Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 4:44 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:58 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 10:24 am This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility. So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't, I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

I thought I already did.

I'm not saying anyone did or didn't, I'm just explaining my intention.

Not sure why you consider such a concept as an impossibility in the nature of matter, which we are comprised of, basically a shit load of energy within the a shit load of energy (our environment) if you consider that there is an intelligent at the fundamental sub-atomic nature to what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y.

Well I haven't referred to any scientific authority before arriving at the conclusion that it isn't possible, so let's just say it doesn't seem possible to me. Even if I could concieve of its being theoretically possible, I have no reason to think it is remotely likely, so I'm not really left with the option of believing in souls.

Just like you have no reason to think that God is remotely likely.

Harbal wrote:I mean, what do we observe in nature, in our lives, in the universe at large, that suggests, or makes us think, that there is this thing that is the soul?

ME? A great deal.

Harbal wrote: What question is there to which the only answer could be, the soul?

I don't uinderstand this question?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:14 pm
Just like you have no reason to think that God is remotely likely.

Yes.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:14 pm

Harbal wrote: I mean, what do we observe in nature, in our lives, in the universe at large, that suggests, or makes us think, that there is this thing that is the soul?

ME? A great deal.

Well, only you know what this great deal is.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:14 pm

Harbal wrote: What question is there to which the only answer could be, the soul?

I don't uinderstand this question?

Some people might look at, say, a tree, and conclude that such a thing could not have come about in any other way than by intentional design, and therefore further conclude the designer could only be God. What do we see that necessitates the existence of the soul in order to explain it?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:11 pm Don't dictate to me (someone with 26 years of experience of God) with your clueless waffle.

And don't you dictate to me, someone with ageless experience with the concept of what is God, with your dog shit waffle.

We've all got God opinions Dogfish. . .

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 1:51 pmThere is ONLY One (True) 'Self'.

ALL of the, supposed, "OTHER" 'self's' are just 'you', human beings, referring to "YOUR" 'selves', INDIVIDUALLY.

HOW 'reincarnation' WORKS, EXACTLY, just NEEDS to be LOOKED AT from NEW or FRESH eyes, as some might say.

I don't know what you mean by "one true self".

Explain more, in depth.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:29 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:24 pm
Your criticisms have been duly noted, Age, but I am not a qualified philosopher, I am just an ungifted amateur, and this is the kind of thing you must expect from me.

But I do NOT expect ANY thing AT ALL from 'you', a human being, other than being (JUST) OPEN and Honest here.

I always try to be open and honest,

I prefer that 'you', and "others", are JUST OPEN and Honest, instead of just 'trying to' be. But, of course, 'you', and "others", are absolutely FREE to do whatever 'you', and 'them', WANT to do.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:07 pm but I don't have the endurance to stay commited when things start to get too complicated or messy.

But there is absolutely NOTHING complicated NOR messy to me here. Although, of course, observing where 'you', adult human beings, are making 'things' seem complicated and messy here is very easy.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 4:44 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:58 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 10:24 am This is the point of the thread: I am saying that the soul, as an actual ontological entity, is, to my way of thinking, an impossibility. So I am not here to define such an entity, because I can't, I am inviting others to define it in such a way as to remove that apparent impossibility.

I thought I already did.

I'm not saying anyone did or didn't, I'm just explaining my intention.

Not sure why you consider such a concept as an impossibility in the nature of matter, which we are comprised of, basically a shit load of energy within the a shit load of energy (our environment) if you consider that there is an intelligent at the fundamental sub-atomic nature to what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y.

Well I haven't referred to any scientific authority before arriving at the conclusion that it isn't possible, so let's just say it doesn't seem possible to me.

Maybe if you had added your last two words here in your opening post here, then you may have got a different outcome here, but this may NOT have been your intention here, from the outset.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 4:44 pm Even if I could concieve of its being theoretically possible, I have no reason to think it is remotely likely, so I'm not really left with the option of believing in souls.

But this would be like SAYING, 'I am NOT going to define the words 'souls', 'gods', nor 'whatsos', and I am NOT going to use nor take ANY one one's definitions either, in ANY way whatsoever, BUT I am just going to CLAIM that I am NOT really left with the option of believing in 'souls', 'gods', nor 'whatsos', AT ALL'.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 4:44 pm I mean, what do we observe in nature, in our lives, in the universe at large, that suggests, or makes us think, that there is this thing that is the soul?

