There is no such thing as a soul

[MeDeFe]

gringo, you still fail to show how the two aspects are reconcilable, on the one hand the soul as the manifestation of physical processes in the human body, and on the other hand the sould as something eternal and non-corporeal. Where's the link between them?

[daddy1gringo]

gringo, you still fail to show how the two aspects are reconcilable, on the one hand the soul as the manifestation of physical processes in the human body, and on the other hand the sould as something eternal and non-corporeal. Where's the link between them?

That's my point. The OP's conclusion is based on the assumption that it has to be one or the other, and that assumption is not proven. I don't have to prove that the assumption is false, just that it is (i before e except after c) conceivable for it to be false.

I wouldn't even need to believe that the soul actually is as I have described in order to refute the OP's assertion, just that it could be. For the record I would say that it is true that the "soul" is a unity: though God-given and eternal, it exists in the physical world and is subject to being affected, for good or ill, by experiences and events. We develop our character in this world and carry it with us into what is next.

Mostly, as I understand it, it is built up, torn down, and otherwise shaped mainly by the choices we make. If that is true, the case of the person's behavior being changed by brain damage would seem unfair. It could be, however, as in Ambrose's television analogy, just a malfunction of how the "program" is expressed, or played out in this world through the available imperfect equipment, and not an actual change in what is eternal.

I don't know that you could prove such a thing as the nature of the soul. Probably I could prove something that specific about it to another person who shares my belief that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, but without that common ground, it's a matter of your own definitions and experiences.

I still have to give my reasons to believe in (I won't say "proof for") the soul. It's a little involved and I'm pretty busy the next couple of days, so it will have to wait a little longer.

[MeDeFe]

gringo, you still fail to show how the two aspects are reconcilable, on the one hand the soul as the manifestation of physical processes in the human body, and on the other hand the sould as something eternal and non-corporeal. Where's the link between them?

That's my point. The OP's conclusion is based on the assumption that it has to be one or the other, and that assumption is not proven. I don't have to prove that the assumption is false, just that it is (i before e except after c) conceivable for it to be false.

I wouldn't even need to believe that the soul actually is as I have described in order to refute the OP's assertion, just that it could be. For the record I would say that it is true that the "soul" is a unity: though God-given and eternal, it exists in the physical world and is subject to being affected, for good or ill, by experiences and events. We develop our character in this world and carry it with us into what is next.

Mostly, as I understand it, it is built up, torn down, and otherwise shaped mainly by the choices we make. If that is true, the case of the person's behavior being changed by brain damage would seem unfair. It could be, however, as in Ambrose's television analogy, just a malfunction of how the "program" is expressed, or played out in this world through the available imperfect equipment, and not an actual change in what is eternal.

I'm not sure you answered my question, and I read your post 4 times and the post where you originally brought this up. In that post, if I understood you correctly, you made the claim that the soul is a unity of two different aspects, a physical aspect on the one hand and an eternal non-physical aspect on the other (Beware! Here there be tangents! I suppose this is to be the part that goes to live with god after the body dies).
My question is how that could be possible. How can something non-physical have a direct influence on something physical? How can something non-physical and something physical form a unity? What is (possibly) the link between the physical and the non-physical aspect?
And if there is no link between the two aspects, how can they then possibly be called a unity?

[tzor]

My question is how that could be possible. How can something non-physical have a direct influence on something physical? How can something non-physical and something physical form a unity? What is (possibly) the link between the physical and the non-physical aspect?
And if there is no link between the two aspects, how can they then possibly be called a unity?

There are a lot of questions here. First of all it is important not to get hung up with physical and non physical. External universes might be impacting our own, clearly not "physical" in our universe but having a physical impact in our universe. Then there is the question of quantum physics or even chaos theory in general. In our far from deterministic universe there are lots of places where things can change other things.

But it begs the question. In one sense we need to question whether or not the body/soul are really two different ideas or whether they are two different ways of looking at the same thing (much as you can look at things as particles or waves) which can lead to different results that are both true at the same time.

This is why I constantly complain about straw men arguments. The basic belief that the essence who we are continues somehow beyond our death. The deails of how we do not know and every time we try to guess we are in effecting making our own straw men for others to tear down.

[MeDeFe]

My question is how that could be possible. How can something non-physical have a direct influence on something physical? How can something non-physical and something physical form a unity? What is (possibly) the link between the physical and the non-physical aspect?
And if there is no link between the two aspects, how can they then possibly be called a unity?

There are a lot of questions here. First of all it is important not to get hung up with physical and non physical. External universes might be impacting our own, clearly not "physical" in our universe but having a physical impact in our universe. Then there is the question of quantum physics or even chaos theory in general. In our far from deterministic universe there are lots of places where things can change other things.

But it begs the question. In one sense we need to question whether or not the body/soul are really two different ideas or whether they are two different ways of looking at the same thing (much as you can look at things as particles or waves) which can lead to different results that are both true at the same time.

This is why I constantly complain about straw men arguments. The basic belief that the essence who we are continues somehow beyond our death. The deails of how we do not know and every time we try to guess we are in effecting making our own straw men for others to tear down.

Well, I don't have a problem with our "essence" continuing to exist after we die, all the atoms will still be there, they just won't constitute a living organism any more. What I do have a problem with is our personality/character/spiritual side/mental faculties/watchamacallit continuing to exist as they were in life (some say even better than in life) but without the body. How does that work?

As for the other universes, surely they are physical if perceived from their POV. If the same applies to the (from our perspective) non-physical part of the soul, how can that part then be eternal from its perspective? Especially if it is supposed to be something as changeable as a person.

[tzor]

Well, I don't have a problem with our "essence" continuing to exist after we die, all the atoms will still be there, they just won't constitute a living organism any more. What I do have a problem with is our personality/character/spiritual side/mental faculties/watchamacallit continuing to exist as they were in life (some say even better than in life) but without the body. How does that work?

As for the other universes, surely they are physical if perceived from their POV. If the same applies to the (from our perspective) non-physical part of the soul, how can that part then be eternal from its perspective? Especially if it is supposed to be something as changeable as a person.

You are still thinking within the space time framework. Let's consider the full implications of the Hawkings model. If time is a property of the universe as space is then the universe, the entire space time universe, is. The space time universe is and of itself eternal. It is, like a gigant CD Rom, static and complete, from the beginning of time to the end of time. If so this universe could be read, again and again, forward to back and vice versa.

Remember that, as faar as Christiantity is concerned there is nothing that describes how the soul acts once speperated from the body but instead the belief in the "resurrection" or the reunion of the soul to a physical but different body. Not as a shadow or a sade of ones former self as was the common Greek notion of the underworld, but a real existance with its creator.

[MeDeFe]

You are still thinking within the space time framework. Let's consider the full implications of the Hawkings model. If time is a property of the universe as space is then the universe, the entire space time universe, is. The space time universe is and of itself eternal. It is, like a gigant CD Rom, static and complete, from the beginning of time to the end of time. If so this universe could be read, again and again, forward to back and vice versa.

Remember that, as faar as Christiantity is concerned there is nothing that describes how the soul acts once speperated from the body but instead the belief in the "resurrection" or the reunion of the soul to a physical but different body. Not as a shadow or a sade of ones former self as was the common Greek notion of the underworld, but a real existance with its creator.

You'll have to be a little more explicit, because I'm not sure what your point is.

[Neoteny]

You are still thinking within the space time framework. Let's consider the full implications of the Hawkings model. If time is a property of the universe as space is then the universe, the entire space time universe, is. The space time universe is and of itself eternal. It is, like a gigant CD Rom, static and complete, from the beginning of time to the end of time. If so this universe could be read, again and again, forward to back and vice versa.

Remember that, as faar as Christiantity is concerned there is nothing that describes how the soul acts once speperated from the body but instead the belief in the "resurrection" or the reunion of the soul to a physical but different body. Not as a shadow or a sade of ones former self as was the common Greek notion of the underworld, but a real existance with its creator.

You'll have to be a little more explicit, because I'm not sure what your point is.

Word is Tzor isn't around much. We are free to claim victory via last word and dance around a bonfire chanting. Or whatever else you do in your spare time.

[jonesthecurl]

For one example, when I pray for a city bus to come for me to get where I am going on time, and then thank God when it does, I do not believe that he materialized the bus around the corner. I believe his plan is big enough to have arranged for it in the big picture of events.

You believe the bus coming in time is part of God's almighty plan?


Wow. How bad is your public-transport there?

Well, on one side you've got a cluttered bureaucracy and on the other you've got a fictional entity. Tough choice in my opinion.

Yeah, that three-in-one stuff does make for confusion. But I thought there really was someone in charge of the buses...

[MeDeFe]

You are still thinking within the space time framework. Let's consider the full implications of the Hawkings model. If time is a property of the universe as space is then the universe, the entire space time universe, is. The space time universe is and of itself eternal. It is, like a gigant CD Rom, static and complete, from the beginning of time to the end of time. If so this universe could be read, again and again, forward to back and vice versa.

Remember that, as faar as Christiantity is concerned there is nothing that describes how the soul acts once speperated from the body but instead the belief in the "resurrection" or the reunion of the soul to a physical but different body. Not as a shadow or a sade of ones former self as was the common Greek notion of the underworld, but a real existance with its creator.

You'll have to be a little more explicit, because I'm not sure what your point is.

Word is Tzor isn't around much. We are free to claim victory via last word and dance around a bonfire chanting. Or whatever else you do in your spare time.

The bad news is that this is a 2.5 week bump, I spent the time occasionally going over the post in my head among doing various other things, so we'll have to give him some time to reply.

[jonesthecurl]

You are still thinking within the space time framework. Let's consider the full implications of the Hawkings model. If time is a property of the universe as space is then the universe, the entire space time universe, is. The space time universe is and of itself eternal. It is, like a gigant CD Rom, static and complete, from the beginning of time to the end of time. If so this universe could be read, again and again, forward to back and vice versa.

Remember that, as faar as Christiantity is concerned there is nothing that describes how the soul acts once speperated from the body but instead the belief in the "resurrection" or the reunion of the soul to a physical but different body. Not as a shadow or a sade of ones former self as was the common Greek notion of the underworld, but a real existance with its creator.

You'll have to be a little more explicit, because I'm not sure what your point is.

Word is Tzor isn't around much. We are free to claim victory via last word and dance around a bonfire chanting. Or whatever else you do in your spare time.

The bad news is that this is a 2.5 week bump, I spent the time occasionally going over the post in my head among doing various other things, so we'll have to give him some time to reply.

He did say he was done with CC over the whole wicked thing.

[MeDeFe]

He's been sighted since.

[Neoteny]

He's been sighted since.

I tried to convince him to stay, much to several people's chagrin, I'm sure.

[Juan_Bottom]

Cool sig tho.............

Hopefully the Wicked thing will go paramount tonight, and he'll decide to stay..... I did.....