God and Microbes

Originally posted by Suzianne
Obviously, what you do not "get" is that most "theists" understand what a soul is,.... .

That is blatantly untrue. See if you can find one single theist willing to go on record telling us something about the soul other than what it isn't (material) or who supposedly makes them (God), or what they are supposedly related to (a human). Just one solitary fact about it. Just one.

Originally posted by Dasa
The soul must be there in the womb at the very beginning if the baby is to be called living.

The baby is living at the moment of conception.

Vedic knowledge is true knowledge.

The soul must be there in the womb at the very beginning if the baby is to be called living.

Or to be called a 'baby', a 'person', or a 'life'. Yes, true, so far. You say 'If'.

The baby is living at the moment of conception.

False. The 'bundle of cells' may be alive, in the same way that any other 'bundle of cells' in your body is living, but it is not a 'baby', or a 'person', or a 'life' yet.

Vedic knowledge is true knowledge.

All of man's knowledge, which the Vedas is sure to be a part of, is insubstantial when compared to the Word of God, which the Vedas is not.




One out of three, and that one only true on a technicality. Not bad, I suppose, considering the mountain of falseness that validates your thinking.

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]The soul must be there in the womb at the very beginning if the baby is to be called living.

Or to be called a 'baby', a 'person', or a 'life'. Yes, true, so far. You say 'If'.

The baby is living at the moment of conception.

False. The 'bundle of cells' may be alive, in the same way that any other 'bundle of cells' in your body is ...[text shortened]... cality. Not bad, I suppose, considering the mountain of falseness that validates your thinking.[/b]

When I say the baby is alive .....................I mean the unmanifest baby is alive.

This is exactly what it is.

You must expand your thinking to see this..

Originally posted by Dasa
When I say the baby is alive .....................I mean the unmanifest baby is alive.

This is exactly what it is.

You must expand your thinking to see this..

So prove we have souls. Without Veda's.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So prove we have souls. Without Veda's.

Let's start with a definition of "soul," then we can ask ourselves if we can measure it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Let's start with a definition of "soul," then we can ask ourselves if we can measure it.

I somehow doubt we'll ever be furnished with anything that comes remotely close to the definition of a soul - indeed the term is essentially a just a stand-in for the theist's bewilderment as to how we humans operate as thinking entities. There are some things we can deduce though ...

1) Souls are flammable
2) Souls have teeth
3) They have pain receptors
4) They aren't made of anything material (yet they somehow have a physical manifestation)

Originally posted by Dasa
When I say the baby is alive .....................I mean the unmanifest baby is alive.

This is exactly what it is.

You must expand your thinking to see this..

What is the unmanifest baby?

Originally posted by Agerg
I somehow doubt we'll ever be furnished with anything that comes remotely close to the definition of a soul - indeed the term is essentially a just a stand-in for the theist's bewilderment as to how we humans operate as thinking entities. There are some things we can deduce though ...

1) Souls are flammable
2) Souls have teeth
3) They have pain receptors
4) They aren't made of anything material (yet they somehow have a physical manifestation)

I believe the soul is something like the spirit, which is also invisible to the natural eye. The soul of a person is the immaterial characteristics that makes me RJHinds and you Agerg. The soul of a pet dog is different from the soul of a pet calf, but each have the ability to show love, fear, pain or anger by using the physical body. Plants do not have souls.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe the soul is something like the spirit, which is also invisible to the natural eye. The soul of a person is the immaterial characteristics that makes me RJHinds and you Agerg. The soul of a pet dog is different from the soul of a pet calf, but each have the ability to show love, fear, pain or anger by using the physical body. Plants do not have souls.

Suppose it would be possible to remove the soul from your body. What would happen?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Suppose it would be possible to remove the soul from your body. What would happen?

The body would collapse as if knocked unconscience.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The body would collapse as if knocked unconscience.

Unconscious presumably. In the event that souls exist then surely the body is entirely dependent on them and the body would die?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Unconscious presumably. In the event that souls exist then surely the body is entirely dependent on them and the body would die?

A deep thought.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The body would collapse as if knocked unconscience.

How have you reached this conclusion?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How have you reached this conclusion?

It's part of his mythology.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The soul of a person is the immaterial characteristics that makes me RJHinds and you Agerg.

The soul of a pet dog is different from the soul of a pet calf, but each have the ability to show love, fear, pain or anger by using the physical body. Plants do not have souls.

So the part of my tree James that makes my it James is not a soul?

And if you removed my soul, I would no longer be twhitehead? Who would I be? Would you still be able to see me? Why would I no be twhitehead?