Our discussion about God and Hell has me thinking. Could it be possible that there is a spiritual reality, but that it developed naturally just like the physical universe?

I don't believe in reincarnation for a number of reasons, which is one reason why I reject Buddhism and Hinduism as true. But particularly the Buddhist view of natural spritual laws (rather than God-created spiritual laws) seems to make some sense.

Could there be an afterlife without God? What do you all think?
++++++++++++++++++++
05-14-05, 12:38 PM
juanruiz
No God. No afterlife either. Carpe diem, and enjoy this life.

05-14-05, 12:45 PM
Sarai
Juan, I know you'll say that you don't believe in an afterlife because there is no proof that it exists. I agree. However, as an agnostic, I'm more inclined to take lack of evidence for or against something to be a "maybe" than a "no."

Anyway, there are many logical reasons to argue against the existence of God. It's one of the reaons why my "maybe" about whether or not God exists tends to hang closer to a "no," although there is always a sliver of doubt. Again, I know the standard atheist line that it isn't an atheist's job to prove the non-existence of God, but atheists DO in fact have a number of good, strong logical arguments showing that at least the Western view of God is illogical beyond simply saying "there is no proof that God exists."

Are there any similar logical arguments to show that the idea of life after death is illogical?

05-14-05, 12:50 PM
juanruiz
OK. What distinguishes us from all the other life forms on this earth? Anything? I would say that we alone are aware of our mortality. That we know we will die. I'm not sure other biota are so aware. But we can't accept that. We are too important to only have this life; there HAS to be something beyond. We CAN'T stop at the grave, it just isn't fair. Or can't we?

05-14-05, 12:51 PM
Sarai
Certainly, the idea that there is no life after death has logic. I'm not doubting you on that one, Juan. But is the idea that there is a life after death necessarily illogical? That's what I want to know.

05-14-05, 12:57 PM
juanruiz
Doesn't have a whole lot to do with logic. Are you basically any different than the mosquito you swat, or the raccoon road kill on the interstate, or the cow turned into steak.? Do they go somewhere after they die? Or do they just die? What makes Homo sapiens any different? We may know it's going to happen and they don't. So we create myths which render us immune to death.

05-14-05, 01:02 PM
Sarai
Why would you assume that an afterlife could be for humans only? I don't see any problem with including ants and cockroaches. Come one, come all. Wink

05-14-05, 01:12 PM
juanruiz
I am basing my view on the Judaeo-Christian viewpoint, which seems to put salvation within the limited baliwick of humans. Not sure that the Bible says anywhere that Jesus died for Rover's sins.

05-14-05, 01:15 PM
Sarai
Since my question is an Afterlife without God, I think we can safely assume that I am not asking about a Judeo-Christian reality.

05-14-05, 01:19 PM
juanruiz
Then your view of an afterlife, with or without a god, presumes the existence of what may termed a soul, since the body is obviously dead and decays into nothing. So, what is a soul?

05-14-05, 01:34 PM
babthrower
There used to be an old story told in religious circles that if you weigh a body right before and immediately after death there is a very slight loss of weight. This is of course very silly for a lot of reasons, e.g. the instant of death cannot be measured that precisely. But what's interesting about the notion is that it's the only one I know of in which the soul is believed to be composed of matter. Most theories hold that there are two kinds of stuff: matter, which has mass, extension, and so forth, and spirit, which lacks properties (except consciousness and eternal existence).

05-14-05, 02:14 PM
juanruiz
Some of this may have come out of the "death rattle," the last gasp of air emitted before death. Belief was that that was the soul escaping the body.

05-14-05, 03:08 PM
frankvan
I'll admit that I have often had thoughts similar to Sarai's of an afterlife without a deity. For instance, to satisfy some hope of justice in the world, rather than heaven/hell a justice through re-incarnation. The cruel human who leaves his dog tied up without water or shade in the heat of summer, wouldn't it be poetic justice that he would be reborn as a dog with a cruel master who ties him up without shade or water, etc. etc. Maybe there would be some sort of self regulating system of justice as just another of nature's laws we haven't discovered as yet?? Would anyone prefer burning in hell forever? Wink

05-14-05, 05:02 PM
GarColga
Maybe when our physical body dies, our 'soul' or whatever, some kind of non-physical essence, enters a different kind of reality. Not necessarily an 'afterlife', just a different kind of life.

05-14-05, 06:35 PM
juanruiz

quote:
just a different kind of life



Selling Amway on the road?

05-14-05, 06:44 PM
babthrower
No harm in believing that the universe is somehow just. It's a comforting idea.

05-14-05, 08:41 PM
Professor
There's a book, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurection of the Dead by mathematical physicist Frank Tipler (Anchor Books, 1994) that generated a moderate amount of buzz when it was published. I read reviews of the book, but note that (1) I did not read the book; and (2) I am not endorsing it or its content. I offer this only for its apparent relevance to the topic.

Here's an excerpt from a Booklist review by Donna Seaman:

quote:
Tipler rather blithely tells us that after leaving the doomed earth to colonize other planets, our species will eventually become extinct, but life itself will survive in our "machine descendants," who will, in turn, ensure the resurrection of each and every person who ever lived. When will this occur? "The dead will be resurrected when the computer capacity of the universe is so large that the amount of capacity required to store all possible human simulations is an insignificant fraction of the entire capacity." Apparently, Tipler takes great comfort in this thought, as will, perhaps, some of his readers. The rest may just experience an overwhelming sense of dismay.

Pretty wild stuff, even for Grade A baloney. Wink

05-14-05, 09:16 PM
jusork
It would seem most likely that our life is purely physical. Not both physical and spiritual. I can see the later as a hypothetical alternative, but life having both physical and spiritual elements seems to be much futher down the line of likeliness.

05-15-05, 05:10 AM
tsaeb
There is a scripture which states that there is no death to the child of God. There is another scripture which states that this mortal must take on immortality. Get prepared for the long haul!

05-15-05, 11:26 AM
frankvan
And "the things that you're liable to read in the bible, ain't necessarily so!"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

Thanks a lot, frank. Now I'm going to have that song running through my head all day.
++++++++++++++++++
05-15-05, 12:12 PM
frankvan
That, Juan, is called making the punishment fit the crime. Wink

05-15-05, 02:09 PM
babthrower
Did anyone here ever read that science fiction story, 'the eternal melody', in which a guy theorizes that because certain melodies have a tendency to carve a groove in our consciousness, and we have a hard time shaking loose, it is evidence that there exists an 'eternal melody' of which these familiar melodies are accidental approximations. So he tries to find this perfect melody. Later his friends noticed that they had not seen him for a few days, and entered his apartment. He was in a corner, catatonic. Seems he had found it. This story pretty much spooked me.

05-15-05, 06:59 PM
frankvan
Thanks a lot, Babs. Now, all we need is for Juan to stop posting for a few days and I can never forgive myself. Red Face

05-15-05, 07:14 PM
juanruiz
Don't worry, Frank. I won't be around here, or if so very rarely, from May 24 to July 8. Have to recharge my batteries.

05-15-05, 07:50 PM
Professor

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:
...So he tries to find this perfect melody. Later his friends noticed that they had not seen him for a few days, and entered his apartment. He was in a corner, catatonic...

No, but I've ridden through "It's A Small World" at Disneyland, which had pretty much the same effect on me. Big Grin

05-15-05, 07:55 PM
babthrower
So does that mean we won't have JR to kick around for a while?

05-15-05, 10:05 PM
jusork

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:
Did anyone here ever read that science fiction story, 'the eternal melody', in which a guy theorizes that because certain melodies have a tendency to carve a groove in our consciousness, and we have a hard time shaking loose, it is evidence that there exists an 'eternal melody' of which these familiar melodies are accidental approximations. So he tries to find this perfect melody. Later his friends noticed that they had not seen him for a few days, and entered his apartment. He was in a corner, catatonic. Seems he had found it. This story pretty much spooked me.



Hey, I wonder if something like that was what happened to Brian Wilson. Hmm...

05-15-05, 10:12 PM
juanruiz

quote:
So does that mean we won't have JR to kick around for a while?



Oh, you may the opportunity to kick. It's just that the target will be less available.

05-15-05, 11:08 PM
GarColga
There'll be plenty of time to kick jr around when we get to Hell.

05-16-05, 07:33 AM
frankvan
Aside from the temperature, Hell sounds a lot more interesting than that other destination.

05-16-05, 08:16 AM
juanruiz
We'll just have to invest in an asbestos wardrobe. After death, how can it hurt?

