Where was our soul before being born?

[ANV]

 

[Della]

The soul doesn’t exist until conception. The soul is the life of the body–in animals as well as human beings. But human beings have immortal souls that are created at the moment of conception when the zygote is created.

 

[ANV]

The soul doesn’t exist until conception. The soul is the life of the body–in animals as well as human beings. But human beings have immortal souls that are created at the moment of conception when the zygote is created.

Humans must be unlucky then, to have an immortal soul? Can we take ourselves out of that imposition?

 

[Della]

Humans must be unlucky then, to have an immortal soul? Can we take ourselves out of that imposition?

Unlucky? Only unlucky if we reject love, truth, goodness in favor of slavery to sin, ego, and hatred. To live forever loved and happy–what is bad about that?

 

[ANV]

Unlucky? Only unlucky if we reject love, truth, goodness in favor of slavery to sin, ego, and hatred. To live forever loved and happy–what is bad about that?

Unlucky to have a soul that contains both of what you mentioned and an immortal one to be susceptible to eternal suffering which won’t be the case if it wasn’t immortal and better never existent.

 

[Bookcat]

Nowhere.

 

[Bookcat]

Humans must be unlucky then, to have an immortal soul? Can we take ourselves out of that imposition?

No such imposition.

To exist - to come to be - is a good.

Not an imposition.

And one cannot “impose” existence on what does not yet exist.

 

[Gorgias]

Unlucky to have a soul that contains both of what you mentioned and an immortal one to be susceptible to eternal suffering which won’t be the case if it wasn’t immortal and better never existent.

The philosophical formulation that one typically encounters is that ‘being’ is always better than ‘non-being’.

Eternal beatitude is better than eternal suffering, to be sure. Our understanding of ‘eternal suffering’ (which tends to be characterized, historically, as ‘torment in flames’) is really the full recognition that we were offered eternity in heaven with God, but rejected Him.

 

[ANV]

No such imposition.

To exist - to come to be - is a good.

Not an imposition.

And one cannot “impose” existence on what does not yet exist.

Definetly an imposition because you had no choice in it.

 

[ANV]

The philosophical formulation that one typically encounters is that ‘being’ is always better than ‘non-being’.

Eternal beatitude is better than eternal suffering, to be sure. Our understanding of ‘eternal suffering’ (which tends to be characterized, historically, as ‘torment in flames’) is really the full recognition that we were offered eternity in heaven with God, but rejected Him.

Then never existing is surely better than eternal suffering, then why gamble on someone’s soul in bringing them to life?

 

[Gorgias]

Then never existing is surely better than eternal suffering

Philosophically speaking, that is not true.

then why gamble on someone’s soul in bringing them to life?

By that standard, God’s ultimate expression of love would be in not creating the universe. From an atheist standpoint, that might be considered reasonable, but from the perspective of Christian thought, that’s simply illogical.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The philosophical formulation that one typically encounters is that ‘being’ is always better than ‘non-being’.

Is there any argument to support this concept? Or is it considered an axiom?

As for the topic of this thread, there is no epistemological method to demonstrate the existence of a “soul”, much less the existence of an immortal soul. Moreover, the argument that the soul is created at the moment of conception is negated by the existence of the maternal twins and the successful “split brain” experiments. The whole concept of the soul is a left-over from the times when people assumed the existence of a “life-force”. Best leave it in the trash heap of the bad assumptions, like the luminiferous aether, the idea that mental problems are caused by demons and the like…

 

[HelenRose]

Humans must be unlucky then, to have an immortal soul? Can we take ourselves out of that imposition?

No.

 

[HelenRose]

Then never existing is surely better than eternal suffering, then why gamble on someone’s soul in bringing them to life?

It is a choice each one of us makes. Each person is given the graces, full knowledge and free will to make that choice. God does not play the game of “gotcha”. If a person chooses mercy, mercy will be there for them. If a person chooses hate and revenge, hate and revenge will be waiting. He sets before each one of us the “blessing and the curse - life or death” God is mercy. God is love. It is up to each person to choose life, mercy, compassion and love. It is that simple and it is that hard.

God is not doing the gambling. But unfortunately there are people who are. It is in the power of each human being to seek God. It is in the power of each human being to say “yes” to God.

It is in your power and will to seek God. It is in your power and will to love God. It is in your power and will to reject God. God does not reject anyone. Human beings reject Him.

 

[Bookcat]

Definetly an imposition because you had no choice in it.

Nope.

It is not possible to “impose” something on someone who does not exist.

Just not possible.

Existence can never be said to be imposed on someone (and be a true saying).

 

[Robert_Sock]

Before our being born, I believe our soul was simply God. There are those who believe that our soul is forever wanting to cleave to its Creator and that if it ever succeeded it would simply cease to exist!

 

[Techno2000]

Well since all life comes from God, then all souls are with God before being born. It’s your life on earth that forms you into the person you want to be.

 

[jlhargus]

Definetly an imposition because you had no choice in it.

If you are alive in the flesh you do have a choice.

[Rms1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:]

[Dt30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:]

 

[jlhargus]

Definetly an imposition because you had no choice in it.

If you are alive in the flesh you do have a choice.

[Rms1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:]

[Dt30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:]

[Ez18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.]

 

[Gorgias]

Is there any argument to support this concept?

Wow. Now there’s a big question! In the history of philosophy, there’s been plenty of ink spilled in the discussion of being and non-being!

For those who disagree, the argument usually runs along the lines of saying that ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ require each other, and so neither is superior, per se. However, that doesn’t answer the particular question here, since we’re asking it on the level of one particular person.

Those who argue for it, argue that personal existence is valued, whereas personal non-existence (since it is void) has no ‘value’. Therefore, regardless the particular value that can be assigned to a person’s existence, there is value, and as a consequence, that is superior to non-value.

As for the topic of this thread, there is no epistemological method to demonstrate the existence of a “soul”, much less the existence of an immortal soul.

I’d buy that there’s no empirical method, but not that no method exists whatsoever.

Moreover, the argument that the soul is created at the moment of conception is negated by the existence of the maternal twins and the successful “split brain” experiments.

No it isn’t. Can’t one make the argument that, at the point that the “twinning” occurs, a second soul is created?

Not sure where you’re going with “split brain”, especially vis-a-vis ensoulment.