Only three Theories explain the Relation between our Soul and Matter

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

You'll often hear that science can provide better explanation with proof rather than stories.

The problem is that science does not provide proof. Materialist scientists have their theories and they interpret non-material phenomena in the light of their theories and call it an explanation. There is no evidence that their interpretations are correct.

Peace

[Truth307]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Many asked: Is there a soul? If yes, what is its nature and how does it relate to our material world? And what is matter?
Only three theories give possible answers to these questions:

(A) There is no soul and all that is is matter (classic atheism).
(B) A supernatural soul hallucinates the material world and the material world does not really exist, i.e. in form of a substance (visualization theory).
(C) A supernatural soul connects with the material world whereby soul and matter were two different forms of substance (dualism).

These three theories give answers to the nature of our soul, matter, and the relationship between.
The three theories are mutually exclusive, each one rules out the other two. Furthermore one of the three is necessarily true.
All religions and theories that explain the universe are just variations, e.g. Christianity = dualism C. There are no further possibilities.


2 Questions:

1) A, B, and C are not all equally likely. So, how high do you estimate the likelihood of each of them, and why? In sum you have to get 100%.
My own guess:
A ~ 0
B ~ 70%
C ~ 30%

2) In the case of C and B: How are they realized technically?
How does the soul connect to matter in theory C, and where does soul-enwraping matter come from?
How does visualization work in theory B - and if matter is an visualization, is the soul a computer?


(Terminology: With soul I refere to the thing outlasts our physical body.)

Well we are all Truth, no image, no form, Nothing- only True Unconditional Love, as the love from which we and all was Created and derived.

So there is a universal soul and individual drops made of the same stuff, I.e. Nothingness.

God discovered himself to be this Truth, and created the different realms including earth, for us to Discover what He did but in a fraction of the time.

The material world is a projection of this Nothingness, hence how Jesus was able to turn water into wine, Moses could part the Red Sea and other such feats have been possible.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Yes, I didn’t deny that. It would still exist because there were still other users that play the simulated game.
The same again: It would still exist because there were still other creatures dreaming the planet earth.

At some point there was no life on planet earth, yet the planet existed.

Originally Posted by Siemens

You are the one who is irrational. Give me one conclusive argument that makes A more likely than B.
Indeed B is the most likely one and A the unlikeliest – from a mathematical perspective.

In a strict sense A is the most rational as it makes the least assumptions.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Altair

In a strict sense A is the most rational as it makes the least assumptions.

Wrong! (B) makes the least assumptions. It makes just one:
The thing that generates my consciousness exists. And nothing else.

(A) makes further assumtions:
The thing that generates my consciousness exists + a whole substantial universe.

-> So A doesn’t make less assumptions but more! It adittionally postulates a whole universe - literally.


(C is most unlikely because it postulates even more.)

Originally Posted by Altair

At some point there was no life on planet earth, yet the planet existed.

Dogmatic believe.
We didn’t experience the past, we just infer it from fossils etz. It should actually be clear that these things could be simulated as well.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Interesting, why do you think it's a faulty argument?

Number of Atheists is increasing as there is no accepted evidence for what is spirit and if there is such thing. "We live in 21st century and Robots will soon become like human and take over", they have their empirical proof that humans are just their brains. You'll here from atheists that the term of soul is not accepted as proof, it's just a mere theoretical concept of wishful thinking of those that fear death and cling on to something and hope that there is something after death. Heard some even saying "Do insects also have this soul? What about bacteria and virus, do they have soul?". "How should expect grandmother that died of Alzheimer complication to remember everything after she died?".

For Atheists, there was the Big bang, the Universe was created by this chance, life emerged by chance on this planet starting with bacteria, evolving into marine life then earthly life, and finally flying species. The apes ancestor evolved into humans. What atheists would say is that after we die that's the end as before being born, as it was 13.8 billion years ago, that there is no purpose, life being meaningless. Some atheists just don't want to live anymore after they die, what will be their fate then?


The only argument for A to be more likely than B would be: A is empirical proved, as stated before with brain damage, and not recalling how it was before being born (The void), and all Spiritual experiences explained as brain hallucinations or charlatans, as there is no tested evidence, nobody really came from the actual death long enough to say that something is out there.
Nothing left to say here. Some say we are the brain and consciousness is brain created and some say brain is just a receiver and consciousness is the signal. I explained why most people think we are brain because of empirical evidence: Alzheimer, brain damage, not recalling past lives, or how it was before being born, everything else being hallucination (Talking with spirits, NDE, etc), such that ancient people invented those Gods, mythological creatures (kraken as they probably saw octopus, or dragon as they probably saw a lizard) and stories as they couldn't explain phenomena.


