The Soul

[Super Universe]

I don't quite see how this connects to the question I asked, sorry.

No I'm just trying to have a debate about certain erroneous arguments you have used.

I know where I came from up till a certain point. Maybe in the future as science progresses I may come to find out more. I don't really see how the rock analogy holds up, I'm just an atheist without belief in free will, a person with a realistic worldview. Why would that suddenly make me a stone?

Aha, the personal attack. This always happens to people that are losing a debate.

You were quite subtle about it:

This sentence insinuates that your life somehow has more meaning than mine because of your belief.

Again you insinuate that your life must be better because of your faith.

I know you're human just like me, and you live in the same universe as me, so considering the topic we're debating here, that's all I need to know.

Because different animals have different traits. Do you think Einstein became Einstein or Hitler became Hitler because they chose to be? No, because they had the right/wrong genetics and the right/wrong environment and life experiences while they were growing up.

Funny that you accuse me of wanting to go kick a dog, since you're the one "shooing me away".

There is no swaying me this way or that. If I had not seen then I would likely join with you and promote but you ask me to deny what I know. Truthfully I tell you "It is not possible!"

So spread your disease elsewhere, where it may take root and you can be pleased at the destruction you've caused. You come here to my place, I have not tread upon yours.

Erroneous arguments? You provide no proof in your argument that I have no proof!

What debate am I losing? You have not changed, I have not changed. We are the same only more aggravated than before.

I simply tire of this endless circle and press upon you once again to go on with your life. Your existence is as you say it is. You truly were not intended. You are nothing more than an accident. So get away from me before you cause any more accidents that I must then be witness to.

A stone is something that simply exists in the universe. It has no idea where it came from. It only knows itself. It's own way of life. If it could it would shout at the birds "Stop that soaring about right now! You start acting like a rock!"

You see yourself as a human first and foremost, before anything else. So that is all you are. You could be a teacher but you do not wish it for yourself. You could be a mentor, a guide, or one who spreads happiness, one who promotes art.

Instead you have chosen to simply be a simple human when the limit truly is only the ends of the universe. That is your choice. But that is not enough, you want others to be as simple and alone as you are in the universe. So to me you are like a stone, as interesting as a rock.

I don't insinuate, I shout it out! My life is much better now than it was before! I am not this fragile imperfect form! I had no idea what I was supposed to do. I was bouncing back and forth against the walls that human society built. The whole time I somehow knew they weren't really there. I knew it!

Once again you think being human is the same for each person on the planet. But what Mozart can you play? What great touchdown can you achieve? What great garden have you built?

One who only looks to destroy cannot create. So again I say "Go about your business elsewhere".

 

[Opethian]

There is no swaying me this way or that. If I had not seen then I would likely join with you and promote but you ask me to deny what I know. Truthfully I tell you "It is not possible!"

Very well, but that doesn't mean we can't continue the debate without one person trying to sway the other.

So spread your disease elsewhere, where it may take root and you can be pleased at the destruction you've caused. You come here to my place, I have not tread upon yours.

It is not a disease, and it does not cause destruction. Using a lot of negative terms is really not going to impress me. You call it "your place", yet it is simply a thread that you started and that I have commented on in a normal, non-agressive way. If you don't like what I post, then tough luck, don't read it, but don't try to stop me from posting in a thread concerning a topic that I am interested in.

Erroneous arguments? You provide no proof in your argument that I have no proof!

I don't have to prove a negative concerning this topic. Prove that I have no proof that there is a Flying Tagliatelli Monster behind the moon! If you say that you have evidence for a soul, then show it to us, or don't mention it.

What debate am I losing? You have not changed, I have not changed. We are the same only more aggravated than before.

1. You have stopped discussing the topic, and started asking me to leave. A cowardly act, often performed by people who are losing one way or another.
2. You have resorted to personal attacks and a lot of negative talk.
3. You have failed to show any proof or evidence you claimed you had.
4. You failed to explain how a soul can relate to genetics, while you claimed it did. All you have is an incredibly vague and weak fantasised theory and you expect us to not have any criticism on it.

I simply tire of this endless circle and press upon you once again to go on with your life. Your existence is as you say it is. You truly were not intended. You are nothing more than an accident. So get away from me before you cause any more accidents that I must then be witness to.

I must say, you are very good at subtle personal attacks!
But I still won't leave until you either show me any evidence or proof, or admit that you don't have any, and that you have no idea how a soul could relate to genetics.

A stone is something that simply exists in the universe. It has no idea where it came from. It only knows itself. It's own way of life. If it could it would shout at the birds "Stop that soaring about right now! You start acting like a rock!"

I do have an idea where I came from, and I didn't get mine from an old fiction book! I know many others but myself and a lot of ways of life, I simply chose to be an atheist. And I definitely have no problem with others way of life, as long as they do not affect my way of life in a negative way. I'm also not trying to change your way of life, I'm simply debating in a thread called "The soul", and you seem to think that in some way I'm trying to attack you, yet you are the only one here attacking people.

You see yourself as a human first and foremost, before anything else. So that is all you are. You could be a teacher but you do not wish it for yourself. You could be a mentor, a guide, or one who spreads happiness, one who promotes art.

I'm just me, just like you are you. Why all this crazy pseudo-psychological gibberish? You aren't making any sense.

Instead you have chosen to simply be a simple human when the limit truly is only the ends of the universe. That is your choice. But that is not enough, you want others to be as simple and alone as you are in the universe. So to me you are like a stone, as interesting as a rock.

I am not simple and alone, you only label me as such. I believe there is much more satisfaction to be gained in truly understanding how the world works than in making things up and believing those. That does not somehow make me simple and alone, so please stop your irrational labeling attacks.

I don't insinuate, I shout it out! My life is much better now than it was before! I am not this fragile imperfect form! I had no idea what I was supposed to do. I was bouncing back and forth against the walls that human society built. The whole time I somehow knew they weren't really there. I knew it!

Just because you had no idea what you were supposed to do without faith, doesn't mean that others without faith don't either.

Once again you think being human is the same for each person on the planet. But what Mozart can you play? What great touchdown can you achieve? What great garden have you built?

Once again, you misinterpret something I say and then form a sentence that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote that you're responding on. I'm simply saying that these people didn't choose to become what they are, it's just the way things went, because of their genetics, their environment and their experiences.

One who only looks to destroy cannot create. So again I say "Go about your business elsewhere".

I am not looking to destroy. Your whole argumentation in this post is based on some fantasy of yours in which I am a rock trying to destroy everything around it. Almost such a fantasy as your theory in the OP.

 

[Super Universe]

Circles, sigh...

 

[Æsahættr]

And all the matter in the universe expands from this central point with no gravity involved whatsoever?

Are you not aware that there are other forces than gravity? And that gravity is in fact the weakest force? In the early stages of the Universe all matter was part of a quark-gluon plasma. At those levels, the nuclear and electromagnetic forces would have far outweighed the strength of gravity.

What do you think is going to happen when we build a large space interferometer and find out that the universe is thousands of times larger than we now believe?

Firstly, how do you know that the universe is so much bigger? Secondly, the idea that the Universe is bigger would not come as a surprise, we already know that most of it is dark matter and dark energy. Thirdly, how would any of that change anything? How would it make any of what you're saying more likely?

If matter doesn't have to come from anywhere then why the need for a big bang theory?

I said that matter was not created during the Big Bang. I didn't say that the Universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, or that the distribution of matter has been fairly stable.

I know there is non-space/time. YOU don't know it and scientists won't for a thousand years, mmm, maybe 900 if your lucky. Time has to do with movement in the relativity regions of space. There are perfectly stable regions. I could tell you where it is but I won't. It's really quite logical though.

How do you know there is non-space/time?
Time is a dimension, like one of the spatial dimensions. No further explanation necessary.
"Relativity regions of space" doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone scientific sense.
If you refuse to tell me things, do you not think that just suggests that you don't have an answer?

Creating does not violate the laws of physics. The universe was created by the same being who created the laws to govern it.

Creating does violate the laws of physics. It violates the conservation laws. Are they not laws of physics. If the creator of the Universe wanted a Universe where things could be created, why wouldn't he create a Universe without conservation laws? Because our's certainly has them.

No, I'm not giving away the fundamental unit of matter. But I told you where to find it and I actually thought it was too much. Isn't it always better when things are earned?

Once again, you just make it more and more obvious that you are avading giving answers. Acting knowledgable will get you nowhere unless you are prepared to prove that you know what you're talking about.

Meditation travels the universe faster than light?
But what are the laws of physics of another dimension? What are the laws that apply to angels? You want everything handed to you with no effort but you'll get nothing unearned. No scientist will ever discover anything new with such a closed mind. Maybe make that two thousand years before the theory of non-space/time.

Yes, there are theories of higher dimensions, and some of those allow for faster than light travel, because the speed of light could be higher in higher dimensions. However, firstly, all of these theories are rather controversial. Secondly, even if we assume that they're true, then in order to access the higher dimensions, you need enormous energy, beyond what the entire world can produce as yet. So how would somone meditating get that energy?
There are no laws for angels, because there is no evidence for angels. If we ever find any, we'll come up with some laws for them.
You are the same as every new-ager and hater of science. Your instant reaction to any rejection of an idea is that scientists have closed minds. That is not the case. Have you given a single piece of evidence? If scientists were not as skeptical as they are, science would never progress. We would be waylaid investigating every minor theory that someone thought of off the top of their head. Once you give evidence, you can be taken seriously.Once again I ask you to make predictions.

This matter that expanded from the big bang (you capitalize it like it had a will of it's own), before the bang happened this matter was obviously somewhere else then wasn't it? Somewhere that gravity had no effect because then it would just clump all this matter together in one giant black hole? Sounds a lot like non-space/time to me but that's just a guess.

Since when does capitalising something mean it has a will of its own? As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang is a proper noun.
No, the matter was not anywhere else. Before the Big Bang does not exist. It's like saying what's north of the North Pole.

A non-time being only needs a memory to put passing events in the proper order. No time needed for non-time beings.

If a being is outside of time, there wouldn't be any passing events.

I can make any claim I wish to sir, as I've stated before "None of this is intended for you" and we are far from my goal on this thread. I'm not going to hand you the building blocks of the universe or a grand unification theory, earn it yourself. Did you think Einstein was so smart to figure out space/time on his own?

What was the intention of this thread then? To try and convince those with no knowledge of the basics of science whatsoever that the soul exists? I'm sorry I am not ignorant enough to be of service.

What do I have to say to a scientist? This "Scientists chase ever after a train that they hear just ahead of them, but it is only the sound of a train."

Those futile attempts at chasing after that train have given us the computer that I'm sitting at now, the internet that connects that computer to allow me to send this message so that you can read it, they've given us the electricity to run that computer, they've put men on the moon, they've saved countless lives. What have crackpots like you done for humanity please?

Why does it take many people to run a universe? How many does it take to run a country? How many teachers do we have? How many messengers? How many judges? How many CEO's, advisors, repairmen?

What is that supposed to prove? Shall I list things that exist that don't need running. The Universe is not a country, or a court, or any of those things. All of the things you listed are concepts created by man. The Universe is not man-made but natural. There is no reason to assume that it must be run by some higher being.

The earth rests atop a needle stacked end to end with a million needles. That is why it is impossible for the universe to exist in the way it does without beings controlling it.

What are you trying to say here?

Me confidant? I know absolutely, positively, without a doubt that God exists and that He created the universe. Everything else is a work in progress.Me enlightened? Only with the answer that most matters.

So basically, what you are saying is that you know that God exists, from what reasoning is unclear, but you somehow know this, and everything else must fit in with that assumption?

 

[Super Universe]

Are you not aware that there are other forces than gravity? And that gravity is in fact the weakest force? In the early stages of the Universe all matter was part of a quark-gluon plasma. At those levels, the nuclear and electromagnetic forces would have far outweighed the strength of gravity.


Firstly, how do you know that the universe is so much bigger? Secondly, the idea that the Universe is bigger would not come as a surprise, we already know that most of it is dark matter and dark energy. Thirdly, how would any of that change anything? How would it make any of what you're saying more likely?


I said that matter was not created during the Big Bang. I didn't say that the Universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, or that the distribution of matter has been fairly stable.

How do you know there is non-space/time?
Time is a dimension, like one of the spatial dimensions. No further explanation necessary.
"Relativity regions of space" doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone scientific sense.
If you refuse to tell me things, do you not think that just suggests that you don't have an answer?

Creating does violate the laws of physics. It violates the conservation laws. Are they not laws of physics. If the creator of the Universe wanted a Universe where things could be created, why wouldn't he create a Universe without conservation laws? Because our's certainly has them.

Once again, you just make it more and more obvious that you are avading giving answers. Acting knowledgable will get you nowhere unless you are prepared to prove that you know what you're talking about.

Yes, there are theories of higher dimensions, and some of those allow for faster than light travel, because the speed of light could be higher in higher dimensions. However, firstly, all of these theories are rather controversial. Secondly, even if we assume that they're true, then in order to access the higher dimensions, you need enormous energy, beyond what the entire world can produce as yet. So how would somone meditating get that energy?
There are no laws for angels, because there is no evidence for angels. If we ever find any, we'll come up with some laws for them.
You are the same as every new-ager and hater of science. Your instant reaction to any rejection of an idea is that scientists have closed minds. That is not the case. Have you given a single piece of evidence? If scientists were not as skeptical as they are, science would never progress. We would be waylaid investigating every minor theory that someone thought of off the top of their head. Once you give evidence, you can be taken seriously.Once again I ask you to make predictions.


Since when does capitalising something mean it has a will of its own? As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang is a proper noun.
No, the matter was not anywhere else. Before the Big Bang does not exist. It's like saying what's north of the North Pole.

If a being is outside of time, there wouldn't be any passing events.



What was the intention of this thread then? To try and convince those with no knowledge of the basics of science whatsoever that the soul exists? I'm sorry I am not ignorant enough to be of service.

Those futile attempts at chasing after that train have given us the computer that I'm sitting at now, the internet that connects that computer to allow me to send this message so that you can read it, they've given us the electricity to run that computer, they've put men on the moon, they've saved countless lives. What have crackpots like you done for humanity please?



What is that supposed to prove? Shall I list things that exist that don't need running. The Universe is not a country, or a court, or any of those things. All of the things you listed are concepts created by man. The Universe is not man-made but natural. There is no reason to assume that it must be run by some higher being.

What are you trying to say here?


So basically, what you are saying is that you know that God exists, from what reasoning is unclear, but you somehow know this, and everything else must fit in with that assumption?

That's quite an extraordinary claim. Surely you have extraordinary evidence that proves it? Oh, and how exactly do these quark-gluon's create time?

I'm evading answers? Your the scientist. Answers evading you is your life. You should be used to it. I've given you clues to follow, go out and do the work then once you figure it out you can praise yourself and publish it all. Oh how great you will be! Just make sure you give partial credit to God who actually created it that way.

Hater of science? I love it. I wish they'd figure out more things and explain to us all how God made the universe. What bothers me is the scientist who thinks so much of himself when he hasn't created a thing. Scientists simply discover a small piece of the whole. Einstein was humble.

If there was nothing before the big bang then where did your quark-gluon plasma come from? Did it create itself?

The intention of this thread is to build faith in those who are looking for just a sliver of an answer. The most important part of us is the soul, not this weak, fallable, blind, human form. What is going to be your excuse at the adjudication "I'm sorry. I didn't know?"

Ah, so much glory to yourself! "All praise the great human scientists!" (no one bows...) Catch the train Mr. Scientist, then your eyes will truly be opened. Catch the train...

I'm saying that life is caused, it's intended, it's experimented with. Sometimes the results are surprising even to the true universal scientists.

Your final sentence is correct. Anything that goes against God must have another explanation.

 

[Æsahættr]

Oh, Super Universe, this isn't related to the debate, but seeing as we're all into such long posts now, you don't think you could split up the quotes do you? It makes it much easier to follow which bit of your post is responding to exactly which bit of mine.

That's quite an extraordinary claim. Surely you have extraordinary evidence that proves it? Oh, and how exactly do these quark-gluon's create time?

First of all, I may still have not been clear in my definition of an extraordinary claim. In this sense, an extraordinary claim means one that goes against lots of other things that we know. The claim that the Universe was a quark-gluon plasma at one point is not an extraordinary claim, because it is completly consistant with the Standard Model.
Obviously, we can't say with 100% certainty that the quark-gluon plasma really did exist. The exact model that we believe to be pretty correct regarding the early stages of the Universe is the ^ACDM model. The evidence for this is that the predictions of this model regarding microwave background radiation and other aspects of the Universe are very accurate. Oh, and btw, there is another difference between the claim of quark-gluon plasma and some of your claims. If you want, I can tell you exactly what it is, in terms of particles. In normal matter quarks are confined; they cannot leave the particle that they make up at all. In quark-gluon plasma, the quarks are not making up larger particles but are free, they are deconfined. Now you see, this is not scientists simply making up a term. If you can explain what non-space/time, or the personality, or any of your other terms are, in such precise detail, then I might think that you too were not simply making something up, or at least going along with something that someone else made up.
Please tell me when I said that time is ever created, or that the quark-gluon plasma has anything to do with it.

I'm evading answers? Your the scientist. Answers evading you is your life. You should be used to it. I've given you clues to follow, go out and do the work then once you figure it out you can praise yourself and publish it all. Oh how great you will be! Just make sure you give partial credit to God who actually created it that way.

Ah, so much glory to yourself! "All praise the great human scientists!" (no one bows...) Catch the train Mr. Scientist, then your eyes will truly be opened. Catch the train...

Just to let you know, I am not actually a scientist by proffession (if you want to know I am a student).
Also, I would disagree whole-heartedly with the suggestion that scientists are simply self-interested. Though you may find it hard to believe, the search for truth is the major driving force of science.
You really need to try and learn to understand those who have differing views to you. I understand fully that you believe that seeking truth without God is a meaningless thing to do, but, to use your train metaphor, you need to understand that from my point of view, rather than catching that train of yours, on your death-bed you will be stepping off the platform into oblivion. Now, what say that if I am able to refrain from telling you over and over again that you are wasting your life, then you will be able to make the same restraint, and we can actually stick to debating things rationally.

Hater of science? I love it. I wish they'd figure out more things and explain to us all how God made the universe. What bothers me is the scientist who thinks so much of himself when he hasn't created a thing. Scientists simply discover a small piece of the whole. Einstein was humble.

You have to accept that science itself is always going to be a secular matter. Individual scientists may be religious or not. Some may enjoy science because they think it shows them how God made the Universe. Others may enjoy it because they simply find nature wonderful in itself, with no need for God. Science should not start from the premise that it is looking at God's creation or at a naturally occuring Universe. That is a matter for individuals. Science just looks objectivelly at what there is.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana][/FONT]

If there was nothing before the big bang then where did your quark-gluon plasma come from? Did it create itself?

I discussed this issue in another thread. This is a common misconception. First of all, to clarify, the statement "there was nothing before the Big Bang" is not one that makes sense. It is not that there was nothing before the Big Bang. There is no "before" in which there can be nothing. Don't think of time as existing as a constant background to everything. Relativity has shown that isn't true. Time is just another dimension, like the three spatial dimensions. The Universe is a 4-dimensional thing (ignoring higher dimensional theories). The Big Bang is not caused by anything other than the shape of the 4-dimensional Universe. If you like, the Big Bang is just one end of the shape. Everything that exists is contained in this Universe. You do not need any outside influence to put things in necessarily (although, as I said in the other thread dealing with this, the possibility that there was a creator is not ruled out by this line of thinking).

The intention of this thread is to build faith in those who are looking for just a sliver of an answer. The most important part of us is the soul, not this weak, fallable, blind, human form. What is going to be your excuse at the adjudication "I'm sorry. I didn't know?"

I have to say that I object whole-heartedly to the idea of "building faith" if that faith is not based on evidence.
As I said before, I'll try not to gloat that from my point of view you are wasting your life, committing yourself to something that is not there, and in return you could refrain from gloating that from your point of view I am wasting my life by not preparing for something that is there. You have complained earlier in this thread that the argument is going round in circles. In that case, let's stick to logical debate, and remember that there is no point in trying to contruct an argument based on premises that the other person doesn't agree to. The idea that I will be judged a sinner after death doesn't hold any fear for me, because I don't believe it's going to happen.

Anything that goes against God must have another explanation.

That may be your personal belief, but it has no place in the objective realm of science. How can you hope to find truth when you are starting with unchangable prejudices and preconceptions? It goes against everything that science is.

 

[Super Universe]

In other words, you provide no proof for your quark-gluon claim, you simply side with the all knowing scientists. You provide no proof then you demand extraordinary proof of my claims?

You didn't say that time was created. But surely it has some cause? Where is your theory for it? And I hope you have proof.

I know a few scientists who believe in God. One teach's Geology and is a Baptist, another is an Archeologist and a devout Roman Catholic. Like me they see science as uncovering the clues to God's great creation.

If the incredible universe is not proof of a divine plan then surely nothing will satisfy you.

Use your own science, statistics. What are the chances that energy would create itself then become a stable form, atoms that spread out and somehow form time? Then amidst all of this chaos the physical laws just happen to exist to align and organize this matter into systems that then produce an earth and life? An incredible accident on top of a million other accidents.

The earth is truly balancing on top of a million needles stacked end to end.


Faith by it's own meaning, does not come from evidence. Start with a tiny piece, just a hint that maybe God fits into your little universe. Then over time we push the door open a tiny bit farther and at some point the door opens the rest of the way itself.

You'll be judged a sinner? Right along with me and everyone else. The key is to make the perfect moral decision, regardless of whether you believe in God or not choose to do no harm and follow your conscience.

I did not start with this belief in God. And my belief has a comfortable place in logic. If God exists, then anything that conflicts with Him is wrong. You choose to start with the premise that God does not exist, then for you anything that suggests God is wrong.

It's simply your choice.

 

[Æsahættr]

In other words, you provide no proof for your quark-gluon claim, you simply side with the all knowing scientists. You provide no proof then you demand extraordinary proof of my claims?

How many times have I said it Super Universe? Science doesn't use proof, it uses evidence. And I gave you evidence for the quark-gluon plasma. If you want it again, here it is.
The best evidence for any theory is if it makes accurate predictions. The ^ACDM model makes very accurate prediction of the microwave background radiation. The quark-gluon plasma is part of that model.

You didn't say that time was created. But surely it has some cause? Where is your theory for it? And I hope you have proof.

Why does it have to have a cause?

I know a few scientists who believe in God. One teach's Geology and is a Baptist, another is an Archeologist and a devout Roman Catholic. Like me they see science as uncovering the clues to God's great creation.

Yes, I said that plenty of scientists are religious. Equally, plenty are not. Science itself is secular. While individuals may see it as fulfilling some purpose, within the realms of science you start with no prior assumptions that God either exists or doesn't exist.

If the incredible universe is not proof of a divine plan then surely nothing will satisfy you.

The Universe itself would only be proof of divinity if it was absolutely impossible for it to exist without. I don't think that it is.

Use your own science, statistics. What are the chances that energy would create itself then become a stable form, atoms that spread out and somehow form time? Then amidst all of this chaos the physical laws just happen to exist to align and organize this matter into systems that then produce an earth and life? An incredible accident on top of a million other accidents.

Energy did not create itself, I never said that it did. Energy exists, and it is scattered throughout the 4-dimensional Universe.
Neither did I say that time was"formed" by energy.
As for how likely life is, we have no idea yet. I'm sure you're aware of the vast number of stars and planets that there are in the Universe. There is nothing to suggest that the odds are really stacked so far against life occuring on any of those planets.
You are also talking about how unlikely it is that the laws that govern our Universe cause matter to be organised in the way that it is. However, that's the same as rolling a dice with a million sides, then whatever number comes up, saying "wow! what were the odds of that number coming up! A million to one!" If matter wasn't organised the way it is, it would be organised some other way.

Faith by it's own meaning, does not come from evidence. Start with a tiny piece, just a hint that maybe God fits into your little universe. Then over time we push the door open a tiny bit farther and at some point the door opens the rest of the way itself.

You can justify belief in anything like that. How are you to know that you've picked the right door?

You'll be judged a sinner? Right along with me and everyone else. The key is to make the perfect moral decision, regardless of whether you believe in God or not choose to do no harm and follow your conscience.

I'm glad that you think that actions are more important than belief but...perfect moral decision? Do you really mean that no imperfect decision as any point will be allowed?

