WOW - it sure does!! Oo

Anyway - Humans for how much they have been traced in history written or not have always looked for something superior (i.e. - gods!) and have always beleived that there must be something after death (i.e. - the soul is something that lives forever with or without a corrupting body!) ... now this would consolidate what Bdiah was saying in her points marked 1-5 to which i agree 101%!! If The Human race always searched for such things this must be a way to explain why a soul exists and it exists forever!!

I agree with Bdiah!

This discussion is getting interesting and more interesting^_^

Yes, people have always been looking for a God or some way of salvation that is why there are so many religions and cults. Man is looking for a way to fill in this God shaped vacuum in their hearts, which they cannot satisfy and fill it in, in this physical world with all of its possessions. For example, take any really, really rich person they try to fill their hearts with worldly possessions and they realize that nothing is ever good enough.

We know there is something out there and we try to find it. Because we know no matter how successful a person becomes, popular, fun driven, and/or smart, etc. it doesn't matter because ultimately; we will end up in the grave and all he is and has will be lost.

Then there is the ultimate extreme such as evolution that believes man and everything evolved. No God, spiritual realm, or spiritual happenings. The evolution of the earth can just as easily be switched the method of a flood, being the way it is with fossils, and the pressure/time needed creating other things (don't want to go into detail there) and the earth not being millions of years old. Logically with our human minds we can't comprehend and prove with science that there is a spiritual realm. That is why it is called faith. Then we come to this- without a spiritual realm after death everything that we ever did and will do is worthless because we wouldn't exist anymore!

Would you wager you soul on if there is or not a God?? Hell is described in the Bible as a place of gnashing of teeth and that is taking it lightly.

Things written here are not of me (I wrote it, that is not what I mean) but revealed to me by the Father.

I must admit that the philosophical discussion of metaphysics has never conclusively proved anything. Because of this, I agree with ssetbob that belief in God must ultimately be based on faith and cannot be wholely rationalized. This certainly does not diminish the value of highly reasoned discussion on the matter, though.

To this extent, I would object to ssetbob's mention of Pascal's Wager. Assume, for argument, that Zues or another God exists in the afterlife instead of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic God. Also suppose that Zues is a jealous God and takes particularly offense at those who worship other Gods. In this case, an athiest would fare far better in the afterlife than a Christian would.

I am not saying that people should not believe in God, but I am strongly opposed to the idea of people believing in God simply to avoid Hell or get into Heaven. My frustration with this retributional theology is one of the reasons that I began rethinking what Heaven and Hell actually are. I hope this is evident from my previous posts in this thread.

Additionally:
As someone who thoroughly enjoys rational argument, I caution the use of the Bible to further a philosophical point. In order to reference the Bible towards a point, all parties involved in the discussion must believe the Bible to be authoritative and factual. If they believe this, then there is really no point in the discussion, since they should also agree with the point trying to be made. If they don't all believe the Bible to be factual and authoritative, then use of the Bible can only be used to preach instead of discuss.

Though I have faith in God, I am wary of things like saying that God is speaking through me. This has long been used to mainpulate others by church heirarchy, and is at times irrationally used to prove oneself right with out any real evidence. I have some conflict over the idea of Heaven and Hell though. I have been told often since childhood that God has a plan for me, but it is always left at that. Are people bound to this plan whether they submit to it or not? Can someone who does evil still be part of God's plan to bring out the good qualities in others? If that is true then the concept of Hell is troubling to me because that would mean they were born to go there.

I doubt that would be the case, because I believe that it is our own free will that determines our fate as much as any grand scheme, but is a concern I had for some time that was never really answered. Although many practices in religion promise a glorious afterlife, I have always chafed at them a litte, because they seem more geared to prove ones own faith to others around them rather than to God. Being introverted, most things about me go around only inside my head, and are not viisble to anothers, which affects my opinion I will admit. I have long avoided many things like singing in church because I feel that I do not need to prove anything to anyone else, and that performing such an act proves nothing of your faith. It is what goes on in your head that matters more to God as far as I am concerned, because you can't fake Him out like you can with people. My main belief in this regard is that my faith is between myself and God, and I don't have to impress anyone else with open displays of faith. For some that is how they express their fiath and that is fine, but they should not force me into, because that is not how I express mine. That was a litttle off topic I admit so I'll get back to some of the main argument.

I agree with Bdiah on several points. Without a the existance of a soul, there is no possibility of an afterlife, and in a sense little purpose to our existence. The connection between free will and a soul is also an intersting observation. I don't have the brain capacity that you do, so I can't find any arguments to your logic :sheep:.

It is the strength of ones faith that determines a persons place in the afterlife more than ones actions. One should not do something out of fear that if they do wrong they will go to Hell. The true test of ones character is to consider for one moment that there is no God, would you still do what is right if it is not to your benefit? Though actions speak louder than words, it is what goes on inside you that really matters.

Uh wow - this is very heavy!!

you know to what - evryone is free to beleive whatever he wants ... and evryone is free to justify whatever he wants too. when we are children a lot of things we just repeat like parrots but when we grow up we know we can see what's truley what!! a lot of misconceptions happen bec of lack of clarity especially in these things - if we get the truth in tye begining faith can only get stronger!!

You have a great argument Bdiah and I have seen this issue once before. I can't remember how it was answered exactly but I will try my best. I don't want to go too deep in the reasoning and philosophy because it can be really confusing.(even to me) But the reason why the Greek gods did not work out is because the early philosophers saw that they conflicted with themselves and the system and order of the universe. The fact that they were born and could die was the biggest flaw of them all. You see you would have to have a god that didn't conflict with itself, because then it would conflict with the order of everything else. If an imperfect being did create this universe then the order of this realm would not be stable.

And if you say- what if there is another God who is the true God and if he didn't like that you were following the Christian/Hebrew etc., God and as a result would favored those that did not worship that god. Then wouldn't that god have integrated in this realm to tell us that he didn't like the fact that we were following that God or any other god?

You are right Bhiah, I was placing biblical prodigy such as its view of hell and stuff into my argument. I keep on forgetting sometimes that in a debate a person's beliefs are not considered fact. For example, if I used the Koran or any other religion's beliefs instead then others would not see it as fact.

As a follower of Jesus Christ I try to base me life around the Bible. I would like to point out that it states in the Bible to everyone; that if you believe that there is a God that's good, but so what even the demons know that there is a God! That is the difference in believing that there is a God then believing that my sins are forgiven because of who he said he was and died as was risen. I don't only follow God because of the consequences of hell but because he first love me and was willing to die to restore the relationship segregated by sin.

This debate and reasoning is really getting heated! I’m loving this! :)

Quote

After much delay, I am finally responding. First off, I would point out that by your explanation of the mind's interworkings, and using it to attempt to refute the existance of the soul, you are precluding the possibility of human free will. You can make logical arguments and rationalizations based on our limited understanding of the human mind, but in the end, the existance of creative thought and free will seem logically necessary. (Case in point would be the very in depth discussion of this topic. Very difficult to accomplish in a stimuli-response mind). For those who have been following along, I will summarize my chain of arguments:

1. Free Will exists.
2. Free Will, by its non-physical nature, shows that the mind is not entirely physical.
3. If the mind has a non-physical element, this is satisfactory to identify as a soul.
4. If a non-physical soul exists, it must exist outside of the physical realm. This "place" is what we refer to as "Heaven and Hell".
5. The status of a person in this non-physical "place" is governed by thier attitude to God.

I did not even realise that I was precluding free will, but that accusation would be correct.

I do not believe that free will exists due to everything being determined by genetic predisposition; people will choose to do things based on their genetic code, environmental/culture influences, and past events. I also believe that if such a thing as "free will" existed, it would be as a concept to describe a physical and biological occurrence.

Quote

"Then we come to this- without a spiritual realm after death everything that we ever did and will do is worthless because we wouldn't exist anymore!"

The actions we take will be remembered by those around us. That is worth something.

now the topic is getting deeper and deeper...

Alright, I am back after a week of absence and I am quite pleased to see that the discussion has continued. I am also happy to find two more people in the discussion contributing substantial thought (ssetbob and Nighthawk). So here we go:

Addressing ssetbob's last post, I believe you were loosely referencing the Ontological Argument for the existence of God (the inherent perfection of God necessitates God's existence). While I love this argument and find it dangerously difficult to refute, it doesn't necessarily have to apply to the Judeo-Christian God, which I think you stated in your second paragraph.

I like the fact that you questioned the concept of an alternative God due to the fact that we have never been informed that we are worshipping a false God, but I have a couple points. First, the worship Vishnu and various other immortal Hindu deities have persisted as long as the worship of the Judeo-Christian God, yet the Judeo-Christian God has never informed the Hindi people of their error, nor Vishnu appeared to Christian people to say the same. I would say that if a completely different God exists, I don't see any specific motivation for him to interact with us and correct our religious behaviours. He may as well just deal with us after we leave this realm.

Now addressing Fizzyboy....I was afraid it would come to this...
So you don't believe in free will? You give one of the simplest and devastating trivializing of free will that I have seen. While I admit that the only evidence I have for free will is circumstantial at best, I can still punch holes into determinism by referencing my pre-emptive check from a previous post.

Let's take a look at your argument. You believe people's actions are entirely determined by genetics and actions, but what determines genetics and environmental factors? The question I have for you is if you believe that a unified theory of the sciences exists, even if still undiscovered? I look forward to your response.

For BAF's Moderators: I know these posts are getting rather lengthy. Is there a limit to what you want us to post? Personally, I see the increasing length of posts as a good sign of people being interested in the discussion, but I though I should ask.

In my opinion, actions are not predisposed by genetics. I do not believe in something like being able to modify human behaviour by simply altering a gene order.
It is more complex than that, otherwise we would behave as machines.
Free will does exist in everything.
Even though some sort of behaviours are identified as gene alterations, it isn't just that.
They can be co-related, but if just sticking to the idea of the gene related reality, we shouldn't be able to perform a variety of actions.
People don't just act because of cultural influences, or determined genetic codes...they can help in limiting the variety of the actions, but they aren't a proof that free will doesn't exists.
Of course, analising only superficial lines won't get a positive result.

Free will is beyond that, I'm sure.

I'm having difficulty comprehending your statement regarding "free doesn't equal random". Since it appears to me that you are arguing against cause and effect; how can will be anything but random if there is no cause to base it upon?

Perhaps if you could elaborate exactly what your free will equates to.

Alright Fizzy, the discussion took a turn a was not expecting, and my statement at the end of the post you are referencing became more confusing and convoluted than helpful. I edited the post and took it out for the sake of continuity. You will see the argument "fleshed" out, it really is only meant to punch holes in determinism instead of support free will.

As far as free will goes, I will better clarify what I was speaking about. Humans are conflicted beings. Our thoughts are complex and do not all stem from one source. For example, humans display many tendencies similar to animals. They are influenced by instincts that encourage them to engage physically necessary activities such as eating and propagating themselves (excuse the euphemism). At the same time, humans do not always follow their instincts. They are also influenced by abstract concepts such as morality, the afterlife, and God(s). In addition, humans seem very prone to focus their thoughts onto art and philosophy, subjects that have little practical value.

Basically, what I am getting at, is that free will comes from the non-practical influence in our decision making that allows us to resist a course of action that would be instinctual. There is no reason for the humand brain to become complex enough, through evolution, for people to delve into the most abstract of thoughts, and indeed, I do not believe the physical human brain is that complex. At some point, something non-physical is required to complete what we perceive to be our thoughts and decisions. This non-physical element is the soul.

To summarize, I suppose that I believe that free will is really nothing more than a byproduct of having a soul, and that the phenomenon of the interaction of the soul and the human body is demostrated by human thought and decision making.

So now that I have clarified that (or made it more convoluted), I look forward to your always devastating response, Fizzy. Don't forget about my question about a unified theory.

I'm getting a little confused

Correct me if I'm wrong but Fizzyboy are you basically say that genetics are the cause of why people do the things they do? So if that is the case then you are saying that people how kill other people, and commit rape; they were genetically forced to do those things? Well if that be the case then might as well let all the criminals free because they did the things they did but were not responsible because their DNA made them do it.

People who were born in broken homes and religions can choose not to go down that path even without an influence of some kind from an outside source. It happens all the time in religion. And were you genetically compelled to enter this discussion you had no say in the matter? It almost like your compairing gentics to destiny. There is a line between making rational decisions and what makes a person on the genetic/DNA level.

And I didn't really understand what you were trying to say on your last reply, can you clarify better?
Let me try to respond any ways.... {the cause} =the desire to make a choice and {effect} =making the decision. Wouldn't that correspond with free will?

I think fizzyboy have half a point if means that people do the things they do because of genetics.

Off course environment has much to say on how you behave and do things, and off course how you are raised.
But I think not many, but some people kills or rape because of genetics. You have probably experienced one or more times that you don't think clear and does things you normally wouldn't do when you get angry or upset. The reason why you can't calm down and think over thing is because your body produces adrenalin and when your amount of adrenalin reaches a certain limit you act on "instincts" not free will. Some people produces a lot of adrenalin, and that means that they can go from being nice as a sheep to a killer in matter of seconds.