Why do we even have a soul?

Well shit, if I didn't know any better, I'd assume you have a stick up your butt.

Presupposition means to assume something for the sake of the topic.

So to have a soul, to better fit your vocabulary, is to assume there is a God.

With the stick in my butt i have to ask you,

How do you know that without a God there is no soul, huh? How do you know that?

Because then the soul will have no point. Who would have created the soul then? To what purpose does it do? Can the study of secondary principles explain it? Of course not.

Yes it does, once you die your 'soul' will go to the 'afterlife', you don't need god for that.




Assuming 'god' created everything, who created god?




Once you die your 'soul' will go to the 'afterlife', you don't need god for that.




Explain what?

Could you stop avoiding the question and just answer the question please, how do you know that without a God there is no soul?

Who would have created the afterlife? What would be the point of afterlife? Science cannot explain the afterlife since the afterlife is metaphysical.




God is an eternal being. Without a beginning and an end. For something to be created, that means there is something greater than that thing created.

So if god was created by something, then god wouldn't be a real God. (notice the lower case g)




Refer to my first argument.



The proof of a soul.



There is no point of a soul if there is no God.
The nature of the soul requires the notion that there is a God.

If there is no God then we have no soul.
You will have to believe that the consciousness you are experiencing right now will simple end when you die.

Hopefully this doesn't count as going off topic, since we're still talking about the soul.

I know, i don't believe in afterlife. The reason science cannot explain afterlife is as far as we know, no such thing exist.

The point was to question where do you get your knowledge for these assumptions you keep making?




How do you know that?




How do you know that?




And who or what created god?
Where did he/she come from?
How did he/she became to be?




And how do you know god wasn't created?




Nothing can explain it, though our own imagination, assumptions and fantasies try to.




Sigh, arguing about an assumption requiring another assumption to be true is just pointless.




A claim which you can't back up with anything else except assuming that souls don't have any point or reason to be without another assumption, god.




That is what i believe, when you die your consciousness ceases to exist.

Ayt, I guess this will have to somewhat long comment since I'll be just repeating myself.

You know, if you stopped reading it sentence by sentence then drawing a question from them, everything will be so easier.

But for the sake of argument, you choose to keep asking the same questions over and over.

The paragraph is constructed in a way that helps support one another.

Why is there an absolute God? Because something could have not come from nothing.
Why did nothing create God? Because to be created by something means that something is greater than that thing.
So if god was created by something, then that god wouldn't be an Absolute God.
An Absolute God is eternal. An eternal being is without beginning and end. Remember that eternal is a definition.No beginning = nothing created it. It simply exists.
Presupposition means a requirement, do you understand? If there is a God, then there is a Soul. If there is no God, then there is no soul.
It's literally as simple as that.

The reason why science cannot prove an afterlife is because the afterlife is metaphysical. If the afterlife was something physical then, of course, science will be able to explain it since it would now fall under the field of science.
(I think I have to state here again that science only deals with what is physical. Hence, why it's called study of Secondary Causes.)


Since you're stuck with the mentality that God existing is up to faith or "assumptions" then there's really no point in going on.

If you really want to continue then read everything as it is first. Don't make questions per sentence because the whole paragraph relies on the reader reading the whole thing first.

TL;DR for people who already understood what I'm talking about a couple of posts ago and just want to see the conclusion of the argument.
_________________________________________________________________________
The existence of God draws from logic, that's why we have Philosophy.

I guess the argument between two sides can be summed up to the question "Can something come from nothing?"

Even science acknowledges that something cannot be created out of nothing. But they just explain it in a different way.
While science explain the theory of how something can come from nothing (Quantum mechanics) Theists explain it through an absolute God (again, an Eternal being. No beginning, no end. For something to have a beginning that means something would have created it. If god was created by something then that would make god not an absolute God.)

Just to clarify, I'm an agnostic. But I open my mind to understanding how beliefs work.

Seems like you edited quite heavily your earlier post so i just refute these new claims here at the beginning



The reason i can draw a question sentence by sentence is because almost every single sentence you write has the same problem, you make statements and claim knowledge yet you don't provide anything that backs up your statements or claims.




Yet another claim which you can't prove or back up with anything.




Yet another claim which you can't prove or back up with anything.




Yet another claim which you can't prove or back up with anything.




Yet another claim which you can't prove or back up with anything.




Or it is because afterlife doesn't exist, to claim it does and trying to shadow it behind this explanation that it is only metaphysical is still a claim that can't be proven correct.

Afterlife is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, meaning it cannot be proven true or false, by our current understanding of science.




I already explained why i am able to refute you sentence by sentence.


And here is the refutation of his/her original post



You haven't explained anything that proves anything, you simply make statements like "God is eternal being" yet you provide nothing to prove that or you don't even provide where did you learn this information.

You claim to have information and knowledge, but you can't provide any evidence for your claims.




Saying something like "God is without a beginning and an end" is not an explanation that explains anything. That is a claim about reality and about truth, yet you cannot back that claim up with anything.

You claim to know the attributes of god, yet you can't explain how you know these things and what makes these claims true.




That is correct, if you cannot provide anything to actually talk about, other than "God is eternal, he is without a beginning and an end" then there is no discussion.

If all you can do is make statements, but can't back those statements with anything, then there is no point in going on.




It is illogical to believe in the biblical god or koranic god, or for any god for that matter.

Believing in god raises more questions rather than gives answers to them.









Watch the video above.




Another is an scientific theory, and another is an assumption. Those two have a very big difference.




Yet another statement / claim which you can't provide any evidence for.




The point is not about who is an absolute god, the point is that you can't prove that god wasn't created by some other being.

You need faith in order to believe the assumption that god exists, you need faith in order to believe the assumption that the specific god is an absolute god, you need faith in order to believe the assumption that the specific god wasn't created by some other being or force or anything.




I find that hard to believe if you make claims like "god is eternal, without a beginning and an end", as an agnostic you should understand that you can't know those things about god, the attributes of god are unknown or unknowable.

You should open your mind to understand why these assumptions don't make any real sense.

Okay, the main problem here is that you don't acknowledge the concept of metaphysical.
Your whole belief stems from the use of empirical evidence, which isn't false, of course. Any person would believe something exists if it is something that can be justified through empirical.

Understanding the nature of God does not require empirical evidence.
Understanding what God is is a process of thought and reasoning. That is where you draw your arguments from, right? From the fact that understanding God does not use any form of empirical evidence?
Well the reason as to why the study of secondary causes (Science) fathom the ideas like God, afterlife or soul is because it does not fall under its jurisdiction.

The reason why something metaphysical can't be explain by science comes from the word itself. Science requires empirical evidence and observation.

Do I really have to spell it out for you that the concept of God is something that doesn't use empirical evidence? It's should be a pretty common thing if you would just listen to other people.

Yes, it is true that if a thing can be proven with empirical evidence, then without a doubt, a thing will be seen as truth.

But at the same time, by believing in the principle of using empirical evidence as a basis of deciding whether something is true or not, still proves that there CAN be an existence of God.

Just because something can't be understood through the senses, doesn't justify that it doesn't exist. That is the principle of science, right?

Science explains the theory of creation through the big bang
Theists explain it through the concept of God.

Neither parties were there to see it happen with their eyes, but they theorize on it.

Some person would have probably already used the typical example of "have you ever seen your brain? Touched your brain? Ect ect, bullshit" to explain why God can exist. Unfortunately, I can't use an example that is physical. Because to compare Physical to Metaphysical is to compare apples to oranges.

So to reiterate:
Science uses Experimentation, Observation or the more common term, empirical evidence as to prove things, and where you make all the basis of your statements from.
While Theists use though and reasoning as to why God is the creator of the universe.

If you wan't to dive as to why Theists believe that, then I'll start you off with a simple question. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

The main problem here is you claim knowledge about reality, about things which cannot be known.




Then that god is subjective to every individual who claims to believe in it/him/her. That god doesn't have any effect on the reality we occupy with the exception from how the individuals act based on this belief.




To extent, yes.




The subjective personal god that people believe in, maybe not.

But when religious people make scientific claims (such as virginity of certain birth giving mothers, the resurrection of certain people, what the opinion of god is on human matters, so on and so fort), those fall under the jurisdiction of science and empirical evidence.




I don't have a problem what people believe in on a personal level. What i do have a problem is when people use their unscientific personal believes to dictate other people and base their 'thought and reasoning' on what that metaphysical being supposedly thinks and says.




Just like afterlife, heaven and hell, god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, meaning it cannot be proven true or false, by our current understanding of science.




That principle doesn't make it true either.




Again, there is a very big difference between a scientific theory and an assumption.

Why i call theist concept of god an assumption? Because theist have none, nothing, what so ever evidence that supports that theory.

The scientific theory of big bang on the other hand does have evidence to back it up.




Again, that though and reasoning is subjective to every individual who believes in god, people don't believe in the same being. That is why we have so many different religions, that is why we have so many different denominations in every religion.




I don't know and neither do you.

It definitely depends on each person's beliefs.

I'm nonreligious myself and, because of that, I don't believe in souls. I assume that everything that makes up who we are is essentially in our brains; our thoughts, memories, experiences; all coming together to make us who we are. Once we die and our body ceases to function and our brain "dies", who we are is lost.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

I don't know and neither do you.[/quote]

Deleted everything because it all comes down to this statement.

Of course I can. I can choose to believe the people God has spoke to Or scriptures talking about God that God himself said.

The same form of belief that you put on scientists who explained the big bang.

The same belief people use to confirm thing and existence of things like, the Roman civilization.

Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it's not possible to have existed.

Simple as that.

Ignoring every single argument against god that i made shows how poor your arguments are, how poor your reasoning is and how illogical it is to believe in god.

The question of whether god exists or not, does not come down to that one single question.




Of coarse you can choose to believe what ever the hell you want, but that belief like i already explained is subjective to you, that belief doesn't change the reality we live in in any way, only your perception of it changes.

That belief is exactly same as somebody else believing in dragons or Zeus or unicorns or fairies or Poseidon or that you have been abducted by aliens or that Elvis Presley is still alive. Nothing else changes except your perception of reality.




It is not the same form of belief like i have explained multiple times now. Big bang is a scientific theory backed up by evidence, theist concept of god is an assumption back up by nothing.




The existence of Roman civilization is again, backed up by evidence that it existed.




I cannot disprove your personal experiences any more than you can prove them, but that is why science doesn't give a shit about your personal experiences. If we accepted personal experience as proof for something, we would have to believe literally anything anybody would claim.

Thankfully more and more people on yearly bases is waking up from the illusion created by religions.




To a unreasonable and illogical mind, i guess it is.

Deleted everything because it all comes down to this statement.

Of course I can. I can choose to believe the people God has spoke to Or scriptures talking about God that God himself said.

The same form of belief that you put on scientists who explained the big bang.

The same belief people use to confirm thing and existence of things like, the Roman civilization.

Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it's not possible to have existed.

Simple as that.[/quote]

Ken Don't take the bait bro. He's probably just gonna dodge your question and make you trip up on your argument somehow making himself look victorious.

Also the Big Bang was a theory made by a Catholic Priest that was initially refused by the scientific community for being "too religious" so uh... yeah.

This is interesting... And there is now a minimum length for this forum? Never knew that.

Who also was very highly educated in science. You make it sound as if it was some random priest that just came up with it out of the blue one day. Also you mind pointing out where it was refuted because it was too religious?

Why have a soul? Well first you have to debate if there is a soul.

Is it just an attachment to our selves to deny death being end or an actual immortal energy that transcends the physical.

The problem is that I am an Agnostic Theist, so its hard to believe in things that can't be observed or measured in some way even though I believe in the spiritual. All I can do is say, the soul may be that spark of energy that leaves the body when you die, so we have a soul to continue living in the physical, what happens after might just be we disperse or we might continue in some way, that is if there is any need to quantify this energy. Because it may have no real need in our spirituality at all.

That doesn't make any sense...




This makes even less sense than the first part...




The only part of the human body that we don't yet fully understand is the brain, and nothing indicates that we have these 'souls'.

Science tell us that we don't know the answer, but that nothing indicates that a soul (as people tends to believe it is) should exists. Of course, our current knowledge of a good bunch of the nature is still incomplete, but still. By other hand if you change your definition of soul there can fit with what we know.

For example if you consider soul by "exist outside your body", you still exists in a lot of fragments in the memory of different persons. Or if you consider that trespassing the barriers of time is a mean of soul, each one of our actions makes a uncountable amounts of change in the universe in the smallest and not so small scales. Or you can see by this other way: reborn, your matter will be transfered to a number of different living beings along the centuries and you can't say they haven't something of you!

But yeah, as most people understand soul is that memory, conscience and personality remains, at least at most degree. Science currently can't give us a full and detailed answer about that, maybe it will do in the future, but not today. There exists the out-body while you're at a blink of death, but we haven't a proper way to measure and analyze them, so doesn't count that much.

So, when something is still unknown the proper is to say "I don't know". But yeah, that doesn't say that after said that we can't imagine a world of possibilities. In my case I'm an agnostic animist: I believe in the soul and spirit strength of all matter, I believe that the thermodynamical have a part of our owns on it and in that way we reborn and keep living for a while (or non-conventional living things like viruses or rocks does, too). I always felt that everything is somehow connected. We have a lot of small souls inside us! I believe.