Questions on the Soul

[Nirvana-Eld]

Hi guys long time no see. (SAT's bogged me down )

When I first joined this site a while ago I made a similar topic. Now after reading butt-loads of books and with more knowledge (at least thats what I hope it is) and I feel that some real questions need to be posed towards theists.

First: What is the relationship between the mind and the conscious self?

Second: Is the soul synonymous with the conscious self?

Third: What is the purpose of this soul?

Fourth: What reasons is there for the soul to survive the body?

There are some more that I know I cannot think of now, but I'm sure that through the course of debate they will come to me. So for now this will do. Good to be back and with some free time for this.

[Bugmaster]

I've never said that. We can't measure it, that doesn't mean it is unmeasurable.

So, when you said, "Only God can judge good and evil", what did you mean ? If you mean that God can measure good and evil, but "we humans" cannot, in principle, then your concept of good and evil is not scientific. And if you say, "we can't measure evil yet, but one day we'll be able to", then your concept of evil is not scientific yet, but one day it will be.

Why? I've already shown that we have good evidence to think that macro objects have wavefunctions...

Macro objects also have mass, volume, electrical charge, etc. How much does evil weigh, in kilograms ?

It sounds like this just contradicts your atheistic beliefs, and so it's just something that you won't even consider. Again, I think this is based on unfounded presumptions of atheism on your part.

Ugh... You've somehow managed to completely miss my point. I'm not saying, "you're wrong", I'm saying, "you're making a category mistake". Your concepts of good and evil are not scientific. They could still be true, but you cannot use physics or chemistry to prove them to be true. Similarly, I cannot use any scientific discipline to prove that they are false.

Scientific concepts deal with things which, ultimately, can be measured in some way. Even wave functions can be measured -- we can look at the interference patterns they create, we can measure electric current that occurs due to tunneling, etc. Your metaphysical concepts cannot be measured (or, indeed, detected) by us humans a priori, and thus attempting to apply scientific concepts to them is a category mistake.

[harvey1]

So, when you said, "Only God can judge good and evil", what did you mean? If you mean that God can measure good and evil, but "we humans" cannot, in principle, then your concept of good and evil is not scientific.

I'm not saying the factors of this speculation which determine the probability of the soul (i.e., wavefunction) are scientifically known. If that were the case, I would be quoting experiments on how it is known that good people will go to heaven.

And if you say, "we can't measure evil yet, but one day we'll be able to", then your concept of evil is not scientific yet, but one day it will be.

I cannot predict scientific knowledge of the future, but if I could would you believe me?

Why? I've already shown that we have good evidence to think that macro objects have wavefunctions...

Macro objects also have mass, volume, electrical charge, etc. How much does evil weigh, in kilograms?

Again, you're confusing two subject matters. There is the issue of whether macro objects have an immaterial component (i.e., a wavefunction) and the other issue which is far more speculative of what factors determine probabilities for a metaphysical interpretation of quantum theory.

Your concepts of good and evil are not scientific. They could still be true, but you cannot use physics or chemistry to prove them to be true. Similarly, I cannot use any scientific discipline to prove that they are false.

I'm not trying to prove anything other than cite the evidence that macro objects have shown to act quantum-mechanically with the most peculiar of quantum properties (e.g., entanglement), and that this gives us good reason to think that an immaterial description (i.e., soul) of matter is possible. I mentioned the second part to QED because I wanted to show how it is possible that an immaterial (metaphysical) interpretation of quantum mechanics can make possible a typical religious understanding of the term "soul."