So is DNA the immortal soul of man?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_DNA_Rose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This poor soul is getting educated beyond DNA Rose’s intelligence. Maybe a little bit of logic could help. No one has been able to explain how infinity is possible beyond what telescopes can see, never the less, there it is. Just because we don’t understand it, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Same goes with the human soul.
 
This poor soul is getting educated beyond DNA Rose’s intelligence. Maybe a little bit of logic could help. No one has been able to explain how infinity is possible beyond what telescopes can see, never the less, there it is. Just because we don’t understand it, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Same goes with the human soul.
Wrong, though you start out ok. There are no descriptions of infinity, beyond where the best telescopes can see. There are any number of hypothesis, and mathematically incomplete models, but no descriptions. I have been given, detailed descriptions of the human soul, yet no one can describe from where these come. Sure the soul could be a matter of faith, until clearly definitive descriptions are given, such as

Each human soul is individual and immortal, immediately created by God. The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection.

This is from th Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Even uncivilized peoples arrive at the concept of the soul almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort. The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep and in swooning, even the commonest operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while awake—all such facts invincibly suggest the existence of something besides the visible organism, internal to it, but to a large extent independent of it, and leading a life of its own. In the rude psychology of the primitive nations, the soul is often represented as actually migrating to and fro during dreams and trances, and after death haunting the neighbourhood of its body. Nearly always it is figured as something extremely volatile, a perfume or a breath. Often, as among the Fijians, it is represented as a miniature replica of the body, so small as to be invisible. The Samoans have a name for the soul which means “that which comes and goes”.”

They don’t even need to have historical data. It’s just something people know.

So where do these descriptions come from, if not from theological fiction writers.

My speculation of a DNA soul, would if junk DNA is what has been postulated, be a chemical computer program, designed to both survive, by evolution, and to also at the same time, preserve the base code, as created by the designer, thus achieving immortality, not of the individual, but of a species, thru billions of years and thru billions of galaxies as well.

Unless you are still looking to past catechisms, instead of designing the future.
 
DNA Rose, don’t do this to your self. People have already told you what souls are but no one can prove to you that is not DNA, just as no hypothesis would be suffice to explain infinity. I was only giving you a comparison. Soul=infinity, more or less!
 
Here’s the naked logic of this:

DNA Rose, your agument depends on the logic that at some point, one or more human beings, who necesarily cannot have “insider information” about a spiritual soul, had to have come up with the idea of the soul, correct?

Would you agree that if this were not the case for a Christian’s idea of the soul, in other words, that Christianity truly had “insider information” on the spiritual reality of the soul, your position would be proven false?
 
So you are comparing me to Galileo.
No. Galileo was a scientist. He did empirical observation, and developed theories based on his predecessors’ research, and his. All you share with Galileo is ‘pride’. His was just a bit more forgivable, given his scientific cred. 😉
 
Hello, DNA Rose, I think you are like Socrates… asking questions no one can answer and so they get angry! But I agree with you–we cannot explain what a soul is, no one can define it. I think if there is a soul, we for now can only know its effects… the effect of using the brain as an instrument to think, perhaps (to quote John Eccles).

However, in saying that DNA would contain the coding for the image of God, you are assuming that the image of God would be in DNA… yet if there is a soul, maybe that would be the image of God. You might be right, the image of God may be in DNA. But we cannot assume so, but be willing to admit it is there if we find it. Furthermore, we must define what the “image of God” actually means–if we do not do that, we cannot know if we have found it or not as we look at the DNA. So how would you define image of God?

In addition, I do not believe that a failure to define or explain what a soul is means that it does not exist (not sure if that is what you were saying, but perhaps you implied that). In fact, many philosophers have noted that we cannot truly say what anything is… even DNA. We can only see the effects of things, not the things in themselves. The effect of the thing is not the thing according to some.

But if you are familiar with the philosopher George Berkeley, you might consider that there is no external world at all, no “material” universe. Everything is mental, or ideas. God is the ultimate mind and his ideas are what we perceive around us, and we assume they are external “matter” but in fact we cannot define what matter is. There is no need to assume the existence of an external world when the belief that all is ideas works equally well and is simpler. (perhaps)

I recommend A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley.

p.s. even if DNA managed to be preserved for a while… eventually all life will die as the universe grows to big and cold too support life anymore… according to physicists… and so DNA will come to an end.
 
