43 replies to this topic

[sumon]

If you did keep your conscience after [teleportation], does that mean we have no souls, thus, disproving God?

Good post, and sparking an interesting discussion. However, I must point out that there is the logic of the argument is flawed. You use implicit premises from what I can see, and it's up for grabs to pick a premise that one wants to deny, thus denying the whole argument. There's also the problem that neither "soul" nor "God" has a decided definition, but may depend on spiritual tradition for example.

P1. Souls are dependent on the integrity of (or connected to) the physical body they inhabit.
P2. If the soul exists, our conscience rests in the soul.
P3. God may exist if and only if souls exist.

Now:
E1. The conscience 'survives' a teleportation.
C1. The conscience does not rest in our soul -> The soul does not exist -> God does not exist.

[nimda]

lol :lol:
a religious debate!

This won't end in a war or anything

so is there a soul? prove there is a soul
If you don't think there is, you don't have to prove that. In the same way I don't need to prove there isn't an invisible purple hairy sentient pizza swimming through Barack Obama's spinal fluid.


*lurks as he watches the match he just dropped onto metaphorical gasoline*



Seriously, though, before you reply to this thread, take a huge breath. People have been killed over this stuff, despite one of those rules some of you have ("though shalt not kill" implies no holy wars)


Just reminnding everyyone to keep calm here 8)

[SoggyDog]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone?

[VxE]

Very nicely phrased, sumon. When I studied Descartes (intro to philosophy), I realized that no logical (dis)proof of divine existence can be made without some unprovable assumption as its basis.

I do, actually, have the answers... if you don't mind me dishing out a little dogma...

1. Souls are not tied to the material of a human being (souls are immaterial). Souls synergize with the energetic activity of a human body. If a human body is disintegrated and reconstructed with enough fidelity, the accompanying soul will synergize with the new body, regardless of the body's physical location.

2. See #1.

I'm not concerned about anyone believing this, I'm just pointing out that apparent ""problems"" can solved by modifying an underlying assumption.

[jethrow]

("though shalt not kill" implies no holy wars)

If you're referring to the sixth commandment, the term is murder - not kill. There is a very distinct difference - especially since there is a time to kill.

Remove all 5 senses see, feel, smell, hear, or taste and the thing whatever it is is un verifiable. Man can create machines to see spectrum of light otherwise not perceivable we can measure vibrations to minute to perceive....

Nicely stated - which also brings to mind the question, What's more important, proof or belief?

You can't speak of spirit or soul in absolute terms. The body is a matter of fact; spirit and/or soul are presumed to exist a priori yet are unproven.

Sure I can. As far as the Soul is concerned, what is reading this right now? Beings that I have (or am) a Born Again Spirit, I can 100% verify that the Spirit exists - especially since I am a Spirit Being.

[shajul]

@jethrow: catholics are taught - though shall not kill. And no killing is allowed, murder or not

[jethrow]

catholics are taught - though shall not kill. And no killing is allowed, murder or not

Yes ... Catholics ... I'm not going to start a Religious debate, so lets realize that this is more about word usage than an actual disagreement. Lets look at the source:

Exod 20:13 - "Thou shalt not kill."
- Original: רצח
- Transliteration: Ratsach
- Strong's: A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces that is kill (a human being) especially to murder ...

Eccl 3:3 - "A time to kill, and a time to heal ..."
- Original: הרג
- Transliteration: Harag
- Strong's: A primitive root; to smite with deadly intent ...

As we can see, there are 2 separate Hebrew words that both translate into the English word kill. Yet, they are different. I'm not going to say that Catholics are teaching wrong ... but I personally believe there is a time to righteously smite with deadly intent - particularly when defending yourself, your family, and possibly your nation. This occurs in Scripture.

[nimda]

If my last claim was a match onto gasoline, here's a bomb: "religion. Killing's ok; but not homosexuality"

(I realize on how many levels that statement is politically incorrect, not what you said, etc etc. Just showing how easy it is to start streetfights with this stuff )
(seriously, calm down. It's ok.)
(no, honestly. I didn't mean it, d'accord, aight, ok?)

inb4 flame thread

[shajul]

Jesus never taught that. Pls remember the case of stoning od an adultress that was used to test Jesus. A Christian is a believer in christ, Jesus. Let us not use the Old testament to guide us, but the two commamdments that Jesus gave us. I am sure you know what His commandments were.

[nimda]

Given: The ability to sense the world around you (the several (not 5 :! senses)
Prove: There is at least one God, as described in the text of your choice

...

idea: Monotheism is an improvement over polytheism. Is atheism an improvement over monotheism?

