1 Theory About Us. Out Of A Few.

[justcrazy]

I believe there is no physical life/humans, but there's an earth. And that the leftover energy created souls, and the soul is basically stable energy that desires to take physical form like what it came from. The soul, because it desires to be physical and living, it creates a spirit and what we know as a dream world. It grows/we age, from the beginning of the creation of the soul, God limits how much the spirit can grow, puts a limit on it, and once the spirit reaches the limit, it dies. I believe we get our idea of Aliens that have fingers, eyes, etc. Because they are the earthlings. And the soul desired to copy the physical form living on it, copying the thoughts the "Aliens" have. Too Sci-Fi??? I watched too many movies like Hellraiser, and Alien movies. My ideas sound crazy, cause I am crazy, on paper. Ask me questions if you must, I thought of this thinking of all the weird Sci-Fi movies I've watched. Seriously.

[Tsen]

Major flaw: A soul cannot be energy--in fact, all of the (many, many) attempts to find a "soul"/"spirit" have led nowhere. So, if there is one, it is NOT energy OR mass. Therefore, your "theory" is screwed.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Major flaw: A soul cannot be energy--in fact, all of the (many, many) attempts to find a "soul"/"spirit" have led nowhere. So, if there is one, it is NOT energy OR mass. Therefore, your "theory" is screwed. [/b] So...what you're saying, is that we (humans) have successfully detected, identified and understood the limits of every sort of energy in the (un)known universe?

[sloth]

Major flaw: A soul cannot be energy--in fact, all of the (many, many) attempts to find a "soul"/"spirit" have led nowhere. So, if there is one, it is NOT energy OR mass. Therefore, your "theory" is screwed. [/b] Yeah, dude. I don't buy this, because you haven't explained anything. You say that a soul cannot be energy, but there's not support for this 'fact'. ... so... WHY can't a soul be energy?!?! I missed that part.

[Tsen]

Look, I'm not saying a soul cannot exist. I'm only saying that HIS theory of a soul cannot, because there is no measurable change in energy in ANY form when a person dies. Ditto with mass. Thousands of scientists over the past few hundred years have looked for the possibility of a soul. Now, there ARE still valid theories for how a soul/spirit could work. Personally, I find the idea that a soul is really a set of quantum probabilities tied to your brain to be rather interesting and plausible. But souls as energy just doesn't fit into the whole science picture.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Thousands of scientists over the past few hundred years have looked for the possibility of a soul. [/b] But, Tsen (and, believe me, I hate seeming like some nagging old biddy, the way I keep arguing so many good points but) scientists have also been looking to chronicle as many species of Earth-dwelling creatures as possible, for hundreds(+) of years, but just recently (with the help of deteriorating glaciers) have been able to find lifeforms, to date, unseen, and this is only concerning physical specimens, seen by our naked, everyday, eye. This is not a solid argument against the impossibility of an energy-based soul. But souls as energy just doesn't fit into the whole science picture. [/b] As of now, how does it not? The "whole science picture" encompasses everything possible by science. This includes things that, by science, have yet to be determined. What about an energy-based soul implies that it shall never be discovered, scientifically?

[Neruo]

Dude, you grasp the entire theory out of thin air. It is ridiculous. People are as real as the world, since we happen to exchange molecules. For the rest, of your soul/god-theory, you even even less ground to stand on then Christians, and that is an accomplishment - On the topic of souls: Unless you are religious, there is really no reason to assume why would should have souls. Evolutionary it would be ridiculous. If someone can explain how people got souls trough evolution, be my guest. If you don't believe in evolution, read some books and observe.

[Indecent Exposure]

His theory is not ridiculous it is possible science cannot disprove a theory it can prove a theory yes, but not disprove his theory may be scientific correct, you msut allow a margin of possiblity for this thoery it is just as far fetched as the theory of God, You cannot prove that this thoery is incorrect you canniot prove that his thoery is fact waiting to be proven. Im not saying I believe him Imran

[Kaniaz]

science cannot disprove a theory it can prove a theory yes, but not disprove[/b] 1. I have a theory that rain drops fall upwards. Because they are attracted to clouds by spirit energies. 2. I drop some rain. 3. It falls downwards. Because of gravity. A scientific phenomenon. Science wins the day, or...?

[slimslowslider]

Science doesn't have much of a clue what energy is... (apart from describing some of its effects) its still struggling with wave-particle duality, and the reconcilliation of quantum mechanics and relativity. There are five completely different versions of string theory (9-dimensional spaces wrapped with vibrating toruses) & none of them explain the whole picture... yet... Gravity requires a particle (the graviton) which has yet to be discovered... Many physicists admit that much of physics may be BS - i.e. all they've done is create something with a little internal mathematical consistency that may bear no relation to reality whatsoever. Science seems a little muddled at the moment

[Tsen]

And thus all scientific laws and theories are instantly false and crackpot ideas by "new age" "spiritual" activists are automatically true beyond doubt, eh? Here's a quote for you: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Yes, science is inaccurate in many of its statements, but you're making a big mistake when you say it's all wrong anyway so this crackpot theory might as well be right.

[Oneironaut Zero]

...but you're making a big mistake when you say it's all wrong anyway so this crackpot theory might as well be right. [/b] ...who said that? Evolutionary it would be ridiculous. If someone can explain how people got souls trough evolution, be my guest. If you don't believe in evolution, read some books and observe. [/b] Uhmmm.....something tells me that, if we do have souls....our acquiring them happened just a smidge before physical evolution. Check out David Bohm (a physicist, but I don't remember reading whether or not he is religious) and his (as yet, undisputed) theories on Holomovement and the Implicate / Explicate order.

[Tsen]

...who said that? [/b] Nobody, but it was implied in slimslowslider's post.

[slimslowslider]

And thus all scientific laws and theories are instantly false and crackpot ideas by "new age" "spiritual" activists are automatically true beyond doubt, eh?[/b] No. Here's a quote for you: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."[/b] What the earth isn't flat? It kinda looks that way... I suppose it depends on the scale of observation and the degree of accuracy sought. So if I thought an irregular ovoid, a sphere and a disc were all just different shapes and dissagreed that a sphere and an irregular ovoid were more similar than a disc and a sphere, I would be more wrong than the combination of the wrong thinking of a person who who believes the earth is flat because that is their perception even if they perhaps haven't had access to the latest astronomical science, plus the wrong thinking of people who believe the world is a sphere for similar reasons or who just don't care about such pedantry? Hmmm... Sorry Yes, science is inaccurate in many of its statements, but you're making a big mistake when you say it's all wrong anyway so this crackpot theory might as well be right. [/b] Science is'n'tt all wrong - just confused when it comes to theories of energy.

[Neruo]

Science doesn't have much of a clue what energy is... (apart from describing some of its effects) its still struggling with wave-particle duality, and the reconcilliation of quantum mechanics and relativity.[/b] Yeah! And That means all scientist are WRONG!!!! Right? Right? no. There are five completely different versions of string theory (9-dimensional spaces wrapped with vibrating toruses) & none of them explain the whole picture... yet...[/b] M-theory? Gravity requires a particle (the graviton) which has yet to be discovered... [/b] It does? How magical. I didn't knew you did have absolute scientific knowledge. Also, people used to have no clue about how lighting worked. Pah! What a retards. It wait, that really holds no argumental value what so ever. Many physicists admit that much of physics may be BS - i.e. all they've done is create something with a little internal mathematical consistency that may bear no relation to reality whatsoever. Science seems a little muddled at the moment [/b] Dude, physics Has relation with reality. All physics is, is a deduction of certain 'laws', things that systematically happen, that however we might not fully grasp onto paper. If I drop a rock, Force = Mass . 9,8 newton / meters. Or something. There is nothing wrong about that, because it is a theory, and since it never has been disproved by reality it is fine to assume it as a (relative, not absolute, because the law might not work in a certain cave in Taiwan) fact. How can you have so much disrespect for science? Practicing science is a path, science isn't there, it is getting there. Science sucked even more in the middle ages, is that an argument to stop practicing it, to stop doing experiments, to stop thinking about new theories? I am glad you haven't been in control in the middle ages.

[BohmaN]

It grows/we age, from the beginning of the creation of the soul, God limits how much the spirit can grow, puts a limit on it, and once the spirit reaches the limit, it dies. [/b] Here's the scientific view: You are a collection of chemical reactions and when these chemical reactions cease, you die. Which one sounds correct? I'd say the scientific. But I'm not 100 % sure.

[slimslowslider]

Why does everything have to be black and white? Its not - see quantum mechanics (science). All I'm saying is that science doesn't know everything. Nothing new there - just a reminder not to be arrogant and assume that something can't be true because science hasn't explained it. M-theory is the latest installment from the physicists trying to understand the world. There are five versions at present - it is expected that a unified theory might reconcile or combine these. The graviton - not my theory, but apparently 'they' expect to find it with the next few generations of particle accelerator. Theory predicts its existence. I'm not disputing mechanics, but all of physics is NOT related to empirical reality. Theoretical physics which describes quantum mechanics, string theory and M-theory etc is mainly maths. I certainly don't disrespect science - I have an MSc, teach architectural engineering technology at University and my partner has a PhD in Astronomy. Science just doesn't have all the answers. Agreed - sceintific knowledge is expanding - but its not complete - and there's room for all kinds of new theories for how it all hangs together that may well eventually give a scientific explantion for all sorts of woo-woo.

[NeAvO]

To be honest alot of science is just guessing what happens and then trying to prove the guess. In my opinion I don't think science can prove what we(our souls) are and I honestly don't think it ever will.

[Lemonsoul]

science cannot disprove a theory it can prove a theory yes, but not disprove [/b] To be honest alot of science is just guessing what happens and then trying to prove the guess. [/b] I might be wrong but I thought that you could only 'disprove' a theory. They are innocent until proven guilty. The process of establishing something as scientific fact involves the setting up of a theory and then the bombardment of that theory with investigation after investigation, until a flaw is found. At this point the theory is either revised to accomodate this flaw or discarded as false. Although I don't share the same belief as the topic starter I have no grounds on which to argue against him. All I can do is say that, as depressing as it may sound, I have no reason to even believe in any such thing as a soul in any other form than that of a sense of mind.

[juroara]

I believe everything is energy, actually I could have sworn science has already said this. therefore our souls are energy too. but our souls would be present in a higher dimension, not this one. if we know that the second dimension is in the third dimension, but can not hope to understand the third dimension, how can we in this dimension really hope to understand higher dimensions and how they interact with us? all science can do right now is prove those higher dimensions are real, possible ways they interact with us, and possible reasons why we don't. for example, can a scientific instrument study the six dimension? if that scientific instrument exists in this dimension, I dont think so.

[justcrazy]

Just so everyone knows, I forgot if I put it in the beginning post. I thought of this while thinking about all the sci-fi type stuff over my life. Such as cartoons, movies, etc. And I put "theory," cause this isn't a "belief" of mine. edit: I'll read the posts to see if its even remotely possible later tonight/tomorrow. :edit edit 2: Then again if everythings what we know is a "dream." (ugh, brain block). :edit 2

[Oneironaut Zero]

I might be wrong but I thought that you could only 'disprove' a theory. They are innocent until proven guilty. The process of establishing something as scientific fact involves the setting up of a theory and then the bombardment of that theory with investigation after investigation, until a flaw is found. At this point the theory is either revised to accomodate this flaw or discarded as false. [/b] You, my friend, should be the ambassador for a large number of the people on this site that view their opinions as "scientific." So many of them simply forget this fact. Well said.

[seaoharrwhy]

I believe there is no physical life/humans, but there's an earth. [/b] If the earth is physical, what makes humans not physical? Us as humans are just as tangable as the earth. Major flaw: A soul cannot be energy--in fact, all of the (many, many) attempts to find a "soul"/"spirit" have led nowhere. So, if there is one, it is NOT energy OR mass. Therefore, your "theory" is screwed. [/b] I agree with this but only on certain terms. Depending on How energy is defined. If you are defining energy as the Joule (sorry if I'm getting to technical but I can't help it, I'm a mechanical engineer major) then the soul consists of no energy. Humans loose no energy from some unknown source (aka: a soul that consists of energy measured in Joules) when they die , besides body heat and other stuff like that. Energy is a broad term and therefore, if stated carelessly leaves room for misconceptions. I think that, according to the scientific definition of energy, souls are not created out of energy

[13redfan]

1. I have a theory that rain drops fall upwards. Because they are attracted to clouds by spirit energies. 2. I drop some rain. 3. It falls downwards. Because of gravity. A scientific phenomenon. Science wins the day, or...? [/b] I like that. Science seems a little muddled at the moment [/b] Definitely! lol. I read a book by Bill Bryson called A Short History of Nearly Everything, and (I'm not saying this is 100% fact it's simply something I read, written by a man who seems to have done a lot of research on the subject) and he said something which I understood to mean that at the base level (or at least the lowest level scientists have managed to get to at this point) of matter, where gravitons and such exist to make up electrons and protons etc., they still haven't figured out what gives particles mass, and have added a particle (like a massicon or something ) to give particles mass in mathematical formulae. I'm not sure if thats 100% true, but reading that book it seemed to me that the more scientists find out about whatever subject, the more there is that they don't understand. Aside from all that, I was under the impression (surely I read this somewhere lol) that there is a measurable electromagnetic field around the body that corresponds with the chakras and such, that indicates an aura. I'm willing to concede that it is possible that a soul is some form of energy (or anti-energy?) within the body, that perhaps ceases to exist or moves on or whatever when the chemical reactions in the brain cease. I'm not exactly sure where the energy would go when the body dies, maybe the soul is like plasma or something? lol I dunno. I definitely disagree with our bodies not being physical though

[Oneironaut Zero]

I definitely disagree with our bodies not being physical though, that's just f*cking stupid [/b] I disagree. There is a (at least one, that I know of) very sound, scientific argument for our bodies, as well as everything else in the universe, being nothing but a fabrication of consciousness and that "collective consciousness" being broken down to create us as individuals, all perceiving the same illusion of physical reality. In this sense, our bodies may very well not be physical, but it would have to consist of the Earth being immaterial (sp) too, so I don't agree with the whole "earth physical / bodies not" thing.