Do we posess a soul, or is it all chemical?
- Thread starter Jack_Uzi
- Start date
Actually, the Human Genome Project was concluded years ago. The full human genetic code was 'decoded.' Human Genetics is now very well established. Also DNA can easily be cloned now, and genetic engineering is a very realistic possibility. In other words, we pretty much know everything there is to know about human DNA.GLo Jones said:
Well this can be a touchy subject but plainly put, as respectfully as possible, biologically no there is no soul.
It is more of a philosophical/spiritual idea to ease into the idea of life and death. If it unease's you then it's best to not think about it.
It is more of a philosophical/spiritual idea to ease into the idea of life and death. If it unease's you then it's best to not think about it.
I don't know. The idea of it all being just chemical reactions is an easy conclusion to make, but it still leaves many unanswered questions. This is one of those questions in philosophy that many men far more intelligent than myself have asked, come up with answers, and were lucky if their idea lasted a month or so before someone found a fatal flaw that destroyed it.
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter". - Master Yoda
In my own humble opinion, I do believe that each and everyone of us has a soul, but not, I suspect, in the way that is commonly believed or accepted. A soul is, more or less, the life force (I saw this term mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread) within each of us. It is the entity that gives us hopes, dreams, fears, love, independent thought, and much more. Though many attribute these abilities to chemicals and their reactions, to me, this seems almost too simple an answer for such a complex and many-layered idea that we call a soul.
How boring, drab, and utterly pointless would our lives be if they were to just end in a proverbial puff of smoke. What joy can we take in life if we only know that, when we die, there is only a black void that awaits us? I don't know about the rest of you, but believing that we are all going to die without any sort of afterlife is a frightening thought indeed, albeit one that has no proof against it. Perhaps this is me simply rationalizing my own inevitable doom, but, from what I can tell of nature, life is not something that ends, rather it continues in an endless cycle. Maybe life is something without an ending or a beginning; life just is.
In my opinion, a soul is a mark of the life we are so graciously blessed with; a sign of continuing, not ending. Though our bodies may decay and pass back to the earth from whence they came, our souls are something that will never die. Our bodies are hosts to our souls; physical entities that house our very thoughts and emotions. So when we die, or rather, when our bodies fail, our souls go through a transition to a new host, though, admittedly, I have no idea what that new host might be. Quite frankly, I haven't thought that far into it yet, though I'm guessing such matters are beyond human comprehension.
I don't know, as a raised Catholic, I was taught to believe in an afterlife with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates with white, puffy clouds; the whole bit, but, when you think about it, that conclusion contradicts the whole "life is a cycle" thing. The idea of heaven seems more of a reward than a continuation of life. But I'm afraid that I have probably gone dreadfully off-topic, but whatever. That is my idea of a soul, though, it seems, my idea is a little more abstract (and therefore more weird) than most people's ideas here, however, that is my take on the subject.
In my own humble opinion, I do believe that each and everyone of us has a soul, but not, I suspect, in the way that is commonly believed or accepted. A soul is, more or less, the life force (I saw this term mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread) within each of us. It is the entity that gives us hopes, dreams, fears, love, independent thought, and much more. Though many attribute these abilities to chemicals and their reactions, to me, this seems almost too simple an answer for such a complex and many-layered idea that we call a soul.
How boring, drab, and utterly pointless would our lives be if they were to just end in a proverbial puff of smoke. What joy can we take in life if we only know that, when we die, there is only a black void that awaits us? I don't know about the rest of you, but believing that we are all going to die without any sort of afterlife is a frightening thought indeed, albeit one that has no proof against it. Perhaps this is me simply rationalizing my own inevitable doom, but, from what I can tell of nature, life is not something that ends, rather it continues in an endless cycle. Maybe life is something without an ending or a beginning; life just is.
In my opinion, a soul is a mark of the life we are so graciously blessed with; a sign of continuing, not ending. Though our bodies may decay and pass back to the earth from whence they came, our souls are something that will never die. Our bodies are hosts to our souls; physical entities that house our very thoughts and emotions. So when we die, or rather, when our bodies fail, our souls go through a transition to a new host, though, admittedly, I have no idea what that new host might be. Quite frankly, I haven't thought that far into it yet, though I'm guessing such matters are beyond human comprehension.
