For those who argue that life begins at conception, identical twins (here Raymonde and Lucienne Wattelade, the world's oldest) present a problem: when the fertilised egg splits, which half gets the soul?
When the fertilised egg splits, which half gets the soul??
For those who argue that life begins at conception, identical twins (here Raymonde and Lucienne Wattelade, the world's oldest) present a problem: when the fertilised egg splits, which half gets the soul?
===============-
When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
-(:===============
Are both people? Then both have souls. No the Bible doesn't say exactly when the soul is given, yet it speaks of conception as the start of life. I would therefore assume that however many persons you have, you have the corresponding number of souls. If at one instant you have 1 fertilized egg, I would say 1 soul. If an instant later there are 2, then 2 souls.
Two indentical twins is not the norms.
I truly believe that two indentical twins is a genetic induced error.
Natural twins are a boy and a girl.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
I don't think the soul or spirit has a beginning when bodily conception occurs. It has been around and has been through many lifetimes before.
From this belief system, I don't think there is any problem with identical twins, but I would be curious to know if people who believe in reincarnation find this problematic.
I don't think twins will ever have to worry about who gets the soul. Each'll learn soon enough. The possibilities are infinite once it starts going, all origins soon forgotten, and infinity +- x = infinity.Originally Posted by YesNo
I think you are right about something that pertains to all of us: we will all learn soon enough.
The challenge of the original post is whether identical twins and their souls provide a problem for whatever theology or other view of reality that one might accept. I don't think it does for the one I currently accept, but I hadn't considered the question before.
This may present a problem for certain forms of creationism (anthropological creationism, that is), but not traducianism. Anyway, if you believe in a soul or spirit or whatever, then I don't think you can really pontificate on when/where/how it joins the body.
I just watched a four-person discussion on the mind-body problem the other day. Some interesting stuff:
http://youtu.be/PniAu9XTW3Y
- Dr Stuart Derbyshire, reader in psychology, University of Birmingham
- Martha Robinson, neuroscience PhD student, University College London
- Richard Swinburne, emeritus professor, philosophy of religion, University of Oxford
- Professor Raymond Tallis, fellow, Academy of Medical Sciences
What is infinity minus infinity? (Bit of a trick question, for fun. The answer isn't necessarily "zero.")
Coca-Cola.
Nope! McDonald's!
===============
When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
-(:===============
Think of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests occupying those rooms. Now, remove all the guests in the even-numbered rooms (2, 4, 6, 8 and so on to infinity). How many guests have you removed? An infinite amount. How many remain? An infinite amount. So, in this case, infinity minus infinity equals infinity. There are many other mathematical paradoxes along these lines (google: "Hilbert's Hotel"). Some mathematicians think quantitative infinities cannot exist because of these sorts of problems.
Well, I don't see it as paradoxes or inexistences. But I agree with the rest. The unavoidable case is the simple one of division by two. In the macro, there can't be lack of infinity because of location. Nothing beyond? Impossible.
But there are many ways of dealing with infinity. It is an unreachable limit. But as we approach it close enough, a calculation becomes correct for most practical purposes. We can disregard the infinitesimal by approaching it.
Thanks for posting this. I'll definately take a look.
Is the implication that sex parts beget soul? Because James Brown was wayyyyyy ahead on that one.
J
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrFzB3CvU9M
Neither. They're soulless. Ever met identical twins? Something not quite right with them.
Edit: Thought this sounded funny when I wrote it. Now not so much. My most extensive experience with identical twins come from my contact with this pair of boys I went through school with for 7 years. They were the most handsome, most intelligent, most athletic and most polite kids in the entire school. They seemed like a pair of genetically engineered perfect specimens or something. Like robots. Never once did they lose their tempers, they always dominated in sports and academics. Blonde hair, blue eyes, terrifically lean and tall. Anyway.
I suppose the religious person might say that the gestating eggs develop/are endowed with a soul of their own once they become independently alive. If the egg itself can initially be vested with a soul then why not the two which spring from it? Not that I believe in literal "souls."
Last edited by Darcy88; 12-24-2011 at 03:42 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
