23 Jun 08
Finally, someone has taken up my challenge to discuss the soul. josephw has said he would like to discuss it.
I am only interested in soul/spirit concepts that enable the person using them to make a claim that they will continue to be concious at some point after death. For example if someone says "I will go to heaven".
For example josephw said
"But I know that when I die physically, my soul and spirit will live forever."
and
"Don't you want to live forever? I can't imagine you wouldn't!"
Now its possible that my lack of a decoder ring is making me misunderstand such statements but I would think that anyone who offers me eternal life, is implying a continuity for my conciousness after death.
It is my argument that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about conciousness.
23 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadConceptually incompatible or empirically incompatible?
Finally, someone has taken up my challenge to discuss the soul. josephw has said he would like to discuss it.
I am only interested in soul/spirit concepts that enable the person using them to make a claim that they will continue to be concious at some point after death. For example if someone says "I will go to heaven".
For example josephw said
"But I ...[text shortened]... s my argument that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about conciousness.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
23 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAct 2:29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.
Finally, someone has taken up my challenge to discuss the soul. josephw has said he would like to discuss it.
I am only interested in soul/spirit concepts that enable the person using them to make a claim that they will continue to be concious at some point after death. For example if someone says "I will go to heaven".
For example josephw said
"But I s my argument that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about conciousness.
Act 2:34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Only Jesus Christ has been raised and has ascended.....
In death, there is no life of any kind until the return of the Lord Jesus...there is much documented in the bible on this topic....Many believe in immediate life in heaven at one's death. I believe this theology has roots in Pagan Mythology...this link has lots to say about the subject for anyone willing to read....
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=6
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust wondering if you could detail what entails "what we know about conciousness", so that we all start on the same page. A link would work fine too.
It is my argument that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about conciousness.
24 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterI only had a couple seconds to browse through this at the moment, will look more later, but one of the things on this site says that Hell is not actually what we've made it out to be. The full paragraph:
In death, there is no life of any kind until the return of the Lord Jesus...there is much documented in the bible on this topic....Many believe in immediate life in heaven at one's death. I believe this theology has roots in Pagan Mythology...this link has lots to say about the subject for anyone willing to read....
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=6
The book first asks, "What does the Bible actually teach about the end of the wicked?" Like the traditional view, it concludes that the Lake of Fire is final and irreversible. Unlike the traditional view, however, if finds the ultimate punishment to be "eternal destruction"--the wicked, once totally consumed, will cease to exist forever. A second question naturally follows: "If the Bible does not teach eternal, conscious torment, where did the idea come from and why is it so generally held in the Church?”
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
24 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JonoKyleGreek Mythology...tradition....
I only had a couple seconds to browse through this at the moment, will look more later, but one of the things on this site says that Hell is not actually what we've made it out to be. The full paragraph:
The book first asks, "What does the Bible actually teach about the end of the wicked?" Like the traditional view, it concludes that the Lake of Fire is ious torment, where did the idea come from and why is it so generally held in the Church?”
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo remember that mainstream Christianity recognises the physical resurrection of the body. This tenet understands that the body and soul were never intended to be separated, and so, will be re-united at the eschaton (the last day). So continuity of consciousness should not be incompatible with scientific frameworks of consciousness.
Finally, someone has taken up my challenge to discuss the soul. josephw has said he would like to discuss it.
I am only interested in soul/spirit concepts that enable the person using them to make a claim that they will continue to be concious at some point after death. For example if someone says "I will go to heaven".
For example josephw said
"But I ...[text shortened]... s my argument that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about conciousness.
Whether the soul will be conscious before the resurrection is not standardly recognised. Some Orthodox Christians believe that the souls of the departed enter a sleep until the moment of resurrection and judgement; Catholicism argues that souls are conscious, and that they will experience either hell, purgery or heaven. In Catholicism, however, consciousness is a special attribute of the soul: it is the awareness of other things, of sensory data. This is different to the scientific sense of consciousness, which largely conflates intellect with consciousness.
Protestants tend to be even more varied about the defintion of the soul. I have heard some posit that the soul is simply a mirror of the physical brain - like two identical clocks. So the soul does not continue consciousness, but preserves consciousness. This tends to be very popular. So for example, in The Simpons, there is an episode about how Bart sells his soul which happens to be an identical (but non-physical) imitation of himself. A similar theology can be seen in Oscar Wilde's story The Fisherman and his Soul. In both, the soul is not a continuation of the person but does suggest some sort of life after death.
