RE: The Soul
November 28, 2013 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2013 at 8:54 pm by Simon Moon.)
(November 28, 2013 at 4:15 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Your body consists of Billions of cells
Why do you think that you are a "One" person?
According to non-creationists those cells are only matter, how can matter have a conscious and feel all together as a single person?
The only logical answer will be:
Another "non-matter" deity exists and controls those cells
A Soul
What utter crap. And it is nothing but an unsupported assertion.
People can have relatively minor brain damage and have their entire personality reset. My aunt is a perfect example. After hitting her head in a fall, she went from being the nicest person anyone would want to meet, to a paranoid, angry woman in a couple of weeks. Did her soul change?
There have been cases where an epileptic has had split brain surgery, creating 2 complete personalities. There's a pretty famous case where one personality is a theist, and the other is an atheist. Do split brain patients get another soul, one for each personality?
There are also cases of human chimeras. When still in the womb, one twin fetus will reabsorb the other one. The twin that is born will have the DNA or both twins. What happened to the 2nd soul? Was it recalled by 'god'?
So, what you are asking us to believe, is that people can have minor injuries and have their entire personality reset, drastically different multiple personalities or even completely turned into a vegetable.
Yet, you are claiming there is something that is able to survive this damage in these people that, at death, when the brain completely stops working, is able to 'lift off' the non working brain, and is able to survive.
And you are making this claim without any evidence ever observed that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
You've got some major hurdles to clear for your claim to be taken seriously, and you haven't even put on your track suit yet.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
