Jump to content

what is soul?


robotsyntex

Recommended Posts

i got a question.

how does science explain soul and GOD?

why heart keeps on pumping for several years and most certainly to stop working at 60 :/

why i am here? who i am? i didnt asked any one to create me?

why i have interest in games? why i like computer?

what is inspiration?

please answer my questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you got lots of questions

 

i. science does not explain the soul. science is still struggling to explain consciousness. the great thing about scientists and science is the ability to say "we don't know" - and at the moment we still don't know how consciousness arises, let alone what the soul is!

 

ii. god is a supernatural being if she exists. this basically means that is it out of sciences realm. we cannot test, experiment upon, or prove the existence of god - and not many people try. god is part of the world of faith not the world of science and there is precious little intersection between the two

 

iii. the heart will go for a lot longer than 60 years because it is a beautiful machine that works very well. humans have done very well by having hearts that continue to beat well after the prime of life

 

iv. why is anyone anywhere? that is the major philosophical question of humanity - many answer it by reverting to religion, many eschew any answers and merely state that I am here and move on from there. the purpose of human existence is not a question that I think will or can ever be answered. if you prefer to seek an answer in religion, then fine, but my course of action would be to maximise the utility of being here rather than concentrating on the why

 

v. I do not know who you are. I am not sure who I am apart from the names my parents gave me, the position society allotted me, the friendships and love that define me, and the constantly changing self image that portrays me

 

vi. no one ever has - and I would hope that no one ever can. the idea of asking to be created is philosophically and logically dodgy - how can you ask to be created, if you exist to ask then you have already been created and thus the point is void.

 

vii. games are fun

 

viii. computers are the archetypal stupid student through which one can learn about oneself. they also have some cool games

 

ix. god only knows. if you get some use it, if you have none then use it anyway and worry about the lack of inspiration later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how does science explain soul and GOD?

i. science does not explain the soul.

Actually, psychology and the ramifications of neuroscience do a fine job of explaining this.

 

why i am here?

To learn how to improve your grammar, hopefully.

 

who i am? i didnt asked any one to create me?

You didn't have to. You did not exist when your parents engaged in coitus and the sperm of your father fertilized the egg of your mother.

 

what is inspiration?

It is 1% of what breeds success. The remaining portion is actually perspiration, at least according to ole' Tom Edison, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@

 

imatfaal user_popup.png

first one should decide on which side he is. religion or science. there is no intermediate way.

1: YET WE HAVENT REACHED that LEVEL of tec n science which can give us details about soul. yes indeed heart a beautiful machinery but there is always some fuel to run machinery and soul is that fuel. which never consumes. it seems something fishy but it is true.

science basically denies concept of soul and god.

 

 

ii. god is a supernatural being if she exists. this basically means that is it out of sciences realm. we cannot test, experiment upon, or prove the existence of god - and not many people try. god is part of the world of faith not the world of science and there is precious little intersection between the two

basically god is not somethings u want to test on :D. u want to test and to become or create new god. :/

 

why is anyone anywhere? that is the major philosophical question of humanity - many answer it by reverting to religion, many eschew any answers and merely state that I am here and move on from there. the purpose of human existence is not a question that I think will or can ever be answered. if you prefer to seek an answer in religion, then fine, but my course of action would be to maximise the utility of being here rather than concentrating on the why

 

yes indeed science can't answer this. and again i have to say because it denies concept of god.

 

---

basically u may have notice that science cant answer many things but religion can.

so my question is why science reject concept of god.

 

and yes one thing.

i dont want to break rules of forum but to give logic for my answer.

 

"…We have not neglected anything in this Book…" (6:38) QURAN "book of Muslims"

 

 

 

 

i don't want to give a long reference but i think it is enough. above verse means that knowledge of creation of earth is in book.

it is also proved by science.

There are 4 naturally occuring isotopes of iron. 54,56,57,58. the isotopes of iron 57 is the most abundant on earth. the 57th Surah (topic) of quran is named after iron. in this surah (topic) word iron has appeared at 25th verse (26th with bismillah which is part of surah) so we can say it is at 26th. and 26 is the ATOMIC NUMBER, number of protons of iron. surah it self contain 30 verses. and number of neutrons of iron is also 30.

there are millions of things like this. just 1 as reference.

 

so actually i cant figure that when science is proving authenticity of book then why it is rejecting concept of God. ? :/

Edited by robotsyntex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science doesn't reject god. It makes the concept irrelevant. It's like saying science rejects the easter bunny. It does no such thing. It just renders it completely moot and not worthy of time, attention, or consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YET WE HAVENT REACHED that LEVEL of tec n science which can give us details about soul. yes indeed heart a beautiful machinery but there is always some fuel to run machinery and soul is that fuel. which never consumes. it seems something fishy but it is true.

 

No, it's not true. You yourself roughly tried to say "there haven't been any discoveries in science about soul." So you really told yourself that you're wrong; we don't know anything definite or real about "soul". Accidental liars paradox, eh?

 

For all I know, "soul" is an imaginary concept made-up by the cult which all religion may be.

 

why i have interest in games?

Because creative people such as me get together and make them. Thank you very much. ;)

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not true. You yourself roughly tried to say "there haven't been any discoveries in science about soul." So you really told yourself that you're wrong; we don't know anything definite or real about "soul". Accidental liars paradox, eh?

 

For all I know, "soul" is an imaginary concept made-up by the cult which all religion may be.

 

 

Because creative people such as me get together and make them. Thank you very much. ;)

 

bro

basically i was supporting soul with respect to religion.

cause

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

and i really believe this. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

and i really believe this. :)

If you find yourself in agreement with that quote, I'd encourage you to seek to understand it more fully. It does not really mean what it looks like on first glance.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

 

In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three human impulses which develop religious belief: fear, social morality, and a cosmic religious feeling. A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, the individual feels "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner in the third. He maintained, "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as aspirations for truth derive from the religious sphere. For Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." He continued:

 

a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be...

 

An understanding of causality was fundamental to Einstein's ethical beliefs. In Einstein's view, "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science," for religion can always take refuge in areas that science can not yet explain. It was Einstein's belief that in the "struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope" and cultivate the "Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself."

 

 

And, FWIW, the concept of a soul is just another bunch of rubbish that insecure minds use to make themselves feel better. It's a lot like imaginary friends, or the concept of god, actually. What Ben was saying is that you are somewhat foolish to proclaim this knowledge, and you are admitting this yourself when you say you believe it even though there is no good reason or evidence to support that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

basically people may not understand. science have limitations and most scientists call it nature. but in real it is creation and system of Allah (GOD) which science cant explain without including religion in science.

 

some more proves.

 

every one has its own point of view.

 

 

thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your questions are a very feeble attempt at aristotlean argument, that really only works when u corner them with ur argument in person and ask each question in order so they cannot refute the next question without refuting their previous answer.

 

You tell me what is "soul"?

 

Yes the nature of existence boggles my mind too, the fact that there is something rather than nothing is wonderous. I find alot more wonder in science than I do in religion. Religion states facts as faith, it doesn't allow room for progression, it stifles creativity and removes mystery. Science is the ultimate thriller in the writing, wait for the next edition. Maybe read a few previous ones :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iNow, you gave some beautiful quotes to clarify Einstein's position as an agnostic atheist with an awe and reverence for the Universe. It forced me to read about this humble and rational man. However, back to the OP, the question of a soul is a thorny issue.

 

We seem to have a complex consciousness, which includes a unified sense of 'self' which can respond to the environment and to which events seem to happen. We also have recursive thought which can express itself in complex syntax. We seem to have been given a pre-formed brain structure which can recognise cause and effect and seems to recognise the need for worship, rather than the blank slate or tabula rasa that philosophers thought existed in humans. We are causative agents at beyond our immediate geography and can cause positive or negative change in other organisms in a giant cause-effect chain.

 

I can see why people believe in a soul that is instantiated into human form at birth and that could survive it at death. It is a way of achieving the reward for a personality that 'evolves' to improve itself and others and receives its eventual award, with illusion (not deception) of free will. IMHO, God's role is to create the Laws of Nature and an invisible Law that allows man the rewards of his good actions and punishment for actions where others suffer unnecessarily.

Edited by jimmydasaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iNow, you gave some beautiful quotes to clarify Einstein's position as an agnostic atheist with an awe and reverence for the Universe. It forced me to read about this humble and rational man. However, back to the OP, the question of a soul is a thorny issue.

I agree - the more you read about Einstein the more one realises how amazing he was.

 

We seem to have a complex consciousness, which includes a unified sense of 'self' which can respond to the environment and to which events seem to happen. We also have recursive thought which can express itself in complex syntax. We seem to have been given a pre-formed brain structure which can recognise cause and effect and seems to recognise the need for worship, rather than the blank slate or tabula rasa that philosophers thought existed in humans. We are causative agents at beyond our immediate geography and can cause positive or negative change in other organisms in a giant cause-effect chain.

Are you sure that the seeming need to worship is not cultural rather than innate? - or is not the atavistic remains of an earlier instinct of the pack animal?

 

I can see why people believe in a soul that is instantiated into human form at birth and that could survive it at death. It is a way of achieving the reward for a personality that 'evolves' to improve itself and others and receives its eventual award, with illusion (not deception) of free will. IMHO, God's role is to create the Laws of Nature and an invisible Law that allows man the rewards of his good actions and punishment for actions where others suffer unnecessarily.

Are they really good acts if the course of action is pursued in the knowledge/possibility of eventual reward - or are they merely cost/benefit calculations?

 

On the origin of the soul; I must admit that if I were involved in the early days of a non-pagan ( post-personification of natural phenomena) religion the positing of a reward for obedience that can never be tested, collected, nor observed would seem like a real winner.

