murder

would it be worse to kill someone or go back in time and make it so they never existed. at least if you kill someone they had a chance to live. then if you believe in the soul, the thing that goes on after you die you stopped it from being created. That would be the closest to destroying someones sou as you could come. so which is worse?

I don't care.

Since it's not really possible, i shall waste no time thinking about it.

Obviously you never watched Timecop.

I'll moida da bum.

would it be worse to kill someone or go back in time and make it so they never existed. at least if you kill someone they had a chance to live. then if you believe in the soul, the thing that goes on after you die you stopped it from being created. That would be the closest to destroying someones sou as you could come. so which is worse?

you would quite possibly create an alternate reality in which said person never did exist. it couldn't be murder if he never existed. and, of course, the reality you left would continue with aid person living out the rest of their life.

Read Michael Crichton's Timeline for more details.

If the soul doesn't exist, which I expect doesn't, the two are equal in their goals. I'd say murder is far far worse because they are aware of their demise and probably wish to the contrary. Preventing the consciousnesses from appearing cannot violate its rights.

If the soul doesn't exist, which I expect doesn't, the two are equal in their goals. I'd say murder is far far worse because they are aware of their demise and probably wish to the contrary. Preventing the consciousnesses from appearing cannot violate its rights.

the point though if a soul exist even after you kill them something lives on. to stop the soul from existing nothing is left of the person.

Quote from: Soze on September 16, 2009, 10:38:55 AM

If the soul doesn't exist, which I expect doesn't, the two are equal in their goals. I'd say murder is far far worse because they are aware of their demise and probably wish to the contrary. Preventing the consciousnesses from appearing cannot violate its rights.

the point though if a soul exist even after you kill them something lives on. to stop the soul from existing nothing is left of the person.

And God would let you prevent him from creating that soul?

Quote from: Soze on September 16, 2009, 10:38:55 AM

If the soul doesn't exist, which I expect doesn't, the two are equal in their goals. I'd say murder is far far worse because they are aware of their demise and probably wish to the contrary. Preventing the consciousnesses from appearing cannot violate its rights.

the point though if a soul exist even after you kill them something lives on. to stop the soul from existing nothing is left of the person.

How do you know when exactly their soul came into existence?

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 16, 2009, 10:41:17 AM

Quote from: Soze on September 16, 2009, 10:38:55 AM

If the soul doesn't exist, which I expect doesn't, the two are equal in their goals. I'd say murder is far far worse because they are aware of their demise and probably wish to the contrary. Preventing the consciousnesses from appearing cannot violate its rights.

the point though if a soul exist even after you kill them something lives on. to stop the soul from existing nothing is left of the person.

And God would let you prevent him from creating that soul?

you will notice that when I talk about the soul I do not assume a creator was involved.

why assume that souls exist?

Because it could be argued that we are sentient in a way that cannot yet be explained by science.

why assume that souls exist?

me and singularity were discussing this here

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 14, 2009, 10:43:00 PM

Quote from: Soze on September 16, 2009, 10:46:09 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 16, 2009, 10:41:17 AM

Quote from: Soze on September 16, 2009, 10:38:55 AM

If the soul doesn't exist, which I expect doesn't, the two are equal in their goals. I'd say murder is far far worse because they are aware of their demise and probably wish to the contrary. Preventing the consciousnesses from appearing cannot violate its rights.

the point though if a soul exist even after you kill them something lives on. to stop the soul from existing nothing is left of the person.

And God would let you prevent him from creating that soul?

you will notice that when I talk about the soul I do not assume a creator was involved.

Wait what? Are you advocating the existence of a soul without the supernatural realms of heaven or hell for them to exist in?

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on September 16, 2009, 11:33:56 AM

why assume that souls exist?

me and singularity were discussing this here

Isn't that a discussion of being conscious? I never thought we were talking about the soul.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 16, 2009, 11:31:07 AM

Quote from: Soze on September 16, 2009, 10:46:09 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 16, 2009, 10:41:17 AM

Quote from: Soze on September 16, 2009, 10:38:55 AM

If the soul doesn't exist, which I expect doesn't, the two are equal in their goals. I'd say murder is far far worse because they are aware of their demise and probably wish to the contrary. Preventing the consciousnesses from appearing cannot violate its rights.

the point though if a soul exist even after you kill them something lives on. to stop the soul from existing nothing is left of the person.

And God would let you prevent him from creating that soul?

you will notice that when I talk about the soul I do not assume a creator was involved.

Wait what? Are you advocating the existence of a soul without the supernatural realms of heaven or hell for them to exist in?

there is a difference between believing in a soul and believing in a conscious creator. the Buddhist do it well. I also never said that the consciousness is the soul, I said we could not have a consciousness without a soul. it would be part of the consciousness but not necessarily all of it.

Isn't that a discussion of being conscious? I never thought we were talking about the soul.

we were arguing about whether we are more then chemical reactions. I would define the thing that makes us more then chemical reactions as a soul. although it might not be the same one other people use.

Is there any reason to believe that we are more than the physical makeup of our bodies?

Is there any reason to believe that we are more than the physical makeup of our bodies?

you didn't follow the link did you. that is what me and singularity were discussing.
here is one of my post if you want an more in depth idea follow the quote I gave earlier.


OK I am just going to argue the end of yours, I will try your idea of simplifying.  I think an awareness is something that can feel sensation. a system no mater how complex should not feel pain. although pain is could comparison it should not be what is expected. here is my question, if a system that is complex enough to have consciousness how does that help it react to any possible turn of events. although a consciousness could be used as a good explanation it is not something you would expect to happen. it is like saying that a ball rolls down the hill because it wants to be at a low energy state. it really doesn't want anything but it does explain it. a system shouldn't want to avoid pain even if it was set up to minimize that variable to its system. it shouldn't have bad or good it just does. such as a robot that take moves to avoid to much heat. it reacts but it shouldn't be expect to feel even if pain is a good way of explaining what is happening.

I really don't want this to be a twin thread, but I have to ask: What part of consciousness can't be accounted for by physical means?

Without having a discernible piece missing, it seems to reduce to intuition that the soul exists in duality with consciousness.

I really don't want this to be a twin thread, but I have to ask: What part of consciousness can't be accounted for by physical means?

Without having a discernible piece missing, it seems to reduce to intuition that the soul exists in duality with consciousness.

I believe based on logic that sensation, and consciousness could not exist without a soul. although things could still function, it would be action reaction no feeling involved. keep in mind I am using feeling to describe things like pain, not ability to receive input.
Okay for more on the soul topic go back to the soul thread