Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Good ol' (Q).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do we have a soul?
- Thread starter Green Gaia
- Start date
The Buddha did not denied the soul.He only denied,that the soul is connected with the five skandhas!
"Samsara is samsara as non-immortal faring.Awareness of the immortal supreme self is the faring of the immortal supreme self."
Therigatha Atthakatha,289
"Just so it is that the self (atta)is none of the five aggregates(skandhas)."
Udana Atthakatha No.376
"The doctrine of the ego-soul shines brilliantly like the rising of the world end fire,wiping away the faults of the philosophers,burning up the forest of egolessness."
Lankavatara Sutra, Sagatakam,766.
And there is much more,in the Nikayas,as well as in so many (17) Mahayana sutras.
Buddha never denied the existence of the soul. It was the Theravada Abhidharma philosophy.Many people mistekenly believe that it is the Buddha original teaching.It is a deplorable blunder.
All the Buddha teaching are written in the Nikayas,and they are in accordance with the above mentioned 17 Mahayana Sutras.
NAMUAMIDABUTSU
Anraku
"Samsara is samsara as non-immortal faring.Awareness of the immortal supreme self is the faring of the immortal supreme self."
Therigatha Atthakatha,289
"Just so it is that the self (atta)is none of the five aggregates(skandhas)."
Udana Atthakatha No.376
"The doctrine of the ego-soul shines brilliantly like the rising of the world end fire,wiping away the faults of the philosophers,burning up the forest of egolessness."
Lankavatara Sutra, Sagatakam,766.
And there is much more,in the Nikayas,as well as in so many (17) Mahayana sutras.
Buddha never denied the existence of the soul. It was the Theravada Abhidharma philosophy.Many people mistekenly believe that it is the Buddha original teaching.It is a deplorable blunder.
All the Buddha teaching are written in the Nikayas,and they are in accordance with the above mentioned 17 Mahayana Sutras.
NAMUAMIDABUTSU
Anraku
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
Ronald, do not just attack the post. How is it yada yada yada, how is it wrong? Prove your side by facts, not just your personal feelings.
robtex
Veteran Member
what do you guys think of what this guy says?
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/soul.html
Does the soul exist? Is there any evidence to support this? In this article I'll show you one argument that I think supports the existence of a soul. Before going on, Id like to establish the law of cause-and-effect. There is a metaphysical precept called ex nihilo nihil fit (which is Latin for from nothing, nothing is produced). This reasoning demands that, for any event that begins to exist, something must have caused it. This is because the idea of nothing producing such an event is ontologically impossible (from nothing, nothing is produced). Both scientists and laymen have observed the phenomenon of cause-and-effect. It rains because the clouds above are saturated with water, waves are formed because of the wind, cars move because the engine causes it to move, and so forth.
Suppose a dark, gray cloud shoots out lightning that strikes down a heavy tree, which in turn falls down on Bobs favorite car. Can Bob rightfully blame the tree for the destruction of his car? No, the tree didnt have a choice in the matter. Its fall was simply caused by the lightning, which was caused static electricity, which resulted from the clouds, which came about by weather patterns etc. Unlike the tree, we humans have a special ability that can cause us to be responsible for our actions. Rather than being pipelines for chains of natural causation that go back before our birth, we can initiate our own causal chains. This ability is commonly called free will.
Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose ones 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.)
But do we really possess free will? Are we really capable of choosing our own actions? Experiment for yourself. To see if you have free will, intentionally do something, anything at all. For instance, try to move your arm. Can you do it? I think I can. And the evidence (direct perceptions) would seem to indicate that we do indeed have free will.
Disputable Point
As well see later on, the existence of free will is the foundation of the upcoming argument for the existence of the soul. But there are some people who believe the existence of free will is only an illusion, and instead our actions are determined by prior causes. Thus we have no choice in whatever we do. A rebuttal to this would be that we should trust our direct perceptions (just as we generally trust sense experience) unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, and that there is no sufficiently good reason to believe otherwise. But, like the existence of free will, even this is a point that can be disputed. So, is it the case that free will exists?
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, lets 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 ones 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 ones 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).
Some quick terminology: an argument being valid just means that, if premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. A sound argument is both valid and has all true premises. There are two ways the above argument can be unsound. One is that the argument is invalid (not valid), i.e. the conclusion does not logically follow somewhere along the way. In that case, the question would be, which line of the argument does not logically follow from the statement(s) its based upon? The second way the argument can fail to be sound is if one of the premises is wrong. In that case, which premise fails and why?
A quick way to attack the argument is to deny the existence of free will. Thus, a person who disbelieves in the existence of free will could reject line 1. Though rational support for the first premise was given, one could still claim (rationally or irrationally?) that that those perceptions are illusory. But if free will does exist, does it logically follow that the soul must exist also? After all, if free will exists and if the argument is valid, then the soul would have to exist. So is the argument valid? To better answer this question, lets more closely examine lines 4 and 5 of the argument.
