What's the justification for believing in the soul?

[Grandliseur]

Ok, well I don't know how the scientist determined that so i'm highly doubtful.

Why don't you look at the link to the scientists from Cern supplied! It is common knowledge that matter and antimatter should have cancelled each other out at the Big Bang, and this is being examined in that link.

so what reason do you have to believe he has some different kind of time he was living in?

Scripture tells me.

Theologians, and church teaching, dogma, is not what it is about. Many theologians may even be atheists since their studies included Biblical criticism. Who cares!

I know what the Bible teaches having both studied it personally and professionally. We are clearly shown that God exists in his own reality and that he created this one. Even the beginning of time is given, and it didn't begin when this universe was created, though naturally when this universe came into being, its clocks started ticking.

So because something gives us hope we should accept it as true?

Not necessarily. But, the Bible has shown itself to be true. Therefore . . .
But, whether you believe or not is not my problem.
The Bible is my foundation, my crucible for testing what is true.

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree.

Do you want to see the quotes?

You see the Bible as a collection of old writings conceived in the minds of ancient people whose knowledge was limited compared to what we know.

Yes. because that is what it is.

I see it as God's inspired word, written by people He inspired to write what is in it. In this, it is again the focus and our paradigms that force different interpretations of the material. The two cannot be in harmony.

Even if it is 'God's word', it is still interpreted through the writings of people who didn't know what was going on.

Funny how your skepticism cause a rejection of the material in scripture, while mine force a rejection of evolution and abiogenesis. But, it is OK to disagree. It also means that there is no reason to discuss the subject.

Hmmm....to me, disagreement is the reason to discuss it: there is a truth that needs to be uncovered.

 

[Profound Realization]

It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence or rational justification for the existence of a soul. Most of the things i've heard are fallacious appeals to identity, and appeals to consequences like if we don't have a soul, then we can't have free will. I've also seen no demonstration that free will and consciousness is impossible within a purely physical environment. It seems to me that you'd have to show that a physical basis for free will and a soul is impossible in order to make the case that a metaphysical soul is a necessary claim. I think you'd also have the make the case that free will actually exists as well because there's no demonstration of that either. Otherwise the working, non absolute hypothesis should be that consciousness and free will is at least possible within a materialistic worldview given the facts that there are sentient humans, the only world we know is a physical world, and that physical material seems capable of producing a wide variety of advanced and complicated phenomena and synergistic effects.

So please let me know what kind of evidence or reasoning or logic exists to back up the assertion that at soul exists.

Define, “the soul.”

 

[Grandliseur]

there is a truth that needs to be uncovered.

But ! You already have your truth in this!
me: "You see the Bible as a collection of old writings conceived in the minds of ancient people whose knowledge was limited compared to what we know."
You:

Yes. because that is what it is.

And, I have my truth in this which is incompatible with your truth on this subject.
.

Do you want to see the quotes?

I don't quite understand this one. That was my question. What are you asking me? Or, did this just escape the quote marks?

You have studied mathematics, physics, astrophysics with zeal and devotion and it probably took years to get through some of the finer points. Similarly, the Bible is not a dictionary where one looks up a word when in doubt of spelling or of definitions; it has taken me years to gather information many others, most others have no inkling about. Without the correct attitude towards the Bible, it cannot be understood by another. Even other C.s cannot understand some of it. Why? Because they are bound by their denominational thinking. Their churches require and demand that they stick to the dogma of that church. I am not bound in this fashion.

When a person inspects things through a microscope, the focus of the apparatus is everything, in a manner of speaking. That is also true when examining Biblical items. And, the apparatus is you.

 

[Grandliseur]

Do you want to see the quotes?


Yes. because that is what it is.


Even if it is 'God's word', it is still interpreted through the writings of people who didn't know what was going on.



Hmmm....to me, disagreement is the reason to discuss it: there is a truth that needs to be uncovered.

In between last post and now, I became curious. Do you know what the basic promises and hopes are that are held out in scripture, not churches? The future of the earth in this, its purpose? Or, is this topic of no interest to you?! After all, without those promises, whether God exists or not - becomes a null issue.

 

[Polymath257]

But ! You already have your truth in this!
me: "You see the Bible as a collection of old writings conceived in the minds of ancient people whose knowledge was limited compared to what we know."
You:


And, I have my truth in this which is incompatible with your truth on this subject.

Sorry, but there isn't 'my truth' and 'your truth'. There is simply 'the truth'. We can both be wrong, but we can't both be right. So the question becomes how to figure out who is wrong.
.

I don't quite understand this one. That was my question. What are you asking me? Or, did this just escape the quote marks?

Do you want me to give specific verses from the Bible showing it comes from the world view that I stated? They are all through the Old Testament.

You have studied mathematics, physics, astrophysics with zeal and devotion and it probably took years to get through some of the finer points. Similarly, the Bible is not a dictionary where one looks up a word when in doubt of spelling or of definitions; it has taken me years to gather information many others, most others have no inkling about. Without the correct attitude towards the Bible, it cannot be understood by another. Even other C.s cannot understand some of it. Why? Because they are bound by their denominational thinking. Their churches require and demand that they stick to the dogma of that church. I am not bound in this fashion.

When a person inspects things through a microscope, the focus of the apparatus is everything, in a manner of speaking. That is also true when examining Biblical items. And, the apparatus is you.

Sorry, it doesn't look like that. Either the Bible is reliable in general or it is not. We *know* it gets many historical facts wrong. We know it makes assumptions about the nature of the universe that are wrong. It has some accurate history (from after the return from Babylon), but the early stuff is mythology. That is easily seen both from internal references and from archeology.

 

[Polymath257]

In between last post and now, I became curious. Do you know what the basic promises and hopes are that are held out in scripture, not churches? The future of the earth in this, its purpose? Or, is this topic of no interest to you?! After all, without those promises, whether God exists or not - becomes a null issue.

I don't know your *interpretation* as distinguished from the hundreds of other interpretations. But I have heard a great many. Few in churches, though.

I really don't care about what is promised in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Bagavad-Gits. Until you *first* prove them to be reliable sources, they are fiction. So, the *first* step is to show the existence of God. *Then* you have to establish with of the sacred books is the 'right' one. Only then can I take the promises seriously.

 

[Grandliseur]

orry, but there isn't 'my truth' and 'your truth'. There is simply 'the truth'. We can both be wrong, but we can't both be right. So the question becomes how to figure out who is wrong.

While your primary statement here about truth is obviously correct, it also is wrong at the same time. There is a stalemate when it comes to determining the objective truth. People are simply not rational logical AIs; truth becomes subjective when there are no absolutes to hammer it down with 10 foot titanium rods.

I am absolutely certain that I am right: God has answered my prayers many times in ways that are just as straightforward as when you call a tow-truck to come help you with a breakdown or a flat tire. In this, I have personal experience that backs up my convictions of being right.

Do you want me to give specific verses from the Bible showing it comes from the world view that I stated? They are all through the Old Testament.

You are welcome to quote verses at me! I may not agree with the interpretation, but it might be an interesting experience.

but the early stuff is mythology. That is easily seen both from internal references and from archeology.

That is your take on it, not mine.

Only then can I take the promises seriously

That is your prerogative.
PS: bedtime! I might go on a bike ride tomorrow, weather permitting. I am a little in need of air in my face. So, any answers would have to be in the afternoon or evening - my time.

 

[Polymath257]

While your primary statement here about truth is obviously correct, it also is wrong at the same time. There is a stalemate when it comes to determining the objective truth. People are simply not rational logical AIs; truth becomes subjective when there are no absolutes to hammer it down with 10 foot titanium rods.

I disagree. That is not truth. That is opinion. The two are different and confusing them leads to poor thinking.

I am absolutely certain that I am right: God has answered my prayers many times in ways that are just as straightforward as when you call a tow-truck to come help you with a breakdown or a flat tire. In this, I have personal experience that backs up my convictions of being right.

Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?

 

[serp777]

Define, “the soul.”

I've defined it more or less throughout this thread as follows--a supernatural entity that is separate, but has some connection to the brain. Substance dualism is how i've been implying it. Because if you're saying the soul isn't supernatural, then what justification do we have to call it a soul rather than just the mind or consciousness? So basically the important thing here is that the soul has a supernatural component.

 

[serp777]

Why don't you look at the link to the scientists from Cern supplied! It is common knowledge that matter and antimatter should have cancelled each other out at the Big Bang, and this is being examined in that link.


Scripture tells me.

Theologians, and church teaching, dogma, is not what it is about. Many theologians may even be atheists since their studies included Biblical criticism. Who cares!

I know what the Bible teaches having both studied it personally and professionally. We are clearly shown that God exists in his own reality and that he created this one. Even the beginning of time is given, and it didn't begin when this universe was created, though naturally when this universe came into being, its clocks started ticking.

Not necessarily. But, the Bible has shown itself to be true. Therefore . . .
But, whether you believe or not is not my problem.
The Bible is my foundation, my crucible for testing what is true.