Hello, DNA Rose, I think you are like Socrates… asking questions no one can answer and so they get angry! But I agree with you–we cannot explain what a soul is, no one can define it. I think if there is a soul, we for now can only know its effects… the effect of using the brain as an instrument to think, perhaps (to quote John Eccles).

However, in saying that DNA would contain the coding for the image of God, you are assuming that the image of God would be in DNA… yet if there is a soul, maybe that would be the image of God. You might be right, the image of God may be in DNA. But we cannot assume so, but be willing to admit it is there if we find it. Furthermore, we must define what the “image of God” actually means–if we do not do that, we cannot know if we have found it or not as we look at the DNA. So how would you define image of God?

In addition, I do not believe that a failure to define or explain what a soul is means that it does not exist (not sure if that is what you were saying, but perhaps you implied that). In fact, many philosophers have noted that we cannot truly say what anything is… even DNA. We can only see the effects of things, not the things in themselves. The effect of the thing is not the thing according to some.

But if you are familiar with the philosopher George Berkeley, you might consider that there is no external world at all, no “material” universe. Everything is mental, or ideas. God is the ultimate mind and his ideas are what we perceive around us, and we assume they are external “matter” but in fact we cannot define what matter is. There is no need to assume the existence of an external world when the belief that all is ideas works equally well and is simpler. (perhaps)

I recommend A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley.

p.s. even if DNA managed to be preserved for a while… eventually all life will die as the universe grows to big and cold too support life anymore… according to physicists… and so DNA will come to an end.
Dude, your telling me that I am angry, just makes the laugh, a little louder. As I hear the jingle of the keys of Galileo’s house arrest in the background.

I never implied that there is no soul, what I did, was to give an equally plausible explanation, for what it might be, as any of the hostile Christians, who told me EXACTLY what the soul was, then could give PRECISELY NO EXPLANATION FOR WHERE THEIR EXPLANATION CAME FROM. Oh my bad, did I yell there? OOPS.

Without DNA nothing exist, not even the universe, or the physicist, who if they can really understand the nature of the beginning and end of time, and predict the cold empty end to this universe, are certainly guided by the DNA of the creator…

And the Lord created man in his image, and then Edison said, let there be light, and there was light over the night.

It’s all in how you see the light.
 
Well, I don’t know, but it was stated here that the soul is immortal, and that got me thinking, about a dead mammoth, that is currently in the process of being cloned, hopefully. Just the fact that a 40,000 year old mammoth is seriously being studied for return to life, does mean that the scientist trying this, believe that DNA does not need to be alive, to function. Which is pretty neat to me, because it makes it plausible, that a creator, could have created DNA, and then inserted it where he wanted it, to make life. It is also theorized that DNA contains every instruction that it has ever used, even ones now not used in the so called junk DNA, which would mean, that if we are made in the image of God, that the exact image of God is somewhere in the billions of lines of code that we carry in every cell. DNA is also as far as we know 3.5 billion years old, which might as well be immortal.

Nothing here even conflicts with Catholic teaching…

However evolution believers like the Pope might or might not agree.
Too many " what if’s " here. We know from faith that God creates each human soul individually. So, whatever the case with other life forms, the DNA of humans serves only a material function, it sees that man’s bodily and sensitive facilities function to the good of a particular human. But it is the human soul that " directs " the development and maturation of these facilities plus the functioning of man’s intellectual faculties.

Thomas Aquinas teaches that the whole soul resides in every part of the body. This is possible because the soul is a spiritual substance. And since it is the intellectual faculty of the soul which is God’s image, DNA does not contain the " image " of God.

And if the case is different other life forms DNA would still not be the " image " of God because God is a spirit. But it might be considered as part of an argument from causality to prove the existence of God. For example, where did DNA come from. Ultimately it is created by God, because DNA speaks of some intelligent cause, and intelligcec does not reside in matter. Therefore God exists.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Too many " what if’s " here. We know from faith that God creates each human soul individually. So, whatever the case with other life forms, the DNA of humans serves only a material function, it sees that man’s bodily and sensitive facilities function to the good of a particular human. But it is the human soul that " directs " the development and maturation of these facilities plus the functioning of man’s intellectual faculties.

Thomas Aquinas teaches that the whole soul resides in every part of the body. This is possible because the soul is a spiritual substance. And since it is the intellectual faculty of the soul which is God’s image, DNA does not contain the " image " of God.

And if the case is different other life forms DNA would still not be the " image " of God because God is a spirit. But it might be considered as part of an argument from causality to prove the existence of God. For example, where did DNA come from. Ultimately it is created by God, because DNA speaks of some intelligent cause, and intelligcec does not reside in matter. Therefore God exists.

Pax
Linus2nd
You say and I quote, “We know from faith that God creates each human soul individually.”

Please explain, how faith in God, which I have, enables you to know that God creates each human soul individually? The fact of the matter is that you do not know this, because of faith, you believe this because, it was written down by another person, at some point in time, and you choose to believe this.

Did God, create your soul after your parents mated, and your fathers sperm merged with your moms egg? or before, as God guided a particular sperm to a particular egg. Or perhaps your parents were God.

Seriously, the Pope now has endorsed evolution, and since evolution is scientific, in how adaptations to genetics happens [deleted]
 
Please explain, how faith in God, which I have, enables you to know that God creates each human soul individually? The fact of the matter is that you do not know this, because of faith, you believe this because, it was written down by another person, at some point in time, and you choose to believe this.
DNA Rose, what I’ve been trying to say is: The only reason anyone knows anything about the Christian faith, the only reason there is a Christian faith, is because God himself reveled these things to us.

This is why we’re protesting your idea; because it contradicts the Word of God. If you give me a minute I’ll find where Scripture or Tradition reveals knowledge about the soul…
 
After a short search I found in the Gospel of Matthew: (Matthew 10:28)
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Obviously, if a man’s soul was a material part of his body, it would be unlikely that someone would be able to kill his body and not his “soul.”

I also found this quote from the Fifth Council of the Lateran which is more specific. 😉
Whereas some have dared to assert concerning the nature of the reasonable soul that it is mortal, we, with the approbation of the sacred council do condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, seeing, according to the canon of Pope Clement V, that the soul is …] immortal …] and we decree that all who adhere to like erroneous assertions shall be shunned and punished as heretics.
Note they were talking about a man’s individual soul; not some collective soul of mankind which DNA would have to be.

I’m not sure whether this is big-T Tradition or not; maybe a more knowledgable person than I on here would be able to tell us…

-Greg
 
Well, I don’t know, but it was stated here that the soul is immortal, and that got me thinking, about a dead mammoth, that is currently in the process of being cloned, hopefully. Just the fact that a 40,000 year old mammoth is seriously being studied for return to life, does mean that the scientist trying this, believe that DNA does not need to be alive, to function. Which is pretty neat to me, because it makes it plausible, that a creator, could have created DNA, and then inserted it where he wanted it, to make life. It is also theorized that DNA contains every instruction that it has ever used, even ones now not used in the so called junk DNA, which would mean, that if we are made in the image of God, that the exact image of God is somewhere in the billions of lines of code that we carry in every cell. DNA is also as far as we know 3.5 billion years old, which might as well be immortal.

Nothing here even conflicts with Catholic teaching…

However evolution believers like the Pope might or might not agree.
Keep in mind that if we were were to revive a mammoth today, it would be a different mammoth from the one that lived 40,000 years ago. (In fact, to get it to work, we would undoubtedly have to implant a mammoth embryo in a modern elephant mother.) The “revived” mammoth would simply be a clone or twin of its 40,000-year-old ancestor.

The DNA can’t be the same thing as the soul, because we have many cases of animals or even human beings with essentially identical DNA (e.g., identical twins), but which are clearly separate individuals, each with its own soul.

(I should point out that, at least for those that follow the Aristotelian / Thomistic tradition, all living things have souls, or something that could be called a soul. Only human beings, however, have a spiritual, immortal soul.)
 
Hello, DNA Rose, I think you are like Socrates… asking questions no one can answer and so they get angry! But I agree with you–we cannot explain what a soul is, no one can define it. I think if there is a soul, we for now can only know its effects… the effect of using the brain as an instrument to think, perhaps (to quote John Eccles).

However, in saying that DNA would contain the coding for the image of God, you are assuming that the image of God would be in DNA… yet if there is a soul, maybe that would be the image of God. You might be right, the image of God may be in DNA. But we cannot assume so, but be willing to admit it is there if we find it. Furthermore, we must define what the “image of God” actually means–if we do not do that, we cannot know if we have found it or not as we look at the DNA. So how would you define image of God?

In addition, I do not believe that a failure to define or explain what a soul is means that it does not exist (not sure if that is what you were saying, but perhaps you implied that). In fact, many philosophers have noted that we cannot truly say what anything is… even DNA. We can only see the effects of things, not the things in themselves. The effect of the thing is not the thing according to some.

But if you are familiar with the philosopher George Berkeley, you might consider that there is no external world at all, no “material” universe. Everything is mental, or ideas. God is the ultimate mind and his ideas are what we perceive around us, and we assume they are external “matter” but in fact we cannot define what matter is. There is no need to assume the existence of an external world when the belief that all is ideas works equally well and is simpler. (perhaps)

I recommend A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley.
p.s. even if DNA managed to be preserved for a while… eventually all life will die as the universe grows to big and cold too support life anymore… according to physicists… and so DNA will come to an end.
This is extremely interesting - you definitely know your philosophy. I will be checking out George Berkeley.
 
Keep in mind that if we were were to revive a mammoth today, it would be a different mammoth from the one that lived 40,000 years ago. (In fact, to get it to work, we would undoubtedly have to implant a mammoth embryo in a modern elephant mother.) The “revived” mammoth would simply be a clone or twin of its 40,000-year-old ancestor.

The DNA can’t be the same thing as the soul, because we have many cases of animals or even human beings with essentially identical DNA (e.g., identical twins), but which are clearly separate individuals, each with its own soul.

(I should point out that, at least for those that follow the Aristotelian / Thomistic tradition, all living things have souls, or something that could be called a soul. Only human beings, however, have a spiritual, immortal soul.)
Why anyone would want to revive mammoth is beyond me. It actually seems very cruel to the mammoth if it were the least bit possible, which I severely doubt it is.

Yes I agree, every being has an individual soul. There is nothing in the world that is the same as anything else. Everything is unique. Especially people.
 
Well, I don’t know,
Nothing here even conflicts with Catholic teaching…

.
Actually, that’s incorrect. DNA is physical, not the Soul which Catholic teaching indicates is Spiritual not physical.

You can find Catholic teaching in The Catechism of The Catholic Church and you can get the Catechism here:
shop.catholic.com/catechism-of-the-catholic-church-pocket-edition.html?___store=default

or here
amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=catechism+of+the+catholic+church&sprefix=Catechism%2Cstripbooks%2C173.
 
You say and I quote, “We know from faith that God creates each human soul individually.”
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 ( from the Catechism of the Catholic Church )
Please explain, how faith in God, which I have, enables you to know that God creates each human soul individually? The fact of the matter is that you do not know this, because of faith, you believe this because, it was written down by another person, at some point in time, and you choose to believe this.
I believe what the Church has always taught about the human soul - and those Catholics who wish to remain Catholics in good standing must also belive that. If the Catechism isn’t enough for you, then you should read " Humani Generis " by Pius Xll :

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
Did God, create your soul after your parents mated, and your fathers sperm merged with your moms egg? or before, as God guided a particular sperm to a particular egg. Or perhaps your parents were God.
God implants the individual soul when it pleases him :D. But that would be some time beginning with conception. Most Catholic theologians think at the moment of conception. But the Church has no firm teaching on this point.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
After a short search I found in the Gospel of Matthew: (Matthew 10:28)

Obviously, if a man’s soul was a material part of his body, it would be unlikely that someone would be able to kill his body and not his “soul.”

I also found this quote from the Fifth Council of the Lateran which is more specific. 😉

Note they were talking about a man’s individual soul; not some collective soul of mankind which DNA would have to be.

I’m not sure whether this is big-T Tradition or not; maybe a more knowledgable person than I on here would be able to tell us…

-Greg
How is DNA some collective soul of mankind? You do understand that your DNA is unique, correct?
 
Why anyone would want to revive mammoth is beyond me. It actually seems very cruel to the mammoth if it were the least bit possible, which I severely doubt it is.

Yes I agree, every being has an individual soul. There is nothing in the world that is the same as anything else. Everything is unique. Especially people.
How would it be cruel to the mammoth? There is no Mammoth Heaven to be called back from :)🙂

ICXC NIKA.
 
Actually, that’s incorrect. DNA is physical, not the Soul which Catholic teaching indicates is Spiritual not physical.

You can find Catholic teaching in The Catechism of The Catholic Church and you can get the Catechism here:
shop.catholic.com/catechism-of-the-catholic-church-pocket-edition.html?___store=default

or here
amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=catechism+of+the+catholic+church&sprefix=Catechism%2Cstripbooks%2C173.
Catechism class is for little children…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top