Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Soul man?
88 Answers
Who came up with the idea that each of us possesses a soul, is it just a christian thing or does it go way back BC?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by oldnitro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Birdie, Yes, we do all have our opinions, and I've made no claims, but you, Chakka and Mibs are claiming the non-existence of the soul to be 'fact', when in truth you know no more than anyone else. That's all I'm taking issue with.//
Naomi, I'm not aware that I have made such a claim but if I have . . . shame on me. I reserve final judgment on the existence of a 'soul' pending ones definition of what in reality the term is intended to refer to. It just so happens that I am pretty much in agreement with what Ankou has alluded to.
What I take exception to is the assertion that someone can not possibly know more than another regarding the status of an unknown. Such a belief suggests you've already made up your mind about what can or can not be known regarding an issue which in my mind remains yet to be defined let alone resolved. But then I suppose we both know based on my record of past performance my tendency for being slow to grasp the 'facts'.
Naomi, I'm not aware that I have made such a claim but if I have . . . shame on me. I reserve final judgment on the existence of a 'soul' pending ones definition of what in reality the term is intended to refer to. It just so happens that I am pretty much in agreement with what Ankou has alluded to.
What I take exception to is the assertion that someone can not possibly know more than another regarding the status of an unknown. Such a belief suggests you've already made up your mind about what can or can not be known regarding an issue which in my mind remains yet to be defined let alone resolved. But then I suppose we both know based on my record of past performance my tendency for being slow to grasp the 'facts'.
it doesn't make any sense, to me, that one's soul is 'second hand', or even given to you as new at birth, as if it were a teddy bear to be carried through life. We develop, we change, we learn, we err. I understand that, in the belief of many, everything we do is predetermined, but if we're talking in a non-religion specific sense, that a our soul is our personality and the 'essence' of who we are (just like I'm becoming the type of person to use '....' too much) then it just doesn't make sense.
Would and old soul not carry the learnings of it's previous host?
Would a new soul not suggest that the characteristics we have are carried with us throughout our lifespan without changing?
If we look, objectively, at people, their soul is only who they are in the then and there, we all know how something major can shatter a good soul or rebuild a lost one.
Would and old soul not carry the learnings of it's previous host?
Would a new soul not suggest that the characteristics we have are carried with us throughout our lifespan without changing?
If we look, objectively, at people, their soul is only who they are in the then and there, we all know how something major can shatter a good soul or rebuild a lost one.
Mibs, in that case my apologies for thinking you agreed with Birdie and Chakka.
//What I take exception to is the assertion that someone can not possibly know more than another regarding the status of an unknown. //
Can't see why you should take exception to that. Who can know more than someone else about the 'unknown'?
//What I take exception to is the assertion that someone can not possibly know more than another regarding the status of an unknown. //
Can't see why you should take exception to that. Who can know more than someone else about the 'unknown'?
Rumsfeld?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3254852.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3254852.stm
//Who can know more than someone else about the 'unknown'?//
Those who haven't precluded the possibility of further knowledge and who refuse to resign to ignorance. Those who remain willing to learn and who see in the unknown an opportunity to gain valuable new knowledge and insight into better understanding themselves, each other and the reality we share . . . a seemingly fading quality these days.
Those who haven't precluded the possibility of further knowledge and who refuse to resign to ignorance. Those who remain willing to learn and who see in the unknown an opportunity to gain valuable new knowledge and insight into better understanding themselves, each other and the reality we share . . . a seemingly fading quality these days.
I think a definition of a soul might be useful. Some posts here seem to be using the defintion to describe an overcoat that can be passed from one individual to another. That is not how I understand the meaning of the word.
My understanding that it refers to the "essence" for want of a better word, of an individual entity. So questions about passing a soul on to another doesn't have meaning. Passing one soul on to another soul ?!?
Of course no one actually knows, although many believe they do. If one starts, for the sake of the discussion with the assumption that souls exist, then there seems to be at least 3 possibilities
a) There is some kind of "spirit raw material" in the "spiritual realm", and the birth of an individual in the physical world kicks off a process whereby some of it is used to make a soul that will inhabit the new body for the duration of it's life. On death the soul either dissipates and returns to the raw material form, the individual now no longer existing (which is a view I suspect few religions are that keen to push) or the soul continues its existence as an individual. It goes on to a different realm, called whatever your favourite religion wishes to call it. Heaven if you like.
b) Similar to a) except on death of the body some process kicks off to judge that the soul has not yet learnt enough from the experience of life, so its memory is erased and the soul passed on to a new body as soon as one becomes available to continue its education.
c) Souls have always existed and either once, or a number of times, inhabit a newly conceived individual to experience life. On death they still exist as souls.