What 'I' observe, (in Nature), in your lives, in the Universe at large, that CLEARLY SHOWS and PROVES, well to 'Me' anyway, that there is 'this thing' that that the word 'soul' REFERS TO, EXACTLY, ARE the VERY 'things' that make up 'the soul'.

Although, and OBVIOUSLY, 'the soul', or 'the things', which make up 'the soul', can NOT be observed NOR seen WITH the physical eyes, the 'soul' IS CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED WITH the 'Mind's' EYE.

But, OF COURSE, one would have to LEARN and KNOW what 'That' is FIRST, to then be able to LEARN and USE 'That' properly AND correctly.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 4:44 pm What question is there to which the only answer could be, the soul?

What questions are there to which the only answer could be, ANY, other word?

How about, 'What could be A name for the VERY 'thing', which is invisible to the human eyes, but which DOES EXIST WITHING human bodies?'

Or, what about this question, 'What could be A name for BOTH the invisible 'thoughts' AND the invisible 'emotions', WITHIN A human body, which when combined together as one, and which are Truly UNIQUE and INDIVIDUAL to 'that body', but which when A body STOPS breathing and STOPS pumping blood 'that thing' does NOT change, renew, NOR occur ANY more, but which, in ways, are continually being transferred ONTO or INTO 'currently' existing bodies and ONTO or INTO 'newly' conceived and newly forming bodies?'

COULD the ONLY answer to these two latter questions BE, 'the soul'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:11 pm Don't dictate to me (someone with 26 years of experience of God) with your clueless waffle.

I am NOT sure that 'ANY number of years of experience' MEANS WITH CERTAINTY that one's views ARE Correct?

Also, if you want to CLAIM that God IS REAL and True, then EVERY one has HAD the EXACT SAME amount of years experience of God as 'they' have been existing for.

By the way, there have been thousands of years of experience of 'God' being a male gendered 'Thing'. So, does this then equate to 'God' being ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY a male gendered 'Thing'?

Also, what "dontaskme" is so desperately 'TRYING TO' EXPRESS, SAY, CLAIM, and EXPLAIN here is NOT 'clueless waffle'. EXACTLY like what 'you', "attofishpi" are so desperately 'TRYING TO' EXPRESS< SAY< CLAIM, and EXPLAIN here is NOT 'clueless waffle'.

'you' BOTH have just been MISLED, previously, and so 'you' BOTH have just NOT YET LEARNED, and so now do NOT have, the Right AND Correct words for what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which 'you' BOTH are so desperately 'TRYING TO' REFER TO, and to CONVEY A message OF and ABOUT here.

Which, by the way, IS the EXACT SAME 'Thing', ANYWAY.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 11:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 1:51 pmThere is ONLY One (True) 'Self'.

ALL of the, supposed, "OTHER" 'self's' are just 'you', human beings, referring to "YOUR" 'selves', INDIVIDUALLY.

HOW 'reincarnation' WORKS, EXACTLY, just NEEDS to be LOOKED AT from NEW or FRESH eyes, as some might say.

I don't know what you mean by "one true self".

I SAID, 'One True Self', as can be CLEARLY SEEN in what I CLEARLY WROTE, WITH CLEARLY PRINTED letters here. I NEVER SAID NOR WROTE; 'one true self'.

Thee 'Self' IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM the 'self'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 11:26 pm Explain more, in depth.

Just ANOTHER 'suggestion' here, BUT IF 'you' ASKED for 'things', instead of DEMANDED 'things' here, then 'you' might get FAR MORE WILLING 'participant/s', well 'you' WOULD from 'me' FOR SURE.

Anyway, 'you', adult human beings, place 'labels' on "your" 'selves' such as, 'I' am a;
"doctor"
"lawyer"
"pilot"
"driver"
"student"
"teacher"
"american"
"eqyptian"
"christian"
"muslim"
"hungry"
"thirsty"
"angry"
"happy"
"sad"
et cetera
et cetera
et cetera

BUT which ALL of are NOT REAL NOR True 'things', AT ALL. These 'things' are just 'labels' and NOT 'what' 'you', 'selves', Truly ARE.

