death

Originally posted by twhitehead
which doesn't make any sense at all.

So please clarify. Do you
1. believe in something that you do not wish to tell us about
or
2 believe in something that you are not able to tell us about due to the extreme complexity involved.
or
3. believe in something you actually do not understand (and therefore cannot tell us about).[/b]

1. i belive in the soul/spirit which returns to god on death
2. true i do not understand the discrption you wish for me to discibe
3. do you not feel the soul/spirit of yourself within you
as for makind sence, well on that all i can say is i know the universe is vast and see it by the advances made but even tho i see it still takes me beyond my understanding

Originally posted by twhitehead
When I say 'I' then I am referring to the physical entity that is typing this post.

Talking about your fingers?

I'm agnostic about souls, but I'll try to give you something to work on.

Right, then: the soul is the principle of life in humans, animals and I daresay plants too.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Talking about your fingers?

I'm agnostic about souls, but I'll try to give you something to work on.

Right, then: the soul is the principle of life in humans, animals and I daresay plants too.

Ah, Souls!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you have proof or is this something you prefer to believe in order for you to be "happier"? I don't think you're on firmer footing than those who believe that there is a "soul".

Of course I don't have proof, I can even prove I can't get a proof.
Why should I make up something and say it exists when there's no reason to do it?
Existence of souls is completely unnecessary to explain things, so I assume they don't exist until evidence of the contrary.

Saying there is as much evidence souls exists as souls don't exist , so they're equal valid viewpoints is a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by serigado
Of course I don't have proof, I can even prove I can't get a proof.
Why should I make up something and say it exists when there's no reason to do it?
Existence of souls is completely unnecessary to explain things, so I assume they don't exist until evidence of the contrary.

Saying there is as much evidence souls exists as souls don't exist , so they're equal valid viewpoints is a logical fallacy.

You can also ask yourself, "Why should I make up something and say it doesn't exist when there's no reason to do it?"

Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".

Realistically, no one knows. There's so much that man doesn't know. This will likely remain true for a long time to come. Man just likes to think he knows.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You can also ask yourself, "Why should I make up something and say it doesn't exist when there's no reason to do it?"

Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".

Realistically, no one knows. There's so much that man doesn't know. This will likely remain true for a long time to come. Man just likes to think he knows.

He didn't make it up. Atheists did not make it up.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You can also ask yourself, "Why should I make up something and say it doesn't exist when there's no reason to do it?"

Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".

Realistically, no one knows. There's so much that man doesn't know. This will likely remain true for a long time to come. Man just likes to think he knows.

I wasn't the one making it up. I'm not sure it doesn't exist, but I'm sure there's no reason for anyone to suppose it exists.

Why add something to the mess?


Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".
My opinion and the most wise conclusion with our present knowledge. I really don't care about it or give it some importance. It just came in the thread and I stated my opinion.

Again: why add the soul fantasy when it's not necessary to explain reality?

Originally posted by serigado
I wasn't the one making it up. I'm not sure it doesn't exist, but I'm sure there's no reason for anyone to suppose it exists.

Why add something to the mess?


[b]Yet you felt compelled to state, "there's no external soul attached to our bodies: that's a myth".
My opinion and the most wise conclusion with our present knowledge. I really don't care ...[text shortened]... inion.

Again: why add the soul fantasy when it's not necessary to explain reality?[/b]

No big deal. Just so long as you acknowledge that there's no proof either way. I took your response as more definitive than you seem to have intended.

I guess it depends on what one views as "reality".

While there are no scientific reasons for anyone to suppose it exists, there are reasons nonetheless of which I'm sure you're at least somewhat familiar.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Talking about your fingers?

No, the gray edged entity I call my body. Note that it is divisible.

I'm agnostic about souls, but I'll try to give you something to work on.

Right, then: the soul is the principle of life in humans, animals and I daresay plants too.
Give more details. Do you think such a 'principle' can exist in non-physical form? Do you realize that it is divisible (eg you can grow some plants from any one of its leaves.)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Read MY post again 🙂

I was talking about evidence for the soul vs evidence that there isn't a soul.

And to talk about evidence for something that you have not defined is simply incoherent (or nonsense).

Originally posted by stoker
1. i belive in the soul/spirit which returns to god on death

And what do you think that thing is that returns to God? Can you tell us anything about it? If not, what is the point of your belief?
Start with this: can your soul think?

2. true i do not understand the discrption you wish for me to discibe
As much detail as you can provide. I asked a number of questions regarding the soul in previous posts, none of which have been answered by anyone. A bit odd don't you think? Something so central to Christian theology and nobody wants to talk about it.

3. do you not feel the soul/spirit of yourself within you
How would I know, you refuse to tell me what it is.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Give more details. Do you think such a 'principle' can exist in non-physical form? Do you realize that it is divisible (eg you can grow some plants from any one of its leaves.)[/b]

I have no idea. Is it relevant? What is a non-physical form?

Divisible? Maybe it's some kind of electro-magnetic field. Does it matter?

Defining principle as the root cause of the phenomenon in question. Jump to obvious question: Does life have a cause?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I have no idea. Is it relevant? What is a non-physical form?

Divisible? Maybe it's some kind of electro-magnetic field. Does it matter?

Defining principle as the root cause of the phenomenon in question. Jump to obvious question: Does life have a cause?

I am not entirely sure what you are saying.

Anyway, my questions are relevant for theists, because your suggestion for a soul concept is clearly incompatible with typical theism. If you are talking about something non-theistic then why steal their word?

And what do you mean by 'some kind of electro-magnetic field'? I thought you were talking about 'the principle of life'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not entirely sure what you are saying.

Anyway, my questions are relevant for theists, because your suggestion for a soul concept is clearly incompatible with typical theism. If you are talking about something non-theistic then why steal their word?

And what do you mean by 'some kind of electro-magnetic field'? I thought you were talking about 'the principle of life'.

Gee whiz, paint all theists with the same brush why don't you. Sorry if I can't serve you up your typical straw man.

Stealing their word? They didn't come up with it in the first place. It's one of the oldest words around. And I'm working straight from the OED, as it happens.

What do you understand by 'the principle of life'? To me, it would indicate the fount and origin of life ... which might be some kind of field, who knows. I simply assume that life has an origin. Perhaps you disagree, in which case do share -- it would be interesting to hear a view in which life has no point of origin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And to talk about evidence for something that you have not defined is simply incoherent (or nonsense).

I'm sure you're as aware of the definition as anyone else. It is the essence of a living being.