 

On the "need" for the soul; the vast majority of our ancestors and an unconscionable percentage of the current population lead lives filled with pain, suffering, and deprivation - it is very easy to understand their need for a deserved period of respite and comfort. Personally (even though I love my job) I make it through the day by anticipating a pleasant evening relaxing, through the week looking forward to a weekend hiking in the lakes, through the weeks planning a holiday to an exotic location and new experiences, through the months etc. But I stop that procession in this world; I do not live life anticipating the reward of an afterlife. But if I lived in a time and a society in which I had no energy left to enjoy my rest, in which weekends were more work, in which travel and freedoms were restricted - then I would need to believe in something else, something other, something in which the normal rules were suspended and I could be me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seem to have a complex consciousness, which includes a unified sense of 'self' which can respond to the environment and to which events seem to happen. We also have recursive thought which can express itself in complex syntax. We seem to have been given a pre-formed brain structure which can recognise cause and effect and seems to recognise the need for worship, rather than the blank slate or tabula rasa that philosophers thought existed in humans. We are causative agents at beyond our immediate geography and can cause positive or negative change in other organisms in a giant cause-effect chain.

I tend to agree with all of these things, but cannot agree with the leap that is being taken from these facts toward the baseless speculation that humans have a soul that is incorporeal, eternal, transcendent, and carries our consciousness forward after all biological activity has ceased with death. Not that you personally did this, but I further cannot fathom the hypocrisy that allows someone to say this process... if indeed a result of the cognitive processes above... is a human-only quality that other animals similarly gifted with such cognitive processes do not possess.

 

Maybe the term soul is being used as a synonym for the word "mind," or "consciousness," of "self." Maybe it's only being used by you to describe the sum total of one person's being... the self... But, if that's the case, then we already have words for those things... words that are far more precise and that have the benefit of not coming attached with the ideological baggage and differing historical interpretations that the term "soul" comes with... and we should use those words instead.

 

I accept that there is a numinous and even sometimes transcendent quality in our lives which would be silly to dismiss (such as when holding a newborn child or standing atop a freshly hiked mountain top or when listening to soft velvety jazz with a glass of luscious red wine after a taxing day of office tasks and tribulations), but I feel it is the height of ignorance and self-aggrandizement to imbue this quality with supernatural characteristics... To suggest for even a moment that it is carried on after our deaths and that it is limited not only just to humans... but just to humans of one specific ideology or worldview. The supernatural assertions alone make me reject the idea as childish rubbish, but then add on top of it that the mandates and rules and description of the numinous can only be properly handled by a small handful of pious church leaders and biblical authors is downright repugnant to me.

 

Worse yet, even when you step out into more eastern philosophies and away from the abrahamic, the level of ill-defined terminology and willy-nilly usage that applies to damned near anything when using the term "soul" doesn't seem to diminish. The term is truly little more than a fly paper for the ridiculous and IMO lacks even a vague semblance of clarity, merit, and utility.

 

If you're describing something else, we have words for that something else. Use them. If you're using the term soul, however, then you need to define it in a way that is clear, consistent, and that shares consensus. I wish you luck, my good man, as thus far in this thread and also in the countless other discussions on this topic scattered across the web and across history have failed in spectacular fashion to do exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - the more you read about Einstein the more one realises how amazing he was.

 

 

Are you sure that the seeming need to worship is not cultural rather than innate? - or is not the atavistic remains of an earlier instinct of the pack animal?

 

Of course it is a possible atavistic behavioural response to survival/food searching. However, Abrahamic faiths start and finish with the soul and it is the domain of faith.

 

 

Are they really good acts if the course of action is pursued in the knowledge/possibility of eventual reward - or are they merely cost/benefit calculations?

 

Again, it is a possible cost/benefit calculation which is atavistic. However, IMHO there are personality types which are self-sacrificing and seem to derive pleasure from it. IMHO, genes, upbringing and environment seem to play a part in developing what we call personality, but what is it in the person that gains the sense of satisfaction. Is it mere epiphenomenology? Or something deeper?

 

On the origin of the soul; I must admit that if I were involved in the early days of a non-pagan ( post-personification of natural phenomena) religion the positing of a reward for obedience that can never be tested, collected, nor observed would seem like a real winner.

 

On the "need" for the soul; the vast majority of our ancestors and an unconscionable percentage of the current population lead lives filled with pain, suffering, and deprivation - it is very easy to understand their need for a deserved period of respite and comfort. Personally (even though I love my job) I make it through the day by anticipating a pleasant evening relaxing, through the week looking forward to a weekend hiking in the lakes, through the weeks planning a holiday to an exotic location and new experiences, through the months etc. But I stop that procession in this world; I do not live life anticipating the reward of an afterlife. But if I lived in a time and a society in which I had no energy left to enjoy my rest, in which weekends were more work, in which travel and freedoms were restricted - then I would need to believe in something else, something other, something in which the normal rules were suspended and I could be me.

 

Surely the societal systems we build are those which are filled with pain and suffering because their is no magic formula for happiness. Money and freedom do not seem to provide many answers in general. Even in the midst of the richest societies in the world, we find that the system is flawed. Poverty is widespread, people feel that their responsibility stops at their front doors, for the most part. I can see that the answers to meet the unhappy nature of a society are based on trial and error. Perhaps it needs a metacognitive approach to find true spiritual and bodily happiness. So far, no society that I can see has found a way out of the rat race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.