1. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    30 Jul '15 13:561 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I totally disagree. You listen to too much tradition, so it seems.

    Soul is Nephesh in Hebrew...

    OT:5315 <START HEBREW>vp#n#
    <END HEBREW> nephesh (neh'-fesh); from OT:5314; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):
    (Biblesoft's New Exhausti ...[text shortened]... thereof.
    KJV

    Do you see the word "creature"? Guess what Hebrew word it is?
    Nephesh, look it up.
    Do all of these non-human creatures have souls which are immortal; and are each of them unique persons with self consciousness; mentality; conscience and volition; and will each of them reside at one of two addresses for eternity depending solely on whether they've accepted or rejected the person and work of Jesus Christ; and finally are those who become Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Jul '15 14:081 edit
    Originally posted by sonship
    Does that mean that if you commit a crime today, you may argue with the court next week that it wasn't YOU that was responsible ?
    An interesting question. I do think that long prison sentences need to carefully considered. I think that many people currently in jail on life sentences because of mistakes made in their youth should be let out. In essence, I do not think I am responsible ethically for what I did when I was five. Do you?

    What does such an understanding do for moral responsibility if "me" continually goes away every so often? Hey, do I really owe anything on my utility bills ?
    What are your own thoughts on the matter? Do you think you are responsible for things you did twenty years ago? Do you think that if your ten year old self went to heaven (and you stopped existing) that it would be equivalent to you going to heaven?

    These are interesting and difficult questions and I am sure that you are attempting to trivialise them with utility bills because you don't want to deal with them.
  3. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    30 Jul '15 14:37
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Do all of these non-human creatures have souls which are immortal; and are each of them unique persons with self consciousness; mentality; conscience and volition; and will each of them reside at one of two addresses for eternity depending solely on whether they've accepted or rejected the person and work of Jesus Christ; and finally are those who become Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
    Does the bible support your definition of the soul?
  4. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    30 Jul '15 15:076 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    An interesting question. I do think that long prison sentences need to carefully considered.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a matter of the SAME soul having either hopefully reformed or having learned better. Most civil courts recognize people change in attitude.

    I don't think you're talking about same identify / changed attitude, but rather a whole new identity.

    I think that many people currently in jail on life sentences because of mistakes made in their youth should be let out. In essence, I do not think I am responsible ethically for what I did when I was five. Do you?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I feel that my over 50 year old soul IS undergoing consequences for things done (good and bad) for when it was 5 years old. I do not consider that as altogether a different person.

    The comment caught my eye because, interestingly, the continuity of personality is an argument used by some philosophers for the existence of a soul rather than as you used it , against.

    me:
    What does such an understanding do for moral responsibility if "me" continually goes away every so often? Hey, do I really owe anything on my utility bills ?

    What are your own thoughts on the matter?

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    My thoughts are that the soul exists.
    My thoughts are suspicious that those who argue for the non-existence of the soul likely have a vested interest in denying any identity survival after physical death.

    But, not to commit a genetic fallacy, logically they could argue that way.

    When I signed a mortgage note and the multitude of other papers with it, I felt the same person, ME was unfortunately accountable to pay, years latter. Arguing that it was not the same ME but some other person, is akin to Dasa's reincarnation superstition.

    On the largest possible scale, the cosmic scale, I believe my responsibility towards God. And my soul is also loved of this same God.


    Do you think you are responsible for things you did twenty years ago?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yes.
    If you don't then how could you take credit for, for instance, a college degree or raise at your place of employment ?


    Do you think that if your ten year old self went to heaven (and you stopped existing) that it would be equivalent to you going to heaven?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you haven't learned by this time that I do not talk about "going to heaven" that's surprising. "Going to heaven" is not a dearly held belief I garner from studying the Bible.

    I don't believe my soul stops existing. I believe my soul may be transformed as in "conformed to the image of the Firstborn" as the New Testament teaches. But I am responsible to cooperate with God in that transformation. And this transformed person is ever the same person, albeit then saturated, permeated, and filled up in personality with the Spirit of Jesus.


    These are interesting and difficult questions and I am sure that you are attempting to trivialise them with utility bills because you don't want to deal with them.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now you're harping on minutia. The essential substance of the argument that a soul does not exist, I don't think is established by your appeal to the passage of time.

    And I think it effects a human sense of moral responsibility to reason that time has caused ME to no longer exist. However, I have no disagreement that I can grow, change, reform, get worse, adjust, be educated, alter an attitude.

