Aerik Von

The only arguement that any Christian has said that makes sense is "the brain is more an antenna for the soul" than what constitutes it.

In all reality - I think you just stop existing. It's simple - and it makes sense - and it's not so bad either

crocodile deathroll

I think what makes more sense think that the soul and its relationship with that brain is a more do with a coherent worldline, as it can only access a world line of episodic memories.
You can only remember the events where your brain was at the epcenter of its <a href="http://twm.co.nz/consc_phys.htm" target="_blank">light cone </a>

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

Aerik Von

That is certainly interesting...certainly...

Answerer

Okay guys, is there any experiments that proved the existence of souls?

crocodile deathroll

I think they will be always in the realms of speculation. But at least I know brains exist.

emotional

Where did I get my soul from?

If 1) it was born anew, then how many millions of souls are there now without bodies and what exactly are they doing in their bodiless existence?

If 2) it's a reincarnation from a previous body, then how did, for instance, 4 million souls reincarnate from a, again for instance, 1 million bodies?

Did you ever put thought to how ridiculous the soul theory is? It's nothing but a gross example of egoistical <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/anthropocentrism.htm" target="_blank">anthropocentrism</a>.

lugotorix

I've heard this used as an argument against reincarnation before, but it's not a valid criticism, at least not for the standard Buddhist model that I'm familiar with. According to this interpretation, it is possible for non-human beings to reincarnate as human, and vice-versa; and also they believe that there are other living beings on other planets that are also being reincarnated. They believe in a universe full of sentient beings, so the number of beings available for rebirth, while not infinite, is extremely large.

Not that I subscribe to this view myself. (Personally, I'm agnostic about it. I'll find out soon enough...) I just felt the need to point out that this is not necessarily a shortcoming of the theory.

lugotorix

Marduk

Then there is the possibility that there is only one universal soul that living things 'attach' to or embrace somehow.
CD is right, we all have at least one successful incarnation under our belts, this one.

DMB

Depends what you mean by the improbability of natality. The probability that an act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman will result in a successful pregnancy is reasonably high, hence the almost unbelievably rapid growth in the human population during the last century.

If you mean the probability of the particular combination of egg and sperm that resulted in one highlighted individual, then it is much lower, although not impossible, since it happened.

As to the significance of the highlighted individual rather than his/her hypothetical siblings that might instead have resulted from the act of intercourse, that's another matter again.

I just don't see how any of the foregoing affects the probability of ensoulment, an event that has never been demonstrated to occur in the first place, unlike natality.

crocodile deathroll

By the same token the "soul" may not be an incarnation at all, if so how can you speak of a re-incarnation.
A would be a little like claiming that I was Nepolean in a previous life, and I could well of been I just don't know, and when all the memories of my life as Nepolean were trashed and this one would be a first time event. Well then I might as well be a first life experience because my life as Nepolean would be totally irrelevant if me cannot remember any of it. So this life then would exist be in parallel Nepolean's life and not in a strict chronological sequence of it.

You observes some frame of reference in the chronology of the universe when you are alive, but once you die that frame of reference disappears, so you could well come back as Nepolean in your next life although chances are you are much more likely to emerge as one if his underlings on the battlefield

Rather than an incarnate soul I am more of the view now this "soul" is reality orientating itself to a conscious observer and as such is not really an incarnation. It is reality as its most tangible. There is such a sphere of reality around you. You feel your mouse your computer keyboard see the computer screen, seeing the world out the window and feel the seconds ticking by in your mind. So if you never existed and no one else existed then reality itself will never know it exists.

So I speculate the when you die then this reality will only be disorientated and in a more stable continuum along a worldline reorientate itself around another conscious observer. And that could be one of Neplolean's battlefield lackies for all you know.

I spoke to an old Catholic priest a few years back and he got belligerently angry. He screemed out "are you claiming that you are God"
I said nothing of the kind. I just said a conscious observer is only an emergent property of the universe, it did not create it or control it like you claim your god to do.