Most Religions Believe In An Afterlife

[Trailblazer]

Is the soul immortal?​

No, the soul can die. Dozens of Bible verses refer to the soul as being mortal. Here are some examples:

• “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”—Ezekiel 18:4, 20, King James Version.
• In ancient Israel, the punishment for the most serious offenses was that the “soul shall be cut off.” (Exodus 12:15, 19; Leviticus 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8, King James Version) The person would “be put to death.”—Exodus 31:14, King James Version.
• After a person dies, the literal term “dead soul” is used for the corpse in some Bible verses. (Leviticus 21:11, footnote; Numbers 6:6, footnote) Although many Bible translations use the terms “dead body” or “dead person” in those verses, the original Hebrew uses the word neʹphesh, or “soul.”

A dead soul is a soul that has not attained eternal life. It is as simple as that.
A soul that sins does not attain eternal life so it is considered a dead soul, dead in the sense that it does not have eternal life.

Jesus clearly explained what eternal life is. It had nothing to do with the physical body.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

[osgart]

As I said, the fact that the body lives at one moment and dies at another moment, and the fetus is lifeless at one moment, and lifeful at another moment is explained only by the entry and exit of the Soul.

I would say introspection reveals much about one's own inner being reality. Not that all introspection is valid, but neither is all objective reasoning worthwhile.

There's qualitative reality, and there are the things that can be measured and conceptually labeled only quantitatively. That's the modus operandi of science; the quantitative and the observable. Anything qualitative cannot be accessed by third person probing and observation.

The soul is known through introspection and meditation. The evidence is the qualities inner being possesses. The soul is selfhood, character traits, reasoning capacity, unity of apprehension, desires, volition, the subject of qualia, etc. On and on.

From third person to first person there is the giant gap in able explanation. The gap between the qualitative and quantitative.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Absolutely, NDE exist. But what do they give evidence for?

That there are discernible patterns in the perceptions of people who are about to die. Which is to say, that brains that are about to die - and in many cases may lack proper oxygenation and may be receiving unusual levels of neurotransmitters and other substances that may affect those perceptions - show somewhat predictable reactions.

For all I know, that may only mean that there are organic requirements for feelings of anxiety and they are not met in common near-death situations.

I just don't see any religious or spiritual value in that piece of trivia.



I don't think that there is anything funny in that. Ethics matter.

I didn’t say it was conclusive evidence.

I merely stated that there is something that occurs after death.

Perhaps it is just the brain but perhaps not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn’t say it was conclusive evidence.

I merely stated that there is something that occurs after death.

Perhaps it is just the brain but perhaps not.

Oh, I forgot to ask: what do you mean exactly about the experimentation being easy?

In which sense is it easy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That can never be established since the soul is a mystery.

Then there is nothing there to talk about.
And definitely nothing there to attribute to it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope.

Yes.

X because how else do you explain it?

That's literally saying that the justification for asserting X is that he doesn't have a proper justifiable explanation.
Textbook argument from ignorance.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I would say introspection reveals much about one's own inner being reality. Not that all introspection is valid, but neither is all objective reasoning worthwhile.

There's qualitative reality, and there are the things that can be measured and conceptually labeled only quantitatively. That's the modus operandi of science; the quantitative and the observable. Anything qualitative cannot be accessed by third person probing and observation.

The soul is known through introspection and meditation. The evidence is the qualities inner being possesses. The soul is selfhood, character traits, reasoning capacity, unity of apprehension, desires, volition, the subject of qualia, etc. On and on.

From third person to first person there is the giant gap in able explanation. The gap between the qualitative and quantitative.

I generally agree with what you say, but I am unable to understand whether you agree that the soul takes rebirth or not. Please explain.

 

[Viker]

What’s that tell ya? Just maybe there might be one?

Maybe so. It could also tell me that most people are prone to wishful thinking, "streets of gold" comes to mind. I could also get from it that most don't agree on the details or type of an afterlife. So apparently there are a multitude of options and alternatives, like some smorgasbords. And that most don't agree on how to get to the preferred afterlife destination or how to avoid a really horrible one.

Honestly, it doesn't tell me anything important at all. My religion just says I will join the gods and that I may even rise above them. Okay. Whatever that means.

 

[osgart]

I generally agree with what you say, but I am unable to understand whether you agree that the soul takes rebirth or not. Please explain.