My understanding that it refers to the "essence" for want of a better word, of an individual entity. So questions about passing a soul on to another doesn't have meaning. Passing one soul on to another soul ?!?
Of course no one actually knows, although many believe they do. If one starts, for the sake of the discussion with the assumption that souls exist, then there seems to be at least 3 possibilities
a) There is some kind of "spirit raw material" in the "spiritual realm", and the birth of an individual in the physical world kicks off a process whereby some of it is used to make a soul that will inhabit the new body for the duration of it's life. On death the soul either dissipates and returns to the raw material form, the individual now no longer existing (which is a view I suspect few religions are that keen to push) or the soul continues its existence as an individual. It goes on to a different realm, called whatever your favourite religion wishes to call it. Heaven if you like.
b) Similar to a) except on death of the body some process kicks off to judge that the soul has not yet learnt enough from the experience of life, so its memory is erased and the soul passed on to a new body as soon as one becomes available to continue its education.
c) Souls have always existed and either once, or a number of times, inhabit a newly conceived individual to experience life. On death they still exist as souls.
Naomi -
“Birdie, Yes, we do all have our opinions, and I've made no claims, but you, Chakka and Mibs are claiming the non-existence of the soul to be 'fact', when in truth you know no more than anyone else. That's all I'm taking issue with...”
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I actually specifically stated that, “... I can no more prove that a soul does not exist than anyone else can prove that it does...”. I also said in my last paragraph that, “... No one has ever shown under reasonable scientific conditions that there is a life after death. Until they do, I shall continue to assert that it is a false claim [that souls exist].”.
Being a reasonable and rational person, I'm sure you'll agree that both of those above statements are correct. Until something is proven to exist by empirical science it cannot be considered to be a 'fact' as we currently understand the word. The Oxford English Dictionary [OED] defines the word 'fact' as, “[noun] a thing that is known or proved to be true...”.
The existence of the 'soul' has never been proved to be true. I'm not necessarily ruling out the existence of the soul but right now, the existence of such a thing has not been proven. Therefore, I am correct in describing the existence of the 'soul' as not being a 'fact'.
It is not a 'fact' in precisely the same way that the following are not facts: spiritual aura photography (existence of), crystal healing (efficacy), homeopathy (efficacy), tarot cards (future prediction), etc (and the list could go on and on and on...). None of these things have been proven to work in the way that their adherents claim that they do and therefore they cannot be considered to be 'facts' if we are working to the definition of the word that I cited from the OED.
The existence of the after-life and/or souls is not a fact, therefore by definition, it is a fact that these things do not exist. They are (at best) an unproven hypothesis. People who disagree are not necessarily 'closed minded'; they simply want some substantive proof before they accept the premise.
“Birdie, Yes, we do all have our opinions, and I've made no claims, but you, Chakka and Mibs are claiming the non-existence of the soul to be 'fact', when in truth you know no more than anyone else. That's all I'm taking issue with...”
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I actually specifically stated that, “... I can no more prove that a soul does not exist than anyone else can prove that it does...”. I also said in my last paragraph that, “... No one has ever shown under reasonable scientific conditions that there is a life after death. Until they do, I shall continue to assert that it is a false claim [that souls exist].”.
Being a reasonable and rational person, I'm sure you'll agree that both of those above statements are correct. Until something is proven to exist by empirical science it cannot be considered to be a 'fact' as we currently understand the word. The Oxford English Dictionary [OED] defines the word 'fact' as, “[noun] a thing that is known or proved to be true...”.
The existence of the 'soul' has never been proved to be true. I'm not necessarily ruling out the existence of the soul but right now, the existence of such a thing has not been proven. Therefore, I am correct in describing the existence of the 'soul' as not being a 'fact'.
It is not a 'fact' in precisely the same way that the following are not facts: spiritual aura photography (existence of), crystal healing (efficacy), homeopathy (efficacy), tarot cards (future prediction), etc (and the list could go on and on and on...). None of these things have been proven to work in the way that their adherents claim that they do and therefore they cannot be considered to be 'facts' if we are working to the definition of the word that I cited from the OED.
The existence of the after-life and/or souls is not a fact, therefore by definition, it is a fact that these things do not exist. They are (at best) an unproven hypothesis. People who disagree are not necessarily 'closed minded'; they simply want some substantive proof before they accept the premise.
Makes one wonder what would constitute proof for the soul. My personal experience with mediums has provided me with what I consider to be good evidence of continued survival after bodily death. But of course each has to experience such evidence for themselves, another's testimony will not count for much.
naomi (and some others) - you did not read my post carefully enough. birdie's second statement was that the idea of a soul has nothing to do with the 1st Law of thermodynamics.
That is a fact. We know what the 1st Law says and it is concerned with energy; it mentions no soul and there is no way you can make a connection.
This is quite different from my disbelief in the soul. Naturally I cannot prove its non-existence, any more than I can prove the non-existence of God, leprachauns, tree spirits or fairy godmothers. I will go to my deathbed repeating that it is for those who moot weird things to provide evidence. If (in this case when) they can't then there is no reason to believe in them.
It is easy to see why the soul was invented; invented but never supported with any evidence.
That is a fact. We know what the 1st Law says and it is concerned with energy; it mentions no soul and there is no way you can make a connection.
This is quite different from my disbelief in the soul. Naturally I cannot prove its non-existence, any more than I can prove the non-existence of God, leprachauns, tree spirits or fairy godmothers. I will go to my deathbed repeating that it is for those who moot weird things to provide evidence. If (in this case when) they can't then there is no reason to believe in them.
It is easy to see why the soul was invented; invented but never supported with any evidence.
Chakka, //birdie's second statement was that the idea of a soul has nothing to do with the 1st Law of thermodynamics. That is a fact. We know what the 1st Law says and it is concerned with energy; it mentions no soul and there is no way you can make a connection.//
No, it isn't a 'fact'. I am aware that the Law concerns energy, which is precisely why I think it may hold a clue to the concept of a 'soul'. As far as I know the Law does not provide a detailed list of that to which it may relate, so I don't understand why, because it does not specifically mention the 'soul' you assume it can have no connection - and promote that as 'fact'.
The soul can only be, as Birdie said, at best an unproven hypothesis. There are no 'facts' involved.
No, it isn't a 'fact'. I am aware that the Law concerns energy, which is precisely why I think it may hold a clue to the concept of a 'soul'. As far as I know the Law does not provide a detailed list of that to which it may relate, so I don't understand why, because it does not specifically mention the 'soul' you assume it can have no connection - and promote that as 'fact'.
The soul can only be, as Birdie said, at best an unproven hypothesis. There are no 'facts' involved.
Actually the idea of a soul is pretty much in contradiction of not the first but the second law of thermodynamics.
This is a biggie - it's not all that famous outside scientific circles but most of science is pinned on it.
Einstein said
“A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”
It basically says that things tend from order to choas unless energy is put in to keep them ordered.
When you drop a glass it breaks, when you drop pieces you don't get a glass.
The idea of a soul implies form, structure otherwise everybody's would be the same. It need to change state to maintain conciousness in the same way a brain does. Without changes of state there can be no thoughts only solid inanimate existance like a rock
That would require energy to be put in - your "soul" would need to eat
All of this makes the idea of a soul pretty improbable
This is a biggie - it's not all that famous outside scientific circles but most of science is pinned on it.
Einstein said
“A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”
It basically says that things tend from order to choas unless energy is put in to keep them ordered.
When you drop a glass it breaks, when you drop pieces you don't get a glass.
The idea of a soul implies form, structure otherwise everybody's would be the same. It need to change state to maintain conciousness in the same way a brain does. Without changes of state there can be no thoughts only solid inanimate existance like a rock
That would require energy to be put in - your "soul" would need to eat
All of this makes the idea of a soul pretty improbable
But Jake, what's to say the soul isn't fed by thoughts and emotions? I asked you a week or so back what an actual thought physically consists of, but you didn't answer me.
The thing is, whilst it's interesting to discuss the possible existence of the soul, or otherwise, no one can provide a definitive answer because no one knows. And that really is a 'fact'.
OG, you say 'by definition', but who's definition are we talking about? Personally I think if the soul exists it is very much a part of the physical world. I don't believe in any other kind.
The thing is, whilst it's interesting to discuss the possible existence of the soul, or otherwise, no one can provide a definitive answer because no one knows. And that really is a 'fact'.
OG, you say 'by definition', but who's definition are we talking about? Personally I think if the soul exists it is very much a part of the physical world. I don't believe in any other kind.
i would rather think that thoughts and emotions are outputs, more of a reaction to something. most obvioulsy this would be a previous experience or memory.
the recollection of these is can be discordent (weird dreams, roller coaster emotions etc) through a jumbled subconscious, and our ability to process this brings the chaos to order inthe form of though or emotion. sometimes the memory recollection is ordered and precise.
this just brings me back to body & brain activity rather than any 'soul'.
the recollection of these is can be discordent (weird dreams, roller coaster emotions etc) through a jumbled subconscious, and our ability to process this brings the chaos to order inthe form of though or emotion. sometimes the memory recollection is ordered and precise.
this just brings me back to body & brain activity rather than any 'soul'.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
So Betting Time On The Election.
ChatterBank22 mins ago