So, absolutely NONE of 'them' are "your" True 'selves'.

The ONLY relatively 'true' 'thing' here is that ALL of 'you' are just NOTHING MORE than just 'human beings', ONLY. ALL of the SAME One species, with NOTHING ACTUALLY DIFFERENT other than the 'thoughts' AND BELIEFS WITHIN those human bodies, and, OF COURSE, the NATURALLY, INDIVIDUALLY DIFFERENT LOOKING colors, shapes, and forms of THOSE human bodies.

ALL of the above words, or those 'things', are just 'labels' that 'you', human beings, PLACE ON TO "your" OWN 'selves', and which by doing so is ONLY CREATING a False sense of 'self', through a False sense of SEPARATION. Or, as the one here known as "dontaskme" would SAY and CLAIM, 'they' are 'the dream of separation where there is none', 'an illusory concept', or just 'duality', (and correct me if I have this wrong in ANY way here "dontaskme").

This form of SEPARATING, through CONCEPTS ONLY, NEVER 'works' IN ACTUALIZATION. Although does ACTUALLY 'work' IN CONCEPTION, or IN CONCEPTUALIZATION. 'Conceptualization', through 'separation', however WAS a VERY NECESSARY PART of evolution. But WHY 'this' SEPARATION does NOT, ACTUALLY, 'work' IN Reality is because there is ONLY One ACTUAL 'Thing'. AND, 'this Thing' IS the One and ONLY True and REAL 'Self', or 'Thing', ALONE. Which goes by, and which is known by, MANY 'names', such as; 'Spirit', 'Age', 'God', 'Enlightenment', or just 'SAGE', as well as 'the Universe', 'the WHOLE', 'ALL-THERE-IS', or just 'Everything', and even just 'Nature', 'Life', and/or 'Existence', Itself, among other words like even 'I', thy 'Self', which is NOT to be MISTAKEN as 'i'.

Which, by the way, ALL OF IS thee One and ONLY One 'I', which WAS COMING-TO-KNOW thy 'Self', but which 'I' HAVE ALREADY COME-TO-Truly KNOW.

Now, if ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION is WANTED, or IS SOUGHT, then JUST ASK, and 'I' SHALL PROVIDE.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:11 pm Don't dictate to me (someone with 26 years of experience of God) with your clueless waffle.

And don't you dictate to me, someone with ageless experience with the concept of what is God, with your dog shit waffle.

We've all got God opinions Dogfish. .

Where in this thread have I dictated to anyone? Your opinions on God which you keep spamming attention grabbing pointless threads about are ridiculous, because clearly you have no experience interacting with God...you ARE clueless.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:27 pm Some people might look at, say, a tree, and conclude that such a thing could not have come about in any other way than by intentional design, and therefore further conclude the designer could only be God. What do we see that necessitates the existence of the soul in order to explain it?

I still don't understand what you are attempting to question, it appears circular. Since knowing God exists, I am not certain it bothered to design everything, does that help?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 4:01 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:11 pm Don't dictate to me (someone with 26 years of experience of God) with your clueless waffle.

And don't you dictate to me, someone with ageless experience with the concept of what is God, with your dog shit waffle.

We've all got God opinions Dogfish. .

Where in this thread have I dictated to anyone? Your opinions on God which you keep spamming attention grabbing pointless threads about are ridiculous, because clearly you have no experience interacting with God...you ARE clueless.

So, 'God', Itself, is CLAIMED to INTERACT, or at least be ABLE TO INTERACT, WITH absolutely EVERY 'thing'. BUT, for SOME reason God has CHOSEN to INTERACT with 'you', "attofishpi", MORE than WITH "others", correct?

If yes, then WHY IS THIS SO?

Are 'you' MORE or LESS 'important', 'special', 'unique', or 'NEEDING OF' than "others" ARE?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 4:06 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:27 pm Some people might look at, say, a tree, and conclude that such a thing could not have come about in any other way than by intentional design, and therefore further conclude the designer could only be God. What do we see that necessitates the existence of the soul in order to explain it?

I still don't understand what you are attempting to question, it appears circular.