05-16-05, 08:23 AM
babthrower
You've heard the old saying: heaven for climate, hell for company. Especially now that Douglas Adams is there.

05-16-05, 10:17 AM
bik74

quote:
Originally posted by Sarai:
Our discussion about God and Hell has me thinking. Could it be possible that there is a spiritual reality, but that it developed naturally just like the physical universe?

I don't believe in reincarnation for a number of reasons, which is one reason why I reject Buddhism and Hinduism as true. But particularly the Buddhist view of natural spritual laws (rather than God-created spiritual laws) seems to make some sense.

Could there be an afterlife without God? What do you all think?


________________________________
i have seen ur comments and juans replies.... i think i am understanding more about agonistics and atheists Frown.
Now as a muslim i would not suggest u this.....
but if u do want to belive in after life... i believe there are lots of people who practise magic/// or woo doo stuff. (like seen in some movies as well). Do go to one of them (if theyr r genuine) and call a spirit to confirm life after death.
_______________________________
I cant belive i am recommending u this stuff. Just letting u know withcraft, woo doo, black magic all is haram (illegal) prohibitied in Islam. So as a muslim i would tell you to find another way.... but the above way may help u in ur quest.
_____________________________
Juan i believe other life also think the fact that they will die & about their mortaility (atleast of their race). This is what i have come to understand from watching 'animal planet'. There have been some species who are ready to die , in order just to generate/reproduce their new offsprings. They want continuity of themselves in their offsprings (i think).
_________________________________
Take care all & peace.

05-16-05, 11:33 AM
babthrower
Bik says: "Do go to one of them (if theyr r genuine) and call a spirit to confirm life after death."

Talking with mediums and fortunetellers and so on is, I believe, a sin in Christian circles, too.

The magician Houdini and his wife were fascinated by spiritualists and mediums, but mostly to reveal fraudulent practices. But he had an open mind. On his deathbed he told his wife a secret code word, and told her to use mediums to try and contact him. But he told her that any 'message' she received from him from the mediums would be fraudulent unless it contained the secret word. No message Mrs. Houdini ever received contained the secret word.

05-17-05, 06:36 AM
bik74

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:
Bik says: "Do go to one of them (if theyr r genuine) and call a spirit to confirm life after death."

Talking with mediums and fortunetellers and so on is, I believe, a sin in Christian circles, too.
____________________________________
And as per my knowledge, one nation as per Islamic & Christain tradtions was destroyed on account of them balck magic (cant remember the nation's name). I know u do not belive in all that (but just saying it so).
___________________________________
The magician Houdini and his wife were fascinated by spiritualists and mediums, but mostly to reveal fraudulent practices. But he had an open mind. On his deathbed he told his wife a secret code word, and told her to use mediums to try and contact him. But he told her that any 'message' she received from him from the mediums would be fraudulent unless it contained the secret word. No message Mrs. Houdini ever received contained the secret word.



so i suppose there rnt any true sipritualists... good.
_____________________________
Hey Bab.... not challenging... but i am waiting for the response of the mail i sen you (Juan & Sarai). Take care.

05-17-05, 08:02 AM
babthrower
Bik, I think the forum is the proper place for these discussions.

05-17-05, 08:08 AM
coldfuse
My understanding is that an afterlife permanently and irrevocably separate from God essentially defines hell.

05-17-05, 09:37 AM
bik74

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:
Bik, I think the forum is the proper place for these discussions.


dope...... i agree, its just that i wasnt able to load the documents on this site. Sorry.....

05-18-05, 09:22 AM
gerry

quote:
Originally posted by Sarai:
Could there be an afterlife without God? What do you all think?

No. Au contraire, it is very possible that there is a God without an afterlife.


05-18-05, 10:09 AM
babthrower
Afterlife but no God?
The problem of the persistence of consciousness after brain death:

-in everyday experience, we know that the quality of our consciousness can be affected by the state of our brain; under the influence of stimulating drugs, alcohol, narcotics, etc., the quality of experience, the 'thoughts', can be greatly affected;

- if part of the brain is damaged or removed, we can experience 'loss of consciousness' or loss of function; stroke victims may not recognize their loved ones, etc;

- stimulating part of the cortex of the brain of a wide-awake person with electrodes can create the impression of 'memories' that are not real memories, but more like mini-dreams, and can be very bizarre, but are very 'real' to the subject;

- changes in body chemistry, occurring naturally and without drugs of any kind, can cause perceptions of reality which are not shared by anyone else (cf. The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat by psychiatrist Oliver Sacks, and other similar accounts of mental aberration).

