Does man have a soul?

[EarthScienceguy]

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.

Which view is supported by actual physical proof? That would be the first view. Except for the part where man is devoid of free will because the future is already determined. You just made that part up. The second two views are derived from make believe. As in, you simply made them up as well.

[Divine Insight]

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

This may very well be the truth of reality. Although, your claim that the future already has to be determined is out-dated. That is no longer a part of modern physics due to the natural uncertainty introduced by the discovery of Quantum Mechanics. It may still be true that man is void of free will, but it doesn't follow from this that the future already had to be determined.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

This is a correct view of Pantheism in general. But don't forget that in Pantheism animals are included. So not only does man consists of a material body and god, but so do all animals.

This view may also be the true nature of reality. But there is no evidence for it, therefore it can only be seen as a fanciful theory or "wishful thinking". In other words, there is no evidence that suggests that pantheism should be considered to be true over naturalism. All current evidence is limited to naturalism.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.

This is actually an extremely problematic theology. Because as you say, man is not God and God is not man. This means that man needs to be a living entity that is not God. That is extremely problematic, especially for any theology that wants to claim monotheism.

Also, like Pantheism there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Therefore naturalism still holds the most credible position in terms of having the most evidence.

So this monotheistic theology is also a very fanciful theory or "Wishful Thinking" that is not supported by evidence.

In fact, once you realize this then you need to also recognize that your #3 would apply to many different philosophical ideas, from fairies and gnomes, to the gods and goddesses of every religious mythology that mankind has ever thought up. So in this sense, once you introduce the idea of a "Creator God" you open the door to countless versions of this philosophical idea.

Moreover, when it comes to these kinds of theories or philosophies they are usually accompanied by folklore or scriptures that describe what their "Creator God" is supposed to be like. And the more scriptures or myths they have that describe their God the more room there is for self-contradictions within those stories that can reveal why any specific God cannot be true. And this is typically what we see with all of these types of theologies. So these theologies tend to disprove themselves via their own scriptural mythologies.

This actually leaves materialism as the most credible theory of all. Some people may not like naturalism because they would prefer that something else be true. But that hardly serves to support the other two guesses.

So the most likely truth is that man does not have a soul, and when we die the same thing will happen to us as happens to any other animal. We'll just stop living. Period.

Yes, I know, people don't like this thought. But just because they don't like it doesn't mean it's not so.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

Does man have a soul?

Panentheism theory does not necessarily say that man has no 'soul' but rather in relation to GOD (aspects of GOD-consciousness) in the human form, the 'soul' is recognized as that which allows for the individual to retain the memories related to the individuals experience and everything about that experience including the subconscious aspects and the - oft called - 'higher' or 'vaster' self the individual is connected with.

In that, the soul is an aspect of the whole 'person', rather than some separate thing attached to that 'person'.

If, as an example, the individuate consciousness wanted to reintegrate with the wholeness of GOD and not be a 'person' any longer, the soul can be disengaged so that the individuate consciousness is no longer experiencing being an individual 'person', and can reintegrate into the wholeness of GOD like a drop of water being placed back into a lake.

Theoretically, another aspect of GOD-consciousness could engage with that disengaged soul and through that, experience being the 'person' by accessing those memories stored in the soul related to that 'person' and experience these in the first person. As such, one would have no way of knowing one had been anyone other than that 'person'.

Beyond the borders of the three main levels of the Astral Realm there are realities which allow for innumerable individual 'persons' to engage with each other as One Entity while still retaining their individuality. Essentially this is to experience the 'self' through all other 'selves' and experiencing being each one altogether simultaneously.

This would be 'the mingling of the souls' as it were.

As far as human science presently goes, the idea of a soul is not testable. Most adherents of sceitism believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, so the answer from those is "No - there is no such thing as a 'soul.'"

[ttruscott]

Man does not have a soul; man is a soul which has a body...with apologies to C S Lewis.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 5 by ttruscott]

The belief in a soul is a romantic notion that gives us a means to attribute our existence to forces beyond our understanding. It absolves us of responsibility, it gives us hope, it eases fear of death, it feeds tribalism, it redeems the worst among us. It allows us to abandon rational thought for more comfortable ignorance, it gives us self reflection and peace and meditation not easily supplied by logic and reason. It fills in the spaces we find within ourselves, in this puzzling existence which seems so inexplicable.

Is there a soul? I don't think there is a metaphysical ethereal soul. I think for me the term soul refers to the complex self reflective consciousness within each of us that manifests through our shared experience. We do seem to be spiritual beings, but I presume that to be a natural response to difficult and unanswerable questions.

[Tcg]

Man does not have a soul; man is a soul which has a body...with apologies to C S Lewis.

I'm not sure that C. S. Lewis actually said that. Whoever said it owes you an apology for providing nothing but an unsupported assertion.

They should be embarrassed for providing a quote that does nothing other than show that they can't provide evidence for the claim they enticed you to repeat. Anyone who repeats it should apologize for repeating a claim that can't be supported.

[EarthScienceguy]

Einsteins equations

The past, present future all have to exist, they are all real. "Fabric of the Cosmos"

Actually the naturalistic theory predicts that all of this is make believe. The only way for both of us to be having this conversation with some semblance of free will is with the options 2 and 3.

In option one you are nothing but a figment of my imagination. Or to put it in Scrooge terms.

“You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!�

This is the problem with the naturalistic theory. Not only do things appear to have order and our equations say they would have the highest order at creation, there is the appears of a struggle to survive. An appearance of free will in which we have control over our destiny because of the choices we make.

These elements are not seen in naturalistic theories.

[DeMotts]

Einsteins equations

The past, present future all have to exist, they are all real. "Fabric of the Cosmos"

Actually the naturalistic theory predicts that all of this is make believe. The only way for both of us to be having this conversation with some semblance of free will is with the options 2 and 3.

Why is this the case? Why does naturalism predict that this is make believe?

In option one you are nothing but a figment of my imagination.

Naturalism is solipsism? I don't follow this logic.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 9 by DeMotts]

Einstein in his relativity equations equated passage of time with the motion of body. So as you walk across the room time for you slows down relative to the objects around you that are not moving.

Now this time dilation changes as you are moving towards an object or away from an object. Here is a little video that will explain it, from Brian Green.



Now if this is true that past, present and future all have to exist simultaneously, that means
1. when the universe was made that the entirety of the timeline also had to come into existence, this would indicate that there is no such thing as a free will. Or that every time we make a decision a new universe would be formed. But that idea also becomes a Paradox.
2. The current big bang model has one very troubling flaw and that is the physical constants of this universe. How did they occur? To shorten this I am not going to go into much detail. But in short to come up with these constants there has to be an infinite number of universes. The trouble is that it is much more likely that a "Boltzmann Brain� would be produce instead of a universe like our own. This is called the Boltzmann Brain Paradox. Everything that we see and experience are nothing more than random energy inside of this Brain. Nothing, we see or experience is real. So there is not such thing as free will every virtual event that exists on the virtual time line is already in place and is happening.
3. A second naturalistic option was put forward by Leonard Susskind, he said that we and everything we experience is nothing more than random 2 dimensional information on the surface of an event horizon in a black hole. And that this 2 dimensional information is projected inside the black hole. So there are really 2 of everything. The two dimensional informational you and the projected holographic you. But again if Einstein’s equations are correct then all of time would also have to be on the surface of the black hole.