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.
Does man have a soul?
Moderator: Moderators
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Does man have a soul?
Post #81[Replying to Aetixintro]
I believe man does have a soul but not for those reasons. I am not even sure what it is you are trying to say.
I do not believe that social theory has not provided the evidence that morality can come from strictly social pressures. It has not been the case when societies have been cut of from the rest of society. The trend in morality has always been down not up.
I believe it can be shown that Christianity has lifted the morality of the west.
I believe it can be shown that men are individuals not part of a greater conscious. And therefore there must be individual souls.
I believe man does have a soul but not for those reasons. I am not even sure what it is you are trying to say.
I do not believe that social theory has not provided the evidence that morality can come from strictly social pressures. It has not been the case when societies have been cut of from the rest of society. The trend in morality has always been down not up.
I believe it can be shown that Christianity has lifted the morality of the west.
I believe it can be shown that men are individuals not part of a greater conscious. And therefore there must be individual souls.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #82
From the Op:
Man had a soul. Then James Brown died, and here we sit.
'Soul' is one of them greasy words, like 'loving', where it is, a God's only it so loving, 'til it is you accuse him of being him an idiot.
Man had a soul. Then James Brown died, and here we sit.
'Soul' is one of them greasy words, like 'loving', where it is, a God's only it so loving, 'til it is you accuse him of being him an idiot.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #84
Walterbl wrote: Man has a soul because Qualia can't be reduced to mere material phenomena, and materialism is unable to explain consciusness. See the phylosiophica zombie thought experiment.
How does this show a 'soul'?? Can you define what you mean by 'soul'.
This sounds very much like the 'argument from ignorance'.. 'we don't know how consciousness works, so therefore soul'
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #86
Is there something that survives after death? How would you find out?Walterbl wrote: Is what you recognize as the self, the idea of the "you". Pressumably, it survives after death.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella