What's a soul?

[Magnum13]

Re: What's a soul?

I believe only humans have souls. My description of a soul is a part of you that controls your emotion, gives you strength and live on after you die. Yes, I'm a Christian.

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

master of the faster, just as an aside, you really ought to get yourself proficient with the use of quote tags. I can see where you put text in quotation marks here and there, but it often blends in with what you are responding with, and makes it read much more confusingly.

It's possible for nothing to exist. The fact that you can give a name to nonexistence doesn't give the nonexistence itself any properties.

Well, it has the property of being named "nonexistance" and the property of "lacking any properties save the name, and this one" but yes, that's incredibly specious and no, I'm not trying to go anywhere with this particular response.

Well congratulations, you've joined countless other intelligent minds who fell into the "That makes me uncomfortable" trap.

I said that makes me uncomfortable? The prospect of nothingness doesn't make me uncomfortable, I just don't, in this context see that the term applies. If there is a wall, it necessarily has three properties if being: That which is on one side of the wall, the wall, and that which is on the other side of the wall. If on the other side is "nothing" in a more pure and literal sense, I'm not certain how you can call it a wall at all. I mean, how -do- you explain what is on the other side of the "end" of the universe?

The point is that I always leave my views to a 50/50 chance that they exist.

You honestly sincerely believe that there is an -equally- likely chance that each and every thing you claim to believe (Or at least act as though you believe) is utterly false and incorrect? How does that even work as a viable way of living? I think perhaps you haven't thought through the consequences of what you just described.

the same arguments against divine omniscience

Both omniscience and omnipotence are impossble to ever attain, and even if somehow you wanted to grant one or both to something, they are so wholly mutually exclusive that you might as well just pick the one you like best and assume the other can't exist, because they -definately- can't both exist.

I believe only humans have souls. My description of a soul is a part of you that controls your emotion, gives you strength and live on after you die. Yes, I'm a Christian.

No, you have -faith- in the idea that only humans have souls. To believe requires you to have considered evidence, of which there is none.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Just because there are 2 options doesn't mean both are equally likely.

Well this is true, but I limited it to either yes religion/spirits exist or no religion/spirits don't exist. A yes or no answer is both equal in chance just like on any true or false answer on a quiz.

"You honestly sincerely believe that there is an -equally- likely chance that each and every thing you claim to believe (Or at least act as though you believe) is utterly false and incorrect? How does that even work as a viable way of living? I think perhaps you haven't thought through the consequences of what you just described'

Please take your time to explain what consequences you are speaking of because as far as spirits and gods go, I see no consequences.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

If there is a wall, it necessarily has three properties if being: That which is on one side of the wall, the wall, and that which is on the other side of the wall.

Why?

If on the other side is "nothing" in a more pure and literal sense, I'm not certain how you can call it a wall at all. I mean, how -do- you explain what is on the other side of the "end" of the universe?

I dunno. Maybe you don't, because that's the most accurate explanation. I don't care whether you think of it as a wall or not, just as long as you understand that the label you're using is quite possibly what's misleading you.

Both omniscience and omnipotence are impossble to ever attain, and even if somehow you wanted to grant one or both to something, they are so wholly mutually exclusive that you might as well just pick the one you like best and assume the other can't exist, because they -definately- can't both exist.

They aren't wholly mutually exclusive, but there are model scenario's in which the two are exclusive.

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

No, you have -faith- in the idea that only humans have souls. To believe requires you to have considered evidence, of which there is none.

It's too bad you have failed to realize that the Bible is his evidence. Whether or not that is evidence to you is irrelevant to HIS beliefs. You cannot tell someone what they do or do not believe.

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

Well this is true, but I limited it to either yes religion/spirits exist or no religion/spirits don't exist. A yes or no answer is both equal in chance just like on any true or false answer on a quiz.

The fact that on a true/false test each answer has a 50% likely chance of being the correct answer doesn't mean that each answer as a 50% chance of being correct. One if them is 100% correct the other is 0% but you lack the knowledge to determine so you take a 50/50 -guess- that you will find the 100% right answer by random selection.

If I wake up and my room is dark, there are a -huge- number of reasons why this might be, but you can't possibly tell me that "It's nighttime" or "The lights are off and the curtain is closed" are -equally- as likely as "I've gone blind" or "As yet unknown speices of space aliens have invaded my room for the sole purpose of making it dark"

Just because there are multiple possibilities doesn't mean all of them are equally likely.

