Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you believe you have a "soul"?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    neuro-praxis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,184 ✭✭✭neuro-praxis


    You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.

    C. S. Lewis


  • Options
    #33
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Medina wrote: »
    Something as sophisticated and complex and beautiful as a Ferrari you know didn't come without a designer , yet you think complex creatures such as humans do?
    Human beings (and all other life) evolved, Ferraris are created by design. With all due respect, if you can't see the difference, it is clear you do not understand what evolution entails.
    Medina wrote: »
    2.As regards the brain being the source of uniqueness, making you 'you' and me 'me', since we all have brains with the same components why is there such difference then between you and me? It doesn't explain why we are all different?
    Our brains are not the same. Try telling a neurologist that I dare you!
    Medina wrote: »
    If you're not ruling out other possibilities then what do you think might possibly happen to your soul (whatever anyone construes that to be) after you die?
    That's like speculating what colour God is. Pointless. The only reason to not discount the existence of a soul is that is completely impossible to disprove. You can't say "if you did believe in it - what would it do?"


  • Options
    #34
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Medina wrote: »
    Something as sophisticated and complex and beautiful as a Ferrari you know didn't come without a designer , yet you think complex creatures such as humans do?

    We know cars have designers because we have previous experience of people making cars and we know for a fact people make cars. it has nothing to do with how "complex and beautiful" said car is.

    "one thing is complex and beautiful, already know it has a designer -> all complex things have designers" is not a valid extension.


  • Options
    #35
    Archeron
    Registered Users Posts: 6,195 ✭✭✭Archeron


    Medina wrote: »

    I respect that people have a right to choose what they believe and that we have different beliefs, but I do believe myself that there can be only one right answer. Either we do or we don't have souls.

    I would disagree somewhat with that statement. I cant fully (or even begin to) describe what my soul may be, because I have no idea as to what form it could take; in fairness other posters above have put it better than I could.

    I believe it is possible that the soul could continue in some other spectrum or dimension as yet undiscovered and possibly never to be discovered, by man, to continue on whatever journey its on. So while I would keep my mind open to the fact that it could exist after death in some manner other than what we view as "reality", others may not agree that existing outside of the only physical reality we really know is actually existence at all.

    If that soul may be there and continue wherever, whenever, and whatever it does after death, that would then make me right.
    But those who don't believe in a soul as a concept, or part of the fabric of the universe we inhabit are right also, because in (their) reality; which is the only one they may recognize, it doesn't exist. So there could actually be more than one right answer.
    So while some people accept other realities, but not the soul, this reality only with and without the soul, and any combination therein, depending on your perspective, they could all be right.


  • Options
    #36
    CodeMonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭CodeMonkey


    Medina wrote: »
    2.As regards the brain being the source of uniqueness, making you 'you' and me 'me', since we all have brains with the same components why is there such difference then between you and me? It doesn't explain why we are all different?
    Like what others have said, same building blocks but different neuron connections caused by different experiences. Look at feral children like Genie for example. http://surfbreak.blogspot.com/2006/04/feral-children-critical-period.html

    Locked in a room with no stimulation or experiences until she was 13, she basically behaves like a toddler when found. Our uniqueness are due to our experiences.

    Dogs and other animals also have unique personalities. Do you think they have souls?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    normar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭normar


    Medina wrote: »
    Three things:
    1. ......Can something as complex as a human being create itself or be a product of nature? Something as sophisticated and complex and beautiful as a Ferrari you know didn't come without a designer , yet you think complex creatures such as humans do?

    All living creatures on this planet have come about through the process of Evolution by natural selection. This is a scientific fact and can be proved over and over again.
    All it took was a chance event for a simple replicating molecule to happen and the process took off.

    What you are saying above is called the argument from personal incredulity. It goes along the lines that because you can't accept the evidence and facts of evolution, (the incremental development of living creatures over billions of years by evolution) you must assume someone or some thing makes each individual living thing.
    That assumption for you has it logical conclusion in a supernatural deity.

    How is it then that you have difficulties accepting the proven evidence of evolution as the reason for living creatures.
    You state that a complex machine like a Farrari must have had a designer.
    Yet you can accept or believe that an all powerful, all knowing, made everything in the whole Universe deity has existed for all time. What process made this deity? Even he/she/it must have had a beginning. After all this deity is more complex than a Farrari and by your logic since the Farrari needed a designer this deity must have been designed too. Who designed the designer and it's designer......

    The argument from personal incredulity does not nullify the evidence and facts of evolution as the basis of all living creatures.

    You of course must believe what you wish to believe.
    I have a tendency to base my beliefs on reason and science for at least some answer that stands up to questioning from my critical faculties.

    There has never been any evidence for a soul any more than there has been for the existence of fairies at the bottom of gardens or of pots of gold at the end of rainbows.


  • Options
    #38
    neuro-praxis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,184 ✭✭✭neuro-praxis


    normar wrote: »
    All it took was a chance event for a simple replicating molecule to happen and the process took off.

    Bloody hell, it is well documented that 50% of the world's leading evolutionists believe in a creator God, so stop trying to skew this conversation about a soul into something that denies that evolution and theism can work together. They always have and always will. Dawkins is a remarkably narrow minded man.

    P.S. Where did the "simple replicating molecule" come from? Did it originate itself? Ironically logic flies out the window in this passionate defense of anti-theism. If you don't have an answer you can at least admit it is problematic?


  • Options
    #39
    normar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88 ✭✭normar


    neuro-praxis wrote: »

    .... it is well documented that 50% of the world's leading evolutionists believe in a creator God, ..........evolution and theism can work together......

    P.S. ........Where did the "simple replicating molecule" come from? Did it originate itself?.........

    Show me where this " documented " evidence for your statement can be found (peer reviewed) please.

    Evolution and theism are mutually opposing theories, with this difference, that the principles of evolution can be scientifically proven again and again. Why else are the religious right spending millions and millions of dollars to ridicule evolution.

    To the "simple replicating molecule" question the answer is yes. But the molecule's origin pales into insignificance compared to the origin of the supernatural, all powerful, all knowing god who made the whole universe and who made everlasting souls for every person who ever lived and ever will live.

    Did he/she/it originate itself like the simple molecule?

    I will stick with evolution and give the soul thing a miss.


    ..


  • Options
    #40
    CodeMonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭CodeMonkey


    P.S. Where did the "simple replicating molecule" come from? Did it originate itself? Ironically logic flies out the window in this passionate defense of anti-theism. If you don't have an answer you can at least admit it is problematic?
    Hmmm, you've never heard of the origin of life experiments then. I've seen documentories on it and this appears to be an article on the original experiment. http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/2948/orgel.html
    The experiment basically shows that continuous exlectrical discharge like lightning in the right atmosphere can create amino acids and simple compounds which are building blocks for living things.

    As for evolutionists believe in god. Well, I thought a lot of them just credits the origin of the universe to a creator/engineer. That is, the creator might have started the big bang and created a universe with the physical laws we know about. It's like a simulation they started and then galaxies formed, planets and then life etc. The creator has no direct influence on anything. So they kinda believe in a god cause they don't know what was before the big bang etc. That's not the same as theism and their believes in a god creating life on earth in his image malarky.


  • Options
    #41
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    neuro-praxis wrote: »
    Bloody hell, it is well documented that 50% of the world's leading evolutionists believe in a creator God, so stop trying to skew this conversation about a soul into something that denies that evolution and theism can work together. They always have and always will. Dawkins is a remarkably narrow minded man.

    P.S. Where did the "simple replicating molecule" come from? Did it originate itself? Ironically logic flies out the window in this passionate defense of anti-theism. If you don't have an answer you can at least admit it is problematic?

    It's amusing that you accuse normar of 'skewing the converation' when that's exactly what you've done yourself with your comment about 50% of evolutionists.

    It's true that some evolutionists may believe in, or at least accept the possibility of, a designer/creator of the universe itself. That's a big big difference from the popular theist belief that god created all life on earth with a wave of his magic wand. Some would have you believe that this happened only thousands of years ago. I can assure there is not a credible evolutionary biologist in the world who believes in any of that. Note I said 'credible', i.e not a pseudo-science quack from the creationist camp.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,086 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    No, we are bioelectrochemical machines, that is it. We are no different from a biological computer.


  • Options
    #43
    neuro-praxis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,184 ✭✭✭neuro-praxis


    This is late but worth a look.

    Scientists still believe in God.


  • Options
    #44
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,661 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    'In 1916, when scientists were emerging as the high priests of a new technological culture, everybody cared about what they thought and believed,'' Dr. Marsden said. ''But the prestige of science peaked in 1960 and has been declining ever since. Do people still care whether scientists believe in God? I'm not so sure.''

    nice finish...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement