My case against the existence of a soul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2015, 12:06 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
All the talk about souls and hell reminded me of this.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 04:05 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(28-07-2015 10:58 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 03:04 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Now you are just pulling things out of your ass. What strange version says that?
this strange version is King James Bible
I Cor 15:
35 ...how are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
40 there are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of celestial is one, and the glory of terrestrial is another.
41 there is one glory of the sun, and another of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory
42 so also is the resurrection of the dead.

All those who enter Celestial Kingdom will have physical bodies with glory of sun. Gods have this kind of bodies. All the rest will have physical bodies either with glory of moon or glory of stars(Telestial glory) the lowest glory.
So, all people will resurrect with physical bodies only with different glory.
Spirits do not feel physical pain, they have no physical bodies. But they can feel emotional pain.

I think you are botching the interpretation here (also easily done by many xians), but here Paul is making a comparative analogy. He is saying that since the sun, moon and stars (which science proved are also suns) are all celestial bodies, but different from each other and different from human (terrestrial) bodies, that our new glorified bodies will be yet again different.

You still haven't shown me scripture where it attributes physical bodies to unbelievers after death. You have only provided personal commentary. The summation of the soul's ability to feel pain comes from inferred deduction. You agree on my understanding of Abraham's bossom, yet do not notice that this pre-ressurection example shows an unbeliever in pain sans body. Is this a parable? Sure. But would your sweet baby jeebus lie to you about the details of the environment in which he was trying to teach you about?

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 04:18 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(28-07-2015 01:51 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  My case against the existence of a soul and consequently, the existence of hell.

According to the bible, us heathens are doomed to suffer in a lake of fire for all of eternity. That means that we will experience pain after death. While here in our living bodies we experience pain via receptors that send signals to our brains alerting us to pain. When we die, we do not take our bodies with us, the brain and receptors are left to rot, yet we experience pain in hell. This can only mean that the soul is capable of feeling pain. Aye, here is the rub: If our souls can experience pain and it encompasses our bodies during life, then why does our bodies need pain receptors if the soul can handle the job? I have a hard time believing that god in all his infinite wisdom would be so ridiculously redundant. The logical conclusion to this consideration is that there is no soul, just as there is no hell and no god

If God is all powerful then redundancy require no extra effort. If God is all powerful there is no such thing as ridiculously redundant. Such a notion is a human notion because from our perspective the redundancy requires extra effort. Your error is your are looking at the situation from a human perspective instead of the perspective of an omnipotent being. If redundancy doesn't cost you anything, why not be redundant?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 04:41 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(29-07-2015 04:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 01:51 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  My case against the existence of a soul and consequently, the existence of hell.

According to the bible, us heathens are doomed to suffer in a lake of fire for all of eternity. That means that we will experience pain after death. While here in our living bodies we experience pain via receptors that send signals to our brains alerting us to pain. When we die, we do not take our bodies with us, the brain and receptors are left to rot, yet we experience pain in hell. This can only mean that the soul is capable of feeling pain. Aye, here is the rub: If our souls can experience pain and it encompasses our bodies during life, then why does our bodies need pain receptors if the soul can handle the job? I have a hard time believing that god in all his infinite wisdom would be so ridiculously redundant. The logical conclusion to this consideration is that there is no soul, just as there is no hell and no god

If God is all powerful then redundancy require no extra effort. If God is all powerful there is no such thing as ridiculously redundant. Such a notion is a human notion because from our perspective the redundancy requires extra effort. Your error is your are looking at the situation from a human perspective instead of the perspective of an omnipotent being. If redundancy doesn't cost you anything, why not be redundant?

Because anyone with half a brain wouldn't call that an "intelligent design." And another member brought up a good point, if the body and soul are capable of feeling pain, then anesthesia wouldn't work

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 04:44 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(28-07-2015 11:19 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 02:59 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The bible is a collection of myths and legends cobbled together by iron age tribesmen.
I am not here to prove you wrong about what the Bible is. I am not interested in this.

If you are going to base all of your arguments on solo scriptura, then you do need to be able to answer and argue this or any argument you make becomes moot

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Octapulse's post
29-07-2015, 05:55 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(29-07-2015 04:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 01:51 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  My case against the existence of a soul and consequently, the existence of hell.

According to the bible, us heathens are doomed to suffer in a lake of fire for all of eternity. That means that we will experience pain after death. While here in our living bodies we experience pain via receptors that send signals to our brains alerting us to pain. When we die, we do not take our bodies with us, the brain and receptors are left to rot, yet we experience pain in hell. This can only mean that the soul is capable of feeling pain. Aye, here is the rub: If our souls can experience pain and it encompasses our bodies during life, then why does our bodies need pain receptors if the soul can handle the job? I have a hard time believing that god in all his infinite wisdom would be so ridiculously redundant. The logical conclusion to this consideration is that there is no soul, just as there is no hell and no god

If God is all powerful then redundancy require no extra effort. If God is all powerful there is no such thing as ridiculously redundant. Such a notion is a human notion because from our perspective the redundancy requires extra effort. Your error is your are looking at the situation from a human perspective instead of the perspective of an omnipotent being. If redundancy doesn't cost you anything, why not be redundant?

Why not make excuses for a poorly thought out biblical concept that demonstrates zero understanding about human physiology?

It's stuff like this that demonstrates just how fallible and man-made the bible's passages are. Slapping an apologist's band-aid on it just demonstrates dishonesty.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
29-07-2015, 06:39 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(28-07-2015 02:57 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 02:43 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Also, if resurrection means that I reunite with my body, what happens if I'm cremated and had my ashes dumped into the ocean, gobbled up as fish food and pooped out?
Sure, let me guess. The elements from which your body is organized do not become nothing. You were not organized from nothing. Gods know how to unite those elements together again.

This point brings up an issue I hadn't thought of before. If god reassembles your body, what if the particular elements are in someone else's body at the time. There is only a finite amount of carbon on this planet and so presumably if all people are raised, what happens if there isn't enough of one element? Is he going to pull more out of his ass or is he not going to resurect my cat due to budgetary concerns? Consider

You seem to know what he'll do, so can you ask?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
29-07-2015, 06:42 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(29-07-2015 06:39 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  or is he not going to resurect my cat due to budgetary concerns?

Bowing

That made my morning...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
29-07-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(28-07-2015 11:19 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 02:59 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The bible is a collection of myths and legends cobbled together by iron age tribesmen.
I am not here to prove you wrong about what the Bible is. I am not interested in this.

If you don't care about whether the Bible is true or not, why do you reference it? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
29-07-2015, 08:17 AM
RE: My case against the existence of a soul
(29-07-2015 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 11:19 PM)Alla Wrote:  I am not here to prove you wrong about what the Bible is. I am not interested in this.

If you don't care about whether the Bible is true or not, why do you reference it? Consider
I didn't say I don't care about it. I said I am not interested to convince somebody that the Bible is right.
It is not my business or call to convince people to believe something

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: