I read something I found peculiar

[Ace Otana]

The purpose of the image is to relate our understanding of something tangible to humans to the divine which is God. Grasping something real to us helps us to grasp an idea such as God. People have rationally concluded this about the nature of God.

Your limitation of the word 'image' isn't rational. People can easily understand this concept. Nothing about God is strange or meaningless.. it all follows exact logic. You can't apply a set of rules from one thing to another where they don't apply. You can bite and taste an apple, but if I pass on some information to you you can neither taste it nor bite it.. does that make it no information, or just not an apple?

The purpose of the image is to relate our understanding of something tangible to humans to the divine which is God.

Can you bring forward further info so that I can make a full picture of this? I like to understand and see all there is before launching an attack. I'm always better prepared that way.

Grasping something real to us helps us to grasp an idea such as God

More info please. Examples and such.

People have rationally concluded this about the nature of God.

Do tell.

Your limitation of the word 'image' isn't rational.

It's never wise to judge someone's understanding.

Nothing about God is strange or meaningless.. it all follows exact logic.

I can name one, being all perfect means you are everything. You cannot improve or be more than what you are and so any thought or action would be meaningless and so gods existence is therefor meaningless. Also we are far from perfect but god is perfect and he created us right? Well why would something so perfect in everyway result to creating something so inperfect? What is the meaning of it?

[fr0d0]

The purpose of the image is to relate our understanding of something tangible to humans to the divine which is God.

Can you bring forward further info so that I can make a full picture of this? I like to understand and see all there is before launching an attack. I'm always better prepared that way.

Ok

Humans have discerned this thing about us we call soul, for example. This essence we also attribute to God.

Grasping something real to us helps us to grasp an idea such as God

More info please. Examples and such.

LOL

Calling the soul 'real' of course is debatable. Seems like people through the ages felt the need to describe it, so in that company, I put it forward as 'real'.

People have rationally concluded this about the nature of God.

Do tell.

Ancient goat herders formulated it and it eventually found its way onto little bits of paper that got stuck into a big book.

Your limitation of the word 'image' isn't rational.

It's never wise to judge someone's understanding.

Noted

Nothing about God is strange or meaningless.. it all follows exact logic.

I can name one, being all perfect means you are everything. You cannot improve or be more than what you are and so any thought or action would be meaningless and so gods existence is therefor meaningless.

In linear time there would always be new problems to apply your perfect wisdom to. God not needing to better himself doesn't render him meaningless, just complete.

Also we are far from perfect but god is perfect and he created us right? Well why would something so perfect in everyway result to creating something so inperfect? What is the meaning of it?

The logic goes: perfection produces something less perfect. Hence everything proceeded from God who is more than the sum of everything.

[Ace Otana]

--

Humans have discerned this thing about us we call soul, for example. This essence we also attribute to God.

The problem with souls and gods is that they are only baseless claims. Highly improbable.

Calling the soul 'real' of course is debatable. Seems like people through the ages felt the need to describe it, so in that company, I put it forward as 'real'.

Souls and gods is a belief that has been around for many thousands of years. Descriptions of souls and gods differ through many religions.

God not needing to better himself doesn't render him meaningless, just complete.

I don't see it as meaningful. The problem with being complete is that there is no more gain, no more paths to take. I'd hate the idea of being "complete". What would be the point of existing?

[fr0d0]

---

Soul

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
4. A human: "the homes of some nine hundred souls" (Garrison Keillor).
5. The central or integral part; the vital core: "It saddens me that this network ... may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news" (Marvin Kalb).
6. A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
7. A person's emotional or moral nature: "An actor is ... often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not" (Alec Guinness).
8. A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music.
9. A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an artist.
10. Soul music.

---

Yet if I used the word 'soul' I'm sure you'd have a good idea what I meant in many contexts. It isn't something you'd seek to prove, just like 'God'. Desciptions may well vary greatly across civilizations, but the fact that it's (the soul is) there in all of them is a strong indicator that something is tangibly present. God is a formulated answer related to this condition and explains and satisfies this side of our nature. It answers the 'why' questions perfectly (and also leaves the 'how' questions completely to science).

[Ace Otana]

Yet if I used the word 'soul' I'm sure you'd have a good idea what I meant in many contexts.

I'm assuming you meant spiritual soul. The supernatural sense.

It isn't something you'd seek to prove, just like 'God'

If it's the spiritual, supernatuaral sense then yes it is something to try and prove. It is a claim and is unproven. Evidence is required.

Desciptions may well vary greatly across civilizations, but the fact that it's (the soul is) there in all of them is a strong indicator that something is tangibly present.

The fact that alot of people have delusional beliefs about this "soul" does not equal it's existence. Evidence is reqired.

God is a formulated answer related to this condition and explains and satisfies this side of our nature

It explains the unknown and denies some answers that science presents. God is a huge claim that requires evidence. God is an answer I will never accept without evidence.

