Can o' worms: Soul

[Elude]

Originally Posted by Malorn

A line in 2D space cannot see that it is part of a cube in 3D space. It might even claim cubes don't exist because it fully understands itself and all things observable in it's 2D space. The cube thinks he knows better than the lines, unaware that he himself could be part of something much bigger in 4D space. Or 5D...etc.

Assuming greater dimensions exists while also assuming that a line in 2d space can even think let alone comprehend what a cube is before questioning its existence.

It's one thing to believe in something you have no proof of, it's another to believe in something piled under other shit that you have no proof of. This is the very problem with religion.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It should be mentioned that because we lack a solid explanation, at the moment, of why things are the way they are, does not mean that other imagined causes are true by default. God of the gaps, folks. This is junior-high level logical reasoning.

Until there is evidence to suggest that something like gods, or souls, or loch ness mosters exist, they can be dismissed without much thought given to them.

All gaps in our understanding mean is that we should work harder to find the truth, and not be satisfied with products borne purely of the imagination.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Elude

Assuming greater dimensions exists while also assuming that a line in 2d space can even think let alone comprehend what a cube is before questioning its existence.

It's one thing to believe in something you have no proof of, it's another to believe in something piled under other shit that you have no proof of. This is the very problem with religion.

Meh.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The point went right over this one.

The point you were making was that we are incapable of seeing beyond our constraints so it's safe to say there is something greater than what we know.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Exactly. Humans are the know-it-all teenagers of the Universe, 100% provided for by mommy and daddy (earth and sun). We have lots of growing up to do.

No, just because we are bound by constraints does not mean there is something beyond our knowledge. While as likely as it is it's still not definitive proof.

Throwing in placeholders is a bad idea, especially when you start throwing in more than one stacked on top of others.

[Goku]

I personally think there is some kind of higher power out there/afterlife for numerous reasons. With that I do think there is something like the soul. In regards to science proving this I think it maybe possible one day, but likely not anytime soon. I just think we are still way behind finding out the true secrets of the universe (small or big), we've only scratched the surface so far.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I think a common fallacy that permeates our thinking about the universe is that it needs a reason. That there needs to be a 'purpose' or that there are hidden 'secrets' to unlock. What exactly is there that we don't know? We don't understand everything about the big bang, Quantum is a strange and mysterious realm, and parthenogenesis eludes us. But eventually, through tireless work, our best and brightest in the fields of physics, astronomy, biology and so forth will uncover these mysteries, which will undoubtedly lead to more.

Frankly, when we've got scientists discovering the Higgs Boson or debating the makeup of black holes and compressing the moments of the big bang down to millionths of a second, I find the conversation about whether or not we're all magical ghosts riding around in sacks of meat , having never before existed but somehow existing forever afterward, to be quite silly.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I think a common fallacy that permeates our thinking about the universe is that it needs a reason. That there needs to be a 'purpose' or that there are hidden 'secrets' to unlock. What exactly is there that we don't know? We don't understand everything about the big bang, Quantum is a strange and mysterious realm, and parthenogenesis eludes us. But eventually, through tireless work, our best and brightest in the fields of physics, astronomy, biology and so forth will uncover these mysteries, which will undoubtedly lead to more.

Frankly, when we've got scientists discovering the Higgs Boson or debating the makeup of black holes and compressing the moments of the big bang down to millionths of a second, I find the conversation about whether or not we're all magical ghosts riding around in sacks of meat , having never before existed but somehow existing forever afterward, to be quite silly.

First I'll start with the end statement -- who ever said that we never before existed but somehow will exist afterwards? Well, now that I think of it, probably a lot of people, but that there is the real fallacy.

As for the bolded part, let me show you a few things:

The pancreas, having been discovered by the ancient greeks, had its purpose only recently discovered.

Check out The Quantum Activist -- it proposes many questions which most of us have probably never even thought of. On that note, you might find it interesting to know that most theoretical physicists DO believe in larger intelligence and/or souls.

