Exactly.
:dubious: Our brains are animal brains with added tissue. To a large degree, anything that applies to one, applies to the other.
No, my point is that we have no means of knowing, or even making a good guess. The fact that God is involved ( or any other intelligence we have zero understanding of ) means we can’t make any rational claims about when he did something we can’t even prove he did in the first place. It’s not like say, gravitation, that acts in a neat, predictable fashion; God can do what he wants, when he wants.
It would be like me asking “When did Bob Smith last upgrade his computer ?” Since no one here has any knowledge of Bob Smith, who or where he is, or what he’s like, nobody could make anything other than a wild guess. It’s unknowable with the data we have.
Not at all; I communicate with computer programs all the time and they aren’t self aware. They don’t act self aware.
And how do we know it’s just “mimicing”, and some random human isn’t ?
I see. In that case I won’t be of any help. I don’t know and your guess is as good as mine.
An assertion is not a proof, nor is it evidence.
For the third, maybe fourth time. Really. I am not asking for your idea of what is rational. I am not asking for what “we” have means of knowing. I am not asking for claims that can or cannot be supported by reason, yet you continue to answer as if I were. Please stop.
I am asking for a Christian’s idea of when the soul is generated. You have some interesting ideas, and I am sure your newsletter rocks, but I think you are in the wrong thread.
My point is that through communication humans can share ideas that show humans to be self aware. Are you sharing ideas with computer programs? Do they communicate with you?
Mimic may have been a poor word choice. My point is that simply because an animal exhibits behavior that in a human suggests self awareness is insufficient evidence to suport an assertion that the animal is self aware.
I began a thread previously that dealt with consciousness. While there was a great difference of opinion on many aspects of that debate (i.e. whether or not consciousness may be split), most of us agreed that no paradox would exist if ones consciousness were transferred to a different, but appropriate, “vessel”. For example, your consciousness could just as well exist in an incredibly advanced bio-computer as it could in your brain. We can even imagine how such a consciousness transfer could take place without breaking physical laws. Since this hypothetical consciousness transfer is from one material realm to another material realm, it is not in exact accordance with the concept of a soul continuing on in an afterlife. However, the possibility of consciousness transferability is a good first step on the road toward non-corporeal awareness.
My concept of soul is that it is the continuation of consciousness from a material realm (i.e. your brain) to a non-material realm (i.e. playing the harp in heaven). Being a heathen, I’m not certain that this concept jibes with the theist concept of soul, but if it jibes with your concept, let’s continue. If we can agree that consciousness may be transferred, then we only have to consider a non-material realm in which it may be transferred to, and the mechanics involved in transferring it to that realm. Piece of cake! This is the point that one must have faith - faith that a level of physics exists beyond our present comprehension that allows for a non-material world to exist that harbors consciousness-bearing vessels. I don’t discount the possibility – it’s not considerably more far-fetched than string theory. If the guy who spoke to Moses happens to also exist in this non-material realm – I’m cool with that, as long as he doesn’t preach to me about playing poker and smoking cigars on cloud-9.
Back to the OP: If your concept of soul is in alignment with my concept of soul, then we must agree that all consciousnesses are potential souls. Evolution need not be in conflict with this concept of soul – consciousness and soul evolve in lockstep. It’s an all or nothing proposition: if your uncle Joe is going to heaven, so is your dog “Snots”, and so probably is the mosquito that recently sucked your blood. However, the less sapient the creature, the less meaningful and consequential becomes its “afterlife”. A bug will be no more conscious in its afterlife than in its life.
*Disclaimer: Before you all attempt to give me a close shave with Occam’s razor, I’m not saying that I necessarily believe in the soul, but if it does exist, this model may be the most realistic. *
I am looking for an answer from the Christian perspective. ( I can’t believe how many times I have had to repeat that.) For the purposes of this discussion the soul is stipulated, by definition, as being distinctly and exclusively human.
No, dinosaur fossils have been known for centuries, as have distant supernovae, stalactites, petrified trees, sedimentary rocks and all manner of phenomena which demonstrate beyond doubt that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. Like I say, new discoveries which suggest a Young Earth are about as likely as new discoveries which suggest a Flat Earth.
And I’m asking you how I’d say something like that if I wasn’t operating under this “illusion” you’re talking about.
What? Look at the fossil record. There are rocks with no fossils underneath rocks with the very simplest fossils. That means that life has not always existed. Yes?
So you’re saying that both the soul and the physical body have always existed, together? The latter is clearly false. My body has not always existed. Life itself has not always existed. If you agree with these self-evident statements, the inevitable conclusion is that eternal souls inhabit temporary bodies. I accept that you might well be uncertain when in the last 13.7 billion years this started happening, but you cannot logically deny the position (which I don’t share, obviously) that it started happening.
Centuries you say. Thats interesting. How recently were we able to estimate their actual age? 50 years? less? Even centuries is relatively recent when speaking of billions of years. How much younger would our estimate have to be to call our present estimate wrong? What if the estimate was revised to be older? Would our present estimate be wrong in that case? Either way I’m not argueing for a young earth.
Ohhhh sorry I missed that. Well I suppose there would be no need to say it at all. The moment is it. Jesus spoke of releasing all the things that time can corrupt and embracing only the eternal. We can still use those terms in communicating and as a refernece point without embracing them.
It certainly appears that way, when speaking of the physical, based on our understanding of current evidence and knowledge. You said before the first “deluded entity” It’s the old tree falling in the forest quandary. It seems like you’re trying to equate linear time with the timeless. I don’t think that can be done to serve any logical purpose.
No, I didn’t sat that at all.
In the physical that’s true.
That’s an acceptable conclusion if we remain in linear time. The concept is that linear time itself is part of the illusion. How do we measure what’s outside the illusion using the illusion itself?
An ancient Earth based on geological and fossil evidence was put forward by (amongst others) Lomonosov in the early 1700’s.
Well, yes, the scientific revolution was an eyeblink ago compared to the age of the dinosaurs or formation of the solar system - so what?
The present estimate of the age of the Earth is around 5 billion years, and of the first life 4 billion years. To call Earth “young” (ie. on the order of mere thousands of years) would therefore require our current estimate to be 99.99% wrong.
A few million years here or there is feasible I guess, but eg. twice as old (ten billion years, say) starts running into trouble with what we know about the rest of the universe.
Good, so I assume we agree that the Earth has been around for longer than me, humans or life itself.
Except whenever someone asked how old I was, which is pretty much every day for identification purposes.
Yes - the first hominid, the first mammal, the first stromatolite, what? There must have been a first thing which suffered the illusion of time, because rocks and clouds don’t suffer illusions of any kind, yes?
I’m trying to understand your position. You have said[ul][li]We progress over a series of physical lifetimes[/li][li]Souls always existed as in timeless. [/li][li]The life form didn’t exist prior to the soul.[/li][/ul]The only possible conclusion is that the lifetime “vessel” came with or after the soul. You then said “No, there is no before [a first entity having a soul]” which I took to eliminate the latter.
Oh, OK, I’m glad that’s sorted out. So souls more than (at least) 4 billion years ago were “waiting to be born” so that they could start “progressing”, yes?
Maybe, just maybe, because it’s not an illusion at all, any more than gravity, sunshine or toothache are “illusions”. It seems much easier to label souls “illusions” than time, wouldn’t you say?
:dubious: I think you just managed to rule out everything, from science to logic to faith to black magic.
Sure. “File not Found”, “Lost connection to Mapserver” and so on; communication without any sign of self awareness or sentience, like I said.
No, but it’s no worse than the evidence we have that anyone besides ourselves is self aware.
And I gave you my answer; given Christian premises, we can’t know. At least, not unless God tells us.
This is shared information? When you open a book to chapter 5 is the book communicating with you? Does the computer understand you? The book?
What are these Christian premises?
You do understand that I am asking Christians what they think, right. How do you presume to speak for them?
No. That’s the point.
The two that matter for this discussion are that God exists and is the granter of souls.
I’ve had to listen to Christians expound on what they think all my life; it’s not exactly a secretive, obscure religion. I’m simply pointing out a simple conclusion drawn from two of those beliefs.
Just my humble opinion but if we define soul as an object or presence granted to upright walking apes when God decided they are ready. Then the debate of exactly “when” is like two cakes setting on a table arguing about which exact moment they were done.
They were done when the commercials came on and the baker went to check the oven. In other words if one assumes outside of earth events and forces affect whether humans get souls then you need more evidence then just what is on earth. I don’t believe bible mentions soulless walking apes so there really isn’t much to go on.
You could just as accurately try to figure out if superman is stronger then a normal angel.
You have an interesting definition of communication if one of the parties involved is incapable of understanding.
The fact that it* can* be arbitrary is no reason to assume that it is. If what you are saying is “who cares” or “what does it matter” then my answer is clearly “I do”, and, presumably, “it matters to Christians.” I asked the question, after all.
A simple conclusion, perhaps, but by no means a necessary one. Again, why are you answering these questions? You have made your views known.
Nevertheless, they were done when they were done. I am asking of Christians who believe in evolution when they think they soul was introduced. It isn’t an argument, at least so far. No Christians have chimed in. If I were a Christian who believed in evolution this would puzzle me. It would be difficult for me to resolve. Evolutionatry changes happen gradually, over long periods of time, and at different places.
???
From what I read in Wikipedia he was quite a fellow. Believeing the world is ancient is one thing. Putting specific numbers to it another. For instance carbon dating hasn’t been around to long has it?
Nothing really, except that what passes for scientific knowledge seems to change as new discoveries are made.
As I said. I never argued for a young earth or even suggested it. My point was only what I mentioned above. It’s not all that relevant to our conversation anyway.
If you consider 5 billion years longer than timeless then yes.
True. But you only need that while you are in the illusion. I took your first question to be, once outside the illusion as in , not reincarnated in physical form.
And there’s the problem. If time is an illusion how can we refer to something as being first? I’m not claiming to understand or even completely embrace the concept. I am saying that discussing timeless in terms of linear time doesn’t seem like “time” well spent. 
You obviously reject the premise. What else is there to discuss?
I’m trying to understand it too. It’s a concept I’m reading about and haven’t fully grasped. Let me try to clarify {if that’s possible.}
We are timeless spiritual beings united with God and each other. When we believed we were separate from God and each other we created the universe and duality as part of the illusion of separateness. When we think of timeless or eternity we tend to still put things in linear time as having a beginning and end but that’s not what this concept is about. The Book of Mormon says the course of God is one eternal round having no beginning and no end. Imagine what we perceive as linear time to be contained in this round. No moment is ahead or behind the other. We only see it that way from our limited perspective.
So, if the earth existed and there was no consciousness to percieve it. was it really there?
I know how this sounds. My own experiences have said something to me about a connection between mankind far more than the limited one we recognize and an awareness of a state beyond duality. Those experiences keep me seeking.
I’m somewhat aware of your own experience and have read your testimony more than once. I have great respect for your contributions here on the SDMB. I don’t think we’ll come to any conclusions here.
Again no, because the spirit is timeless. For the spirit there is no 4 billion years ago or waiting.
Sure just maybe. It doesn’t make any difference. It’s not necessary for me to embrace or discard this concept. Only to keep wondering, seeking, and trying to grow.
When we sleep we dream and our minds can create amazing scenarios where we interact with others and time, space and physical laws can be drastically different than we perceive in our waking state. If we imagine a mind a million times more potent than our own, what might it create?
So does cake backing. It goes from batter, to less batter-ie and more cake-ie, and so on till you get something that’s cake-ie enough to call cake. The exact moment it’s cake isn’t particularly defined. Just likes evolution. You’re trying to define a gradual process as discrete units. If that phrase makes any sense.
Not only that but in each generation you’re going to have individuals which happen to get less of the newer genes. So more modern parents could give birth to regressive offspring. So parents that qualify for souls can give birth to soulless children. Which I reject cause it creeps the bejesus out of me.
It just seems logical to conclude that under the assumptions of this thread humans got souls when God looked down and thought “er good enough I guess”
I am Christian btw, although with a heavy Zen influence.
The point of that was we lack data to hit anything accurate other then random guesses.
That is the essence of the problem. Although evolution is a continuum, how can the acquisition of a soul be?
Understood. But surely you understand how this is a less then compelling reason to take that position?
On an individual basis? By specific population? It can take thousands of years for changes to manifest. Are these changes physcological? Cultural? Physiological?
You reject the idea that parents with souls could produce children without. How about the opposite? Is the soul intriduced at birth? Conception? (another continuum.)
My point, I guess, would be to appeal to your cake analogy. Kind of like sticking a jelly bean inside one after it is done. Although the baking of a cake is a process, how can the introduction of the soul be a process? Do almost humans with a part of a soul get halfway to heaven? (No smartassedness intended.)
Other then as an arbitrary decision, aka the cake maker figuring “it’s done”, I don’t see how it can be.
I know, I just personally find the hope any divine force of the universe isn’t creepy to be very compelling. Regardless that doesn’t stand up to logic alone, so no problem letting that point go.
You’re going to have transition generations though were some have the genes to be evolved enough and some don’t. You’ll have hybrids were parents have the right gene sets expressed, but all also carry the lesser set. Some of their kids will happen to get enough of the right genes to have souls and some won’t. It’ll take a long time to filter out the primitive genes so there will be soulless throw backs well into the switch over, albeit with decreasing frequency approaching zero percent. On the flip side when the genes are first coming into existence, and they won’t all come from the same ancestral line, you’ll have people who happen to get the right genes, before the majority of the population increasing from zero and approaching 100%. They could have souls yet give birth to many generations of soul less children.
I personally believe any complex system has a soul that mirrors it in complexity and function. So at conception an embryo has a soul that’s a tiny bit of each of it’s parent’s as it’s parents are both complex systems and it’s a fusion of the two. As it grows in complexity they tiny bit that was from it’s parents grows and merges to become something of it’s own. Keep in mind though my spiritual beliefs are always something I’m reconsidering seeking to find the truth.
However using the premise of the thread “when god checks the cake”
Good question. I believe even animals get there, so yeah.
The jelly bean thing though is what I’m going for though. See say the jelly bean was a soul. If you bake a little longer, or a little less you still get a jelly bean cake when you think the it’s baked long enough to be worth of one. It’s arbitrary.
And, again, believing the world is round is one thing, calculating the exact circumference is another, and Erastosthenes’ historical calculation was less accurate than that achieved by recent satellite data.
And, again, sometimes it stays the same and gets confirmed time and time and time again, like the knowledge of Earth’s shape or the Holocaust.
OK, then I’m glad you’re now as certain of its age as of its shape.
Whoa, what? Earth has been around longer than I, humans or stromatolites have been on it, yes? Agreement with that statement does not require the non-sequitur condition you applied there.
OK, if it’s only an illusion, just tell me how I can say stuff like that properly and I’ll be on my way. If you can’t think of how I might do that, why do you still assert that it is “illusory”?
One does not need time to simply identify relative position. For instance, I could point at an eternal, unchanging rainbow and say that red is the first colour, orange the second, and so on. Events have an order whatever way you look at it – the two World Wars were not the same event.
Is it possible that by pointing out its logical consequences I might convince you that it’s as difficult to understand or embrace as a Flat Earth (for similar reasons)?
OK, who’s “we” here? Homo sapiens? If there’s an “us”, who is the “them” who didn’t believe that (or indeed, anything at all since they were incapable of belief of any kind)? Animals?
Yes. How would you explain the fossil record otherwise?
That’s very kind, and if there’s one small piece of advice I might give, it is to be as brutally honest with oneself as possible. I have come to reject a great deal of dearly held convictions after deeply and honestly considering their logical consequences and finally admitting their inconsistency. If I can’t undertand something, try as I might, it might well be because it’s not right.
Here is a crucial question – you can ignore the rest of my post and just concentrate on this if you like.
How can a timeless thing ‘progress’?
Change and time can very often be considered equivalent. If you say that a soul changes or progresses in any way, what you are really saying is that at one time it was like this, but at a different time it was like that. It seems that you must adhere either to a timeless soul which can have nothing to do with our temporal lives or allow it to change/progress/develop or whatever temporally-dependent word you choose. Is this not the Reductio Ad Absurdans for souls which lunar eclipses and tall masted ships sailing over the horizons were for a flat Earth?