Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1525/1637
(07-Jan-2012 at 07:04)
How the Afterlife Makes Perfect Sense

The soul, which somehow attaches itself to the body, continues on when the body does not. The soul being some kind of immaterial recording device, which mirrors the experience of the body. Persumably, the executive, the will, is also transported in the soul. Consciousness, too. But then when the connection to the body has ended, so too is the sense organs. So then, something likened to the senses is also transported in the soul, otherwise the soul would continue is darkness, no different to a conscious harddrive.

So then the soul is an immaterial recording device, which is conscious and has senses likened to what is experienced in the human body. But then the human body has limitations, whose nature - that can be likened to the experience of the body - is at odds with continuation beyond death. The human body does not function well in the long term. So then, the soul must contain senses which are better, no, perfect, in relation to the body, that can sustain itself with computer-like precision over the eons.

While the body is connected to the soul, it is evident the experience of the soul cannot be experienced very well. The soul is truly embedded in the body as to be experienced as one in the same. Perhaps the function of this process is to learn its likeness in bodily form and ground the senses in a way which makes sense when the body has discontinued. After the body dies, the perfect sense emerges and consciousness becomes expanded and everflowing. In this way, the body has likeness to the soul and vice versa.

The question comes down to how we could know that the soul exists. If the soul is born and embedded into the body like any other natural process, then it ought to be able to be measured. But, then, how does one measure something that is connected to the material but exists in the immaterial? The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, in the way it can be traced.

The soul contains a mirror image of the body in memories, senses etc. but the thing that it cannot record is the continuation of consciousness, otherwise it would not be truly continued. The soul sees the consciousness continuing as if it was its own, because the experience is it's own. The consciousness, begins in its limited bodily capacity, but one day expands beyond the body. When the body dies, the consciousness continues.

So to reinstate the question, how do we know that the soul exists? Because consciousness exists. It is an abnormality. The sum of the parts, the human body in all its complexity, cannot not show how consciousness has emerged. Consciousness is immaterial. The body and its effects on the contents of consciousness can be measured, but consciousness itself cannot be verified. It is simply assumed under the right conditions, and this is not scientific. To believe in consciousness is to believe in the immaterial. To believe in the immaterial consciousness is to believe in the soul.

So then it must be true that as the agency of the body declines, the experience of the soul emerges? Not necessisarily. Even while the body declines to vegetative stages, the connection to the soul still exists. So while the body is broadcasting static, the soul can not emerge. Only when the body is inanimate will the soul emerge on its own.

Finally, how do we know that the soul will emerge? The soul is immaterial, therefore in the termination of the material body, there is nothing suggest that it wouldn't continue. So while to origin of consciousness appears to be tired into the body or otherwise unknown, it's nature of being immaterial means that it continues, since an absense of the body cannot trigger an absense of the soul.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6912/7006
(08-Jan-2012 at 15:24)


First, prove that this soul exists.

Only when you have done that can you start discussing its properties.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as B1ackAurora)
Posts: 441/469
(08-Jan-2012 at 16:00)


your whole reasoning requires the assumption that a soul exists.
#3  
View Public Profile Visit Black Oranje's homepage Find more posts by Black Oranje Add Black Oranje to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2807/2825
(08-Jan-2012 at 17:14)


Re: How the Afterlife Makes Perfect Sense

Dude sorry but with so many assumptions it's really really far away from making sense .

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1527/1637
(10-Jan-2012 at 04:00)
Re: How the Afterlife Makes Perfect Sense

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
So to reinstate the question, how do we know that the soul exists? Because consciousness exists. It is an abnormality. The sum of the parts, the human body in all its complexity, cannot not show how consciousness has emerged. Consciousness is immaterial. The body and its effects on the contents of consciousness can be measured, but consciousness itself cannot be verified. It is simply assumed under the right conditions, and this is not scientific. To believe in consciousness is to believe in the immaterial. To believe in the immaterial consciousness is to believe in the soul.
If I could only discuss one paragraph, it would be this. This is the key assumption that proposes the soul exist: that consciousness has no material basis.

The reasoning is as follows: we cannot locate consciousness in the brain, but only the likely circumstances that it is present. Even then, the notion that we are conscious is wholly subjective, in that we can measure the brain all we like, but we have to ASK someone if they are conscious to verify it. So conciousness is either a cognative illusion as a result of complex brain function or if it exists it must do so immaterially.

Now, choose one, and carefully consider the rammifications of each.
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1528/1637
(10-Jan-2012 at 08:40)
I anticipate that someone will suggest that even though we don't exactly know how consciousness works, it is only a matter of time before science discovers it.

It would seem that this is the standard answer for any empiricist who is presented with a problem. "We don't know" is really "We will know". But isn't empiricism itself a kind of assumption that everything that can be know is limited to the scientific method and everything outside of this must be false? The may as well say:

"We choose to follow the scientific method but according to an arbitrary concession of ignorance about the nature of knowledge we will pretend that everything outside of said method is false."

Not only is this inadequate, it aims more at impressing ones peers in a pissing contest than making a mature sense of the world, which includes the possibility of knowledge living outside the confines of the laboratory. Though supreme in its self-reassurrance, science is merely a culture, a sport, another anthropological pursuit toying with an untamable universe.

Arrogance says "it's only a matter of time", but then what? Once you have your trophy, surely you will arbitrarily assign a new one to be conquered, and so on and so forth. It's never about the truth, it's about the the thrill of the chase, ad this speaks volumes about the authenticity of the scientific pursuit to begin with.

I henceforth reject the scientific method as having any merit whatsoever. Its process of compartmentalization does worse than reveal partial truth, but in its egarness to impress, distorts it openly.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3280/3400
Donated $25.30
(10-Jan-2012 at 12:13)


How is it that you have absolutely no concept of what "scientific method" or even a general understanding about what science is?

Quote:
It's never about the truth
It's never been about finding the truth, it's been about finding facts, it's been about learning, about bettering ourselves through the pursuit of knowledge.

Facts are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them.


Quote:
"We choose to follow the scientific method but according to an arbitrary concession of ignorance about the nature of knowledge we will pretend that everything outside of said method is false."
"We choose to follow the scientific method because of our thirst for knowledge and of fact in an effort to combat ignorance.
If we wished to know truth and the nature of knowledge we would go to church."

Quote:
Arrogance says "it's only a matter of time", but then what? Once you have your trophy, surely you will arbitrarily assign a new one to be conquered, and so on and so forth.
Arrogance doesnt say "it's only a matter of time", it says "there is nothing left to learn"
The quest for knowledge and understanding is unending. When one goal is achieved another goal will take its place. It is the way of all things.



Quote:
I henceforth reject the scientific method as having any merit whatsoever. Its process of compartmentalization does worse than reveal partial truth, but in its egarness to impress, distorts it openly.
“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” Obi-Wan Kenobi

Believing a truth requires some trust and faith
Believing a fact only requires acceptance of proof

Overall your first post makes too many assumptions and claims without anything real to back it up

Quote:
Even while the body declines to vegetative stages, the connection to the soul still exists. So while the body is broadcasting static, the soul can not emerge.
oh?
Where do you get your information?
Evidence on the subject of vegetative states would suggest the exact opposite of what you state.
Consciousness is not required for the body to operate.

*shrugs*

I think VoR said it best

First, prove that this soul exists.

Only when you have done that can you start discussing its properties.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
R.I.P. InJustice!
Hit me up on Facebook

EWE-tah
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Black Aurora)
Posts: 442/469
(10-Jan-2012 at 13:18)


how about, for the purposes of this discussion, we assume a soul does exist.

Just seems like fun to theorize what would happen.
#8  
View Public Profile Visit Black Oranje's homepage Find more posts by Black Oranje Add Black Oranje to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6913/7006
(10-Jan-2012 at 14:13)


Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:
This is the key assumption that proposes the soul exist: that consciousness has no material basis.
A circular argument. The 'soul' has no material basis because it is just an idea, and 'no material basis' is just a restatement of 'it's an idea', so your argument boils down to "this idea must be true because it is an idea".


Quote:
The reasoning is as follows: we cannot locate consciousness in the brain
First, you are shifting your ground. First you talked about the soul, now you change it to consciousness. It is only your opinion that the two things are the same, but now you are using your conclusion as the premise of your argument.

Second, you are factually wrong. Consciousness *is* located in the brain, and this has been known for over a century. It is proven very simply: destroy the brain and consciousness disappears.


Quote:
the notion that we are conscious is wholly subjective, in that we can measure the brain all we like, but we have to ASK someone if they are conscious to verify it.
No, it is not subjective at all. And no, only an idiot has to ask someone if they are conscious. Conscious/not conscious are not polar states. Consciousness has degrees, so "Are you conscious?" is a meaningless question.

What medical staff will do is ask questions such as "What is your name?" and "Where are we?" and "What is todays date?" to establish the level of consciousness. Not because it is some mystical beyond-the-ken-of-science thing, but because it is much quicker, easier, and cheaper than using EEG or fMRI to measure brain activity.


