Humans evolved from single cell'd creatures; do these creatures also have a soul? do animals that we come from have a soul? if not at what point during our evolution did this 'soul' turn up?

No I don't think single cell creatures have a soul. I don't know about animals. I don't have to have all the answers to claim belief in God. I believe in God, I am not God. Of course I can't possibly answer the last question any more than I can answer when what we define as 'consciousness' turn up.
[/quote]


OK, so lets say we accept that a god created the universe and gave us a 'soul' at some point.

So, under logic;

• god creates universe
• god waits around a few billion years
• humans evolve to the correct point
• god gives humans soulsThe problem then arises that in order for god to know humans would evolve to our current state the universe must have determinism built in, otherwise his methodology is nothing more than trial and error OR he directly poked the world in order for us to appear which then begs the question of why not create the world directly as is? and if he did that then why make it appear like it evolved to that state?
  
  Also;
  
  

  
  Logic is a construct of the human mind anyway
  [/quote]
  
  Or is it? Because based on the idea of a creator which caused a universe to come into existance in order to support us in our current form the brain stucture which allows us to process this form of logic must have come from god.
  
  Which is a core thing about a creator; the creator created us, the means is somewhat unimportant, which means if so everything about us must be how he/she/it intended it to be, including our logic and the fact that we are flawed. And he KNEW this was going to happen.
  
  Before any of this happened he knew the outcome, which means he knew that kids was going to be born blind, he knew about the earth quake which killed thousands, he knew about the child which died as a baby and, as I understand it, is now damned to hell for not accepting jesus despite never developing the chance to 'believe'. He knew all these things, he knows who is saved and who isn't, he must by the rules of the religion he apprently put in place.
  
  He knew all this, all the pain, all the suffering, all those who would be saved and all who would be damned and yet he still created the universe and still asks to be worshipped and loved?
  
  To quote Dr. Evil; "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...."
  
  
  

[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311501182' post='4839536']
Regardless: The proof that is no such thing as a 'soul' is to reduce the human mind to a set of deterministic laws. If we create non-predictable AI, like a human, that doesn't prove anything about the human mind or 'soul', so no, I wouldn't change my stance about God in that regard.

Humans evolved from single cell'd creatures; do these creatures also have a soul? do animals that we come from have a soul? if not at what point during our evolution did this 'soul' turn up?
[/quote]
Well to be fair, you actually have to believe in the theory of evolution to even address that question.

[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1311507827' post='4839561']
[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311501182' post='4839536']
Regardless: The proof that is no such thing as a 'soul' is to reduce the human mind to a set of deterministic laws. If we create non-predictable AI, like a human, that doesn't prove anything about the human mind or 'soul', so no, I wouldn't change my stance about God in that regard.

Humans evolved from single cell'd creatures; do these creatures also have a soul? do animals that we come from have a soul? if not at what point during our evolution did this 'soul' turn up?
[/quote]
Well to be fair, you actually have to believe in the theory of evolution to even address that question.
[/quote]

Given that we see evolution (modern form, not original form from Darwin) around us all the time and the masses of evidence in it's favour I don't see this as being a major problem..

The alternative is creationism, or a varient on that, which then brings up a question of where did all this evidence come from? and if the answer is god then why did god put down evidence to trick us given he apprently gave us the ability to reason based on evidence...

Isn't it rational to follow whatever works best for myself?

Well yes. However, if robbing from people worked best for you because you're extremely good at it, you don't have to have a 9 to 5, and you can feed your family and get all the nice things you want, then do you think that people should just accept that?

Logic is a construct of the human mind anyway, why should I deify it?[/quote]
I'm surprised that no one pounced on this statement quicker. Put it this way. I read the Bible. I believe in the Bible. I've learned from the Bible. The Bible doesn't explain everything in a logical way. The concept of God, as told by humans, challenges logic to a point.

Call me irrational if you will, I don't mind, people operate irrationally all the time and it's inevitable, even if they pretend that they respect the allmighty logic.[/quote]
People at the end of the day are emotionally responsive people. So Logic and Emotion clash in the human mind constantly.

There are many things logic cannot talk about that interest me, such as art or compassion or any number of things.
[/quote]
I won't argue with that, but I wouldn't put art and logic together anyway.

he knew about the child which died as a baby and, as I understand it, is now damned to hell for not accepting jesus despite never developing the chance to 'believe'.

Just to address this. If one does not know of Jesus and dies, then one is not punished for not accepting Jesus. So no, babes aren't going to Hell for not knowing Jesus. And yes, that's in the Bible. And yes, Christians believe that. And yes, it applies to all people of all religions. I'll be happy to rescind the point if someone has a New Testament verse that says otherwise.

[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1311521037' post='4839612']he knew about the child which died as a baby and, as I understand it, is now damned to hell for not accepting jesus despite never developing the chance to 'believe'.