I did not start with this belief in God. And my belief has a comfortable place in logic. If God exists, then anything that conflicts with Him is wrong. You choose to start with the premise that God does not exist, then for you anything that suggests God is wrong.

The logical statement "If God exists then anything that conflicts with Him is wrong" is correct. However, you must realise that your initial premise is far too vague. If an argument can be used to justify anything, then it is a useless justification. Replace "God" with any other noun in that sentence and it still makes sense. All you have proved logically there is that if you allow yourself to make an initial premise as vague as that, then any belief is justified.
I do not start with the premise that God does not exist. Some things that I see or experience in some way suggest ever so slightly that maybe He does exist, other things ever so slightly encourage the idea that He doesn't. Over the course of my life, I have had far more of the second than the first, hence disbelief.

Oh, and one more time, to return to the inital discussion, do you or do you not have any evidence for the existance of the soul?

 

[Super Universe]

Oh, and one more time, to return to the inital discussion, do you or do you not have any evidence for the existance of the soul?

I have just as much evidence for the existence of the soul as you have against it.

 

[Opethian]

I have just as much evidence for the existence of the soul as you have against it.

No you don't. There is a lot of evidence that most characteristics ascribed to a soul are really explainable in a physical way, while there is ZERO evidence for characteristics that could only be ascribed to a soul.

 

[Super Universe]

Everything is explanable in a physical way because that is how God made it work. It's smart. It's not an accident.

 

[michel]

Why create humans if animals suffice?

So Michel, why should the physical be adapted to host a soul? You do not believe that humans have a soul? This need is the purpose of the universe. What person builds a garden with no flowers? No life?

Some humans cannot host souls because of the Lucifer rebellion. Many things need fixing. This is not an area where I like to go into more detail because there are conflicting theories. Even Saddam Hussein has those who take his side of the story.

It is possible for a human to make a mistake, even a terrible one. But then the harm comes from a mistake that anyone could have made.

Look up BTK or Scott Peterson. Look at what they did. Are these humans the same as you? Is it even possible for you to do what they have done? They are not the same. They denied the very thing that made them human. You think similar DNA is what makes a human but that is just similar form, same teeth, two arms, legs. If you don't see yourself as something more than this then you truly are not.

Animals are extremely intelligent. What rock seeks comfort in a cave? Feeds itself from this berry while avoiding that? But do you place their intelligence on the same level with human beings? Do you place their importance on the same level?

Dolphins may very well be the highest natural intelligence on the planet. Dolphins can temporarily 'freeze' sharks who come too near their young.

How many types of life are on this planet alone? The universe is almost infinite. There are trillions of stars and planets out there yet somehow you think it's all a waste and we are the only life God saw to create? Then in the next sentence you say "Vanity is one of man's biggest drawbacks". It surely is.

Through Christ? Michel, there is only one God, one Creator of the universe, and Jesus is His Son.

We reincarnate? Depends. If you see your true self as this human form forever, this body, then no you don't. If you see yourself as this human personality, this human attitude, an individual separate from the universe, then no you don't.

Thank you for responding;

Why create humans if animals suffice?

I don't think God 'created humans'; I believe we evolved, as a form of life.

So Michel, why should the physical be adapted to host a soul? You do not believe that humans have a soul? This need is the purpose of the universe. What person builds a garden with no flowers? No life?

A misunderstanding here, I think; I agree with you. I do believe we have souls, and no, I don't see the need for the physical to be adapted to host a soul. Sorry, maybe I confused you.

Some humans cannot host souls because of the Lucifer rebellion. Many things need fixing. This is not an area where I like to go into more detail because there are conflicting theories. Even Saddam Hussein has those who take his side of the story.

That, I find very hard to understand; I still believe that everyone has a soul. Maybe the Soul might be in the body of a person who does not resist temptation, or who enjoys causing evil to others...............

We reincarnate? Depends. If you see your true self as this human form forever, this body, then no you don't. If you see yourself as this human personality, this human attitude, an individual separate from the universe, then no you don't.

No, I don't. I see my true self as the Soul that is, for this incarnation, attached to this body. When the body is done with, my Soul will continue. I think that probably answers other points you raised.

 

[BucephalusBB]

I don't think God 'created humans'; I believe we evolved, as a form of life.

