What is True?

[Swamidragon]

CognitiveArtist asked what is Truth. I thought about that and i remebered something: philosophers said that intelligent peoples are not those who know much, but those who ask right questions. So, i figured that you can find the definition of truth in every dictionary... And the right question (in my opinion) would be: WHAT IS TRUE?
In this thread I invite you to question the "truth".
My first question would be: Is it true that we have souls?

[jgweed]

Perhaps clarifying what one means by "soul" and what one means by "having" would be the first step in a discussion. It is an entirely different, but collateral question, about what one means by "true" and under what conditions one would apply this judgment to propositions about having souls.

[Swamidragon]

By soul i mean the self-aware, non physical entity unique to a particular living being, believed to be the essence of every living being and to be the basis for beings, rather than brain. For soul a body is just a mean to interact with physical world.
Although it is not a scientific truth it is widely accepted as truth by all religions and believes.
So my question stands: do we have souls? are we just some souls trying to have fun in physical world or we're just some freaks of nature - matter that can think?

[blazeofglory]

Truth is relative and what you think truth is the outer of it and the inner of it yet to be disclosed to you.

Things keep on losing their hold. And ultimately the truth remains of which you are ignorant.

[Swamidragon]

I got it, i got it... nothing is true... but you know, we are happy as it is - living unaware of true and those who try to figure out what is true of what we know, have huge headache (like i do :) ).
But ultimately it is in our nature to ask useless questions like: are we alone in universe? were in universe are we? what is our meaning or purpose? These questions define our intelligence.
So, what is your oppinion on question i first asked - do you believe in soul?

[sofia82]

Truth is relative and what you think truth is the outer of it and the inner of it yet to be disclosed to you.

Things keep on losing their hold. And ultimately the truth remains of which you are ignorant.

I agree with relativeness of such definitons.
It is as if you ask what is beauty? All our definitions are relative.
There are something supernatural we look for in our lives, something beyond this physical world to give meaning to our lives. And everyone defines it in different ways. Who knows what is the truth, is it not that during the history the definition of truth changes and even now it changes, too.



Perhaps clarifying what one means by "soul" and what one means by "having" would be the first step in a discussion. It is an entirely different, but collateral question, about what one means by "true" and under what conditions one would apply this judgment to propositions about having souls.

Discussing philosophical and such concepts, it is better we first clarify what we mean by these terms. I never get anywhere in such terms. I don't know it is the problem with me or these terms!



I got it, i got it... nothing is true... but you know, we are happy as it is - leaving unaware of true and those who try to figure out what is true of what we know, have huge headache (like i do :) ).
But ultimately it is in our nature to ask useless questions like: are we alone in universe? were in universe are we? what is our meaning or purpose? These questions define our intelligence.

I don't agree with "nothing is true." When we cannot define a concept it does not mean that we have to conclude the reverse. These useless questions give meaning to our lives I think, and maybe not intelligence but existence.


So, what is your oppinion on question i first asked - do you believe in soul?

I believe in souls, although I can not define it on the basis of reason.

[Swamidragon]

I don't agree with "nothing is true." When we cannot define a concept it does not mean that we have to conclude the reverse. These useless questions give meaning to our lives I think, and maybe not intelligence but existence.
Well you can't be 100% sure that everything we know is true. Some things are yet to be explained from other point of view.
And these question do define our inteligence and by asking them we try to find out meaning of our existence. For exemple: animals don't ask such questions but this doesn't mean they are not intelligent or meaningless. Speaking of meaning of life i think it is simple: enjoy creation and life itself - carpe diem, live life to the full

Oh, and one more thing sofia82: what makes you belive in souls?

[blazeofglory]

Apropos truth I live confused in point of fact. I can not judge honestly speaking. Truth is something we remain eternally obsessed. Man progressed in defiance of the unknowns amidst the myriads menaces he lived through in these cosmically set world order. We have arguments aplenty respecting the age long debate whether or not God exists.

I do not care and amidst, honestly speaking, beliefs and disbelieving, I still worship God and you can not through any syllogistic arguments dissuade me from this.

For truth has never shown us its full face.

[sofia82]

Well you can't be 100% sure that everything we know is true. Some things are yet to be explained from other point of view.
And these question do define our inteligence and by asking them we try to find out meaning of our existence. For exemple: animals don't ask such questions but this doesn't mean they are not intelligent or meaningless. Speaking of meaning of life i think it is simple: enjoy creation and life itself - carpe diem, live life to the full

Living life to the full is even relative. It depends on a person's definition of life and living to the full.


Oh, and one more thing sofia82: what makes you belive in souls?
I said, it is not based on reason, it is a feeling. Of course, I've never seen a ghost or other's soul.

[blazeofglory]

Truth is something linked to God, for truth and God are synonymous or not two different entities at all in point of fact.

If we know truth, we will know God and all that we see are covers or the cursoriness of truth. We see phenomena or happenings and not the cause, results not the one who causes results.

We often liken consequences to truth and we become misled as a matter of fact.

[Smoogles]

[QUOTE=blazeofglory;585427]Truth is something linked to God, for truth and God are synonymous or not two different entities at all in point of fact.
QUOTE]

What is the logic behind this statement? How are we to know that everything we can concieve in truth is somehow linked to God? Who is to say that the fact that 2+2=4 is linked to God, or beauty is linked to God? I don't see how truth in itself can be linked to God, although he is percieved as 'all-knowing' he does know 'truth' if there is such a concept. But it doesn't mean that he causes it, we don't say "Source-of-all-truth" for a reason. Maybe you are confusing the fact of creator and truth, i can see how the borders become blurred.

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact all I said about God is not a mythological god. God is meant to be a sense of universality, for there is some force that drives the rest of other forces and whether you call it by God or any other entities it is up to you.

While I do not agree or describe or subscribe to the idea of a mythological god, I never decline the universal spirit that permeates the rest of other spirits.

[NikolaiI]

I am interested if we are able to interact with ourselves, on a larger scale. Suppose humanity were able to attain to ways of Intelligence. If we bred ourselves to be better humans, what would happen? Rather, if Intelligence governed and there was peace, is there anything that would not be possible?


Perhaps clarifying what one means by "soul" and what one means by "having" would be the first step in a discussion. It is an entirely different, but collateral question, about what one means by "true" and under what conditions one would apply this judgment to propositions about having souls.

An important point here is that we are not our body. We are not bodies that have souls, but souls that have bodies. That is one idea, anyway.


Maybe you are confusing the fact of creator and truth, i can see how the borders become blurred.

In Buddhism Ultimate Truth is generally considered something that pervades all paths and religions, in Hinduism, The Supreme Lord is sometimes understood to be the Absolute Truth, the source of all emanations. So in this case, Creator and Truth are the same.

Life is relative, or subjective, but there are theories about truth in subjectivity. Knowledge of God is something we may not know, but others have had mystical visions and tried to work out systems...I am thinking here mainly of Sri Aurobindo. To accept that people can know something we do not, is an important step. For how are we to learn anything about something we have set against existing?

[NikolaiI]

What is the logic behind this statement? How are we to know that everything we can concieve in truth is somehow linked to God? Who is to say that the fact that 2+2=4 is linked to God, or beauty is linked to God? I don't see how truth in itself can be linked to God, although he is percieved as 'all-knowing' he does know 'truth' if there is such a concept. But it doesn't mean that he causes it, we don't say "Source-of-all-truth" for a reason.

The problems of humans would disappear if humans would stop making them. God is infinitely merciful. We are given a perfect planet. Perfect temperature and endless abundance. If we would do one important thing, recognize God, then we would not fight war, we would not kill animals, we would recognize God as much as we can-- this is an ideal, but then we would not have any suffering. God is so merciful that rain, pure, the purest rain, falls from the sky, and that fruit fall from branches and there is food everywhere! Even if we fell from the Garden of Eden, God is still so merciful. If we thought this, and recognized it, there would not be any problems.

We doubt God's existence? But God is logical. Humankind is the illusion. Humanity, and our vain affairs. Humanity is something that God watches, sometimes. We are part of the brain or body of God, in time, we do not exist, except in the memory of God which says we came about, we exist in God now, and we will come about again.

Stare at the most beautiful painting, by the most brilliant artist, and consider your consciousness. It is improved, undoubtedly? But what about the possibility of experience. What about the experience behind the painting, and indeed the most beautiful experience possible? This is God. The very last word of God is the complete truth, of everything. We ascribe to God the quality of goodness. In fact, God's goodness cannot be described, because the actual quality of God is infinite.

The open secret of it is that if one sits in meditation of God, one becomes free of all fear.

Is there not an Eternal Principle and is not God the Eternal Good and Infinite Source?

[Swamidragon]

First of all i must say i do belive in God. But reading the Bible(that supose to be an ultimate source of learning about God) i noticed something: in Old Testament i hadn't seen not a small mention about existance of soul. First of all, remember: "by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken, for you are dust and to dust you shall return.", then there's ultimate punishement - death (struck of lightning, or plague etc.) so death seems to be the last chapter of life, but in New Testament there are abundance of references to existance of soul, of heaven and hell. Well i think following: in year 312 Constantine adopted christianity, by then Roman Empire had a large variety of religions and many were arguing about who is dominant deity, who should we pray to if we're in merchants guild, or priests etc.; it would have been hard to make common peoples (plebeius, vulgaris) belive in one God with no image, with total different set of rules; that's why, i think, christianity was modified to enlist more believers: were "invented" heaven and hell (which were present in many religions by then - valhalla in scandinavic etc.) as places of ultimate and eternal punishment or rest so peoples would live their lives according to christian religion; then saints were introduced: many peoples still had hard times to pray to one God so christian popes thought: "we have many peoples that gave their lives for God and/or lived doing good deeds, so why don't we canonize them? And because they are closer to God than we - sinners, you could talk to them (i.e pray) so they would ask God to help us.", but remeber peoples God hears everything even what's in your mind, so why don't you pray dirrectly to Him?. Then there are icons - images of God. Don't you peoples read the Bible? The only peoples who saw God's face were Adam and Eve, and by phrase: "I look just like my Father" i think Jesus ment that He looks like a man, not a man with head of beast, or a beast, or a tree, or the sun etc.
Well, that was my oppinion, but as we discussed here it may be wrong, because what we think is true is not allways true. But eventually if many peoples begin to consider it true, then we (the rest and the ignorant) can agree and believe it actually is true... For exemple many doubt about existence of God, but whole Bible is full of statements about encounters with God, with angels or hearing God's voice. And those atheists believe in X-rays never actually seeing them or even feeling them. Other exemple: i had never seen an atom or an electron, but i - the ignorant and the illiterate one - can just agree with crowd (science community) that they actually exist, and i will never had acces to it ('cause i don't have anyone working with electronic microscope). Just few selected ones will actually see an atom or electron. So, ultimately, truth is not relative, not evasive it's just not available. We just can't know everything (truth about all things) because (and here i agree with blazeofglory) the only one who knows the truth is God.

[blazeofglory]

Regarding God I have raised so many questions, and I oftentimes became more critical of the existence of God, and went against scriptural propositions as well.

Here I want to clear some confusions. While I speak against the existence of God drifted by some logical notions I am despite all these antagonisms deeply rooted to the idea of God but on a different plane.

I believe that God is a force, or a force, natural or supernatural that drives and direct the rest of other forces in the universe. But I can not subscribe to mythological theories without a doubt as a matter of fact.

