Would a "clone" disprove the eternal soul hypothesis.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

ah yes, you were the fellow who assumed full rights to discuss and elaborate on the religious implications of the topic i encountered you on before but didn't want anyone else to do so, as you had already made up your mind that everyone but you was delusional.

pardon my intrusion. i'll respond to someone who appears to want a discussion.

I'm sorry you take it that way. It's a fact that you can't deny that there are hundreds of different interpretations about the nephilim myth, and yet you asked me if I read "researches" about them? Instead of being cryptic you can simply and plainly state your personal claims here, it would make the discussion easier.


But if you think a personal interpretation about a biblical myth can be of any help to determine if consciousness (or spirit) keeps existing in a long dead brain, be my guest.


I never said everyone else was delusional. I identified a delusion when I saw one. It's an easy thing to do because in the case of a delusion, proofs of the opposite exist.

For example I would never claim God is a delusion.

But believing the earth is flat in our modern age is a delusion on the other hand. Like believing the earth is 6000 years old.

originally posted by: Entreri06


With genetic engineering in the news lately and on the radio show ground zero tonight. I always hear the religious crowd saying that we shouldn't allow true test tube/created humans, because they wouldn't have a god givin eternal soul.


Well what if when we do, they come out normal. Perfectly human loving, caring individuals. Wouldn't that debunk the thought of a god givin eternal soul?

this topic is very flexible, from what i can tell, and apparently tempered by a very specific part of the world view of the person answering it. for example, in the non-abrahamic category, a certain type of new ager would view it moreso from the perspective of quantum physics and entanglement. whereas a buddhist might view it as a karmic event or just a non-issue entirely.

one such person imparted to me the idea that whenever you have mass, such as a human body / embryo, it creates a gravity well in the space/time fabric, thus attracting to itself, the spirit body. as soon as that gravity well is created, the ability for that lifeform mass to impact history is bound to the timeline, like the butterfly effect and as a result, removing that mass from the space/time continuum may have unforeseen complications, the same as any other lifeform. so, theoretically, adding it to the space/time continuum would have a similar impact (this is assuming dna is quantumly entangled, whether cloned or not)

since we have limited lifetime memory (even if reincarnation were true, many don't seem to remember any potential past lives) that means we may not even realize the impact such actions would have on the timeline and whether they are positive, negative, or neutral (and to what degree).

a reply to: Develo

But believing the earth is flat in our modern age is a delusion on the other hand. Like believing the earth is 6000 years old.

straw man argument, not going to bother.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

But believing the earth is flat in our modern age is a delusion on the other hand. Like believing the earth is 6000 years old.

straw man argument, not going to bother.

I never claimed you believed this.

I was replying to your lie that I consider everyone but me as delusional. So I gave you a clear example of what is a delusion, and what is a plausible belief.

a reply to: Develo

okay, i'll modify my statement: "you consider everyone you disagree with, to be delusional". how's that?

a reply to: Entreri06

We are a long way from a true "test tube" baby in the sense you mean. Any actual clone would have to be incubated inside a mother still.

And as animal clones have shown us, they aren't exact copies. So they aren't true clones in the sense everyone thinks. They have differences and likely different souls.

God knows us before we are born.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Entreri06

We are a long way from a true "test tube" baby in the sense you mean. Any actual clone would have to be incubated inside a mother still.

And as animal clones have shown us, they aren't exact copies. So they aren't true clones in the sense everyone thinks. They have differences and likely different souls.

even if they were identical in virtually every way, wouldn't their separate life experiences create different impacts on time and memory?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

okay, i'll modify my statement: "you consider everyone you disagree with, to be delusional". how's that?

Still a lie.

I don't think I even talked about someone on ATS being delusional on the thread you talk about (usually I keep that term for the people believing the earth is 6000 years old).

What I accused you of (and not everyone disagreeing with me), was of confirmation bias.

And this was your reply to me:

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

true, i have a confirmation bias on that, particularly because it makes so much sense.

You can believing what you want about me, but be informed there can be a huge gap between what you believe and reality. It seems you have constructed an image of me in your mind and now in your memory my avatar will be associated to that image.

But it doesn't mean I'm close minded as you seem to believe I am.

a reply to: Develo

ah yes, you are correct. my apologies. i was being honest about the confirmation bias, as i think that is the only way my research could move forward. i applied that same confirmation bias to all ancient texts, regardless of world view/culture/religion they were meant to be for, to see if i could find a paper trail, and i did. had i not started with a positive outlook, that the ancient people of the world were trying to describe real events, i would not have been as successful, at least, that had been my prior experience. the minute i assumed they were telling the truth, information just started to flow out of them and the whole ancient world became this vibrant, fascinating landscape.

but a clone having a soul kind of bums me out because im kind of hanging out for when i can be cloned and have some kind of psych' data transfer into my new body and keep on rockin'.
but if it has a soul then effectivily im killing it/me to move in.
I think i need a few more drinks to ponder the morality of this theory.

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
but a clone having a soul kind of bums me out because im kind of hanging out for when i can be cloned and have some kind of psych' data transfer into my new body and keep on rockin'.
but if it has a soul then effectivily im killing it/me to move in.
I think i need a few more drinks to ponder the morality of this theory.

which then leads to the argument of machine bodies, which then leads to the argument of being remotely controlled because your body is a machine, and which also contains the argument over whether a machine can be truly ethical, and whether such ethics would be restorable via pleading or reasoning, in the event the thing was reprogrammed

a reply to: undo

I understand no problem.

I also get where you are coming from, since I once did the same (it's very common for people researching about "hidden history" or esoteric stuff to do the same, just see Sitchin who based all his researches on the unnecessary hypothesis that Sumerian gods were aliens).


The problem with confirmation bias though is that with enough research you can prove virtually anything.

Give me enough time and I could come up to you with an interpretation of an ancient myths, complete with "proofs" and cross referencing in different cultures, that ancient gods were actually real-life care bears from the planet Kare-a-lot.


Honestly, if you look long enough to find connections between two seemingly unrelated stuff, you will find them. The reason is simple, nothing is truly unrelated. Our brain has evolved to help us find connections and meaning in a soup of data. That's how we can recognize faces and words, but also how we can trick ourselves to see a face in a cloud or hear a word in a waterfall.


Forcing yourself to find connection in a direction you decided will always work. If you concentrate long enough you'll see faces in any pattern. Not being aware of this leads to confirmation bias. And uncontrolled, confirmation bias leads to delusion.

I would be careful if I was you "using confirmation bias".

originally posted by: undo
and the whole ancient world became this vibrant, fascinating landscape.

We are not supposed to look into the past in a way that fulfills our fantasies or desire for more magic in the world. There is already plenty of magic in the world so that we don't need to have a literal reading of mythologies.

What would you think if 2000 years from now someone would use the Harry Potter saga as a "proof" that wizards existed? It's much more complex. Wizards are part of culture and we have stories about them. There's is a part of truth about wizard, and a part of fiction.

The same with all myths, they are products of a culture, not precise historical accounts.

Going back to the topic, a clone would prove nothing about the existence of a soul, simply because no consensus exists regarding "what" a soul is and when it is created.


I see nowhere in religious texts something saying "if a human is created by cloning instead of sexual reproduction, he will not get a soul".

As already explained, the Church's position regarding cloning is ethical, not metaphysical.

Anyone claiming clones have no souls is having an individual and personal opinion, not backed by any scripture nor scientific discovery.

We are not supposed to look into the past in a way that fulfills our fantasies

in a way that fulfills our delusions?

a reply to: Develo

erm, but then we have to look at the nephilim, or to be more precise the rephaim.


7496 rapha' raw-faw' from 7495 in the sense of 7503; properly, lax, i.e. (figuratively) a ghost (as dead; in plural only):--dead, deceased.

7497 rapha' raw-faw' or raphah [raw-faw']; from 7495 in the sense of invigorating; a giant:--giant, Rapha, Rephaim(-s). See also 1051.

so we have a class of nephilim named rephaim who are dead. what's that mean exactly? they are alive yet dead? something's there, and it may be connected to the concept of iron and clay mixed together (a man of both metal and flesh is not necessarily a man).

a reply to: undo

Another interpretation is that the rephaim are the long dead kings living in Israel way before the story of the Jews.

What makes your interpretation more elegant and plausible?

The more you have to make assumptions, the less plausible it is. You make tons of assumptions in your theory.

originally posted by: Develo
Gingers and women already have no soul, I don't see why a clone would have one.


Seriously now, religious people don't say we shouldn't clone people because "they wouldn't have a soul" (where did you get that from?) but because it's not ethical.

About 4 callers on the radio show ground zero last night. To be fair it was in context of homosexuals having children engineered from 2 same sex partners. So that might be why the religious got all butt hurt at the thought. It was a very common thread tho.

I prob should have put the worst case senerio for religion as an example in the op.

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
the spirit, on the other hand, doesn't require the body, as is evidenced by astral projection and other OOBEs

What you call spirit here is just another word for consciousness. And as far as I know you still need a brain to have consciousness.

Astral projections and OOBEs only work when there is at least a few last sparks of electricity in the brain. There has never been any proof of OOBE from someone brain dead for more than a day.

More then that your brain could be out cold when your "brain dead", but you have your "vision" in the couple seconds as you wake up. Everyone knows dream time is crazy. A second could be an about of detailed dreaming.

originally posted by: Develo
a reply to: undo

Another interpretation is that the rephaim are the long dead kings living in Israel way before the story of the Jews.

What makes your interpretation more elegant and plausible?

The more you have to make assumptions, the less plausible it is. You make tons of assumptions in your theory.

the mighty men of old? well one of them fought alongside king david against the philistines, and by himself, killed 800 men in one encounter. not so sure we're talking about what you think we're talking about. or to quote inigo montoya "i don't think it means what you think it means"

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
the spirit, on the other hand, doesn't require the body, as is evidenced by astral projection and other OOBEs

What you call spirit here is just another word for consciousness. And as far as I know you still need a brain to have consciousness.

Astral projections and OOBEs only work when there is at least a few last sparks of electricity in the brain. There has never been any proof of OOBE from someone brain dead for more than a day.

More then that your brain could be out cold when your "brain dead", but you have your "vision" in the couple seconds as you wake up. Everyone knows dream time is crazy. A second could be an about of detailed dreaming.

alternatively, spirit/consciousness may not have any mass, and if it doesn't, it may not have gravity, and if so it may not be bound by space/time. and if so, it's eternal