Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103

    Know anything about SOULS?

    Ya, lots of folks assume we all have one.

    Question to those who agree:

    1) How do you know people have souls?
    2) Have you ever seen one?
    3) What is the evidence that inclines you to think there are such things?
    4) Do animals, trees, or inanimate objects have souls?

    Just curious to know what y'all know, or to know what you don't know . . .

    -Tock

  2. #2
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    1. I belive ghosts would be a good indication
    2. No but have experienced things that are tricky to explain in other ways and know of several people I trust fully that have seen ghosts.
    3. All the reports of ghost related phenomens.
    4. Not the slightest idea.

  3. #3
    O.fO.shO is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Ya, lots of folks assume we all have one.

    Question to those who agree:

    1) How do you know people have souls?
    2) Have you ever seen one?
    3) What is the evidence that inclines you to think there are such things?
    4) Do animals, trees, or inanimate objects have souls?

    Just curious to know what y'all know, or to know what you don't know . . .

    -Tock

    I don't believe in souls . When you die thats it . I do believe in god and maybe resurrection . I also believe in demons .

  4. #4
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    I will go in depth on my opinion Tock tonight or tomarrow. I believe there are good arguements for the soul.

  5. #5
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    This is the first part of what I have to say about souls. From Leadership U

    Three arguments from unusual or extraordinary experience are:

    1. The argument from the experience of medically 'dead' and resuscitated patients, all of whom, even those formerly skeptical, are utterly convinced of the truth of their 'out-of-the-body' existence and their survival of bodily death. To outside observers there necessarily remains the possibility of doubt; to all, who have had the experience, there is none. It is no more deceptive than waking up in the morning. You may dream that you are awake and in fact be dreaming, but once you are really awake you are in no doubt. Unfortunately, this waking sense of certainty can only be experienced, not publicly proved.
    2. A similar sense of reality attaches to an experience apparently even more common than the out-of-the-body experience. Shortly after a loved one dies (most usually a spouse), the survivor often has a sudden, unexpected and utterly convincing sense of the real here-and-now presence of the dead one. It is not a memory, or a wish, or an image from the imagination. It is not usually accompanied by an image at all. But it is utterly convincing to the experiencer. Only to one who trusts the experiencer is the experience transferable as evidence, however. And that link can be denied without absurdity. Again, it is a very strong and convincing experience, but not a convincing proof.
    3. What would be a convincing proof from experience? If we could only put our hands into the wounds of a dead man who had risen again! The most certain assurance of life after death for the Christian is the historical, literal resurrection of Christ. The Christian believes in life after death not because of an argument, first of all, but because of a witness. The Church is that witness; 'apostolic succession' means first of all the chain of witnesses beginning with eyewitnesses: "We have been eyewitnesses of His resurrection. . . and we testify (witness) to you." This is the answer to the skeptic who asks: "What do you know for sure about life after death anyway? Have you ever been there? Have you come back to tell us?" The Christian reply is: "No, but I have a very good Friend who has. I believe Him, and I follow Him not only through life but also through death. Come along"

  6. #6
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    if physicalism is true, then consciousness doesnt really exist because there would be no such thing as conscious states that must be described from a first-person point of view. if everything was just mater, then you could capture the entire universe on a graph...you could locate each star, the moon, every mountain, tock's brain, tock's kidneys, etc etc...because if everything is physical, it could be described entirely from a third-person point of view...yet we know we have first person points of view.

    there would be no free will because matter is completely governed by the laws of nature. take a cloud for example, its just a material object and its movement is completely goverened by the laws of air pressure, wind movement, etc. so if im a material object, all the things i do are fixed by my environment, my genetics and so forth. that would mean im not really free to make choices. whatevers going to happen is already rigged by my makeup and environment. so how could you hold me responsible for my behaviour if i wasnt free to choose how i would act.

    also there would be no disembodied entermediate state..no near death experiences. but sometimes its been seen where people who have clinically died have info they couldnt have known if this were just an illusion happening in their brain. if im just a brain, then existing outside the body is utterly impossible.

    ...first since its you tock, ill start with experimental data. neurosurgeon wilder penfield electrically stimulated the brains of epilepsy patients and found he could cause them to move their arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk, or swallow. invariably the patient would respond by saying 'I didnt do that. You did." accordingl to penfield, 'the patient thinks of himself as having an existence separate from his body.' (see 'the mystery of the mind by wilder penfield) No matter how much penfield probed, he said "there is no place where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide. thats because those functions originate in the conscious self, not the brain."

    roger sperry and his team studied the difference between the brain's right and lift hemispheres, they discovered the mind has a causal power independent of the brain's activities...leading speery to conclude materialsim is false. (see roger speery "changed concepts of brain and consciousness: some value implications")

    philosophically... examples: some thoughts may be false. like the raiders are going to the superbowl. but none of my brain states are true or false. no scientist can look at the state of my brain and say "oh that brain state there is tru and that one's false" so there is something true of my sonscious states that are not true of any of my brain states, so they cant be the same thing.