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

It's too bad you have failed to realize that the Bible is his evidence. Whether or not that is evidence to you is irrelevant to HIS beliefs. You cannot tell someone what they do or do not believe.

Bible != valid evidence, since the only -proof- of the bible's veracity are claims made inside the bible, begging the question by default.

I dunno. Maybe you don't, because that's the most accurate explanation. I don't care whether you think of it as a wall or not, just as long as you understand that the label you're using is quite possibly what's misleading you.

I didn't necessarily say I thought of it as a wall, I first asked you what -you- thought would happen if you went to the "edge" of the finite universe, would you hit a wall? would you warp around to the other side? etc. I was asking your thoughts, and you continued to address my wall metaphor, so assuming that ws your view as well, continued along that line too. Confusion->incomprehension, apologies.

Please take your time to explain what consequences you are speaking of because as far as spirits and gods go, I see no consequences.

Well when you say:

The point is that I always leave my views to a 50/50 chance that they exist.

That didn't state "But only about this one question" you said "I always" if you didn't mean 'always' you shoudln't have said always and since you -did- say always, you have to expect that people responding (who aren't you, and have no access to your thought processes) are going to assume that you said what you meant.

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

Bible != valid evidence, since the only -proof- of the bible's veracity are claims made inside the bible, begging the question by default.

I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong about that. I'm saying that you cannot deny the fact that he believes in God and the soul; he has his own evidence. It would be as absurd as to walk up to some stranger, ask them of their ethicity, and, once receiving an answer of, "Croatian," to say, "No, you're not...you're Belgian," and walk away.

I could just as easily deny all evidence or belief you have about any subject at all, because I don't consider it evidence. In fact, I could merely say that we have no evidence for anything. Therefore, no one has ever believed in anything. It would just be an endless sequence of asking the question, "How do you know that?" and expecting an answer each time.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

That example was a clearly good, but used wrongly by me and right by you. What I ultimately mean to say is that there are many possibilities and if you don't know which is right, they all seem equally right to you at the moment until you know which possibilities are clearly right at the end. I will get back to my multiple choice idea, but in a different mannor. Certain religious people are so tempted to put down an answer for that multiple choice that spirits and religions exist. I would value them if they atleast had thought that there was at the very least, a 1% chance that they are wrong. Lets say that this test was based off of a book that told us what exists and doesn't exist (not just a bible but 100% proven to be true somehow). I want to read all of the book before I take the test to be sure that my answer is right. They want to jump to conclusions without ever considering their consequences. How do you intrepret the idea of souls and religion devonin?

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

That example was a clearly good, but used wrongly by me and right by you. What I ultimately mean to say is that there are many possibilities and if you don't know which is right, they are all equally right to you at the moment until you know which possibilities are clearly right at the end. I will get back to my multiple choice idea, but in a different mannor. Certain religious people are so tempted to put down an answer for that multiple choice that spirits and religions exist. I would value them if they atleast had thought that there was at the very least, a 1% chance that they are wrong. Lets say that this test was based off of a book that told us what exists and doesn't exist (not just a bible but 100% proven to be true somehow). I want to read all of the book before I take the test to be sure that my answer is right. They want to jump to conclusions without ever considering their consequences. How do you intrepret the idea of souls and religion devonin?

devonin is atheist, so he probably won't believe in a soul, either. I'm still interested in his input, though. edit: confirmed, because he stated that souls are a concept created by humans to explain their superiority to animals.

Nothing can be 100.000000% proven to be true unless religion is involved. Scientifically, if a theory is 100.0% true, science is flawed, because it allows for no replacement of ideas or revision of theories, which is the core law by which science was founded, right? Religion allows ideas to be written in stone. Overall, though, I can safely say that a set of assumptions are also involved in science, making it slightly religious.

For example, astronomers have measured, somehow, the orbital velocities of stars far from the center of the Milky Way and stars close to the center of the Milky Way. They have found that the velocities were equal, even though this does not in any way obey laws of gravitation. They made the assumption that DARK MATTER MUST EXIST WITHOUT DOUBT, BECAUSE OF THE CALCULATIONS WE MADE. This is as blind an assumption as you consider the believe in God to be. Lack of evidence is not equal to lack of existence.

Futhermore, science is driven by the assumed fact that science will be able to explain all natural phenomena. (this is because the goal of science is to produce an accurate model of reality, which would mean, in a sense, would only be accurate given that all information about any topic is known) This means, if true, that we will one day be able to explain particle physics down to the Planck length (1.6 x 10^-35 m), and down to the particles that are as tiny compared to the Planck length as the Planck length is compared to the diameter of the universe. Since, mathematically, there is no limit to how small a particle can be, that would mean that we will be able to obtain an unlimited amount of knowledge, a ridiculous notion, ESPECIALLY if one thinks the universe is unlimited.

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

devonin is atheist, so he probably won't believe in a soul, either. I'm still interested in his input, though. edit: confirmed, because he stated that souls are a concept created by humans to explain their superiority to animals.

I fail to see how not believeing in a "soul" necessarily makes me an atheist, it seems to me that you just -told- me what I believed *grin*

Nothing can be 100.000000% proven to be true unless religion is involved.

How does religion being involved enable things to be 100% true? Even if a being that was capable of proving to the world's satisfaction that it was 'God' even in a purely christian sense, that still woudln't make what it said or did 100% true, because there is always the chance that such a being is merely incredibly powerful and capable of fooling us.

How do you intrepret the idea of souls and religion devonin?

As I said, the 'soul' is an imaginary construction of humans to make them feel that they are superior to animals in a way that, even if animals learned to be intelligent, sentient, walk upright, use tools and speak english, would still enable them to feel they were above animals.

Religion, I feel, is a valuable construct of old cultures as a means of explaining things for which there was no rational or scientific explanation. As time progressed, it stopped being the explainer of all the mysteries of the world, and became a comforter of people who couldn't cope with the idea that the world is full of evil because it is, for no other reason or purpose.

My belief about organised religion is best expressed by Frued, who felt that religion and God was a need by humans to create some powerful father figure to comfort them through their hard times, and while he grants that for many people, it is necessary, he would consider it incredibly immature and infantile to need such a 'father' as a rational reasonable human being.

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

How does religion being involved enable things to be 100% true? Even if a being that was capable of proving to the world's satisfaction that it was 'God' even in a purely christian sense, that still woudln't make what it said or did 100% true, because there is always the chance that such a being is merely incredibly powerful and capable of fooling us.

This is your reality. There is only one reality, in reality, but that does not necessarily mean that yours is correct. Of course, everyone assumes that his or her reality is the correct one, but this does not make it so. To another person who was religious, their REALITY would be that God does exist, without doubt, and that nothing could ever disprove that. Yours is that something is not ever 100% true, even though religion. This is not the case to a devoted religious person. Not everyone has to think along the same lines as you, which is an unfortunate circumstance to anyone who disagrees with another person relentlessly.

As for my statement that seemed like an assumption that you were atheist solely based on your notion on souls, I made that assumption before I made this thread. I aplogize for making it seem that way. I suppose I heard it from someone who complained that you always flamed religious threads, which would constitute ridiculing religion, which would correlate to atheism.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Was I clear when I restated that quiz example? I mean you guys do get where I'm coming from right? It's not that I don't value people who only believe in one god, only believe in many, or only believe in no gods, it's just that I hate people who ignorantly attacks another person. Lets say that there was a quiz that you could only choose where one, many, or no gods exist. I don't mind that people bubble in a single choice for what they believe is the right chance. I just can't stand when a person who believes in one god arrogantly says the the person who believes in athiesm is of a bull**** religion (especially since no one has proof against an athiest or for the person who believes in one god). If some guy who knew everything gave us this quiz and knew that we didn't know the answer for sure, don't you think he would have some lenience towards the entire class? Do you guys get where I'm coming from when I say this? I don't like arrogance without evidence.

[Relambrien]

Re: What's a soul?

Was I clear when I restated that quiz example? I mean you guys do get where I'm coming from right? It's not that I don't value people who only believe in one god, only believe in many, or only believe in no gods, it's just that I hate people who ignorantly attacks another person. Lets say that there was a quiz that you could only choose where one, many, or no gods exist. I don't mind that people bubble in a single choice for what they believe is the right chance. I just can't stand when a person who believes in one god arrogantly says the the person who believes in athiesm is of a bull**** religion (especially since no one has proof against an athiest or for the person who believes in one god). If some guy who knew everything gave us this quiz and knew that we didn't know the answer for sure, don't you think he would have some lenience towards the entire class? Do you guys get where I'm coming from when I say this? I don't like arrogance without evidence.

Careful, strong atheists by definition say "(insert spiritual religion here) is a bull**** religion, gods don't exist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

I get where you're coming from, but that may not have been the best example to use.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Yeah sorry about making it so one sided. It's just that I saw someone on a thread on this site say that once somewhere. I wanted to use it as an example, but it can go either way. I know there may be other ways to explain this, but I value that you understand my view as I tried my best to explain it.