[Smoogles]

The problems of humans would disappear if humans would stop making them. God is infinitely merciful. We are given a perfect planet. Perfect temperature and endless abundance. If we would do one important thing, recognize God, then we would not fight war, we would not kill animals, we would recognize God as much as we can-- this is an ideal, but then we would not have any suffering. God is so merciful that rain, pure, the purest rain, falls from the sky, and that fruit fall from branches and there is food everywhere! Even if we fell from the Garden of Eden, God is still so merciful. If we thought this, and recognized it, there would not be any problems.

We doubt God's existence? But God is logical. Humankind is the illusion. Humanity, and our vain affairs. Humanity is something that God watches, sometimes. We are part of the brain or body of God, in time, we do not exist, except in the memory of God which says we came about, we exist in God now, and we will come about again.

Stare at the most beautiful painting, by the most brilliant artist, and consider your consciousness. It is improved, undoubtedly? But what about the possibility of experience. What about the experience behind the painting, and indeed the most beautiful experience possible? This is God. The very last word of God is the complete truth, of everything. We ascribe to God the quality of goodness. In fact, God's goodness cannot be described, because the actual quality of God is infinite.

The open secret of it is that if one sits in meditation of God, one becomes free of all fear.

Is there not an Eternal Principle and is not God the Eternal Good and Infinite Source?


From what I am reading is that you believe everything is in perfect order thanks to God, right? (correct me if I am mistaken) The basic miracles such as life and rain and etc. How do you explain a little kid being killed innocently in a drive by shooting, or a bridge collapsing right over someone's vehicle (wrong place at the wrong time), this doesn't seem like perfect order to me? And you definition of God (I presume) is All-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving but tell me: If God is all loving and all powerful then why would the need for truth have to exist if there is no falsity in the presence of God? How come we doubt him? For instance God is all-knowing but if he is all-knowing wouldn't he know that human beings would sometimes bend to evil? And if he is all-powerful then how come "the devil" and "evil" still exist, couldn't he just destroy this? And if he was all-loving can you explain why there is famine, and disease, and starvation throughout the world? There seems to be no logic in this sadly. (I do believe in God though ;) )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this brings upon The Problem of Evil

Which is if God is all these things we say he is (i.e. All-Beneficent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent) how come there is still all these 'evil' things?


(Keep in mind that there are two kinds of Evil: 1.) Natural evil: Everything that causes pain and suffering ex: Disease, hurricanes etc. 2.) Moral Evil: People who do nasty and horrible things to others)

In order for a real solution to the problem of evil to be true it must solve both kinds of evil.

The main solutions to the Problem of Evil are (They ALL have major fallacies):

- Evil is really Good: ("What ever doesn't kill me makes me stronger"- No one really believes this "Oh I am paralyzed! Good! Now I can work on cutting myself to become superman!") Couldn't God of come up with a better way of teaching us lessons than evil, I mean he is all-knowing and all-powerful? Evil cannot be basis for good, there is only one kind of evil, just because you can get a good result doesn't mean that what caused it itself is good, it's still evil.

- Free-Will Defense: Freedom to choose (:lol:), true free will, therefore we have the option to choose bad. God should've known that we will seek out evil (as previously stated so), why would he give us the option to do evil? And this doesn't adress natural evil.

- "The Devil Made Me Do It": If god is all-powerful what gives the Devil the power to challenge God? That is contradictory. And God must've created the devil.

- Drop an Attribute (Such as all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful): But then we wouldn't be talking about god anymore.

[NikolaiI]

From what I am reading is that you believe everything is in perfect order thanks to God, right? (correct me if I am mistaken) The basic miracles such as life and rain and etc. How do you explain a little kid being killed innocently in a drive by shooting, or a bridge collapsing right over someone's vehicle (wrong place at the wrong time), this doesn't seem like perfect order to me? And you definition of God (I presume) is All-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving but tell me: If God is all loving and all powerful then why would the need for truth have to exist if there is no falsity in the presence of God? How come we doubt him? For instance God is all-knowing but if he is all-knowing wouldn't he know that human beings would sometimes bend to evil? And if he is all-powerful then how come "the devil" and "evil" still exist, couldn't he just destroy this? And if he was all-loving can you explain why there is famine, and disease, and starvation throughout the world? There seems to be no logic in this sadly. (I do believe in God though )

No I didn't intend to say any of those things. I never said everything is in perfect order. My main point is understanding God, with reason and our intelligence...but still saying these things, all-loving, all-powerful... they might be missing it. They are true, but it seems as if you just casually throw them out there. They are concepts: the main "attribute" I would like to bring up is transcendental. The Lord is within everything and also transcends everything.

As to the last thing you said, all I can point out is that you are demanding something from the very beginning. You are demanding that God do all these things, like save the innocent child and stop all human suffering. Paradise exists after this life (if we are 100% God-conscious when we die) and in this life, if we are able to dream and fulfill the dream. Paradise does exist on Earth in some places, and of course perhaps it is a matter of interpretation.

My idea is one...very abstract, I suppose, very abstract, and I cannot really put it into words so much. It's just that if you want to know what God is, I would say listen to Mozart, and worship God with pure devotees, because anywhere God's devotees are, God is there. If you become God-conscious then you see God everywhere. Surrendering to God means obeying God, and actually this might be criticized for taking the easy way out! Because as soon as you obey God, it's very easy-- if you remember Him, it is easy. Because you are not worried about any result, you are only performing your work in good consciousness, not attached to anything else.

[Smoogles]

No I didn't intend to say any of those things. I never said everything is in perfect order. My main point is understanding God, with reason and our intelligence...but still saying these things, all-loving, all-powerful... they might be missing it. They are true, but it seems as if you just casually throw them out there. They are concepts: the main "attribute" I would like to bring up is transcendental. The Lord is within everything and also transcends everything.

Ah I see, so then not everything is in perfect order thanks to God; then how does everything transcend into God? How can something that transcends from God not be perfect, what is it that transcends, have you any proof, or are you basing your knowledge off of beliefs?



As to the last thing you said, all I can point out is that you are demanding something from the very beginning. You are demanding that God do all these things, like save the innocent child and stop all human suffering. Paradise exists after this life (if we are 100% God-conscious when we die) and in this life, if we are able to dream and fulfill the dream. Paradise does exist on Earth in some places, and of course perhaps it is a matter of interpretation.

I am not demanding really, rather questioning. Who am I to demand from an 'omnipotent' being? Who says immortality is possible, why wouldn't God save an innocent child, and why break down some parts of the world to chaos and famine if he is the loving God (I presume you at least say he is loving) you say he is, merciful to say the least?


My idea is one...very abstract, I suppose, very abstract, and I cannot really put it into words so much. It's just that if you want to know what God is, I would say listen to Mozart, and worship God with pure devotees, because anywhere God's devotees are, God is there. If you become God-conscious then you see God everywhere. Surrendering to God means obeying God, and actually this might be criticized for taking the easy way out! Because as soon as you obey God, it's very easy-- if you remember Him, it is easy. Because you are not worried about any result, you are only performing your work in good consciousness, not attached to anything else.

Have you ever considered religion to be the crutch of humanity? Rather we NEED it to exist, than for it to really exist; it's comforting to us. And once we fall onto that crutch it is easy to keep on leaning on it. And I can see your very abstract views on how you think god exists but what if some people were born blind to seeing him in that matter? I don't know really, I question it all the time.

[jgweed]

How does using the crutch of one particular interpretation of God assure that one individual's interpretation of truth is true?

I have a toothache. What does the existence of God have to do with the truth of that statement or my consequent visit to the dentist.
I have a toothache. Is that just my own opinion, and is someone who says "no, you don't have one" just as valid as my own?

[Smoogles]

It doesn't assure anything really, just the opinion of one. (If I interpreted what you were saying right.)

Pain is an individual experience, no one can tell you that you are indeed or not in pain. Same for intentions (Which would prove our legal system to be based on opinion, wouldn't it?).

[jgweed]

In this case, it is true I have a toothache. [And if I make the accepted gestures (my hand to the side of my face, or perhaps a slight groan), others will know I have one]. So it seems there are matters of fact, at least, where there is truth.

Well, what if one announces one's intentions beforehand? "I am going to bake a cake" says Green. One way we can determine the truth of the statement is to watch him until he actually bakes a cake, or we can take him at his word.
Now what if Green at a later date announces, "I am going to steal some money," but we watch for his stealing in vain, and he does not in fact steal anything.

And does not the law make a distinction between what seems to be purposivefull acts (with stated intention only one of the possible signs) and those which are, for example, the result of a mental disorder?

[Smoogles]

Well, I don't think one would 'announce' that they will be killing their husband or wife. That doesn't seem logical, but your point does stand as proof of observable intentions, but what about intentions kept to ones self?... do I smell a behaviorists' point of view?

And the law does rule on what seems purposeful but would we really be ones to say that "You meant to kill your husband, because of his insurance money!" what if it were self defense, etc? Stated intentions on the other hand are no doubt able to distinguish guilt from innocence, I agree with you there. Mental disorders are something else, intentions another.

[Adopt]

Judging from Smoogles posts we deduce some options: (in reference to christianity's god)

If god does exist, he isn't who people say he is. We can deduce this because of the mere fact that the devil exists also. Either the devil is also omniopotent and earth is some sort of popularity contest (this is getting ridiculous) or the whole thing is just a hoax.

[jgweed]

"do I smell a behaviorists' point of view?"

Not really, but my point is that in fact, there are many different instances where one can say about a statement that it is true. By enumerating these, we can perhaps arrive at an acceptable understanding about what categories, if any, can be considered true, and the conditions for truth in each instance.

For example, there are (statements about) objects in our immediate environment (the coffee pot, the dog sleeping on the sofa, the car parked in the garage), and matters of fact (Texas is south of N. Dakota, dropped items fall to the ground) that are true.
In statements about the truth of these kinds of events, it seems to me (to borrow from Ayer) that the following conditions apply:
1. The statement must be meaningful. "The coffee-pot is morose this morning" is not meaningful (unless in a line of poetry).
2. The statement must be (at least in principle) verifiable by any normal person who understands the meaning of the terms and how one goes about verifying the statement. For example, one can look at a map of the US to determine the relative positions of two states.

[Smoogles]

Adopt: Pretty much, and to every solution (so far) to the Problem of Evil have all fallen back on to one of those four flawed solutions.

jgweed: I see what you are saying, and it makes logical sense. Pretty good, pretty good :nod:

[jgweed]

When thinking about the "problem of evil" one must start by thinking about why it is a problem, and if evil really exists.

Would the world not be a better place if "evil" and its handmaiden "sin" were somehow abolished in the human life?

Nietzsche wrote:"There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena." The implications of considering this perspective would seem to invite one to a more tolerant position.

[blazeofglory]

Truth is something we keep on asking,k and we never can reach a state wherein we find truth, and truth is something that can never be arrived at through words, or to put it another way, truth can not be arrived at through words, and or it can not be worded.

No books can disclose truth to us, rather they delude us, and transport to a realm of confusion and commotion.

Yet truth is something we never stop seeking and the question of seeking truth always enthralls or excites us.

All are seeking after truth in a thousand and one ways, through books, through discussions, through meditations, yet we never know what it is.

[NikolaiI]

Ah I see, so then not everything is in perfect order thanks to God; then how does everything transcend into God? How can something that transcends from God not be perfect, what is it that transcends, have you any proof, or are you basing your knowledge off of beliefs?