    And I think legal systems know this. Few judges let law breakers completely off the hook of responsibility because of these changes. They take it into account.

    These are interesting and difficult questions and I am sure that you are attempting to trivialise them with utility bills because you don't want to deal with them.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perhaps "don't want to deal with them" to you means, not to arrive at an Atheist's conclusion.

    I deal with them plenty. I come to a different conclusion.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    30 Jul '15 15:36
    Originally posted by sonship
    [b] An interesting question. I do think that long prison sentences need to carefully considered.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a matter of the SAME soul having either hopefully reformed or having learned better. Most civil courts recognize people change in attitude.

    I don't ...[text shortened]... ive at an Atheist's conclusion.

    I deal with them plenty. I come to a different conclusion.[/b]
    I haven't seen anyone give a convincing argument there are souls.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Jul '15 15:59
    Originally posted by sonship
    I don't think you're talking about same identify / changed attitude, but rather a whole new identity.
    I am questioning the concept of identity. You on the other had seem reluctant to question it.

    [b]I feel that my over 50 year old soul IS undergoing consequences for things done (good and bad) for when it was 5 years old. I do not consider that as altogether a different person.
    Consequences are not the same as responsibility. Do you feel morally responsible for your 5 year old actions?

    The comment caught my eye because, interestingly, the continuity of personality is an argument used by some philosophers for the existence of a soul rather than as you used it , against.
    But do they make a good argument?

    My thoughts are that the soul exists.
    My thoughts are suspicious that those who argue for the non-existence of the soul likely have a vested interest in denying any identity survival after physical death.

    So, rather than discussing the subject matter, your thoughts are all about countering possible questions / arguments that haven't been made?
    Let me clarify my own position: I have no position on the existence/non-existence of the soul prior to it being clearly defined. I do think conciousness is not a physical entity but rather emergent from physical entities. I do think it is entirely dependent on those physical entities and quite obviously so. I also think identity and conciousness are grey edged concepts.

    If you don't then how could you take credit for, for instance, a college degree or raise at your place of employment ?
    One would hope that your salary is dependent solely on your actual capabilities today. Should you still get that raise if you have forgotten everything you learned in college?

    If you haven't learned by this time that I do not talk about "going to heaven" that's surprising. "Going to heaven" is not a dearly held belief I garner from studying the Bible.
    Yet that is clearly what this thread is all about. Maybe you should be arguing against Grampy?

    I don't believe my soul stops existing. I believe my soul may be transformed as in "conformed to the image of the Firstborn" as the New Testament teaches. But I am responsible to cooperate with God in that transformation. And this transformed person is ever the same person, albeit then saturated, permeated, and filled up in personality with the Spirit of Jesus.
    So using your own fancy words, can you answer my actual question? If your five year old self were taken as the source of the transformation would that be no different in your opinion?

    Now you're harping on minutia.
    Huh? No, I was asking you whether you were attempting to trivialise the questions to try and get out of dealing with them.

    The essential substance of the argument that a soul does not exist,...
    No such argument has been made. For a start 'soul' has not been clearly defined. What I have argued is that conciousness almost certainly does not transcend the physical body and identity is a grey edged concept.
  7. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    30 Jul '15 19:018 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Consequences are not the same as responsibility. Do you feel morally responsible for your 5 year old actions?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basically yes.


    So, rather than discussing the subject matter,

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am discussing it. Don't be bothered that I have some formed beliefs about it, as I discuss it.


    your thoughts are all about countering possible questions / arguments that haven't been made?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I "countered" by asking a question. And it was a genuine one.


    Let me clarify my own position:

    ----------------------------------------------

    Sure.


    I have no position on the existence/non-existence of the soul prior to it being clearly defined. I do think conciousness is not a physical entity but rather emergent from physical entities. I do think it is entirely dependent on those physical entities and quite obviously so.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My question would be, how obviously this can be assumed for the existence of mind.

    Do you feel the mind emerged from matter ?
    IE. No mind existed until somehow consciousness and mind emerged from the right combination of material particles.



    I also think identity and conciousness are grey edged concepts.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I agree that there are some grey areas in our understanding of these. I assume that's what you mean by "grey edged concept."


    If you don't then how could you take credit for,

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    I don't think we know everything about consciousness or mind.
    A good amount is "grey" or uncertainty in our knowledge.


    One would hope that your salary is dependent solely on your actual capabilities today. Should you still get that raise if you have forgotten everything you learned in college?

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    If you remembered 40% of what you learned in college you would graduate Summa Cum Laude. That's what I heard a long time ago.

    Anyway, the issue was the continuance of the ego, the I. Credit and Blame, reward and discipline are based on the employee's "me-ness" remaining through various phases of employment.


    If you haven't learned by this time that I do not talk about "going to heaven" that's surprising.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Salary may be based on what you know now.
    It could be based also on sex, education level, race, longevity with the company.

    Whatever it is, the constancy of ME-ness is what I was getting at and will not be distracted from.


    me: "Going to heaven" is not a dearly held belief I garner from studying the Bible.

    Yet that is clearly what this thread is all about. Maybe you should be arguing against Grampy?

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I gathered that the thread was about "Do we have a soul or not?" and possible proofs offered. There may have been some side talk about heaven, that I didn't notice.

    My assumption was that the EXISTENCE of the SOUL / Yes or No ... was the main subject of thread. I am on the affirmative side of the debate.

    To start with - as Christian I regard the SOUL as the Mind, Emotion, and Will . The "proof" part of it I have not said anything about yet. Not sure what I'll say about that.

    However, so much of what we do employs these three parts of out being.

    1.) We THINK about something - Mind
    2.) We FEEL Like or Dislike about it - Emotion
    3.) We CHOOSE, this or that action or inaction - Will

    I think this soul of man exists immaterially even after physical death. As far as you and I are concerned in this thread, I argued that "I" is constant through the change of time.

    My body cells will almost all be replaced with time. But it is still My body. And aging does not make ME go out of existence to be replaced by someone else.

    If you have a disagreement with that, state what it is.


    me: I don't believe my soul stops existing. I believe my soul may be transformed as in "conformed to the image of the Firstborn" as the New Testament teaches. But I am responsible to cooperate with God in that transformation. And this transformed person is ever the same person, albeit then saturated, permeated, and filled up in personality with the Spirit of Jesus.

    you:
    So using your own fancy words,

    -------------------------------------------------

    I don't consider them "fancy words". No more fancy than your term "emerge" really.


    can you answer my actual question?

    -----------------------------------------------------

    A second time? Or do you have a new question?


    If your five year old self were taken as the source of the transformation would that be no different in your opinion?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This sounds like a completely new question.

    And after reading and re-reading it, I think my original answer should address either way you have of packaging it.

    I am the same person now as I was when I was five years old.

    Now you're harping on minutia.

    --------------------------------------------
    Huh?

    I said "Now you're harping on minutia."

    No, I was asking you whether you were attempting to trivialise the questions to try and get out of dealing with them.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No. No trivialization at all. I was just giving a kind of down-to-earth example. I consider this point minor. A more serious example would have accomplished the same thing.

    Commitments I made ten years ago, I am held responsible for as the SAME person and not another.

    If you have a major problem with that, what is it?

    me:
    The essential substance of the argument that a soul does not exist,...
    you:
    No such argument has been made.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    This sounds like an argument to me that the SOUL doesn't exist, especially after death:

    If conciousness is considered part of the soul, then there are two basic problems to deal with:
    1. It is undeniable that conciousness is substantially tied to the physical brain. Changing the brain changes the conciousness. The connection is so strong that it seems unreasonable to believe that conciousness would survive without the brain.
    2. Continuity. My conciousness of today is not my conciousness of yesterday or 10 years ago. If my conciousness of 10 years ago is placed in heaven, then that is not who I identify as 'me'. The problem comes in when I get Alzheimers and loose all my memories and my conciousness goes insane and then I die. What conciousness continues after death? The insane memoryless one? The one just two days before Alzheimers started?


    And the part of the argument that I addressed was your second point under "2.)"


    For a start 'soul' has not been clearly defined.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    That may be true except that above I did give you some definition - Mind, Emotion, and Will of a person.

    It was not an exhaustive definition. And you said "grey" edges exist. So I provided some definition to work with and left some "grey" edges as you expected.

    However, I may not have understood what you meant by "grey edges". I took it to mean some grey areas in which our knowledge is rather limited.


    What I have argued ...

    -------------------------------------

    So an argument has been made. I thought so.


    is that conciousness almost certainly does not transcend the physical body and identity is a grey edged concept.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am not as certain that this is so obvious ("almost certainly" so). Nor do I see why it should be so obvious.