These and other observations lead us to ask, "What kind of perceptions do we form after our brain has been completely cremated to ashes?"

Many of us have concluded that since consciousness is so obviously linked to brain function, then without brain there is no consciousness.

If it were the 'soul' which is our consciousness, and if the soul is completely 'spiritual' and not composed at all of matter, then things like drugs and brain injuries, purely material phenomena, should not in any way affect our consciousness.

But they do.

05-18-05, 11:01 AM
doñadiana

quote:
Originally posted by frankvan:
....... The cruel human who leaves his dog tied up without water or shade in the heat of summer, wouldn't it be poetic justice that he would be reborn as a dog with a cruel master who ties him up without shade or water, etc. etc........



But then wouldn't you have never-ending cycles of dogs being mistreated by cruel masters????

05-18-05, 11:26 AM
babthrower
Believe me, i'm no expert on reincarnation! But, DD, I seem to remember that the way it works is that in its second reincarnation, the 'dog' learns compassion, and so later is reborn as a 'higher' being, such as a cow, maybe, and so on, until everyone is good and wise, and then ... the whole cycle starts over again! But I don't know how evil comes in. Maybe every being is evil to start. I imagine doing the math on this sort of thing would generate an intense headache!

I guess most religions are about making people try to be better. Whether there is any absolute truth in any of it is the question, isn't it?

But there's a counterpoise in the religious way of making people better (as opposed to the secular humanist way of making people better.) And that is, cynical and evil people can interpret 'the will of god' in ways that suit their own purposes. So something that causes oppression and pain to people can be called 'good' because it is 'the will of god'. You'll notice that in such cases, the 'will of god' also includes features which makes certain people rich and comfortable at the expense of the faithful.

Didja ever notice that in Banana and Sugar Republics, god is extremely displeased by farm laborers' trade unions?

05-18-05, 01:40 PM
aminator2002
Here's my whacked out idea...

Life is something that can't be seen. It's like a wind. I think the idea of matter being alive is clearly a temporary state in all circumstances. I think you could look at it like a tree in the wind. For awhile the leaves are blowing. The wind is there because of air moving. When the wind stops, the air isn't gone... it's just not moving and the tree isn't moving.

It's a little more complicated but life is similar to me. It doesn't stop or go away, it just moves on. So... just like the wind that is blowing in some other trees leaves, when we die the life that was making us who we are doesn't actually die with us, but moves on to somewhere else.

So as juan said "Carpe diem"... enjoy being blown in the wind while it lasts.

05-18-05, 09:28 PM
housewife
That's a beautiful thought aminator. I like it. Don't you think it's entirely possible that our "logic" as human beings isn't always logical? I mean, it may sound like it to us but there's so much we don't know! The nature of man is such that we want to refuse to believe anything we can't prove, see or atleast see solid evidence of. I guess that's why believing in God is so hard for most people.

05-18-05, 10:00 PM
jusork

quote:
Originally posted by housewife:
That's a beautiful thought aminator. I like it. Don't you think it's entirely possible that our "logic" as human beings isn't always logical? I mean, it may sound like it to us but there's so much we don't know! The nature of man is such that we want to refuse to believe anything we can't prove, see or atleast see solid evidence of. I guess that's why believing in God is so hard for most people.



You were saying that there are some things we don't know. Isn't life beyond our conception of it? Isn't it one of those though we can't fully be sure of? In your last few sentences, you seemed to be saying that life isn't one of them. You actually know what life is based on. That you have an undeniable understanding that life is based on God.

And isn't it completely reasonable for the nature of man to refuse to believe what we can't prove. Do you believe we shouldn't base our understanding on things that we can be sure of? We should base it on things we say we know nothing about yet have complete faith in? And what is our motivating force for using absolutely nothing that we already know to understand it and immediately deciding that we can trust it. I mean why claim something is true based totally on a whim or guess? What else is the idea of a God around us except for a whim? This is why it's so hard for most people. Just imagine going down the street blindfolded and earplugged and relying totally on intution and your other senses to know what's going on around you. Surely you wouldn't put full faith in the fact that the street is clear because you have a baseless intuitive feeling that it is true, right? Are there other ways for knowing if the street is clear other than proving to our reasoning that it is clear?

