Are We More Than Just Ourselves ?

[modeller]

I was asked that question . What they were getting at was the deep emotional feelings we experience , which we can not measure with our senses or properly describe but know they exist outside our physical selves .e.g Awe, fear, pleasure, when looking, feeling, hearing something almost supernatural . e.g Music, poetry, art , scenic views , flowers , anything that stirs our imagination .....................


The arguement was that if we accept that we are more than ourselves , call it the soul if you like , then why not also accept that there could be an afterlife and by extension a god.

My quick answer was these 'soul like ' experiences die when we die.
What do you think ?

[woofgang]

I am not sure why people have to argue about this or feel any drive to convince others one way or another.....

[jim360]

If the soul is a part of us... I just think this is a contradiction in terms. If we have a soul that is a part of us that soul itself has a part in making us "ourselves", and can't be regarded as being "more" in any sense.

[ck1]

Any 'soul' that would be responsible for these feelings would be part of ourselves, everybody is different due to the range of stimuli that bring out these feelings within them, the soul is what makes us who we are and doesn't exist outside of ourselves. Always interested to find out what the scientific rationale is for these kind of emotions

[naomi24]

I'm not sure they do die with us, and since no one knows whether they do or not, you can't categorically state that they do. The only truthful answer must be we don't know.

[modeller]

jim I think the point they were trying to make was ' the soul ' is a part of us but also has its separate identity and could exist without the physical part.

woofgang Don't you think it's worth a discussion. It's not an arguement but rather a way of looking at things. Isn't that why we subscribe to AB.

I pointed out if ' the soul ' does exist and it ends up in say ' heaven ' how would the soul of a minute old baby co-exist with a 100yr old and everyone else in between.

[jim360]

Well in that case, if there is discussion of whether the Soul could exist without the body, that's a bit of a moot point because there's no reason to believe in the existence of a Soul either. It's a bit of an abstract concept, really -- and if there is any kind of physical reality to it, we certainly don't know about it yet. So the answer is pretty much that we don't know. Don't know anything about it. What the Soul is, if it exists beyond the abstract, how it exists, what it relies on... any discussion would be pure speculation.

[jomifl]

Jim,you are wasting your time. You can't argue with irrational people who duck the issue at every opportunity. Why if people have souls then so do amoebae .....but very little ones.

[naomi24]

//I pointed out if ' the soul ' does exist and it ends up in say ' heaven ' how would the soul of a minute old baby co-exist with a 100yr old and everyone else in between.//

Perhaps it’s that general perception of the soul that’s wrong. What if the soul is simply the energy generated by the effects of thoughts and emotions on a living body? Memories, for example, can cause very real physical pain – as can love. Likewise, anger or fear can create great physical strength. Emotions produce energy – and that has a knock-on effect on the physical being. We know that energy cannot be destroyed, so if the soul does equate to an accumulated form of energy, it follows that it will survive corporal death. Whether it subsequently remains ‘en bloc’ or is dissipated into the ether is another matter entirely.

[modeller]

We all agree that we are all born different, physically and intellectually.
We each have our own character and level of emotions , both of which changes through our lives, but where does a 'soul ' fit into the picture.
Are we all born with the same souls or are they all different and do they change as we get older. Impossible questions !

jomifl //Why if people have souls then so do amoebae .....but very little ones. // I agree ! I don't know if souls have a size though.

I have argued with theists ,who claim we humans are special and only us go to heaven . I believe 'if' we have souls then so does every living organism. I have a friend who regularly talks to trees and is certain he will meet up with them again.

[jomifl]

To try to answer your question modeller, the emotions you describe are part of the wiring of the brain, we don't learn them although the things that trigger the emotions may be learnt. They seem intense to us simply because they are 'us' and more immediate than anything else and nothing could be more intense.. Other animals appear to have similar emotions, perhaps not so 'sophisticated' as ours, though they seem do do lust envy and greed quite well. So, if souls exist as the church believes, they cannot be connected to these emotions, sophisticated or otherwise since only humans are decreed to have souls but other animals do seem to have emotions implying that our fine feelings do not require the prescence of a soul..
Of course the theist will say that animal emotions/feelings are not comparable to those of god's finest creation...

[jim360]

Careful how you use physical laws, Naomi -- that Energy cannot be destroyed does not mean that it survives in the same form even for a second. Energy covers so many different phenomena and they are constantly changing from one to another and, ultimately, to heat.

Equally if memory and such is tied to its physical cradle of the brain then death would equate to the loss of all information stored in there. This is rather like what happens when computers fail and crash -- information contained within them is, to some extent at least, lost, because that information relied on the hardware to survive.

It's dangerous, or at least not worth spending too much time, speculating on the nature of the Soul after death when its very existence is pure conjecture.

[naomi24]

My post seems to have caused some confusion. To clarify I made no suggestion that energy survives in the same form – simply that it survives.

[jim360]

Oh I see, thanks for the clarification.

If it doesn't survive in the same form, though, can "it" be said to have survived at all? Not in any useful sense -- so whatever the different form was, it would be unlikely that anyone could look at it and say, "Oh yes, this used to be a soul,", if had had changed beyond recognition.

[modeller]

I notice the theists are noticably absent from this thread !
Do they have a problem ?

The problem I have with theists , is what are the attributes of this soul that we are supposed to be born with. ?
Logically we should all start equal at birth but we don't , we are already born grossly unequal . So does that also apply to the quality of these imaginary souls we aquire ?

[naomi24]

Modeller, actually it would be good to have some opinions here from believers - it's an interesting subject - but as you say, you seem to be whistling in the wind for an answer from them.

[Wharton]

I believe that atheists know everything, do the atheists agree, and, if not, can I go on believing it anyway?

[naomi24]

You might consider giving an answer to the question rather than ducking it.

[Wharton]

modeller - I don't think there is an answer to your question, a bit like a blind person asking what colour the wind is.

[Zacs-Master]

Well said Wharton. And a good analogy.

[Wharton]

^Although the atheists will no doubt know.