Why don't you look at the link to the scientists from Cern supplied! It is common knowledge that matter and antimatter should have cancelled each other out at the Big Bang, and this is being examined in that link.

its just the argument from ignorance--"We don't understand how our universe could exist given that we would expect matter and anti matter to cancel out, therefore the universe shouldn't exist!" Nope, the answer should be that we don't know until we have a theory of everything. Until then nothing can be said about how likely or unlikely our universe actually is.

Scripture tells me.

So what reason do you have to accept scripture as a foundation?

I know what the Bible teaches having both studied it personally and professionally. We are clearly shown that God exists in his own reality and that he created this one. Even the beginning of time is given, and it didn't begin when this universe was created, though naturally when this universe came into being, its clocks started ticking.

Bible verses and citations please.

Not necessarily. But, the Bible has shown itself to be true. Therefore . . .
But, whether you believe or not is not my problem.
The Bible is my foundation, my crucible for testing what is true.

Well its certainly not a rational belief. its just faith. The bible certainly has not shown itself to be true. Its said that its true, but of course its going to say that its true. So do you also believe that a moral system based on slavery is a good thing? How about a rape victim having to marry her rapist? Do you accept Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus? Do you accept all 611 commandments? Did you make sure not to use the wrong fabrics? Do you think its true that Jonah lived inside of a whale? Do you think the order of creation in genesis 1:1 is correct? because its not. If the bible is true and you accept it as a foundation then you should be saying yes to everything here.

 

[Grandliseur]

The two are different and confusing them leads to poor thinking.

That is true, but then few if any can speak of truth, except about simple math, money, chemistry, and some parts of physics since unknowns exist here. Of course, there are things Christians take for the absolute truth which in turn is rejected by atheists, and still is the truth

confirmation bias

Heard it before, however, I have got to google it though I think I know what you are referring to. --> Just did. I think everyone is guilty of that one.

However, you have to ask yourself the same question (saw what part of my post you referred to). If I make the claim that I called my son on the phone and asked him to bring me some pizza next time he came by, if I found pizza on my table with a note, 'busy! Just dropped off the pizza you asked for.' Is it really confirmation bias if I assume that the pizza is from my son?! Thus, a little skepticism is extremely necessary, and even helps one survive. Being skeptical to one's own detriment is damaging.

 

[Grandliseur]

Until then nothing can be said about how likely or unlikely our universe actually is.

Some things are beyond knowing and cannot be falsified or proven.

Bible verses and citations please.

I have to go visit my wife in the hospital about now. Will get back to you on the last comments later.

 

[Grandliseur]

Bible verses and citations please.

Well its certainly not a rational belief. its just faith. The bible certainly has not shown itself to be true. Its said that its true, but of course its going to say that its true. So do you also believe that a moral system based on slavery is a good thing? How about a rape victim having to marry her rapist? Do you accept Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus? Do you accept all 611 commandments? Did you make sure not to use the wrong fabrics? Do you think its true that Jonah lived inside of a whale? Do you think the order of creation in genesis 1:1 is correct? because its not. If the bible is true and you accept it as a foundation then you should be saying yes to everything here.

What you are asking here would take a long time to explain. Limit your question to something reasonable for one session.
You are asking 1st about God and the universe, next all kinds of questions, and toward the end, another question which would force a rather lengthy explanation.

I am not about to sit here and explain all things in the Bible for you for that are a Herculean task. Make up your mind which subject you would like to hear about.

I am a Bible believer, end of subject as far as what I believe. That alone should take care of some of the subjects above, not the hows but what I believe.
I thought you wanted to hear about the universe and God, I guess I was mistaken?!

 

[Polymath257]

You are welcome to quote verses at me! I may not agree with the interpretation, but it might be an interesting experience.
.

Actually, @blü 2 did a wonderful job in this post.

Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!

 

[Grandliseur]

Actually, @blü 2 did a wonderful job in this post.

Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!

Sink me, sink me, from 1 to 10, from A to Z, sail I did, floundered I did. Without a link to that wonderful post, sunk I shall be.

Ohhh ! You provided the link to it. How thoughtful of you. I thought it was to a scientific article. Funny stupid I am, I am - green eggs and ham, I do not like. Well, I will read what he said now, if I still know how.

 

[Grandliseur]

Actually, @blü 2 did a wonderful job in this post.

Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!

Excuse me, that is the atheistic view. In my opinion @blu might be very intelligent, but the post is beyond stupid from a believer's standpoint.