I don't mean to sound like I'm totally sweeping away non-logic understanding. I only mean that reasoning is definitely the more helpful way of being sure about something. And sorry for seeming like I'm picking on you. Smile

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jusork, 05-19-05 12:06 AM

05-19-05, 09:11 AM
aminator2002

quote:
That's a beautiful thought aminator. I like it. Don't you think it's entirely possible that our "logic" as human beings isn't always logical? I mean, it may sound like it to us but there's so much we don't know! The nature of man is such that we want to refuse to believe anything we can't prove, see or atleast see solid evidence of. I guess that's why believing in God is so hard for most people.



I think most people believe in a God as defined by the prevalent religion in their area. I think that fact argues against the idea that people refuse to believe that which they can not prove. Religion is given to people in the absence of logic and asks the followers to have faith. I think that the result is that many people feel satisfied that they have some understanding of the world in what they've come to believe through their religion. To me, this was an empty way to look at the world because I didn't have faith in it all and all my questioning put me squarely on the outside of "Good Christians". I prefer to look at the world without prescribed beliefs... the more complicated an ideology is, the more I am likely to reject it. This does not mean that I reject all aspects of all religions... quite the contrary. I think there are things within all of the major religions that have value and are true, but when it comes to dogma, ritual and other things that just seem convoluted, like preaching on the afterlife... I have to step back and realize that nobody knows or could know. The idea of afterlife however is a big selling point to prospective faithful over the centuries and that above all is a reason I don't buy into it.

05-19-05, 09:43 AM
babthrower
Originally posted by housewife:

"The nature of man is such that we want to refuse to believe anything we can't prove, see or atleast see solid evidence of. I guess that's why believing in God is so hard for most people."

Au contraire. Most people believe in god, and it seems very easy for them. The number of people who are atheists stays at about 15% of the population.

People shy away in terror from the notion that there is no god. (Sorry, I mean that there is no external reality beyond the statues etc. that we use to represent our gods.) It's as if they suddenly discovered they were travelling on a train and -- no conductor!

They even face the notion that god is heartless and cruel, since he/she/it allows or causes so much pain in human existence, and they are quite willing to love and adore him/her/it in spite of that, rather than think that there is no supreme being who is conscious and who gives a heck about their lives.

This is why I am interested in religion. It is the ultimate clue to human psychology.

05-19-05, 10:23 AM
Sarai
Babthrower, thanks for answering my question!

The ideas you give are things I used to use to justify my atheism in my much more militant atheist days. I think you have a good point, but I thought I'd throw out my responses, for whatever their worth. I fully admit, though, that I have an agenda: I want to believe there is a life after death, although on the other hand, I don't really.

My response is to ask how you define "self." I ask because I don't know the answer either. I have asked this before, and some atheists have gotten fairly annoyed with me about it. They think I'm just playing linguistic games. But I'm really not. I disagree with Buddhists that there is no self, and yet at the same time, I don't know what it is. However, I think it is an important question.

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:
The problem of the persistence of consciousness after brain death:

-in everyday experience, we know that the quality of our consciousness can be affected by the state of our brain; under the influence of stimulating drugs, alcohol, narcotics, etc., the quality of experience, the 'thoughts', can be greatly affected;



Is "self" our quality of consciousness? Is someone a different person when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or is he simply the same person, but under the influence? I think you'd say the latter. If Joe drinks too much, you wouldn't say, "Oh, Joe has left and has been replaced by this new, annoying drunk guy." You would say, "I wish Joe would sober up." Joe is still Joe, drunk or not. So who is Joe? Is the self connected with sobriety, or is it something else?

quote:
- if part of the brain is damaged or removed, we can experience 'loss of consciousness' or loss of function; stroke victims may not recognize their loved ones, etc;



Is a person who has had a stroke no longer that person? If Aunt Jane has a stroke, do we say that she has died and been replaced by another person, or do we simply say that Aunt Jane has had a stroke? So who is Aunt Jane? Is the self connected with health, or is it something else?

quote:
- stimulating part of the cortex of the brain of a wide-awake person with electrodes can create the impression of 'memories' that are not real memories, but more like mini-dreams, and can be very bizarre, but are very 'real' to the subject;



This is my favorite aspect of thinking of what the "self" is. If you forget something, does that mean that you are not you anymore? Of course not. You are not simply your memories. Likewise, we all have memories that aren't accurate; that is the nature of memory. We all forget things and we all construct our reality to some extent. Is self memory, or is it something else?

quote:
- changes in body chemistry, occurring naturally and without drugs of any kind, can cause perceptions of reality which are not shared by anyone else (cf. The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat by psychiatrist Oliver Sacks, and other similar accounts of mental aberration).