I don't know, as a raised Catholic, I was taught to believe in an afterlife with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates with white, puffy clouds; the whole bit, but, when you think about it, that conclusion contradicts the whole "life is a cycle" thing. The idea of heaven seems more of a reward than a continuation of life. But I'm afraid that I have probably gone dreadfully off-topic, but whatever. That is my idea of a soul, though, it seems, my idea is a little more abstract (and therefore more weird) than most people's ideas here, however, that is my take on the subject.
I'm not entirely sure, if I'm honest. I've always had that cartoony image in my head, of it being us as we were, but invisible. And we don't have legs, we have the wispy thing.Kragg said:
But for all I know, we could be those little specks some people think are ghosts. The fact we hang around after we're gone is as far as I go into it, really.
Well by certain definitions, we've completely sequenced the Human Genome, but the HGP was never concluded, and continues to publish new material.Sougo said:
You're saying we can't create life without using pre-existing DNA, but the reason for that is that we still don't know [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project#State_of_completion] the exact chemicals and sequences needed to create fully functional DNA. Besides, it's so ludicrously complex that it would be impossible to create with our current level of technology.
In the future, when we know exactly what to put where, and have the technology to perform such an enormous task, then we could create life.
Of course. There'd be big ghost get togethers and they'll all have awesome drunk ghost parties.Kragg said:FreelanceButler said:
would you be aware that you are a ghost? could you see other ghosts?
But seriously, I have no idea. If I'm right, I suppose we'll find out once we've kicked the bucket.
Haven't we gone way off topic already though? I mean, wasn't this thread about souls before?
Well "soul" (or "personality" to an atheist) could simply be the "more than the sum of its parts" description of what those chemical processes transform into. Just like "Chair" if more than the physical materials each chair consist of and angles they're posed in, but (also) an entirely different - separate even - concept sparking new meanings, so could "soul"(/"personality") be.
tiney offshoot thought that really didnt deserve another topic but still interesting enough to share with the topic and not in pms, grey areas *shrug*FreelanceButler said:Of course. There'd be big ghost get togethers and they'll all have awesome drunk ghost parties.Kragg said:FreelanceButler said:
would you be aware that you are a ghost? could you see other ghosts?
But seriously, I have no idea. If I'm right, I suppose we'll find out once we've kicked the bucket.
Haven't we gone way off topic already though? I mean, wasn't this thread about souls before?
The loss of weight at death that came from nothing physical that they could find so they hypothesized that it could be a soul. Yes, that is me hunting the internet in hopes that "my views" have some shred of backing to them.esin said:
If you saw my other post, this is more of an attempt to bring in the scientific to support the religious, not me clenching this flag and standing against the atheists. It is a study that was cut short that could have proved there is a soul. It is more of a conspiracy theory than an ad-lib, if you want to label it as such, but it is there. What "scientific proof" do you have for the soul not existing? Religion being wrong before is not a basis for saying the Bible is nothing but lies.
Using a sample size of six, wherein two had to be discarded due to a huge margin of error, is extremely unconvincing. Also, MacDougall's results have never been duplicated in following tests. When one study gets one result, and several get another, it's far more likely that the one was flawed.KEM10 said:
There was a pattern, but it is too small of a sample to fully determine if it is true. He actually stated in his paper that he needed more cases to fully prove it. But what other tests sure are you talking about? I haven't heard of anyone repeating his tests.mdk31 said:
I think of human consiouness as like Computers,when a computer is turned on(a human is born) you know that as soon as it is turned off(the human dies) the computer will cease to function,but if the computer is turned on again(the human is revied) it functions as normal. Though think of it like,the computer can only be turned off once,as it can never(except in extremelly rare circumstances) turned back on again.
This is also why I don't believe in reincarnation, your 'soul' doesn't go anywhere when you die, your body is your 'soul',when you die so does your 'soul'.And it is pretty much fact that bodies are extremelly easy to destroy,extremelly hard to revive,and impossible to keep immortal. Think of debunking reincarnation as in, if a computer is turned off,all of it's data will somehow form in another computer that is made,even though the computer already exists,it is just turned off.
This is also why I don't believe in reincarnation, your 'soul' doesn't go anywhere when you die, your body is your 'soul',when you die so does your 'soul'.And it is pretty much fact that bodies are extremelly easy to destroy,extremelly hard to revive,and impossible to keep immortal. Think of debunking reincarnation as in, if a computer is turned off,all of it's data will somehow form in another computer that is made,even though the computer already exists,it is just turned off.