Evidence for the Spirit/Soul

We do know that spirit has no material attributes. Our mind ( not our brain) resembles spirit. The two faculties of the mind are intellect and will. It is our will what puts our thoughts in motion , not electric pulses. Electricity is material, our thoughts are not. A soul animates a body. If anything, this could be considered the "electricity" or "glue" that holds spirit and body together. When the body dies this animating energy ( soul ) leaves the body. Spirit intact.

Theo

reply to post by Akragon

Please keep in mind i am NOT presenting Proof in any way... only speculation on something i KNOW exists. You do not have to believe me...

Please think about these statements:

Two plus two equals four.
Electricity passes through a filament in a bulb and we get light.
Fire burns.

Notice that I didn't have to guess, surmise, or hypothesize anything on these statements. We know them to be true. We can repeat experiments on these statements over and over and we'll get the same results every time.

However, when you offer a theory where you have to use statements such as, I believe, I have faith in, or, I THINK this is true, then you cannot possibly KNOW anything of what you are suggesting. You are making wild unsubstantiated guesses and claiming them to be true.

If you believe in something that others don't have to believe in, then that belief is not a universal truth. It is false.

reply to post by jiggerj

However, when you offer a theory where you have to use statements such as, I believe, I have faith in, or, I THINK this is true, then you cannot possibly KNOW anything of what you are suggesting. You are making wild unsubstantiated guesses and claiming them to be true.

Maybe I should have highlighted or underlined the I KNOW part?

I didn't say I believe the afterlife exists, or I have faith in the concept... I said I KNOW...

I also said specifically "I am not presenting proof here"... unfortunately we as a society have not yet gotten to the point of being able to prove the afterlife. Such proof is always subjective...

None the less I stand by my claim...

If you believe in something that others don't have to believe in, then that belief is not a universal truth. It is false.

reply to post by jiggerj


Just because something is not a universal truth, doesn't necessarily mean that it is false. In order to have innovation, someone, somewhere, had to believe it was true, first. We would be still be stuck in the Stone Age, and the world would be presumed to be flat, if we could not believe.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by jiggerj

 

However, when you offer a theory where you have to use statements such as, I believe, I have faith in, or, I THINK this is true, then you cannot possibly KNOW anything of what you are suggesting. You are making wild unsubstantiated guesses and claiming them to be true.

Maybe I should have highlighted or underlined the I KNOW part?

I didn't say I believe the afterlife exists, or I have faith in the concept... I said I KNOW...

I also said specifically "I am not presenting proof here"... unfortunately we as a society have not yet gotten to the point of being able to prove the afterlife. Such proof is always subjective...

None the less I stand by my claim...

What you are saying is, you stand by your claim with no proof, and no way of gaining proof. The very definition would be that you guess there's an afterlife. Don't worry, I understand this is just a play on words. I have no proof that this universe in infinite, but I KNOW it to be true.

Originally posted by StarsInDust

If you believe in something that others don't have to believe in, then that belief is not a universal truth. It is false.

reply to post by jiggerj

 

Just because something is not a universal truth, doesn't necessarily mean that it is false. In order to have innovation, someone, somewhere, had to believe it was true, first. We would be still be stuck in the Stone Age, and the world would be presumed to be flat, if we could not believe.

Are confusing 'believe' with 'imagine'?

reply to post by jiggerj

Hmmm...,you can' refute my argument, so you nit-pick about my words?!! You know what I meant and this thread is about belief in the soul, not imagination about it. So my own particular terminology for this particular subject, just seemed to fit better. Soooo... Do you believe in the soul? Probably, not, as there is little concrete supporting it--yet.

I know I am jumping in rather late into the debate here...

A key principle of Scientology scripture is that the human soul is real and effects how our mind works and how our body (somatics) work.

The basic premise is that energy exists and interacts with the biological form to produce a certain reaction that leads to analytical functions (within the brain) and cellular functions (within the body). The urge to survive. This applies to all living things, including animal and plant. The energy thus within we call "Theta" or "Thetan".

L. Ron Hubbard discovered this during his studies into what is "energy?" whilst others were studying nuclear fission. Whilst I have not seen evidence that such energy has the effect of weight it is now understood that such energy that makes the human body and mind operate at an analytical and somatic level is in excess at time of death and must therefore move somewhere. The energy which we call "theta" is free to travel and enter other organic things, or not. So, we have it in Scientology that the human analytical experience is built upon previous lives.

We sometimes "imagine" we feel what dying in a certain way feels like, or we have an innate sense or understanding of what was happening at a certain time (e.g. pre-conception) when the energy that now inhabits us was elsewhere.

Whilst this seems (to some) like mad science, the fundamentals of physics applies: the energy does not disappear - it is transferred. Thus, the energy that makes each being think and analyze is an energy that has existed for billions of years. No one has decoded what this theta energy is comprised of and they are even further away from decoding the inherent meaning (or possible contents) of energy within the theta.

The fact remains that the "spirit" or "soul" is a real thing; something that we carry with ourselves from pre-natal life to death, and beyond to other organic life-forms.

All IMHO, of course.

I think L ron Hubbard was an atheist who was mocking other religions by creating his own and making it so far fetched as to insult other religions and in turn creates a church which becomes a tax free zone for him and his clients.

Spirit and matter are distinct from one another; but the union of spirit and matter is necessary to give intelligent activity to matter.

These three elements are the principle of all that exists-the universal trinity. But to the material element must be added the universal fluid which plays the part of intermediary between spirit and matter, the nature of the latter being too gross for spirit to be able to act directly upon it. Although, from another point of view, this fluid may be classed as forming part of the material element, it is, nevertheless, distinguished from that element by certain special properties of its own. If it could be classed simply and absolutely as matter, there would be no reason why spirit also should not be classed as matter. It is intermediary between spirit and matter.

It is fluid, just as matter is matter, and is susceptible of being made, through its innumerable combinations with matter, under the directing action of spirit, to produce the infinite variety of things of which you know as yet but a very small portion. This universal, primitive, or elementary fluid, being the agent employed by spirit in acting upon matter is the principle without which matter would remain forever in a state of division, and would never acquire the properties given to it by the state of ponderability. more

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I think L ron Hubbard was an atheist who was mocking other religions by creating his own and making it so far fetched as to insult other religions and in turn creates a church which becomes a tax free zone for him and his clients.

And the purpose of your bigotry is....?

Please give provable evidence, otherwise please refrain from expressing such hatred.

www.remoteviewed.com...

A compilation of findings and docs/papers.

p.10 The model we prefer at the moment is the cosmology of quantum physics offered by David Bohm.

David Bohm on perception

I said there was an analogy between perception and the way relativity treated things. ...Everything was related to the way you interacted with it, to observe it....

www.stealthskater.com...

Popp also discovered that DNA emitted the most biophotons. Due to proprieties of the DNA acting like a Bose Einstein Condensate, the DNA can act as energy storage medium for the delayed coherent emission of biophotons. When coherent biophotons are emitted, they produce complex interference patterns. The more coherent the biophotons emissions, the more shaper the interference patterns are.
2
It is this biophoton emission which results in the formation of a biophotonic [quantum coherent] amorphous scalar field -- commonly known as biophysical field.
A simpler way to view this biophysical field is to view it as a biophysical hologram which mimics your physical body. I used the term 'amorphous' to describe a field which has no distinct shape. And I include the term 'scalar' to describe a field which has no overall direction (like the heat radiation from a hot body).

It has been found that photons increase at the target.

Measurable increases.

www.remoteviewed.com...

To me there is a lot of proofs of soul, and this holographic type universe.

www.remoteviewed.com...
Possible photon production during remote viewing task: a replication experiment.

www.victorzammit.com...
Out of Body Experiences

Weight loss at death beyond the bodies normal mechanisms and weight loss during oobe's.

www.monroeinstitute.org...

reply to post by Akragon


I believe religion is a historical practice and it was changed through evolution. All religions are looking back to a certain time in history.

I also believe it was possible since the dawn of day for a magical man to walk the earth, this means that although incredibly rare 'real magic' is possible. It is only the small minds of people who cannot do the miracle that says magic is filled with bad spirits. Simply magic is using a Power from our godly self.

So you put history and magic together and all you have is a historical context full of people, you don't have a microphone to create fear in people by telling them they are condemned if they don't believe in your religion - that is pitiful and makes them hypocrytes if they are christians.

We have a very confused world. So lets journey far away from any ego and literally leave our conscious in the world and travel to the depths of our subconscious and soul.

It appears that everything is energy and everything is also conscious. The soul to me is the vortex where this energy can pass through.

reply to post by greyer


Since my own father was a minister, my first thoughts about the soul came to me from what my own family believed. As I became older, science was introduced to my belief system. I think that if our thoughts were somehow able to survive our bodies, and our own thoughts are, evil, tortured (or whatever...) then perhaps a type of trapped hell is created for eternity. Perhaps this is what religion has been trying to explain...

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by jiggerj

 

However, when you offer a theory where you have to use statements such as, I believe, I have faith in, or, I THINK this is true, then you cannot possibly KNOW anything of what you are suggesting. You are making wild unsubstantiated guesses and claiming them to be true.

Maybe I should have highlighted or underlined the I KNOW part?

I didn't say I believe the afterlife exists, or I have faith in the concept... I said I KNOW...

I also said specifically "I am not presenting proof here"... unfortunately we as a society have not yet gotten to the point of being able to prove the afterlife. Such proof is always subjective...

None the less I stand by my claim...