    The soul is not the identical same thing as the physical body.
    If it was, then everything that was true for the physical body would also be true for the soul. I don't think everything that is true for the physical body is true for the soul. That demonstrates that they are not the same thing.

    While intricately inter-related, that doesn't make it obvious to me that one cannot continue if the other discontinues. But that would be hard to prove.

    But that the existence of mind emerged from matter is also hard to prove and seems more intuitively false. If you admit that identity is a "grey edged" concept, then why do you turn around and claim "almost certainly" [edited] this or that about it ?

    A position as agnostic would be more honestly consistent about something you say is a "grey edged" concept.
  8. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    30 Jul '15 19:531 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Does the bible support your definition of the soul?
    Yes. Please answer the question. Thank you.
    ____________________

    "Do all of these non-human creatures have souls which are immortal; and are each of them unique persons with self consciousness; mentality; conscience and volition; and will each of them reside at one of two addresses for eternity depending solely on whether they've accepted or rejected the person and work of Jesus Christ; and finally are those who become Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit?"
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Jul '15 20:28
    Originally posted by sonship
    My question would be, how obviously this can be assumed for the existence of mind.
    Do you feel the mind emerged from matter ?
    IE. No mind existed until somehow consciousness and mind emerged from the right combination of material particles.
    Can you define what you mean by 'mind'? You appear to be using a non-standard definition and referring to some universal entity.
    I believe my own mind (standard definition) is a product of my brain. I am not sure whether 'emerged from matter' is an appropriate description. Does a computer program 'emerge from matter'?

    I agree that there are some grey areas in our understanding of these. I assume that's what you mean by "grey edged concept."
    No, that is not what I mean. Let me give an analogy of a river. We all know what a river is. If I told you that I grew up near the River Zambezi, you would know what I am talking about. But where does a river start and end? How much water can you take out before it ceases to be a river? Is it the same river today as it was yesterday? Is the rivers identity permanent and unchanging? The whole definition of a river is more a man made concept than a real physically defined entity. It has grey edges. And no, it has nothing to do with how well we understand rivers it has to do with the definition of the word and the concept 'river'.

    Anyway, the issue was the continuance of the ego, the I. Credit and Blame, reward and discipline are based on the employee's "me-ness" remaining through various phases of employment.
    But in reality that is only short term and only based on how much is actually carried forward. Develop amnesia and you may loose your job just like that.

    My assumption was that the EXISTENCE of the SOUL / Yes or No ... was the main subject of thread. I am on the affirmative side of the debate.
    Well I suggest you actually define it before you talk about its existence.

    To start with - as Christian I regard the SOUL as the Mind, Emotion, and Will .
    Can you define those? You have already indicated you mean something different by 'mind' than the standard definition.

    The "proof" part of it I have not said anything about yet.
    Well I don't think anyone is going to dispute the existence of minds, emotions or wills by the standard definitions of those terms.

    My body cells will almost all be replaced with time.
    I actually wonder just how true that is of the brain. Does the brain store memories beyond the lifetime of memory cells? I don't know the answer. What I do know is that if it does, we will be able to identify the exact physical process by which those memories are transferred - thus negating your argument.

    If you have a disagreement with that, state what it is.
    The grayness of what constitutes 'me'. You claim that the 'me' doesn't go away but you probably cannot define 'me' in purely physical terms. If we did a brain transplant between two people, would the 'me' move with the brains or the bodies or be merged? If someone looses half their brain, does half their me disappear, or do they remain the same me?
    The moment you realize that the physical human body is in reality divisible and combinable the claim that a single continuous 'me' exists just cannot coincide with reality.

    Its getting late - I'll continue tomorrow.
  10. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    30 Jul '15 22:41
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Can you define what you mean by 'mind'?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    I think you understand me so far.

    You appear to be using a non-standard definition and referring to some universal entity.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Then take a "mind" on a lower lever if you wish. How did the first mind emerge from some threshold complex combination of matter ?

    I think Mind preceded Matter. I don't think Matter preceded the existence of Mind. I'm afraid you have to bear with my "non-standard" (non Atheistic?) usage for the moment.

    I believe my own mind (standard definition) is a product of my brain. I am not sure whether 'emerged from matter' is an appropriate description.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your mind "supervenes" on the material of your brain. I got it.
    I'll come back to your "Non-Reductive Materialism" - "the Mind-Depends-on-the Brain-View.

