Our soul, What is it?

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Silenceisall

 

Damn that's a weak argument. I'm talking about evidence. Provide evidence for a soul, and I'll believe it. Just as I need evidence DNA exists before I'm going to take it on board as most likely accurate. As it is, all scientific evidence points squarely at there being no soul.

Clearly if you feel the need to write your second paragraph, you don't understand the scientific method. Our world, or at least the bits that exist outside of new-age fairs, works on the basis of science demonstrating a principle, which we can then use in products to help our daily lives. That computer you're looking at at this very moment is a great example of that. It wasn't invented because someone ignored the scientific method and all scientific findings - indeed it was built upon those very concepts and pools of knowledge. You seem to be proposing a method of dispensing with evidence, and just believing any half-baked notion that comes along, based not on evidence, but on some sort of warm and fuzzy feeling, almost as if you're prepared to believe anything that makes you feel better.

Weird.

My point is simply that there is no evidence either way, and that science is not such a great yard stick for reality. I cannot prove that there is a form of life after death, and you cannot prove that there is not.

Dave, you force your mind into the narrow and constricted confines of what the current state of Western science allows you to believe, and feel that somehow makes you more rational than those who have open minds. Rational would be to realize that science is constantly changing its own opinions, correcting, reappraising. Rational would be to realize that science cannot measure what its measuring devices cannot measure. If you want to get an idea of just how little science actually knows about this reality, read up on the latest findings in quantum physics.

No one here will be able to prove the existance of the soul to you.

And remember, atheism has a lot in common with religion in that it also requires a faith.





[edit on 26-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply to post by Silenceisall


If you can't prove the soul exists, then it has no interaction with the world as we see it. If that's the case, it has nothing to do with us. We, that which defines us, clearly has nothing to do with the soul.

If, as you are stating, the soul is intrinsically linked to us, to what makes us "us", then it has to have some measurable effect upon the physical world, be it through the way we think, our beliefs, our fears, our kindness, whatever - there has to be a metric we can measure that is down solely to the soul. If there isn't, then it doesn't exist.

It's not up to me to prove the soul exists. Until there's evidence for it, it's as real as the Easter Bunny, no matter how many times you've heard it discussed in books, on TV, on ATS, on whatever.

My mind is as open as a mind possibly can be. Having an open mind doesn't mean you swallow up every baseless uttering any whacko has. If you do that, you're not going to be able to distinguish that which is real from that which is made up, and you've essentially condemned yourself to a life of ignorance.

For something to matter to me, it has to exist (in some way) in the universe, as that's where I am. If it does exist (even in the slightest way) in the universe, science can analyse it. So far, the only evidence for the soul was the infamous 21g experiment (which was laughed out of every scientist's hands who read it). If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist.

So far everything's pointing to the soul being a made-up construct of man, to describe that which we couldn't understand when we came up with the word. Now, however, we know what makes the brain work, we know where the energy it uses comes from, and we know where it goes. We don't need the "soul" construct any more, any more than we need the "the earth is flat" construct. They're both devoid of evidence, with masses of scientific evidence pointing to them being false assertions.

If you can't prove the soul exists, then it has no interaction with the world as we see it. If that's the case, it has nothing to do with us. We, that which defines us, clearly has nothing to do with the soul.

There was a time when the existence of DNA could not be proven, yet, presumably, it still had an interection with the world. Just becuase our scientists are not now able to prove that something exists does not mean that is does not exist. I'm not sure why you are having difficulty with that one.


If, as you are stating, the soul is intrinsically linked to us, to what makes us "us", then it has to have some measurable effect upon the physical world, be it through the way we think, our beliefs, our fears, our kindness, whatever - there has to be a metric we can measure that is down solely to the soul. If there isn't, then it doesn't exist.

What if you have not come up with a metric or measuring system that is sensitive enough for the job? Again, science cannot measure what its measuring devices cannot measure or what its paradigms refuse to accept(scientists are notorious for not following leads that would not confirm their thesis). Science is dependent on the state of the technology of its equipment, and we all know that technology is not static.


It's not up to me to prove the soul exists. Until there's evidence for it, it's as real as the Easter Bunny, no matter how many times you've heard it discussed in books, on TV, on ATS, on whatever.

No one is asking you to prove anything.


My mind is as open as a mind possibly can be. Having an open mind doesn't mean you swallow up every baseless uttering any whacko has. If you do that, you're not going to be able to distinguish that which is real from that which is made up, and you've essentially condemned yourself to a life of ignorance.

Your mind is as open as scientific dogma allows it to be. You are choosing to only believe what has been confirmed by science. That means that if you were alive before the Renaissance, you would have had a completely different set of "erroneous" beliefs that you, at this time, would find laughable.


For something to matter to me, it has to exist (in some way) in the universe, as that's where I am. If it does exist (even in the slightest way) in the universe, science can analyse it. So far, the only evidence for the soul was the infamous 21g experiment (which was laughed out of every scientist's hands who read it). If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist.

Again, something can exist without science being able to analyse it. The analysis is made by tools, which themselves are limited.

So far everything's pointing to the soul being a made-up construct of man, to describe that which we couldn't understand when we came up with the word. Now, however, we know what makes the brain work, we know where the energy it uses comes from, and we know where it goes. We don't need the "soul" construct any more, any more than we need the "the earth is flat" construct. They're both devoid of evidence, with masses of scientific evidence pointing to them being false assertions.

So far everything is pointing to how little scientists in fact know about the brain and reality--they haven't even begun to figure out schizophrenia yet. We do not really know what makes the brain work, we only understand some of its mechanics, as we are able to measure them.



[edit on 26-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply to post by dave420


It seems your falling into the "know it all" mind.

A lot of scientists like to think like that, that they know everything, or everything can be explained simply by science. In reality, we are so tiny in this huge universe that we probably don't even know 1% of the things in this universe.

How can science be so all knowing when we havent even explored 00.01% of the universe.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Silenceisall

 

Damn that's a weak argument. I'm talking about evidence. Provide evidence for a soul, and I'll believe it. Just as I need evidence DNA exists before I'm going to take it on board as most likely accurate. As it is, all scientific evidence points squarely at there being no soul.

Clearly if you feel the need to write your second paragraph, you don't understand the scientific method. Our world, or at least the bits that exist outside of new-age fairs, works on the basis of science demonstrating a principle, which we can then use in products to help our daily lives. That computer you're looking at at this very moment is a great example of that. It wasn't invented because someone ignored the scientific method and all scientific findings - indeed it was built upon those very concepts and pools of knowledge. You seem to be proposing a method of dispensing with evidence, and just believing any half-baked notion that comes along, based not on evidence, but on some sort of warm and fuzzy feeling, almost as if you're prepared to believe anything that makes you feel better.

Weird.

I'll gladly take a link to this evidence so i can see what methods they have used to say this...

Weird you say....
This is weird, did these so called scientists even know what to look for?
Do they know what the soul is? What it is made of? Where it is?
I wish to see their evidence for this, unless there is no evidence at all that points to them knowing this?

Or are you trying to use this scientific breaktrough to not believe?
What more that is weird is this, you are using the lack of evidence to support your claims scientifically, and at the same time think that lack of evidence proves anything?
That would be something like this:

*
'Court room'
Can the accused please rise?
You have been charged for murder on the first degree.
The lack of evidence in this case against you speaks for you commiting this murder.
And there by i find you guilty as charged, on the lack of evidence against you.
Sentence will be set on a later date.
Court ajourned.
*
Is this what your world look like?

reply to post by dave420


I've read through all of these posts and you are the only one so far, the ONLY ONE who believes in nothing!!! I'm kind of embarrassed for you. If your name means what I think it means then maybe you've smoked up your heart, understanding, love and it kind of sounds like your soul as well. YOU'RE CASHED DAVE420. You threw your two cents in so I have done the same. Who are you to tell everyone that it's your way or the highway? If science is putting it to the test and hasn't found anything yet then it is still a possibility to prove it does exsist? Stop being so relentless on a subject that nobody can understand! There are more believers in this world than non-believers. I roll my eyes at you but at the same time Pray for you.

Mod Edit: Please focus on the thread topic and not the member. -- Read this link

[edit on 6-4-2008 by TheBandit795]

the soul has got to be related to OBE and near death experiences,i would reccomend We Don't Die by George Anderson as a book that gives further information on the soul after passing,and hello from heaven by bill guggenheim,2 books where theve been researched over many years from relatives from passed on loved one describing how theyve made contact with them,i think any person who thinks that this is it,are rather a shallow person and are not capable of not seeing the overwhelming signs that you get through life,the sense that you get to treat animals,people,nature right and true are connected to your soul,when you have a OBE if you have a look at yourself it is the you of now,what more proof is there then this,you are not in your physical body even though its still running and you can think out of body so that rules being braindead when you die out,its laughable when somebody says science can't prove it so it must not be true,scientists said time travel could never work yet they are desperatly trying to prove it to be true,the human was made this way in positive and negative ways,some turn bad, some go good from bad ,some stay good,you know deep down what your conscious is saying to you and thats the path that you will take,you are not simply born on earth to be a selfish human ,you are here for a very short stay because theres more like you to follow.

reply to post by moonbeam cat


Anthropomorphising science into one guy who says "yes" and "no" is never going to help your argument. Science is a methodology for determining what's more likely that something else, given the available evidence.

Every single facet of the human brain is known about. We may not understand it all, but it's all accounted for, and every shred of scientific evidence about the energy contained in the brain points to it all being burned up as we die, just as your car's gas is burned up just before it runs out of gas. That's a fact, not a "ooh it'd be nice if..." or "my magical book says that...".

Science never said time travel was impossible. That makes as much sense as saying Pi hates omelettes. It's not alive. It doesn't say anything, and it doesn't prefer anything over anything else.

So, to continue this discussion about what the soul is, we need to have evidence that the soul exists. Without that, the discussion is as intellectually worthless as a bowl of cornflakes. It doesn't reflect well on those engaging in the assorted ass-delvery, pass-opinion-off-as-fact pseudoscientific claptrap, either.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by moonbeam cat

 

Anthropomorphising science into one guy who says "yes" and "no" is never going to help your argument. Science is a methodology for determining what's more likely that something else, given the available evidence.

Every single facet of the human brain is known about. We may not understand it all, but it's all accounted for, and every shred of scientific evidence about the energy contained in the brain points to it all being burned up as we die, just as your car's gas is burned up just before it runs out of gas. That's a fact, not a "ooh it'd be nice if..." or "my magical book says that...".

Science never said time travel was impossible. That makes as much sense as saying Pi hates omelettes. It's not alive. It doesn't say anything, and it doesn't prefer anything over anything else.

So, to continue this discussion about what the soul is, we need to have evidence that the soul exists. Without that, the discussion is as intellectually worthless as a bowl of cornflakes. either.

So, in your opinion the paranormal forum is only a waste of time...
No, sorry, perhaps it is a waste of your time.

Anyways, anything that is in the paranormal section is about one thing 'belief'.
Science can not explain everything that is and was... so instead of science in this forum we use belief.
I'm not sure why you bother even to come here... Perhaps a more scientifical forum would be better for you?

Oh, and not to forget, science have not proved one way or the other about the soul, if they ever will be able to do that....
So basicly, you are doing the same as you accuse many other people to do, the assorted ass-delvery, pass-opinion-off-as-fact pseudoscientific claptrap...

reply to post by Balez


Depends on what your willing to believe. We can run tests and take samples and try to draw scientific conclusions and still not find an answer. basically the answer is a matter of Faith. personally i believe the Soul is your intellect, the soul is tied into the spirit which inhabits this Body. Animals in my opinion have souls, not spirits.

Keeper

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
reply to post by Balez

 

Depends on what your willing to believe. We can run tests and take samples and try to draw scientific conclusions and still not find an answer. basically the answer is a matter of Faith. personally i believe the Soul is your intellect, the soul is tied into the spirit which inhabits this Body. Animals in my opinion have souls, not spirits.

Keeper

I'm willing to believe in much, one of the reasons i am at ATS

But that does not mean people can spoon feed me anything and i'll instantly believe it.
Much of what makes me believe in certain things has to do with my own experiences, and nothing else.

Sometimes to actually believe in something, the experience is need

I dont know where the soul is, it can be in our body, perhaps even outside our body, sometimes i believe it is outside the body, many times i get these small premonitions, like, i know who is on the phone before i have answered, who is knocking on the door, and such things.

From what I was taught, we are almost exactly like magnets.

A magnet is just a hunk of metal, there is nothing special about it. It is not creating the magnetic field, it is only containing it, or holding it. If I wanted I could make the magnetic field stronger, or weaker. Also, I could demagnetize the magnet so that it is only a hunk of metal, and it is "dead".