I love that book! But again, are you just your perception of reality? Do you cease to be you if you hallucinate something, or are you still you, but simply Babs Hallucinating? Is self perception, or is it something else?

quote:
These and other observations lead us to ask, "What kind of perceptions do we form after our brain has been completely cremated to ashes?"



I don't know.

quote:
Many of us have concluded that since consciousness is so obviously linked to brain function, then without brain there is no consciousness.



So for you, "self" is "consciousness?" Do you cease to exist when you sleep? Is it possible that there are different levels of consciousness, and that the consciousness of the living ends with death, but that a different kind becomes clear afterwards?

Let me expand on this. If you have had too much to drink, there is still a part of you that says, "I'm drunk." What level of self is it that knows you are not behaving as you normally do? Also, when you sleep, we have all had those lucid dreams where we suddenly realize, while dreaming, that this isn't real. Certainly, we don't ALWAYS have lucid dreams, but we periodically do have a moment of real understanding. What level of self realizes the illusion? My sister was hospitalized for mental illness when I was a teenager. She was released and then had a relapse a little while later. I remember knowing that she was still sick during her first release because of the way her eyes looked. She told me later that she also knew she was still sick, and that in fact, she had pretended to be mentally healthy to get out of the hospital. The sick don't always realize they are unhealthy, but they do have moments of realization. What level of self can become aware that one is mentally ill, and able to hide it from doctors (but not sisters!)?

quote:
If it were the 'soul' which is our consciousness, and if the soul is completely 'spiritual' and not composed at all of matter, then things like drugs and brain injuries, purely material phenomena, should not in any way affect our consciousness.But they do.



I agree that "soul" or "self" cannot be the same as consciousness. Do you believe there is a "self"? If so, what do you think it is?

05-19-05, 11:52 AM
babthrower
Hi, Sarai,

Resent it? Heck, no. I love it when people want definitions. They make discussion much more efficient.

Self. What about ego? The 'I' of consciousness? Who or what do you refer to when you say, "I love oranges"?

Is that "I" the same as the "I" of you infancy? Certainly not. That "I" may very well have hated oranges!

Of course I'm not speaking legally here. Legally your identity is tied to a particular collection of protoplasm, a 'unit', an 'item' of humanity. We are told that the molecules that comprise our bodies are replaced completely in at most, seven years. (Some are replaced in minutes!) Yet the law makes us say that if the dna is the same pattern, it is the same person. most of us are comfortable with that definition.

But just as surely, the contents of our consciousness is completely replaced, too. I cannot recall anything at all before the age of three. Does that mean that my mind, my ego, my consciousness did not exist then? Most people would say that it did exist. So even though I cannot recall any figment from my 3-year-old mind, I believe it existed. It just wasn't me.

So if the body is not 'the same' one, and the mind is not 'the same' one, what is the self?

Could we not call the 'self' the current state of consciousness? The internal voice we are all said to hear? Does it persist? No. There are certain behaviors we probably carry throughout life, but certainly a state of consciousness is not one of them. How about the things we love, or prefer? Some of them are basic animal 'preferences'. I prefer ice cream to sand as a food, no matter how many nutritious particles are in the sand, but that is due to an instinctive love of rich food characteristic of the entire animal kingdom, not just my 'self'.

How about the 'higher' tastes, characteristic of humans? I like the work of the composer Satie, but ten years ago Beethoven was my fave. Is my consciousness the same? Obviously not. Musical taste is a key attribute, because music is so important to us.

The 'soul' is by definition the permanent spiritual entity which some say exists before birth, and some believe persists eternally. So it cannot be identified with the 'self'. I don't have a soul, because the term is not useful to me. I have had many 'selves' and probably will have more. I have a legal identity, which is not the same as my 'self'. If I were to have an accident and become 'a vegetable', I would still have the same legal identity; I just wouldn't have a 'self'. The 'self' is a function of brain activity. No brain, no 'self'.

I know I have a 'self'. I don't know its dimensions. How old is it? I don't know, exactly. I know it's not as old as I am. (But then, few things are. Razz ) Will it persist after my death? Of course not.

05-30-05, 10:25 PM
housewife

quote:
Originally posted by jusork:
And isn't it completely reasonable for the nature of man to refuse to believe what we can't prove. Do you believe we shouldn't base our understanding on things that we can be sure of? We should base it on things we say we know nothing about yet have complete faith in? And what is our motivating force for using absolutely nothing that we already know to understand it and immediately deciding that we can trust it. I mean why claim something is true based totally on a whim or guess?...

I don't mean to sound like I'm totally sweeping away non-logic understanding. I only mean that reasoning is definitely the more helpful way of being sure about something. And sorry for seeming like I'm picking on you. Smile



I think it seems completely reasonable to us because it's what we're used to but it may not be the best way. I don't use absolutely nothing that I already know and immediately trust anything. It's not a whim. It is an undeniable feeling. This feeling is solid evidence to me. It's not a feeling I've only had once. I feel it often, in my hard times and my good times and often in between. I've seen the power of God at work. I've felt a love from a Heavenly Father to me. No, I can't see Him. But I feel His presence just the same and I know that I am happier when I am striving to please Him. The choices I make then lead to happiness for me. I don't believe reasoning is always the more helpful way of being sure about something because if we only use our limited knowledge as humans then we may miss something very important.

05-30-05, 10:43 PM
jusork
I see your point. I guess I wouldn't rule out simple feelings of truth. I certainly haven't experienced its reliabilty though. Not yet, I suppose. Thanks for responding.

05-31-05, 01:12 PM
frankvan

quote:
Originally posted by jusork:
I see your point. I guess I wouldn't rule out simple feelings of truth. I certainly haven't experienced its reliabilty though. Not yet, I suppose. Thanks for responding.



I haven't experienced its reliability yet, either. But I'm only 82 so I have met many people who have. On the other hand I have met people who are convinced that they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ. Wink So even though thse things can't be proven true or false, they can be explained in accordance with known natural laws and experience.

05-31-05, 03:43 PM
babthrower
Undeniable feelings accepted as solid evidence is otherwise known as blind faith. The trouble with blind faith as a way of knowing is that so many people have blind faith, yet they believe in many different -- even contradictory -- things. So if blind faith is a sure and certain way of knowing, then we are forced to believe that there are many absolute truths, and that they are contradictory.

If we accept that there are many absolute truths, and that they contradict each other (e.g. Jesus is god (most Christians) and Jesus is not god (Muslims and Unitarians)) then the human brain can be discarded as a useless organ and we may as well sit around waiting for god to come, as many did at the first millennium (1000 A.D.).

Because if we believe that it is absolutely true that Jesus is god, and it is absolutely true that Jesus is not god, both literally and both simultaneously, then we can also believe the following:

-- we are all dead now

-- the devil is god

-- nothing exists

-- good is evil

-- heaven is hell

-- nothing matters

-- everything matters

-- American Idol is a good television show.

05-31-05, 08:26 PM
jusork

quote:
Originally posted by babthrower:
-- American Idol is a good television show.



Eeeeeeek!!!!

Yeah, I agree with both you guys. Apparently, the people who base their truths completely on feelings and the Bible hope their feelings can be accepted intertwined with our ordinary reliable logic. As if feelings based on faith and understanding based on facts can now go hand in hand, disregarding our accepted standards of our understanding of our world for a mishmashed understanding that seems more like picking and choosing. Their feelings of faith must be especially certain for them to disregard any usage of doubt for such unlikely, alternative possibilities of the world.

06-26-05, 07:43 PM
mike74
Lets see blind faith.... Is faith at all blind or seeing? How can you know? The Christian Bible says "we walk by faith not by sight." So if you have a faith are you suppost to totally rely on logic? According to the Christian Bible it also states "Gods ways are not like ours... it also states his foolishness is as the wisees of man" I'm not sure I quoted those exactly, but I think they go something like that.

House wife apears to be religous...A christian. So more then likely she doesnt believe in everyones truth because of a feeling! But by her feelings her faith is reinforced in God and the bible! Being that faith is not a scientific way of finding God. but is a hope that their is a God, and a belief in that hope! Again in the Christian Bible it defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

LOL anyways I hope that wasnt real confusing! But I thought you may want to understand where housewife was coming from.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,