Quote:
I anticipate that someone will suggest that even though we don't exactly know how consciousness works, it is only a matter of time before science discovers it.
The only person who has suggested that is you. Your entire post is one big, red-herring argument.


Quote:
But isn't empiricism itself a kind of assumption that everything that can be know is limited to the scientific method and everything outside of this must be false?
No, it isn't. Not even close.

There is nothing 'outside' scientific method, for the same reason that their is nothing 'outside' reason or 'outside' thought. The only people who say there is are crackpots who have had their silly ideas proved false.


Quote:
Though supreme in its self-reassurrance, science is merely a culture, a sport, another anthropological pursuit toying with an untamable universe.
Science is none of those things. It is just a broad label attached to a field of study, and the 'scientific method' that you clearly know nothing about is a label attached to many methods of acquiring empirical and measurable evidence *before* starting to reason with it.

To argue that something that cannot be observed or measured, that does not shown any evidence at all of even existing, simply must exist because you say so, and then use that unsupported assumption - act of faith even - to 'prove' scientific method is flawed, is really nonsensical because it is using the conclusion as the premise - again.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3821/3863
(10-Jan-2012 at 21:35)


I'll indulge you Gotters, and make the same assumption you have, that there is such a thing as a soul.

How did you find out about it's properties in such a concise way, as to present your argument as fact?

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 10-Jan-2012 at 21:36.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 227/246
(12-Jan-2012 at 00:02)


His ideas are not testable and therefor not science. He can call them philosophical, but not scientific. Science deals with the concrete. It asks questions and then tests to see if something may be true or usually is. If it is untestable then it falls outside of science. Many "scientists" come up with untestable ideas and those should not be considered scientific.

As to the Soul we do know there is energy in every organism and it seemingly disappears at death. It is an odd phenomenon with no good explanation as yet. As it has to go somewhere.

Religion and Philosophy have a lot to say about the soul. Science has nothing to say about it as it is not testable.

Honour, Courage, Integrity,
these are not just words,
they are a way of life
#11  
View Public Profile Visit Trent's homepage Find more posts by Trent Add Trent to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6915/7006
(12-Jan-2012 at 01:37)


The problem is not that the soul is untestable. The problem is that it is unobservable. It cannot be detected in any way, and has no observable effects. Science can offer an explanation for this: the soul does not exist.

Calling it philosophy is a little disingenuous. Philosophical ideas still have to make sense and stand up logically.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3822/3863
(12-Jan-2012 at 01:46)


Re: How the Afterlife Makes Perfect Sense

Originally Posted by Trent: View Post
As to the Soul we do know there is energy in every organism and it seemingly disappears at death. It is an odd phenomenon with no good explanation as yet. As it has to go somewhere.
Of course there is energy in every organism. We do know where it goes.

Prime example: Fossil Fuel

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 230/246
(13-Jan-2012 at 05:09)


Science can never prove something does not exist. It is closed minded to think that we can see observe everything. We are still learning and it is best to keep an open mind.

Yes fossil fuels are a break down of organic matter. But that takes time and does not negate the question of where electricity in the brain goes. Theyhave done some experiments.

Honour, Courage, Integrity,
these are not just words,
they are a way of life
#14  
View Public Profile Visit Trent's homepage Find more posts by Trent Add Trent to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6919/7006
(13-Jan-2012 at 12:27)


Quote:
Science can never prove something does not exist.
Quote:
It is closed minded to think that we can see observe everything.
This 'all or nothing' argument is really tired and should be put to rest. We live in the 21st century now and have things called 'probabilities'. If you look in your garage and see no car, there is a very high probability that the car isn't there. but who gives a damn if it isn't exactly 100%?

Sure, you can keep going back and looking again, and concocting baseless theories that maybe your car is somehow undetectable and beyond science, and say that the people who keep saying "your car is not there..." are closed minded, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 234/246
(13-Jan-2012 at 19:44)


The idea of a car and how we define it would suggest a garage where the car is not seen means it is probably has no car. Yet there is a slight possibility that it is there but in someway is not seen. Highly unlikely as we have set parameters for what a car is.

A soul is not so highly defined and has yet to be truly observed. It is NOT scientific to claim a person has or has not a soul. We can run tests but we don't even know what to look for as the concept of the soul is philosophical or theological, not scientific.

Not every concept can face the scientific method as that method requires the ability to test. Logic is not science but a tool used in it as well as in philosophy and so forth.

With scientific certainty I can say the soul may or may not exist and at this time there is no way to test for it.