The metal's atomic structure is arranged in such a way, that this force that runs through it is guided in channels, and into a infinite loop. It's natural most wanted state to be in, is a loop.

Watch this quick video. Don't pay attention to anything except the fact that the magnet naturally wants to create loops.

www.youtube.com...

When this loop is broken, or weak, the magnetic force dies much faster. There are U magnets that are sold with a "keeper" which is a metal bar that connects the to prongs of the U bar. This "keeper" keeps the magnet strong, because it traps the magnetic force into a loop, and it can not escape.

Your body, is the metal, your soul is the force. When we partially open our loops when we injure ourselves, we become weak. Until finally our magnetic force escapes the container which is our body. When you completely break the loop you die.

Our body though is more complex then a piece of metal. A piece of metal has only good channels to guide the force, these channels are much like electrical wires in a way.

But on the human body, our channels are not just wires, they have resistors, and capacitors, and microprocessors, and all of that junk (figure of speech). So when our force, our soul, is being guided through the channels of our body, our body is actually doing intelligent functions with our soul.

I really don't know any other way to describe it.





[edit on 6-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Science has already shown evidence that we survive death. Do a search on "veridical near death experiences" in google.

Or take a look at this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by dave420


Dave, you're confusing two different things. You say that scientific evidence points to there being no soul. I think what you actually mean to say is that you're not aware of any scientific evidence to indicate that souls are real. There actually isn't any evidence against there being a soul. Those are two different things. You can't claim that something doesn't exist simply because science hasn't proven it. All you can say is that for you, you will wait until there is scientific evidence for it, which is totally fair. But lack of proof for something does not equate to evidence against something.

Besides, there actually is evidence of something beyond us. Read the research of Dr. Ian Stevenson, Dr. Dean Radin, or Dr. Gary Schwartz. There may be more evidence for this sort of thing that you just aren't aware of yet.

reply to post by Neiby


Yes it is ironic what he's saying. He talks so much about "evidence" of the soul existing.

But what about evidence that the soul doesn't exist? If your so interested in having evidence, why choose to ignore having evidence for the soul "not" existing, where's the evidence for that? Why so one sided? Try to keep an open mind.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Ok, I'll weigh in on this..And before I start I will concede that as of this point in our species techno-development, nothing can be proven, so just remember this is the Paranormal Group and I don't expect hard science to prevail here. I think that the "soul" might be the basic building block of the cosmos that is also imprinted with the spark of divine consciousness. Whether you call that basic building block a gravity unit, dark energy, or dark matter, primal ether or whatever, when you imprint it with god consciousness you become a soul. Just my 2 cents worth.

Great question. I still struggle with exactly what defines a soul and what defines a spirit. I can't even say whether the two are separate. Someday, hopefully, science will get back to its roots and again begin searching for the truth in matters such as this. Until then, we have our personal observations and thoughts to keep us busy.

Now, as to dave240: You really need to read some more.

Well, our brains are just a chain reaction. We eat, get energy, and then use it in our brains (as well as the rest of our bodies). Just like your computer is constantly using power when it's on, when you remove our power (ie we die), our brains cease to function. Just as our computers cease to function when you unplug them. We don't think the energy in our computer left the computer - we know it was just using the power it could get its hands on, and when that ceased it ceased to work. The only difference is our hard disks, CPUs, and RAM don't turn to goo when they're unplugged for extended periods of time. We do, so we're harder to turn back on once turned off.

I can give you evidence that our brains are not computers. The very fact that no computer can even recognize speech reliably, something we do easily, is a powerful indicator of this. Now add in the fact that computers do not dream, nor do they have 'desires'. You may well be an organic computer; I, sir, am not.

No, my position is the scientific one. Any others are completely devoid of supporting evidence. It's perfectly possible to determine whether people have souls - the brain isn't that confusing of an organ, though it is very complicated. We can easily tell when it's using energy, where that energy comes from, and what happens when that energy is no longer supplied.

Yes, your position is just as scientific as those who once believed the world was flat, once believed that 'bad blood' was the cause of illness, once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, once believed the earth was the center of the universe, once believed that gorillas were mythical creatures...

This is not up for debate - this is what hundreds of years of medical science has taught us. If you can't offer evidence that there is a soul, then your argument that there is a soul is ridiculously flimsy at best...

