do you believe in the existance of " soul " ?

I have my own believings about so called " soul "

Certainly. Even if I were a naturalist I'd probably believe in the existence of a soul.

To be succinct, No. I do not.

Certainly. Even if I were a naturalist I'd probably believe in the existence of a soul.

Theokhoth

I got so-o-oul
You got it, you got it
You got it, you got it
I know you got so-o-oul

I got so-o-oul
You got it, you got it
You got it, you got it
I know you got so-o-oul

Oleg_Huzwog

no I'm dead

my soul is writing this one

Yes, although I think the nature of the soul is very ambiguous.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Certainly. Even if I were a naturalist I'd probably believe in the existence of a soul.

BumFluff122

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

no, I don't believe in souls, god(s), demons, spirits, ghosts, fairies, gnomes, angels etc.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Certainly. Even if I were a naturalist I'd probably believe in the existence of a soul.

Theokhoth

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

I can't believe it, but I find myself agreeing with something that Hoth said.

I got a soul, but I'm not a souldier. well honestly I'm not really sure

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If you were a naturalist you'd realize that there is absolutely no unequivocal evidence for the existence of a soul.

theone86

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

I can't believe it, but I find myself agreeing with something that Hoth said.

Uh-oh, that means I did something wrong. Nobody take me seriously until I figure out what I messed up. :P

:P

:P

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Certainly. Even if I were a naturalist I'd probably believe in the existence of a soul.

Theokhoth

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

I can't believe it, but I find myself agreeing with something that Hoth said.

Uh-oh, that means I did something wrong. Nobody take me seriously until I figure out what I messed up. :P

:P

:P

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If you were a naturalist you'd realize that there is absolutely no unequivocal evidence for the existence of a soul.

BumFluff122

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

No, they exist on five senses alone. They never take into account the fact that the senses can be altered, impaired, wrong. Then, via circular reasoning, the naturalist takes the information from the senses and construes that information as evidence while at the same time believing a myriad of things never experienced by their senses and yet denying that they believe them. Honor, for instance. Which is why I think I'd still believe in the existence of soul.

Plato was pretty big on that stuff, but it takes a philosophy cIass to explain their ideas with any aspect of coherence.

Yes, kind of.

No, they exist on five senses alone. They never take into account the fact that the senses can be altered, impaired, wrong. Then, via circular reasoning, the naturalist takes the information from the senses and construes that information as evidence while at the same time believing a myriad of things never experienced by their senses and yet denying that they believe them. Honor, for instance. Which is why I think I'd still believe in the existence of soul.

Plato was pretty big on that stuff, but it takes a philosophy cIass to explain their ideas with any aspect of coherence.

Theokhoth

They just presented plausible scenarios, not any evidence.

And yes I have taken philosophy cIasses.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If you were a naturalist you'd realize that there is absolutely no unequivocal evidence for the existence of a soul.

BumFluff122

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

Like I said, the nature of a soul can be very ambiguous. If someone claims to feel the existence of a soul that's enough proof for some naturalists. The question is what did that person really feel, was it really the existence of a soul or merely something unknown to which they attributed the existence of a soul? Either way, it's pretty hard to concretely define. While I wouldn't say it PROVES the existence of a soul and it certainly doesn't prove the nature of the soul, I also would say that actually proving anything is pretty meaningless to the discussion and what's more important is that people who want to take these mysterious feelings as being proof of a sould can, and people who want to doubt it can.

As for proving that there is a soul, the fact that it is such a widely used and broadly defined term can make it very easy or very hard. Can you prove that a soul is eternal? No, but if you define the soul as something a little more universal, perhaps as the intangiblecollective of one's personality, it becomes easier to prove.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, they exist on five senses alone. They never take into account the fact that the senses can be altered, impaired, wrong. Then, via circular reasoning, the naturalist takes the information from the senses and construes that information as evidence while at the same time believing a myriad of things never experienced by their senses and yet denying that they believe them. Honor, for instance. Which is why I think I'd still believe in the existence of soul.

Plato was pretty big on that stuff, but it takes a philosophy cIass to explain their ideas with any aspect of coherence.

Teenaged

They just presented plausible scenarios, not any evidence.

And yes I have taken philosophy cIasses.

They never took a picture of the soul or hooked up a machine to test it, but yes, they did have evidence.

God, this fad of empiricism is suffocating. Evidence does not have to empirical; it has to be logical, has to make sense, and that is the evidence the Greeks provided.

No, they exist on five senses alone. They never take into account the fact that the senses can be altered, impaired, wrong. Then, via circular reasoning, the naturalist takes the information from the senses and construes that information as evidence while at the same time believing a myriad of things never experienced by their senses and yet denying that they believe them. Honor, for instance. Which is why I think I'd still believe in the existence of soul.

Plato was pretty big on that stuff, but it takes a philosophy cIass to explain their ideas with any aspect of coherence.

Theokhoth

i don't *runs away* :P

I don't believe in souls.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, they exist on five senses alone. They never take into account the fact that the senses can be altered, impaired, wrong. Then, via circular reasoning, the naturalist takes the information from the senses and construes that information as evidence while at the same time believing a myriad of things never experienced by their senses and yet denying that they believe them. Honor, for instance. Which is why I think I'd still believe in the existence of soul.

Plato was pretty big on that stuff, but it takes a philosophy cIass to explain their ideas with any aspect of coherence.

Theokhoth

They just presented plausible scenarios, not any evidence.

And yes I have taken philosophy cIasses.

They never took a picture of the soul or hooked up a machine to test it, but yes, they did have evidence.

God, this fad of empiricism is suffocating. Evidence does not have to empirical; it has to be logical, has to make sense, and that is the evidence the Greeks provided.

The same logic of yours could be applied to God and it would be equally invalid.

Yes they did a great job considering the means of their times but thats it.

Definately not.

Like I said, the nature of a soul can be very ambiguous. If someone claims to feel the existence of a soul that's enough proof for some naturalists. The question is what did that person really feel, was it really the existence of a soul or merely something unknown to which they attributed the existence of a soul? Either way, it's pretty hard to concretely define. While I wouldn't say it PROVES the existence of a soul and it certainly doesn't prove the nature of the soul, I also would say that actually proving anything is pretty meaningless to the discussion and what's more important is that people who want to take these mysterious feelings as being proof of a sould can, and people who want to doubt it can.

As for proving that there is a soul, the fact that it is such a widely used and broadly defined term can make it very easy or very hard. Can you prove that a soul is eternal? No, but if you define the soul as something a little more universal, perhaps as the intangiblecollective of one's personality, it becomes easier to prove.

theone86

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, they exist on five senses alone. They never take into account the fact that the senses can be altered, impaired, wrong. Then, via circular reasoning, the naturalist takes the information from the senses and construes that information as evidence while at the same time believing a myriad of things never experienced by their senses and yet denying that they believe them. Honor, for instance. Which is why I think I'd still believe in the existence of soul.

Plato was pretty big on that stuff, but it takes a philosophy cIass to explain their ideas with any aspect of coherence.

BumFluff122

A triangle is a concept. A bachelor is a concept. Songs are concepts. Conceptions are always based on something real; some concepts add details (the concept of fairies, for instance, is based on real humans with details like wings added) and some concepts subtract, but a concept does not exist if there's nothing there to base it on.

A naturalist would deny the existence of honor because it's not experienced by the senses, ye the naturalist would still be shocked and appalled at the existence of thieves and traitors; therefore, they do believe in the concept of honor despite no sensual perception of the thing.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Um, excuse me, but, Greeks like Plato or other philosphers just deployed their ideas/versions/theories on the subject.

They just presented plausible scenarios, not any evidence.

And yes I have taken philosophy cIasses.

Teenaged

They never took a picture of the soul or hooked up a machine to test it, but yes, they did have evidence.

God, this fad of empiricism is suffocating. Evidence does not have to empirical; it has to be logical, has to make sense, and that is the evidence the Greeks provided.

The same logic of yours could be applied to God and it would be equally invalid.

Yes they did a great job considering the means of their times but thats it.

They didn't demonstrate a possibility or a plausibility. They went "What is a soul" and defined it; from there they argued for its existence until they came up with a universal definition that was plain as day and used in their works.

I'm aware that the same logic applies to God; I believe in God, remember?

A triangle is a concept. A bachelor is a concept. Conceptions are always based on something real; some concepts add details (the concept of fairies, for instance, is based on real humans with details like wings added) and some concepts subtract, but a concept does not exist if there's nothing there to base it on.

A naturalist would deny the existence of honor because it's not experienced by the senses, ye the naturalist would still be shocked and appalled at the existence of thieves and traitors; therefore, they do believe in the concept of honor despite no sensual perception of the thing.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

A triangle is a concept. A bachelor is a concept. Conceptions are always based on something real; some concepts add details (the concept of fairies, for instance, is based on real humans with details like wings added) and some concepts subtract, but a concept does not exist if there's nothing there to base it on.

A naturalist would deny the existence of honor because it's not experienced by the senses, ye the naturalist would still be shocked and appalled at the existence of thieves and traitors; therefore, they do believe in the concept of honor despite no sensual perception of the thing.

BumFluff122

That's the mainstream definition, yes.

It is not based on soem sort of supernatural existence

The concept of supernature is based on nature, so yes.

(Though I'm not exactly sure how you personall defina e a soul).

Doesn't matter.

The existence of God is based off of the world around us and the complexity and beauty of it.

This I would disagree with. The concept of God, I think, is based on several other concepts that are based on something real: God would be the ultimate goodness, the maximum potential, the beginning and end of everything and everyone throughout existence. I don't think the core concept of God is based on the complexity of the universe as much as it is on the potential of the universe.

That does not mean God exists.

God is like the soul; you need to define God before declaring Him to exist or not exist.

Nor does it mean the supernatural existence of a soul exists. If you define a soul in another way 'd be interested in hearing it.

It doesn't matter how I define the soul; the same process goes any way.

Ooh, my PS2's fixed! Gotta go; Kingdom Hearts awaits!

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

They never took a picture of the soul or hooked up a machine to test it, but yes, they did have evidence.

God, this fad of empiricism is suffocating. Evidence does not have to empirical; it has to be logical, has to make sense, and that is the evidence the Greeks provided.

Theokhoth

The same logic of yours could be applied to God and it would be equally invalid.

Yes they did a great job considering the means of their times but thats it.

They didn't demonstrate a possibility or a plausibility. They went "What is a soul" and defined it; from there they argued for its existence until they came up with a universal definition that was plain as day and used in their works.

I'm aware that the same logic applies to God; I believe in God, remember?

Ooh, my PS2's fixed! Gotta go; Kingdom Hearts awaits!

Theokhoth

.

.

.

Mods I am joking

What Theo said.

No, there is no logical reason to believe in the existance of souls. Since there is no evidence of it's existence you cannot even universally define what a "soul" is and therefore the definition will differ from person to person due to subjectivity.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Certainly. Even if I were a naturalist I'd probably believe in the existence of a soul.

Theokhoth

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

Naturalists are closed minded. What if there are more than 5 senses? Senses that haven't developed yet through evolution? Put another way, many animals can't see, but that doesn't mean there isn't sight. Many animals don't experience the same emotions that we do. Just because our bodies and minds are incapable of detecting something doesn't mean it's not there (as evidinced by all the instruments we use to make up for our shortcommings, such as microscopes).

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If you were a naturalist you'd realize that there is absolutely no unequivocal evidence for the existence of a soul.

psychobrew

If I were a naturalist evidence wouldn't matter to me as I'd rely primarily on my five senses for information.

Anywho, depending on how you define a soul, they can be demonstrated to exist. . .the Greeks did an awesome job of this.

Naturalists are closed minded. What if there are more than 5 senses? Senses that haven't developed yet through evolution? Put another way, many animals can't see, but that doesn't mean there isn't sight. Many animals don't experience the same emotions that we do. Just because our bodies and minds are incapable of detecting something doesn't mean it's not there (as evidinced by all the instruments we use to make up for our shortcommings, such as microscopes).

What if we are in the matrix?

See?

Naturalists are closed minded. What if there are more than 5 senses? Senses that haven't developed yet through evolution? Put another way, many animals can't see, but that doesn't mean there isn't sight. Many animals don't experience the same emotions that we do. Just because our bodies and minds are incapable of detecting something doesn't mean it's not there (as evidinced by all the instruments we use to make up for our shortcommings, such as microscopes).

psychobrew

Yes I believe in souls. I dontthink such human divinity and knowledgesurpasses into nothing

Yes I do believe in the human "soul", only because I eat them though.

Interesting topic. :)

The Bible never says soul and spirit are the same, and they aren't interchangeable terms. They are two separate and distinct things.:)

I do.

Interesting topic. :)

The Bible never says soul and spirit are the same, and they aren't interchangeable terms. They are two separate and distinct things.:)

topsemag55

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Interesting topic. :)

The Bible never says soul and spirit are the same, and they aren't interchangeable terms. They are two separate and distinct things.:)

mindstorm

Sure. I don't have the verse numbers handy, but one that comes to mind is about Christians "saving their soul." That would seem contradictory on its face, but it isn't.

The soul is your mind and emotions. So even though you have Christ in your heart (which saves your spirit), you can still sin and fall prey to things like lust or speak a profane word to someone. Reading the Bible feeds your mind (soul) as well as your spirit, and keeps you focused on what is right.

Even animals have souls: easily seen in dogs and cats. Ever looked into your dog's eyes after you punished him for wetting the floor?

Your spirit is the real you, created by God at the moment of conception. What does your spirit look like? Look in a mirror. Why would your spirit appear to be any different than your face?

One example of the difference would be what Jesus had to endure before and after His crucifixion. God absolutely considered cannot die, so Jesus took upon Himself a body so that the first penalty for sin (physical death - death of the body) could be fulfilled.

In Gethsemane, what Jesus could not bear was was Spiritual Death (separation from God). It is absolutely heart-rending to read His "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" He began to endure spiritual death at that moment, as in Habbakuk it states that the Father cannot look upon sin, so He turned His back on His Son.

Psalm 88 (iirc) speaks of what Jesus endured during the three days He was in the deepest pit of Hell. The Father basically blasted Jesus with every ounce of His wrath against sin (the Bible speaks that God's wrath against sin must be satisfied) for three whole days. Jesus is the only One who could endure the Father's wrath: even an atom of His wrath would blast any of us into utter nothingness.

So Jesus paid every price for sin. That is the worst punishment after death: being forever separated from God, and this is in your spiritual form. Your body is just a physical shell that serves as a vessel for your soul and spirit (both of which continue to exist after your body dies).

Edit: God created us in His Image: Jesus said "God is a spirit", so He gave every human being a spirit.