It answers the 'why' questions perfectly

Anyone can answer any question with anything. Goddidit can answer every question just like santadidit can but it does not mean it's correct. God is a baseless assertion, nothing more. Yes it can answer questions but there is no evidence to suggest that it's the correct answer. No sources are pointing towards the god conclusion.
I can say the flying teapot answers the why questions perfectly, it doesn't make it so though. There's no evidence to support that assertion, just like god.

The logic goes: perfection produces something less perfect. Hence everything proceeded from God who is more than the sum of everything.

Yes a good point but you have just raised an interesting question. Though this logic may apply to those who are less than perfect like us, does it also apply to your god? If it does, have you just admitted that it is in fact beyond gods ability to create something as perfect as himself? Wouldn't that mean god is not all powerful after all? He cannot create something as perfect as himself? Is this where god's powers cannot go? He is supposedly all powerful and yet there is something that he is entirely powerless over? Also, not being able to create something as perfect as yourself maybe debatable. Does cloning prove that wrong? Cloning is duplication, in a sense creating something as perfect or inperfect as the one your cloning.

You have only raised further questions frodo.

[chatpilot]

Okay fr0d0 here is my "unorthodox" interpretation of the passage in question as taught to me by those stupid fundamentalists. when god states "let us create man in our image" he is referring to his truine self, namely the father, son, and holy spirit. I noticed that alot of people that have posted here have used the words spirit and soul interchangeably as if they were one and the same thing but I was taught that as god is of a truine nature so are we. In pentecostalism we say that man is made up of a physical body, a soul "eternal part of a living being, commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; distinct from the physical part, and spirit "spirit, like soul, forms a natural part of a being: such people may identify spirit with mind, or with consciousness, or with the brain". Those qoutations are taken from wikipedia but they pretty much describe what I am trying to say. fr0d0 this part is for you and it is from Catholic reference.net I thought I would define the word trinity and when I looked it up I was shocked to see that it was defined the same way I have stated at one time to be my previous beliefs as god being three distinct persons only being one in plan and purpose.

TRINITY, THE HOLY

A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, by generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having the divine nature from the Father and the Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration.

If you don't believe me look it up clown on CatholicReference.net

[fr0d0]

Yet if I used the word 'soul' I'm sure you'd have a good idea what I meant in many contexts.

I'm assuming you meant spiritual soul. The supernatural sense.

Is the soul supernatural? If it's so widely described and observed, this surely takes it out of the realm of 'super' and demotes it to ordinary doesn't it? There's nothing 'weird' about it. It's 'ordinary'. Look at the definition/s I quoted and tell me where you get supernatural from that.

& don't all other uses of the word 'soul' relate in some way to the religious definition? To me they do. "The animating and vital principle in humans".

It isn't something you'd seek to prove, just like 'God'

If it's the spiritual, supernatuaral sense then yes it is something to try and prove. It is a claim and is unproven. Evidence is required.

Why does it have to be something to prove, and how would you suggest anyone went about doing that?

Descriptions may well vary greatly across civilizations, but the fact that it's (the soul is) there in all of them is a strong indicator that something is tangibly present.

The fact that a lot of people have delusional beliefs about this "soul" does not equal it's existence. Evidence is required.

So the vast majority understanding it doesn't mean it is something? Maybe they mis-described it then. Maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

God is a formulated answer related to this condition and explains and satisfies this side of our nature

It explains the unknown and denies some answers that science presents. God is a huge claim that requires evidence. God is an answer I will never accept without evidence.

It doesn't explain the unknown, it explains that side of our nature. Like I said, it also leaves room for science to completely answer the 'how' questions.

It answers the 'why' questions perfectly

Anyone can answer any question with anything. Goddidit can answer every question just like santadidit can but it does not mean it's correct. God is a baseless assertion, nothing more. Yes it can answer questions but there is no evidence to suggest that it's the correct answer. No sources are pointing towards the god conclusion.
I can say the flying teapot answers the why questions perfectly, it doesn't make it so though. There's no evidence to support that assertion, just like god.

The God solution answers the questions perfectly. I know of no other workable solutions. Do you? You choose to dismiss this solution and will naturally substitute other rationalisation for it. That would be like me consulting a cereal packet for answers on science. Not too helpful in reality, but it might make me happy.

---

---

Okay fr0d0 here is my "unorthodox" interpretation of the passage in question as taught to me by those stupid fundamentalists. when god states "let us create man in our image" he is referring to his truine self, namely the father, son, and holy spirit. I noticed that alot of people that have posted here have used the words spirit and soul interchangeably as if they were one and the same thing but I was taught that as god is of a truine nature so are we. In pentecostalism we say that man is made up of a physical body, a soul "eternal part of a living being, commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; distinct from the physical part, and spirit "spirit, like soul, forms a natural part of a being: such people may identify spirit with mind, or with consciousness, or with the brain". Those qoutations are taken from wikipedia but they pretty much describe what I am trying to say. fr0d0 this part is for you and it is from Catholic reference.net I thought I would define the word trinity and when I looked it up I was shocked to see that it was defined the same way I have stated at one time to be my previous beliefs as god being three distinct persons only being one in plan and purpose.

