There are several theories of what could have happened before the Big Bang. One such theory is that before this universe another was created and before that one another one existed giving the idea that there could be an inifinity of universes one coming after the other, one dying and one being created. I believe that there is God but lately I am having some doubts about this theory because if the universes go back in time for infinity then they may have not been created initially by someone. I know that even if they are infinite in time life must have been created by God because life cannot be created out of nothing but the above theory transfixes me.

Another idea is that the idea that the total energy of the universe is O. There is another theory that the universe originated from a singularity but someone must have caused the universe to form from this singularity despite total energy being zero?

Without the universe that expanded from the Big Bang, there is no such thing as time, at least as we know it. This is one of the reasons, even supposing that these previous universes go back ad infinitum, nothing precludes a God who created it/them because such a being would be outside the framework of time as defined by the existence of matter. Hence, God is far beyond what we can comprehend or measure or even conceive based on our time-bound experience, and not subject to any of the "laws" of the physical universe, whether this one or any previous (or subsequent) one. That's why the question "Where did God come from?" is meaningless, because we have no way of exploring or even defining anything that is outside of time.

I hope this makes sense and I hope it helps.

Sorry, in Christianity, there is no "big bang" that is science.

With God, yes life was created out of nothing, thus why God is God. Nothing was there, God just though his spoken world ( or to some the Word was Jesus) created all things. It was the all life except man was created just by saying the word and it came to life, Man was created by the breath or spirit of God.

No science, if you try to justify God, or explain God and creation using science you will always doubt, since it is beyond man.

Did God create other worlds or even planets with life, perhaps, he has not told us that. No reason to doubt he may not have. Was there a universe before ours, perhaps and they were destroyed because of their evil and God started fresh.

For God, where space, and even time have no meaning, anything is possible. Man is limited since he wants to explain it within his understanding

Hi Roddilla,

I think you are alluding to the universe coming from nothing theory as articulated by people such as Lawrence Krauss and others. More specifically the problem of design or coincidence implications for the theory.

Basically, the idea is centred on the fact we live in a universe that is dominated by dark energy. The ratio of dark energy to dark matter is 70/30. Krauss says this is significant because it it were any different, say 60/40 then there would have been no star formation, no formation of galaxies. The obvious outcomes is that we would not be here to talk about living in a 60/40 universe.

It therefore seems obvious that we live in a fine tuned universe. Fine tuned
Universes don't happen by accident. Someone must have done the fine tuning to allow for us to be here.

Without going into a lot of detail Krauss rejects this idea on the basis that our universe has gone through all different stages of development and the energy of empty space depends on something know as the cosmological constant. So the fine tuning actually depends on a time when the mass of the universe is in tune with the cosmological constant.

In other words,as the density of empty space expands we are fortunate enough to be in a time when the total amount of energy of empty space is zero. This ideal situation has allowed for the formation of stars and galaxies and eventually the formation of us.

Krauss says that things seem fine tuned because it just so happens we live in a time that gave the universe the opportunity to give rise to people. There are other universes were no observations are made about the uniqueness of that universe because the total amount of energy in that universe is not yet zero.

Fr_Chuck, I have to disagree. God created, yes. But there's no reason why we can study and posit something like the Big Bang as the mechanism. I agree that science can't even begin to explain God, but it can definitely tell us some things about the wonders of his handiwork.

Rodilla, if you are indeed talking about Krauss's work, I read it and found it untenable. Basically, he can only get where he does by completely redefining the word "nothing." By that approach, I could say my dog is a duck simply by redefining either "dog" or "duck." It doesn't work.

