Life made in labs, would it have a soul?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Someone has to be silly in all this speculation🙂

It seems to be agreed by the religious set here a cloned body would have a soul.

So why not a completely man made man? Just a what if question.

Forget it sonhouse. You're no where near as silly as I am! 😉

Originally posted by josephw
The removal of speculation about absurdities isn't intellectually and spiritually tragic. What is tragic is speculating about things beyond the grasp of novices posting in a forum as though they're enquiring into something that can really happen.

What if science could create a living human in a laboratory? Considering the lengths that science will go to c ...[text shortened]... nder what moral and ethical boundaries would be crossed by attempting to play God in such a way.

All any of us are doing here is discussing what the "soul" might be exactly. Such discussions take many forms and are triggered by different thought exercises at times. That's what a forum like this is for.

I really think the OP has the concept of ensoulment backwards. If there were a god that created souls, that god could ensoul anything he or she or it wanted. It's really like the soul is given a human body to run. So the god could ensoul a human, a horse, or a self-driving Google car, if it struck his divine fancy. (I say self-driving because giving a soul a regular car would be about like giving it a rock to run. What could the soul have the rock do? Erode? Nope.)

Now with that settled we can get to the question of free willy.

Originally posted by JS357
I really think the OP has the concept of ensoulment backwards. If there were a god that created souls, that god could ensoul anything he or she or it wanted. It's really like the soul is given a human body to run. So the god could ensoul a human, a horse, or a self-driving Google car, if it struck his divine fancy. (I say self-driving because giving a soul a r ...[text shortened]... ve the rock do? Erode? Nope.)

Now with that settled we can get to the question of free willy.

Well that is answered except for the part there is zero proof there is such a thing as a soul in the first place. I think it is just more anthropomorhizing a supernatural trait into humans. Spiritual wishful thinking.

You don't see your body get any lighter when it dies or get heavier when it is conceived. You don't see a nice cloud evaporate from a dead body like they show in the movies.

It is clear to me the whole thing is just another of the MANY anthropormorhizms contained in all religions. Man made god in his image is pretty much the fact of the matter.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well that is answered except for the part there is zero proof there is such a thing as a soul in the first place. I think it is just more anthropomorhizing a supernatural trait into humans. Spiritual wishful thinking.

You don't see your body get any lighter when it dies or get heavier when it is conceived. You don't see a nice cloud evaporate from a dea ...[text shortened]... zms contained in all religions. Man made god in his image is pretty much the fact of the matter.

OK, but the what-if OP doesn't seem to require or establish belief in a soul. It says, assuming souls exist and people are ensouled beings, can life made in a lab have a soul? I think the answer is yes and I said why I think so. I wanted to see if anyone disagreed. Of course my reasoning also assumes there is a god matching the description I gave.

Originally posted by JS357
OK, but the what-if OP doesn't seem to require or establish belief in a soul. It says, assuming souls exist and people are ensouled beings, can life made in a lab have a soul? I think the answer is yes and I said why I think so. I wanted to see if anyone disagreed. Of course my reasoning also assumes there is a god matching the description I gave.

Well, all you have to do is call this particular deity and have IT answer the questions. Humans know jack about real spirituality since all their religions did not require a deity, in fact they would rather not have one show up at all, makes things easier to lie about.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Someone has to be silly in all this speculation🙂

It seems to be agreed by the religious set here a cloned body would have a soul.

So why not a completely man made man? Just a what if question.

We do not agree that a completely man made body is the same as a cloned body. The cloned body would be coming from a living person that already has the life spirit within it and could be departed to the clone. Man can not make life, therefore a completely man made body would have no life and no soul. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, all you have to do is call this particular deity and have IT answer the questions. Humans know jack about real spirituality since all their religions did not require a deity, in fact they would rather not have one show up at all, makes things easier to lie about.

It also makes it easier for you to lie about there being no God. So aren't we on equal ground to start? 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well that is answered except for the part there is zero proof there is such a thing as a soul in the first place. I think it is just more anthropomorhizing a supernatural trait into humans. Spiritual wishful thinking.

You don't see your body get any lighter when it dies or get heavier when it is conceived. You don't see a nice cloud evaporate from a dea ...[text shortened]... zms contained in all religions. Man made god in his image is pretty much the fact of the matter.

Except when someone dies, something happens to them that has nothing
to do with the chemical make up of the body. Everything that was working
now stops, and if life were just chemical why would that be? It is believed
just getting the chemicals together in the first place is what caused life why
than wouldn't it follow as long as the chemicals are together later that life
would continue?

Originally posted by FMF
All any of us are doing here is discussing what the "soul" might be exactly. Such discussions take many forms and are triggered by different thought exercises at times. That's what a forum like this is for.

"All any of us are doing here is discussing what the "soul" might be exactly."

We haven't been discussing 'what' the soul might be. The OP asked the question whether a laboratory created human body may have a soul. No one knows the answer, nor will anyone ever know. That's why I said it was meaningless speculation.

"That's what a forum like this is for."

Why do you feel the need to tell me that? Besides, it actually appears that this forum isn't for triggering different thought exercises so much as it is for bashing each other because we're too damn proud to have an open and honest discussion.

Of course, not everyone is that way. Sometimes I find myself getting on the defensive for no reason at all except for an imagined slight by someone who was merely speaking their mind. I embarrass myself.

Anyway, concerning 'what' the soul might be. I don't think that that discussion can be had as long as we're expressing opinions. If we have souls, then the only authority on the topic would be God, except for where another would agree with God. You, FMF, reject the authority of the scriptures, which say of themselves that they are the Word of God, so any thoughts you may have about what a soul might be carry no weight of authority because it is only your own opinion, and opinions aren't necessarily true and can't be trusted. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
Except when someone dies, something happens to them that has nothing
to do with the chemical make up of the body. Everything that was working
now stops, and if life were just chemical why would that be? It is believed
just getting the chemicals together in the first place is what caused life why
than wouldn't it follow as long as the chemicals are together later that life
would continue?

Well, generally there is major organ failure due to disease or injury. All the other parts are ready to function but for example the heart has stopped and oxygen levels drop to zero in a short time. No oxygen = no energy generation. That does have to do with the chemical makeup of the body.

Originally posted by JS357
Well, generally there is major organ failure due to disease or injury. All the other parts are ready to function but for example the heart has stopped and oxygen levels drop to zero in a short time. No oxygen = no energy generation. That [b]does have to do with the chemical makeup of the body.[/b]

There are exceptions agreed, but not always! Besides even with disease
and injury those are part of the processes that life has been over coming
from day one right? I means seriously, no concern about those two things
during the early stages of evolution why write off life now? If you have
the chemicals why die?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We do not agree that a completely man made body is the same as a cloned body. The cloned body would be coming from a living person that already has the life spirit within it and could be departed to the clone. Man can not make life, therefore a completely man made body would have no life and no soul. 😏

So, If we do make life and prove you wrong...

Do we disprove your religion?

Originally posted by josephw
We haven't been discussing 'what' the soul might be. The OP asked the question whether a laboratory created human body may have a soul. No one knows the answer, nor will anyone ever know. That's why I said it was meaningless speculation.

Seeing as the OP's thought exercise asks a question about whether a laboratory created human body would have a soul, then what we are doing here is discussing what the "soul" might be exactly. I do not think discussing what the "soul" might be exactly can be described as "meaningless speculation"

Originally posted by josephw
Why do you feel the need to tell me ["That's what a forum like this is for"]? Besides, it actually appears that this forum isn't for triggering different thought exercises so much as it is for bashing each other because we're too damn proud to have an open and honest discussion.

Which part of my contribution to this discussion do you feel has not been "open and honest"? And are you saying that you yourself are "too damn proud to have an open and honest discussion"?