TRINITY, THE HOLY

A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, by generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having the divine nature from the Father and the Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration.

If you don't believe me look it up clown on CatholicReference.net

---

Did you make a point or answer a question Chatty

I've declared that belief (from catholicreference) myself on here at least a couple of times. I also studied Pentecostalism as a member of the AOG.

So what is God's image here, as I can't see your answer.

[Ace Otana]

Is the soul supernatural? If it's so widely described and observed, this surely takes it out of the realm of 'super' and demotes it to ordinary doesn't it? There's nothing 'weird' about it. It's 'ordinary'. Look at the definition/s I quoted and tell me where you get supernatural from that.

What definition of soul are you talking about?!
I have reviewed your definitions of "soul" and from number 4 and downwards are all claims. Baseless claims. If you are talking about one of those top 4 then the things I've said before were spot on.

Why does it have to be something to prove, and how would you suggest anyone went about doing that?

If there is no evidence there is no reason to believe it. It's not down to me to prove it. The burden of proof is on the one who claims it.

So the vast majority understanding it doesn't mean it is something? Maybe they mis-described it then. Maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

It doesn't matter how many believe it. Beliefs do not ulter reality. All six billion people can believe it and only one person does not. That one person could be more right then all those billions. Numbers mean nothing. Facts do. Reality does not favour the masses. It favours nothing. Reality is reality and beliefs cannot change that no matter how many may believe in something.

It doesn't explain the unknown, it explains that side of our nature. Like I said, it also leaves room for science to completely answer the 'how' questions.

I've never seen baseless assertions work well with science. God and such explains everything but is unconfirmed. It is unproven.
Nothing supports it.

The God solution answers the questions perfectly. I know of no other workable solutions. Do you? You choose to dismiss this solution and will naturally substitute other rationalisation for it. That would be like me consulting a cereal packet for answers on science. Not too helpful in reality, but it might make me happy.

For me, it's the complete opposite. Science answers questions nicely and religion is for those who desire comfort.
Science offers workable solutions whilst religion does not. It only raises more questions.

[fr0d0]

Why does it have to be something to prove, and how would you suggest anyone went about doing that?

If there is no evidence there is no reason to believe it. It's not down to me to prove it. The burden of proof is on the one who claims it.

Intellectually the theory works. It holds up via internal proof. It's weakness is that at any point another theory might be presented that equally works. But even then this theory allows for that.

So the vast majority understanding it doesn't mean it is something? Maybe they mis-described it then. Maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

It doesn't matter how many believe it. Beliefs do not alter reality. All six billion people can believe it and only one person does not. That one person could be more right then all those billions. Numbers mean nothing. Facts do. Reality does not favour the masses. It favours nothing. Reality is reality and beliefs cannot change that no matter how many may believe in something.

Indeed. But if you, as a scientist observed a repeated pattern, you would make a summary and claim substantiation. How is that different to 99% of humankind exhibiting this phenomena?

The God solution answers the questions perfectly. I know of no other workable solutions. Do you? You choose to dismiss this solution and will naturally substitute other rationalisation for it. That would be like me consulting a cereal packet for answers on science. Not too helpful in reality, but it might make me happy.

For me, it's the complete opposite. Science answers questions nicely and religion is for those who desire comfort.
Science offers workable solutions whilst religion does not. It only raises more questions.

Yours isn't an opposite position. To be opposite you'd have to dismiss faith _and_ science. I fully embrace science and faith.

[Ace Otana]

Intellectually the theory works. It holds up via internal proof. It's weakness is that at any point another theory might be presented that equally works. But even then this theory allows for that.

First of all it's not a theory, it's a hypothasis. A guess/belief a baseless assertion. Evidence is required for it to be more than that.
So without further delay...evidence please.

Indeed. But if you, as a scientist observed a repeated pattern, you would make a summary and claim substantiation. How is that different to 99% of humankind exhibiting this phenomena?

It's a belief. You see it as a pattern, I see it as normal personal beliefs. I'm not seeing this pattern you speak of. There are alot of people in the world who have funny beliefs and I just see it as pure and simple delusion. No pattern.

Yours isn't an opposite position. To be opposite you'd have to dismiss faith _and_ science. I fully embrace science and faith.

I dismiss faith not science. Anything religious is dismissed. I'm quite able to stand by science and not faith. Religion and science rarely get on.


I bet this debate could go on.
I think I'm developing a sore throat. Though sore throats tend to cause my voice to go really deep and sexy, it hurts to talk. Would be nice to have the deep part and not the painful part.

I'll be back tomorrow and hopefully after sleeping in my sore throat should heal up.
Good debating frodo. Well played.

Later, as my little sis would say.

Ace