"harbal" was attempting TO QUESTION 'those' WITH BELIEFS, which "harbal" does NOT have and/or BELIEVES otherwise.

This, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, in this forum, is what a LOT of adults here 'like to do'.

Those ones like to SEEK OUT 'those' WITH OPPOSING BELIEFS, and ATTEMPT to 'argue' or 'fight' AGAINST 'them'.

This was usually done, back in the days when this was being written, just out of BOREDOM, mostly, oh, and out of THE BELIEF that their views' ARE the TRUE and RIGHT ones, in Life, OF COURSE.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 4:06 am Since knowing God exists, I am not certain it bothered to design everything, does that help?

HOW do 'you' KNOW, WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY DOUBT AT ALL, that 'God' exists?

I would LOVE to HEAR 'your' ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF/S, so then I could ALSO USE 'them'.

WHY does it NATURALLY LOGICALLY FOLLOW ON FROM, (that is; if it does), by 'KNOWING God' that you then became NOT certain that 'that God' even bothered to design absolutely EVERY 'thing'?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 4:06 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:27 pm Some people might look at, say, a tree, and conclude that such a thing could not have come about in any other way than by intentional design, and therefore further conclude the designer could only be God. What do we see that necessitates the existence of the soul in order to explain it?

I still don't understand what you are attempting to question, it appears circular. Since knowing God exists, I am not certain it bothered to design everything, does that help?

I'm not sure even I know what I mean.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 12:53 amMANY 'names', such as; 'Spirit', 'Age', 'God', 'Enlightenment', or just 'SAGE', as well as 'the Universe', 'the WHOLE', 'ALL-THERE-IS', or just 'Everything', and even just 'Nature', 'Life', and/or 'Existence', Itself, among other words like even 'I', thy 'Self', which is NOT to be MISTAKEN as 'i'.

Those terms are abstractions though.

Using an abstraction to define "One True Self" does not help the term, nor does it provide clarity or meaning.

Yes people use titles to define themselves. Yes people have separate thoughts and beliefs. These too, define them. The human specie is a large generalization. 'Spirit' is an even larger generalization. When people define 'Self', it is individuated and necessarily different than others. People do not think and believe exactly alike, but there are massive similarities and sameness.

People use these abstractions selectively, sometimes wanting to define his/her self as different or the same as others.

It's based on intent.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 4:01 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 5:11 pm Don't dictate to me (someone with 26 years of experience of God) with your clueless waffle.

And don't you dictate to me, someone with ageless experience with the concept of what is God, with your dog shit waffle.

We've all got God opinions Dogfish. .

Where in this thread have I dictated to anyone? Your opinions on God which you keep spamming attention grabbing pointless threads about are ridiculous, because clearly you have no experience interacting with God...you ARE clueless.

The only dictating going on, is within the head of the one who is dictating to themself.
To accuse others of dictating is your own projection.

The voice in your head that you love to tell others about, the voice that you claim to talk to, the one you call God, or sage, or whatever, is actually you. You are literally only talking to yourself. There is no other voice in your head other than you. Then when you hear something like that put to you by another, you then accuse the other person of telling you what you do not like to hear, going off into a defence mode by accusing them of dictating to you something you deem as being contrary and counter-intuitive to that of your own beliefs.

It's ok for people to have different view points, ideas, beliefs and thoughts about things...people have their own ways of expressing themselves as to the nature of their being and what they believe about reality, we all like to do that..but why be rude to them? why not just say you don't agree, and leave it there. Why do you have to resort to the heavy mob tactic of calling people attention seeking clueless spammers?

You accuse others of dictating to you, but then play the innocent of all possible dictation to others, but have no problem accusing other people of it, while proudly washing your own hands of it. Typical arrogant cock.


You come to this forum talking about how you talk to yourself which you call God, and don't seem to have a problem with that. But if someone else talks about their experience as to what God means to them....you go off on one of your boring unpleasant hissy fits in defence like a spoilt little brat. Calling other people attention seeking spammers who are clueless. I mean wtf, who died and made you God?

You are such a rude person, just a plain, ordinary, very basic, mostly dull person, who is hardly worth replying to at all because you exude nothing of any value or significance in the way of a decent personality I could ever relate to in any desirable or intellectual fashion whatsoever.