What's the justification for believing in the soul?

[idav]

Closed it - though the speakers all are professors telling us how and why the multiverse came to be. Truly open-minded I see. The fact that someone made use of this information to demonstrate that what you claimed in the previous quote is quite false should not affect what the professors state about the subject.

He has an opinion I disagree with but just the first statement tells me exactly where he is going. Being a professor doesn't make an opinion correct but I appreciate your appeal to authority.

 

[Polymath257]

Atheist logic at work is truly hilarious.
When a child is born, we count its age from that moment. Though we could have counted from when the sperm joined the egg, it is easier to do it our normal way. Time began for that being at that moment. Since the entity, that being, didn't exist before, time didn't exist for it either.

Time in our universe began for this universe at its inception. Before it existed, time didn't exist for it; though, if something else existed before it, it would count time differently than we know.

Well, here is part of your difficulty: time is part of the universe.

It only make no sense to an atheist with limited ability to see beyond his own nose

.

No, it was quite correct: it makes no sense to talk about causality before there is time. And, since time is an aspect of the universe, it makes no sense to talk about causality before the universe.

Here your mistake is so obvious, it could even be a deliberate lie for all I know. Though, of course, you could be ignorant of what is believed by many atheists. The point about the fine tuning of our universe was so unpalatable to scientists that they had no way around this at the time; for this reason, the concept of the multiverse and panes was invented where in this universe, panes (new or old universes) may be coming to be a various intervals. If that is the claim, then clearly the multiverse existed before our universe, and, though, time began for our universe at its Bang, time clearly existed for the multiverse before then.
Babysitting once more!

And in a multiverse, there is no beginning, and no 'creation'. And again, time, matter, and energy all co-exist whenever any one exists.

If you knew the Bible, you would know that though God answers prayers of all the righteous, and at times says 'No!' many of us get prayers answered that are not against his will -- the thing is that from the beginning of mankind, God never dealt with the individual when he spoke. He always spoke through selected prophets. Thus Saul. Saul had an educational background and zeal for God though misdirected. God or in this case, Christ re-directed this zeal to the true road of righteousness. In certain things, Paul taught us more than all other apostles.

And in my head I hear Dana Carvey as church lady saying 'Isn't that convenient!'

 

[Polymath257]

Wasn't me that said this. It was one of the scientists who was among those inventing this multiverse since they felt that otherwise God's existence could not be denied.[/QUO]

You are attributing motives to these scientists that they did not actually have. The multiverse scenarios come naturally out of a quantum mechanical treatment of gravity. THAT was the reason they are considered and being investigated. The question of the existence of a deity is simply not the issue here.

There are a lot of claims for fine-tuning, but many of them disappear upon closer consideration. Or, there are mechanisms driving things to the 'fine tuned' state. For example, we don't consider a spherical planet to be 'fine tuned' because the natural forces of gravity will produce a sphere spontaneously when there is enough mass. In the same way, many of th 'finely tuned' aspects of our universe come about via natural routes.

 

[Grandliseur]

He has an opinion I disagree with but just the first statement tells me exactly where he is going. Being a professor doesn't make an opinion correct but I appreciate your appeal to authority.

He wasn't the only prof on the video, if my short term memory serves. I did see several - I like physics.

 

[Polymath257]

The argument from desire fits well here :

Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, has written that C.S. Lewis’s “argument from desire” is, apart from Anselm’s “ontological argument,” “the single most intriguing argument in the history of human thought” (p 249). This is an argument for the existence of God (and heaven). St. Augustine and Goethe also used this argument.

So what is this argument that so many have claimed is actually the best one for God’s existence? Kreeft provides a concise description: “The major premise of the argument is that every natural or innate desire in us bespeaks a corresponding real object that can satisfy the desire. The minor premise is that there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature, can satisfy. The conclusion is that there exists something outside of time, earth, and creatures which can satisfy this desire” (p 250).

A Short on the Argument from Desire (Goethe, Lewis, Kreeft)

Which is so obviously a faulty argument that I wonder why anyone ever takes it seriously.

 

[Grandliseur]

Well, here is part of your difficulty: time is part of the universe.

The problem is that once you speak of the multiverse with its various panes that come into existence, I think the number mentioned was 10^120, that when one pane begins, one universe, begins, its time may begin for it at that moment, however, the multiverse is having a clock that counts previous to that one and includes that one.

