FOGuy

Amos wrote:

Italics mine...

This reminds me of one of my favorite lines from the pen of Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn in his classic work 'The Lost Light':

"No man can fail of touching his divinity, but failure of his knowledge that his deity is in himself may palsy his effort to arouse its latent faculties." (pg. 99)

for the soul is that tiny fragment of Godmind - divinity - (not God's mind) that is implanted in all things - from the human kingdom down through the animal, vegetable and mineral - each according to the capacity it is able to receive it. Paul's letter to the Ephesians says this:

"But unto every one of us is given grace (soul) according to the measure of the gift (capacity to receive) of Christ". (Eph 4:5).

I agree with Dr Kuhn. There is a lot of palsey around here....everyone always wanting that 'physical' proof. They would do well to heed a parable of the Hindus. To wit:

A legend of India tells of a council of the gods at which it was purposed to invest man with deity. A debate arose as to how it might be entrusted to him without his misusing it. One suggested that it be buried in the depths of the sea, so that he would not easily find and abuse it. Another advised placing it on the most inaccessible mountain top. Finally the supreme head of the assembly declared he had thought of a place where no man would ever think of looking for it,--in the deepmost chambers of man’s own heart!

Hawkingfan

I know exactly who I am. In my opinion, someone who has to look for their "soul" does not know who they are. I think this is nonsense.

What? Physical proof? WHAT ARE WE THINKING?!!

My heart has blood in it. God is in your head, not your heart.

crocodile deathroll

The reason why we cannot observe the "soul" objectively is because it is itself the observer.
A more apt description of the soul is "Subjective Reality". It is reality orientated around the observer. In essence it is the universe becoming aware of its own existence and reflecting back on its own history. How will the universe understand anything about its own big bang scenario if SR did not exist?

However do not get me wrong as I do not in any way believe SR is the reason of the universe's existence, nor do I believe it plays any part in its creation. It is merely an emergent property of it. A good one for your's and my sake.

nXile

I would imagine, and please feel free to argue, that the body is what enables the soul to live inside of time.

C.S. Lewis wrote, "I have a body. I AM a soul."

But then again, this is only valid if we're accepting there's "life" outside of time (we are only aware of life inside of time).

So, Dan...if I were to think that life stopped when my body did, then I wouldn't buy into the talk about "souls."

But if I thought that there were life outside time and my body, then I would think "That's what my soul is...life beyond four dimensions."

thoughts on this?

nXi|e

crocodile deathroll

The soul observes its own private little past present and future. The past present and future dichotomy only exist during subjective experience.
The "present" is only a point on the time vector that comes to the observer's conscious attention.

So the past present and future has no objective existence

Oxymoron

What has imagination got to do with it?

This "soul" is just sophistry. We can learn nothing new from it; it does not predict anything, it does not lend itself to testability or can be falsified; it is not based on empirical evidence. It is therefore utterly useless as a scientific or philosophical concept.

crocodile deathroll

Except if science is studying the nature of consciousness and memory.

Oxymoron

I don't understand, that seems to be a non sequitur. Can you explain a bit more what you mean?

crocodile deathroll

"Soul" is such an ambiguous an vague word. A religious person may describe it as the part of the person that survives death and still retains the memories of his/her life "the suffering souls in Purgatory" . It could just mean a single person "there wasn't a soul on the beach" or "a poor soul" A kind of African American music "I am a soul man, I am a soul man". It is so vague that after reading many of these posts now I am making more of an effort not to use the word at all.
If someone loses consciousness we do not cry out that he has lot his soul. We just merely say he has lost consciousness.
The "soul" may still have a place in religion a little bit less so in philosophy and no place at all in science

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>