Do people have souls???

Recommended Videos

Cypher10110

New member
Jul 16, 2009
165
0
0
Zigot66 said:
First I should note that, I have done a lot of thinking about multidimensional existence, so my argument is based heavily on the idea that there are dimensions beyond the ones we are aware of, and that they interact with us in ways that we do not yet understand. If you have trouble wrapping your mind around the idea of dimensions beyond our own, I would suggest taking a look at Edwin A Abbott's "Flatland", even if you're not interested, it is still a great read.

Second, in this argument I assume that living matter is somehow different from inanimate matter.

Third, the English language is very poorly suited to this sort of discussion, so some words are not truly accurate, but are the best approximation that I can think of.

Fourth, though I will state that this is my opinion or that it is my belief, what follows is just an idea that I have tinkered with for a while, it just comes out better if I write it as a personal profession of belief rather than a statement of theory or fact.

Okay, so, it is my opinion that everything since the initial creation of the our known universe has occurred in its own time and by its own method, that is, without the willful intervention of any higher beings. Eventually, life formed, whether here first (I find that very unlikely) or elsewhere, matter elevated itself (or was elevated), from inanimate to animate. When this happened, or perhaps because it happened, extra-dimensional consciousness was able to permeate our physical dimension and (Again, I believe that this is not a willful act but a sort of natural order. Think water bleeding through tissue rather than fingers poking through.) become linked to the newly formed organisms.

Every living being is linked to this entity (or entities, but the concept of one vs many may not apply). This is what forms the "observer" part of our own consciousness, the part that sees through our eyes, hear through our ears, and so on, but is also able to "look" back through our memories and perhaps to deal with emotions. The observer is present in all living beings, but is restricted by the tools it is given, smaller brains would mean less complexity, which would mean less capability, along with other factors like sensory organs and "output" methods (fingers capable of fine motions, vocal chords capable of a range of sounds, bio-luminescence, etc).

When an organism dies, the consciousness is forced back out, or perhaps simply recedes, leaving dead matter, the shell of the being. Since the memories and personality are stored physically, I would assume that they are lost at death, though it could be possible that something would be transferred along with the receding consciousness.

So to finally address the point, the soul of an individual is just a part of a much larger entity that exists beyond us, but forms our own consciousness and the consciousness of all other living organisms.


I will not make any attempts to say that this idea is ironclad (It is anything but), but I find it an interesting thought experiment if nothing else. I would like to say that any debate over complex ideas, is good, anything that gets your brain working in a way that it normally wouldn't. However anyone who answers immediately and without serious thought is doing themselves and all of society a great disservice, you owe it to yourself to entertain the idea, even if it's just to get the gears moving, but who knows, you may have a revelation, that gives you new insight on the world.
I found your post thought provoking. It's similar idea to the Buddhism idea of reincarnation, described metaphorically as waking from a dream; you have no idea where you were, you know only where you are.
I like to run my life on the assumption I only get one shot to do this right. But I often entertain the idea that perhaps there are elements to consciousness that may never be understood.
Thanks for prefixing the post with your assumptions, it helped me read with fresh eyes.
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,850
0
0
Yes, I do believe we have souls. And here's the thing: I'm not giving any reasons why. I just do. That's all I'll say.
 
Sep 9, 2010
1,597
0
0
Dags90 said:
Icarion said:
Coudln't it be said that ones soul is the compalation of all those chemicals, feelings, ones upbringing, etc. mashed together and what comes out is a sum greater than the total of its parts?
Yes, but it could also be said that a soul is a jar of peanut butter.
Is peanut butter intangible?
 

Ambi

New member
Oct 9, 2009
862
0
0
What is a soul? What does it consist of? On what basis does it make decisions?
 

Rafael Dera

New member
Aug 24, 2010
68
0
0
Sure, we have a soul. Sort of.
There's 25 leprechauns living inside our heads, telling us what to do and moving the various bits and pieces of our bodies around, and telling us how to think and feel. There are many arguments for the leprechaun postulate:
1: It's nicer to believe in leprechauns. Compared to a soul that might spend eternity in (not nice place) for doing something a (or some) vague supernatural being(s) might find offensive in some way.
2: You can't prove we don't all have leprechauns in our head, since they're really small and science can't detect things on their scale of teeny tinyness. You thinking you don't have leprechauns in your head is exactly what the trickster-leprechaun (part of the great mystery of 25) wants you to think.
3: The mad trappings of man cannot possibly be the result of a deity, or chemicals. The first would suggest some higher reason, the other a reasonable explanation; the both of which are clearly preposterous. 25 leprechauns, whirling about, fidgeting and frolicking. The world would be a better place if everyone accepted their inner leprechauns.
4: When we die, some of the leprechauns go out and find new people (kicking out the feeblest of the previous leprechauns) which explains why some people remember previous lives.

I could go on; but i guess i'm trying to say that any point can be argumented.
Anything stated without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Good luck with the essay.
 

Ampersand

New member
May 1, 2010
736
0
0
Tankichi said:
Ampersand said:
Tankichi said:
I think some have souls. But to me a soul is more of a purpose then a spiritual presence. There are people who have a purpose but no soul because their heart has been filled with greed or power. Thats just my thought though.
This is one of the problems that i have with the word soul, everyone seems to have a different meaning for it.
I would refer to what you just described as ones Bushido(or in my case Aikido), but that's just me.
Is that basically your Chi or whatever lol.
Ha. No, not even close.
It refers to the principles by which you live your life.
 

LogicNProportion

New member
Mar 16, 2009
2,155
0
0
Pirate Kitty said:
I don't think so.

I think we are just incredibly self-aware.

Ask yourself this: have you, or have you ever heard anyone say, "my body"?

Would that suggest you are more than your physical self?

It would seem to. But I think this is more just self-awareness taken to a new level.
That question was deeply profound and made me warm and fuzzy on the inside. I applaud you. It's great to see someone of obvious deep intelligence/wisdom.

As for the question, I think we have souls, or at least, a collective consciousness that we are able to project to look upon ourselves. Sorry if that's worded oddly, but I think we are much more than our purely physical forms.

Just for the books, I'm Catholic, but I believe spirituality and religion can easily go hand in hand with science and logic if people just stopped being asses on each side.
 

Byere

New member
Jan 8, 2009
730
0
0
Yes, you have a soul...

...and then Yuri will come along, kill you and take it and use it to power up his fusion monsters!
 

Unesh52

New member
May 27, 2010
1,375
0
0
Madara XIII said:
My argument for that is well the play in on grief and the sorrow we feel for the loss of a fellow human along with love and how it does genuinely extend past mere infatuation and obsession. It brings true happiness, something that no material possession can bring about within us. Emotions such as these in my opinion honestly convince me that there is something more to us than a Physical body and mind. That we are indeed something more on the inside whether it be tangible or not. I might go with a light that lies deep within as a semblance for what a Soul might be, but that's just my interpretation.
I'm having a little trouble reading due to some grammatical fudges; watch that, would you? What I'm hearing is that Love is such a profound and powerful emotion that it cannot possibly be explained by science. I find this to be an unsupported and quixotic idea. It's been my impression that we've studied Love a lot and found out a lot about it. It may not be caused by satisfaction of petty, materialistic desires, but that doesn't mean it's magic. Why shouldn't love be explained by chemical processes and be predicted by sociological theory like other emotions? What makes it special? Besides not being caused by getting "things."

Gigaguy64 said:
In a christian sense i believe the "Spirit" is the part of you that moves on once you die.
Its what lets people tap into and feel the supernatural, and what lets people move through God and the Holy Spirit.
I do believe that it and the "Soul/mind" are linked like the "Body" and "Soul" are linked.
As is Physical trauma can effect the mind, and Mental distress can effect the Spirit.
Though that's just what i was taught, though i do believe it to be true.

And while im skeptical of things lacking Evidence, i can believe in things that lack evidence.
Well then, "spirit" seems to be the thing that the OP was referring to as a "soul." I'll use that from now on. Where is it then? Is it observable? You seem to define the soul by things that are themselves up for debate. If I accept God, Heaven, the "supernatural," and all that, then I guess the soul is a necessary vessel to transport your consciousness from the physical realm to the abstract one. In which case, by extension of the typical conclusion of the God debate, you just believe in souls or you don't. In that case, I don't.

I'm not sure what you're on about with the second part there, about the connection between the soul, mind, body, and spirit. It doesn't seem to be a response to anything I said. And I don't have an opinion on any of that since I deny the existence of souls in the first place.
 

Gigaguy64

Special Zero Unit
Apr 22, 2009
5,480
0
0
summerof2010 said:
Gigaguy64 said:
In a christian sense i believe the "Spirit" is the part of you that moves on once you die.
Its what lets people tap into and feel the supernatural, and what lets people move through God and the Holy Spirit.
I do believe that it and the "Soul/mind" are linked like the "Body" and "Soul" are linked.
As is Physical trauma can effect the mind, and Mental distress can effect the Spirit.
Though that's just what i was taught, though i do believe it to be true.

And while im skeptical of things lacking Evidence, i can believe in things that lack evidence.
Well then, "spirit" seems to be the thing that the OP was referring to as a "soul." I'll use that from now on. Where is it then? Is it observable? You seem to define the soul by things that are themselves up for debate. If I accept God, Heaven, the "supernatural," and all that, then I guess the soul is a necessary vessel to transport your consciousness from the physical realm to the abstract one. In which case, by extension of the typical conclusion of the God debate, you just believe in souls or you don't. In that case, I don't.

I'm not sure what you're on about with the second part there, about the connection between the soul, mind, body, and spirit. It doesn't seem to be a response to anything I said. And I don't have an opinion on any of that since I deny the existence of souls in the first place.
Yea, you can really say "Where" it is because its a Spiritual thing.
Its inside you but, its not like an organ.
I believe its your, if you will, "Life Force", its something born of the supernatural that sets us apart form all other forms of life.
Really, i cant describe the Spirit it outside of my religious context because i believe its completely tied to God.
And like you said, its really gonna come down to either you Believe they exist, or not.

And sorry, i just started to ramble for a sec there...
Though just to be clear, i believe that the Mind IS the Soul.
Its you, your personality and so on, but Soul is used to describe the Supernatural aspect most of the time.
 

Unesh52

New member
May 27, 2010
1,375
0
0
Gigaguy64 said:
Yea, you can really say "Where" it is because its a Spiritual thing.
Its inside you but, its not like an organ.
I believe its your, if you will, "Life Force", its something born of the supernatural that sets us apart form all other forms of life.
Really, i cant describe the Spirit it outside of my religious context because i believe its completely tied to God.
And like you said, its really gonna come down to either you Believe they exist, or not.

And sorry, i just started to ramble for a sec there...
Though just to be clear, i believe that the Mind IS the Soul.
Its you, your personality and so on, but Soul is used to describe the Supernatural aspect most of the time.
Well, if it's got no physical existence, then it's not proper to say it's inside you, regardless. A non-entity cannot occupy any space -- I think the concept that "spiritual things" are with us everywhere is at best a misunderstanding of a metaphor about our connection to the spiritual realm, and at worst (the version I adhere to) it's just a lie. It simply doesn't make sense to say a non-physical object is occupying a physical space. I feel like I'm just splitting hairs here though, so let's just forget about the whole thing, yeah?
 

imagremlin

New member
Nov 19, 2007
282
0
0
I don't think so.

The concept of a "soul" is wishful thinking in my opinion. A way to deal with mortality.
 

Gigaguy64

Special Zero Unit
Apr 22, 2009
5,480
0
0
summerof2010 said:
Gigaguy64 said:
Yea, you can really say "Where" it is because its a Spiritual thing.
Its inside you but, its not like an organ.
I believe its your, if you will, "Life Force", its something born of the supernatural that sets us apart form all other forms of life.
Really, i cant describe the Spirit it outside of my religious context because i believe its completely tied to God.
And like you said, its really gonna come down to either you Believe they exist, or not.

And sorry, i just started to ramble for a sec there...
Though just to be clear, i believe that the Mind IS the Soul.
Its you, your personality and so on, but Soul is used to describe the Supernatural aspect most of the time.
Well, if it's got no physical existence, then it's not proper to say it's inside you, regardless. A non-entity cannot occupy any space -- I think the concept that "spiritual things" are with us everywhere is at best a misunderstanding of a metaphor about our connection to the spiritual realm, and at worst (the version I adhere to) it's just a lie. It simply doesn't make sense to say a non-physical object is occupying a physical space. I feel like I'm just splitting hairs here though, so let's just forget about the whole thing, yeah?
I understand what your saying.
Though it will probably never make sense because its something that exists outside of Human Logic.

But anyway, it was nice talking to you, im always happy to find people who like to actually debate and not get in my face and yell how wrong i am, with some colorful language i might add.
 

Unesh52

New member
May 27, 2010
1,375
0
0
Gigaguy64 said:
summerof2010 said:
Gigaguy64 said:
Yea, you can really say "Where" it is because its a Spiritual thing.
Its inside you but, its not like an organ.
I believe its your, if you will, "Life Force", its something born of the supernatural that sets us apart form all other forms of life.
Really, i cant describe the Spirit it outside of my religious context because i believe its completely tied to God.
And like you said, its really gonna come down to either you Believe they exist, or not.

And sorry, i just started to ramble for a sec there...
Though just to be clear, i believe that the Mind IS the Soul.
Its you, your personality and so on, but Soul is used to describe the Supernatural aspect most of the time.
Well, if it's got no physical existence, then it's not proper to say it's inside you, regardless. A non-entity cannot occupy any space -- I think the concept that "spiritual things" are with us everywhere is at best a misunderstanding of a metaphor about our connection to the spiritual realm, and at worst (the version I adhere to) it's just a lie. It simply doesn't make sense to say a non-physical object is occupying a physical space. I feel like I'm just splitting hairs here though, so let's just forget about the whole thing, yeah?
I understand what your saying.
Though it will probably never make sense because its something that exists outside of Human Logic.

But anyway, it was nice talking to you, im always happy to find people who like to actually debate and not get in my face and yell how wrong i am, with some colorful language i might add.
Yeah. Maybe John Stewart really did get something out of that rally of his and civilized debate is now spreading through the internet.

...nah, the trolls must all just be saving it up for the holiday season.
 

Cypher10110

New member
Jul 16, 2009
165
0
0
tommyopera said:
Cypher10110 said:
tommyopera said:
Cypher10110 said:
In short, soul is just a word.
Precisely!
Your post takes my comment a little out of context...
Actually, it did not, as evidenced by my other post in this thread:

"A semantic argument could be posited for the soul being an expression of our ability to interpret our observations into an abstract understanding of our relationship between ourselves and the universe. When we map the brain to the point of being able to duplicate its very essence, what do we create? If my active mind can be uploaded and made to exist in an everlasting non-corporeal state, what am I? What is that active mind?"

Sorry to give you the wrong impression though.
Oh sorry, my bad. That was much more articulate and concise than what I said, and I totally agree. If the soul is everything we are, then everything we are must indeed be the soul.
 

Gigaguy64

Special Zero Unit
Apr 22, 2009
5,480
0
0
summerof2010 said:
Gigaguy64 said:
summerof2010 said:
Gigaguy64 said:
Yea, you can really say "Where" it is because its a Spiritual thing.
Its inside you but, its not like an organ.
I believe its your, if you will, "Life Force", its something born of the supernatural that sets us apart form all other forms of life.
Really, i cant describe the Spirit it outside of my religious context because i believe its completely tied to God.
And like you said, its really gonna come down to either you Believe they exist, or not.

And sorry, i just started to ramble for a sec there...
Though just to be clear, i believe that the Mind IS the Soul.
Its you, your personality and so on, but Soul is used to describe the Supernatural aspect most of the time.
Well, if it's got no physical existence, then it's not proper to say it's inside you, regardless. A non-entity cannot occupy any space -- I think the concept that "spiritual things" are with us everywhere is at best a misunderstanding of a metaphor about our connection to the spiritual realm, and at worst (the version I adhere to) it's just a lie. It simply doesn't make sense to say a non-physical object is occupying a physical space. I feel like I'm just splitting hairs here though, so let's just forget about the whole thing, yeah?
I understand what your saying.
Though it will probably never make sense because its something that exists outside of Human Logic.

But anyway, it was nice talking to you, im always happy to find people who like to actually debate and not get in my face and yell how wrong i am, with some colorful language i might add.
Yeah. Maybe John Stewart really did get something out of that rally of his and civilized debate is now spreading through the internet.

...nah, the trolls must all just be saving it up for the holiday season.
Yea....
Sigh, i can hardly wait.
-_-
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
Caliostro said:
Tsaba said:
There is "Scientific Proof" and then there are "theories," science has theories for darn near everything, but, it doesn't mean it has the answers
That said, science has carefully constructed theories based on meticulous and replicable evidence... Religions have...... ? Oh yeah, nothing.
OHHH Really....... then tell me how the big bang happened, I'll wait.......

The fact that Science cannot and will not explain HOW HOW HOW it happened, it's just a theory and one explanation for how the universe came to be, so science doesn't always have ALL the numbers. The explanation that some big monkey rat hippo thingy created the universe, that's just as good an explanation than that of the universe expanding like snowflakes, each unique and beautiful from a storm that spontaneously formed.


Or who knows, maybe a blue hand with a spiral from the justice league formed the freaken universe


To say one thing is more right than the other is pure ignorance and that makes you worse than the religions you bash for being close minded.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://dcanimated.wikia.com/wiki/File:Beginningoftime.jpg
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s03e16-are-you-there-god-its-me-jesus
 

Caliostro

Headhunter
Jan 23, 2008
3,253
0
0
Tsaba said:
Science doesn't claim to know everything. The difference is, we don't start making up shit randomly as we go along when we hit a dead end. We make theories that seem plausible based on the evidence we have. To say scientific theory is the same as pulling thoughts straight out of your rectum... Well, THAT, is the definition of ignorance.

I can't tell you with 100% certainty that the big bang is how it really happened. No one can. I can tell you that it's the most likely theory so far. One thing I can tell you with 100% certainty: Wasn't a divine entity. I can guarantee you that like I can guarantee that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy and Peter Pan aren't real.

Actually, scratch "Santa Claus" off that list. He's actually based on a real person.
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
Caliostro said:
more words
Science is just a way to explain things away, ALL I'M SAYING is that religion is just another way of explaining away why we are here, for some people it's good enough, and that's all that should matter, but, you seem hell bent of telling people how wrong they are and how right you are, and for that, your ignorant.

EDIT: Now I'm willing to respect your beliefs, all I'm asking in return is that we stop turning this, "discussion," into a flame war and respect each other here.