Originally posted by sonshipI don't think there is one (depending on how it is defined). I certainly don't think there is anything in the brain that transcends death.
So you have the floor and he's all ears. Tell us about the soul.
Yea. But how about you come out of that walled up fortress of agnosticism and vagary just waiting for us to be inconsistent ?
In what way do I have a 'walled up fortress of agnosticism and vagary'?
I have always been willing to answer any of your questions as honestly as I can. The same cannot be said for you.
In this thread, I answered Grampys questions first and explained what I thought about the brain and death.
You like to play the viper curled up in his den challenging the Christian to try to drag you out. So Grampy now steps back from the den to listen to you.
That is totally untrue. I always answer you questions when you ask, and often volunteer more information than I am asked for. Grampy typically does not converse much at all, but seems to rely almost entire on quoting other people and making the vaguest possible responses possible to anything he is asked or outright refusing to answer.
.... is just more waiting for some inevitable inconsistency.
Are your beliefs inevitably inconsistent? If so, why? Shouldn't you be concerned?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBiological life in the womb depends entirely on the mother. Soul life is dependent entirely on God. A newborn infant draws its first breath when God imparts soul life which combines with biological life: this is how human life begins. When the soul departs the body, physical death occurs. Biological life returns to dust; soul life returns to God who gave it for disposition.
I must add that Grampy has asked us a question regarding our future permanent address. It now appears he is not talking about me as a human being but some part of me he calls my soul. If I do not know what this 'soul' is, how can I hope to answer his question? And why would I even care what its future address might be if I don't know what it is?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyProve it.
Biological life in the womb depends entirely on the mother. Soul life is dependent entirely on God. A newborn infant draws its first breath when God imparts soul life which combines with biological life: this is how human life begins. When the soul departs the body, physical death occurs. Biological life returns to dust; soul life returns to God who gave it for disposition.
Prove the existence of souls, and of your god.
Other wise you are just making **** up... Otherwise known as lying.
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyTo help answer Googlefudge's challenge...
Biological life in the womb depends entirely on the mother. Soul life is dependent entirely on God. A newborn infant draws its first breath when God imparts soul life which combines with biological life: this is how human life begins. When the soul departs the body, physical death occurs. Biological life returns to dust; soul life returns to God who gave it for disposition.
If you are right, how would we know?
More to the point, if you are wrong, how would we know?
If you cannot give an answer, particularly to the second question, then your assertions can safely be ignored.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinThat's why the whole soul thing is religious. Either you believe it, or you don't. It cannot be explained. That's religion.
To help answer Googlefudge's challenge...
If you are right, how would we know?
More to the point, if you are wrong, how would we know?
If you cannot give an answer, particularly to the second question, then your assertions can safely be ignored.
--- Penguin.
1 edit
twhitehead, LemonJello, googlefudge, Penguin and Fabian Fnas: On earth we've coined the phrases "You have my word";
"A gentleman's agreement"; "A man's word is his bond" and others over the centuries based on one human being's trust in another. Yet when Sovereign, Immutable God says: "Here's the absolute truth. Believe it. I have no reason to ever deceive you." human beings reply: "Nah". Nope". "Prove it". "I don't believe a word in the bible anymore than in unicorns." If anyone of us here were God would we remain patient and long suffering and slow to anger in the face of such arrogance? He does.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThat's why it is religion. You feel it is the truth, but you cannot prove it. I say there is nothing such as a soul, but I cannot prove it. Because - if I actually could prove it, then it is no longer religion, but science. And science it is not. It's just religion.
twhitehead, LemonJello, googlefudge, Penguin and Fabian Fnas: On earth we've coined the phrases "You have my word";
"A gentleman's agreement"; "A man's word is his bond" and others over the centuries based on one human being's trust in another. Yet when Sovereign, Immutable God says: "Here's the absolute truth. Believe it. I have no reason to ever dec ...[text shortened]... d we remain patient and long suffering and slow to anger in the face of such arrogance? He does.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut it's an empirically testable question.
That's why the whole soul thing is religious. Either you believe it, or you don't. It cannot be explained. That's religion.
What you are saying is equivalent [but not obviously so] to saying that ...
"the whole flat Earth vs Spherical-ish Earth thing is religious. Either you believe it,
or you don't."
