Are we purely material beings or do we have souls?

76140469d65703d1a8f7e6b3211726f8.jpg
 
“Nothing” becomes the transcendental origin of everything.
“Nothing” becomes God without the title.
We could argue about whether "nothing" qualifies as transcendental.

Apart from that, though, are you telling us that your God is indistinguishable from "nothing"?

If you're trying to define "God = nothing" in a roundabout sort of way, I don't think you'll find too many atheists who will disagree with you.

Explicit atheists spend the rest of their atheist life, trying to run from that logic.:D
Why would they?
 
We could argue about whether "nothing" qualifies as transcendental.
If it is the cause of something, then it is transcendental.
Apart from that, though, are you telling us that your God is indistinguishable from "nothing"?
If I was an atheist, I would be.
If you're trying to define "God = nothing" in a roundabout sort of way, I don't think you'll find too many atheists who will disagree with you.
I think you’re right.
But, to maintain their belief system, they have have to pretend that it is a consideration, because they know that under scrutiny their position ultimately amounts to nothing.
No, Jan. Atheists are human beings. Like you, they believe in lots of things. They just don't believe in gods. That's really all there is to it.
Because they know it is unreasonable.

Hey James, is it okay to cuss on these forums now?
 
Hey James, is it okay to cuss on these forums now?
Thinking of reporting me Jan? :D

But hey! god/s and nothing? That makes a lot of sense...like myths and nothing, or pink unicorns and nothing.
Or are you agreeing that the quantum foam should be defined as nothing? Are you now like the Catholic church, finally recognising the evidence that tells us that Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact?....and that the BB is so overwhelmingly supported, that it to is fact?
 
People believe universes, including time, space, matter, mind, and consciousness, jus pop into existence out nothing, and out of nowhere.
This is hell.
No Jan that's wrong. People accept the observable universe, space and time, as evolutionary models that align with observational evidence.
We have no evidence for hell...we have no evidence for heaven...we have no evidence for souls...and we have no evidence for any supernatural creature. In fact they are all legendary myth to support the gullible and their fear in the finality of death, just as you seem to fear Jan.
 
People believe universes, including time, space, matter, mind, and consciousness, jus pop into existence out nothing, and out of nowhere.

Scientists don't have all the answers to the universe, Jan, they've only been at it for a short time and have a lot of ground to cover. Their explanations so far are not complete and indeed when more evidence and observation comes to pass, they'll have much better explanations, full of detail and facts that will help us better understand our origins.

Of course, if none of it is of any consequence to you, feel free to chime in and provide your own detailed explanations that we can all understand?
 
Jan Ardena said:
People believe universes, including time, space, matter, mind, and consciousness, jus pop into existence out nothing, and out of nowhere.

Indeed .

Which is non-sense .

Scientists don't have all the answers to the universe, Jan, they've only been at it for a short time and have a lot of ground to cover. Their explanations so far are not complete and indeed when more evidence and observation comes to pass, they'll have much better explanations, full of detail and facts that will help us better understand our origins.

Of course, if none of it is of any consequence to you, feel free to chime in and provide your own detailed explanations that we can all understand?

Knowledge becomes greater but not the thinking .
 
No Jan that's wrong. People accept the observable universe, space and time, as evolutionary models that align with observational evidence.
We have no evidence for hell...we have no evidence for heaven...we have no evidence for souls...and we have no evidence for any supernatural creature. In fact they are all legendary myth to support the gullible and their fear in the finality of death, just as you seem to fear Jan.
Why don’t you respond to Paddo’s remark about hell?
 
I take it that you assume that you are an immaterial soul that has temporary control of a material body. You claim you know this. But how? Why do you believe this is true?
Because I am not my body.
You can’t be the things that you regard as owning, or having control over. I am not a part of my hand. My hand is a part of me. The question is; what is me?
If you say "I own my arm", that doesn't show that your arm is owned by a disembodied soul. It only shows that you believe that there is a concept that you label "I" that seems to have control of the arm, most of the time.
It shows that as well.
Give me a reason why that belief is not true?
Since nobody else controls the arm, you say you own it. If you were French, you'd never refer to "my arm", though; you'd just refer to it as "the arm", so your choice of this form of words is largely an accident related to the language you speak.
Do the French make the same references with regards their friend, car, dna?
Moreover, if the "I" you refer to is actually nothing more than the material body and brain, then this is what is asserting "ownership" of the arm.
So we lie to ourselves virtually from the moment start to talk, until we can talk no more? It’s a wonder we can distinguish the difference between ‘I and mine’ at all.
You will argue, again, that you refer to "my body" in its entirety ("I own my body"), as if that is supposed to somehow prove that the "I" is independent of the body. The problem is, you're begging the question with that.
We all say it because it is true. Just like a bird perfectly knows how to fly, and that it should fly. Only a nut would seriously try and pull the explanation you’re attempting to. And you know it.
If you start by assuming that "I" is an immaterial immortal soul, then you are faced with explaining its relationship to the body.
Not at all.
We all know it, even if we can’t explain it.
It is axiomatic.
You settle on ownership as the appropriate relationship. But see what you did there? Your whole argument is predicated on there being a soul.
No. It is based on the truth that we are not the physical body, and our natural expression of that truth.
You are making up lies, to try and hide that fact with bizzare, unnatural, unimaginable, impossible ideas. Nice try, but no cigar.
On the other hand, if you were to start by assuming that "I" is nothing other than the body's image of itself as a whole, then you'd realise that referring to "my body" is only a form of words, and a somewhat confused and obfuscatory one at that. You'd also appreciate that the particular form of words is really just an accident of the language you speak.

Interpret this to that expression;

My mind has been occupied with exercise recently. I can see that my stomach is beginning to hang over my trousers. My wife has a nice body though. She regularly put her body through a rigorous exercise regime, thought up by someone with a disciplined mind.
So, I ask you again: why do you believe you have/are a soul? It can't be just that you happen to be an English speaker.
Because it is natural for every person to express themselves in a way that makes it obvious that we are separate from our body. If we are not our body, then we are in control of the body.
Unless you can show how it is we are not.
And I don’t mean coming up with unnatural, unimaginable scenarios. I mean something that we can know and experience.
 
Back
Top