May I ask another thing? So far science has not come up with the idea of how the very first livi

May I ask another thing? So far science has not come up with the idea of how the very first cell was created no? So life as the Bible itself says must have been created directly by God

And another one to conclude: we say in physics
That in universe entropy is always increases which
Is what happened between the singularity and the
Universe. What I want to know is if this implies
That the singularity converted to the universe by
The Big Bang Reaction went off by itself because it is driven by entropy? Still the question would be who caused the formation of singularity

At some point in the past, it was so hot that individual atoms would have been blasted apart by the radiation in the Universe. This means that — as we come forward in time past that point — there was a point when all the nuclei and electrons in the Universe became stable, neutral atoms for the first time.
What Happened Before The Big Bang? – Starts With A Bang (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/15/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/)

Rodilla, if you are indeed talking about Krauss's work, I read it and found it untenable. Basically, he can only get where he does by completely redefining the word "nothing." By that approach, I could say my dog is a duck simply by redefining either "dog" or "duck." It doesn't work.

By nothing Krauss means empty space.

One can get an appreciation of the enormity of the problems faced by physicists in understanding,'empty space'. Google: Vacuum Energy and you will see what I mean.

Tut

And another one to conclude: we say in physics
that in universe entropy is always increases which
is what happened between the singularity and the
universe. What I want to know is if this implies
that the singularity converted to the universe by
the Big Bang Reaction went off by itself because it is driven by entropy? Still the question would be who caused the formation of singularity



We could probably say that the universe in its very early stages was very uniform. It had very low entropy. I guess the short answer( if there is a short answer) is that the universe later exhibited disorganization and reorganization.

Your next question might be,"To what extend does a universe with zero energy follow the laws of thermodynamics?"


These question might be better discussed in the physics forum. It also leaves the possibility that people with better knowledge than myself can help.


Tut

What I mean is that by this thoery we cannot state that God caused the change from singularity to universe?

Then there is still the idea of who created the singularity. But can this singularity have been there for ever and not created by God? Or no because then it means that still something must have caused it to change after so much time being a singularity.

What I mean is that by this thoery we cannot state that God caused the change from singularity to universe?

Then there is still the idea of who created the singularity. But can this singularity have been there for ever and not created by God? Or no because then it means that still something must have caused it to change after so much time being a singularity.


What you are asking here is a metaphysical question. When you ask a religious question you are asking a metaphysical question. That's fair enough because this is a religious forum.

But yes you are right, you cannot say that God cause the universe FROM A SCIENTIFIC point of view. On the other hand, from a religious point of view you CAN SAY that God caused the Universe.

However, science doesn't address metaphysical questions. So when faced with the problem problem of who or what caused the Big Bang science ignores the 'who' part and addressed the 'what' part. The 'what' bit is actually a scientific explanation. In other words, it gives us a casual explanation for the origins of the universe.

If you read Dave's response you will see why the two explanations are incompatible. It isn't that science is deliberately ignoring the issue, it is just that metaphysics is not part of the scientific method. So you cannot play one off against the other.

Does this help?

Tut

But do you agree with my statement that only God could have created singularity and singularity could have never been for ever?

Firstly thanks a lot for your help? SO what you are saying that entropy increased and then decreased and then increased? In what way however?

Last thing I have know accepted the fact that if there was a singularity it should have been created by God; the universe is too exact to be created on its own; singularity could have never existed for ever because then the universe should have been created longer in infinity, right?

One last thing if before our universe there were others and so on for infinity what does this show about God? Could they have existed for ever without the introduction of God?

But do you agree with my statement that only God could have created singularity and singularity could have never been for ever?


I agree that it is logically possible. However, I am not sure what you are asking in the second part of your question.

Firstly thanks a lot for your help? SO what you are saying that entropy increased and then decreased and then increased? In what way however?


Basically I think we could say that the universe started in a highly organized state. In other words, very low entropy. As far as matter and an expanding universe is concerned we can imagine that entropy would naturally increase over time. It would seem rather strange to say that the universe started in a highly organized state and became even more highly organized. In other words, star and galaxy formation seems to bed the result of this.

The second law of thermodynamics seems to have helped in this regard. As disorganization tended to cause matter to clump this gave gravity the opportunity to reorganize matter into stars and galaxies.

I think I am right in saying that the role of gravity in the formation of the universe is still not completely understood. For example, it is difficult to explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces.

Tut

Last thing I have know accepted the fact that if there was a singularity it should have been created by God; the universe is too exact to be created on its own; singularity could have never existed for ever because then the universe should have been created longer in infinity, right?

Yes, it is possible that a singularity could have been created by God. However, singularities are something that was only begrudgingly accept by physicists. The problem is that the mathematics associated with singularities gives rise to too many infinities. Many physicists do not like infinities as outcomes because it suggests a lack of understanding.

At the moment there are a number of competing theories that do away with the singularity. In other words, they give us an explanation for the Big Bang without the need for a singularity.




One last thing if before our universe there were others and so on for infinity what does this show about God? Could they have existed for ever without the introduction of God?

I think you are asking about a cycle of universes, but I am not sure. Are you saying that the universe will eventually contract into a Big Crunch and create another singularity? From this singularity another Big Bang will occur and so the process of expansion and contraction goes on forever? I don't see this process as needing a creator because the universe in this model generates and regenerates itself.

The idea of a Big Bang Big, Big Crunch universe is not supported by the latest evidence. What is actually is happening is that the universe is accelerating away from us ( and every other point) at an ever increasing rate. Dark energy is the dominate force and if it continues the universe will suffer a heat death. Eventually we will think we are the only galaxy in the universe. Every other galaxy will be moving away from us faster than the speed of light.


Tut

Sorry double post

I like hearing theories of the universe and beyond and before, for the sheer enormity of it all, for the fact that there is so much still unexplained and mysterious and conflicting, and for getting away from the trials and tribulations of petty daily life.
What I wonder (as someone who doesn't believe in God) what people here who do believe and who also study and appreciate science think God consists of, is made of?

I like hearing theories of the universe and beyond and before, for the sheer enormity of it all, for the fact that there is so much still unexplained and mysterious and conflicting, and for getting away from the trials and tribulations of petty daily life.
What I wonder (as someone who doesn't believe in God) what people here who do believe and who also study and appreciate science think God consists of, is made of?

Science is merely the understanding of how things work. The problem with humanity trying to understand God and even to a lesser extent the spiritual world, is that our idea of the scientific method simply does not apply because that plane of existence is OUTSIDE of our physical realm. Things like what God consists of is something I believe we really have no possible way to answer.

Of course, it's always fun to speculate!

If God is not matter, anti-matter, dark matter, energy, SOMETHING, then doesn't anyone in the physics world wonder if he interferes with the laws of physics? I know Einstein believed in God. I've watched Douglas Hofstadter talk about his wife's consciousness 'out there' after her death, and others talk about an afterlife of 'information' from our being.

Oh yes, I'm in no way saying it's not interesting. And I love thinking about the subject... but in the end I think it is something that is beyond us. We don't even really know what spirit is. But we know that God is spirit and essentially so are human beings. What is that? It's not matter, that's out bodies. It really hurts my brain to think about. Yet, as a spirit, we are still a fully functioning being. In fact, the Bible even describes what we will become as a glorified body... so there is still as aspect of "matter" than may be involved. Who knows... I'm sure it'll be great no matter what it is.

Science is merely the understanding of how things work. The problem with humanity trying to understand God and even to a lesser extent the spiritual world, is that our idea of the scientific method simply does not apply because that plane of existence is OUTSIDE of our physical realm. Things like what God consists of is something I believe we really have no possible way to answer.

Of course, it's always fun to speculate!

So how do we come that we believe if we cannot find proves of his existence since we cannot explain anything about him?

Oh yes, I'm in no way saying it's not interesting. And I love thinking about the subject...but in the end I think it is something that is beyond us. We don't even really know what spirit is. But we know that God is spirit and essentially so are human beings. What is that? It's not matter, that's out bodies. It really hurts my brain to think about. Yet, as a spirit, we are still a fully functioning being. Infact, the Bible even describes what we will become as a glorified body...so there is still as aspect of "matter" than may be involved. Who knows...I'm sure it'll be great no matter what it is.