I guess so. For a materialist if they can't see it, well it's not there, if it's not there it doesen't exist, it's just imagination like Santa Claus and his raindeer, or as Tinkerbell in Peter Pan.



Because we can sense matter, everything else could be our brain filling in the gap with hallucinations. You'll often hear that science can provide better explanation with proof rather than stories.

The claim that science proves atheism is a myth. If atheist scientists provides materialistic explanations for spiritual phenomena, this doesn’t mean that this is THE PROOF that theses phenomena have a material basis.

I actually answered most or your objections in my last post. You didn’t read it carefully and I don’t want to repeat it...

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Wrong! (B) makes the least assumptions. It makes just one:
The thing that generates my consciousness exists. And nothing else.

(A) makes further assumtions:
The thing that generates my consciousness exists + a whole substantial universe.

-> So A doesn’t make less assumptions but more! It adittionally postulates a whole universe - literally.


(C is most unlikely because it postulates even more.)


Dogmatic believe.
We didn’t experience the past, we just infer it from fossils etz. It should actually be clear that these things could be simulated as well.

A just recognizes matter, but no spirit cause there's no scientific evidence. A is the most parsimonious. I don't follow A, but I can understand that for a lot of people it makes sense. B is just mad because it assumes the minds of intelligent beings create the entire universe. If you can't see the issue with that then.. this is hopeless. There's just no way to reason with solipsist thoughts. I've tried many times.. but it's just not possible. For me, there is spirit and matter co-existing eternally.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Altair

For me, there is spirit and matter co-existing eternally.

Depends on how we define spirit. Some definitions of spirit, as energy is a form of matter.

Spirit-2, fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof is physical/energy and occupy space.

Spirit-1 is metaphyiscal, mind/intellect/concepts and do not occupy space.

Spirit-3 gravity ( ) occupies space but is not physical/energy

Spirit-4 dark energy )( occupies space but is not physical/energy.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Altair

B is just mad because it assumes the minds of intelligent beings create the entire universe.

“Something is mad because something.” Wow – great argument! And two logical errors:

(1) B doesn’t state that “intelligent beings create the entire universe” but rather that “intelligent beings create the perception of a world/universe”
(2) The claim that intelligent beings can create the perception of a world/universe isn’t mad but rather factual reality: Have you ever heard of 3D simulated computer games or dreams?

Originally Posted by Altair

B is just mad because it assumes the minds of intelligent beings create the entire universe If you can't see the issue with that then.. this is hopeless.

Fine, please tell us what the issue is! Just yelling: “Oh, your theory is sooo mad... it’s hopeless.... I can’t give you any reason why but it’s sooo nonsensical” is not enough.

I’m serious, that not enough. Give at least one reason why a theory is mad, if it assumes the minds of intelligent beings can create a perceivable world. Have you ever heard what people do when they sleep? They dream! What is dreaming? The creation of a perceivable world inside the mind.

-> So, the claim that our mind has the capacity to visualize entire worlds just inside itself isn’t “sooo mad” – it’s a fact.

Originally Posted by Altair

For me, there is spirit and matter co-existing eternally.

Give us at least one reason that makes dualism more likely than visualization of what we perceive as matter.

[Altair]

Okay.. so now it's ''perception''. Doesn't change things though. The world exists with or without a creature perceiving it. If there's no life on planet Mars for instance, it didn't suddenly came into existence just because we all conjured it up. The people whom you will never meet, they still exist. The planets whom you'll never see or hear about, they will still exist. The planet Mars exists with or without a perceiver. It was already there before humans came into the picture. The other life forms didn't perceive Mars yet it was there, billions of years before us. Yes, it's mad to suggest existence depends on our (human) thoughts.

You do wear me out, by the way....
I don't have any proof for C, I simply know there's matter and there's 'spirit', and both are real to me.
For years now I'm wondering how the two co-exist and influence each other, they do but I don't know how it all works. Wish I did.

[EdmundJohnstone]

Originally Posted by Siemens

The claim that science proves atheism is a myth. If atheist scientists provides materialistic explanations for spiritual phenomena, this doesn’t mean that this is THE PROOF that theses phenomena have a material basis.

I actually answered most or your objections in my last post. You didn’t read it carefully and I don’t want to repeat it...

Ok. So can you answer this please?

For Atheists, there was the Big bang, the Universe was created by this chance, life emerged by chance on this planet starting with bacteria, evolving into marine life then earthly life, and finally flying species. The apes ancestor evolved into humans. What atheists would say is that after we die that's the end as before being born, as it was 13.8 billion years ago, that there is no purpose, life being meaningless. Some atheists just don't want to live anymore after they die, what will be their fate then?