The question as to whether or not people have a 'soul' or 'spirit' or whatever you want
to call it is an empirical testable question that science can [and has] answer.
Of course there are still people who believe the Earth is flat.
They are wrong, as are people who believe that souls exist. [as anything other than a metaphor]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDo animals have souls?
Biological life in the womb depends entirely on the mother. Soul life is dependent entirely on God. A newborn infant draws its first breath when God imparts soul life which combines with biological life: this is how human life begins. When the soul departs the body, physical death occurs. Biological life returns to dust; soul life returns to God who gave it for disposition.
Plants?
Can you answer my questions about the relationship if any between the soul and the thinking conscious brain.
Also, would a brain dead human body still have a soul?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd for very a good reason. They simply don't believe God exists or has said that. So it is not God who is being addressed by those saying 'prove it' it is you they are addressing.
Yet when Sovereign, Immutable God says: "Here's the absolute truth. Believe it. I have no reason to ever deceive you." human beings reply: "Nah". Nope". "Prove it".
I have not actually said 'nah', 'nope', or 'prove it' so far in this thread, I have merely asked you to describe what you are calling the 'soul' so that I can answer your questions about it honestly.
So far it appears you haven't really got a clue what the soul is, you have just been told to 'believe it' without any further explanation. Is this so? If so, please be honest and say so.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo much wrongness in such a short post...
twhitehead, LemonJello, googlefudge, Penguin and Fabian Fnas: On earth we've coined the phrases "You have my word";
"A gentleman's agreement"; "A man's word is his bond" and others over the centuries based on one human being's trust in another. Yet when Sovereign, Immutable God says: "Here's the absolute truth. Believe it. I have no reason to ever dec ...[text shortened]... d we remain patient and long suffering and slow to anger in the face of such arrogance? He does.
First, no god of any kind has ever told me anything. Other PEOPLE have told me
things, and I have asked them [You] to prove that what they say is true.
Second, People lie, only an idiot would assume that everything everyone said was true.
Third, I ask everyone to provide sufficient evidence for what they say and am not
singling out god/s for special treatment. And neither is anyone else on your list.
Fourth, You have provided no evidence that your god exists, let alone is Sovereign,
Immutable, Trustworthy... or anything else.
Fifth, A being saying that they are trustworthy does not demonstrate that they are
trustworthy. In fact given our experience of sentient beings includes no examples of
completely trustworthy individuals it would be extremely unlikely that any new being we
encounter would be completely trustworthy.
Sixth, The bible is both self contradictory and demonstrably factually wrong in both it's
claims of fact and of morality and thus is known to be untrustworthy.
Furthermore, by it's very nature, anything true in the bible [barring tautologies] is not
true and not known to be true BECAUSE it is in the bible. It has to be independently
confirmed and verified.
Seventh, It is not arrogance to ask for evidence of claims of fact.
Eighth, If I were god I would prove my existence to anyone who wished it proved [assuming I
wanted people to know I existed, which isn't a given] and wouldn't require anyone to worship me.
And would in fact actively discourage [but not punish] people worshipping anything, including myself.
The world would also be a lot more awesome and convivial to human life than it is presently.
It would not, for starters, be a tiny fragile spinning ball in space just waiting for the next asteroid
impact [super volcano, ect] to wipe us out. Disease would also no-longer exist, birth would not
be painful... ect ect ect
I could go on but i think that's enough wrongness to correct to be going on with.
Originally posted by josephwSeems so. 2000+ year old Zombie Christ and everlasting life for humans...they are roughly in the same plausibility ballpark, alongside all sorts of other wildly implausible ideas.
Can you say, with the same certainty with which you deny everlasting life, that Jesus did not rise from the dead?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"First, if we are impermanent beings, then there is no "permanent address" where some of us get tortured for all eternity..." -LemonJello If so, doesn't the concept of an immaterial inner being [or immortal soul] becomes a pitiful myth [helpful as the fundamental basis of your "Secondly, it is not at all clear that the loss of immortality constitutes much of a loss"]?
If so, doesn't the concept of an immaterial inner being [or immortal soul] becomes a pitiful myth
I am not sure what you mean by "pitiful myth". But, obviously enough, if we are impermanent, mortal beings; then it cannot be that we are constituted at bottom by permanent, immortal souls.