I am not demanding really, rather questioning. Who am I to demand from an 'omnipotent' being? Who says immortality is possible, why wouldn't God save an innocent child, and why break down some parts of the world to chaos and famine if he is the loving God (I presume you at least say he is loving) you say he is, merciful to say the least?

Have you ever considered religion to be the crutch of humanity? Rather we NEED it to exist, than for it to really exist; it's comforting to us. And once we fall onto that crutch it is easy to keep on leaning on it. And I can see your very abstract views on how you think god exists but what if some people were born blind to seeing him in that matter? I don't know really, I question it all the time.

Hi Smoogles; dunno when you will see this. Sorry it took so long to reply again.

Time goes by and we always learn, you know? Things always look different. Like when I read your post it seemed a lot different to me now... before I slightly dismayed or wary or almost defensive, but now I am quite sure there is nothing at all negative in your intention.

Well, religion might be the crutch of humanity. But then as you know religion means many different things to many, many different people. For me religion means "way" as in the way of the soul. Whatever humanity does, it does not always reflect what actually is. No matter what humanity does or will do, it doesn't affect things like GOD, TIME, SPACE, things like that. That's kind of important I believe.

Now, as to God; for me basically God is reality. People have blocks up about God and I find it very strange-- though I used to be an atheist(!). But for me it's simple that reality is God, and then the only question is whether God is personal or impersonal. I believe God is personal, conscious of everything, etc., and completely powerful. Why does he not intervene in those cases you specified? Well, if you look at it from one view; why should He? He gave us everything, that is, life, and everything to be satisfied in life... the only thing we need to do is learn how to live. Or in other words, learn how to live transcendentally, peacefully, blissfully, in knowledge, things like this.

The universe (I will say universe although more specifically I mean material universe) is evolving. You can see that there is an inverse ratio between quantity and "quality" of matter in evolution. 99.9% of the universe is inanimate. Great quantity and low quantity. Then there are all the plants on earth. And a smaller number of animals. And finally there are humans; at the top (consciously) of the pyramid. We can understand consciously all of the system below us. What is above us then, but the infinite?

Some people think life is very bad. And maybe they have led lives which would make this entirely natural. But if we can ever take a step back, realize how many worlds there are in the universe; how empty the rest of the universe is...then we might find some renewed strength or hope.

You ask, "What if some people are born blind in that matter?" What if some people are involved and do not see any God? Well, nothing. They will simply live their lives.

[MattG]

My first question would be: Is it true that we have souls?

I think the 'soul' has to do with consciousness, which to me is one of the most fascinating subjects to ponder.

Consider that with science we have learned that our bodies regenerate cells at a rate of every cell, every seven years or so. Roughly speaking, the cells of your body were different by age 8 or so than the ones you were born with. Are you physically a different person? Technically, yes you are. You're a regenerated and slightly degenerated (aging) version of your past self.

Despite the above, we still maintain memories (however accurate) from one body to another. Does this transference take place when one cell dies and another is regenerated? How does this cognizance transfer?

Can we infer that memory and consciousness (or soul) is housed in the flesh and bone that we live within? If not we must suspect that consciousness resides elsewhere. Where does it go when we sleep?

Many, if not most, people I speak with on the subject are quick to dismiss consciousness/memory/'soul' as a physical function of the body.

The more I read, the less I'm sure of this. God, et al, notwithstanding.

[NikolaiI]

I think the 'soul' has to do with consciousness, which to me is one of the most fascinating subjects to ponder.

Consider that with science we have learned that our bodies regenerate cells at a rate of every cell, every seven years or so. Roughly speaking, the cells of your body were different by age 8 or so than the ones you were born with. Are you physically a different person? Technically, yes you are. You're a regenerated and slightly degenerated (aging) version of your past self.

