Would a "clone" disprove the eternal soul hypothesis.

With genetic engineering in the news lately and on the radio show ground zero tonight. I always hear the religious crowd saying that we shouldn't allow true test tube/created humans, because they wouldn't have a god givin eternal soul.


Well what if when we do, they come out normal. Perfectly human loving, caring individuals. Wouldn't that debunk the thought of a god givin eternal soul?

a reply to: Entreri06
You may have a soul....and so may a clone....
just no dead people have souls....all the live ones do.....even the cloned ones....
Souls are attracted to meat bodies like flies to .........

A clone has its own soul. Even if they made an adult clone, souls are placed in. They're people too, like a twin. Not everyone has the same experience occurring here, not everyone is doing the same thing soul wise, so while some maybe a part of their soul matrix, others could be joining in in a different way.

No. If it is a human being, it is a human being. Human beings are created through physical processes any way you look at it, be it the natural act of reproduction or a test tube--it is still a physical process. The outcome being the same, I don't see why the process should disprove anything.

a reply to: Entreri06

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens.

A god given eternal soul isn't supported by strong evidence. God, eternity, and a soul are all needing to be substantiated.

What if we all have a 'soul' but there is no 'god'? What if we have a 'soul' but it's not eternal? What if there is a 'god' but we don't have a 'soul'? ...and of course it's possible there is neither a 'god' nor a 'soul'.

So I don't think we need anything in order to debunk the notion. It's just an unsubstantiated belief to begin with.

Hopefully there is an afterlife we [whatever form that should be] transcend to.

I think we will have clones eventually and they will be 'normal'. Human beings nothing more and nothing less.

originally posted by: Entreri06


With genetic engineering in the news lately and on the radio show ground zero tonight. I always hear the religious crowd saying that we shouldn't allow true test tube/created humans, because they wouldn't have a god givin eternal soul.


Well what if when we do, they come out normal. Perfectly human loving, caring individuals. Wouldn't that debunk the thought of a god givin eternal soul?

I don't know of any rules stating clones not being allowed to have souls. As enchanting and magical it is to enter the world from a womb, it's not like there is a soul forge inside the reproductive organs of a woman.

From my point of view another soul would give another experience, than the other clone since the souls do change the personality of the being that evolves regardless of external stimuli. Two twins might be given the same external stimuli, but there will be small differences in their life that will grow bigger as time goes by. The only way you can have exactly the same is if the souls are identical.

I am not sure I like the ideas of clones being created outside a body since I think it will be unhealthy for the child development and connection during the 9 first months. But then I think people who are gonna have a child, should have a easy living without to much stress, so that the child gets the best start it can get and feel safe.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Two twins might be given the same external stimuli, but there will be small differences in their life that will grow bigger as time goes by.

Isn't that due to them having different experiences through the senses of their own separate brains?

a reply to: Cuervo

it's not like there is a soul forge inside the reproductive organs of a woman.

Which is what I look for in a woman. Explains why I am single. I've set my self up for failure with unrealistic standards.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Two twins might be given the same external stimuli, but there will be small differences in their life that will grow bigger as time goes by.

Isn't that due to them having different experiences through the senses of their own separate brains?

The souls is from my point of view part of the unconscious that influences, the thought patterns that will rise from the unconscious.

If we believe there is no soul, and every thing is programmed response to external stimuli (including all the senses in the brain), you could theoretically create 2 clones, with exact the same external stimuli and if there is no unconscious difference and the thoughts are just calculations/responses, both experiences should be exact the same. Every quantum particle in the exact same place and all fields exact the same.

originally posted by: Unity_99
A clone has its own soul. Even if they made an adult clone, souls are placed in. They're people too, like a twin. Not everyone has the same experience occurring here, not everyone is doing the same thing soul wise, so while some maybe a part of their soul matrix, others could be joining in in a different way.

Yes, but is it of Divine Planing or lower energies trying to impatiently break through to physical Earth? Something to be careful of...

but yea, you are right cloning doesn't disprove souls..