But what proof do we have that we have a spirit and so is god - after all to belief requires some reasoning as well

A basic tenet of believing in God and a spirit is faith. Faith isn't based on reasoning; it is belief without proof.
That's why I ask the physicists if they can explain what God is 'made of' and if they don't want to try, how they manage to separate yet reconcile faith and reason.

I simply work on the only theory that comes from revelation and not from science. God created. Science has offered us no explanations, just facts about details which may, or may not, be the correct version of events. The reality is we haven't been told and we don't need to know, at least, not at this stage of our development. What have we gained by knowing that the universe might be 13 billion or some year old, nothing but questions and the certain knowledge that nothing we have observed exists today. It is a wonder and nothing more than that. The latest theory is that four billion years ago about all the matter that ever existed existed then, well whoop=de=doo, another useless fact or theory, according to what you believe. Black holes are now having to justify themselves, the arrogance of science.

What I know is this, God exists, how or why I don't know

A basic tenet of believing in God and a spirit is faith. Faith isn't based on reasoning; it is belief without proof.
That's why I ask the physicists if they can explain what God is 'made of' and if they don't want to try, how they manage to separate yet reconcile faith and reason.


Hi Joy,

That's a difficult question to answer in a few posts. Perhaps, for a start we could change a few definitions you have used. This may help.

Actually, our Western society has a strong history of explaining faith with reason. History of theology and philosophy has a strong tradition of demonstrating the existence of God through reasoning. This is quite different to scientific reasoning and I will try to demonstrate why as we go on.

Reasoning in a theological way can actually mean a lot of things, but generally speaking it is said that the existence of God can be demonstrated through logic.

To give you a very poor example, that I have just made up (only for the purposes of this demonstration) of a logical argument for the existence of God:

"It is inconceivable to imagine a superior being that cannot, not exist"

The important point is that my argument for God's existence is based solely on the terms of the sentence I have used. In other words, anyone can see the truth of this sentence, even if they never move out of their armchair. All they have to do is read the sentence. Another way of saying this is that it is self-evidently true.

The reasoning used by science is also self-evidently true. Mathematics, for example can be said to be self- evidently true. Naturally, mathematics is an important part of science. We can also see the truth of mathematical propositions by sitting in our armchairs.

The important point is that we can never do science sitting in our armchairs. Science can only be achieved by getting out of our armchairs and conducting some observations.

In the end we can never test by way of observation the truth of my statement:

"It is inconceivable to imagine a superior being that cannot not exist"

No telescope, or any other scientific instrument can ever hope to reveal a superior being that would prove my sentence true BY WAY OF OBSERVATION.

Science makes the observations using the instruments and then formulates a theory to explain what they are actually seeing. For the purposes of this argument we might say that the radiation left over from the Big Bang tends to be fainter the further we go out into space, but stronger the closer we are to earth. This is not actually true, but let us imagine it is true.

This observation might suggest that at an earlier time in history there was a strong concentration of radiation in the one spot and it seems as though there was some type of explosion that resulted in a spreading out of this radiation.

This seems like a reasonable theory based on the observations but we need to back it up with some 'reasoning' The reasoning in this case would be the mathematics that might explain some of the observations.

In light of what I have just said I will try and answer your question that stated:

"That's why I asked the physicist if they can explain what God is 'made of' and if they don't want to try, how they manage to reconcile faith and reason"

A physicist would be happy to acknowledge the existence of God if he/she could actually make the observations. If such observations were possible then he/she could use mathematics ( a type of reasoning) combined with the observations to determine what type of substance God is made of. Obviously this is not possible.

So its not a case of not wanting to try, but more of a case of there is nothing to observe in terms of physical things. On this basis it is also the case that there is no conflict between faith and reason on the part of the scientist because reasoning in science ( for the purpose of this exercise) is a different type of reasoning.


I don't know if this is much of an explanation, but it is the best I can come up with.

Tut

So the idea of cycling universes is not accepted ?

Not at the moment.

Brian Schmidt won the Nobel Prize in physics in 2011 for his discovery that the universe is actually accelerating at an ever increasing rate. This is probably because of the dominance of dark energy over dark matter.

If the acceleration rate continues and there is no reversal then we will end up being one galaxy in an empty universe. More correctly, this will be the way it seems to us- as it will to every other inhabitant of other galaxies ( assuming there is intelligent life in other galaxies). Everyone on every other galaxy will believe they are the only galaxy in the entire universe because no light from anywhere else will reach them or us.

It seems we are destined to eventually live in a cold dark universe that will keep on expanding.

Tut

But what proof do we have that we have a spirit and so is god - after all to belief requires some reasoning as well

One possible starting point would be to try and logically prove that spirit, consciousness is a non-physical substance. It has been tried many time in the past in one way or another without much success. This hasn't stopped some fairly good recent attempts to formulate arguments in favour of dualism. Physical body and a non-physical mind.

Tut

Why is there no theory that our big bang created just one universe out of many that have their own time agenda in an infinite space?

Still if many universes were created it still counts the theory that someone must have created and caused BIg Band

One possible starting point would be to try and logically prove that spirit, consciousness is a non-physical substance. It has been tried many time in the past in one way or another without much success. This hasn't stopped some fairly good recent attempts to formulate arguments in favour of dualism. Physical body and a non-physical mind.

Tut

What I want to know is if someone who doesn't believe asks me how can you believe in the spirit?
In order to do this I make use of the argument that if a wrong spirit may take control of a person (a person becomes possessed) then a person may have a good spirit as well. We have proves that persons become possessed.

Proof of someone being possessed? I'm outahere.

Why is there no theory that our big bang created just one universe out of many that have their own time agenda in an infinite space?


still many universes were created it still counts the theory that someone must have created and caused BIG Bang

I think you both are alluding to some type of first cause argument. In other words, if we trace a cause back far enough we will eventually get to the Big Bang. The next logical step in the causal chain is to ask who caused the Big Bang.

Sometimes this better know as a cosmological argument. As I said earlier, this is a logical, or metaphysical argument. So strictly speaking it is not a theory, but an argument for an uncaused cause.

Many people see this as a very good argument, but as far as science is concerned it is still a metaphysical argument because we have no way of tracing causes backward to the beginning. Science doesn't acknowledge metaphysical arguments.


Tut

Tut

You want to prove God by observation, this is not hard to do. There are many inexplicable events, God in action. The greater question is why does he bother?

Einstein once said "I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the details".

Just as we cannot see the wood for the trees, so we are unable to see God for the details, we are busy trying to explain the details

What I want to know is if someone who doesn't believe asks me how can you believe in the spirit?
In order to do this I make use of the argument that if a wrong spirit may take control of a person (a person becomes possessed) then a person may have a good spirit as well. We have proves that persons become possessed.

A psychologist would probably say that this person is suffering from some type of psychosis.

If you want to try and convince someone that humans have something 'extra' that is of a non-physical nature then ask them if it is possible for them to create a computer programme that builds in consciousness. In other words, can anyone create for me a computer that is conscious in the same way humans are conscious?

However, keep in mind is very difficult to prove the existence of something that is non-physical. Not impossible but difficult.

Tut

I didn't ask a metaphysical question. It was plain and simple physics.

May I ask another thing? So far science has not come up with the idea of how the very first cell was created no? So life as the Bible itself says must have been created directly by God

Actually science has said how it came about. Its just that the numbers are mind boggling. But in the beginning it is believed the soup was from amino acids and from there and some electricity the building blocks were formed. That is the theory in a bottle.

I didn't ask a metaphysical question. It was plain and simple physics.


Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Could you put it to me again please?

Tut

SO califdadof3 you are saying that life didn't require God?

Actually science has said how it came about. Its just that the numbers are mind boggling. But in the begining it is believed the soup was from amino acids and from there and some electricity the building blocks were formed. That is the theory in a bottle.

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

ANother question which I have is how come that a dog for example can be cloned? DOesn't this shed light on whether the spirit exists or not because if it does how does it transfer from the original dog to the new dog?

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life
Who is Thomas F. Heinze?

Who is Thomas F. Heinze?

I don't know; what does that have to do with my question?

I don't know; what does that have to do with my question?
He was the link you provided. YOU brought him up, not me.

He was the link you provided. YOU brought him up, not me.

WHat difference does it make who it is? I brought him up to see whether you agree or not with what he says which is very credible and scientifcally proven and if you do not agree on what basis

WHat difference does it make who it is? I brought him up to see whether you agree or not with what he says which is very credible and scientifcally proven and if you do not agree on what basis
He is a biblical literalist and believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, in other words, a Christian fundamentalist. And no, his "evidence" is not scientific.

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

You asked a question as to how science explains it. I had answered it. Then you try to inject words into what I have said. If you want to have a pure discussion then you will need to accept what is said and work with it. Not put other words in its place. I never said nor intimated that god didn't create. I just explained what science said about its own theory.

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

All that website does is spout a opinion. That is fine as he owns that opinion. But he is in denial of statistical truth. If there is a 1 in a billion chance something can happen and that process is repeated over a billion times then its likely that the 1 in a billion outcome may happen at least 1 time. The author of that site seems to ignore that fact.

All that website does is spout a personal opinion. That is fine as he owns that opinion. But he is in denial of statistical truth. If there is a 1 in a billion chance something can happen and that process is repeated over a billion times then its likely that the 1 in a billion outcome may happen atleast 1 time. The author of that site seems to ignore that fact.

I by no means wanted to put words in your mouth and if I did sorry! So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?
There is no proof. That's what faith is all about.

I by no means wanted to put words in your mouth and if I did sorry! So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

The proof is in the hearts and minds of the believers. That is enough to make it so. Some answers are beyond us and can not be explained.

ANother question which I have is how come that a dog for example can be cloned? DOesn't this shed light on whether the spirit exists or not because if it does how does it transfer from the original dog to the new dog?

Hi again Roddilla,

This is somewhat of a different type of question and the answer probably has something to do with 'dualism'.

Instead of dogs let us imagine that we are talking about two identical humans.

A materialist ( a scientist who only studies physical things like brains) would argue that two people who are physically identical would have physically identical brains. Therefore,they exhibit the potential to have exactly the same thoughts. So there is no need to transfer consciousness( spirit) because consciousness is just a function of the workings of the brain. On this basis there is no such mysterious entity as spirit or consciousness.So there is no requirement to transfer 'spirit' because if you have a brain then you already have this 'spirit'. However, materialists would deny this is in any way a spirit. They say, we are fooled into thinking there is a spirit but it is just the working of the brain that gives us this illusion.

Opposed to this idea are the substance dualists who want to claim there are two types of things in this world physical; things and spiritual things. The important point from their point of view is that the spiritual things are non-physical. So such things as mind, consciousness or spirituality is actually substance that we cannot detect because it is not physical.

Basically we can say from the substance dualist point of view that physical things occupy the physical world and non- physical spirituality occupies a different world that is not physical. Now despite these two different substances occupying different worlds they do interact.

So from a substance dualist point of view we can argue that two identical humans can have different spirits because spirits are not dependent on any particular physical form. It is also possible to argue from a substance dualist point of view that we have a unique soul.