    I think I am in the camp of "Substance Dualism".

    Does a computer program 'emerge from matter'?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since you and I have both been computer programmers, this is an interesting question. All the programs I know were produced by some mind. The operation of the logic of the program because creative minds engineered a correspondence between computer language symbols and machine operations in the circuitry of the hardware.

    The programs really "emerged" from human minds.
    I think human minds are one class of minds.
    And I believe a Creator's mind exists which preceded all material and all other minds as well. I'm a Christian Theist.


    me:
    I agree that there are some grey areas in our understanding of these. I assume that's what you mean by "grey edged concept."

    tw: No, that is not what I mean. Let me give an analogy of a river. We all know what a river is. If I told you that I grew up near the River Zambezi, you would know what I am talking about. But where does a river start and end? How much water can you take out before it ceases to be a river? Is it the same river today as it was yesterday? Is the rivers identity permanent and unchanging? The whole definition of a river is more a man made concept than a real physically defined entity. It has grey edges. And no, it has nothing to do with how well we understand rivers it has to do with the definition of the word and the concept 'river'.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I see. So are you saying it is useless to use language to discuss the soul and identity ? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I will be watching closely. Many people who complain that language communication will not allow us to discuss something often only begin to reason that way when theistic beliefs enter the conversation.

    Often there is little problem with using words, definitions, and language communication as long as we end up with naturalistic / atheistic conclusions only.

    I don't see any REAL problem with talking about rivers. A river can dry up. And the water is ever being replenished from some source, usually in the mountains where fresh snow falls.

    You'll have to explain how the river analogy hinders me from conceiving of YOUR identity or MY identity or the identity of anyone else.

    me:
    Anyway, the issue was the continuance of the ego, the I. Credit and Blame, reward and discipline are based on the employee's "me-ness" remaining through various phases of employment.

    tw: But in reality that is only short term and only based on how much is actually carried forward. Develop amnesia and you may loose your job just like that.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That may be true that amnesia will cause me to lose a job. But it is ME still who suffers the job loss. It is not someone else.

    me:
    My assumption was that the EXISTENCE of the SOUL / Yes or No ... was the main subject of thread. I am on the affirmative side of the debate.

    Well I suggest you actually define it before you talk about its existence.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the post that you are refering to, I believe I did provide you some relevant if not exhaustive definition. But I'll expand on emotion, mind, and will as soul or self. I'll include this to help -

    "The soul (which is the same thing s the self or the I) is that immaterial, invisible thing that makes me a conscious, living human being... The soul is a substantial, unified reality that informs its body."
    me:
    To start with - as Christian I regard the SOUL as the Mind, Emotion, and Will .

    tw: Can you define those? You have already indicated you mean something different by 'mind' than the standard definition.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Is it really necessary?
    Maybe we can get into an argument about defining the word "define" as well. IE. "What is a DEFINITION anyway? You know we have this really bad language thing hindering us."

    Come on twhitehead, you know what I mean by your mind, your emotion, and your will. You have a soul. So do I.

    You're saying your physical body is somehow responsible for the existence of your soul. Okay. But is that all ?

    You see for me the existence of the soul is explained because a self aware and conscious God as Creator made us in His image.
    How all this was done, I cannot explain.

    Our consciousness, our identity, our soul created as it was was preceded by an uncreated and eternal Being. This is what gives us great value also.

    Do you think you are of more value than a termite ?
    I think your identity is of a higher level than that of an insect or mollusk or even an ape. The eternal value of your Creator, creating you in His image, is the source of that value.

    Bear with the "non-standard" explanations of a Christian.
    Humor me.


    Well I don't think anyone is going to dispute the existence of minds, emotions or wills by the standard definitions of those terms.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We know such faculties do exist. If you look up all the passages in the Bible on soul, I think you'll find that in action, they speak of these three matters - thinking mind, feeling emotion, choosing will.

    I added above that the soul is a immaterial and invisible thing that makes me a conscious, living human being.

    me:
    My body cells will almost all be replaced with time.

    tw: I actually wonder just how true that is of the brain. Does the brain store memories beyond the lifetime of memory cells? I don't know the answer.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It bears looking into to.

    What I do know is that if it does, we will be able to identify the exact physical process by which those memories are transferred - thus negating your argument.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We can see some close correlation between the activity of the mind and some chemical / electrical movement in the physical brain. We can see that our soul and brain are intimately interconnected.

