The 'SOUL'. What is it?

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Prove otherwise?

You made the assertion. You do the proving.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Total pedantic cop-out.
lol.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Total pedantic cop-out.
lol.

Nonsense.

You make stuff up...make excuses for "having to make stuff up"...and then condemn me for refusing to debate the stuff you make up.

I'll give you a shot at a new life...and with something so short, you will not have to read part of it...a question:

Is there a GOD?

1 Reply

I’ll even make it a multiple choice question to make it easier for you:

a) Yes, there is a GOD.
b) No, there are no gods.
c) I do not know.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

What have I 'made-up'?
You attacked a spelling error. I correct the odd poster's error, here and there, but not condescendingly - That's a pathetic ploy.
You are trying to prove into existence, something that cannot be proven to exist. Why, Is it necessary to your worldview, belief-system?
I fully understand that every thing (physical) has a unique identity - By location, wavelength, vibration, etc - But there's no point attatching a 'soul-factor' to it, simply to humanise its energy status.

Define 'god'? And I will respond.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

a) Yes, there is a GOD.
b) No, there are no gods.

Exactly. Obviously there's something we don't yet quite understand. As its existence becomes clearer it, She, will assume the stature of a perfectly natural phenom, and whether or not to call Her "God" will be reduced to a matter of preference

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Quote:

You are trying to prove into existence, something that cannot be proven to exist.

Probably you're right, Mark, proof will never be achievable. Her existence however will be more strongly suggested as we learn more about Her

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

What have I 'made-up'?
You attacked a spelling error. I correct the odd poster's error, here and there, but not condescendingly - That's a pathetic ploy.

You have distorted what I have written.

Quote what I actually wrote...and take issue with what I actually wrote...and we can discuss it.

Quote:

You are trying to prove into existence, something that cannot be proven to exist.

Here is an example of a 100% total distortion of anything I have ever said...here in this thread...or anywhere in the tens of thousands of posts I have made on this issue in other threads.

Quote what I actually wrote...and take issue with that rather than doing your usual snake oil nonsense of making crap up and then arguing against that crap.

Quote:

Why, Is it necessary to your worldview, belief-system?

I do not have a belief system...and I am not doing what you are suggesting in your made-up nonsense that I am doing.

Quote:

I fully understand that every thing (physical) has a unique identity - By location, wavelength, vibration, etc - But there's no point attatching a 'soul-factor' to it, simply to humanise its energy status.

Define 'god'? And I will respond.

Define it yourself...and respond if you want. Make it, if you will, the kind of god that would create a soul if it chose to do so.

I suggest you do not want to respond.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Define 'god'? And I will respond.

Fat chance.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote what I actually wrote...and take issue with what I actually wrote...and we can discuss it.

Yeah, right.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

mark noble wrote:
Define 'god'? And I will respond.

Fat chance.

I will respond...and discuss ethically.

Define "god" if you will...as the "first cause"...a creator god.

Not sure why you think not, Blue.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote what I actually wrote...and take issue with what I actually wrote...and we can discuss it.

Yeah, right.

I will discuss anything quoted from me, Blue.

What is this phony cynicism you are attempting here?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

mark noble wrote:
Define 'god'? And I will respond.

Fat chance.

I will respond...and discuss ethically.

Define "god" if you will...as the "first cause"...a creator god.

Not sure why you think not, Blue.

Thanks for the definition.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will discuss anything quoted from me, Blue.

Ok.

Here you wrote,

Quote:

"In a discussion about REALITY"...is a qualifier that pretty much discounts the notion of "I believe the GIANTS are going to be in the Super Bowl this year" as a blind guess.

It also discounts the notion of entering an intersection under certain conditions as being a blind guess.

But when someone says "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods" or "This is not an illusion" or "“there is no second chance, no opportunity to have a do-over, there is no afterlife where wrongs are righted and cosmic justice meted out to the evildoers"...

...that person IS making a blind guess.

Here, you went on to say,

Quote:

Of course there are "beliefs" about gods and reality that are based on experience...but every "belief" about gods and REALITY is a blind guess.

The question is:

What is it, exactly, about your qualifier that discounts as blind guesses beliefs about sports games and traffic intersections, but not beliefs about gods, afterlives, etc.?

Frank Apisa wrote:

What is this phony cynicism you are attempting here?

The cynicism is sincere and genuine.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will discuss anything quoted from me, Blue.

Ok.

Here you wrote,

Quote:
"In a discussion about REALITY"...is a qualifier that pretty much discounts the notion of "I believe the GIANTS are going to be in the Super Bowl this year" as a blind guess.

It also discounts the notion of entering an intersection under certain conditions as being a blind guess.

But when someone says "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods" or "This is not an illusion" or "“there is no second chance, no opportunity to have a do-over, there is no afterlife where wrongs are righted and cosmic justice meted out to the evildoers"...

...that person IS making a blind guess.

Here, you went on to say,

Quote:
Of course there are "beliefs" about gods and reality that are based on experience...but every "belief" about gods and REALITY is a blind guess.

The question is:

What is it, exactly, about your qualifier that discounts as blind guesses beliefs about sports games and traffic intersections, but not beliefs about gods, afterlives, etc.?

Frank Apisa wrote:

What is this phony cynicism you are attempting here?

The cynicism is sincere and genuine.

Because beliefs about who is going to win the Super Bowl or about traffic intersections...

...IS NOT a discussion about REALITY.

The qualifier limits the application to discussions about REALITY.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That is not the only reason, by the way.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

If discussing beliefs about who is going to win the Super Bowl or about traffic intersections are not discussions about reality, then what are they discussions about?

Also, what are the other reasons?

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Quote:

No, It's a measurable scientific fact that I, and everything else that exists, am/is physically originated. Until 'other' is proven - I'll stick with facts.

"Facts" Mark are a tricky horizon. They fall in much the same category as "material," "intangible," "concrete," "abstract," etc merely familiar patterns of electrical charge bouncing around in our heads

Of course they're useful in everyday intercourse but no absolute meaning that permits the Universe to be divided up in the kind of dualism reflected in the typical a2k thread

1 Reply

@mark noble,

You do not have a soul.
You are a soul.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

If discussing beliefs about who is going to win the Super Bowl or about traffic intersections are not discussions about reality, then what are they discussions about?

The use of all capital letters when writing the word REALITY, Blue, was an attempt to show that I was talking about the philosophical aspect of REALITY.

Obviously lady bugs are part of reality...as are dogs chasing their tails. A2K is a part of reality...just as everything else we can sense is part of reality.

But in this kind of discussion, even someone like you should be able to understand what is being said.

Under any circumstances, if you want to think that the considerations, calculations, and permutations that go into deciding which NFL team is most likely to win the Super Bowl in any given year...

...is about the same as considerations, calculations, and permutations that go into assertions about whether or not there is a GOD...

...go for it.

Laughter is like a fountain of youth...and anyone not getting a belly laugh from that reasoning is doomed anyway.

I love ya.

You never cease to entertain.

Quote:

Also, what are the other reasons?

Forget it. If you honestly equate deciding who is most likely to win the Super Bowl to the kind of thing that plays in deciding whether there is a GOD or not...you cannot handle anything more.

1 Reply

The 'SOUL'. What is it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know