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's why we call God a SUPERNATURAL being..
Finally, someone has taken up my challenge to discuss the soul. josephw has said he would like to discuss it.
I am only interested in soul/spirit concepts that enable the person using them to make a claim that they will continue to be concious at some point after death. For example if someone says "I will go to heaven".
For example josephw said
"But I ...[text shortened]... s my argument that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about conciousness.
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by Conrau KIts not nearly so simple as you make it sound.
Do remember that mainstream Christianity recognises the physical resurrection of the body. This tenet understands that the body and soul were never intended to be separated, and so, will be re-united at the eschaton (the last day). So continuity of consciousness should not be incompatible with scientific frameworks of consciousness.
For my first argument, I ask the question "continuity from when?".
If I go mad before I die, will my soul be mad?
If I loose all my memory before I die (not uncommon), will my soul have no memory?
etc.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot much of an argument. Whether I answer yes or no to either question, I get no counterexample in which there is no continuity of consciousness
Its not nearly so simple as you make it sound.
For my first argument, I ask the question "continuity from when?".
If I go mad before I die, will my soul be mad?
If I loose all my memory before I die (not uncommon), will my soul have no memory?
etc.
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by Conrau KThe argument is not so much in the last two questions but in the 'continuity from when' question. First that must be answered (by someone who actually believes it hopefully).
Not much of an argument. Whether I answer yes or no to either question, I get no counterexample in which there is no continuity of consciousness
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're attacking a concept of soul that you have not yet defined and that is not the one believed by most religions. Conrau K already explained this to you, why do you wish to ignore it?
The argument is not so much in the last two questions but in the 'continuity from when' question. First that must be answered (by someone who actually believes it hopefully).
If consciousness is not equivalent to soul, your argument of "continuity from when" is clearly invalid.
24 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiter2Co.5:1-8
Act 2:29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.
Act 2:34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Only Jesus Christ has been raised and has ascended.....
In death, there is ..
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=6
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
My understanding of this passage is that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Self consciousness doesn't end at death until we are brought back to consciousness at the coming of Christ. Just as we know, by Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man was aware of his continued consciousness while in hell. Just because something is recorded in pagan mythology doesn't necessarily mean it is false. Although it may well be a corruption of the truth.
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by PalynkaAs I said from the beginning, I am specifically interested in people who believe that "they" will go to heaven or in some way experience an afterlife. I would actually like to avoid making any definitions of the soul as I am well aware that I will immediately get that usual chorus of "but that's not the soul I believe in!" followed by silence.
You're attacking a concept of soul that you have not yet defined and that is not the one believed by most religions. Conrau K already explained this to you, why do you wish to ignore it?
If consciousness is not equivalent to soul, your argument of "continuity from when" is clearly invalid.
I have many times tried to get theists to explain to me what they believe a soul is. I do not want to impose it on them. But they are never willing to do so. Finally, josephw stated that he was interested in discussing it. I guess he has not been on the forum in the last day or so.
Does anyone else care to explain to me what they mean by 'soul' and more specifically, what they mean when they say "they" will get to heaven or that "they" will experience an after life.
This issue is similar to the age old "you cannot prove that God does not exist because I haven't told you what 'God' means".
My argument is that if you believe in it, and are willing to define it, then I can prove it doesn't exist.
So in summary, I am yet to hear of a concept of a soul that would enable a person to experience an after life, that is compatible with reality. It would be nice if someone could start by giving their version.
If my experience on the subject is anything to go by, the theists will not respond to the challenge. I find this extremely curious as it makes me suspect a certain amount of dishonesty on their part. They are claiming to be 'selling' the afterlife, but cant explain what it is that they are selling.
24 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadFirst of all, I want to say that I don't have absolute understanding of what the soul or spirit or consciousness is. I hope to be able to develop a viable case for what I do know. Or at least what I think I know.
Finally, someone has taken up my challenge to discuss the soul. josephw has said he would like to discuss it.
I am only interested in soul/spirit concepts that enable the person using them to make a claim that they will continue to be concious at some point after death. For example if someone says "I will go to heaven".
For example josephw said
"But I ...[text shortened]... s my argument that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about conciousness.
You say here that any such claim is incompatible with what we know about consciousness. Are you saying that what we do know about consciousness doesn't support the idea that consciousness can continue after death?
I'll be back later.