Roughly speaking the last dualist on the list is the property dualist. Like the materialist the property dualist argues that there are no souls or spirits in a disembodied state that interacts with our physical make up. The important difference from the property dualists point of view is that 'spiritual stuff' cannot exist without a physical brain. Basically, we can say that once the brain dies there is no soul or spirit to carry on a separate existence. It dies with the brain.

As far as identical individuals are concerned from this perspective we can say identical individuals can have thoughts independent on the physical nature of their brains. In other words, despite their brains being exact copies it is possible for them to have different thoughts.

Tut

Hi again Roddilla,

This is somewhat of a different type of question and the answer probably has something to do with 'dualism'.

Instead of dogs let us imagine that we are talking about two identical humans.

A materialist ( a scientist who only studies physical things like brains) would argue that two people who are physically identical would have physically identical brains. Therefore,they exhibit the potential to have exactly the same thoughts. So there is no need to transfer consciousness( spirit) because consciousness is just a function of the workings of the brain. On this basis there is no such mysterious entity as spirit or consciousness.So there is no requirement to transfer 'spirit' because if you have a brain then you already have this 'spirit'. However, materialists would deny this is in any way a spirit. They say, we are fooled into thinking there is a spirit but it is just the working of the brain that gives us this illusion.

Opposed to this idea are the substance dualists who want to claim there are two types of things in this world physical; things and spiritual things. The important point from their point of view is that the spiritual things are non-physical. So such things as mind, consciousness or spirituality is actually substance that we cannot detect because it is not physical.

Basically we can say from the substance dualist point of view that physical things occupy the physical world and non- physical spirituality occupies a different world that is not physical. Now despite these two different substances occupying different worlds they do interact.

So from a substance dualist point of view we can argue that two identical humans can have different spirits because spirits are not dependent on any particular physical form. It is also possible to argue from a substance dualist point of view that we have a unique soul.

Roughly speaking the last dualist on the list is the property dualist. Like the materialist the property dualist argues that there are no souls or spirits in a disembodied state that interacts with our physical make up. The important difference from the property dualists point of view is that 'spiritual stuff' cannot exist without a physical brain. Basically, we can say that once the brain dies there is no soul or spirit to carry on a separate existence. It dies with the brain.

As far as identical individuals are concerned from this perspective we can say identical individuals can have thoughts independent on the physical nature of their brains. In other words, despite their brains being exact copies it is possible for them to have different thoughts.

Tut

Firstly thanks for your help! You mentioned 3 theories but how do we know that our theory is correct? What is there to prove if for example someone who doesn't believe in the spirit comes along and asks you: what makes you sure that there is a spirit?

Firstly thanks for your help! You mentioned 3 theories but how do we know that our theory is correct? What is there to prove if for example someone who doesn't believe in the spirit comes along and asks you: what makes you sure that there is a spirit?


Well, again it is very difficult to prove the existence of non-physical things. My favourite way of trying to do this is through what has becomes know as knowledge arguments. Knowledge arguments outline a case against physical things being the only type of that that can possibly exist.

As you can appreciate most of my explanations so far have been on the rough side, but I think we have to start somewhere in trying to understand the issues.

Knowledge arguments are a little bit difficult and probably require a pretty good understanding of philosophy. However, if you want to Google: Knowledge Argument. Looking at the wikipedia article you will probably find that it is one of the best at an explanation.


Tut

The is a very basic falacy in what is stated here and that is mind or consciousness is the same as spirit. The human being is a tripartied beast.; body, mind and spirit. Difficult to prove I know but if I can hear my spirit, I do so with my mind

the is a very basic falacy in what is stated here and that is mind or consciousness is the same as spirit. The human being is a tripartied beast.; body, mind and spirit. difficult to prove I know but if I can hear my spirit, I do so with my mind


A lot depends on whether you are talking science, psychology, sociology, religion or philosophy. Each discipline presents us with a different view of mind, brain, consciousness, spirit and soul. Some disciplines use these terms interchangeably while other assign specific meanings to certain terms.