    We cannot weigh a memory. We cannot tell how many grams a memory of some event in life weighs. But we can weigh the brain. If something is true of the brain which is not true of the identity this proves that they are not the same.

    If they are not the same, that suggests that we cannot be so sure that whatever happens to one exactly happens to the other. So I would consider the possibility that your soul could survive in existence in an intermediate state of some kind before the resurrection of your body.

    An unembodied soul is not our destiny.
    And I would tell you that you physical God will put your soul in an intermediate place. Now your body will decay. Those atoms will be dispersed and scattered. But when God raises your body, though that may be different atoms, the sameness of YOU will be the result as your soul rejoins to that raised body.

    I think your view that the psychological properties and events are not identical with physical properties but are wholly dependent upon them. So a person's body is physical but possesses some nonphysical properties. The nonphysical properties "supervene" (they say) upon the physical ones like say "wetness" supervenes upon an arrangement of an arrangement of H2O molecules.

    But when we consult physics textbooks to understand what matter is, there is nothing psychological about about matter. There is nothing subjective or mental about matter. Matter has the properties of spatial location, spatial extension, weight, texture, color, shape, size, density, mass. Matter has atomic or chemical composition. Consciousness is not a property that physics books ascribe to matter. Matter is thought of as in another catagory from mind, your "standard definition" included.

    How could nonconscious material produce consciousness?
  11. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    31 Jul '15 00:59
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Yes. Please answer the question. Thank you.
    ____________________

    "Do all of these non-human creatures have souls which are immortal; and are each of them unique persons with self consciousness; mentality; conscience and volition; and will each of them reside at one of two addresses for eternity depending solely on whether they've accepted or rejecte ...[text shortened]... d work of Jesus Christ; and finally are those who become Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit?"
    No, neither is the human soul immortal. Only in Greek Mythology.
    Now, does the bible support your definition? I think not.
  12. PenTesting
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    247859
    31 Jul '15 01:011 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    No, neither is the human soul immortal. Only in Greek Mythology.
    Now, does the bible support your definition? I think not.
    But the soul and body are two separate and distinct components of humans. If not why would Christ say:

    Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
  13. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    31 Jul '15 01:18
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Original post by phillip beer (on 01 Jun '04 16:34) Thread 11214 (7 Pages)
    [b]Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!


    "It is the oldest of questions. Do we have an eternal soul or do we die and that is it. What is the nature of our consciousness?"

    Note: Recently found this eleven year old thread while searching for something else. ...[text shortened]... te awhile yet is still relevant to many other threads on this spirituality forum. Your insights?[/b]
    There's nothing to prove. It is written, "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."

    It's as simple as that. What is a soul? Do we have a soul?

    Man is a "living soul".

    Is God a liar?
  14. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    31 Jul '15 02:32
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Original post by phillip beer (on 01 Jun '04 16:34) Thread 11214 (7 Pages)
    [b]Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!


    "It is the oldest of questions. Do we have an eternal soul or do we die and that is it. What is the nature of our consciousness?"

    Note: Recently found this eleven year old thread while searching for something else. ...[text shortened]... te awhile yet is still relevant to many other threads on this spirituality forum. Your insights?[/b]
    It is the easiest question to answer.

    Proof of the soul is consciousness and everything that goes with it.(mind, intelligence, free will and ego)

    Honest men accept this.

    Dishonest men will not.............(but they cannot explain consciousness.) and they come up with the most stupid and foolish arguments to reject this proof.

    The people who reject the soul are usually sciency persons who are always trying to defend junk science.

    What is junk science?

    It is science that starts with the hypothesis, but dismisses the experiment part and the results part.............and just demands society to accept the hypothesis part as the truth.

    Vedic science also has its experiment.

    I shall put a living body with another living body and I shall get a third living body (baby)..............but if I put a dead body with another dead body i shall get nothing but embarrassment and two smelly dead bodies.

    So you see my hypothesis is that life comes from life and I have just proved it.

    But junk science will tell you ................that life comes from dead matter but they cannot proof it.
  15. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    31 Jul '15 02:43
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    No, neither is the human soul immortal. Only in Greek Mythology.
    Now, does the bible support your definition? I think not.
    "Yes." Should you ever wonder if any facets of your belief regarding the human soul imputed at birth by God may be in error, please send a personal message and we'll resume this conversation privately. Thanks for your interest in this spirituality forum thread.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree