Do you believe in existence of souls, and why?

[Riggo-toni]

If you believe in the Bible, how can you not?

Hail.

Interestingly, early Israelite/Judahite theology does not appear to believe in an afterlife. Life ends in Sheol (the grave). There is no mention of an afterlife or a final judgment in any part of the Old Testament written prior to the Babylonian exile. Such beliefs only appear with the transformation of the Judahite into the Jewish religion, possibly reflecting a Zoroastrian syncretism, though there is no way to be certain, since Zoroastrian creeds were not recorded until later. It was a belief that divided Judaism, something that is clear from both late apocryphal writings (1st Maccabees affirms the existence of an afterlife, 2nd Maccabees rejects it) as well as Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

[Guest Spearfeather]

I do. But I have no desire to change anyone else's mind, nor allowing them to try to change mine.

[twa]

It certainly isn't that way (a sad existence) for a great many who have such thoughts.)

Do they truly believe they are just flesh and blood though?....going beyond death was a bit of a reach

see if I can suck ya back in.

If so can I gain you by consuming you?

[PeterMP]

Is there a reason to believe that if we have a soul that it is inmutable?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Interesting indeed R-t.

As I kinda' alluded to above, I'm not as theological as I maybe should be. But thanks, that was interesting.

Hail.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I can't remember any of this from my science classes lol...but can matter be created or destroyed? (or is it mass I'm thinking of?...Or ar they one and the same, basically?)...What about energy?

---------- Post added May-13th-2012 at 06:03 PM ----------

Is there a reason to believe that if we gave a soul that it is inmutable?

I almost asked that same question...

The other question (or philosophical concept) is, if free will exists, does that prove that we have souls?

[twa]

Interestingly, early Israelite/Judahite theology does not appear to believe in an afterlife. .

You sure you are not using just one sect?...one certainly existed,but had company

[70th Week]

The Apostle Paul makes a case for the living soul to his second letter to the Corinthian church. He puts it like this:

2 Cor. 5

6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

He also stated in another place that he was taken into the heavens and saw and heard some things that no man was/should be allowed to see/hear and the implications changed his life claiming to even have saw some of the old saints.

[Riggo-toni]

You sure you are not using just one sect?...one certainly existed,but had company

I am referring to the actual writing in the Old Testament. The division between sects and which believed in an afterlife and which did not is a Jewish phenomenon (which I thought I explained, though perhaps poorly), NOT an Israelite/Judahite (pre-exile) one.

In case you are unfamiliar with the terminology, Jew and Jewish are derivations of the Aramaic term Yehudah, which was the designation applied to those Yahwhists returned to Jerusalem by the Persians. Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc. were Israelites, NOT Jews. After the monarchy divided, people of the southern kingdom, though still children of Israel, were called Judahite, while those of the north continued to be referred to as Israelites. Essentially, the term Israelite in the 9th century went from being a race/religious term to a geopolitical designation. Some scholars simply refer to the northerners as Samaritans to avoid confusion with the generic term "Israelite" for all pre-division Levantine Yahwhists, but the Samaritan race/religion didn't emerge until after the deportation and resettlement enforced by Sargon II and Shalmaneser V.

The term translated as soul from Hebrew is nefesh, which is somewhat ambiguous and can also be translated as "living thing." Likewise ruah, translated as "spirit" in Ecclesiastes is probably more accurately translated as breath - "The breath returns to the God who gave it," referring to Genesis where God breathes the breath of life into man and he becomes a living thing (nefesh).

[twa]

Literalism and it's adherents have always been a pain

[Conn]

seems a sad existence to believe we are nothing more than flesh and blood

We're not so far removed, in intelligence, from dolphins and primates that I see us as anything more than highly evolved mammals. Seems like a "fluke" (not an accident, but a rare occurrence) that we're highly evolved enough to even contemplate having a soul, or the big "why" questions.

If dolphins, a million or a hundred million years from now, evolve to the point we're currently at, where they can contemplate the meaning of their existence...will they have souls, too? I don't believe so. I just believe they'll have the capability to think they do. Or don't.

