Evidence for God from Science

God did give man a soul, even if it does not have physical properties, it was still created and therefore must exist somewhere? The place where these blind souls are collected would be hell? Or do you mean to be a bit more abstract about it, e.g. that heaven is everywhere and hell is everywhere, one is just being able to tie your essence into God and the other is not?

I get what you're saying, but as hard as it may be to comprehend I don't see it can be said our soul can exist in any location. As long as God can preserve us in a disembodied state, that's what matters.

Yet, I'm more inclined to believe that Christians are given spiritual bodies with faculties that allow God to be experienced, just as our physical eyes are faculties that allow us to see the world around us. Those who haven't been born of the spirit I believe may still be given a limited spiritual body upon death. Scripture seems to talk of Hades being the abode of the departed. This is evidenced in Luke 16:22-26, Acts 2:27, and other places, though it can't be pushed too far. And then at the end we all receive a full bodily resurrection, before judgement day finally comes.

It also seems most logical to me to posit that souls have always existed with bodies, both are dependant on each other—the soul requiring a body to experience and reflect, the body requiring the soul to come to life. Adam was given physical form before being brought to life, and from then on I believe souls get created along with one's physical body at the time one is conceived. I see that the two have a tight mutual bond, and perhaps some day I will expand further on this.

Kurieuo.

lifewish wrote:I think the majority of atheists who believe in evolution would deny that there is such a thing as a soul. It's only really a problem for those who want to view humans as special but also believe that they're part of the same "family tree" as the rest of the biological world.

No doubt they would, but that doesn't take away the right of us Christians who believe in a body/soul dualism, to discuss things of this nature on a Christian board . I've also dug deeply into many of the issues, and was suprised to discover that most atheistic philosophers (that I've read anyway) do not tend to follow a reductionist position as it appears far too simple. That is, they do not believe everything about us can be reduced to a physical state, as mental states are just so different.

Just incase anyone might be interested, I wrote a paper a while ago, which I believe makes a strong case for substance dualism.

Kurieuo.

I like your paper on dualism. Was it reviewed by faculty, or published for review? If so, what responses did you get?

I believe the standard response would be around how you can falsify your conclusions, if the paper is meant to be scientifically significant.

I also agree with your statement that body and soul go together for our time on earth, they are both created at the time of your life coming into being. Your consciousness has to live somewhere.

I also believe in a resurrection, however it will be in a body free from the physical limitations of our current existence?

Wait why can't God destroy the soul?

The Bible states many times that God has the power to destroy body and soul. What God has done, i think he can simply undo. I'm not saying thats what happens in hell, its just something that shouldn't be thrown out of the mix.

I saw that too. The quote in context that I saw was that one should beware of the God that can destroy body and soul. You are right, it should not be out of the mix, but then eternity has no meaning either? Either eternal salvation, which presumable would not involve destruction of the soul , or damnation, which is eternal torture/punishment of the soul, would not be possible.

Any thoughts?

Kurieuo wrote:

lifewish wrote:I think the majority of atheists who believe in evolution would deny that there is such a thing as a soul. It's only really a problem for those who want to view humans as special but also believe that they're part of the same "family tree" as the rest of the biological world.

No doubt they would, but that doesn't take away the right of us Christians who believe in a body/soul dualism, to discuss things of this nature on a Christian board .

Sorry, that was only intended to be a response to August's comment about this creating a problem for evolutionists. To avoid confusion, I specified atheistic evolutionists - it seems obvious that the Christian variety would tend to have some trouble reconciling matters.

I've also dug deeply into many of the issues, and was suprised to discover that most atheistic philosophers (that I've read anyway) do not tend to follow a reductionist position as it appears far too simple. That is, they do not believe everything about us can be reduced to a physical state, as mental states are just so different.

That's interesting - you mean they believe in a spiritual dimension? Or were you thinking of the quantum theories of Roger Penrose et al? I'll read your paper tomorrow - it's now 1:45 am in the UK, so I'll take this opportunity to wish you all good night

vvart wrote:Wait why can't God destroy the soul?

The Bible states many times that God has the power to destroy body and soul. What God has done, i think he can simply undo. I'm not saying thats what happens in hell, its just something that shouldn't be thrown out of the mix.

I once took this view, but then I took the time to do a thorough examination of Scripture, and it was just so hard to keep my Annihilist position. I forget the exact reasons why now as it was some time ago . I use to be convinced, for example, by 2 Thessalonians 1:9, "These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." On further examination I came to admit that it would be impossible for destruction to mean annihilation, because, really, it doesn't make any sense to say someone is annihilated for all eternity. If something is annihilated, then it simply doesn't exist. In keeping with the meaning of the original Greek, the best way I believe to understand this passage is that these "will pay the penalty of everlasting death from the presence of the Lord"—this I believe makes much greater sense.

But the passage you allude to in Matthew 10:28 says, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." This does present some problems, and the original text is quite clear both will be utterly destroyed, but both what? The word psuche, translated as soul in this verse, has the meaning of "life." For example, Matthew 16:25 reads: "For whoever wants to save his life (psuche) will lose it, but whoever loses his life (psuche) for me will find it." This is important to note.

If we now look at Genesis 2:7 it says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Here we see body+breath of life (i.e., soul) = living soul. Now this makes sense in my view where you have a disembodied soul, and within such a state we can no longer function. Our essense is created to require a body in order to experience and function in any form. This concept therefore makes sense of the fact that you may have a soul, but not a "living" soul (as you can't do anything without a body). Now reflecting back to Matthew 10:28, God has the power to "destroy both life and body" in hell. I put forward that God never actually destroys the soul, but rather the body+soul complex which makes a "living soul" (as described in Genesis 2:7). We may be able to destroy someones body, but only God has to power to take away life entirely by destroying our physical, spiritual (and any other bodily form) in hell.

Thoughts?

Kurieuo.

lifewish wrote:That's interesting - you mean they believe in a spiritual dimension? Or were you thinking of the quantum theories of Roger Penrose et al? I'll read your paper tomorrow - it's now 1:45 am in the UK, so I'll take this opportunity to wish you all good night

Not quite . Some take a view it is too simple to think we, with our perceptions, intentions and the like, can be entirely reduced to a specific physical state within us. Rather because mental qualities differ significantly from anything physical, mental phenomena (just like physical phenomena) is seen as a property of our material world. So many posit that both mental and physical are grounded in the material, and usually when a physical comes to a certain arrangement, it produces a mental effect (a form of epiphenomenalism). Thus, they advocate a form of "property" dualism, where they embrace both physical and mental properties, but ground these properties into one substance (i.e., generally our physical body). Such people will freely admit that mental properties can't be adequately described in pure physicalist language, and then they attempt to describe mental and physical properties in a way consistent with materialism.

Kurieuo.

August wrote:I like your paper on dualism. Was it reviewed by faculty, or published for review? If so, what responses did you get?

It was a paper I had to write within my philosophy class. Let's just say I was happy with the final outcome of this paper .

August wrote:I also believe in a resurrection, however it will be in a body free from the physical limitations of our current existence?

I believe we are resurrected with spiritual bodies the moment we come to Christ (Ephesians 2:4-6), however then there appears to be a physical resurrection described in Scripture (John 5:28-29), which happens at the end. Christ says we will be resurrected like the angels (Matthew 22:29-30), and angels, according to Scripture, have the ability to take on a physical or spiritual form.

So I believe we will be raised completely in our physical form as Christ was; however, not simply into our original bodies fully restored and healed of any infirmities, but bodies with spiritual and higher order capacities so that we are like angels. Thus, we truely retain a physical form, but we also retain a spiritual form, and both become completed in one body. Right now, I believe we have a physical form, and our spiritual form comes alive (resurrected) the moment we come to Christ. Yet, then the completed resurrection is one where our spirit and physical bodies are united together to form one bodily unity with a higher order capacities like the angels.