What you are saying is, you stand by your claim with no proof, and no way of gaining proof. The very definition would be that you guess there's an afterlife. Don't worry, I understand this is just a play on words. I have no proof that this universe in infinite, but I KNOW it to be true.

Actually what im saying is I have all the proof I need.... but unfortunately I can't prove the existence of the spirit to another person... It takes self realization/exploration...

Meditation helps too if that's the path one choses...

The purpose of this thread is to explore all aspects of the spirit/soul... and hopefully find and share more evidence of it...

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Hmmm...,you can' refute my argument, so you nit-pick about my words?!! You know what I meant and this thread is about belief in the soul, not imagination about it. So my own particular terminology for this particular subject, just seemed to fit better. Soooo... Do you believe in the soul? Probably, not, as there is little concrete supporting it--yet.

Sorry, I really didn't mean to nitpick. My question was genuine. It's just like how the word 'theory' is completely different in layman's terms from what it means in scientific terms.

I can HOPE that I will one day win the lottery, but there is no evidence whatsoever for me to believe it.
You can HOPE that you have a soul, but there is no evidence whatsoever for you to say that you believe it.

Right or wrong I can believe that it will rain tomorrow. I can say this because I've seen it rain before. I've seen dark ominous clouds and lightning before.

But, I cannot believe there are Leprechauns because there simply is no evidence for them. I can imagine them, I can wish they were real, I can hope that they're real, but I can't 'believe' it.

reply to post by Akragon

Actually what im saying is I have all the proof I need

I've heard this said many times, and I am curious if it's even a valid statement. We are standing side by side and are about to witness a child getting hit by a train. The child doesn't see the train coming. She's just walking along the tracks. Funny thing, though, her shoelaces are untied. She trips over them, falling off the tracks and stumbling safely away from the train.

Now, you claim this as proof of guardian angels while all I see is one very lucky child. How is your proof valid if I don't agree with it?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Akragon

 

Actually what im saying is I have all the proof I need

I've heard this said many times, and I am curious if it's even a valid statement. We are standing side by side and are about to witness a child getting hit by a train. The child doesn't see the train coming. She's just walking along the tracks. Funny thing, though, her shoelaces are untied. She trips over them, falling off the tracks and stumbling safely away from the train.

Now, you claim this as proof of guardian angels while all I see is one very lucky child. How is your proof valid if I don't agree with it?

edit on 3/12/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

Actually im unsure about "guardian angels"... I've never seen one, or had any experiences with them... Though I've been told I have one by many people... Just because I've never experienced such a thing doesn't mean they don't exist though... Many people can and do talk to them... so who are we to say their experience isn't Valid?

I don't personally believe Demons exist... but others claim they do... so I can't deny the possibility of their existence just because I don't agree. One might say, well if spirits exist... demons must also exist... Perhaps that is true... but I've never experienced one so can I deny the possibility of their existence?

To deny the "possibility" is claiming absolute knowledge... which is not a valid argument

Personal experience is a valid argument to the one who has had said experience...

I have had experiences which validate the existence of the spiritual realm... I've also spoken to people that were long dead, though it was in a dream... but who is to say that our dreams are just our minds playing tricks on us?

Im open to possibilities... and my experiences (not just in dreams) have validated what I've said for me... but I don't expect my experiences to validate anything for anyone else...

Since this thread aired, I've done a lot of study into the phenomenon of the emergent system. There's a book out, by Michael S. Gazzaniga called Who's In Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain (Harper-Collins) that does a great job of digging into this new approach to the question of human consciousness and intellect, and I really encourage anyone who'd like to examine - what I believe to be - the most plausible scientific theory concerning the true nature of human intellect, to check this book out. It's really helped me get a much firmer handle on the nature of progressive development within the material realm, and this emergent system phenomenon may very well be the key to understanding the whole of physical reality itself.

What's important to always keep in mind is that nothing is truly unique once the basic fundamentals have been established. This is true regardless of what it is that you're examining. All music is based on 12 notes (well, all listenable music, since I realize that some idiot will toss Philip Glass at me or semi-tone experimental stuff, but let's pretend that we're not trolls in search of controversy) and even the most deranged arrangements are quantized at some level. The whole of physical reality is "rinse-repeat", and that goes for human consciousness as well.

Yes, the human mind is the only thing capable of creating subjectivity, but how it comes into existence is as objective an event as everything else that occurs. That's probably the most important piece to the entire puzzle.

My money is on the mind being the emergent system that comes into existence as a result of the complex confluence of the human brain as it balances from instant to instant with every other system that becomes present within each of those instants over the course of the human life span. It's a very specific form of information that doesn't exist as a result of any other type of confluence, and each instant adds another "cell" (for lack of a better analogy) to the "body" of the human "spirit" as a whole. When the brain finally dies, the "spirit" is fully developed and ready to begin its own life.

There's a small gathering of physicists and neuroscientists that are starting to seriously consider this notion, and I think they're on to something.