Just to address this. If one does not know of Jesus and dies, then one is not punished for not accepting Jesus. So no, babes aren't going to Hell for not knowing Jesus. And yes, that's in the Bible. And yes, Christians believe that. And yes, it applies to all people of all religions. I'll be happy to rescind the point if someone has a New Testament verse that says otherwise.
[/quote]

OK, if we accept this as true then amusingly those who are trying to convert others by telling them of jesus are in fact damning otherwise un-damned people...

As for the rest, I sure am not an expert on Logic, as most people aren't. Are you saying that a farmer or a construction worker isn't entitled an opinion about all that unless he takes courses on Logic or Physics?

He is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to is own facts.

You are right I made a mistake, I meant to say that God is the creator of anything physical or extraphysical(this is what Christianity says anyway). I define extraphysical as something that can't be reduced to mathematics, measured, quantisized.

Then how do you differ between something that exists, but cannot be measured, etc. and something that does not exist?

This is the best way I can describe my thoughts. Relationship with God is a loving one, you might as well tell me to explain why I'm in love with my girlfriend. I like the idea of God, so I go with my hunch here.

I like the idea of Santa. This does not make him true.
See, if you can't present logical arguments backed up by evidence, god is not different from faires.

Take it this way: There was a time I was an atheist(not a fundamentalist like Brain in A Vat mind you)

Everyone used to be or is an atheist. There is no such thing as fundamentalist atheist. Atheism is not a position.

Isn't it rational to follow whatever works best for myself?

It may or may not be irrational. People used to believe that lighting bolt were cast by Zeus - it worked for them. Now some people pray, and if god feels like it, he make them come true - it works for them. Other people believe in other gods - it works for them too. People in Africa are burning women for witchcraft - it works for them.

Call me irrational if you will, I don't mind,

Do you admit that you are irrational?

The problem then arises that in order for god to know humans would evolve to our current state the universe must have determinism built in, otherwise his methodology is nothing more than trial and error OR he directly poked the world in order for us to appear which then begs the question of why not create the world directly as is? and if he did that then why make it appear like it evolved to that state?

I want to make it clear that I don't believe in creationism...I believe the universe indeed started some billion of years ago, and that life evolves. I think we agree that, at some point, there was no life, and then it was. Also, at some point, there was no intelligent life, then there was. Third, at some point there were no organisms that had consciousness, the ability to self-reflect on their own thoughts and actions and divide them into good/bad, or generally any categories, then there was such an organism - humans. Even the Bible states the whole world was created in stages, with God reflecting each stage when it was finished. Unswering when, or how, God "breathed" soul into humans is like expecting me to define when and how those critical steps of inorganic matter->life->intelligence->consiousness and self-reflection happened. Minds infinitely higher than mine are debating on those, and searching, and so they should do.

Or is it? Because based on the idea of a creator which caused a universe to come into existance in order to support us in our current form the brain stucture which allows us to process this form of logic must have come from god.
[/quote]

But logic isn't the only property of the human mind. There is also imagination or emotions. Logically, nobody should smoke, but people do, for no apparent reason. Or to give a positive example: Logically, nobody would self-sucrifice himself to save others: He goes against self-preservation, and he doesn't even stick around to at least enjoy the fact that he saved them(if you accept that there is no such thing as an immortal soul). Logically, behaviours like Leonidas and his 300(or 700, whatever, you get my point) are utterly stupid and meaningless, yet they are remembered to this day.

Interestingly, I am reading a very well written graphic novel and top-selling novel, LogiComix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicomix

I am going to quote something Bernard Rusell says in the novel, I don't know if he actually said it(most of the comic though is accurate):

Translation is my own, so meh.

Think about it: If even in Logic and Mathematics, the domains of maximum certainty, there is no absolute security, how can we find it in the chaos of human issues-either personal or public?

...

Even now, I consider myself an orthologist. Even now, I consider Logic a powerful tool...inside some boundaries. And when Logic talks about human life, they are surely narrow. And when it results in taking the form of generic and apparently perfect theories, then it becomes a well-played fraud!

...

You see, Witgenstein was right: Even the "whole science" doesn't suffice in order to understand the meaning of the world.
[/quote]

Which is a core thing about a creator; the creator created us, the means is somewhat unimportant, which means if so everything about us must be how he/she/it intended it to be, including our logic and the fact that we are flawed. And he KNEW this was going to happen.

Before any of this happened he knew the outcome, which means he knew that kids was going to be born blind, he knew about the earth quake which killed thousands, he knew about the child which died as a baby and, as I understand it, is now damned to hell for not accepting jesus despite never developing the chance to 'believe'. He knew all these things, he knows who is saved and who isn't, he must by the rules of the religion he apprently put in place.

He knew all this, all the pain, all the suffering, all those who would be saved and all who would be damned and yet he still created the universe and still asks to be worshipped and loved?
[/quote]

Mothers know their children are going to experience, most probably, pain and sufferring in their lives, yet they still give birth to them and are glad when they do.