Honour, Courage, Integrity,
these are not just words,
they are a way of life
#16  
View Public Profile Visit Trent's homepage Find more posts by Trent Add Trent to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6920/7006
(14-Jan-2012 at 03:53)


Quote:
The idea of a car and how we define it would suggest a garage where the car is not seen means it is probably has no car.
Fine. Change it to a dragon, a spaghetti monster, a spaceman from Alpha Centauri, the Soul of the Garage, anything you want. The argument still stands: if X cannot be found, the most probable explanation is that X isn't there.


Quote:
We can run tests but we don't even know what to look for as the concept of the soul is philosophical or theological
AKA imaginary.

It is not philosophical. Philosophical arguments still have to stand up logically, and the idea of the soul is 100% faith based, with no logical basis at all.


Quote:
Not every concept can face the scientific method as that method requires the ability to test.
Yes they can. You are effectively saying 'not every concept can face up to reasoning', because that is all this 'scientific method' you keep referring to is.

The only things that can't be tested are the ones that don't exist - see a pattern here? If it exists, it can be detected either directly or indirectly, and hence can be measured. Failure to measure or test means that your argument has no premise, just like your argument about the soul - you are haven't proved it even exists, yet you think you can discuss it's properties?

If something cannot be detected, does nothing, and has no effects on anything else in the universe, then in all probability it does not exist.


Quote:
With scientific certainty I can say the soul may or may not exist and at this time there is no way to test for it.
Wrong. Learn some science.

I can say, based on Vs(a) = CTv(a) - CTf(a), that the probability of the soul not existing is way higher than the fantasy that it exists but is mysteriously undetectable in any way - as if that is somehow different to 'doesn't exist'.

You are using the same lame argument that people wheel out for gods, angels, ghosts, flying saucers, fairies, aliens on earth, ancient spacemen, etc.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 236/246
(14-Jan-2012 at 16:23)


The Scientific Method is one method where logic is used but not the only area where logic applies. Not everything can be explained by science. Using what some call science I can show there is a God.

There are infinite universes, at least some scientists believe yet have no ability to prove it and so is not scientific. If you have infinite then life is assured to happen by random. Also, with infinity we can say that a being of infinite ability, God or flying spaghetti monster, exists. May be unlikely but with infinite even the improbable become a reality. Such a being would be able to exist in every universe as it would not be limited. Thus with bad science you can show anything you want.

Philosophy brought us the idea of the atom but it was a long time before science adopted it as it was untestable. Pure Science leaves many holes as we do not have the ability to test everything. Philosophy takes the next step and applies logic without testing as it can't be tested. Theology delves into a different field of the study of God and the interaction of people with the divine. Each has it's place. Science is limited to observation. You may say the probability of something but that does not make it so.

A soul is untestable. It is a common held belief across many cultures and many religions. Is it scientific, no. Science can't test it but is unable to prove it one way or another. We are not that advanced. If a person decides that the soul does not exist, that is fine and their choice, but to claim everyone else is wrong is poor logic. Life has many mysteries and science uncovers many but it is still young.

Obviously we will never agree. I hope you take a Philosophy class someday or one on Logic. I think further discussion here is pointless as we are both too stubborn to agree with the other and see each other as illogical and perhaps could use other words to describe it.

Honour, Courage, Integrity,
these are not just words,
they are a way of life
#18  
View Public Profile Visit Trent's homepage Find more posts by Trent Add Trent to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 7006
(14-Jan-2012 at 16:42)


The Scientific Method? How about you tell us what this Scientific Method is?

You know nothing of science, and I know that because you are so naive that you think it deals in absolutes. You are about 100 years behind the times...

You also know nothing of philosophy or logic. I know this because you have clearly never even heard of Karl Popper.

In the light of this, telling me to take classes in logic and philosophy shows exactly how immature you are.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 237/246
(15-Jan-2012 at 07:32)


You can go read up at http://www.sciencebuddies.org/scienc...c_method.shtml I found a simple site for you.

You have no idea of what I know. To that I must say talking further with you is unproductive. Sometimes it is okay not to have the last comment or agree with people.

Honour, Courage, Integrity,
these are not just words,
they are a way of life
#20  
View Public Profile Visit Trent's homepage Find more posts by Trent Add Trent to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zea Rebellion [merged] Inniscor Alliances Discussions 698 02-Sep-2005 03:13
What makes you happy? Shodan The Lunatic Asylum 58 06-Nov-2003 03:23
belief about God Victor1 Religious Discussions 34 24-Jun-2003 01:27
The Perfect Guy Valek The Lunatic Asylum 22 04-Apr-2003 13:09
Poll That Makes No Sense (as you viewers voted on as being the next poll) CVD DEATH Gone Polls Heaven 15 04-Aug-2002 22:31


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 05:35.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.