Do we have souls?

[RINO Tom]

To those who act as if this is a "believe in fairy tale" or "accept science" type question (those questions rarely exist), I suggest you check out the physics theory of biocentracism (proposed by the highly respected Dr. Robert Lanza, whom the NYT voted the 3rd most important scientist in the world), which proposes that because the Universe appears intelligent/designed (even atheististic scientists admit this; they simply propose the multiverse theory to get around a "Designer" of sorts), intelligence must have predated physical matter and time.  In this scenario, our bodies would actually just be mechanisms that allow us to *use* consciousness (much like a radio picks up an FM signal) and that after we die that consciousness might move into another dimension.  If true, it'd sound eerily like a description of an after life.

[RINO Tom]

Appearance of design doesn't imply designh

also: argument from authority (he is recognized by as a scientist for his work on stem cells), and  his hypothesis is pure pseudoscience/ crappy philosophy

1) Okay, that is not the same at all.  We can calculate mathematically with hard, solid evidence the odds that life can arise in any given state of conditions.  That is a picture that happens to look like something, and if someone lazily looks at it, they might mistake it for design.  This is years and years worth of studying physics and the cosmos.  There is a reason that EVERY single credible scientists either believes that we live in a multiverse (where it stands to reason that the only universe with intelligent beings [i.e., the one that "won the cosmic lottery," so to speak] would be the one we're in, because we are alive) or some kind of "ordering mechanism" (be that an all-encompassing "truth" outside of space and time, a God or some other intelligence we can't comprehend); clue after clue in our Universe points to the fact that we shouldn't be here.  You can choose to believe that this is just a trick of the heart and believe in an almost astronomically small chance, but I do not personally.

2) It's not like I'm endorsing this guy's theory because he's well-respected, but I find it highly relevant if those with that claim to have the most knowledge on a subject are recognized for their accomplishments by a third party; that seems pretty important to being able to trust what they have to say.  That doesn't make his theory right at all, just as it doesn't make Paul Davies' theoretical physics claims of evidence of a higher being or Lawrence Krauss' insistence on a universe that arose from nothingness the gospel truth.