Obviously, the analogy isn't accurate. God could have created men immortal and unable to commit evil, or experience sufferring. Would that be the "best of possible worlds"? Let's see. In that world, there would be no sufferring. But in that world, there would be no compassion too, as there would be no need to. Or forgiveness. Some philosophers have argued that, had it not been for the ephemeral of our existence on Earth, we wouldn't know love at its deepest level. Don't forget that Christianity assures that this universe is at an indermediate phase, that it will be renewed at some point(could be tomorrow or in 20 billion years), and then there would indeed be no sufferring or death. So, which would be the best world: A stationary one, where human beings are immutably good and perfect from the start, or one that human beings experience a full range of experiences, good and bad, grow morally, and then are indeed lead to a renewal and a re-birth, with all the past experiences remaining as a sort of lesson? Is the answer that easy?

Of course, 'the divine Plan' is a bit insufficient consolation for someone who has a child that has gotten cancer. Obviously, he will ask: Why me? Why my child? Was it so imperative to God's plan that my kid, specifically, gets cancer? Religious leaders tip-toe around this one I guess, but if you believe and you wanna be honest, you are probably going to answer: Yes, it was imperative. God is looking time differently than humans do. What seems important to us, may seem unimportant to him. You're going to jump ahead and say this is highly immoral, however again you are a 'prisoner of time', you can't see life beyond your abilities. Remember that evolution and natural selection implies that the species advance because less-fit organisms are removed from the gene pool. Countless deaths have evolved us to what we are now.

Christianity assures us that our life has a beginning, but it can have no end: Be eternal, filled with joys that 'human mind has not imagined and human eye has not seen'. This might seem like a wishful thinking or a fairy-tale to you of course, but it gives hope to many people, that physical death is not the end, that they're going to be reunited with their loved ones some day. Is it logical? Hope rarely is. Physically, the resurrection of the dead is not impossible: One could even imagine an extremely advanced civilization re-creating forms of matter than ceased to exist and bring them back to life(think spielberg's 'AI').

Those issues are too tough, and I don't have much answers. As I said, I used to be an atheist, so I know how one feels about it: He simply states that he has not experienced anything that makes him think that the world around him and life are really part of some plan, have purpose or reason outside of what we assign to it. I used to think that, so obviously I respect that position. My stance has just shifted. That is all.

Do you admit that you are irrational?
[/quote]

Of course I can be irrational at times. You are irrational right now, wasting energy debating something that doesn't interest you with someone you don't know for no reason at all. You are irrational for adopting the so-called number of the Antichrist for your nickname, as stated in the Bible, when the Bible doesn't interest you. However, you do all those things.

But no, I I'm not irrational just because I believe in God. What specific law of Logic am I breaching?

Ps. Btw, I'm under the impression that 'Santa' in Western countries is saint Nicholas, who is a real person. But let me turn that question a bit on its head: If someone believed in fairies, would you engage in a 5-day conversation with him, trying to convince him otherwise?

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1311522277' post='4839627']
[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1311521037' post='4839612']he knew about the child which died as a baby and, as I understand it, is now damned to hell for not accepting jesus despite never developing the chance to 'believe'.

Just to address this. If one does not know of Jesus and dies, then one is not punished for not accepting Jesus. So no, babes aren't going to Hell for not knowing Jesus. And yes, that's in the Bible. And yes, Christians believe that. And yes, it applies to all people of all religions. I'll be happy to rescind the point if someone has a New Testament verse that says otherwise.
[/quote]

OK, if we accept this as true then amusingly those who are trying to convert others by telling them of jesus are in fact damning otherwise un-damned people...
[/quote]

I thought that not all Christians believe this. Don't Catholics think that unbaptized infants who die are doomed to purgatory or something to that effect? i'm almost positive that not all denominations/Christians would agree that you don't go to hell if you never hear about Jesus.

I actually had a talk about this with a fundamentalist evangelical friend once and asked her what she thinks happens to people that die and are never exposed to Christianity, like native tribes in south east Asia for instance. She said that she and her pastor sat down and talked about this once and said that they decided that they don't go to hell. What struck me as odd was the use of the word "decided".

This might seem like a wishful thinking or a fairy-tale to you of course, but it gives hope to many people

It's you claim that it's not, then it's your job to show that it's not (using rational arguments).

My stance has just shifted. That is all.

Why?

You are irrational right now, wasting energy debating something that doesn't interest you with someone you don't know for no reason at all. You are irrational for adopting the so-called number of the Antichrist for your nickname, as stated in the Bible, when the Bible doesn't interest you. However, you do all those things.

How did you come to the conclusion that Bible does not interest me? It's very interesting. Most religions are interesting. What's more interesting is why people follow them.
As for the number of the beast, I have 2 reasons:
1) It has many interesting properties: http://mathworld.wol...eastNumber.html
2) To see peoples' reactions.

But no, I I'm not irrational just because I believe in God.

You've lost me. You have been giving examples of supposedly positive outcomes of irrational thinking to (I assumed) justify your belief in god. Now you say your belief is rational (despite the fact you have given to evidence to support your claim).

Still you haven't answered:[color="#1C2837"] how do you differ between something that exists, but cannot be measured, etc. and something that does not exist?