Do you have a soul?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The ability to live a life where we can ponder these questions tells me we must have a soul. To think, to live, to feel, to touch, to hear, to smell, to taste, to see... these things are, to me, extraordinarily deeper than crude science. Maybe we can quantify the "hows" of these things. We will never be able to quantify the state of actually experiencing them.

That alone is enough for me to believe in something more. Here, the Bible only offers superfluous details. Actually living offers the important ones.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I really can't elaborate, because to me it is just as simple as that. I don't mean to be an ass or anything by giving a cop out answer, but the very fact that I can experience life is enough for me.

If everything we know is filtered through our senses, how can we possibly assume that what we see, hear, feel, touch, or taste is all that's out there? Maybe "the beyond" is right next to us but we are not equipped to see it. And if all science can do is quantify the crude aspects of our 5-sense world, it really doesn't even begin to touch those big questions.

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear--stuff like this is hard to put into words!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The ability to live a life where we can ponder these questions tells me we must have a soul. To think, to live, to feel, to touch, to hear, to smell, to taste, to see... these things are, to me, extraordinarily deeper than crude science. Maybe we can quantify the "hows" of these things. We will never be able to quantify the state of actually experiencing them.

That alone is enough for me to believe in something more. Here, the Bible only offers superfluous details. Actually living offers the important ones.

Actually they are not. We think in order to co-ordinate our bodies response. We feel and touch and see in order to be aware of our surroundings. We hear likewise, to lessen danger and to hear calls of our own kind. We smell and taste to ensure that we are not eating harmful substances. You cannot be more scientific than that. It's basic. There is nothing wonderous to it, nor is there as Alcon suggested, anything metaphysical about it.

I can 'wonder' without being metaphysical. Sam Harris put it best; almost every atom on this planet, everything that makes up the air and the rocks and matter and you and me; the lenses in our eyes, the calcium in our bones comes from the material left over from the creation of the sun which formed our solar system and our planet. And the sun was only formed because billions of years ago another star or stars in the vicinity blew itself up. We are all essentially made of ‘stardust.’ That’s f-cking awesome. It’s wondrous. It makes me feel amazing and incredibly small. But it’s also science. It’s not an appeal to the metaphysical.

Maybe for you. And that's okay.

Sure, we can be made of atoms and stardust and this and that. But that's just superfluous. Who cares? Stars and planets and atoms? Those definitions operate in the confines of our world, not Truth. Maybe our senses are a result of the matter in our brains--hell, I'm sure some scientific process actually explains our ability to hear and see, etc. But the state of actually seeing something trumps the bells and whistles of it all. And you may disagree--I just think that's a more limited way of looking at things (as I'm sure you probably think about my thought process too ).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Maybe for you. And that's okay.

Sure, we can be made of atoms and stardust and this and that. But that's just superfluous. Who cares? Stars and planets and atoms? Those definitions operate in the confines of our world, not Truth. Maybe our senses are a result of the matter in our brains--hell, I'm sure some scientific process actually explains our ability to hear and see, etc. But the state of actually seeing something trumps the bells and whistles of it all. And you may disagree--I just think that's a more limited way of looking at things (as I'm sure you probably think about my thought process too ).

So the 'state of actually seeing something' isn't simply scientific, even though the fact we can see can be explained by science as you admit? If anything you are adding the 'bells and whistles' to experiences that are very fantastic but easily explainable.

You can explain how it is that we are able to see. Fine. But explain what it is actually like to see to someone who has never seen before.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You are missing my point. That person would still have no idea what anything looked like. Lack of communication? Sure, that's sort of the point. No amount of science or language in our material world will ever be able to explain exactly what it is like to see to a person who cannot. It's not about "demonstrating that sight is real." It's about the phenomenon of seeing: the science is inadequate and meaningless when you look at the big picture.

Anyhow, I'm not convincing anyone and this is really going in circles... I'll keep answering your questions if you want, but don't expect anything creative.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You're the one that's missing the point - it really is about demonstrating that something is real. There are numerous claims of the metaphysical, many of which contradict each other. Should we take all of them seriously just because someone's got a gut feeling that they are true?

No, each person should decide for himself.

And I'm not trying to say it's about demonstrating that something is real to the blind person. In the confines of our current material world, everything we think we know is shallow. The blind person can use his other senses to assume that the object goes in the box--that's fine. But the box and the object are like forms that have an essence we can't currently know. I happen to believe there is more beyond our senses.

But what our senses do show us is still an incredible gift. "Seeing" is an indescribable experience. To me, it is all the proof I need. Your faith might sit on different foundations or might not exist at all. It's not really my concern--I believe faith is inherently personal, though I appreciate the opportunity to share in my own with others.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The experience of thinking is inherently non-physical.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The experience of thinking is inherently non-physical.

If the brain is indeed the sole source of consciousness and thought is the result of neurochemical processes then thinking is purely a physical action. What is your evidence that thinking involves more than purely material processes?

Well, those neurochemical processes would be the "event" that causes the "effect" of experiencing thought. So while thinking may have roots in physicality, thinking is, itself, very different. As an experience, it cannot be physically quantified and is not manifest in a tangible environment.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

1. The phrase makes complete sense, save the absence of italics. It really bugs me when the people who argue against me seem to find weakness not in the content of my speeches, but the grammar.

No, it doesn't, and neither does your teleporter nonsense. We neither have teleporters nor have we ever tried to teleport a human being. If it bugs you that people find weakness in your ability to communicate, I suggest making efforts to improve it. It might also help if you knew what the hell you were talking about.

Oh, come on. This is a subject where no one really knows what they're talking about. To assume intellectual superiority based on the conclusions one comes to in a religion and philosophy forum is pretty disappointing.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I admire people who have such strong faith in the letter of the bible.

I have trouble believing that some people would be denied entry to one form of afterlife based on the actions they commit in this world. I can and do believe in Jesus. I can and do believe in God. But that, to me, is the hardest stumbling block.

Obviously an allknowing God is indirectly responsible for the bible. But we can't know why. We can't know that he didn't maybe include some falsehoods just for the laughs. By the same token, our allpowerful God would have also written the Quran.

Everyone has different moral standards. So why would one human interpretation of divine moral standards preclude someone from heaven?

I believe whatever afterlife exists is universal and is in another universe. The omniverse theory posits that there are varying universes, each with its own set of rules and physics. It is entirely plausible that we could "sink" into another universe after death... into an existence that a person from this universe could not even begin to fathom. But to suggest that some figure sits between the two worlds and judges a soul is just too much for me.