It doesn't make my existence "sad" to believe that we're just the most highly evolved animals on the planet. It does, however, lead me to questioning many of the modern, 1st world human norms. But that's another topic altogether.

[PeterMP]

We're not so far removed, in intelligence, from dolphins and primates that I see us as anything more than highly evolved mammals. Seems like a "fluke" (not an accident, but a rare occurrence) that we're highly evolved enough to even contemplate having a soul, or the big "why" questions.

If dolphins, a million or a hundred million years from now, evolve to the point we're currently at, where they can contemplate the meaning of their existence...will they have souls, too? I don't believe so. I just believe they'll have the capability to think they do. Or don't.

It doesn't make my existence "sad" to believe that we're just the most highly evolved animals on the planet. It does, however, lead me to questioning many of the modern, 1st world human norms. But that's another topic altogether.

There is no such thing as highly evolved. You are no higher in terms of evolution than the bacteria living in your gut.

Evolution doesn't have an end point.

A top or a bottom other than as a function of time.

No co-existing species is superior (or higher or more) evolutionarily anything to any other co-existing species

[twa]

You are crushing his ego

I mean really....bacteria in his gut?

that's cruel

[PeterMP]

You are crushing his ego

I mean really....bacteria in his gut?

that's cruel

Comes from a class on teaching non-science majors evolution.

Can you live w/o the bacteria that live in side of you?

No.

Can they live w/o you?

At least some of them can live in other species

Are you evolutionaryily "better" than them?

No.

[SWFLSkins]

I do not believe in souls.

Your too young to have experiences which would forever change your belief or misconception of the existence of souls. Sorry but it hasn't happened for you yet.

[twa]

I suppose life can be cruel for the mere mortals, but they seem happy. :evilg:

[Conn]

I meant "better" or "higher" in the general sense of "we're the dominant species on the planet and the world lives and dies on our whim, and we have the intellectual capacity and higher brain function to ask the 'big questions' that we create for ourselves", but if you want to get technical, sure. That has nothing to do with my point, technicalities aside.

Twa, I'm not sure where I insulted you or pushed you to the edge, to the point where you needed to make a comment about my "ego", but if you'd like to respond to my post, feel free to.

---------- Post added May-13th-2012 at 10:12 PM ----------

Your too young to have experiences which would forever change your belief or misconception of the existence of souls. Sorry but it hasn't happened for you yet.

I don't want to pry if this is a personal thing for you, but if you were to hypothetically be like PokerPacker and I, and not believe in the existence of the soul, what does being young have to do with it? What life experiences would change that?

[PeterMP]

I meant "better" or "higher" in the general sense of "we're the dominant species on the planet and the world lives and dies on our whim

This simply isn't true.

You have more bacteria in your body than you do human cells.

What makes you more dominant than them?

Do you really think we could kill everything on this planet?

That's a ludicrous statement.

[No Excuses]

Any interest in arguing his main point? From what I understand, ConnSkins is trying to say that our concept of souls ties in with our heightened understanding of the self which is due to our well developed brain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least that's what I got out of it.

[PeterMP]

Any interest in arguing his main point? From what I understand, ConnSkins is trying to say that our concept of souls ties in with our heightened understanding of the self which is due to our well developed brain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least that's what I got out of it.

I understand, and I agree, but that doesn't mean that he should also make statement that are plain wrong.

And it isn't evidence against the exsistance of a soul.

He's put forward a useless talking point coupled with bad errors with respect to the science.

[SWFLSkins]

I don't want to pry if this is a personal thing for you, but if you were to hypothetically be like PokerPacker and I, and not believe in the existence of the soul, what does being young have to do with it? What life experiences would change that?

That's okay Conn, I have had experiences maybe even time had no hand in. I could write a book about them but will sum it up on this special day with this, I was through extraordinary circumstances, holding the hands of both my Mother and Grandmother when they passed. I was holding my Mom's hand and all family had left the room for drinks when I said Hey, it's okay it is time to go, and with that she went. The next thing I knew an orderly was tapping me on the shoulder saying it is time to remove the body. I said "man I just lost my Mother, could you give me a minute?", He said you been in here like this for forty minutes, suddenly I realized her hand was cold and reality set back in. I swear on my life during that time I felt no pain, no sound, it was not cold, nor hot, time had been suspended, it was beyond me. So yes I believe we have a soul.

It also happened again with my Grandmother, not the same exactly, but again I was delivered there under very extraordinary circumstances at just the time of passing and was holding her hand. I have also seen a ghost eye to eye and he shut a door, other people there did not know what had just happened. So the age factor you bring up is not of this world, I mean experience, there is a difference. Experiences like this would change anyone at any ages life.

The fact that I am writing this on Mothers Day should not be overlooked, some things are beyond us. I could go on, but that is enough for now. Many of us think our eyes are open, but we see only what is right in front of us and not beyond.,

[PokerPacker]

Your too young to have experiences which would forever change your belief or misconception of the existence of souls. Sorry but it hasn't happened for you yet.

I find that to be a rather condescending attitude to have about someone you do not know. :2cents:

[techboy]

Okay, I'll play.

1. Yes.

2. Because I believe in God generally and Christianity specifically for a variety of reasons, and the idea of a soul is part of the doctrine I believe in, coheres with the world as I experience it (I seem to have, for instance, free will), and is not inconsistent with any other evidence that I have been presented with.

Your brain damage objection to the soul, for example, doesn't seem to me to have much force, even using a very unsophisticated view of said soul, such as the "little guy sitting at the controls of the brain and pulling levers".

If we assume that this is the case, then the brain is the physical entry point for the soul to interact with the material world, and we would expect that damage to the brain would therefore damage the ability of the "little guy" to perform that interaction.

To use a simple example, if my wife decides to off me to collect my vast life insurance policy, and cuts the brake lines, I cannot make the brakes work on my car, even if I desperately want the car to stop. Moreover, every time the brake lines are cut, the same result occurs: I am unable to stop the car. Should we consider this to be conclusive evidence that the intention to stop comes from within the car itself, and not from me?

Now, I suppose you could argue that science provides sufficient explanation for all the properties of the mind such that we don't need a soul, and so all else being equal, Occam's Razor suggests that we shouldn't believe in it, but I'd argue that this isn't necessarily the case, and anyway, all else is not equal.

See also, for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Qualia.

[Conn]

This simply isn't true.

You have more bacteria in your body than you do human cells.

What makes you more dominant than them?

Do you really think we could kill everything on this planet?

That's a ludicrous statement.

The "good" bacteria that live in our bodies would never be able to choose to harm us. That is the difference in intelligence, if you want to use that word in reference to bacteria, and in free will. Its completely arbitrary to decide what "dominant" means and try to argue it.

I think it is more ludicrous than not to suggest that if for some reason "we" as a species decided to, we could not kill nearly every significant living thing on this planet.

Either way, this is a large departure from the point of my post, and you're nit-picking because its your field. I understand that, but its irrelevant to my point about the existence, or lack thereof, of souls. Because they are necessary for our survival, you do not view us as "better" (a word that you used, not me) than bacteria. I understand that. Technically, we are not "more highly evolved" than any other living thing, because it is a scale of time rather than of greatness. I understand that as well. But despite my technical errors, what I meant is apparent in my post, and this isn't moving the discussion forward in the least.

---------- Post added May-13th-2012 at 10:27 PM ----------

Any interest in arguing his main point? From what I understand, ConnSkins is trying to say that our concept of souls ties in with our heightened understanding of the self which is due to our well developed brain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least that's what I got out of it.

Exactly what I'm saying. We are the most intelligent species on this planet, and because of this we have the capacity to even ask these questions. Which is why we do.

[SWFLSkins]

This simply isn't true.

You have more bacteria in your body than you do human cells.

What makes you more dominant than them?

Do you really think we could kill everything on this planet?

That's a ludicrous statement.

We think much more of ourselves then we should, our ego is amazing. We have no idea how inconsequential our whims really are and how fragile we really are.