Further Justification for Lines 4 and 5
To better illustrate lines 4 and 5 of the argument, lets look at the materialists view. In philosophy, materialism is the belief that matter is the only reality. In that case the causal chain would be something like this:
Natural Processes
|
CAUSE
|
Inner Brain States
|
CAUSE
|
Mental and Physical Actions
Because of cause-and-effect however, this corporeal chain of causation would extend back well before we were born. Yet conditions before our birth are clearly outside of our control, so the chain of causation would look something like this:
Natural Processes Outside Our Control
|
CAUSE
|
Inner Brain States
|
CAUSE
|
Mental and Physical Actions
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/rlgnphil/soul.html
Does the soul exist? Is there any evidence to support this? In this article I'll show you one argument that I think supports the existence of a soul. Before going on, Id like to establish the law of cause-and-effect. There is a metaphysical precept called ex nihilo nihil fit (which is Latin for from nothing, nothing is produced). This reasoning demands that, for any event that begins to exist, something must have caused it. This is because the idea of nothing producing such an event is ontologically impossible (from nothing, nothing is produced). Both scientists and laymen have observed the phenomenon of cause-and-effect. It rains because the clouds above are saturated with water, waves are formed because of the wind, cars move because the engine causes it to move, and so forth.
Suppose a dark, gray cloud shoots out lightning that strikes down a heavy tree, which in turn falls down on Bobs favorite car. Can Bob rightfully blame the tree for the destruction of his car? No, the tree didnt have a choice in the matter. Its fall was simply caused by the lightning, which was caused static electricity, which resulted from the clouds, which came about by weather patterns etc. Unlike the tree, we humans have a special ability that can cause us to be responsible for our actions. Rather than being pipelines for chains of natural causation that go back before our birth, we can initiate our own causal chains. This ability is commonly called free will.
Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose ones 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.)
But do we really possess free will? Are we really capable of choosing our own actions? Experiment for yourself. To see if you have free will, intentionally do something, anything at all. For instance, try to move your arm. Can you do it? I think I can. And the evidence (direct perceptions) would seem to indicate that we do indeed have free will.
Disputable Point
As well see later on, the existence of free will is the foundation of the upcoming argument for the existence of the soul. But there are some people who believe the existence of free will is only an illusion, and instead our actions are determined by prior causes. Thus we have no choice in whatever we do. A rebuttal to this would be that we should trust our direct perceptions (just as we generally trust sense experience) unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, and that there is no sufficiently good reason to believe otherwise. But, like the existence of free will, even this is a point that can be disputed. So, is it the case that free will exists?
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, lets 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 ones 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 ones 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).
Some quick terminology: an argument being valid just means that, if premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. A sound argument is both valid and has all true premises. There are two ways the above argument can be unsound. One is that the argument is invalid (not valid), i.e. the conclusion does not logically follow somewhere along the way. In that case, the question would be, which line of the argument does not logically follow from the statement(s) its based upon? The second way the argument can fail to be sound is if one of the premises is wrong. In that case, which premise fails and why?
A quick way to attack the argument is to deny the existence of free will. Thus, a person who disbelieves in the existence of free will could reject line 1. Though rational support for the first premise was given, one could still claim (rationally or irrationally?) that that those perceptions are illusory. But if free will does exist, does it logically follow that the soul must exist also? After all, if free will exists and if the argument is valid, then the soul would have to exist. So is the argument valid? To better answer this question, lets more closely examine lines 4 and 5 of the argument.
Further Justification for Lines 4 and 5
To better illustrate lines 4 and 5 of the argument, lets look at the materialists view. In philosophy, materialism is the belief that matter is the only reality. In that case the causal chain would be something like this:
Natural Processes
|
CAUSE
|
Inner Brain States
|
CAUSE
|
Mental and Physical Actions
Because of cause-and-effect however, this corporeal chain of causation would extend back well before we were born. Yet conditions before our birth are clearly outside of our control, so the chain of causation would look something like this:
Natural Processes Outside Our Control
|
CAUSE
|
Inner Brain States
|
CAUSE
|
Mental and Physical Actions
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.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
"My opinion is all I am qualified to give. You sir, do not believe my Bible is evidence.
Since my opinion and my evidence are not accepted. What are you saying? Shut up!?"
All I am saying is do not just attack a post with YADA YADA YADA. That is pointless. Sure I do not believe the bible is evidence. But perhaps you could pull forth some good logic from your interpretation of the book. And put it together with some good reasoning, and perhaps we can discuss it.
Since my opinion and my evidence are not accepted. What are you saying? Shut up!?"
All I am saying is do not just attack a post with YADA YADA YADA. That is pointless. Sure I do not believe the bible is evidence. But perhaps you could pull forth some good logic from your interpretation of the book. And put it together with some good reasoning, and perhaps we can discuss it.
I believe the HOLY BIBLE. It says Ge.2:7 ---"and man became a soul"/nephesh/living creature! We are a living creature, a soul!Master Vigil said:
The Greeks come along and ADD Three meanings GHOSTS, Peunma and Psuche.
Y H V H said not to ADD!!!! The only Mathmatics prescribed by God is Multiply!
Do you wish that I go on AD NAUSEM, all of Gods word that says the Greek is WRONG?