Speaking of theoretical physicists, and of what we do or do not know, check out Dr. Michio Kaku's work. His goal in life since his college years has been to finish Einstein's "Theory of Everything," something that still eludes him and his colleagues to this day. There is currently no universal theory. Quantum Physics and Relativity, both essentially proven to be true, have fundamental differences which make both of them simultaneously correct and incorrect (kind of like that dude's cat; pun intended).




You're right about the purpose fallacy imo; but that's also not to say that nothing has a purpose and that purpose is simply made up, but that purpose is not necessarily/scientifically requisite; we just don't know. Furthermore one can ask the question "do souls have/have to have a purpose?" or even "what is the purpose of souls?" Neither of these will be answered in our lifetimes is my guess.







EDIT: Sorry, I think I misread your first statement and I guess ultimately I'm just agreeing with you lol.

Originally Posted by Elude

No, just because we are bound by constraints does not mean there is something beyond our knowledge. While as likely as it is it's still not definitive proof.

Throwing in placeholders is a bad idea, especially when you start throwing in more than one stacked on top of others.

Unfortunately math is not on your side my friend. There are one of three possible scenarios: Our universe is infinite, there are infinite universes, or both. If something in the universe(s) is possible, with only one of two outcomes, it literally has a .5∞ chance of occurring. And half of infinity is still infinity.

Similarly the only people who would discredit the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence (a.k.a. aliens) will soon (imo) find their beliefs severely shaken. In the last decade or so alone we have discovered dozens of planets capable of supporting human life in most ways but a few (some planets will have surface temperatures in the hundreds, while others will have gravity of 15+G's, etc...). This is just within a few hundred light years of earth, and we are by no means done searching just our little corner of the galaxy alone. There is still the rest of the galaxy to explore, and then entire other galaxies (and ours is a medium sized galaxy; slightly smaller if you average all known galaxies). By the way there's an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the known universe. Again, that's just the known universe, and again if we are assuming the first scenario of an infinite universe, then there WILL be infinite galaxies.






My question to the nay sayers -- why is it you want to believe souls (or whatever else has not been "proven" yet) do not exist? Not tryin to be a dick I'm just legit curious.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Saifoda

First I'll start with the end statement -- who ever said that we never before existed but somehow will exist afterwards? Well, now that I think of it, probably a lot of people, but that there is the real fallacy.

As for the bolded part, let me show you a few things:

The pancreas, having been discovered by the ancient greeks, had its purpose only recently discovered.

Check out The Quantum Activist -- it proposes many questions which most of us have probably never even thought of. On that note, you might find it interesting to know that most theoretical physicists DO believe in larger intelligence and/or souls.

Speaking of theoretical physicists, and of what we do or do not know, check out Dr. Michio Kaku's work. His goal in life since his college years has been to finish Einstein's "Theory of Everything," something that still eludes him and his colleagues to this day. There is currently no universal theory. Quantum Physics and Relativity, both essentially proven to be true, have fundamental differences which make both of them simultaneously correct and incorrect (kind of like that dude's cat; pun intended).




You're right about the purpose fallacy imo; but that's also not to say that nothing has a purpose and that purpose is simply made up, but that purpose is not necessarily/scientifically requisite; we just don't know. Furthermore one can ask the question "do souls have/have to have a purpose?" or even "what is the purpose of souls?" Neither of these will be answered in our lifetimes is my guess.

It's a shame you put all that effort in, because I think you misunderstood me. I meant what is there that we don't even know... about the purpose of the universe? I'm aware that there is more we don't know about the natural sciences than what we do. I was talking more about fuzzy questions about meaning and purpose, and I'm pretty sure the answer we've come to is "There isn't; just don't be a dick."

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

It's a shame you put all that effort in, because I think you misunderstood me. I meant what is there that we don't even know... about the purpose of the universe? I'm aware that there is more we don't know about the natural sciences than what we do. I was talking more about fuzzy questions about meaning and purpose, and I'm pretty sure the answer we've come to is "There isn't; just don't be a dick."

