death

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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.

I did say 'typical theism' in case you missed it. Can you name one major theistic religion with which a divisible soul would be compatible?

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.
OK, but it still brings nothing but confusion if you use a word in a way that is far removed from common usage.

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 don't understand you at all. What do you mean by 'origin'? Do you mean the earliest life form a few billion years ago? Or do you mean something else. And what do you define life as anyway? Do virus' have souls?

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.
Again, I need to know what you mean by origin. If we are talking primordial soup then I think it is a gray area on the edges of the definition of life rather like the chicken and egg story. I certainly cant see how fields fit in or even ideas about souls.

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

If I was aware of it, I wouldn't be asking. I do know however that 'everyone else' is most definitely not aware of your definition, which is not a particularly common one.
Could you expand on that definition? Could you answer some of the questions I have asked relating to souls earlier in the thread, which most theists avoid like the plague?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I was aware of it, I wouldn't be asking. I do know however that 'everyone else' is most definitely not aware of your definition, which is not a particularly common one.
Could you expand on that definition? Could you answer some of the questions I have asked relating to souls earlier in the thread, which most theists avoid like the plague?

From Merriam-Webster:
1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

Evidently it's not too uncommon.

No, I don't have answers to your questions, however your questions, while somewhat interesting, are irrelevant as to the existence of a soul. Perhaps you'll find out upon the death of your body.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

[b]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, ...[text shortened]... the soul/spirit of yourself within you[/b]
How would I know, you refuse to tell me what it is.[/b]

can your soul think, not to my understanding, but when faced with god knows love.
Central to christians is god/jesus, theology teaches the holy spirit of god in the shape some use fire a burning desire
tell u what it is im not refusing to say but if my terms are but poor, but my belief in it is strong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did say 'typical theism' in case you missed it. Can you name one major theistic religion with which a divisible soul would be compatible?

[b]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.
OK, but it still brings nothing but confusion ...[text shortened]... cken and egg story. I certainly cant see how fields fit in or even ideas about souls.[/b]

'Typical theism' would appear to be a myth of your own construction.

I'm using by far the commonest definition of 'soul'.

Don't pantheists also qualify as theists? In any case, even Christianity has its 'pantheist' thinkers (Plotinus, Origen).

By 'origin' I mean 'origin'. Where life comes from.

Chicken-and-egg story -- Orphic theogony?

The 'unifying field' would be the Anima Mundi of yore.

To disprove the existence of soul(s), you need to disprove that there is a 'principle of life', I think.

Originally posted by twhitehead
He is on much firmer footing because he can explain what he is talking about. Those who believe there is a 'soul' cannot.

I can explain it, meaning I can explain what I think that a soul is.

Originally posted by stoker
can your soul think, not to my understanding, but when faced with god knows love.
Central to christians is god/jesus, theology teaches the holy spirit of god in the shape some use fire a burning desire
tell u what it is im not refusing to say but if my terms are but poor, but my belief in it is strong.

So, am I correct in saying that you believe, that after your death, some entity, that is to some degree connected to you, but is incapable of thought will be judged, marked in some way then await the day of attonement to enter one gate or the other?
So, why is that important to you? Do you see that unthinking entity as you? Why do you even care about its future?

Originally posted by Quirine
I can explain it, meaning I can explain what I think that a soul is.

Please, go ahead.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
By 'origin' I mean 'origin'. Where life comes from.

To disprove the existence of soul(s), you need to disprove that there is a 'principle of life', I think.

I don't think I understand what you mean by origin or by 'principle of life'. Would you care to elaborate what you mean by them rather than being so extremely vague all the time?

Chicken-and-egg story -- Orphic theogony?
I was referring to biogenesis and the old riddle of which came first the chicken or the egg.
If one takes the riddle literally then eggs came first, because the ancestors of chickens laid eggs. However if one specifies 'chicken egg' then you find that the real problem is that 'chicken' is a loosely defined term with gray edges in that we have not specified exactly what characteristics make a chicken a chicken and if we went back through the generations we could not identify which was the first chicken whose parent was not a chicken.
Similarly, there must have been some ancestor of cellular life, that did not fit the currently accepted definition of life, but we could never draw the exact line between two generations because the definition is not exact enough to do that.

Once you have defined your so called 'principle of life', I think that a few thought experiments will show you that it simply does not exist or at least does not have the significance you think it does.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Don't pantheists also qualify as theists?

No.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No.

Why not?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why not?

I looked up theist and pantheist on wikipedia and concluded that a pantheist is not a theist by the definitions given.

However, I also wanted to illustrate my point about gray borders.

Do you think that there could be a 'principle of theism'? Do you think that all theists may have some electrical field around them that us atheists do not?

Is every individual either a theist or an atheist? Is there no in between?

Does a semi-living thing have half a soul?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think I understand what you mean by origin or by 'principle of life'. Would you care to elaborate what you mean by them rather than being so extremely vague all the time?

The origin of life would be where life came from. I can't tell you what that is because I don't know. It's an assumption that may be incorrect, but that's all I've got to go on.

Look up 'principle' in a dictionary. Anyway, the 'principle of life' would be that property that causes you to be alive. Now, what is that property? Traditionally, it is called 'spirit', 'soul' or what have you. That's too vague for science, so let's say it's whatever it is that makes DNA tick. Assuming that the 'selfish gene' hypothesis is correct -- what gives DNA that 'selfish' quality?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I was referring to biogenesis and the old riddle of which came first the chicken or the egg.

No kidding. Orphic theogony uses the imagery of an egg.

Originally posted by twhitehead

However, I also wanted to illustrate my point about gray borders.

Do you think that there could be a 'principle of theism'? Do you think that all theists may have some electrical field around them that us atheists do not?

Is every individual either a theist or an atheist? Is there no in between?

Does a semi-living thing have half a soul?

None of this seems worth responding to. Maybe the last one, which shows how grammar affects imagination ('half a soul'😉.