after this life

Great Debates
21

Freyr wrote:

Well, now I have a bunch of practical questions which follow from this:

  1. Are there new souls being created then, to fill the new bodies?
  2. Where do they come from?
  3. If there is an endless (or very large) supply of new souls, why do you assume that some are being recycled?
  4. How can you tell that some souls are older than others? Is that a deduction based on observation, or a logical conclusion from the premise that reincarnation means that at least some souls have been here for a while?
  5. Can you identify these younger souls? Can you identify “new” souls who are on their first trip? Do first-timers have some characteristics in common, or could a first-timer start out with as much willpower as a second-timer, or a third, or a particularly unenlightened tenth-timer?

By now I’ve clearly demonstrated my anti-soul bias, I’m sure. And, there’s no really good way we can prove that either you’re right or I’m right, and neither of us is likely to change our minds. (Who says nobody ever learns anything in Great Debates?)

I’m just unwilling, personally, to believe in a soul that exists beyond my personality, beyond my physical self. Why? Supposedly this soul exists outside of my personal feelings of identity (since it can be incarnated in someone else with no memories of being “me”), and it doesn’t seem necessary to perform any of the physical or mental tasks I’m capable of. It is an item whose existence can’t be proved, which is only necessary to function in a spirit world that also can’t be proved. Behold, an unnecessary complication!

I don’t even believe the existence of my soul beyond this life is especially comforting, because I don’t feel like my soul – and whether you believe that your soul comes back again and again with no past knowledge, or it goes onto some eternal paradise of unknowable unworldly bliss, it’s pretty clear that in both those cases, the “soul” is nothing like you are here today. How can you gain comfort from what happens to something that’s “not you?”

22

1) Are there new souls being created then, to fill the new bodies?

New souls for new humans. Rather than say they’re created, I believe they’re graduates from lower life-forms, like dogs and cats, that have souls (so I believe). Those in turn come from simpler life-forms, those who’s awareness is less than that of animals/life-forms like dogs and cats. And so on down to even lower/less life-forms who’s awareness barely exists.

2) Where do they come from?

I think I answered this above.

3) If there is an endless (or very large) supply of new souls, why do you assume that some are being recycled?

Each time around, you learn something new and different. Think of it like school. You go thru various grades, learning new and different things. Once you get to a certain level, you do go to that school any more, you move onto high school or college. Who assigns these lessons? The God(s) in Their wisdom.

4) How can you tell that some souls are older than others? Is that a deduction based on observation, or a logical conclusion from the premise that reincarnation means that at least some souls have been here for a while?

It’s the logical conclusion of the premise.

5) Can you identify these younger souls? Can you identify “new” souls who are on their first trip? Do first-timers have some characteristics in common, or could a first-timer start out with as much willpower as a second-timer, or a third, or a particularly unenlightened tenth-timer?

I haven’t given any serious thought to identifying which are older souls or younger ones. My only guess would be that an older, more experienced soul would be one who takes life serenely, understanding he/she has been around several times and is savoring THIS journey. A younger soul or one who’s not learning its lesson would be more antagonistic, failing to understand what’s happening to it.

By now I’ve clearly demonstrated my anti-soul bias, I’m sure. And, there’s no really good way we can prove that either you’re right or I’m right, and neither of us is likely to change our minds. (Who says nobody ever learns
anything in Great Debates?)

Well, I didn’t pick up an anti-soul bias 'til you mentioned it. I just took you to be one of the many curious ones who wondered what weird stuff I believe in. And as I stated before, I have no hard evidence for these beliefs beyond my own personal experiences, readings and revelations. :slight_smile:

I don’t even believe the existence of my soul beyond this life is especially comforting, because I don’t feel like my
soul – and whether you believe that your soul comes back again and again with no past knowledge, or it goes onto
some eternal paradise of unknowable unworldly bliss, it’s pretty clear that in both those cases, the “soul” is nothing
like you are here today. How can you gain comfort from what happens to something that’s "not you?"

But my soul IS me. It’s the part of my whole being that recognizes its own existence and records and attempts to understand the experiences of my life. Of my many lives. The body is like clothing, to be sloughed off when no longer needed, but fun while it’s around. The soul, tho going my many different names and wearing different faces is still me.

23

Freyr, your postion is exactly what I am talking about in the OP. you have obviously put much thought and questioning to come to the beliefs which you hold. so why did you stop where you stopped? If you have understood that this body is absolutely unnecessary for the existence of your soul, why then cling to the belief (or assumption) that most of your soul’s existence will be spent in this world?

why are the two choices only between staying in this world in a new body or going to another world with a body much like this one? why haven’t we seen a belief in the afterlife with a new (different) form in a new place?

24

**jb_farley wrote:

Freyr, your postion is exactly what I am talking about in the OP. you have obviously put much thought and questioning to come to the beliefs which you hold. so why did you stop where you stopped? If you have understood that this body is absolutely unnecessary for the existence of your soul, why then cling to the belief (or assumption) that most of your soul’s existence will be spent in this world?**

Hrm… point to be made here. The body and soul are things that cannot exist without each other. The body without a soul is a living yet unknowing/unaware piece of matter. Think if someone who’s brain dead but not on life support. To quote a phrase; the light’s on, but no one’s home. With a soul, the body is animated, responsive and able to experience the world around it. The body produces the energy that keeps the soul going. Don’t ask me to explain this soul energy, I can’t. An interesting deduction from this, if you could build a single cell from the correct macro-molecules, would it be alive/living? Or just a chunk of matter?

Whereas the soul needs the body to survive. Without it, the soul would dissolve back into free energy. The body allows it to directly interact with the physical world. It sustains and nourishes it while here.

I just take it as part of the paradigm that the body and soul live in mutually sympathetic relationship. Think of it this way. The soul is like the driver of a car. The car is the physical body. Without a driver, the car is just a lifeless hunk of matter, unknowing, unmoving. The driver cannot get around without the car, cannot experience the wide world. Yes, I know, the driver has legs and can move on his own, but this is an imperfect analogy but the first one that sprang into my mind as I wrote this. :slight_smile:

The reason there’s so much emphasis on THIS world is that this is the place where learning takes place. This is where your soul’s learning from previous times is put into practical use.

Also, the physical world isn’t such a bad place. Prevelent in our culture is the old dichotomy of body and soul and good and bad. The body is made of matter and is bad whereas the soul is energy or spirituality and good. The pleasure of a well-made meal, the physical joy of sex, the warm and comfort of a fire on a cold winter’s night are all physical pleasures. There’s nothing inherently wrong or bad about them. The only problem is over-indulgence. Sure, food is great, but eat too much and you get fat, have heart problems, etc.

Indulge in physical pleasures, just don’t go overboard with it. That would be the only sin in the physical world.

why are the two choices only between staying in this world in a new body or going to another world with a body much like this one? why haven’t we seen a belief in the afterlife with a new (different) form in a new place?

I looked back on my old posting and realized my explaination for what comes after you gain enough experience and your soul can survive on its own is lacking.

Essentially, you become god-like. You have the willpower to keep your essense, your soul, together without a physical body to sustain it. And you have understanding to affect the physical world around you without being “in” it. What happens at that level of existence, I can only guess. Think of it this way, try to explain the stock market to a cat or dog. Get the idea? :smiley:

25

My brother has an interesting theory that we are “stuck” in time - that is - everytime you die you get reborn as yourself in this exact same time and you do the exact same times (i.e. I would be posting this again just like this). Basically his concept is that you just keep repeating this same life so hopefully if this is the first time then you better make it count - that way every other time it will be good too. Just a thought.

  • Peter Wiggen
26

but why insist that the soul must only be coupled to this body? if indeed the soul needs a body to stay complexly organized, it would disperse upon my (or your death). If it’s gotta jet around and manifest itself in a different form, why stick with the ho-hum world we have? is it because the other possiblities are so numerous and varied that it’s almost stupid to try and pin one down?

what’s the deal?

27

oh, and PeterWiggen, that’s a great concept.

live this life well, cuz it may be your only shot, or it may be the beginning of a whole lot of the same. either way, make sure you make the most of it.

28

jb_farley wrote:

So if we ever do encounter a flying space hippo, don’t keep it away from the Sun, because it might be your great great grandmother.

29

**jb_farley wrote:

but why insist that the soul must only be coupled to this body? if indeed the soul needs a body to stay complexly
organized, it would disperse upon my (or your death). If it’s gotta jet around and manifest itself in a different form, why stick with the ho-hum world we have? is it because the other possiblities are so numerous and varied that it’s
almost stupid to try and pin one down?**

JB, when you die, and the soul and body separate, I believe the Gods step in and help keep the soul together. Also, at that level of existence, instant dissolution probably wouldn’t happen. IE; if you soul made it this far already, it’s learned enough to keep together on it’s own for a while.

As for fantastic worlds and other incredible forms of existence, consider this…

Our present understanding of the true size and shape of the universe is only 80 years old. It was only back in the 1920s that Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is flinging itself into the Great Void. Before that time, people didn’t have any concept of what was out there, there was no way to detirmine what stars were made of or how they functioned, how planets formed or even how life began. Much of our understanding of the universe has occured within only the past 150 years. Give it time.

After we die, our souls might go on to animate the bodies of Star Hippos that feed off the radiant energy of stars and travel incredible interstellar distances with a mere thought. Then again, they might not.

I’m going to throw the question back at you, what do YOU think happens after you die. Of course, there’s no evidence, but there is speculation. What do you speculate? I promise not to laugh.

30

Freyr, may I urge that you start a thread on the subject of reincarnation in general, and your own views in particular?

It is the one post-mortem theory where there is some possibility of evidence other than Divine Revelation. David has a couple of skeptic sites he can link to, and I’d love to have a chance to review the evidence pro and con.

I urged this on Dal_timgar, who apparently holds to an Eckankar/reincarnationist system, but he apparently ignored it.

Since I don’t have much information one way or the other, aside from vague memories of reading Edgar Cayce and some anti-Origenist stuff from history of theology, I haven’t done it myself. But I’d be fascinated to learn more.

31

It takes a lot of imagination to to imagine that the human mind is composed of ordinary matter. But it is true. It is hard to believe, but our souls, our consciousness, our identity is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in interesting ways.

The reason I feel that there can be no life after death is that there is no room for a extra-material component to human consciousness. Every molecule in the brain is an ordinary molecule. Every cell is made of those ordinary molecules. Every nerve is made of ordinary cells. And the brain is made of ordinary nerves.

Where is the soul in all of this? Where is the vital essence? Freyr asked what would happen if we constructed a cell, molecule by molecule, out of unliving atoms. Would it be alive? Well, consider this. This happens millions of times every day. Every cell in your body is constructed, molecule by molecule, out of unliving atoms. Plants take in unliving carbon dioxide, unliving water, and unliving sunlight, and convert that to living tissue.

So, since your consciousness is composed entirely of your brain, how could it survive the destruction of the brain? It’s like asking if a puddle still exists after it has dried up and the water molecules are zipping around the atmosphere, or inside a dog, or in the ocean. The molecules are still there, but the puddle is gone. There is no essence to the puddle that transcends the puddle, since the puddle is merely the collection of water molecules that make it up. The human brain is the same way.

32

**Polycarp wrote:

Freyr, may I urge that you start a thread on the subject of reincarnation in general, and your own views in particular?**

Sure thing. I’ll get started on it soon.

**Lemur866 wrote:

So, since your consciousness is composed entirely of your brain, how could it survive the destruction of the brain? It’s like asking if a puddle still exists after it has dried up and the water molecules are zipping around the atmosphere, or inside a dog, or in the ocean. The molecules are still there, but the puddle is gone. There is no essence to the puddle that transcends the puddle, since the puddle is merely the collection of water molecules that make it up. The human brain is the same way.**

Okay, Lemur. I want you to do me a favor. I want you to get angry. Imagine something, anything that gets you really, really angry. I’d like you to get so angry your heart is pounding, your arms shaking and your eyes about to pop out of their sockets.

Need help? How about this? Your mother has been kidnapped by a bunch of drug-crazed hoodlums and are gang-raping her and giving the Nazi salute. Now they’re doing the same thing to your significant Other (girlfriend, boyfriend, etc). Now they’re running over newborn kittens with a steamroller while hacking up the unconsious bodies of your mother and significant Other while chanting slogans of “Death to Anyone Who Doesn’t Believe Like We Do!”

Okay, done that? Good. How, please show me precisely where in your body that anger is? Which organ or bone is it attached to? Where EXACTLY is your anger?

I’m quite certain you’re at a loss to explain it. Yet, if you did what I just asked you, you experienced a very real, observable effect in your body. Where is it? How is it measured? Are your emotions and the effects they produce in your body simply hormones being released into the bloodsteam? Would you significant Other be happy to hear you love only them for 0.5 cc of a certain hormone?

The point I’m making here is that there are two realities, the Objective reality and the Subjective reality. Both exist. If you followed thru and got really angry as I asked you a few moments ago, you were in the grips of a very subjective yet very real emotion. Yet, according to you, it doesn’t exist since it can’t be specifically pointed out.

One more point, Lemur. You’re starting to walk a fine line. I take it that you’re an Atheist. I have no problem with that, yet you’re getting very close to being a militant atheist, one who want to stamp out anything that doesn’t have objective proof.

I admit my experiences regarding souls and gods and magick are very subjective, but to me, they were very real. Your tone indicates that you believe I was only deluding myself and they can’t be real. That’s very insulting because it denys, what to me is, a very real experience.

Think of it this way, if at a funeral of your parents, someone was to approach you and comment, hey, get over it. They’re just a piece of dead meat in the ground now! how would you feel?

I’m a Theist. I make no apologies about that. You’re (evidently) an Atheist. Please respect my beliefs and not prosleytize me as I respect yours and don’t prosleytize you.