I will be happy to oblige, if you think it necessary!:162:
syoonsh
Member
Well, actually when we die, our body goes down and turns into grass, or sands,
but imagine where do you think what we left? I believe SOUL does exist, you're body
is actually not yours. And our souls goes up to heaven and reborn again into humans.
Life is like a bubble. Bubble itself rises up then when it turns to be big enough, it
blown up, and all the memories are gone, and when there's wind blown up, a new bubble
grows again. If you see the video clip that I provided from Buddhism forum,
you'll have some idea about your soul.
but imagine where do you think what we left? I believe SOUL does exist, you're body
is actually not yours. And our souls goes up to heaven and reborn again into humans.
Life is like a bubble. Bubble itself rises up then when it turns to be big enough, it
blown up, and all the memories are gone, and when there's wind blown up, a new bubble
grows again. If you see the video clip that I provided from Buddhism forum,
you'll have some idea about your soul.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Having just read Q's amazing dekunking of the soul, I am impressed. Very impressed, and a bit cross-eyed. I don't pretend to understand all of his arguments, but I more or less agree that from a sterile scientific view it is more or less correct. I do think a couple of his original premises were off, but they were obviously taken from an accepted standard model of the soul, so that error is not his.
I think he conclusively proves that the accepted definitions of the soul are not accurate. I do not think he actually proves that the soul does not exist. That may sound like splitting hairs but I am not quite so ready to toss the concept of the soul. If Q were to use a different set of definitions for the soul, his ideas, may or may not still fly.
I dunno, am I groping at straws?
I think he conclusively proves that the accepted definitions of the soul are not accurate. I do not think he actually proves that the soul does not exist. That may sound like splitting hairs but I am not quite so ready to toss the concept of the soul. If Q were to use a different set of definitions for the soul, his ideas, may or may not still fly.
I dunno, am I groping at straws?
blood-lord14
Member
belief equates pornography,
you are educated by liars
who refuse to teach the forbidden truth
of timecube you were a student ignorant
of these facts but you still have a chance
to understand the truth.
you have the right to stop the academic
brotherhood for they enslave your mind
and leave you with educated lies with no proof.
through timecube you can do alot more then ever
"school is church is school".
result of believing is dying stupid
you can know and die wise like the prophet
dr.gene ray.
you are educated by liars
who refuse to teach the forbidden truth
of timecube you were a student ignorant
of these facts but you still have a chance
to understand the truth.
you have the right to stop the academic
brotherhood for they enslave your mind
and leave you with educated lies with no proof.
through timecube you can do alot more then ever
"school is church is school".
result of believing is dying stupid
you can know and die wise like the prophet
dr.gene ray.
jazzalta
Member
This guy says he can prove it. Warning!!: read with open mind.
http://www.victorzammit.com
Oops, forgot to mention he is a lawyer.:bounce
http://www.victorzammit.com
Oops, forgot to mention he is a lawyer.:bounce
Of course there's a soul..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the ethereal substance spirit (Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being.
The concept of the soul has strong links with notions of an afterlife, but opinions may vary wildly, even within a given religion, as to what happens to the soul after death. Many within these religions and philosophies see the soul as immaterial, while others consider it possibly material.
Note: This article uses the word "soul" in the common form, and deals largely with varied concepts from which the concept originates, and to which it relates. The use of the word soul often does not explicitly correspond to usage associated with any particular view or belief, including usage in Western and Eastern religious texts, and in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, or Plotinus.
Well, if Wikipedia says there is one..............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the ethereal substance spirit (Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being.
The concept of the soul has strong links with notions of an afterlife, but opinions may vary wildly, even within a given religion, as to what happens to the soul after death. Many within these religions and philosophies see the soul as immaterial, while others consider it possibly material.
Note: This article uses the word "soul" in the common form, and deals largely with varied concepts from which the concept originates, and to which it relates. The use of the word soul often does not explicitly correspond to usage associated with any particular view or belief, including usage in Western and Eastern religious texts, and in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, or Plotinus.
Well, if Wikipedia says there is one..............
IMMORTALITY!
Was GODS only SON not told about our IMMORTAL SOUL?
Isnt it strange that the Son of GOD offered to give us a gift of what we already possessed? Immortality!
Then, along comes Paul to tell us to put on the mantle we already wear. Immortality!
Surprise, surprise, the Greeks have an answer to every thing! If you don't believe me just check out the word "psuche" the rational and immortal soul. Well here is one hard head who accepts the Hebrew soul. Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) particular to a unique living being. Dust of the earth and the ruach/breath of God = a nephesh/breathing creature/soul.
If your God is Greek you may have a immortal soul. But my God spoke Hebrew.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Nope. No soul.Maize said:
The prescence of a soul implies that there is a metaphysical aspect to humans. There is something more IMHO, but we can't say what it is. Christians confess that there is a resurrection of the dead. The body dies and will be resurrected to glory in heaven or to judgement, or perhaps even both. We can be deeply enriched in mind and emotions, but there is no evidence for a soul that I know of that does not depend on Plato.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well this is rather abrasive. Just because fundamentalists spit baseless propaganda does not mean that academics do the same thing. If the Church speaks to academia, then academia has the right and the responsibility to tell the church that it is wrong.blood-lord14 said: