Page 2 of 3

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:52 am
by The11thDr.
What if that humans are robots. Biological ones of cause, then it really wouldn't matter what we did, all though there are a lot of people doing crazy things so either people are not like that or they are "mulfunctioning" so to speak. Its a fair point to note that you can get signels and such from machines, but people are not machines are they?

So yes you just compared a person to a machine, but havent people been evolving(or introduced if you like) for hundreds of thousands of years? Kind of high up on the charts biologically speaking, not that you cannot call a modern anything else, something other than what it is. Just we dont. So we are beings on the apex of evolution at this time, or perhaps dolphins are :lol:

Where does a soul come from, and what is it if it is not information? It cant be measured, can it? So there is no way of being sure...I would like to be certain on such things.

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:06 am
by Kurieuo
Let's try again. What do you make of the mind-body problem in philosophy?

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:10 am
by The11thDr.
Either there is no mind or they are seperate things, one which can be observed...another which cant. Something distinct from the body that is, something that is outside of the physical world and in the world of concepts and abstractions.

Really if I have to bend my head around abstractions I will, but it does give me utter distaste at times to do so. :roll:

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:38 am
by Kurieuo
The11thDr. wrote:Either there is no mind or they are seperate things, one which can be observed...another which cant. Something distinct from the body that is, something that is outside of the physical world and in the world of concepts and abstractions.

Really if I have to bend my head around abstractions I will, but it does give me utter distaste at times to do so. :roll:
So I guess if there is no mind, then I do not think. At least I am not doing the thinking, but rather chemical reactions and physical laws carrying on their course of things? I do not really exist.

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:39 am
by The11thDr.
sounds a bit preposterous if you put it like that.

Because if you are just a victim of circumstance then where is the sense in change? Revolution, evolution or even repenting. No point at all that is. Of course if its about choice rather than circumstance then I would trust my judgement and go with what feels right.

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:53 pm
by cslewislover
Doing some google searches, and searching my own list of apologetics sites, I found that articles on the soul are quite limited! Here is a detailed one, however, for anyone who wants to look into the concept of soul more, and what the denominations believe about it. Soul This is a very big and detailed informational site, by the way.

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:58 pm
by The11thDr.
Well i would rather want to know what everyone thinks about it, not just the christians. :ewink: or do you claim it as your exclusive idea? Gonna sue anyone who uses the idea over copyright? Erm, wait thats just scientologists. :lol:

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:09 pm
by cslewislover
The11thDr. wrote:Well i would rather want to know what everyone thinks about it, not just the christians. :ewink: or do you claim it as your exclusive idea? Gonna sue anyone who uses the idea over copyright? Erm, wait thats just scientologists. :lol:
The article mentions other religions, but it is a Christian site, as is this one, so you may need to do some more searching to get detailed info on the belief in soul (and what it is) by other religions. You could certainly start with that article.

I had been doing some research a while back on the religious beliefs in Japan. Their older religion, Shinto, is very primitive and seems very alike other primitive religions I had read about. They worshiped ancestors, so they had some idea of a lasting part of a person, a soul. The Buddhisim that took over in Japan is reincarnational so it also believes in something that is "you" that lasts after death. Their version is very impersonal, however, since you don't remember anything. The whole system is very contradictory - and it's mulled over in the anime Kiddy Grade!

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:21 pm
by The11thDr.
I can understand that mr augustine being baffled and perplexed, i think he choose the answer that suits me too.

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:14 pm
by B. W.
The11thDr. wrote:I can understand that mr augustine being baffled and perplexed, i think he choose the answer that suits me too.
So to narrow things down a bit - what is your definition of the Soul?

Let's work with how you would define the word soul and go from there as a starting point...
-
-
-

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:58 pm
by The11thDr.
Well it would be something that is "begotten" or we could say inherited from your parents. Kind of like everything else you inherit. That really raises the question of weather a human made without parents would have one...and we can see where science is going, someday there will be designer babies and super soldiers. the only problem comes when you think about where the first humans got their soul, or how it changed from being simple to less so.

Does that make sense? I make no reference to god/s when I talk of a soul, just so you can have a fair starting point.

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:01 pm
by B. W.
The11thDr. wrote:Well it would be something that is "begotten" or we could say inherited from your parents. Kind of like everything else you inherit. That really raises the question of whether a human made without parents would have one...and we can see where science is going, someday there will be designer babies and super soldiers. the only problem comes when you think about where the first humans got their soul, or how it changed from being simple to less so.

Does that make sense? I make no reference to god/s when I talk of a soul, just so you can have a fair starting point.
Yes that makes sense - so you are defining the soul purely on Biological grounds. So what I am 'understanding' you to be saying is the soul is solely a biological entity confined somehow to the physical brain/mind and nothing more.

Correct?
-
-
-

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:25 am
by The11thDr.
Not correct.I'm saying that there is the impression or shadow of a soul inside information, like the nuerone connections in our brain and the dna in the cells in our bodies. If Our parents are a certain type of person, with the information "corrupted" in certain ways, you could expect some copying cant you? Like a predisposition for certain behaivours.

I do believe the universe can have a spiritual component, I dont know if it needs any gods though!

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:51 am
by Enginseer
You are correct OP, the body can be broken down to simple biology.

Muscles contracting, nuerons firing in our brains. It's all just chemical reactions.

Too many people see 'good' or 'bad' as actual things. They're not, a sense of morality is just the human mind.

Some people say there are 3 realms, physical, mental and spiritual. Atheists would say there's only physical and mental BUT a BIOLOGIST would say there's only one realm, the physical realm. Everything in your mind, it's just nature.

Re: Souls? But...as I see it...

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:48 am
by Kurieuo
Enginseer wrote:BUT a BIOLOGIST would say there's only one realm, the physical realm. Everything in your mind, it's just nature.
I'm sure there are many biologists who believe otherwise. I know of one off the top of my head. Conducting biology has absolutely no impact upon one's belief or disbelief of whether every about us is physically reducible.