Despite the above, we still maintain memories (however accurate) from one body to another. Does this transference take place when one cell dies and another is regenerated? How does this cognizance transfer?

Can we infer that memory and consciousness (or soul) is housed in the flesh and bone that we live within? If not we must suspect that consciousness resides elsewhere. Where does it go when we sleep?

Many, if not most, people I speak with on the subject are quick to dismiss consciousness/memory/'soul' as a physical function of the body.

The more I read, the less I'm sure of this. God, et al, notwithstanding.

I think that every living being has a soul, be it a human being, animal, plant or even bacteria. The spiritual spark, the spark of life which is the difference between alive and dead. The soul in one instance is our consciousness. The soul pervades the whole body, and so we are conscious of the whole body. But we are actually the soul, the consciousness, and the body is like our outer covering.

I think our consciousness comes mainly from our head, but there' also even scientific indication of some importance of our heart. Can we say, "I am the head"? when actually the heart plays a significant role, not fully understood.

I've heard Christians say that animals don't souls, but I believe they do. Therefore it's wrong to kill any animals just to satisfy one's taste, especially when it's much healthier to be a vegetarian. Animals have souls just like we do. What is the difference between animals and some humans who behave in an animal manner? Only the body. But when a human who lived like an animal dies, he becomes that animal. Thus we have been traversing the different species for millennia.

For me the soul is closely related to God because it's how we know about God. If we never learn we are the soul, rather than the body, then we could never approach God.

[Trystan]

Something is true if it can be literally verified. Otherwise it's just meaningless gibberish in my book.

[NikolaiI]

Something is true if it can be literally verified. Otherwise it's just meaningless gibberish in my book.

How would you literally verify everything pertaining to consciousness, or the psyche?

Are we this body? How would you literally verify yes or no?

In my understanding we're not this body. We're the soul. I can understand this by analogy. But no it can't be literally verified. But there are mysteries in life, and they can't always be literally verified. But they can be understood sometimes.

How do you literally verify morals? Arguments?

There's a great deal that is not true or false, and there's also a great deal that is true that we don't know about.

[MattG]

I think our consciousness comes mainly from our head


Why do you think this?

[NikolaiI]

Why do you think this?

Because of the brain?

[weltanschauung]

"The universe is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere" (pascal)

o luce qui mortalibus lates inaccessa deus!

[MattG]

Because of the brain?

So on the one hand you say this:

In my understanding we're not this body. We're the soul.

and on the other you say the brain is the key to consciousness? The brain is the body, right?


Not trying to poke you with anything .. just trying to get a handle on what you're saying. I agree with a lot of what you've said, coincidentally.

[NikolaiI]

Yes but we wouldn't exist outside our bodies. :) For some people maybe, their center is somewhere around between their eyes... but it's also entirely possibly our center is our heart. It would make a lot of sense since all of our blood goes through the heart. I think maybe the soul is like consciousness in the sense that it pervades the whole body, and so we are conscoius of the whole body.

[librarius_qui]

CognitiveArtist asked what is Truth. I thought about that and i remebered something: philosophers said that intelligent peoples are not those who know much, but those who ask right questions. So, i figured that you can find the definition of truth in every dictionary... And the right question (in my opinion) would be: WHAT IS TRUE?
In this thread I invite you to question the "truth".
My first question would be: Is it true that we have souls?

Your question ins't clear: you are asking two questions here: one about truth; another about believing/being of souls.

You should try science, and scientific methodology, and basic philosophy (and logic), and then put the question you mean to purpose yet again.

That's what I think.


:crash:

[ShoutGrace]

“If a man says of what is, that it is, then he speaks the truth. If a man says of what is, that it is not, then he does not speak the truth. If a man says of what is not, that it is, then he does not speak the truth. If a man says of what is not, that it is not, then he speaks the truth.”


Something is true if it can be literally verified. Otherwise it's just meaningless gibberish in my book.

I too would appreciate some explication here.