Gingers and women already have no soul, I don't see why a clone would have one.


Seriously now, religious people don't say we shouldn't clone people because "they wouldn't have a soul" (where did you get that from?) but because it's not ethical.

a reply to: Develo

What would be some of the unethical aspects to you?

The religious theory against cloning is that the clone would not have a soul from where the place natural born children's souls come from. (It's called the guf)

The only true way to find out is to create a clone and see what happens. I'm not sure if I would want to see the religious community be right though. Their theory is that it would become a person with no sense of morality or regard for human life.

a reply to: Entreri06

Twins are born all the time, and they each have their own individual souls. The bible teaches that the soul is breathed into a human body at birth, not at conception, so I dont see why a clone would be a special case. The human soul is not a genetic phenomenon.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Develo

What would be some of the unethical aspects to you?

I don't know if you are being facetious or not? You don't have to be religious (I'm not) to see there could be tons of potential ethical and legal issues, as usual when we try to do things which do not happen naturally. There's a reason the whole world is still pretty closed to the idea of human cloning.

From the top of my head:

- What is the legal status of a cloned human?
- If we allow therapeutic cloning, what is the furthest we can let an embryo develop before considering it a person?
- What would be the psychological impact on a clone to know he is a clone?
- What would be the psychological impact on someone to know he isn't the result of normal sexual reproduction, but was "engineered" to be a replacement of someone/something that is now lost.
- Clones have shorter life expectancy (shorter telomeres), is it fair to give birth to someone who will die young?
- What would happen to natural social structures in a world where your clone would be both your twin and your son?
- Cloning is a cause of degeneration because of the shorter telomeres (more malformations, more diseases, more mutations), should it be encouraged?
- etc...

I'm sure you get the idea?




The Church isn't against therapeutic and reproductive cloning because of metaphysical problems (that's more the kind of problems Biblical literalists in the US like to talk about). The Church is against it because:

- An embryo is a potential human person in becoming. Therapeutic cloning eludes this question and consider "non conscious cell aggregates" are not a "full" human being and thus have no rights.
- A reproductive clone would not fit in the normal familial social structure and thus it would alienate the clones and impact their psychological balance.


But the Church doesn't even have any legislative power anyway, it just hopes societies will keep ethics in sight when discussing these complex topics.

Judaism on the other hand isn't even against cloning I think.


All this "soul" stuff is unsubstantiated or marginal opinions from fundamentalists.



Watch "Moon" and you will understand why most people, religious or not, are rightfully scared about the possibility of human cloning.

soul and spirit appear to be 2 different things. the soul is the energy that keeps the body alive. the spirit, on the other hand, doesn't require the body, as is evidenced by astral projection and other OOBEs, like visions. breathing life into a body, creating a living soul, suggests the individual cells of the body upon receiving oxygen, begin to process energy and recycle it.

so the question really should be, "does a clone have a spirit"?

originally posted by: undo
the spirit, on the other hand, doesn't require the body, as is evidenced by astral projection and other OOBEs

What you call spirit here is just another word for consciousness. And as far as I know you still need a brain to have consciousness.

Astral projections and OOBEs only work when there is at least a few last sparks of electricity in the brain. There has never been any proof of OOBE from someone brain dead for more than a day.

a reply to: Develo

interesting. have you ever read any research on nephilim?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

interesting. have you ever read any research on nephilim?

You are asking me if I have ever read about the story of this myth, or if I read about the endless interpretations of this myth made by literalists?

Because I wouldn't have enough time to read all the different and personal interpretations about itt.

Anyway we were discussing about observable things, there is no reason to go looking into myths when we can simply measure these things.

a reply to: Develo

ah yes, you were the fellow who assumed full rights to discuss and elaborate on the religious implications of the topic i encountered you on before but didn't want anyone else to do so, as you had already made up your mind that everyone but you was delusional.

pardon my intrusion. i'll respond to someone who appears to want a discussion.