support. By it very nature that "support" leaves room for doubt. Faith leaves NO room for doubt in regards to the concept of pure Scientific Philosophy. Don't take my word for it; pick up any reputable medical science journal, look at the results section, and you will see P (probability) values. Do I subscribe to the purity of Scientific Philosophy? No I don't. But then again, I'm a Christian and I admit that my beliefs are based on a mix of what I consider to be science AND faith. It is a luxury that a true atheist cannot have. It is also why they cannot accept the concept of a soul, which is the point of this thread. I really don't know what you are talking about when you stated
    "I don’t believe you; you claim on qualifications lacks depth. One as yourself would and should know about micro and macro science. Now, that I have pointed it out, any argument you present will contradict your present views."
    You are too much IN depth. Its like a person discussing the general basic concepts of why man developed laws, and you rebutting with the specifics of double parking laws and fines involved on a specific street in Istanbul.
    :bonk: I have such sights to show you!----PinHead, From 'HellRaiser'
     
  14. CMIYC

    CMIYC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Ratings:
    +12
    ubothsuk vbmenu_register("postmenu_199476", true);
    I wasn’t really having a go at you as it appeared. OK. it appeared like I was and in a way maybe, but not as an intent. I think science holds many aspects of proof, to use philosophy without direction of proof, is bad philosophy in its self.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. robtex

    robtex Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    11,763
    Ratings:
    +1,147
    Resurrecting this post and thread because I found a really interesting essay on this here:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48365

    Cris who resurrected the thread there is in the field of science and is an atheist. I don't know who boris is. I didn't cut and paste the post for two reasons:

    1) too long
    2) Didn't have premission to and worried about copyright laws

    What I liked about the essay is it explored various theories on the existance of a soul and the author's own personal refutes to them. I have to read it more indept when I have more time before posting more on it. But I wanted to share it.
     
  16. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,840
    Ratings:
    +1,375
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Is Boris a theist?

    ~Victor
     
  17. Bennettresearch

    Bennettresearch Politically Incorrect

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Ratings:
    +61
    I can prove that IPU's exist!!! They are alive and well in this forum, and there is your empirical evidence!

    Having come about spirituality on my own without having it taught to me, I find the concept of soul to most intriguing. I think that exists but wouldn't dream of trying to prove it to someone who is insisting upon scientific evidence. If it was measurable in anyway, this discussion would be moot. OMG! I am only a set of bio-chemical synapses powered by an electrostatic charge! Where does the concept of soul come from anyway? Just a bunch of zealous religious fanatics? Just because we can't quantify God and the soul does that mean we can prove it doesn't exist? I know that I have a sense outside of my basic 5 because I experience it. If I am nothing more than a tuned in receiver, then what is it that I am receiving anyway?

    Studying this area has been a long time activity of mine and I don't propose to anyone that I can fully answer just what it is. What is imortant is that it is something outside of my own mind and opens the door to the possibility of a dimensional aspect of humans that cannot be measured or quantified.

    Oh, and the best to you and yours JohnG.
     
  18. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,840
    Ratings:
    +1,375
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Are you talking about the soul here?

    ~Victor
     
  19. Bennettresearch

    Bennettresearch Politically Incorrect

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Ratings:
    +61
    Hi Victor,

    No. My experiences are not all encompassing nor do they have an omnicient quality to them. I am still a human that is learning and working etc. The experiences did impress upon me the possibility of a soul. I mean to say here that if I experienced minor extra dimensional thought, then this opens the door to the spirit and might even mean that there is a me that exists outside of my body. This is all concept, I do not present it as proof but it has made me think differently. :rolleyes:
     
  20. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,101
    Ratings:
    +1,665
    Every soul is unique and has existed many moments (more moments than you may remember or realize). The purposeful aspects of every soul will differ but the soul is you.
     
Loading...