Philosophy on the soul, life force, reincarnation, pantheism

For all the atheists here, I was wondering if there were any good arguments against the existence of the soul or life force (I equate the two). I am writing a philosophy which revolves around the existence of a life force that makes possible all forms of consciousness (including unconsciousness and non-consciousness) and I am trying to come up with arguments against the existence of said life force and I am drawing a blank. I am also looking for arguments against reincarnation and pantheism (which I will specify to mean the belief that there is a higher power, and that higher power is the sum of everything).

I think the best way to iron out kinks in a philosophy is to hear all the opposition to the philosophy first. So if anyone here has some good arguments against the existence of a soul or life force then please feel free to debate me. I would like to start with common arguments against the existence of a soul and afterlife, and then arguments specifically made against my philosophy. I am leaving out below a large portion of my philosophy regarding life force since I first want to debate whether the soul/life force exists before I get into the technicalities and explanations of why I think there is a life force, what it does, and how it exists. Some of this will undoubtably come out in my responses in this thread from which further debate can be had in the future.

So here are the basics of my philosophy so that you can have something more specific in mind when coming up with arguments.

First and foremost, going by the principle that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, I have come to the conclusion that since everything is made of matter and/or energy, nothing can be created or destroyed. I extend this way past just matter and energy, and include also consciousness, life, and form. Therefore, consciousness cannot be destroyed, nor can the form in which any consciousness takes. This is not to say that a consciousness cannot take a different form, but only that the form in which it has taken cannot be destroyed. Keep in mind that rearrangement and destruction are two different things. To be clear, in this philosophy when I use the words “destruction” "or "destroy"I could mean complete and total annihilation, or rearrangement of a form into a less recognizable form depending on the context. The concept of destruction is in fact an abstract one. When a common person says they have destroyed something, they really mean that they have changed its form into something less recognizable.

The next important piece to my philosophy deals with the fact that nothing can be created. Since nothing can be created, it is impossible for a “new life” to be born. Of course babies are born every day, but there is a logical explanation for this which does not involve creation of new life. The simplest answer is that already existing life has changed form to become “new life”, but it is only new in the sense that it has changed recently. Since nothing can be created, creation is also an abstract concept. What most people mean by creation is the rearrangement of a form to make a “new” form which they have not previously observed or thought of before. Again for clarity, in this philosophy when I use the word “creation” or “create” depending on the context I could mean to cause something to come into existence/something which has come into existence, or something which has recently changed into a form which was not previously observed or thought of by one, or more, or all conscious beings. The main point in asserting the fact that life cannot be created is to logically prove that reincarnation is the only method of creating new life that makes sense.

The third important piece to my philosophy involves theology. I have found that pantheism is the only theology that makes any logical sense. Since the general goal of any theology is to explain the existence of our universe (or megaverse) then monotheism, polytheism, and atheism have obvious flaws. In mono and poly theism it is assumed that it is impossible for something to pop into existence all on its own. I partially agree with that, but I would extend that to say that it is impossible for something to pop into existence on its own, under the command of another force, or with the aid of another force. In short, it is impossible for something to pop into existence. Period. So the first problem with mono and poly theism is that it requires a God or multiple Gods/Goddesses to create our universe/megaverse. The second flaw in these two theologies is that to avoid explaining our universe’s existence beginning by means of popping into existence on its own, the existence of a deity or multiple deities which themselves popped into existence on their own is postulated. So there becomes an obvious problem with this. If this deity or deities could have popped into existence on their own (which is against the laws of the universe to begin with, as is the creation of the universe) then the universe could also have popped into existence on its own. Therefore the postulation of the existence of this deity/deities is completely frivolous and unnecessary. Even if you assume that this deity/deities was/were always in existence and have no beginning or end, then the same argument can be made since the universe/megaverse could have also always existed and never began/ended. Therefore, which ever way you look at it you are postulating something which breaks a natural law in order to avoid breaking the same natural law. To me this makes no sense.

Then there is atheism. The essential belief of Atheism is that the universe popped into existence suddenly. Problem is, not only is the universe defying its own natural laws, but there is no reasonable explanation of how this is possible. Since atheism is the “scientific” theology then it makes sense that it would follow the natural laws of the universe according to the natural sciences. However, it does not. One of the main laws of the natural sciences is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. But the whole premise of the theology (or atheology if you will) is that matter and energy were suddenly created. Therefore, I think that this theology is the least scientific of all of them. Mono and poly theism at least attempt to adhere to the natural laws of the universe/megaverse even though they ultimately fail. Atheism makes it a point to break the laws of science and the universe/megaverse right off the bat. So it is indeed very unscientific.

So, I propose that those who are science minded, and really anyone who believes in logic at all, ought to move to a more scientific theology. I believe that this theology is pantheism. Pantheism does not break any natural laws of the universe or science for that matter as I am about to explain. According to my version of pantheism, there is no deity that created anything, nor was anything created, nor has anything been destroyed, nor will anything be destroyed. Due to the fact that humans are finite creatures, it becomes hard to accept infinity in any form. We live, and we die. So because of this we seem to think everything else must be finite too. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support that theory, and that theory itself would mean that every single thing in the universe/megaverse breaks the laws of nature including the universe/megaverse itself. There is no law that says nothing is infinite. In fact as far as we can tell, the universe IS infinite. Not only in time, but space too. There is no visible end to the universe. That is evidence against an end to the universe. There is also no visible beginning to the universe either. That is evidence against the universe beginning. The same thing applies to time as well. We cannot perceive a beginning or end of time, therefore there is evidence that time does not begin or end. Granted it is not a lot of evidence, but put together with the fact that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe consists of matter and energy, then it is the only theory that A. Has any physical supporting evidence to back it, and B. Follows the natural laws of the universe/megaverse.

So my theology goes like this: God exists, always has existed, and always will exist. God is the universe. Everything is part of God. It even fits with some of the Christian theology. For instance, God is everywhere becomes a true statement. God is all knowing becomes a true statement. God is omnipotent also becomes a true statement. That is, God is omnipotent so long as God stays within the parameters set by the natural laws of the universe. So God cannot create or destroy matter or energy. By doing so s/he would effectively be creating or destroying his/her self anyway. So even if you try to debunk omnipotence with the classic “Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?” becomes easily answerable. No, God cannot create anything as that defies his/her natural laws, therefore God cannot create anything. God can only rearrange his/her self thereby rearranging the universe into forms which have not yet been perceived by one, multiple, or all consciousnesses that are a part of him/her. Also to be noted, God is the rock, and the lifting, and the question, and the inquisitor, and the answer, and the answerer. There is nothing that God isn’t.

Okay, so there is quite a lot more to my philosophy then that, but those are the basics. Everyone please feel totally free to comment, criticize, debunk, whatever. I tried to include definitions to specific common words which I am using in an uncommon manner to avoid semantics. However, if there is a question or argument regarding technical semantic aspect of this philosophy then I prefer to just clear up the meaning by using different words to describe my intended meaning or redefining the word or words according to how I intended to use it/them rather then arguing over the word/words themselves.

Thanks to all for your time and energy reading this.

Enjoy!

No.

:laughing:

I agree with you for once Erlir.

If you disagree, then please elaborate. All the atheists I have talked to believe in the big bang. So I guess the universe exploding into existence is slightly more accurate. But either way, the concept of atheism requires the creation of the universe. I have yet to hear an atheist say that the universe always existed and always will exist. I hear physicists talk about how our universe was created from another universe (the mega or multi verse theory). I am okay with this hypothesis, but then how did the other universes come into existence? At some point or another you have to assert that either there was a beginning to everything, or there was not a beginning to everything. I believe the latter, and if there are atheists who also believe this, then their theology really isn’t much different then mine. The only real difference would be that I acknowledge that the sum of everything is a supreme being. In fact I go one step further and say it is organic, or that is, it is an organism although not in the carbon based life form sense that we are used to. In the event that there are multiple universes, then our universe is likely such a small part of the whole that the branching off of our universe from another as some physicists advocate could be compared to cellular mitosis. If this were the case, then that would also support the infinite parallel universes theory which some physicists also advocate as an explanation for the “wave function collapse” in quantum physics. I think this is a pretty reasonable theory.

But one theory I DO not support is different natural laws in different universes. That is a wild theory which can’t be proven, and to my knowledge has no supporting evidence physically, mathematically, or otherwise. However, I do admit that I have not heard everything on this subject (if I had, then I would probably be writing my book right now instead of posting here), so feel free to correct me on that one.

Atheism is not a perspective about the origins of the universe. Nor is it about morality, or logic, or aesthetics. It is just the state of being wherein a person doesn’t have a belief in God. Properly, one could not infer anything else about a person who says he’s an atheist, other than they lack a belief in God. Atheism is not an all-encompassing ontology, and it need not be. What it is, is a simple convenience for theists, who need a category in which to group all those unlike themselves. The adjective form would better serve us, I think, in that it would clear confusion. A person’s set of beliefs can be atheistic, but a person may not have a set of beliefs which can be categorized as atheism.

Moreover, there’s nothing to say that a person lacking a belief in God cannot believe in a consistent way that there exists a soul. And a person believing in God doesn’t have to believe that there exists a soul. Many do, but that’s irrelevant to my point: The belief that there exists a soul doesn’t need the belief that God exists to be consistent, or if it does, then you haven’t demonstrated the necessary connection between God and soul such that one can’t believe one without the other.

OR, I can be a good semi-philosopher and say the honest thing, that I can’t in good conscience take up either position. I don’t know whether the universe had to come to be from nothing, or if it is eternal, and being that this isn’t a pressing issue, as far as my daily life is concerned, I can safely and confidently hold an attitude of agnosticism.

I think you mean metaphysics. Theology is “an account of the gods.” An atheist extracurricular beliefs about the nature of the universe, which by the way aren’t in his capacity as an atheist, cannot be theological. That is to say, they can’t involve Gods. Plus, I still don’t see why, were the universe to have come into existence from nothing, a prime mover would become necessary.

Excellent post all around, especially the bold which is exactly my view of the matter.

Thank you RH :smiley:

This doesn’t follow. Energy as a whole cannot be destroyed, but manifestations of energy are always destroyed. Energy is in a state of continual but seemingly rhythmic flux, and as such a tree doesn’t stay a tree for very long. You seem to agree with me, a materialist, in that consciousness is made up of the same stuff as trees. Regarding duration then, like trees, consciousness…you can see where this is going.

You said it yourself, energy cannot be destroyed. Therefore, energy in the form of manifestations cannot be either. A tree does not stay a tree very long, but it does not cease to exist either. It only changes form. It is living, organic energy that we are talking about. I think that living energy is different then non living energy. If it weren’t then other energy would get mixed in with our consciousness. Either way though, forms cannot be destroyed, matter and energy cannot be destroyed. So if you have a consciousness, and the energy that is part of that consciousness cannot be destroyed, nor can the matter, nor can the form, what exactly is there left to be destroyed? Nothing. Now you can say that the consciousness changes form, and that is true. But the form of that consciousness still remains. If some living energy (or life force if you will) were to become part of that form once again, then that consciousness would become conscious again. When a consciousness is in the “dead” state, it is then unconscious. But unconsciousness is not complete lack of consciousness. A complete lack of consciousness would be non-consciousness. Unconsciousness I would define more as the potential for consciousness, but I would also say that it is a form of consciousness itself.

To get to the root of this consciousness problem, you have to define consciousness. I would define consciousness as awareness of self and thought. But unconsciousness is very similar. In fact, you can be unconscious and be aware of yourself and your thoughts. Dreaming, especially lucid dreaming is a very good example of this.

So the way I see it, there are three parts to “you” meaning the individual. There is the body, then there is the consciousness (or unconsciousness) also known as the mind, and then there is the life force or soul. The body is a combination of physical matter and form, the consciousness is the metaphysical form which drives the body, and the life force is the force which powers and drives the consciousness. So we have three main categories that these three pieces of the individual represent. They are Matter, Form, and Energy, none of which can be created or destroyed. Now lets examine these categories ignoring for a moment how they pertain to the individual. Each of these three categories can be categorized again into two more categories. You can have living or non-living matter, living or non-living energy, and living or non living form/consciousness. Let’s start with the consciousness since that is the most abstract of the three. First I must assert that it is possible to have non-living consciousness. For example, if I were to program a computer to be aware that it exists and aware that it thinks, then it would fit the definition of consciousness. But it still would not be alive. But I do not think that is the only non-living consciousness that exists. In fact, I think that the universe itself is conscious, so there is a lot of non living consciousness as well as living out there depending on whether it is a living or non-living part of the universe that is conscious.

So what exactly is it that makes a consciousness living or non-living? It is what powers that consciousness. Electricity is non-living non-organic, and the circuits in the computer are too along with the rest of the computer’s physical parts. This is decidedly why the computer is not alive. Now you take that same programming and install it in an organic body and power it with organic energy and suddenly we have a living consciousness.

