Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Meaning Of "soul"?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on June 16, 2002 05:40:16 UTC

Hi Mike,

I have only read some of recent debate. I don't have a computer, it has become too expensive to participate much. However I need to hang around till I've written up a breakthrough I think I made on Stafford's paper.

Due to cost regretably I am not able to write here except occasionally.

You make some challenging arguments, is good to get challenged like this.

Let's see:
Quote:
"You make a false assumption...that you,
a man, perhaps a priest, have
dominion over what's inside a woman's body
when it has not even achieved brain wiring
to be aware it exists."

I am not a priest.
My sources of information on this issue are:

a. My personal recall of events from when I was just hours old, and events since then.

b. The understanding I have of the known science (biology etc.) of the unborn.

c. My understanding of the nature of humans from comparing and matching data from 'a.' above with the information contained in the English translation of the four Gospels in the Bible.

d. My analysis of the above and all other data I am aware of.


I did not say I have dominion over a woman's body. I hope a woman doesn't say that they have dominion over an unborn child's body.

If you were today to learn a new skill, say you learn how to run a submarine; there will be certain rewiring of your brain. It is known science that brains are very adaptable and flexible. People can have severe strokes and lose much brain function; only to re-organise their brains in due course to function again.

So the re-wiring issue is not relevant to establishing humanity of a person.

The claim that the unborn is not aware that it exists is demonstrably false. Recent medical understanding has shown that if anything infants are more aware that they exist; their senses are actually heightened by their undeveloped-ness.

The promoters of abortion collide with the actual science of the unborn; the science has undone their assumptions.

The science is moving further and further towards backing my own claims from eyewitness personal recall of infancy.

At the very least; no one should be regarded as qualified to deny the humanity of the unborn who has a blank in recall of their babyhood- so that leaves the baby with the benefit of any doubt.

Quote:

"Do you think other creatures with a brain
the size of a peanut should have full independent
legal rights which should be regulated by your
church even though the woman doesn't believe what you believe? This indeed is an old issue and
the United States was founded in part to
bring some boundaries between the your over-reaching arms and American women. "

Assumption is made that size matters. This is a spurious assumption. We are tiny compared to the galaxy. So what? Even Dr. Stafford's paper shows the significance of scale invariance!

The Church is not the State. Laws must be built on honesty, as all there is is whatever there is.
The failure to recall infancy is prima facie evidence that humans generally are not in a position to determine against the humanity of unborn infants. The science shows they must be regarded as individuals.

I said "1 year" regarding 1 year after being born. There is no evidence that any line should be drawn across at any age with "human" on one side and "not human" on the other.

A baby is not a parasite but is independent in a way that has similarities. Scientifically it is NOT part of a woman's body but is alien (not space-alien use of word).

Obviously there are differences in the practical make-up od "dependence" betwen 3 months and 1 yr (21 months after conception). The point is that generally speaking, "dependence" does not justify execution of the dependent for the convenience of someone else.

If you want formal scientific proof that the so-called foetus is a child; there is plenty of that around. Rather than write it all out I should find a web-site where it is listed.

There is no proof that it isn't a child. But you might define "child" to suit whatever purpose you want.
It is the exposure of logical inconsistency in the particular network of arbitrary definitions, that can defeat those who claim a lack of humanity in the unborn.

I could ask you to write out your network of definitions, to see how the logic stacks up.

The meanings of words involves appeal to a network of definitions (recall Stafford on the circularity of 'definition' in a dictionary).

Examples of usage of a word or concept (e.g. "soul") are central to analysing its meaning. I agree that my definition-by-example is but a partial view of the concept, to which more may be added.

Ideally I would give a historical overview of the occurence of the word "soul"; its equivalent in other languages; its anthropological contexts; its usages and typical contexts.

The examples I gave were deliberately of a more scientific nature: that is I described simple experiments (like contemplating jumping off a fence, or over a high-jump) that allow one to directly investigate "soul".

I was not trying to shame anyone re: the unborn. I was just trying to shed light on the issue.
Hopefully everbody knows that nobody is to "cast the first stone" on anybody else, as presumably we are all sinners one way or another.

I can attempt a more formal definition of "soul":

The immortal presence of a human, transcending time and space, characterised by ultimate personal responsibility and liberty, that which can play with the Creator of all things, the essence of one's existence; that is also most alive when synchronised with body and spirit.

But how do you make sense of that? Or of anything? Circularity of words in a dictionary leans on circularity of pattern-matches?

The best demonstration of "soul" is for me to reveal my soul, e.g. via telepathy. On 'seeing' my soul no words would be needed by you!

Perhaps my best argument is:

Other subjects (geology, astronomy, race-relations, weather, physics, etc.) you investigate the past to understand the present.

So apply this to understanding "what is a human?" or what is a "soul"; and you have the answer: investigate the past.

But.... look at this.... a gap in the record! Why do humans have a blank in recall before say 4 years old? Scandal- who knows how much one might have compromised oneself to fit into a fallen race!

So; to find out what "soul" is: recall! Recall the hidden past of one's soul!

How do you do that? Well, I published it here once, concisely, I could retrieve that data.

Good to be challenged. Do you have any experience in telepathy?

-dolphin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins