Does each human/animal/plant have many souls?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I tried to say is that the animating force of the body seems (as far as we can see with research) to be material, also. Yes, rocks also experience physical-chemical effects, but they are FAR less complex than cells. Cells seem to move through chemical cascades and electrochemical equilibriums, and (this is my point) these effects would occur both in a living cell and in an artificial/lab system, so: These effects seem to be independant from the soul and the sole responsables of physical animation (this is compatible with hylomorphism, as in this theory the material body is equally important as the soul).

Now, for that reason, I think we should define a new concept of soul more in line with current natural discoveries. My guess is that the soul is the source of conscience, free will, and connection to the Holy Spirit, as neither of this functions seem to be dependant on the brain/material forces.
 
Last edited:
So you are asserting that we should tell the pope and magisterium (and, therefore, Jesus) that they are in error for the last 2000 years and that you will instruct them the way they should teach the understanding of the Soul and body composite? It sure appears like you want to now dictate church doctrine based on popular opinion exhortations
AlbMagno said:
Now, for that reason, I think we should define a new concept of soul more in line with current natural discoveries. My guess is that the soul is the source of conscience, free will, and connection to the Holy Spirit, as neither of this functions seem to be dependant on the brain/material forces.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
Embryonic cells are pluripotent, they have the ability to produce different cells and, with time, and entire body, so God grants it a soul. On the other hand, individual animal cells separated from the body wouldn’t be granted a soul because they are not really alive, they cannot survive on their “own” like an embryonic cell “can”.
Click to expand...
The fact that individual animal cells cannot survive on their own doesn’t indicate that they are not alive.
 
John_Martin said:
A fetus is the entire living body of its animating soul when that soul was created by God an hour ago to animate that body that a man and woman were conceving. You certainly do not maintain that only 60 year old men are the only set of souls with complete bodies. A fetal body is all that a whole human needs to get where he is going at the point when he is an hour old. And when more is needed the soul moves the body to actualize more, to actualize human bodily growth.
Click to expand...
The point that I am trying to make is that life, progress of a fetus to a being, is continuous process. There are many division and specialization of cells during this process. What we have at the end is a being which is the result of this process constitute of many many cells. You cannot say the fetus is alive, has soul, and the next generation of cells are dead, have no soul, because the process is continuous. Therefore each cell has a soul.
John_Martin said:
As for naturally occurring twins this is an accidental occurrence and might technically be called a defective occurrence of human growth. However this also is not surprise surprise to our dear God who eternally knows this defective occurrence will happen and generates a soul for the new cell at the moment it happens so that it will be a living body rather than a decomposing set of molecules and atoms. He does not do this for every fetus that divides abnormally but only those which he eternally knows it being done by Him in the contingent moment of its division.
Click to expand...
In this thread we are not interested to know where the soul comes from. I have an argument against God’s foreknowledge though.
 
And what is to be alive? Human (and maybe animal) life can be defined theologically, but in other contexts the definition of life and living being seems to be dependant on the judging of the biologist’s community, as it happened when they said that a virus isn’t a living being. It all comes down to the cellular theory, and the cellular theory establishes that the individual, separated cells of a pluricellular being with equal genome doesn’t constitute life.
 
The soul as an animating force hasn’t been defined ex-cathedra (as far as I am aware) and isn’t a dogma, so it could be changed (as with death penalty in the CCC, in light of the current circumstances). The soul as an animating force comes from Thomism, the recommended theological theory by the Holy See, but not the infallible one.
 
AlbMagno said:
And what is to be alive? Human (and maybe animal) life can be defined theologically, but in other contexts the definition of life and living being seems to be dependant on the judging of the biologist’s community, as it happened when they said that a virus isn’t a living being. It all comes down to the cellular theory, and the cellular theory establishes that the individual, separated cells of a pluricellular being with equal genome doesn’t constitute life.
Click to expand...
To reproduce, get nutrition, have memory and respond to environment.
 
It is apparent and understandable that you are not interested. However, since there is no life, no conception, no cell division, until and when the soul is created to be the principle and actualizer of life, you will not know life correctly without correct understanding of the Soul.

But I have now said enough.
 
John_Martin said:
It is apparent and understandable that you are not interested. However, since there is no life, no conception, no cell division, until and when the soul is created to be the principle and actualizer of life, you will not know life correctly without correct understanding of the Soul.

But I have now said enough.
Click to expand...
I am very interested. You seems that you are not interested in my argument. 😉

By the way, how do you know that soul is created at the moment of conception? Any evidence?
 
Last edited:
STT said:
I am very interested. You seems that you are not interested in my argument. 😉

By the way, how do you know that soul is created at the moment of conception? Any evidence?
Click to expand...
STT, You yourself wrote, “In this thread we are not interested to know where the soul comes from.”, and I could tell from your posts you accept only verifiable physical phenomenon as valid descriptions of reality.

The soul is not created at the moment of conception - rather, conception happens successfully if and only if a soul is created. God is giving success to fertilization by providing a soul to animate the zygote he eternally knows as coming to be in unison with temporal parents knowing their union.
Evidence - revelation by the “inventor” (creator) of the soul and of the material reality - knowing is only correct when it matches the knowing of the one who created the thing known.
 
STT said:
40.png
John_Martin:
It is apparent and understandable that you are not interested. However, since there is no life, no conception, no cell division, until and when the soul is created to be the principle and actualizer of life, you will not know life correctly without correct understanding of the Soul.

But I have now said enough.
Click to expand...
I am very interested. You seems that you are not interested in my argument. 😉

By the way, how do you know that soul is created at the moment of conception? Any evidence?
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s better for you to simply say " I don’t believe any of this", rather than demand evidence for something super-natural.

If you don’t believe in God/soul, why does any of it matter?
And you will respond that you are just curious and pursuing good discussion. In that case, why don’t you stop and think about the theology behind this, rather than constantly forcing your materialist ideology on the issues?

That doesn’t strike me as a very productive endeavor for a materialist. I thought that was only something religious people did. (not)
 
Last edited:
John_Martin said:
STT, You yourself wrote, “In this thread we are not interested to know where the soul comes from.”, and I could tell from your posts you accept only verifiable physical phenomenon as valid descriptions of reality.
Click to expand...
Well to be clear the subject of this thread is about whether there are many souls rather than where souls come from.
John_Martin said:
The soul is not created at the moment of conception - rather, conception happens successfully if and only if a soul is created. God is giving success to fertilization by providing a soul to animate the zygote he eternally knows as coming to be in unison with temporal parents knowing their union.
Evidence - revelation by the “inventor” (creator) of the soul and of the material reality - knowing is only correct when it matches the knowing of the one who created the thing known.
Click to expand...
What does animate sperms? What does control all changes in your body? Your soul? You would be aware of all changes in your body if your soul was in charge.
 
goout said:
Maybe it’s better for you to simply say " I don’t believe any of this", rather than demand evidence for something super-natural.
Click to expand...
Have you read OP? I am really interested to understand the subject.
goout said:
If you don’t believe in God/soul, why does any of it matter?
And you will respond that you are just curious and pursuing good discussion. In that case, why don’t you stop and think about the theology behind this, rather than constantly forcing your materialist ideology on the issues?

That doesn’t strike me as a very productive endeavor for a materialist. I thought that was only something religious people did. (not)
Click to expand...
I am not a materialist.
 
STT said:
Well to be clear the subject of this thread is about whether there are many souls rather than where souls come from.
Click to expand...
Yes, you started a thread asking this super-natural question, and all the while demanding materialist proof from others.

Why did you ask the question?
 
goout said:
Yes, you started a thread asking this super-natural question, and all the while demanding materialist proof from others.

Why did you ask the question?
Click to expand...
I am asking neither for any proof but explanation nor any materialist explanation. I believe materialism cannot answer the questions related to soul.

I am wondering if there are many souls in each of us.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
goout:
Yes, you started a thread asking this super-natural question, and all the while demanding materialist proof from others.

Why did you ask the question?
Click to expand...
I am asking neither for any proof but explanation nor any materialist explanation. I believe materialism cannot answer the questions related to soul.
Click to expand...
The very premise of your whole discussion is the demand for evidence for things which have no evidence.
What’s the point? You ask for explanations, you get them, and yet you continually point to their evidentiary inadequacy.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
The very premise of your whole discussion is the demand for evidence for things which have no evidence.
What’s the point? You ask for explanations, you get them, and yet you continually point to their evidentiary inadequacy.
Click to expand...
You need to follow the discussion from beginning to see why we reach to this point.
 
STT said:
40.png
goout:
The very premise of your whole discussion is the demand for evidence for things which have no evidence.
What’s the point? You ask for explanations, you get them, and yet you continually point to their evidentiary inadequacy.
Click to expand...
You need to follow the discussion from beginning to see why we reach to this point.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top