But consciousness is unique in the fact that it can be living or non-living and change between the two in an eye blink. As I said, no form can be destroyed, including a consciousness. But after the consciousness is separated from an organic medium and organic energy, then it becomes a non-living unconsciousness. But lets say that a person dies and immediately his/her consciousness is transferred to a computer. Then that consciousness has from one moment to the next gone from a living consciousness to a non-living consciousness. But even if that consciousness is not transferred to a computer, then it is still a non-living consciousness, or non living unconsciousness to be specific. The only difference is that it is unconscious and stays that way until something powers and drives it. It is kind of like a light bulb. A light bulb remains a light bulb whether or not current is running through it. But when current is not running through it then it does not illuminate, and we would say it is “off”. Consciousness is the same. Once it is separated from its living matter and energy it is turned off. But it still exists.

Now let’s examine living matter and living energy vs. non-living matter and non-living energy. For these two categories I like to use the words organic and non-organic since it is more accurate. But for all intensive purposes organic matter, and organic energy is alive. These two things do not become non-living after separated from consciousness. That is not to say that they cannot become non-living but it is very difficult to do quickly, and takes a very, very long time to do naturally. For instance, when a plant dies and decays, even after it has decayed it is still organic matter. Even hundreds, no thousands of years later, assuming that it does not get consumed by another plant it is still organic matter. Eventually it will harden, die, and become something non organic like a rock or break down into it’s mineral components. But this takes a very long time. So even after it is dead, a plant, animal, fungus, or single cell organic corpse is still not non living. However, given the right amount of heat and pressure, or enough time away from living energy and it will become non-organic matter.

Now lets get to living energy, or life force. This is the most important aspect of life. Without living energy there could be no living consciousness or living organic matter. Life force is such a special thing that there is no replacement. I also believe it to be intelligent. However, we are not able to perceive this intelligence since it transcends our four dimensional realm of physical perception. Organic energy is also the most important aspect of the individual. Without it there would be no individual. It is this energy, or combination of energies that is what makes us unique from one another in the long run. This energy can also become non-living energy, but I think it takes an unimaginable amount of time. However, it could also be possible to make this energy non-living quickly but it would take something incredibly intense such as hydrogen fusion, and who knows that may not do it either. The only way that this energy can be detected at all is through a very small output of electromagnetic radiation which is very close to the ultraviolet side of the spectrum. This EM radiation I am referring to has been detected and been proven to be given off by all living things, some more then others. It is called mitogenetic radiation. It is named such because when it was discovered, it was detected using by monitoring the cellular generation of an onion root which was exposed to said radiation in complete darkness. The part of the onion root which was exposed to the mitogenetic radiation had a tenfold increase in cellular mitosis. There is more to it then that, but that is a whole other thing and gets into the meat of my philosophy which is why I will leave it at that. For now it is enough to know that there IS evidence of the existence of organic energy, and the effects of it can be recorded.

So going back to what I was responding to, let me explain exactly what I think happens when a human being dies. The first thing to happen is that the consciousness becomes unconscious. The next thing that happens is the life force (or soul) leaves the body. Finally, the body dies, but does not become non-living. Instead, it breaks down into organic matter. So two parts change form. The body changes form the most by breaking down into compost. That living matter is then available to be used by other living energies i.e. plants to create or sustain their unconsciousnesses. The only way for it to sustain a consciousness however is to be eaten (yeah I know, yuck!). To create a living consciousness with it is even more complicated as it has to be eaten, assimilated, and then converted into a suitable form for 1/2 of a cellular meiosis. But that is only the matter side of things. On the energy side of things, anything could happen. Likely the organic energy will leave the body and consciousness to go and become conscious somewhere else. But it doesn’t have to. It could merge with a plant form and help produce organic matter in an unconscious manner. Or it could become part of a lesser conscious life form (i.e. an animal). Or it could not become part of any consciousness or unconsciousness at all and drift. But I think that is probably the least frequent.

Point is though, the living organic energy continues. The death of the body and switching off of the consciousness really has no physical effect on it. What is more, since the energy is intelligent it likely retains the consciousness which it recently inhabited. So that form is saved/remembered, but not used. I believe this is where past life memories come from. I also believe this is also why people see light when they die, since they are leaving consciousness to return to energy form. Near death experiences are another thing that I cite a lot in my philosophy, but I will not go there for now since I have written enough and that would be a long subject.

Now regarding what you said about me being a materialist, I suppose that is somewhat true since I believe that the universe is made up of matter and energy. However, there is a third aspect that I believe in which is metaphysical. That is form. Forms are not physical. They exist whether or not there is matter and/or energy arranged in their semblance. I really don’t see how you can avoid a philosophy without some metaphysics in it since not everything is material. But I DO believe that most things in existence (approximately 2/3 to be precise) are material.

Regarding the atheism, thank you for straightening me out on that. I have a tendency to only study the things I am explicitly interested in. Since I am a pantheist, atheism wasn’t something I had looked into much. But the people that I talked to who identified themselves as atheist then went on to talk about the big bang, so I thought the two were related. This is exactly the type of kinks that I am looking to iron out before I put my philosophy on paper so thank you for that. However, it still kind of seems like a theology to me since it is still a belief which is in reference to a God, even if in this case, the belief is in no God. I suppose that is not technically correct though so I will concede that.

As far as the agnosticism goes, I partially agree with you there. It is very difficult, if not impossible to know the truth regarding God. But it is somewhat of a pressing issue since people die and kill for religion on a daily basis. Of course, me writing a book on the subject will change squat in that regard, but I still find the subject fascinating which is the main reason I pursue it. I like knowledge for knowledge’s sake, and by better understanding the universe I can better understand myself and life in general. It is my search for truth and enlightenment that leads me to tackle such a difficult subject. BUT, it is not the most important part of my philosophy either. I think the work I am doing singling out the essence of life is going to be the most useful part of what I am working on.

If you have any other comments or critiques to make then please enlighten me. Especially arguments against the existence of the human soul or life force.

Thanks again for the help.

Pantheists don’t belong in the discussion between theists and atheists. They are not a 3rd category because they are talking about a different thing, even though they use the same word “God.” Pantheists belong in a discussion with A-pantheists. A theist is probably(?), by definition, an A-pantheist. An atheist may be either a pantheist or an A-pantheist.

The reason pantheists use the same word “God” is because it is a theological divergence. Was Jesus talking about a theistic god or a pantheistic god? Is the Hindu God a theistic god or a pantheistic god? Was Socrates’s god a theistic god or a pantheistic god? Etc., etc.

Hey DS. I see you’ve put some thought and effort into this, so I’ll try to do the same sometime during this weekend.

I don’t know about that. What exactly is it that separates the divine from the mundane? If you believe the universe is mundane and you do not believe in a creator god/prime mover then to me that is atheist. But if you believe that the universe is divine and worship the universe as such then that is certainly a theology, and in my case I believe that the universe is actually a conscious/unconscious organism partially living and partially non-living.

If you are talking about a different thing then it makes sense that that thing would have a different category. I do think it is theism as well (though it does kind of narrowly fit that category) because it is a theology and acknowledges a supreme being. It just takes a different approach/outlook to acknowledging a supreme being so people who don’t understand it tend to group it with atheism or just plain theism. I always thought it was annoying when someone would refer to Buddhism as an atheist religion. It is most certainly pantheist. Buddhists just don’t talk about theology much since the main point in Buddhism is not to worship but to achieve enlightenment. However, by achieving enlightenment a Buddhist becomes one with God/the universe and attains Buddhahood. The most obvious pantheistic religion would be Brahmanism which is a form of Hinduism which emphasizes the Brahman (or God/universe) aspect of Hinduism. Hinduism itself is also very pantheist. The Buddha of this age, Shakyamuni (sage of the wise), or Siddhartha Gautama (his birth name) was a born and raised Brahmanist, but he decided to abandon the religion in search of enlightenment. However, he did not abandon the theology, and if you study Buddhism enough you will find that the theology is the same as in Hinduism.

So to me this belief is in conflict with both atheism and mono/poly theism. After reading a wikipedia article on atheism, it seems to me that there is a movement to classify everything that is not theist in the traditional sense as atheist. Some of these things don’t really fit into either category. For example, infants could be considered atheist according to that article since they do not believe in God. But I don’t think that is correct since neither do they not believe in God. I would say they are non-theist rather then atheist, since somebody who does not think about theism at all would be not be atheist since they take no clear stance for or against the existence of one or more Gods.

As far as debating whether or not a God is pantheistic or not, there is really not anything to debate. If said God either created the universe or is not described as the total sum of everything it is definitely either mono or pantheist, possibly just theist. But if the God does not meet those two criteria it is not a pantheistic God. I know of no theologies or religions which are not clear in that matter.