Proof for the IMMORTAL soul triggered my doubt on JW teachings!

by abiather 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  abiather

  Once I was talking to myself: “Religions are all about sacrifices (and rituals), viewing God as a means to get forgiveness of sins and material benefits, and Bible is no exception. Yet the foundation of the universe is on the never-failing Principle of Cause and Consequences, something which God will never violate. Forgiveness of sins is a violation of Principle of Cause and Consequences—something that Bible itself ironically upholds in Galatians 6:7 and in many other verses! Hence all religions—including the Bible—make no sense!”
  

  I got up from the sleep—ACTUALLY I WAS DREAMING, and the above talk was my mind’s talk to me in my dream!!!

  “I cannot see my soul” is not a valid excuse. Because I have not seen my own face other than its reflection on the mirror or its picture on some paper/canvas. Though I use my eyes to see others, I cannot see my own eyes. Just like our eyes made of physical elements cannot see our eyes, physical eyes cannot see the immaterial entity that uses those physical eyes! Hence the immaterial soul should be seen reflected in the mirror of intelligence or reason!

  That was the beginning of my disassociation with JWs whose one of the teachings is that we do not have an immortal soul!
• 

  cofty

  What is in me that does not sleep even when I am sleeping

  Do some basic research on consciousness. The answers are in neuroscience, not in mythology and superstition.

  There is no "ghost in the machine". Your mind is totally commensurate with your brain.
• 

  abiather

  Cofty,

  Neuroscience says thinking is the emergent feature of brain. If that is the case, why does the brain in the corpse not think? Brain is still very much there in the corpse!
• 

  problemaddict 2

  The brain in the corpse does not think because is is decaying matter, not a functioning brain anymore.

  Learning about the parts of your brain that work on autopilot is fascinating.  Whether you want to attribute those functions to an immortal soul, or to a part of your brain that simply functions at the subconscious level......I guess that is on you. 

  In short, there is no factual evidence for support of an immortal soul.  But evidence rarely keeps people from believing in something.  Just ask any of us! 
  
• 

  TTWSYF

  So you're telling me that an atom in my fingernail could hold a whole, little universe?

  just asking
• 

  Viviane

  Yet the foundation of the universe is on the never-failing Principle of Cause and Consequences, something which God will never violate.

  Since you've never seen the foundation of the universe, how did you make this conclusion? What caused God?

  “I cannot see my soul” is not a valid excuse.

  An excuse for what? You also can't explain what it is, how it works or what it does. It's a placeholder word for "make believe".

  Though I use my eyes to see others, I cannot see my own eyes.

  Even seen a mirror?
  
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  I'm glad you are starting to wake up out of the WT fantasy dream, the sooner the better pretty much describes how I feel about it.

  Well you have a quite  a few assumptions in your reasoning and a few leaps in logic that you need to overcome:

  1)Yet the foundation of the universe is on the never-failing Principle of Cause and Consequences, something which God will never violate.

  First off this is an assumption right from the beginning.

  Forgiveness of sins is a violation of Principle of Cause and Consequences—something that Bible itself ironically upholds in Galatians 6:7 and in many other verses! Hence all religions—including the Bible—make no sense!”

  Second point you say the bible makes no sense and yet you go on to use it to prove your point about sin and are still are still holding the assumption that God can't violate it(which is totally unproven and therefore an assumption).

  “I cannot see my soul” is not a valid excuse.2) Because I have not seen my own face other than its reflection on the mirror or its picture on some paper/canvas. 3)Though I use my eyes to see others, I cannot see my own eyes. 4)Just like our eyes made of physical elements cannot see our eyes,5) physical eyes cannot see the immaterial entity that uses those physical eyes! 6)Hence the immaterial soul should be seen reflected in the mirror of intelligence or reason!

  Where do I begin on all these assumption not in evidence? I'll just number them for you(5). And number 6 is a tremendous leap in logic resting on assumptions that are far from actual facts. Your not on solid ground on this one.
• 

  rebel8

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
  
• 

  abiather

  problemaddict 2, You say: “The brain in the corpse does not think because is decaying matter, not a functioning brain anymore.”

  However, there are people whose bodies mysteriously thwart decay. They also have brain intact. Or you take a fresh corpse of a man killed in an accident just a few seconds before. This fresh corpse (which is yet to start the process of decaying) too has brain intact! Yet consciousness is not there! Hence consciousness is not the emergent feature of the brain.

  All claims of emergent consciousness are SIMPLY PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS DRESSED UP AS SCIENCE. You can poke holes in this edifice in three crucial ways, teasing apart the idea that consciousness (1) is an emergent (2) property of the brain (3). Emergent

  First, “emergent property” is an oft-misused term. With respect to consciousness, it is one of those hand-wavey terms people like to throw around without any substance behind it. Used appropriately, it can refer to an incredibly useful scientific hypothesis. A basic definition is something like complex properties that result from the interaction of simple behaviors. When people talk about emergent consciousness, they show nothing of this sort and therefore don’t answer the how of consciousness. Some crucial questions that “emergence” doesn’t answer, which actual scientific emergent explanations tackle include:

  How does consciousness arise from chemical interactions leading to electric impulses?

  Why is there consciousness instead of something else?

  How does physiology constrain and define this so-called emergent property?

  The crucial thing missing here is mechanism. When we talk about real emergent properties, like those of a network, for example, we can show how a specific type of network (e.g., a Small-world network) will emerge in lots of different situations, (e.g., the brain, social networks etc.) because of simple properties that connections between things have: some sort of relationship between viability and proximity. From this, you get lots of local connections and a few non-local ones in certain proportions. Crucially, this makes sense in a mechanistic way where you can understand how the simple properties specifically gives rise to the larger organization and basically only this organization and you can model it — see it happen before your eyes. We cannot say this in the case of brain and consciousness!
• 

  Witness My Fury

  That's a nice bunch of unattributed quotes there (your usual MO). They are also out of context.

  http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-concise-ways-to-convince-people-that-consciousness-is-not-an-emergent-property

  Do you know what a logical fallacy is? You seem to use them like magic markers to construct a reality to your liking instead of the one that is right there in front of you. You come here to preach and not to learn, which cult is it you joined on leaving the JWs?