Reincarnation no. Continued existence I do believe in. The soul goes back to its foundations, and this reality fades away. This reality being a veil, that once lifted, reveals the true nature. All things pass, and move on. I'm not sure that memories aren't just passing occurrences. I don't think memory is eternal. So in a sense at death there is new life with the continuance of the soul.

 

[RestlessSoul]

When I die, the soul does not evaporate into nothing. To take your example when the candle is sniffed out, it is changed into oxygen but the quality of oxygen is different in the sniffed candle and the lighted candle. So, the example establishes that the air of which the flame is made is permanent, and it does not die. Similarly, the soul does not die.

La loi de Lavoisier (Lavoisier’s Law, which imo sounds better in the original French); Rien ne se perd; rien ne se cree, tout se transforme.

In English, Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed (in chemical reactions).

 

[Trailblazer]

Then there is nothing there to talk about.
And definitely nothing there to attribute to it.

No, there is nothing to talk about unless you believe what it says in scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes.

X because how else do you explain it?

That's literally saying that the justification for asserting X is that he doesn't have a proper justifiable explanation.
Textbook argument from ignorance.

Nope, it is not an argument from ignorance.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: It is not just plausible. It is most likely true that the soul comes into the fetus and goes out of the body at its point of death. How else would the bodies start and stop living?

He did not assert that his proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
He said it is most likely true, but not because it has not yet been proven false.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

• true
• false
• unknown between true or false
• being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Revoltingest]

What’s that tell ya? Just maybe there might be one?

It tells me only that most people believe it.
People will believe anything....
Biden stole Trump's election, Moon landings were faked,
US gov committed 9/11, Elvis lives, Sasquatch is real,
Trump is sent by God, 13 is an unlucky number, ghosts
are real, etc, etc, etc.
The more comforting a belief is, the more popular
it is. So belief is a poor gauge of reality.

But hey, anything's possible. God could be a
Hawaiian trans Haitian with a taste for dog meat.
Can't prove otherwise, eh.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Reincarnation no. Continued existence I do believe in. The soul goes back to its foundations, and this reality fades away. This reality being a veil, that once lifted, reveals the true nature. All things pass, and move on. I'm not sure that memories aren't just passing occurrences. I don't think memory is eternal. So in a sense at death there is new life with the continuance of the soul.

The question is where souls arise and where do they go after the death of a person? It seems incongruent to me that souls arise in the same numbers as 8 billion people on this earth, and after death, exactly 8 billion souls go nowhere. So, we need to have a more logical framework to understand where the souls come from and where they go. I think the only solution is to believe in reincarnation.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

La loi de Lavoisier (Lavoisier’s Law, which imo sounds better in the original French); Rien ne se perd; rien ne se cree, tout se transforme.

In English, Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed (in chemical reactions).

I agree that nothing is created. My understanding is that the soul, when it is born in this world, evolves and that evolution sticks to it in the next cycle and thus the soul becomes better with every birth until it finally achieves God.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Nope, it is not an argument from ignorance.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala said: It is not just plausible. It is most likely true that the soul comes into the fetus and goes out of the body at its point of death. How else would the bodies start and stop living?

He did not assert that his proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
He said it is most likely true, but not because it has not yet been proven false.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

• true
• false
• unknown between true or false
• being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In spiritual matters, there is no proof. We have to rely on the perception of the realized souls and then see whether we can replicate the same experience. I have seen my previous births through meditation. Hence, I accept this proposition.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The question is where souls arise and where do they go after the death of a person? It seems incongruent to me that souls arise in the same numbers as 8 billion people on this earth, and after death, exactly 8 billion souls go nowhere. So, we need to have a more logical framework to understand where the souls come from and where they go. I think the only solution is to believe in reincarnation.

Perhaps there is only one soul, as there is only one fire or only one body of water; and within each of us is a flame or a droplet.

 

[ppp]

Textbook argument from ignorance.

Yup.

 

[ppp]

Perhaps there is only one soul, as there is only one fire or only one body of water; and within each of us is a flame or a droplet.

How is there only one body of water?

 

[ppp]

In spiritual matters, there is no proof. We have to rely on the perception of the realized souls and then see whether we can replicate the same experience. I have seen my previous births through meditation. Hence, I accept this proposition.

Seeing previous births through meditation would not suffice for me to believe that I had previous births. At least, not that alone.