(another thought experiment) Given: All humans possess an Immortal Soul. Given: All souls are Immortal, and cannot be destroyed. Given: at least one purpose of a Soul being in a human, is So that the soul may Advance (Advance how? I'll leave this for another thread. Suffice it to say, that physical life enables the Soul to Advance somehow.) Given: Since all souls are immortal, it is Very Hard to Create One. (let alone, the many billions required if each human has one). Given: since it is SO hard, it is Likely that at least Some souls are Reused. Given: Once a soul leaves the physical realm (i.e. a human body), the soul is no longer Constrained by the Limits of Time and Space. A soul may traverse all of time and space, and re-enter the physical realm at ANY point in History. Therefore, we may safely conclude that there are Fewer Souls than there are People Who Have Lived (and are living, obviously). What if (here is the point), what if they ALL are Reused? As each soul is released by death, it goes forwards or back in Time, to another suitable Life and is reborn. (I know, this is not new. Wait.) What if the total number of souls, in the abstract, is FAR, FAR fewer than the total number of humans? REALLY, REALLY fewer? Suppose, that there, really, is Just ONE Soul? Suppose that this SAME soul is used over and over again and again: past-to-present-to-future, over and over and over again. Doubling, trebling , multi-billion-ing up on itself. But, from the point of view of the SOUL, it would be ONE CONTINUOUS thread of existence, punctuated by birth-living-death; birth-living-death cycles, as this SINGLE SOUL traverses all of Time and Space as needed, so that each human body has it's turn with the soul. In some, meta-physical, cosmic way, the soul is Advancing (sometimes you need to take several steps back, in order to advance farther later, perhaps up another path). Each human life is a link on this long, continuous chain of Advancement. ... So what, you say? True, there's no way to prove or disprove any of this. But, if we were the ACT as if this were true: wouldn't you be a bit hesitant before Doing Harm to someone else, if you thought "That other person is really ME in some, distant way. We share the same Soul, after all." Wouldn't you be a bit more careful, if you were a General, in sending so many off to die, if you thought "Those soldiers are ME. We share the same Soul. I better be SURE this is the Right Thing To Do." Mightn't you think a second time, before stealing from someone else, if you believed this? ... Food for thought.
If this is true, then every war ever fought is mass suicide. Is this soul perhaps sentient in itself? You're saying that humans are a billion threads woven into one blanket, but is that blanket somehow able to control or at least direct each thread in a certain way?
I would agree that this is true, even if my idea is false. Any war should be seen as suidical. That is not to say I think that we should NEVER fight a war: sometimes an agressive nation/people leave the remainder no real choice, except for war. But, I believe war should ALWAYS be seen as a choice-of-last-resort. Don't know. No evidence. I suppose that in order to Advance, there would need to be some sort of directing mechanisim, wouldn't there? I hadn't thought of that aspect. I really like your analogy of "blanket", though. I'll use that, next time I bring this up, if you don't mind. It seems clear, though, that for each life cycle, the memories are not preserved to the next one. At least, the emperical evidence to support that is seriously missing. But, who knows? Perhaps, there is some sort of suppression going on, during life, and that after death, the Soul remembers all the past-life experiences again, mistakes, improvements, etc. This could be the control mechanisim: the Soul remembers the life just lived, and all the previous lives in contrast. Interesting. Thanks for the input.
Hold on uno momento, por favor. If your going to talk about evidence or empirical evidence as support, you must first show that a soul does in fact exist as opposed to merely stating it as a given.
No he doesn't, this is an entirely speculative conversation. If there are facts supporting something, it is based on the assumption that something exists in a certain way. It's an if. And yeah, use all the analogies you like, glad to be of service.
That is precisely how I see life. Except I think the souls who get be reused are of those people who have done good deeds to this world. So there is one soul but that soul includes many souls that it cannot control because these souls have not chosen what side they are to stick to, the evil or the good. So if the person commited crimes, his next life will tend to be to what his soul became, evil, so he will more likely commit evil, but if that person changes and controls his will against all odds then he might get a much better life.
Interesting. What about those souls that are in-between? What about OTHER conditions, that are neither "good" nor "evil"? Why limit the classification to only those two, VERY subjective concepts? Need it always be "Either-Or"?
But that's not what he said - he specifically mentioned evidence and empirical evidence, for which there is absolutely none. He can go on all he wants about souls since all that can be said about souls comes straight from the imagination, but he cannot invoke evidence unless he first comes up with evidence for the existence of a soul. Kapeesh?
No, he used Empirical evidence in the context of assumption, as said. Obviously it's impossible, for us at least, to prove that this theory is true or not, so we have to speculate. "Evidence" is in reference to SPECULATION. IF.
Given: All the "given's" are complete bollocks, and as such no answer will be forthcoming. Therefore we cannot "safely conclude" anything. Now to the "what if's".. I can give any old nonsensical answer because there's nothing to the actual question. There's one soul, there's a million souls, they're reborn or not reborn - it's all utterly meaningless. As to IF there was one soul hurting someone else is hurting yourself.. Who cares? The "given" in this case is that that 1 soul is immortal. You can do whatever you want to it and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.
BOB: HI BOB! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! THE SOUL IS AN ENERGETIC MANIFESTATION OF A HIGHER ORDER OF CREATION, AS AN ENERGETIC PRINCIPLE IT MAY TRANSFORM (TRANSCEND) TO ANOTHER PRINCIPLE NO LONGER RECOGNISED AS A SOUL. THIS WOULD BE FOR A SOUL THE EQUIVALENT OF DEATH TO A HUMAN. IT WILL HELP YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THESE MATTERS IF YOU RECOGNISE THAT THE SOUL IS NOT IN THE HUMAN, THE HUMAN, THE BODY, IS IN THE SOUL. AS THE SOUL IS IN SPIRIT. THAT WOULD DEPEND ON YOUR POWER TO TRANSFORM ENERGY. IS IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO CREATE SPERM? AND IF YOU COUNT ALL THEM IDDY BIDDY ENERGETIC INDIVDUAL POTENTIAL BABIES, THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF THEM. CREATED WITHOUT ANY EFFORT AT ALL THIS IDEA IS CENTRED IN THINKING THAT THE SOULS ARE USED BY THE HUMAN, RATHER THAN THE HUMAN AS A BODY , A VEHICLE IS USED BY THE SOUL. THE SOUL IS ALREADY EXISTING AND IT IS THE BODY THAT IS USED FOR ITS PURPOSE NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. THERE IS NO HISTORY AS REALM THE WAY YOU THINK, THERE IS ONLY NOW, HISTORY DOES NOT EXIST, FUTURE DOES NOT EXIST. ONLY THE PRESENT EXISTS AND THE PRESENT IS ETERNAL. EACH HUMAN IS A STRAND AND EACH SOUL IS A THREAD AND THE ONE IS A BLANKET.
Bob, This is where your idea fell flat. Immortality doesn’t imply there isn’t a starting point. I think what you meant was that a soul must be infinite, past and future. That doesn’t follow either. Why couldn’t there be an infinite number of souls? Nah – poorly defined premises.
Input? I can come up with as many imaginative explanations for a soul as the next person, is that what you want to hear?