For example, Sociology is interested as to why people actually believe in spirits, souls and religion. It doesn't actually investigate whether such things actually exist.

Science on the other hand doesn't actually accept the soul or spirit as some type of abstract entity or substance independent of the physical. From a scientific point of view we can say that, "to know how the brain works is to know how the soul works ". In the end science is only investigates physical things in order to turn up physical explanations.

I would assume that different religions tend to have different explanations as to what the soul or spirit actually is. The essence of such explanations is probably centred on the claim that the soul/spirit continues on an existence even after death.

Philosophy provides an interesting history in this area. The idea of soul and spirit was the basis for much philosophical discussions for a thousand years or more. Recent development in the field has largely done away with the idea of soul/spirit in favour of brain and mind identity theories. Soul/spirit has been largely replaced with theories of consciousness.


Tut

Well Tut I don't seek to explain soul and spirit by investigating theories. I understand what spirit is by experience

A soul or spirit can not be explained by any theory, it can not be investigated, once you believe you can, you have lost the concept and faith and belief. There are things that humans can not understand and can not prove. This is one.

Most faiths and religions have very same concept of soul or spirit. From Buddhist to Christians and the dozens between, it is the true person or self that lives past death. Where it goes or how it does it, may vary but the soul is who we are, the body is merely the shell it is in at this time.

I am still in doubt sorry. How can an Atheist start to believe in the soul? There must be some sort of reasoning if not proof.

I am still in doubt sorry. How can an Atheist start to believe in the soul? There must be some sort of reasoning if not proof.

What proof would you like to see? It seems on many subjects short of an actual capture nothing is proof enough.

A soul or spirit can not be explained by any theory, it can not be investigated, once you believe you can, you have lost the concept and faith and belief. There are things that humans can not understand and can not prove. This is one.

Most faiths and religions have very same concept of soul or spirit. From Buddhist to Christians and the dozens between, it is the true person or self that lives past death. Where it goes or how it does it, may vary but the soul is who we are, the body is merely the shell it is in at this time.

Hi Fr. Chuck,

I learn towards that opinion, but I can not prove it.


Tut

I am still in doubt sorry. How can an Atheist start to believe in the soul? There must be some sort of reasoning if not proof.

Hi again Roddilla,

I guess the answer to the first part of your question is really centred on individual atheist. In other words, it depends on the atheist. However, I am reasonably confident in saying that most atheists only accept proof of physical things. By proof of physical things, I mean scientific proof.

As far as the second part of your question is concerned I would say there have been many 'proofs' over the centuries for the existence of a soul/spirit. Because we cannot see, touch, smell, or hear a soul then we are restricted largely to metaphysical arguments for the existence of such things.

An atheist may well ask the question in a scientific sense, "Can you let me feel, see, touch or hear a soul?" If we cannot accommodate him/her then, from their point of view, there is no proof a soul exists.

This is the legacy of science and some people believe this is the be all and end all of the argument. I think in scientific terms these are strong arguments that are difficult to overcome.

Kant was probably right when he claimed that the problem with metaphysical arguments is that it is very easy to construct a metaphysical argument that argues for the exact opposite ( in this particular instance-there is no soul). We have no way of determining the valid argument. This is because we cannot test the validity of such arguments in terms of seeing, hearing touching or smelling.

*Please note that Kant did not actually say, there is no soul. I just used that as an example of the reasoning process.

When it comes to science we find it relatively easy to prove the existence of
Physical things. When it comes to the non-physical soul it is easy to prove its existence to ourselves. The problem is proving it to the satisfaction of everyone.

Tut

Tut
The real question is are you in the right place at the right time or are you going to stand on the street corner and watch the bus go by. That's how I see athiests, standing on the street corner saying did you see the destination of that bus.

Spiritual things can be manifested, physically felt, but you have to have faith and really you have to be seeking. An attitude of it doesn't exist because I can't see it will get you nowhere, after all who are you?