...

Given: there is a God
????

...

open Q: you will never convert anyone, no matter how convincing you sound. Why try?

...

Open Q: do animals believe in God(s)?

...

OnTopic: What defines a soul? How do you know you have one? Does everyone have one?

[jethrow]

Jesus never taught that.

... whereas I'm not going to argue, I would suggest you consider John 1:14. Though He did establish a New Covenant, that doesn't completely nullify the Old Testament.

Prove: There is at least one God, as described in the text of your choice

Even as a heathen, I came to the conclusion that there were 2 possiblities: Either 1) everything is completely coincidence or 2) there is a divine being. Even in my teens I had experienced enough to realize that everything couldn't be completely coincidence.

Is atheism an improvement over monotheism?

No

you will never convert anyone, no matter how convincing you sound. Why try?

It's not in my power to change another person - that's between God & them. God can, however, work through me. Moreover, I don't want any person to go to hell.

do animals believe in God(s)?

No

What defines a soul? How do you know you have one? Does everyone have one?

Since I've touched on this in my previous posts, I'll just throw out there that it is one thing that differentiates humans from animals.

[Banane]

do animals believe in God(s)?

Yes, since human beings are just animals as well and there obviously are religious people around.

[nimda]

"Look guys! The world is perfect for us. It must have been created divinely"
"Look guys! That pitcher is the perfect shape for the water it holds...

[Eedis]

What defines a soul? How do you know you have one? Does everyone have one?

Well, I personally don't believe we have souls, but minds. To me, our minds consist of our conscious bodies and you could easily define that as a soul.

so lets realize that this is more about word usage than an actual disagreement. Lets look at the source:

To be honest, this is one of the bigger reasons I'm a non-believer. Religion, no matter which it is, is basically a big game of telephone. Everybody knows how that plays out, we've all been to high school. Even if it is written word and not spoken therefore things couldn't be forgotten. Well, like you stated, when translating a sentence into a different language, then another, then another, you can make some pretty obscure meanings.

And yes, in that case you would be the same person - just a diffent body - which would conceptually be similar to getting a new vehicle or home.

The way I see it is, our conscious body, along with our physical body, would die and cease to exist. Our physical bodies will be recreated and since the brain is put back exactly how it was, the new body will have all memories, skills, and personality as our first form. Yet, we personally wouldn't know, because we'd be dead. Everyone else wouldn't know the difference as 'it' would come out being the same you.

[infogulch]

"Look guys! The world is perfect for us. It must have been created divinely"
"Look guys! That pitcher is the perfect shape for the water it holds...

Lemme finish that for you:

"Look guys! That pitcher is the perfect shape for the water it holds... so it must have been created specifically for that purpose" :idea:

---------------------------

Anyways, on the topic in general. I would consider myself religious (christian), but I do not consider the soul inherently separate from the body. In fact, the bible says that the soul is a living person, not that a person has a soul (Gen 2:7; Lev 23:30; Eze 18:20; 1 Pet 3:20). More simply, that the word "soul" and "person" (referring to your flesh and blood) are roughly interchangeable.

tl;dr: there is no soul (in the OP's sense of the word) so the existence of quantum teleportation doesn't necessarily disprove God.

---------------------------

That still leaves a problem though: what is consciousness? And if it's not in the soul (since we don't have one) where is it?

I'm theorizing here, so bear with me. An important premise that many people believe (including me) is that consciousness cannot be explained by classical physics (including chemistry, biology etc). I'm not sure that this has been "proven" per se, but it's pretty much universally understood. (e.g. the belief in a soul in the first place)

This very interesting article and paper Nobel Prize Winner Says DNA Performs Quantum Teleportation, if accurate, seems to imply that various quantum "spooky" effects are actually part of normal biological processes. (I'll just let that sink in for a second.............)

My theory is that the brain itself (which is largely not well understood) uses quantum effects on a regular basis, and that our consciousness stems from this. This theory satisfies the above premise. It could also explain various biological things, like how death (of consciousness) is irreversible even if the body is able to support itself, or how people come in and out of comas, or maybe even how organ transplants/blood transfusions can alter the personality of the host.

ALSO, if consciousness stems from things such as quantum superposition, then just the act of reading each molecule to reproduce it somewhere else would break that quantum link and change (or destroy) the original consciousness.
AND if quantum links are the root of consciousness then the quantum links themselves must be recreated exactly at the reconstruction stage of the teleportation.

Conclusion: quantum teleportation of humans (more specifically consciousness) is not possible.