I do believe we have souls

Question, do you believe in evolution so far as that God created the earth -> soup -> one celled animals -> more celled animals -> apes -> humans....?

Or with some steps in between deleted..?

 

[mr.guy]

Everything is explanable in a physical way because that is how God made it work. It's smart. It's not an accident.

Ahh...that's where you're wrong. God didn't get off his duff; fairies "made it work". Fairies can't be explained by a "physical way".

 

[michel]

Question, do you believe in evolution so far as that God created the earth -> soup -> one celled animals -> more celled animals -> apes -> humans....?

Or with some steps in between deleted..?

To tell the truth, I don't know. I don't think any of us can know; we can have faith that........., or believe that.........., but we can't know.

I personally don't understand where God came in to the equation (especially if you read Jayhawker's thread on God creating what we know out of existing chaos.

If pushed, I would be tempted to think that God was the catalyst for the creation of all life; but he needed only to start the ball rolling. Evolution took off from that point.

 

[Super Universe]

Thank you for responding;


I don't think God 'created humans'; I believe we evolved, as a form of life.



A misunderstanding here, I think; I agree with you. I do believe we have souls, and no, I don't see the need for the physical to be adapted to host a soul. Sorry, maybe I confused you.


That, I find very hard to understand; I still believe that everyone has a soul. Maybe the Soul might be in the body of a person who does not resist temptation, or who enjoys causing evil to others...............



No, I don't. I see my true self as the Soul that is, for this incarnation, attached to this body. When the body is done with, my Soul will continue. I think that probably answers other points you raised.

The human form evolved but that is just flesh and bone. The human mind evolved but it was purely instinctual, like a dog with two arms, and two legs. Sentience was given to us and we suddenly we began to create.

Some humans cannot host souls? I still debate this issue internally. There is a reference that I have found that states it this way but you may very well be correct.

I strongly believe that some just ignore their soul conscience to the degree that it hardly exists at all.

 

[BucephalusBB]

The human form evolved but that is just flesh and bone. The human mind evolved but it was purely instinctual, like a dog with two arms, and two legs. Sentience was given to us and we suddenly we began to create.

Some humans cannot host souls? I still debate this issue internally. There is a reference that I have found that states it this way but you may very well be correct.

I strongly believe that some just ignore their soul conscience to the degree that it hardly exists at all.

So before souls could enter humans, they were just flying around or...?

 

[Super Universe]

Question, do you believe in evolution so far as that God created the earth -> soup -> one celled animals -> more celled animals -> apes -> humans....?

Or with some steps in between deleted..?

I believe the universe was initially created by God. The universe has it's own set of physical rules to govern energy and matter but these two alone cannot create life.

Then God created descending souls, Sons of God (Jesus) who went out to be universal leaders and ensure that life happens. It really is not an accident.

Human evolution happened, for the most part, on it's own. The seeding of life was intentional and it's evolution, though watched, was not directly guided. There was no preference for the type of dominant life form (humanoid, reptilian, avian, plant) on the earth.

Once the first primitive human's made the first truly moral decision we became able to host the soul. We've been on our own ever since.

 

[BucephalusBB]

I believe the universe was initially created by God. The universe has it's own set of physical rules to govern energy and matter but these two alone cannot create life.

Then God created descending souls, Sons of God (Jesus) who went out to be universal leaders and ensure that life happens. It really is not an accident.

Human evolution happened, for the most part, on it's own. The seeding of life was intentional and it's evolution, though watched, was not directly guided. There was no preference for the type of dominant life form (humanoid, reptilian, avian, plant) on the earth.

Once the first primitive human's made the first truly moral decision we became able to host the soul. We've been on our own ever since.

So I asume you also see the humans as a dominant lifeform now that we've been 'upgraded'

We became able to host after the first moral descision. so that first decision was made soulless?

 

[Super Universe]

Ahh...that's where you're wrong. God didn't get off his duff; fairies "made it work". Fairies can't be explained by a "physical way".

Ahh, but everything has an explanation, a source. An angel is sentient energy, some type of energy that I can only imagine, we have not yet discovered or theorized it.

Still angels have a source, they are created, and there are physical rules of the universe that they must abide by, although the speed of light is not one of them.