Does man have a soul?

[Ubenedictus]

What about all the ghost stories involving more than 1 person seeing them.

who say those stories werent made up? Who say they are true? Besides a soul is usually described as immaterial how come some people can see it?
Peace

 

[Ubenedictus]

An interesting note. When some one dies there is always a small percentage of weight, about .01 pounds, that can’t be accounted for. Is this the weight of the soul?

many scientist have explained that point away, besides if .01 pound is the weight of the soul that means the soul isnt immaterial. That mean it can be measured and maybe seen.
Peace

 

[Ubenedictus]

“Soul”, as understood by Aristotle, is the “form” of a living being (not just a human being).

ok

The “form” is really a set of abilities (metabolism, reproduction, perception, etc., as may be the case). “Soul” is shorthand for all these abilities. .

so the human soul is just about his ability, when he dies those abilities cease, so in essence i may say the soul ceased to exist at d death of d human.

Sometimes, when people talk about the “soul”, it sounds like they are referring to a weird “stuff”, e.g., ectoplasm, that floats around either inside or outside bodies. This is not what Aristotle meant by “soul”.

It might be more accurate to say that “soul” is a verb representing various “doings” - we see “soul” when we witness activities exercised by living beings. “Soul” does not exist as a separate thing apart from these activities - “soul” is those activities pure and simple. Of course, in order to engage in those activities, the living being has to be “able” to do them. So, there are really 2 dimensions here - soul as potentiality and soul as actuality.

“the soul is these activities pure and simple” that tells me that when those abilities cease at death, the soul also dies.

Beings that have “soul” are beings that exist for themselves. This “for-itself” distinguishes living beings from non-living beings, e.g., a rock does not exist for itself.

The human being has abilities that the other living beings don’t possess. And these additional abilities are included in the meaning of the human “soul”. These uniquely human abilities revolve around the fact that human being are capable of truth, of understanding things as they are in themselves (apart from being objects of appetite). A more fancy way of putting this: human beings can be datives of manifestation, can receive the disclosure of beings.

well for an atheist that is just shows man has a developed brain.

There is an important distinction between “soul” and “person”. Human beings have the same “soul” or “form”. But, as persons, human beings are different from one another. Aristotle thought the difference between individual human beings stemmed from matter. You can argue that matter is involved in individuality (e…g, spatio-temporal location), but “person” is the basis for the ontological difference between human beings.

thanks for this piece on aristotle, i do have a problem with the way he viewed the soul, but again aristotle’s argument is easier to prove.
Peace

 

[atheistgirl]

An interesting note. When some one dies there is always a small percentage of weight, about .01 pounds, that can’t be accounted for. Is this the weight of the soul?

Link to scientific peer reviewed journal for this claim please.

Sarah x

 

[Ubenedictus]

Wow! You lost me after two ‘‘per se’’ and after taking a look at the argument, it doesnt seem to prove the existence of a human soul instead it is try to prove d incorruptibility of d soul. One can only argue for on against incorruptibility after the existence of d soul has been established.

Linusthe2nd:

I answer that, We must assert that the intellectual principle which we call the human soul is incorruptible. For a thing may be corrupted in two ways–“per se,” and accidentally. Now it is impossible for any substance to be generated or corrupted accidentally, that is, by the generation or corruption of something else. For generation and corruption belong to a thing, just as existence belongs to it, which is acquired by generation and lost by corruption. Therefore, whatever has existence “per se” cannot be generated or corrupted except ‘per se’; while things which do not subsist, such as accidents and material forms, acquire existence or lost it through the generation or corruption of composite things. Now it was shown above (2,3) that the souls of brutes are not self-subsistent, whereas the human soul is; so that the souls of brutes are corrupted, when their bodies are corrupted; while the human soul could not be corrupted unless it were corrupted “per se.” This, indeed, is impossible, not only as regards the human soul, but also as regards anything subsistent that is a form alone. For it is clear that what belongs to a thing by virtue of itself is inseparable from it; but existence belongs to a form, which is an act, by virtue of itself. Wherefore matter acquires actual existence as it acquires the form; while it is corrupted so far as the form is separated from it. But it is impossible for a form to be separated from itself; and therefore it is impossible for a subsistent form to cease to exist.

Moreover we may take a sign of this from the fact that everything naturally aspires to existence after its own manner. Now, in things that have knowledge, desire ensues upon knowledge. The senses indeed do not know existence, except under the conditions of “here” and “now,” whereas the intellect apprehends existence absolutely, and for all time; so that everything that has an intellect naturally desires always to exist. But a natural desire cannot be in vain.

there is no proof that a natural desire cannot be in vain, this position is taken by those who suppose that there is a purpose to life, most atheist dont.

Therefore every intellectual substance is incorruptible.

This whole question should be studied, as it gives a closely reasoned demonstration for the nature of the soul and how it is related to the body and of its powars. See here:

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article6

Now the question is, does incorruptibility mean eternal? I know reputable Thomistic scholars who say Thomas does not say the soul is eternal, only that it is incorruptible. I agree. Though I think the rational evidence is in favor of an eternal soul, for this reason. Thomas demonstrated the existence of a first and final cause of everything which he showed to have many of the attributes of the Being we call God. But pretend for a moment that there had been no Revealation. We would still know that there existed a Being that was the Cause of all things, was Eternal, Intelligent, all Good, etc. Given the existence of such a Being, why would he create us if our end was oblivion.?It seems to me and many others that this would be contrary to the nature of such a Being. This is not proof but it does show where the evidence lays. And of course the eternity of the soul can be known for certain only as a fact of Divine Revealation. If you want absolute certainty, you will arrive at Revealation, there is no other way.

:tiphat:

wow! These argument…my head aches.
Thanks

 

[Ubenedictus]

How is it that you want a “careful” discussion to an OP littered with misspelling and bad grammar? You must set the example. Are you cognizant of the CAF’s excellent spell checker? Why not learn to use it, if only as a demonstration that you might be qualified to understand replies to your OP? Learning some grammar would also be good, especially as an English exercise if this is not your native language. These niceties will enhance the entire communication experience.

i didnt see this one coming, i’m not even aware that CAF has a spell checker. Incase you are worried, my understanding of english language is sufficient. I hope to take your advice and improve my grammar. Thanks for the heads up, im really sorry.

Your OP does require a sensible definition of soul. I’ll bet that you will not find any here, because I’ve tried for about three years without any luck whatsoever.

None of the preceding posts has anything intelligent to offer, other than tributes to an old philosopher who was entirely ignorant of physics. Thus, all you will get here is a rehash of pre-medieval beliefs that atheists with 3-digit IQs have long since rejected. Why bother?

I’ve also proposed a logical, physics-based definition of “soul”:here on CAF, and in more formal venues. However, such ideas are consistently met with derision from all believers.

i would love to hear your views.
Thanks.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Here is a personal concept to consider:

A spirit is simply the memory of a person or what the person looked like, knew, and did in the past. When we think of past interactions with a person, we are interacting with the memory or spirit of the person. There are two important qualities to recognize about the spirit/memory of a person: its occurrence and will. Since the spirit is thought of, an occurrence of the spirit happens in the thought of a person. And since the spirit/memory of a person is what happened in the past, it does not have free will. In other words, if I think about your spirit/memory I am unable to give the thought of you free will.

The distinction between the spirit and the soul is that the soul has free will. Like the spirit, the soul occurs in thought and it is what a person will look like, think, and do in the future. The only person capable of giving the thought of a person free will is God because He is the only one capable of thinking of Creation and physically creating us.

Now the body is the physically present occurrence of us.

Therefore, the soul is the thought of what we will freely choose to do in the mind of God. The body is the physical occurrence of us doing what we freely chose to do. The spirit is the thought of what a person did in the past.

I look forward to further discussion!

wow!!! I’ve never heard this view before, wouldnt this make the spirit and soul imaginary since the soul only exists in the thoughts of another?
Thanks

 

[greylorn]

Wow!!
Great posts, i would like to talk about them one after the other.
I hope i have the time.
Thank again.

Its always nice when the OP initiator can squeeze a few minutes of his precious time to reply to those who provided some feedback. Maybe you can squeeze in a few minutes between TV commercials and taking out the cat litter. I for one, and many others who replied to your OP, could be eagerly awaiting your comments.

 

[jochoa]

wow!!! I’ve never heard this view before, wouldnt this make the spirit and soul imaginary since the soul only exists in the thoughts of another?
Thanks

Excellent question, and thank you for asking! Please know, this is the first time for me to have extended discussion on these concepts, so please bear patiently with me as I grow in understanding and presentation. Also, please keep in mind throughout the post that I use spirit and memory as the same.

Therefore, the soul is the thought of what we will freely choose to do in the mind of God. The body is the physical occurrence of us doing what we freely chose to do. The spirit is the thought of what a person did in the past.

To clarify this point, perhaps I should have stated, “Therefore the demonstrable proof of the spirit lies in thinking of what a person did” and “The demonstrable proof of the soul lies in the ability to think of what a free-willed person will do, and recognizing that since we can do it with some accuracy provided a semi-controlled test environment, surely God can do it given He thought of Creation.”

Please consider further explanations/concepts:
-The thought of a person is not creating the spirit, rather the thought of a person is only a single instance of the spirit.
-The spirit is created the instance a person physically acts. Therefore, the spirit/memory is not bound to existing in thought. For example, a camcorder can capture, in time, the exact image, knowledge, and actions of a person without any thinking. This footage is still an occurrence of the spirit/memory of a person, even if no one ever thinks about it again.
-The spirit and soul is concrete, in that they are the physical occurrence of us. The soul is what we will physically do, look like, and come to know. The spirit is what we physically did, looked like, and knew.
-The spirit and soul are also necessarily imaginary. Meaning: Without occurring in the thought of another person, the spirit and soul are purposeless.

I look forward to further discussion!

 

[grandfather]

Link to scientific peer reviewed journal for this claim please.

Sarah x

lilt.ilstu.edu/kfmachin/FOI/Weight%20of%20human%20soul.htm

There are a number of studies that show at the moment of death there is loss of weight. The claim is that this proves the existance of the soul. If we can weigh it or measure it in some way it must exist. These studies do not prove the existance of the soul. A thing that is supposed to be immaterial can not have mass or weight. Whatever the explanation of loss of weight at death is, it has nothing to do with the soul.

 

[grandfather]

When my father died my sister and I were at his bedside. I knew the instant his soul left. My sister saw a flash of light move upward and out the window. Her whole body startled. He eyes moved to try to follow it.

Many years ago I was driving on a coastal road in northern California. The car in front of me stopped suddenly. No other cars were around. Two women jumped out of the car looking panicked. They were the wife and daughter of the elderly man slumped behind the wheel.

I pulled him out of the car and gave cardiac massage and mouth to mouth resucitation. He had almost no pulse and was not breathing. As I worked on him I said a silent prayer. I knew he had no chance. We were too far from help and he was surely dying.

An instant after I said the prayer his body gave a little jolt and his soul was gone. I knew it, felt it leave. It went upward and toward the southeast. I continued to administer aid, because of training that said keep trying until a doctor pronounces the victim dead.

Fifteen years ago my heart slowed down suddenly. I was put in intensive care waiting for a cardiologist to arrive to install a pacer. It was going eight seconds without a beat. I could feel my soul leaving my body. It was a very real experience, but impossible to explain. Unless we experience some things they can not be explained other than in analogy.

The essence of me, who I am, was on the verge of leaving behind my physical body. I was completely conscious, fully aware of what was going on, very calm, but unable to muster the strength to lift my head or say a word. I felt very alive on the brink of death. In fact I was more intensely aware of the beauty of life and my own being than ever before and I knew this essence of me was about to leave here. It was a sensation similar to seeing a bus you have been waiting for approach and slow down to let you board and leave the waiting place.

I was going through the door of the bus when the surgeon burst into the room and gave me a computer and battery to power my heart muscle.

People who do not believe we have souls will find out they are wrong when their souls leave their bodies behind.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Its always nice when the OP initiator can squeeze a few minutes of his precious time to reply to those who provided some feedback. Maybe you can squeeze in a few minutes between TV commercials and taking out the cat litter. I for one, and many others who replied to your OP, could be eagerly awaiting your comments.

hi,
i’m sorry for keeping everyone waiting, no excuses. Besides dear greylorn i don’t have a cat nor a dog or a bird and i will try to squeeze time out and respond to everyone.
Thanks.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Excellent question, and thank you for asking! Please know, this is the first time for me to have extended discussion on these concepts, so please bear patiently with me as I grow in understanding and presentation. Also, please keep in mind throughout the post that I use spirit and memory as the same.

To clarify this point, perhaps I should have stated, “Therefore the demonstrable proof of the spirit lies in thinking of what a person did” and “The demonstrable proof of the soul lies in the ability to think of what a free-willed person will do, and recognizing that since we can do it with some accuracy provided a semi-controlled test environment, surely God can do it given He thought of Creation.”

Please consider further explanations/concepts:
-The thought of a person is not creating the spirit, rather the thought of a person is only a single instance of the spirit.
-The spirit is created the instance a person physically acts. Therefore, the spirit/memory is not bound to existing in thought. For example, a camcorder can capture, in time, the exact image, knowledge, and actions of a person without any thinking. This footage is still an occurrence of the spirit/memory of a person, even if no one ever thinks about it again.
-The spirit and soul is concrete, in that they are the physical occurrence of us. The soul is what we will physically do, look like, and come to know. The spirit is what we physically did, looked like, and knew.
-The spirit and soul are also necessarily imaginary. Meaning: Without occurring in the thought of another person, the spirit and soul are purposeless.

I look forward to further discussion!

well feel free to express your opinion on this matter anyway that seem best to you. I’m not an expert either but i can appreciate peoples ideas.
Thanks for the clarifications, but i couldnt help but notice that you definitions equate the spirit to memory and the soul to would be acts. Our would be acts arent incorruptible or immoral, infact we hardly know what they would be and when we die, the possibility of acting may go to zero. So after death the soul seem to cease to exist.
Correct me if i misunderstood.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[northernstar]

Why do you think we do not have soul?

Prove to me there is no soul? That is is all make believe … silly emotion.

 

[jochoa]

well feel free to express your opinion on this matter anyway that seem best to you. I’m not an expert either but i can appreciate peoples ideas.
Thanks for the clarifications, but i couldnt help but notice that you definitions equate the spirit to memory and the soul to would be acts. Our would be acts arent incorruptible or immoral, infact we hardly know what they would be and when we die, the possibility of acting may go to zero. So after death the soul seem to cease to exist.
Correct me if i misunderstood.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

Thanks for following up! The basic equation of the spirit to the memory and soul to would be acts is very accurate. And the principles of the soul having free will, the spirit being unchanging, and the spiritual realm being timeless/spaceless/immaterial are all in alignment with this simplicity. They are also proven to exist. There is one extension to consider regarding my understandings: The creation of the soul and spirit occur in the mind of the Creator. Specifically, He thinks of Creation. It is during this thoughtful creation that He thinks of what persons, whom are capable of becoming one with His Nature, will freely choose to do. In the instance that a person freely wills an action, the spirit is created because this is what we will do during physical creation, which in turn will make us aware of the memory of us. This extension is not yet provable. However, the main growth point for me is that I now pray harder for my soul to ALWAYS continue to grow closer to God, His Church and His Heavenly Kingdom, and NEVER turn away.

Regarding “Our would be acts aren’t incorruptible…we hardly know what they would be”
This statement verifies free will for any who question it. And considering “…are not incorruptible,” this could more easily be stated as “are corruptible.” This is definitely true!

Regarding “death causing acting to go to zero”
Given that I cannot prove the soul is created in the mind of God without a patient listener and a lot of complicated understandings, I definitely cannot prove that the soul continues after death. The two main proofs, which both initially/simply rely on circular reasoning, are the belief in Jesus Resurrecting, and the belief in a glorified resurrection/nirvana, which is completely necessary in any belief in an after-life.

Regarding the soul seems to cease existing after death.
Please know that my understanding of the body is somewhat extended. I think God only needs one cell to continue our life. So in death, the complex body of the person passes, however the one cell continues and can be resurrected into another complex body again. So my understandings recognize that the soul does not cease to exist.

Thank you very much for further discussion!

 

[Nelka]

Does man have a soul?

Yes.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Why do you think we do not have soul?

Prove to me there is no soul? That is is all make believe … silly emotion.

huh…you really didnt help. I was asking for proof that man has a soul, you are answering my question with a question.
Peace

 

[Ubenedictus]

Thanks for following up! The basic equation of the spirit to the memory and soul to would be acts is very accurate. And the principles of the soul having free will, the spirit being unchanging, and the spiritual realm being timeless/spaceless/immaterial are all in alignment with this simplicity. They are also proven to exist. There is one extension to consider regarding my understandings: The creation of the soul and spirit occur in the mind of the Creator. Specifically, He thinks of Creation. It is during this thoughtful creation that He thinks of what persons, whom are capable of becoming one with His Nature, will freely choose to do. In the instance that a person freely wills an action, the spirit is created because this is what we will do during physical creation, which in turn will make us aware of the memory of us. This extension is not yet provable. However, the main growth point for me is that I now pray harder for my soul to ALWAYS continue to grow closer to God, His Church and His Heavenly Kingdom, and NEVER turn away.

Regarding “Our would be acts aren’t incorruptible…we hardly know what they would be”
This statement verifies free will for any who question it. And considering “…are not incorruptible,” this could more easily be stated as “are corruptible.” This is definitely true!

Regarding “death causing acting to go to zero”
Given that I cannot prove the soul is created in the mind of God without a patient listener and a lot of complicated understandings, I definitely cannot prove that the soul continues after death. The two main proofs, which both initially/simply rely on circular reasoning, are the belief in Jesus Resurrecting, and the belief in a glorified resurrection/nirvana, which is completely necessary in any belief in an after-life.

Regarding the soul seems to cease existing after death.
Please know that my understanding of the body is somewhat extended. I think God only needs one cell to continue our life. So in death, the complex body of the person passes, however the one cell continues and can be resurrected into another complex body again. So my understandings recognize that the soul does not cease to exist.

Thank you very much for further discussion!

wow after two successive days without any post i concluded the thread was ended, im very suprised to see this. After looking through i think you have a beautiful way of thinking. My head right now is around calculus i would need a little time to work your ideas.
One thing i couldnt help but notice is that at last the discussion goes back to religion. From the answers given thus far it would be almost imposible to explain the soul to an athiest without asking his to take God as a working hypothesis. I hope to get back to you.
Peace

 

[Ubenedictus]

Yes.

i agree, how would you explain it to someone who does even believe in God?
Peace

 

[jochoa]

wow after two successive days without any post i concluded the thread was ended, im very suprised to see this. After looking through i think you have a beautiful way of thinking. My head right now is around calculus i would need a little time to work your ideas.
One thing i couldnt help but notice is that at last the discussion goes back to religion. From the answers given thus far it would be almost imposible to explain the soul to an athiest without asking his to take God as a working hypothesis. I hope to get back to you.
Peace

Thank you very much for responding with further thoughts! I greatly appreciate the discussion!

You are definitely correct in that the possibility of explaining the soul to an atheist without asking him to take God as a working hypothesis is extremely low. The following is currently my best approach:

Since most atheists have pondered various means and purposes for/to creating something given the initial complete solitude of the “Creator” concept of God, the challenge is to ponder the means to fulfill the creation of an ever-lasting society of a limitless number of true friends, given the “Creator” also gets to participate as a friend of the society.
Upon arriving at the solution, the major factors which prove the existence of the soul will be:
The first major part of the proof will be the personal revelation of God’s existence, His Heavenly Kingdom, and His Church:
-The Story of the events to occur from the beginning of creation to the fulfillment of the purpose for creation will be in alignment with the Holy Bible/The Story of Creation.
-The things the Creator must do is in perfect alignment with the Theology of the Holy Trinity: 3 persons in 1 person and 1 person in 3 persons: The Nicene Creed.
-The rules which govern the heavenly society is the Greatest Commandments of Jesus Christ.
-The rules which govern the earthly society are the Greatest Commandments in unity with the Sacraments of Catholicism.
The second major part of the proof will be the means to determine who is worthy of the Fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven. In order to determine who is worthy of the Fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, it is necessary that the Creator, also remain the all-knowing Judge who has the capability of searching the depths of a person’s intentions and future intentions.

I look forward to more discussion!