Yeah after I typed all that I looked back at your post and went "oh........." lol. I've been sick the last few days so I don't like to open my eyes much lol. <3


EDIT: I kept it up though cause I do think people would get a real kick out of watching the quantum activist and reading up on Kaku's work; my favorite book of his is Physics of the Future -- it's like porn for scifi freaks.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by Saifoda

Similarly the only people who would discredit the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence (a.k.a. aliens) will soon (imo) find their beliefs severely shaken. In the last decade or so alone we have discovered dozens of planets capable of supporting human life in most ways but a few (some planets will have surface temperatures in the hundreds, while others will have gravity of 15+G's, etc...). This is just within a few hundred light years of earth, and we are by no means done searching just our little corner of the galaxy alone. There is still the rest of the galaxy to explore, and then entire other galaxies (and ours is a medium sized galaxy; slightly smaller if you average all known galaxies). By the way there's an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the known universe. Again, that's just the known universe, and again if we are assuming the first scenario of an infinite universe, then there WILL be infinite galaxies.

My question to the nay sayers -- why is it you want to believe souls (or whatever else has not been "proven" yet) do not exist? Not tryin to be a dick I'm just legit curious.

The only people who would have their beliefs shaken are the ones who bind themselves to the point where it becomes a delusional fact in their minds as well as those who have multiple beliefs supporting each other.

I honestly don't care if you believe in god, aliens, or the afterlife. It's when someone uses something yet to be proven to support their beliefs I have a problem with.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by Elude

The only people who would have their beliefs shaken are the ones who bind themselves to the point where it becomes a delusional fact in their minds as well as those who have multiple beliefs supporting each other.

I honestly don't care if you believe in god, aliens, or the afterlife. It's when someone uses something yet to be proven to support their beliefs I have a problem with.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at when you quoted me.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

The soul is the most successful lie ever told, or true.

I believe in a soul, being that nothing ever dies, makes sense to me. Maybe the soul is simply a blueprint. How does the universe know how to create a star? I'm sure there is a man made explanation, but humans are idiots.

And yes nothing ever dies, we're made of atoms we just simply turn into something else. Think about it, if everything died, everything would of died a fuck long time ago. Cycle of life, thats how the universe keeps moving.

Our language can confuse issues sometimes, because the universe is one way, and our language does a flawed job of trying to explain and categorize it all. Forms can be destroyed, but the net sum is always equal to the original.

Really, it's a zero sum game. The entire universe adds up to zero. It always has, and it always well. The positive and negative forces will just take different forms over time, and one of those temporary forms are human brains.

What would make the form of energy and matter that we call a brain be so special anyways? Who are we to say that a group of atoms forming a brain are more than the sum of the parts of a group of atoms that form a cloud of gas? We like to think our brain, mind and "soul" are more important than a cloud of gas, but does that make it so?

I think our brains are just passing transitional stages of matter and energy, and when that matter and energy stops being a brain, it stops being us. The matter and energy that held our form continues on in new forms, but our form is fleeting.

If I have a soul, then everything has a soul, from the entire universe down to each quark, and the term starts to be meaningless. The major question is whether or not anything that makes the human brain significant to us carries on after the brain is gone, and I haven't seen any particularly good reason to think there is.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

How does the universe know how to create a star? I'm sure there is a man made explanation, but humans are idiots.

Says the fellow communicating his thoughts to people around the world via his idiot-made device. We know why stars exist. We know their life-cycle. If you choose to reject human knowledge which is proven to work so well that we are quite literally living in the best moment of human history because of it, you do so arbitrarily.

Souls and afterlives and these sorts of things do not have a scientific basis so far. What you wish to believe about them is your own prerogative. However, to indict human understanding of the natural world because it cannot explain something that is for all intents supernatural is a bit silly. Take solace in whatever belief about the soul you wish, but also realize that when it comes to understanding the behaviour of the real world, scientific inquiry wins every time.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

This is an idiot made device. Humans use matter and energy to create Ipads. The universe uses matter and energy to create galaxies.

Comparing an Ipad to a galaxy are we, you do realize they are equally insignificant right? If you're going to insult the human intellect you might as well insult the universe along with it.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Science and Religion like to define what already is. To me that is as significant as Christopher Columbus discovering the new world. There's nothing new about it.

You have that half right.... except religion likes to define what isn't