Do Human Beings Have a Soul?

[K T Ong]

Just one question, folks:

How do you define "soul"?

We need to get this straight before there can be any meaningful discussion, right?

And BTW, I'll not be surprised if Black Dragon pops his head in, slots in a one-line post, and then goes away never to return to this thread again for further discussion.

[Cloudbringer]

Yorick... I've got love.. I've got a soul.. and I'm a HAPPY soul today [img]graemlins/1luvu.gif[/img]

Yes, do check the link, as it has a good discussion of this topic, as part of the larger one that started that thread. Personally, I always thought that thread was a good one in IW history. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cloudy on Cloud9

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

show me a soul and i will believe it exists. You can show me a brain , a heart , some kidneys , even a pancrease , but can you open some one up and show me a soul?? Some people say that the consiousness is the soul, well I have to disagree. If being self aware meant having a soul then no amount of injury could cause memory loss because that would mean loseing part of ones soul. Especialy if the soul is "who" we are. I would think that loseing part of ones soul if it existed and was the vital spark our life sprang from would cause some form of permenant physical malady or ailment.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: show me a soul and i will believe it exists. You can show me a brain , a heart , some kidneys , even a pancrease , but can you open some one up and show me a soul?? Some people say that the consiousness is the soul, well I have to disagree. If being self aware meant having a soul then no amount of injury could cause memory loss because that would mean loseing part of ones soul. Especialy if the soul is "who" we are. I would think that loseing part of ones soul if it existed and was the vital spark our life sprang from would cause some form of permenant physical malady or ailment.

I don't have to 'show' you anything. I know I have a soul and if you choose NOT to believe that, it really changes nothing. I still have one.

[Cloudbringer]

Ok.. since nobody seems to be reading the linked thread, here's what was said at one point by dramnek then myself, please check that thread out if you want to see how the discussion progressed. [img]smile.gif[/img]

from that thread:

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Prove you do have a soul, There is no evidence at all for the existence of what people would call a soul. If their is no evidence,it cannot be assumed to exist until there is evidence to prove otherwise. belief or faith in an idea does not make it valid.

I actually have no physical evidence you exist at the moment. Computer programs can do postings too. I have no evidence air exists (sure scientists may but *I* do not) yet I breathe it and I believe those who tell me that's what I breathe to live.

You know five hundred years ago, nobody could prove air existed and it was thought that evil spirits made one sick. Is the fact that empirical proof (slides and microscope views et al) were not available to prove the existence of bacteria and viruses, proof that diseases were not caused by them then? Were diseases caused by evil spirits until we had proof that viruses and germs are responsible? Of course not! And the fact that we cannot draw a picture of a soul does not mean it doesn't exist. It means we are incapable of understanding it at this time. There are many things in this universe that we do not yet know about and every day new discoveries are made. Those things existed before man found them and I'm sure many of us would never have envisioned them but that doesn't make them invalid. I for one have never seen an atom or neutrino or a black hole. Do they exist? Well I'm willing to suspend my disbelief. Are you?

And sorry, but in this instance I believe you are wrong. My faith is enough for me. It is not enough for *you*, would be a more accurate comment, I think. Statements like yours do not change the the fact that my faith endures. Nor do they make me or others suddenly decide that you are right. All they do is make it crystal clear that there are a whole lot of differing views on the issue.
My point being, that while it is your opinion that there is no soul, you cannot prove to it my satisfaction. And I cannot prove it's existence to yours. Stalemate, I believe.
Cloudy

[ 05-20-2002, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: show me a soul and i will believe it exists. You can show me a brain , a heart , some kidneys , even a pancrease , but can you open some one up and show me a soul?? Some people say that the consiousness is the soul, well I have to disagree. If being self aware meant having a soul then no amount of injury could cause memory loss because that would mean loseing part of ones soul. Especialy if the soul is "who" we are. I would think that loseing part of ones soul if it existed and was the vital spark our life sprang from would cause some form of permenant physical malady or ailment.

Did you even bother to read the posts that deal with this subject? We are talking an abstract concept, not concrete. Philosophy, emotion, inspiration, love, fear, hate.

You can't open a human and find these things. You can see their EFFECTS though, just as you can the effects of God, the soul or any other abstract concept. Demanding concrete evidence of that which is abstract is a limited understanding if ever there was.

Show me why the thoughts of a German, which when put down on paper and read by a New Zealander who then blows air into a device of shaped metal, can bring tears to the eyes of an Australian, who lives 500 years after the death of the German, speaks a different language, and yet understands the very emotions the German was feeling?

Can you open a human and find that?

OK, so this thread went pretty much the way that I expected it to. Lots of people saying yeah, I absolutely have a soul, how can you even question it, while the rest say no way, we’re just flesh and bone.

Personally, I do not believe in a soul. In fact, I do not believe that the mind is separate to the brain, as some people have suggested. If you take away the brain, the mind does not exist. If you damage a brain, the mind will not function correctly. We have seen so many examples of this through people with brain damage.

I am not going to tell any of you that you are wrong, I am just expressing my belief as you are yours. But I do find it irritating when people use examples that are not even close to the same ballpark. For example, Cloudbringer (and please note that I respect and love Cloudy to the very depths) uses the following argument “I think that I shall decide that uss doesn't exist today. I mean, after all, I have no empirical proof that he/she/it does”. Now I know that this was partly in jest, but I’ve seen similar arguments throughout this thread. But in these sorts of cases, we have every reason to believe that Uss does exist without any “empirical” evidence. Same goes for “air” or whatever other physical things you want to argue, we don’t need “empirical” evidence to believe it to be true, as we have enough evidence to make a rational decision. As for the love argument, the one where people say “we cannot prove that we love something”, this is more ridiculous. Love, along with happiness, loneliness and other emotions are exactly that, EMOTIONS! You cannot prove them, see them, touch them, hear them, anything them….we just feel them. I assume people don't believe the soul to be an emotion!

So I believe that K T Ong has hit the nail on the head, with his suggestion that we define the soul! What is the soul? I would assume that no-one would believe in something that they didn’t even have an idea of what it was! Is it a spirit type being?

Aviendha.

[Cloudbringer]

Ahh, but Aviendha, there are computer programs that could 'be' uss. So really, I have no proof.

I'll let Yorick answer the rest, sorry, it's late and I'm off to bed soon..and..uh.. well I'm talking to Nachtrafe at the moment.. LOL so sorry, I'm um.. distracted.

[Azred]

Alas, you will not find much consensus as to the definition of "soul". For some it will be only that portion of a person that is "spiritual" or "religious"; the part that passes into the afterlife upon death. For others it will be everything that is not simply "life" (in this case, the minimum required to keep a human body alive--circulation, respiration, etc).

Great thread, though. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

wasn't that cheap? I didn't define soul. [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

[caleb]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: My point being, that while it is your opinion that there is no soul, you cannot prove to it my satisfaction. And I cannot prove it's existence to yours. Stalemate, I believe. Cloudy

Yup but people will try their best for a checkmate