I only formulated this a month ago, and it took some scratching my brain to work out a position I found consistent with all Scripture I know. So please be nice if you disagree with anything.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo I'm convinced you maybe right, but what would be the purpose of having a bunch of dead souls hanging around?


hmm if you can take this further that would be great

"Here we see body+breath of life (i.e., soul) = living soul. Now this makes sense in my view where you have a disembodied soul, and within such a state we can no longer function."

I think I get what you are saying. I would postulate that you are right, that body and soul is needed to survive life in this dimension, on this earth, but that may also be a limiting factor. This would explain why Jesus had to die, and could not merely suffer torture to His physical body to atone for our sins, and be able to be with God. When one of the 2 entities, namely the body dies, the soul will be able to pass to the next dimension, to be with God in His dimension. It would still have to able to function, because did Jesus not tell the robber on the cross that he would be with God, together with Jesus? If the soul is not able to perceive that it is with God, that statement from Jesus would not be true.

The question then arises, why did God bother with all of this, body and soul? Why did He not just create souls? well my thinking is He sort of did, but man chose to become mortal through sin.

Phew, deep indeed. Thoughts?

Bodies were probably created to be temporary. I have no doubt that at one point in time God would have made Adam and Eve mortal.

Mastermind - Genesis 3:22 describes the moment God made man biologically mortal. The reason is quite interesting too, man could see the difference between good and evil, and therefore had to be given time on earth, tainted by sin and unpleasantness, to make a choice.

I understand that. I'm just saying that God probably planned on making us mortal and then "hide" to see if we would keep loving Him or turn around and worship ourselves.

vvart wrote:Kurieuo I'm convinced you maybe right, but what would be the purpose of having a bunch of dead souls hanging around?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with calling souls "dead" without bodies, as they are simply disembodied, and still have potential to be resuscitated into a body. Yet, there seems Scriptural reason to assume that upon the death of a physical body, a person's souls is given, or has, some sort of spiritual body.

August wrote:This would explain why Jesus had to die, and could not merely suffer torture to His physical body to atone for our sins, and be able to be with God. When one of the 2 entities, namely the body dies, the soul will be able to pass to the next dimension, to be with God in His dimension. It would still have to able to function, because did Jesus not tell the robber on the cross that he would be with God, together with Jesus? If the soul is not able to perceive that it is with God, that statement from Jesus would not be true.

Before answering, I first believe an important semantical issue needs to be touched upon that I have realised might be causing confusion. There are two senses of "spirit" people generally understand. One sense of "spirit" is to refer to our "spiritual body" (emphasis on "body"), which is what I've been consistently using "spirit" as throughout my posts here, and which is how I believe Paul uses it in 1 Cor 15:44-46. Yet, "spirit" can also be used in another sense to represent our essence (what I have consistently referred to as the "soul" throughout my posts). Therefore the sense in which I use spirit should never be understood in the way I use "soul." Rather when I use "spirit," I always mean a bodily substance separate from our soul through which we perceive spiritual things, like our physical bodies allow us to perceive physical things.

Now you say the soul would still have to be able to function to experience God, and you are correct. Yet, in order to function in a way God can be perceived, I believe the soul needs to be given a spiritual body of some sort with the capacity to experience God. This is why I previously stated above that "I'm more inclined to believe that Christians are given spiritual bodies with faculties that allow God to be experienced" and non-Christians "who haven't been born of the spirit I believe may still be given a limited spiritual body upon death" with which they can still function to some extent as the rich man was able to (Luke 16:22-26).

August wrote:The question then arises, why did God bother with all of this, body and soul? Why did He not just create souls? well my thinking is He sort of did, but man chose to become mortal through sin.

Hopefully what I've explained above has helped to understand further that the "soul" cannot function, or perceive, by itself (at least, this is my belief). It requires a body (whether of spiritual nature, or physical nature) in order to perceive spiritual or physical things, and so the soul couldn't just be created by itself. Thus, the soul represents our essence and self, and a spiritual or physical body is simply a vessel by which we interact with the world.

I recommended this article elsewhere, but I will recommend it here as well. It is called "I'd like to know God, but why do I need Jesus?" by Dr. Alan Scholes, and should help to clarify the soul, spirit, and physical body in a similar manner I understand them.

Kurieuo.