Key

While I'm sorry to have irritated you, I merely pointed out it depends on whether a person believes or not. Faith requires no real proof, after all. Fundamentalist would debate if "God is within you" were a slogan, as it is in their scripture. But, slogans aside, it still boils down to an earlier statement I made. We will never know, as we can't experience things as androids do, nor they as we can. Thus, a soul may or may not be born or evolved within the shell.

In the Christian context, "God is within you" or "God is everywhere", then the argument is heated, either it's believed or not. In some pagan, or non-christian religions, it is believed that God is in everything. Again, the argument becomes valid simply because it can't be proven He's not. Thus a soul must be possible within inanimate objects or why would He exist in them? (Or She, as pronouns are dependent on the believer.) I could say this in a number of different ways, the argument becomes valid or not depending upon belief. Just as the debate of the possibility of an android having a soul. Indeed, people say strange things. But they've also have had stranger beliefs or ideals.

It's all been an interesting read to me. By now you should know me to be like a sponge that absorbs information. Another good reason to be here. In my prepubescent youth, I dabbled a bit in minor black magic. But when I became aware of the serious consequences that could be dealt with it, I was scared away from any further attempts to try or understand. But now, as I'm older, knowledge is power. I seek just to understand for the moment. My mind has always been years ahead of my body in development. Perhaps that's why I absorb without judgement, for the most part. And, maybe why I am fascinated by what the mind is capable of, while seeking the limits of it.

Cool. Thanks for sharing this, Pete.

Religions are often in dispute with science except where science proves religion is accurate. Anything that doesn't jibe, religion rejects. Science is all about factual findings or probable theory, and really couldn't care less about religion. IMHO.

To me, it does and it doesn't. Like I said, it can still be open for debate. It states an android is a robot or synthetic organism that is designed to look and act human. But, it doesn't really distinguish one from the other in technological order except for outside of science fiction.

Actually, Pete, this doesn't really support Jonathan's view, either, as it's open to interpretation, as everything else is these days. It still doesn't chart the changes or evolution of robot/androids to the particular image we see today when thinking of them. Which came first, the robot, or the android? Or taking the first part of the definition, "an android is a robot", might we assume the robot did as it is used as a primary term of reference? The true answer might be from out of left field. Here is an old joke as an example: (word of warning as it may offend some who read due to sexual content) Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither, the rooster did. If this is deemed inappropriate by the moderator, I or said moderator may happily remove the reference.

As did I, but for me the development was in reverse. Androids started as robots, but evolved into a sort of organic being via advancement in technology. (Artificial organs, simulated blood, manufactured nerve or neural nets, etc.)

True. Which could be said of many threads here. Definitions for the like of: faith, religion, soul, spirit, eternal, belief, and so on. It seems we need be more specific these days for matter of heart and thought. Otherwise, all we can do is expression of individual interpretation.

Eternal? I don't know. Perhaps. Could it have had a birth into existence at some point? We may never fully grasp the concept of eternal life until such time as we have attained it. But the birth, for all we know, could happen for a droid, I'm thinking. It is said, "All things are possible with God", or, "God is within everything". Why not a droid to create a new soul deserving of a new life form?

There are many interpretations, of course, as there are faiths and religions. My personal feelings on it is simply a part of one's persona or existence that continues beyond the material realm. The energy that drives life to experience life. The continuance of experience through reincarnation, how is it to be without a soul transference through time or passing material existence? Take your pick. But can anyone truly define a soul? Which is why one can't rule out that androids can't one day develop one. Just my thoughts.

True. But, as you see above in my previous quote, while one may exist, without thinking they wouldn't know to exist. Thinking shapes experiences and creates belief.

Growing up, I think the willingness to believe in people seems to stem from the open mind we held to absorb information until such point or evidence that we could no longer or weren't comfortable doing so. Usually, after someone had proven to be untrustworthy of our attention or alliance. We become cynical when we become more focused on the failings witnessed or experienced. So much easier than being optimistic until disappointed in unwanted events. While I feel I am still an optimist, I am less than I was as a child, and more realist as I grow older. As for eager acceptance, yes, human nature is to lean towards that which feels comfortable or convenient. The con knows this all too well.

Ah, but if you could not think, you would not know to exist. Sort of a catch 22, isn't it?

Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." That is the birth of sentience. Who can say an android may never become self aware and begin thinking for itself? Machines are evolving rapidly, making the future less predictable in their regard. When a person or thing begins making choices based upon thought, for a conscience to form, could not a soul be born within?

As there have been a few unrelated attacks upon the ULC in the internet, I have been pleased to see my brothers and sisters here bond together in spite of it. And has been mentioned by another member in a thread, I haven't experienced nor witnessed such a coming together in any other church as there is done with the ULC, in my life. So, my questions are: what is the special glue, you think, that unites us so strongly? What is it here that isn't elsewhere? I'm talking about personal interpretation. For me, goes beyond the tenet of "do that which is right." It becomes the actual practice and perception of this. No one is ever guided with disparaging or soul threatening rebuke, but with experience and shared knowledge. Here, tolerance is a reality on many different levels. Which, to me, is a fundamental element needed for "family". That's as best as I can explain it from my view. How about from other's?

My thinking is we can't assume they won't feel anything. As we can't experience things as they do, and they as we do, does not mean feelings can't be developed somewhere along the way of discovering these experiences.

Amen, brother, amen.

I see no one has responded to this yet. Surprising. I have not performed this service, but am sure someone here has and will answer your questions soon. Patience, Brother. How soon are you expected to do this?

Guy (generic term, could have been a gal) obviously was a slacker when it came to research. These days any new church or religion has to jump through legal hoops to be recognized and stand on its own. Also, all major religions today had their start as a "cult" following. Last point, if this person is "Christian", they have greatly sinned as well. Making judgements that aren't his to make. "Pagan" has become generic to the unitiated or uneducated on the subject. It's funny they didn't have the courage to place any contact info, yet make such bold statements about a subject they clearly don't get.

I wasn't trying to quote scripture there, but thank you anyway. My thoughts were more along the lines as Rev. Trouten answered afterward. Still, upon further meditation of these verses, they don't really prove me wrong, either. Just as I said, though not as you did.

Welcome. We all find our paths in faith in various ways. What is important is to find a way that is important, meaningful, and true for you. All may be called to God, but not all answer. The reason? Everyone must believe for themselves, and find their way there. I, too, think the ULC is great for this very reason. Only here have I found the closest to religious freedom as we may ever get in the world, I believe. Plus, despite differences in theory, faith, or worldview, everyone is treated as a friend or family member. Even they can argue sometimes, but still respect and support each other. Thanks for joining us and come often. Welcome, again.

I had forgotten about him, too. Which further proves my point.

Yes. But not all cover their faces. Like the 9/11 hijackers and the shoelace bomber (remember him?).

Good point. But I believe in general, and referring to events as history, people may mainly remember the masterminds and not the pawns used. I certainly don't.