Connections Puzzle #328 Sat 4 May
Quizzes & Puzzles22 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.
It's difficult to say for sure who first came up with the idea of a 'soul', but it definitely wasn't the Christians. The Zoroastrian religion, which pre-dates Judaism, which, of course, pre-dates both Christianity and Islam by a long way, embraced the concept of a 'soul'. To that we must add Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several others, including the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks.
I'm with Ratter on this one. There's no such thing as a soul. It simply does not exist. It's a theoretical construct created by and believed by people who are unwilling or unable to contemplate their own non-existence. Consciousness is a finite commodity. You didn't have consciousness before you were conceived and developed a neural network capable to conceptualising and you will cease to have a consciousness at the moment of your death.
I would love to be proven wrong on this matter as I have no desire to simply disappear into oblivion. However, to date, there exists not one iota of verifiable proof that consciousness continues after a person dies. They simply cease to exist.
This is where religion steps into the frame and tells people that they can survive their own death and enter paradise. But only if they pray in a particular way to a particular God. Any deviation from the prescribed method will see them existing eternally but with a flaming hot poker inserted where the sun doesn't shine.
I would love to be proven wrong on this matter as I have no desire to simply disappear into oblivion. However, to date, there exists not one iota of verifiable proof that consciousness continues after a person dies. They simply cease to exist.
This is where religion steps into the frame and tells people that they can survive their own death and enter paradise. But only if they pray in a particular way to a particular God. Any deviation from the prescribed method will see them existing eternally but with a flaming hot poker inserted where the sun doesn't shine.
I've just realised that I haven't addressed the question being asked...
The idea of a soul pre-dates Christianity by several millennia. The ancient Egyptians believed in the idea of an eternal 'soul' and their recorded history goes back to approximately 4000 BC. However, since the Egyptians 'appeared' in history, fully formed (ie. with laws, a belief system, a culture, a written language, etc.) it stands to reason that they pre-date even this very ancient date.
The idea of the 'soul' seems to be very old indeed.
The idea of a soul pre-dates Christianity by several millennia. The ancient Egyptians believed in the idea of an eternal 'soul' and their recorded history goes back to approximately 4000 BC. However, since the Egyptians 'appeared' in history, fully formed (ie. with laws, a belief system, a culture, a written language, etc.) it stands to reason that they pre-date even this very ancient date.
The idea of the 'soul' seems to be very old indeed.
naomi - the second of birdie's statements is not an assumption. It is a simple fact.
birdie - you express precisely the sentiments that I posted on another thread a little while ago. The soul is something invented by those who long to believe in a life after death but nevertheless realise that our bodies and brains do not survive death. There is no evidence for the soul and it is certainly not 'energy' as I have heard it called in the past.
birdie - you express precisely the sentiments that I posted on another thread a little while ago. The soul is something invented by those who long to believe in a life after death but nevertheless realise that our bodies and brains do not survive death. There is no evidence for the soul and it is certainly not 'energy' as I have heard it called in the past.
(Here we go again. This is where I am typically and unjustly accused of siding with someone else's position as well as of having endorsed the arguments they put forward in an attempt to support their position when I in fact oppose both sides of the issue as they have been presented.)
Proof of the non-existence of something asserted to exist can only be offered based on a knowledge and understanding of that which does exist which by virtue of existing makes the existence of that which does not exist untenable.
Absence of proof against non-existence is not proof of existence. It is the burden of those who assert the existence of something to provide a definition for and proof of its existence. Apart form definition and proof, assertion of the arbitrary is devoid of meaning or merit. Proposing something which in the absence of any defined known qualities makes discerning proof impossible is not justification for acceptance of or belief in that which has been proposed. Belief in or asserting the existence of the arbitrary by virtue of the absence of proof for it and with total disregard of the evidence against it, is unjustified.
Belief in the absence of knowledge is proof of nothing more than ignorance and a lack of understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ehMrK3itM
Proof of the non-existence of something asserted to exist can only be offered based on a knowledge and understanding of that which does exist which by virtue of existing makes the existence of that which does not exist untenable.
Absence of proof against non-existence is not proof of existence. It is the burden of those who assert the existence of something to provide a definition for and proof of its existence. Apart form definition and proof, assertion of the arbitrary is devoid of meaning or merit. Proposing something which in the absence of any defined known qualities makes discerning proof impossible is not justification for acceptance of or belief in that which has been proposed. Belief in or asserting the existence of the arbitrary by virtue of the absence of proof for it and with total disregard of the evidence against it, is unjustified.
Belief in the absence of knowledge is proof of nothing more than ignorance and a lack of understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ehMrK3itM
Mibs, //Absence of proof against non-existence is not proof of existence.//
True, but just to back-pedal you a bit on your //Belief in the absence of knowledge is proof of nothing more than ignorance and a lack of understanding.//, unlike Birdie who said // the conservation of energy (the first law of Thermodynamics) – energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This has nothing to do with consciousness (or the 'soul').//, a statement supported by Chakka, who claimed it to be 'fact', I've made no claim. I've simply said that if something is claimed to be 'fact' then proof is required - and it is. Failing that, the most any of us can say is we don't know.
True, but just to back-pedal you a bit on your //Belief in the absence of knowledge is proof of nothing more than ignorance and a lack of understanding.//, unlike Birdie who said // the conservation of energy (the first law of Thermodynamics) – energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This has nothing to do with consciousness (or the 'soul').//, a statement supported by Chakka, who claimed it to be 'fact', I've made no claim. I've simply said that if something is claimed to be 'fact' then proof is required - and it is. Failing that, the most any of us can say is we don't know.
It seems to be a pretty obvious idea to me. I suspect folk living in caves came up with it.
If you choose to believe in continued existence after death, and if you see a dead person's body decaying away in this world, then you have to conclude the if the individual continues to exist then it is in some other form/body/whatever. Call that form a soul, or whatever you wish to call it.
If you choose to believe in continued existence after death, and if you see a dead person's body decaying away in this world, then you have to conclude the if the individual continues to exist then it is in some other form/body/whatever. Call that form a soul, or whatever you wish to call it.
Naomi, I have enough trouble keeping my own story straight without entering into any third party discussions or attempting to clarify someone else's unqualified assertions. I am prepared only to defend my own stated position to the best of my ability should what I have personally presented be found wanting in clarity or deemed lacking in validity and would hope others are willing to do the same on their own behalf.
I hope to avoid the appearance of taking sides with those whom I may or may not necessarily agree until such time as I have established the reasons for my own stance on a particular issue of contention and intend to address only those issues which I have attempted to make clear. I can neither agree with nor dispute empty assertions. I have only attempted to address and define the underlying issues making them available to rational consideration, agreement or dispute.
As for //A 'fact' requires proof, and in this instance, proof cannot be provided.// that’s an assertion I would not care to make nor attempt to substantiate until any and all such proof one might bring forward has been invalidated. The only things which are exempt from any possibility of ever being proven to exist are those that do not and the only things which can never be proven not to exist are those that do . . . and that includes proof. But in any and all cases where one has already made up their mind to the contrary, proof is merely consequential.
Anyone wishing to chew on my bone of contention is welcome. I’ll be back to respond the moment I figure out whatever the hell it is I just said. In the mean time I’ll leave you with one final thought -
To assert that an alleged ‘fact’ (true of false) can not be proven (true or false) is no less an alleged ‘fact’ until it has itself been substantiated. Of course one is entitled to and should expect and demand proof for an unqualified assertion but to declare at the onset that no proof is possible is an equally unqualified assertion equally entitled to the same expectations and demands for substantiation.
Birdie and Chakka, as you might have surmised by now . . . you're on your own. ;o)
I hope to avoid the appearance of taking sides with those whom I may or may not necessarily agree until such time as I have established the reasons for my own stance on a particular issue of contention and intend to address only those issues which I have attempted to make clear. I can neither agree with nor dispute empty assertions. I have only attempted to address and define the underlying issues making them available to rational consideration, agreement or dispute.