    my consciousness is my own person thoughts to me. my inner thoughts are not availabel to you, my docotr. a neuroscientist or anyone. a scientist could know more about whats happening in my brain than i do, but he couldnt know more about whats happening in my mind than i do...he has to ask me.

    rapid eye movement for example...its dreaming. we know this. how do scientists know that when there is a certain eye movement that people are dreaming?? theyve had to wake people and ask them. scientists could watch the eyes move and read a printout of what was physically happening in the brain so they could correlate brain states with eye movements...but they didnt know what was happening in the mind...why? because that inner and private. so the scientist can know about the brain by studying it but he cant know about the mind without asking the person to reveal it, because conscious states have the feature of being inner and private and the brains states dont.

    we are aware that we are different from our consciousness and our body. thats our soul.

  7. #7
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    damn Im in agrement with both books and max what are the odds for that.

  8. #8
    Dally's Avatar
    Dally is offline The Dally Lama
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    FULLY NUDE!!!...call me!
    Posts
    3,734
    on a cold winter night many years ago living in my mothers house which faced a street and to the direct left was a big open park and rivene, one night I saw a ghost. No shit.

    I got up for some reason at like 4am I was about 15 years old. The snow covered the ground like a blanket whereas the street was not distinguishable from the grass. Since the house was on a corner the street came down towards the house then curved to the right and went down the street. On corner there was a street lamp on the opposite side of the road of me. I looked out the window and there was a man or what appeared to be a man in a full length black/grey trench coat and fidora. He was standing pretty much right under the lamp,facing and lookin right at the house. Not moving and the snow at this point was just big chunks here and there, the ground like I said was like a blanket and there was no wind. I swear to god, lookin at this dude, I felt cold, scared and of course its 4 am or so, so that was well, really fukin weird. The neighbourhood is well, 4 storey houses, so its not likely to find one if any bums around. either way. I go to get my mom after waking her up and come back and the dude was gone...

    BUT, there were two foot prints/impressions in the snow with none leading up to it or away from it...

    my mom was like wtf? still to this day I know that thing was a ghost. I went outside and checked the prints which had covered over.

    what really makes me sad tho is that my moms boyfriends father who was living out his last years at the house there, died shortly after. I dunno fellas, that was one thing I'll never forget. I looked at that thing and I could feel a really strange feeling....like nothing before or since.

    like he was death.

  9. #9
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions, and thus the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (For if our actions were forced on us by prior causes outside our control, we would not have free will.)



    In the following argument, free will the foundational piece of evidence that supports the existence of the soul (the immaterial basis of oneself). Recall that free will involves the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality. So if free will is to exist, its basis must be incorporeal (once the corporeal is excluded, the incorporeal is the only remaining logical possibility). Since it is the self that causes the actions (i.e. is the basis of the free will), and if the basis of free will is necessarily incorporeal, then the basis of the self is incorporeal. Since the incorporeal essence of the self is called the soul, then if free will exists the soul must exist also. Free will obviously exists, therefore the soul does also.

    Confused? Okay, let’s take it one step at a time:

    1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
    2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
    3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
    4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3, see also further justification below).
    5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal; see also further justification below.)
    6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
    7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).

    Conclusion: The soul exists because free will exists (from 1 and 7).




    But if this is accurate, we would not be originating the cause of anything. We would be just like the tree that fell on Bob's car, being a conduit of natural forces outside our control. In this case, our actions would be determined by prior causes. We would not have free will. This is why free will by definition cannot be an effect in corporeality (hence line 4). To have free will we must exist outside this corporeal tapestry (hence line 5). If free will exists and its basis cannot be corporeal, the only logical alternative is the incorporeal realm. Since its basis must be incorporeal, we must logically have souls if we possess free will.


    http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/mathlgcpg.html

  10. #10
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    But if this is accurate, we would not be originating the cause of anything. We would be just like the tree that fell on Bob's car, being a conduit of natural forces outside our control. In this case, our actions would be determined by prior causes. We would not have free will.
    So far so good . . .





    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    This is why free will by definition cannot be an effect in corporeality (hence line 4).
    Nope.
    Just because you don't like the way something works out philosophically doesn't mean you should say, "Therefore, this is why . . . "






    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    To have free will we must exist outside this corporeal tapestry (hence line 5). If free will exists and its basis cannot be corporeal, the only logical alternative is the incorporeal realm. Since its basis must be incorporeal, we must logically have souls if we possess free will.
    No need tacking this little appendage on until you come up with a good basis for the previous statement . . .

    -Tock

  11. #11
    decadbal's Avatar
    decadbal is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North Charlotte
    Posts
    11,924
    my shoes have souls

  12. #12
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Decadbal
    my shoes have souls
    my soles have holes, my shoes stick their tongues out and watch warily with their little eyelets . . . they see a guy, but he's just a heel . . .

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •