S
STT
Guest
Soul/mind to me simply exists. It cannot have a creator since it is irreducible (I have an argument for that). I however don’t have an argument in favor of immortality of irreducible things.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
As I mentioned before I have an argument for soul which shows that soul cannot have any creator. I can share it with you if you are interested.
S
STT
Guest
No, I simply argue that soul cannot be created since it is irreducible. Soul therefore simply exists.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Uhh… whatever.
I was paying attention! If you were paying attention to my response to you, I pointed out that these don’t necessarily prove (let alone demonstrate!) unreliability. So, again, I ask you: how do these prove Scripture unreliable?
What we say about Scripture – and in this context, we’re talking about stories that began as oral tradition – is that God inspired the person who wrote them down to tell the story in the manner that God wished it to be told. The manner in which it was originally told isn’t in play – the manner in which it was written down is.
And so, if God is intending this to be a historical narrative, then we’d say that His intent is to portray historically.
Moreover, there’s a certain tendency among moderns – especially those of us who are highly literate – to scoff at cultures that were largely illiterate, and who relied on the skill of storytellers to pass down their histories accurately. It’s a rather amusing display of hubris. After all, if they didn’t have iPhones or Chromebooks upon which to record their stories, it’s clear that they got it all wrong on a regular basis, right?
Yeah. So?
Keep telling yourself that. You seem to think that journalists and historians don’t bring their biases into their accounts.
So, think about that question for a second. If you want to ask “why are there planets?”, then answer isn’t, as you assert, “there just are.” Rather, we can talk about gases that coalesce around nascent stars, and material that forms and comes together and makes planets. It’s not just “they just are”, it’s that there are reasons that they came into existence.
Now take a look at the notion of souls. They’re not physical. They don’t have occasional or accidental causes for their existence. If they exist, then they have been intentionally created by an entity that has the power to create spiritual beings. Therefore, they too do not have a “they just are” explanation. And, given what must cause them, we must draw reasonable conclusions about their reasons for existing…
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
Me too, in the reciprocal. I know I’m not going to change your mindEvery once in awhile, and only awhile, i accommodate discourse with an atheist,knowing in advance, it usually goes nowhere. Looks like that “Awhile” in this case, has run it’s usual course.
using logic and reason, as yours is a position that was arrived at through other means.It was fun, sort of.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
I never said they proved scripture to be unreliable. I said that based on everything we know about oral testimony, the chances that it survived thousands of iterations of story-telling completely intact are incredibly slim. For any other story, I’m sure you’d join me in concluding that the documentation was unreliable. Unless you’re going to tell me you also think the Qur’an and Vedas are also absolutely true? They enjoy exactly the same level of objective evidence, after all.
Ah, okay then. If you’re assuming your ultimate conclusion as part of your argument - the word of God is accurately reproduced because God made sure of it - then there’s little point in continuing. I thought we were debating the actual evidence.
Based on the multitude of carefully-controlled, unbiased, peer-reviewed experiments we’ve done on the phenomenon of human recollection and oral information propagation… yes, they got it wrong on a regular basis. It’s hilariously ironic you choose this moment to do a “roll-eyes.” It’s highly likely the stories were mis-told and, given the nature of the stories in question, deliberately embellished to make them more attention-grabbing. There’s abundant evidence that this happens all the time, but… for some reason, the story that you believe in has remained unchanged for thousands of years. You must realise how preposterous that suggestion is.Moreover, there’s a certain tendency among moderns – especially those of us who are highly literate – to scoff at cultures that were largely illiterate, and who relied on the skill of storytellers to pass down their histories accurately. It’s a rather amusing display of hubris. After all, if they didn’t have iPhones or Chromebooks upon which to record their stories, it’s clear that they got it all wrong on a regular basis, right?
Unless you’re suggesting that metal-age humans somehow had the gift of perfect recall and stony-faced fact-telling, which we’ve somehow lost? In which case, please provide the evidence that counters what modern experiments have shown us.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
You don’t really need me to spell it out.
Nice straw man. Of course they do, and it’s good that you finally admit that people have such a tendency. But journalists can only do it once, when they originally write it down. And they have to get the basic facts right to avoid litigation. Modern journalistic standards - even for gutter press - have to meet a minimum standard which does not apply to goat-herders’ campfire stories.
That’s the difference between “why” and “how come?” We know how planets formed, but there is no evidence of a “why.” No *purpose" for them to meet. I’m pretty sure you understood what I meant.
Absolutely. “Reasonable” is subjective, of course. People who yearn for immortality of the soul, have invented stories to justify their yearning. They consider those justifications reasonable, of course they do. They assume that because souls are created, they must be immortal. They fail to consider that the notion of an immortal soul is a logical outcome of simply “not wanting to die,” which is, of course, an evolutionary biological imperative. O sweet irony!
F
FredBloggs
Guest
S
steve-b
Guest
FredBloggs:
S
STT
Guest
No, I am describing an uncaused entity.
S
STT
Guest
Why it should cause itself? Couldn’t something simply exist?
S
STT
Guest
But soul cannot have any cause. We are not God though. I am not sure if there is any God. I have an argument which shows that the act of creation is impossible.it’s the old story, keep going back and back to the first cause of everything that is. THEN what? Who caused the first cause of everything that is? The uncaused cause… God
S
steve-b
Guest
As we would agree, arguments abound, God/noGod, etc etc etc. Faith is a gift from God. It doesn’t come from us. We can’t manufacture it ourselves. And Since God desires all to be saved HERE.steve-b:
But soul cannot have any cause. We are not God though. I am not sure if there is any God. I have an argument which shows that the act of creation is impossible.it’s the old story, keep going back and back to the first cause of everything that is. THEN what? Who caused the first cause of everything that is? The uncaused cause… God
THAT
tells me, everyone has been given the nudge, the attraction upfront to want to know God. God stacked the deck in His favor.HOWEVER
Most people as it turns out, don’t treat that gift responsibly. Thus as God says looking forward in time, while He desires all to be saved, in reality, few are savedBecause
As Jesus explained.Human Story (condensed)
Since we are body + soul, then at death there is a separation of the 2. The body dies, and is buried or whatever happens to it, but the soul lives on because the soul is immortal. The soul is judged by God, (Jesus does all the judging) and the soul goes to its reward or punishment. At the end of time, soul and body are reunited again…(resurrection of the dead) . If the soul is in heaven they are now in heaven body and soul. If the soul was in hell they are now in hell body and soul.
That is forever. And there is no clock in eternity. A bazillion yrs from now is still now in eternity.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
Well, biological change or decay doesn’t apply to the spiritual realm, so anything created from spirit is by default immortal unless God destroys it, and God doesn’t destroy what he creates.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough. Do you know what the subject of the Church’s assertion of the inerrancy of Scripture is?
… it’s the narrative as written down. That being the case, your complaints seem to be irrelevant.
The Word of God is asserted as being inerrant not because it’s a verbatim copy of the first oral telling of the story, but because the written narrative is. If you want to argue a different assertion, then perhaps you’re correct – it doesn’t make sense for you to argue apples if the Church is asserting oranges.
I hope you recognize that this is not what I’m asserting.
I’m asserting neither.
That’s a nice story that you’re telling yourself – and if it helps your particular biological imperative, then please, by all means, continue to do so. However, the “sweet irony” here is that, in the context of your assertions of objectivity and justification… you’ve just added your own subjective justification for disbelief!
- Status