As for //A 'fact' requires proof, and in this instance, proof cannot be provided.// that’s an assertion I would not care to make nor attempt to substantiate until any and all such proof one might bring forward has been invalidated. The only things which are exempt from any possibility of ever being proven to exist are those that do not and the only things which can never be proven not to exist are those that do . . . and that includes proof. But in any and all cases where one has already made up their mind to the contrary, proof is merely consequential.
Anyone wishing to chew on my bone of contention is welcome. I’ll be back to respond the moment I figure out whatever the hell it is I just said. In the mean time I’ll leave you with one final thought -
To assert that an alleged ‘fact’ (true of false) can not be proven (true or false) is no less an alleged ‘fact’ until it has itself been substantiated. Of course one is entitled to and should expect and demand proof for an unqualified assertion but to declare at the onset that no proof is possible is an equally unqualified assertion equally entitled to the same expectations and demands for substantiation.
Birdie and Chakka, as you might have surmised by now . . . you're on your own. ;o)
I had a feeling my post would generate this type of debate!
In my post yesterday at 00:53, I said, “... There's no such thing as a soul....”. That is my assertion. I can no more prove that a soul does not exist than anyone else can prove that it does. I hold this opinion because I have never seen a single shred of scientifically verifiable evidence that suggests that a person continues to 'exist' in some form once their body has completely ceased to function and all neurological and all biological functions have ended. A belief in the after life is based primarily on the fear of oblivion and supported by uncorroborated hear-say, exaggerated stories, unverifiable personal accounts, etc. I've dealt with enough witness testimony in my time to know that people's accounts of what they have seen and experienced can be grossly inaccurate through no fault of their own.
Anyone who chooses to believe in some kind of life after death is obviously entitled to their opinions just as I am entitled to mine. To quote the words of Tim Minchen, “... If anyone can show me one example in the entire history of the world of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to show either empirically or logically the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices or that there is any reason – other than fear – to believe in any version of an afterlife... I will give you my...”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkLGMyYbz4I
With regards to thermodynamics, a soul must first be proven to exist before it can be incorporated into this well established law of physics. My statement, “... the conservation of energy (the first law of Thermodynamics) – energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This has nothing to do with consciousness (or the 'soul')...” is accurate. It is not an assumption without foundation. It is, as far as all known physical sciences can tell us, a 'fact'. Rather like evolution is a 'fact' – all the voluminous amounts of scientifically verifiable evidence back it up.
If a person believes that life after death is a reality and that it can have a direct influence on the physical world that we experience through our senses and through instrumentation then the burden or proof rest squarely on the shoulders of those making that claim.
It is not the business of science to 'prove' what does not exist. 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.
In my post yesterday at 00:53, I said, “... There's no such thing as a soul....”. That is my assertion. I can no more prove that a soul does not exist than anyone else can prove that it does. I hold this opinion because I have never seen a single shred of scientifically verifiable evidence that suggests that a person continues to 'exist' in some form once their body has completely ceased to function and all neurological and all biological functions have ended. A belief in the after life is based primarily on the fear of oblivion and supported by uncorroborated hear-say, exaggerated stories, unverifiable personal accounts, etc. I've dealt with enough witness testimony in my time to know that people's accounts of what they have seen and experienced can be grossly inaccurate through no fault of their own.
Anyone who chooses to believe in some kind of life after death is obviously entitled to their opinions just as I am entitled to mine. To quote the words of Tim Minchen, “... If anyone can show me one example in the entire history of the world of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to show either empirically or logically the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices or that there is any reason – other than fear – to believe in any version of an afterlife... I will give you my...”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkLGMyYbz4I
With regards to thermodynamics, a soul must first be proven to exist before it can be incorporated into this well established law of physics. My statement, “... the conservation of energy (the first law of Thermodynamics) – energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This has nothing to do with consciousness (or the 'soul')...” is accurate. It is not an assumption without foundation. It is, as far as all known physical sciences can tell us, a 'fact'. Rather like evolution is a 'fact' – all the voluminous amounts of scientifically verifiable evidence back it up.
If a person believes that life after death is a reality and that it can have a direct influence on the physical world that we experience through our senses and through instrumentation then the burden or proof rest squarely on the shoulders of those making that claim.
It is not the business of science to 'prove' what does not exist. 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.