And, since time is an aspect of the universe, it makes no sense to talk about causality before the universe.

If I create the universe, or the universe comes to be as a pane of the multiverse, clearly I as the creator or the multiverse would experience time that now includes the new born universe we live in.

And in a multiverse, there is no beginning,

No beginning of the multiverse, the way it is taught, but surely a beginning of each pane, of each universe! Thus the time that the larger multiverse might be said to experience, or the creator of our universe, surely would experience time and having the newborn pane inclusive in this time count.

'Isn't that convenient!'

He asked a Biblical question and got an answer that fit to that question, or problem. Have to cover all bases, just like now!

Seems you are quoting me though I didn't say those two paragraphs: "You are attributing motives to these scientists that they did not actually have." (Probably a quote insert gone wrong. I can see an incomplete quote html command.)

You should look at the video I posted:
Things are said quite clearly, though, I am not sure you are speaking of the same thing I am?!

 

[Polymath257]

Please look at the following video by Professor Leonard Susskind .
Pay especially heed to the points at: 2:00 min, 2:31, 3:00, 3:20, 4:10 and even what follows. Let me know if after you see this very interesting video, if you still in all honesty can say what you did in your quote here:

Truthfully, that was an incredibly dishonest video that takes what these men say out of context. For example, when Weinberg says that there may not be an ultimate explanation for the laws of the universe, he is stating a simple, logical fact: that the most fundamental laws cannot have a deeper explanation *because* they are fundamental. Mere mathematical consistency isn't enough to establish physical laws. But this video forces that simple claim into an argument for a deity. That is dishonest.

There are other dishonest twistings in this video, but I won't go into all of them. Let's just say that the claims they make are not actually supported by the quotes they give.

 

[Grandliseur]

Truthfully, that was an incredibly dishonest video that takes what these men say out of context. For example, when Weinberg says that there may not be an ultimate explanation for the laws of the universe, he is stating a simple, logical fact: that the most fundamental laws cannot have a deeper explanation *because* they are fundamental. Mere mathematical consistency isn't enough to establish physical laws. But this video forces that simple claim into an argument for a deity. That is dishonest.

There are other dishonest twistings in this video, but I won't go into all of them. Let's just say that the claims they make are not actually supported by the quotes they give.

In my opinion, it seemed clear that one of the guiding forces of these scientists was to at all cost avoid any notion of God. Thus, I posted the video because of a claim here on the forum.
The claim was this, "Science is not a conspiracy against theism and no scientific theory has ever been posited to deny the existence of God."
Frankly, the scientists seemed to have exactly that -- a conspiracy to avoid the notion of God. The way out was by postulating a way around the extreme fine tuning, namely, the multiverse. It was posited to deny the existence of God, exactly, in my opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is that once you speak of the multiverse with its various panes that come into existence, I think the number mentioned was 10^120, that when one pane begins, one universe, begins, its time may begin for it at that moment, however, the multiverse is having a clock that counts previous to that one and includes that one.

If I create the universe, or the universe comes to be as a pane of the multiverse, clearly I as the creator or the multiverse would experience time that now includes the new born universe we live in.

No beginning of the multiverse, the way it is taught, but surely a beginning of each pane, of each universe! Thus the time that the larger multiverse might be said to experience, or the creator of our universe, surely would experience time and having the newborn pane inclusive in this time count.

The basic problem is that we currently have no testable description of quantum gravity. But such a theory is required to even talk about most of these matters.

So, if quantum gravity smooths out the singularity of the Big Bang, then time can exist prior to the BB. And that leads to a multiverse scenario in which time does exist infinitely far into the past, but where there are a great many universes (potentially infinitely many).

The other alternative is that quantum effects do NOT smooth out that singularity and time simply doesn't go back farther than the BB.

But once again, while we have several different possible theories here, NONE of them have been tested (the energies required are currently more than we can make) and so ALL of this is pure speculation.

