Does the human soul exist?

[mererdog]

9 minutes ago, Key said:

It's a never ending cycle isn't it?

"You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start." - Everlast

There are no perfect tools. The trick is to know the limits of your tools so you can do the best you can with what you've got. I watched a guy on Cutthroat Kitchen make butternut squash soup using only a claw hammer, a pot, and a stove.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

20 minutes ago, Key said:

Depends on one's terms of what rational is. It's a never ending cycle isn't it?

 

 

Daniel Dennett gives an interesting example.

 

The first person says, "I love Rock."

 

The second person says, I love Rock."

 

The first person is talking about Rock Hudson.  The second person is talking about Rock music.  There is no meeting of the minds.

 

This is what happens when we talk about God -- without common reference points.  It's useless.  We can talk about the God of the Bible.  We can talk about the God of Pantheism.  We can talk about the God of Deism.  We can talk about the Tao and The Force.  But God?  What does that mean?

 

 

 

[mererdog]

34 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

This is what happens when we talk about God -- without common reference points.  

Translation is more art than science. The only way two people can mean exactly the same thing by any word is for those two people to think exactly the same way. We always understand things differently than one another. Sometimes it is a matter of nuance, and sometimes it is quite drastic. Shared definitions and common definitions can help alleviate the drastic stuff, but they can also hide the nuances. Sometimes, that is a good thing....

 

"I love Rock!"

"I love rock, too!"

"You love Rock Hudson?"

"No, I love rock music!"

"I love rock music, too! Genesis is the best!"

"That isn't rock music! That's adult contemporary!"

"Oh. Sorry. Whose music do you love?"

"Slayer!"

"That isn't rock music! That's death metal!"

"** you! Slayer rocks!"

Edited August 14, 2017 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, Key said:

No, the story suggest that the right word may be used, but the definition may differ to other's understanding. Just as "gay" used to only mean happy, now means much more.

So, too, is "God", or "soul", so difficult to define.

God:  (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.  (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: an adored, admired, or influential person

Soul:  the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal : the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal

 

That wasn't difficult at all.

 

Addendum :  Rational:  based on or in accordance with reason or logic: (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities that are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. When expressed as a decimal, a rational number has a finite or recurring expansion

Edited August 14, 2017 by cuchulain

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

God:  (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.  (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: an adored, admired, or influential person

Soul:  the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal : the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal

 

That wasn't difficult at all.

 

Addendum :  Rational:  based on or in accordance with reason or logic: (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities that are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. When expressed as a decimal, a rational number has a finite or recurring expansion

 

 

I remember my time as a Pantheist.  This would not have worked for me.

 

It's part of the reason that I went with the Agnostic label.  I got tired of arguing.  Atheists are expected to argue against the God that they don't believe in.  Agnostics don't get caught up the same way.  

[cuchulain]

When did definitions of words become optional?  When I went to school, I had a set list of words to define.  If I put whatever I wanted in the blank, I got it wrong.  I just don't get what's so difficult about this.  If a person wants to use their own personal definition, they certainly shouldn't expect everyone else to adhere to it.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

46 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

When did definitions of words become optional?  When I went to school, I had a set list of words to define.  If I put whatever I wanted in the blank, I got it wrong.  I just don't get what's so difficult about this.  If a person wants to use their own personal definition, they certainly shouldn't expect everyone else to adhere to it.  

 

For centuries, the Vatican had official definitions for Jews and Judaism that no Jew would agree with.  Even now, a lot of dictionary definitions of Atheism are insulting to Atheists.  The Pantheist view of God has nothing to do with the God of Christian theology.  Wiccans certainly have issues with how "Witch" is defined.  These are not simple questions of meaning.  There are issues of dominance and self determination.

 

Having said that, if you wish to stipulate that we are talking about the God of the Bible -- and no other -- I can live with that.  It would make conversation much more simple.  The question is, who else would be willing to agree?  Maybe, we should ask the board.

 

 

Board -- do we have consensus?  For a working definition of God -- capital G  -- can we agree that we are talking about the God of the Bible?  

 

Comments, please.  

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

An addendum.  Again, I was too slow with my thoughts.

 

For purposes of this discussion, I really think we have to distinguish between God -- with a capital G --- and god in lower case.  They are very different ideas.  Nothing good can come of confusing them together.  

 

There is a place here for Polytheists.  

[the Hearthwitch]

I would be willing to go with the capitalized God as the Biblical one, for the purposes of this discussion. No skin off of my nose!

(But I will still occasionally refer to Gods in other threads with a capital G, even if I'm not entirely sure that it's the correct moniker for 'em.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, the Hearthwitch said:

I would be willing to go with the capitalized God as the Biblical one, for the purposes of this discussion. No skin off of my nose!

(But I will still occasionally refer to Gods in other threads with a capital G, even if I'm not entirely sure that it's the correct moniker for 'em.)

 

To my understanding -- God -- singular with capital G -- refers to the one and only.

 

Gods?  Plural with capital G?  That would be looking for a collective noun, like sheep.  One sheep, two sheep, three sheep.  This does not work.  It's sheep.  Not sheeps.  

 

Man with capital M is all of Humanity.  One man gets a small m.  The plural is men.  No help there.

 

We don't have a good grammatical model for Gods.  I think gods should be in lower case.  If a Polytheist on this board thinks strongly that the correct form is Gods -- I would like to hear it.

[cuchulain]

I do not intend to define God, or god, or gods or Gods for everyone in every single discussion ever.  I meant for the terms of this discussion, or topic...since the question was asked which God, and people wanted a definition for soul.  I never said there wasn't a place on this board for polytheists, or anyone else.  It certainly wouldn't be my call to make in the first place It certainly doesn't strike me as difficult, since it was asked for, to limit this particular discussion to one definition of God and soul, but apparently I am vastly mistaken.

 

Funny...since the reset, I had a topic split by mods because a response went off topic...but there are literally pages devoted to definitions in the topic of whether there is a human soul.  Just a thought...

Edited August 15, 2017 by cuchulain

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Funny...since the reset, I had a topic split by mods because a response went off topic...but there are literally pages devoted to definitions in the topic of whether there is a human soul. 

Definitions are important when asking for proof, because the specifics of the definition determine the nature of the proof needed. Proof requires reference to specific, observable qualities. How to recognise a soul depends on what a soul is. So if we are wrong about what a soul is, we are wrong about what is needed to prove it exists.

Edited August 15, 2017 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Definitions are important when asking for proof, because the specifics of the definition determine the nature of the proof needed. Proof requires reference to specific, observable qualities. How to recognise a soul depends on what a soul is. So if we are wrong about what a soul is, we are wrong about what is needed to prove it exists.

Or conversely we can say that the soul that meets our definition does not exist.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Or conversely we can say that the soul that meets our definition does not exist.

 

 

Or -- the soul that meets our definition, is not detectable, by currently available means.  

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Or conversely we can say that the soul that meets our definition does not exist.

Based on what evidence? What observable phenomenon would the soul necessarily produce? 

[the Hearthwitch]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Based on what evidence? What observable phenomenon would the soul necessarily produce? 

That's the crux of the problem right there, isn't it? 

It's subjective. I can tell you that what I have seen, felt, and heard. You can choose to believe me or not to...it in no way diminishes the experience, for me. 

People say that they have heard the Voice of God, or other voices, other gods (lowercase, as a nod to the other discussion). I believe them. It's happened to me, too. 

But sadly, it doesn't ever seem to happen in a laboratory. Funny, dat. 

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, the Hearthwitch said:

I believe them.

All of them? No chance at least some of the claims are based on error, deception, or insanity? 

[the Hearthwitch]

22 minutes ago, mererdog said:

All of them? No chance at least some of the claims are based on error, deception, or insanity? 

Maybe not all- we all know that there are reasonable exceptions to any rule- but many of them, yes. My take on it is that yes, it does sound crazy, it feels crazy, but it happens. Perhaps that puts my character (and sanity) in question.

But I don't automatically disregard it, when someone tells me that they've been spoken to by a god, a goddess, a ghost, what-have-you. Why should I? I don't think that deities are unapproachable, and I think that they approach their chosen people, too, at times, without regard for how those people may react.

[cuchulain]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

Based on what evidence? What observable phenomenon would the soul necessarily produce? 

Did you really just ask for evidence that something doesn't exist?

[cuchulain]

So a brief recap of the conversation to date:

I ask if anyone thinks a soul exists, and what evidence or reference do they have.

Someone says it does, someone else thinks it might, but no tangible proof.

Someone else entirely has a problem with there being no working definition of soul.

I give a definition of soul.  Several people seem offended that I didn't include everyone's definition, and some suggest that it is not definable.

It is specified that for the sake of this particular debate, soul can be defined as in the dictionary.  Someone argues that the dictionary definition isn't good enough for whatever reason.  I point out that a debate needs to have two sides agree on a definition.  At this point, I am starting to think it's a ludicrous proposition to debate the existence of a soul, if we are going to get sidetracked about what definition to use and whether it's definable, and point that out.

Then I get told that definitions are important when asking for proof, and never mind that I have provided a definition.  

This feels very circular, you know?