The fact there is no test for the soul means it's not scientific in nature...

First, demonstrate to me there IS a soul, using scientific evidence. THEN we can start to figure out where the soul is, what it does, and where it goes when we die. Until you've done that, this debate is absolutely pointless, as you're arguing without any supporting evidence, shoe-horning Christian mythology into scientific terms, which just makes us all look silly.

I really am shocked when I see statements like this from someone who claims to have a scientific outlook. All is open for debate; that is the heart of the scientific method. A deficit in understanding does not imply non-existence. And proof is not required to form a hypothesis. Before Einstein's time, there was no concept of the black hole. It was not proven, unable to be measured or detected, and had no supporting evidence. Too bad we looked silly discovering black holes.

Clearly if you feel the need to write your second paragraph, you don't understand the scientific method. Our world, or at least the bits that exist outside of new-age fairs, works on the basis of science demonstrating a principle, which we can then use in products to help our daily lives.

BZZZT! Oh, too bad, but we're going to award you a consolation prize... information!

The scientific method is a methodology wherein phenomena are observed, hypothesis are constructed (using imagination), tests are performed, not to prove hypothesis, but to attempt to disprove them, and the results are made available to others to be repeated. Should a hypothesis be considered viable by others upon independent testing/study, it becomes a theory. As soon as any hypothesis or theory is confronted with conflicting evidence, it again comes under scrutiny for testing. In this way, ideas are formulated and verified independently based on thought and experimentation, supposedly leading to facts, which are, in essence, 'proved' theories.

The scientific method had nothing to do with building computers, once the concepts of magnetism and electricity were developed decades ago. You are equating engineering with science. The two are connected, but not the same.

Science is a method for gathering evidence.

Science is a search for truth. It uses evidence as well as thought to further this search.

If you can't prove the soul exists, then it has no interaction with the world as we see it. If that's the case, it has nothing to do with us.

Please tell me you don't really believe this. My opinion of you is low enough already.

It's not up to me to prove the soul exists.

Actually, since you began with the 'scientific' observation that a soul does not exist, yes it is.

My mind is as open as a mind possibly can be. Having an open mind doesn't mean you swallow up every baseless uttering any whacko has.

I think it would include listening to all information presented and acknowledging that your ideas are not necessarily the only ones that could possibly be correct. Newton's Laws of Motion lasted for quite some time before they were proven incomplete by Einstein.

Every single facet of the human brain is known about. We may not understand it all, but it's all accounted for, and every shred of scientific evidence about the energy contained in the brain points to it all being burned up as we die...

I wonder why we keep spending money and time researching it? Gee, all this waste when you, dave240, a poster on a web forum called ATS, had everything worked out. Someone call MIT!

Your posts reflect not a basis in science, but a basis in anti-theology. Science is not anti-religion, and faith is not anti-science. The sooner you learn this simple fact, the sooner your mind will open up and your posts will not be so full of obvious holes. If you wish to shoot me down in flames over this little expose, feel free to try. But be aware that I plan in ignoring ridiculous comments from you in the future. That means you actually have to make sense to debate me, and you have to use a scientific basis for your 'scientific' conclusions.

TheRedneck

I don't make a distinction between soul and spirit. It's all the same to me. I see them as simply the non-physical energetic side of ourselves. In fact, I think our spirits are our true selves. Some people see us as bodies with souls. I see us as souls temporary bodies. It's all in our perspective, I suppose.

I used to be an atheist, but I've read too much research that indicates that consciousness survives after death. I try to be willing to follow evidence where it leads and there was simply too much evidence for me to deny that life-after-death, as some call it, is the norm. That would mean that we do, in fact, have souls and that they survive after our physical death. The more I research, the more I'm convinced of that. It has nothing to do with any belief system or faith. I'm simply following the evidence. If someone can show me science that disproves the other science I've read then I'm perfectly willing to change my mind again.

reply to post by Neiby
I know everything I have read or heard on the subject seems to use the same definition for the two; that's all I can base my feelings on. I do know that something survives after death, and I do know death doesn't hurt. I had one NDE experience when I was young (floated, watched, but no light) that taught me that.

Other than that, I'm pretty dumb on this subject. And hopefully, that would equate to open-mindedness.

TheRedneck