Existence of the Soul

[sleuth]

Alright, I have been giving this topic a lot of thought recently and this is what I have come up with.

Basically, my thoughts are that man is not man. We are not Mammels, and we are not bipedals and we are not animals. We are far more then this. We are spirits who take form as animals (ie.. Humans, birds, squirrels, etc..) but when we dies as these things we return to the spiritual state we began as. I began thinking about this when I realized people apply rules to our animal state, and try to hypothesize why we act the way we act as humans. I feel that people should study the exsistance of the human soul (or Astral body) and attempt to hypothesize how and why we act as spiritual beings.

[loseyourname]

This is a good start, but you guys are ignoring basic epistemic principles as to what constitutes knowledge. Arguing that life would be pointless without a soul bears no creedence whatsoever. First off, just because you don't find any meaning in a life that ends and has no spiritual component doesn't mean that I or someone else cannot do so. Furthermore, it may very well be that life has no point, that it is a complete accident. This seems unlikely, but convincing arguments have been made that is really isn't, and unlikeliness alone does not disprove the hypothesis. You must at least show that the hypothesis that a soul and a higher purpose do exist is more probable, something that no one here has even set out to do.

Arguing from the existence of character is equally pointless. We know little about what determines a person's character, but all studies of behavior have indicated that it involves some interface of genetics and environment influences, all of which can be explained perfectly well by the existence of molecular interactions within neurons and between them. A spiritual component need not be introduced, and if you are going to do so, you must provide some justification.

[Anonymouse]

There is no soul. End of argument.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse There is no soul. End of argument.

I take it you again have no answer. Perhaps you should stick to flinging insults.

[spiral]

There is no soul. End of argument.

So you argue that there is a God, but there is no soul?

The two are related, if there is a God , and no soul then what's the point of God's being?

did god just put everyone in the world(or the first two people) then suddenly vanish? ...Did he simply create and seize to exist? If there was a God at the begining, then there will be a god at the end.

If people just die, and that's it, then who or what will aknowledge God's existence after death?...Goes back to Belief-God exists because people believe.

If there is nothing to aknowledge God's existence then God does not exist.

only exists in the mind, heart, and soul of the believers.

i'm becoming repetitive, these threads are becoming repetitive.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral So you argue that there is a God, but there is no soul?


i'm becoming repetitive, these threads are becoming repetitive.

He's being facetious. Of course he believes in a soul. These threads would not be repetitive if people would take them more seriously. Maybe I'm just posting the wrong kinds of questions to a forum with virtually no intellectual capacity. Instead of a discussion, people immediately get indignant and fling insults at each other as soon as viewpoints are challenged. I envision a Socratic dialogue and what I get is an Algonquian Round Table. Welcome to the ADD generation.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I take it you again have no answer. Perhaps you should stick to flinging insults.

It's not that I don't have an answer, it's that you cannot grasp it. Check out your Nature of God thread, for I answered regarding God and Soul.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname He's being facetious. Of course he believes in a soul. These threads would not be repetitive if people would take them more seriously. Maybe I'm just posting the wrong kinds of questions to a forum with virtually no intellectual capacity. Instead of a discussion, people immediately get indignant and fling insults at each other as soon as viewpoints are challenged. I envision a Socratic dialogue and what I get is an Algonquian Round Table. Welcome to the ADD generation.

Ha! He spoke of no intellectual capacity, yet he's the one that can't grasp that science or epistemology or knowledge, cannot answer those things which he is asking now. You wan't a Socratic dialogue? First you must come to terms with that obvious error then there will be a Socratic dialogue.

[sleuth]

There is a GOD but there is no soul?.... ha!!! GOD's is spirit....

ANONism!!!!!!!!VIVA ANONismmmmmm!!!!

HA_HA i just discovered new ISM ANONism ....
(hmmm...that sounds exactly like onanism)

ANON loves self-gratification

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Ha! He spoke of no intellectual capacity, yet he's the one that can't grasp that science or epistemology or knowledge, cannot answer those things which he is asking now. You wan't a Socratic dialogue? First you must come to terms with that obvious error then there will be a Socratic dialogue.

Knowledge doesn't give answers; answes constitute knowledge. You keep saying that in the absence of knowledge, you must turn to faith, but then you use that faith to make a knowledge claim. I would criticize your use of circular reasoning, but you've already admitted that your argument consists of:

A. I have faith that X.
B. What I have faith in must be true.
C. Therefore, X.

You need to retake Logic 101.