The funniest claim I say, since it was quite repetitions really has me rolling hammering on the floor in pure laughter! Now the earth is either rectangular, a square, or a cube. It got real corners according to the reading of the materialistic atheist: It is no longer flat and round, now it is also cornered, perhaps like corned beef, or other such nonsense. I don't doubt his intelligence or yours, but in this, I think you guys put it in the locker when you had to talk about the Bible.

"
16. The earth is flat, like a table.
Isaiah 11:
12 And he will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
"​

No wonder atheists and believers cannot agree. Atheists when told they got egg on their faces probably get a towel and look in the mirror.

No way you or I can agree on anything. There is not even a reason to show scriptures about what is called a firmament. You guys are soo far out into the left field and we to the right, or opposite if you like, that there is no way of having a reasonable discussion about this.

As said on other occasions, discussions between atheists and believers go nowhere. Except to the funny house: hi hi hi hi, snickers, snickers, snickers.

At the store, "I am Christian, let me have one corned beef and one corned earth please!. One earth cube, if you please."

 

[Polymath257]

Excuse me, that is the atheistic view. In my opinion @blu might be very intelligent, but the post is beyond stupid from a believer's standpoint.

The funniest claim I say, since it was quite repetitions really has me rolling hammering on the floor in pure laughter! Now the earth is either rectangular, a square, or a cube. It got real corners according to the reading of the materialistic atheist: It is no longer flat and round, now it is also cornered, perhaps like corned beef, or other such nonsense. I don't doubt his intelligence or yours, but in this, I think you guys put it in the locker when you had to talk about the Bible.

"
16. The earth is flat, like a table.
Isaiah 11:
12 And he will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
"​

No wonder atheists and believers cannot agree. Atheists when told they got egg on their faces probably get a towel and look in the mirror.

No way you or I can agree on anything. There is not even a reason to show scriptures about what is called a firmament. You guys are soo far out into the left field and we to the right, or opposite if you like, that there is no way of having a reasonable discussion about this.

As said on other occasions, discussions between atheists and believers go nowhere. Except to the funny house: hi hi hi hi, snickers, snickers, snickers.

At the store, "I am Christian, let me have one corned beef and one corned earth please!. One earth cube, if you please."

No, it is flat *according to the Bible* and the thoughts of those alive at the time those scriptures were written. It was flat, on pillars, surrounded by water, and had a solid dome over it called the sky (or firmament). Heaven was on the other side of this dome.

Even in the Bible, the model changes over time. The earliest verses have the Earth like a table top with corners and the later ones have it as a circular shape, but still flat.

 

[Grandliseur]

No, it is flat *according to the Bible* and the thoughts of those alive at the time those scriptures were written. It was flat, on pillars, surrounded by water, and had a solid dome over it called the sky (or firmament). Heaven was on the other side of this dome.

Even in the Bible, the model changes over time. The earliest verses have the Earth like a table top with corners and the later ones have it as a circular shape, but still flat.

It spoke about four corners, so let's quit this. Flat with four corners, was the statement.

Earth like a table top with corners

It is uninteresting to have this subject hashed through more than it is. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Nothing else needs said.

 

[Polymath257]

It spoke about four corners, so let's quit this. Flat with four corners, was the statement.


It is uninteresting to have this subject hashed through more than it is. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Nothing else needs said.

But the point is that the books of the Bible reflect the views and understandings of the people of the time they were written. Most ancient people thought of the Earth as flat. Sometimes it had corners and sometimes it was round. The Bible reflects this viewpoint. It was also a standard view among early civilizations that the sky is a dome over the Earth. Again, the Bible reflects that viewpoint. So, yes, that the Earth was thought to have corners is certainly not controversial.

But we can and should go deeper. The Bible is a collection of writings from a particular location and over a time period of about 1000 years. Like *all* historical texts, it has to be read in context and from the viewpoint of those who wrote it. As such, it has parallels with other ancient writings, like the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer, or the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. many of the stories in the Bible clearly come from older Babylonian stories, adjusted for location.

These statements aren't even controversial: they are common knowledge among Biblical scholars and are true whether or not you want to take the Bible as your guide for other aspects of life. It is a matter of historical facts and not simply interpretation of the writings.

Now,we can go deeper and ask if the stories of the Bible are actually true. Many are and many are not. The Biblical flood is clearly false. The stories of, say Tiglath Pileser are mostly true. The Exodus is false, but may have a historical context. Recent evidence suggests that the 'sun standing still' was a misreading and it described an eclipse.

Again, though, the stories of the Bible reflect the views of those who wrote them, possibly as modified by later editors. Is this even in doubt?