But let's go farther. WHY is fine tuning an argument for the existence of a creator deity? At this point, we have no reason to think the 'constants' can have any values other than what they actually have. In particular, your video makes a big case concerning the cosmological constant. I think *every* physicist will agree that we don't understand why the CC has the value it has. But, again, that is a question for quantum gravity, and WE DON'T HAVE A TESTED THEORY OF QUANTUM GRAVITY. The fact that we don't understand doesn't support a leap to a creator deity. It simply means we don't understand. Yet.

But we know we don't understand quantum gravity. We have a few conjectures and some possible in-roads, but no real description. We also know there MUST be a theory of quantum gravity. So *any* conclusion at all that is based on our lack of knowledge of QG is garbage. Pure and simple.

 

[Polymath257]

In my opinion, it seemed clear that one of the guiding forces of these scientists was to at all cost avoid any notion of God. Thus, I posted the video because of a claim here on the forum.
The claim was this, "Science is not a conspiracy against theism and no scientific theory has ever been posited to deny the existence of God."
Frankly, the scientists seemed to have exactly that -- a conspiracy to avoid the notion of God. The way out was by postulating a way around the extreme fine tuning, namely, the multiverse. It was posited to deny the existence of God, exactly, in my opinion.

And that is simply false. What the scientists want to do is understand the universe. They require testable descriptions hat make specific predictions that can be verified. That is all.

Your video twists that into a desire to disprove God, which is, frankly, simply not on the radar screen for most cosmologists.

But, and this is crucial: the God hypothesis provides NO new ability to actually describe the universe. It provides no testable predictions, even in theory. It doesn't help resolve why the cosmological constant has the value it has. It doesn't help resolve the question of dark energy (which is actually the same basic question). It doens't help determine the nature of dark matter. The God hypothesis is simply not helpful for answering the questions that physicists and cosmologist are interested in.

So, it isn't a conspiracy to *disprove* God. It is simply an acknowledgment that the God hypothesis doesn't help them do their jobs.

 

[Grandliseur]

So, if quantum gravity smooths out the singularity of the Big Bang, then time can exist prior to the BB

The problem is apples and oranges. The person I was exchanging posts with used the Big Bang as a religious reason for God not having existed before the Big Bang.
Here the clear teaching is that God exists in his original universe and created us. Thus, God in this teaching exists outside our universe and before. To then invoke the Big Bang as a point when time began, becomes a funny exercise in a quasi religious scientific discussion. If God exists (as I believe) and he created the universe, clearly our universe's time began upon its creation while God counted time before that.

In this then, since many scientists do accept that the multiverse exists (to circumvent the fine tuning deity argument, at least in the beginning) it surely can be argued that there exists a multiverse clock running independently of our universe's time, i.e. when it began.

It is therefore not a matter of a pure scientific discussion. In fact, such discussions lead absolutely nowhere. The non-believer pushes his points, I push mine and neither are interested in anything the other presents. Why in the world this subject even comes out when the thread is about souls, mystifies me.

It's my bedtime. Hope to read your answer tomorrow.

 

[Grandliseur]

The God hypothesis is simply not helpful for answering the questions that physicists and cosmologist are interested in.

True, but then there should be a neutral attitude from the scientists. If it neither helps nor detracts from it, why the abhorrence of Goddidit! Avoiding it at all cost. That speaks to attitude. If it doesn't help, say 'OK Goddidit, but let's see if we can determine how and why he did it. That would be the neutral way. It isn't so.

Night.

 

[Polymath257]

True, but then there should be a neutral attitude from the scientists. If it neither helps nor detracts from it, why the abhorrence of Goddidit! Avoiding it at all cost. That speaks to attitude. If it doesn't help, say 'OK Goddidit, but let's see if we can determine how and why he did it. That would be the neutral way. It isn't so.

Night.

Well, there is an abhorrence for proposals that have no predictive value. Why even postulate it when it is just a waste of time and energy?

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is apples and oranges. The person I was exchanging posts with used the Big Bang as a religious reason for God not having existed before the Big Bang.
Here the clear teaching is that God exists in his original universe and created us. Thus, God in this teaching exists outside our universe and before. To then invoke the Big Bang as a point when time began, becomes a funny exercise in a quasi religious scientific discussion. If God exists (as I believe) and he created the universe, clearly our universe's time began upon its creation while God counted time before that.

In this then, since many scientists do accept that the multiverse exists (to circumvent the fine tuning deity argument, at least in the beginning) it surely can be argued that there exists a multiverse clock running independently of our universe's time, i.e. when it began.

It is therefore not a matter of a pure scientific discussion. In fact, such discussions lead absolutely nowhere. The non-believer pushes his points, I push mine and neither are interested in anything the other presents. Why in the world this subject even comes out when the thread is about souls, mystifies me.

It's my bedtime. Hope to read your answer tomorrow.

I don't think *any* physicists would say definitively that the multiverse exists. It is one of the main current hypotheses, but that is all it is, currently. It follows fairly naturally from the proposed quantum theories of gravity, and so it needs to be dealt with in some way. And once again, we do not currently have a tested theory of quantum gravity. But what we have are several proposals *all* of which naturally have some sort of multiverse (and there are many versions of this idea). So it is taken seriously. But *nobody* will say it is established fact because it isn't.

 

[Looncall]

What's the justification for believing in the soul?
Knowing what happens to a person after they die.
A person body is what house's a person soul,spirit.
That after a person dies, their body decays to become dust, that returns back to the earth.
But the soul,spirit which is in a person body, returns back to God who gave it.

To be judge on according to what they did in their life time.

Some people will claim that after a person dies, there's nothing more. But where's the proof of this.
Not even the world of scientist have no proof, Whether there is life or whether there's not life after death.
Is there anyone who has been dead for a long period of time 1,2,3,4
Ect-------------- years and came back ?

This is such an obvious scam. The clergy seize on ancient errors of thinking and con the gullible into accepting them. It sure keeps the pews and collection plates full.

 

[Nakosis]

What people feel is irrelevant to the way reality operates.

Also what's your argument? It sure seems like : "We can't explain how feelings could exist in a purely material universe, and therefore a soul must exist". That's whats known as the argument from ignorance. We don't just assume a soul because something can't be explained. That's fallascious reasoning.

You asked for the justification. From my discussion with others, it comes down to what they personally feel. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just how folks usually go about justifying it.

My argument is that the isolation of one's conscious awareness from the subconscious mind is the source of this feeling.

 

[Faithofchristian]

This is such an obvious scam. The clergy seize on ancient errors of thinking and con the gullible into accepting them. It sure keeps the pews and collection plates full.

This is such an obvious scam, of not knowing or having any idea or clueless what your saying.

 

[Grandliseur]

I don't think *any* physicists would say definitively that the multiverse exists. It is one of the main current hypotheses, but that is all it is, currently. It follows fairly naturally from the proposed quantum theories of gravity, and so it needs to be dealt with in some way. And once again, we do not currently have a tested theory of quantum gravity. But what we have are several proposals *all* of which naturally have some sort of multiverse (and there are many versions of this idea). So it is taken seriously. But *nobody* will say it is established fact because it isn't.

There is so much that isn't an established fact that if that were the guiding principle, we might not be able to go forward. Just about a week ago, scientists established that our universe shouldn't exist.

In this then, all the talk about time beginning with our universe, what happened at this fraction of a second during the inflation of the universe, when matter began to crystallize out of the hot quark soup, etc. - becomes a bit schizophrenic. (2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements)

That just demonstrates how all things need to be taken with a pound of salt.

 

[Grandliseur]

Well, there is an abhorrence for proposals that have no predictive value. Why even postulate it when it is just a waste of time and energy?

When a person is found dead, you have several possibilities that need to be investigated, is it suicide (did it itself), was it accident (did it happen by pure chance), or was it murder (someone intelligently committed the dastardly deed).

Saying that it has no value to identify the source, though that doesn't tell us the method or the why of it, clearly has real value. It might point us toward the ways things really were done instead of investigating random ways it might have happened with simple chemical reactions, etc. It might guide us to look at the ways any designer might have gone about getting the job done within the rules that apply and the material available.

Thus, with your quoted statement, I disagree totally.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

For me, the 'soul' is the observer or seer that is aware. It is who 'I' am. It is consciousness. It is the only thing that I can describe as 'not me.' I can observe everything, with one notable exception. My consciousness. My Self.

Imagine a flashlight in a dark room. The flashlight can emit light to allow observation of anything in the room. But it cannot turn back on itself to observe itself. It cannot emit light on filament of the bulb. The 'soul' you describe in your post would be the filament in this analogy.