Let's assume for a second that a soul is an actual thing that really exists and that humans have it.

Though we're already teleporting photons in practice via quantum entanglement, teleporting a whole human is still out of our reach and only possible in theory.

But let's say we one day invent a technology that allows a person to be teleported. And not just that, but copied as well. The original body (A) in the first chamber is lost, but all information is transported to the other two chambers where identical copies (B and C) of the human materialize.

What do you think would happen?
a) Person B would get the soul, while person C would lack it.
b) Person C would get the soul , while person B would lack it.
c) Both person B and person C would gain a soul (after all, they're an exact copy of person A).

If the original body is lost, it sounds like A is dead, and the other two are new individuals.

You're named after a sex toy company.

5519799 So where, does the soul fit in this?

5519817 Or maybe a sex toy company is named after me.

5519732
If the original is killed, than the soul will depart to heaven or hell.

Copies of this person will just be bodies. The tissue and cells will live, but they won't be people. They won't be human. All personality and intelligence will vanish with the original's death

5519825 Why wouldn't they be human?
The brain cells would be copied exactly.

5519825 Not necessarily. If human life is created, a soul is created with it.

5519950
if human life is created by God, it has a soul

5519861
Yes, but there would be no self.
The brain cells and neurons would still send pulses and work fine, they just wouldn't be used for any higher purpose.

It's kinda like someone who is brain dead. They can move and breathe and act, but they just aren't there.

5520025 But it's brain cells, neurons, and chemicals that allow for consciousness.

And a brain-dead someone still has to be hooked up to life support systems.

5520016

But babies have souls, and they are created by the commingling of genetic material. If this machine copied everything, including ones genetic makeup, would that which is created not be imbued with a soul?

5520123

But it's brain cells, neurons, and chemicals that allow for consciousness.

Just because it's capable of consciousness doesn't mean it will use it

5520310
God gives/creates souls
God gives babies souls

Man cannot create souls

5520582 The brain doesn't will itself to have consciousness. It's a byproduct of, well, what I earlier said.

God gives/creates souls
God gives babies souls
Man cannot create souls

Well, he technically does. I mean, his sperm and a woman's egg fertilize together, and the zygote multiplies, creating brain cells and neurons.
Man creates consciousness.

5520590

Why wouldn't God give person B and C souls?

5520622
I believe that we have our unique consciousness because we have souls.
I also believe that if one were to take away the soul, consciousness would be unattainable.

Without our souls, we are mere bodies. We would be like any other animal

5520654 That's your belief. That is not a fact.
Factually speaking, the only requirements for consciousness are a functioning brain, blood, oxygen, food, sleep, water, and a physical body.

And are you implying that animals don't have souls?

If I may (and people are going to immediately shout "no!" but I will anyway)...

There is no hard and fast, crystal-clear answer to the question of whether or not a cloned human would possess a soul. That being said, most interpretations of the Bible, and the general sense of Christian theology, would suggest cloned humans would, in fact, have souls. It’s possible to construct a theological framework where they would not. Yet most Christians would find that framework self-contradictory and unnecessary.

Lacking perfect understanding, we’re obligated to treat all human beings as persons, worthy not only of the value God places in His creations (Psalm 104:24) but the love that He expects us to show each other (James 2:8). That includes artificially cloned humans, if or when such persons come to exist.

Recommended Resource: Created in God's Image by Anthony Hoekema

From https://www.gotquestions.org/clone-soul.html

5520651
5520745
5519861
Yeah, I can see the argument for both sides.

What I do know is that
1) All humans have souls
2) Only humans have souls (here on Earth)
3) The soul is our person, without a soul we are only a body
4) Only God can create souls

So I guess if God wanted to give these cloned humans souls He would. Or perhaps He wouldn't.

Right now I'm just theorizing, cause I don't guess we will know the true answer until someone is actually cloned

5520715

Factually speaking, the only requirements for consciousness are a functioning brain, blood, oxygen, food, sleep, water, and a physical body.

Yeah, but i'm combining biology and theology

And are you implying that animals don't have souls?

Yep. 'cause they don't.

5520780 Biology and Theology are fields that have no real overlap.

And, I have to ask the obvious question, how do you know this to be true?

5520839

And, I have to ask the obvious question, how do you know this to be true?

It comes from the Word of God

5520016 All human life is been created the same way, and all human life forms have souls. I don't believe any religious authority has said it whether souls are a naturally occurring product of creation (i.e. God set it up so that every human automatically gets a soul redargless of origin) or if a soul is something that is placed in a body "manually" by God. Personally, my theory is the former. At any rate, God laid the framework for either.

5520897 As I expected.
And what gives that any form of legitimacy?

5519822 sorry, I thought I posted this earlier, but it must not have gone through: New individuals get new souls, probably similar to the old one. Old one passes on.

This is an interesting thread.

5519825 So it's like the lights are on but nobody's home scenario? You can make another you, but you can't make another you?

5521059 Yes. Although, it may be proven otherwise by the ability to clone a human. But even in a scenario like that, the clone would not be you it would just be another being that looks a lot like you in the outward appearance.

5521129 Yeah, it would be more of a shell.

5521162 Right

5521059
Yep.

Probably.

5520968
The fact that God is good/just/perfect

5521398 Once more, as expected.
And how do you know that to be true?

5521440
Because I am a Christian and it is something I take on faith

5521448 And there it is.

"Without proof".

5521998 you blind?
the definition said "RATHER"
you need definition for rather?

rather
ˈrɑːðə/
adverb
1.
used to indicate one's preference in a particular matter.
"would you like some wine or would you rather stick to sherry?"
synonyms: by preference, sooner, preferably, from/by choice, more willingly, more readily; if I had my druthers
"I'd rather you went"
2.
to a certain or significant extent or degree.
"she's been behaving rather strangely"
synonyms: quite, a bit, a little, fairly, slightly, somewhat, relatively, to some degree/extent, comparatively, moderately; More
exclamationBRITISHdated
rɑːˈðəː/
1.
used to express emphatic affirmation, agreement, or acceptance.
"‘You are glad to be home, aren't you?’ ‘Rather!’"

nowhere dose it say "without proof'

5522007 Are you a grammar school dropout? Or blind, as well?

"Rather" is also a word used to indicate contrast between two particular things.
IE- "Rather than running, he chose to ride a bike."

Faith:
"...based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Made the smallest of errors. And by "error", I mean "simplification."
The term "rather than proof" is synonymous with "without proof".

5522027 still Christian definition dose NOT mean simply following God blindly you know. We think about this stuff and test ourselves. We do not just believe God, "just because" We believe in God because we believe that he is real and that he has guided us.
My theology tutor said that when studying bible you need both FAITH AND LOGIC to make sense... that is what faith is- believing something that you cannot see nor understand. Cause spirituality is not something you can measure it. ( cause there is limit on what science can do.)

5522033

there is limit on what science can do

A limitation based not on the science itself, but on our tools.

We do not just believe God, "just because" We believe in God because we believe that he is real and that he has guided us.

And you believe in that...
"Just because", right? Because my preacher told me to?

...what faith is- believing something that you cannot see nor understand

And that's the problem. If you cannot see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or use pure scientifically-backed reactions (IE- using the gravitational force on surrounding objects to discover a planet), it doesn't exist as a physical being/concept.
"Believing in something that you can't see or understand" Christ. If you can't see it or understand it, what's to say it even exists?
Isn't that the exact same logic behind Santa?

5522037

And you believe in that...
"Just because", right? Because my preacher told me to?

nope. Cause that is NOT a true conviction... I am convinced ( I will admit i do doubt in my moments of weakness but my mind has not wondered off to deny God) that my God is real. I have experienced his grace ever since I was a kid and i do believe he still looks out for me... even when I doubt and feel like alone. For we are never truly alone.

5522040 "experienced his grace", huh?
Is this an actual experience? Like, you saw Yahweh or Jesus? Do you have a recording? Audio, video. Do you have "the scars to prove it"?
Or is this one of those "religious experiences" that you people propagate for the sake of your own delusions? The kind where you just "felt" it.
Good things does not mean God's there.

5522043

Is this an actual experience? Like, you saw Yahweh or Jesus? Do you have a recording? Audio, video. Do you have "the scars to prove it"?

an actual experience...
There is one experience when I was a kid that happened.
When I was around 5... when i still lived in Korea me and my Parents was driving through a mountain when we came across abandoned sledge park which still had some plastic sledge. My dad parked his car and my dad and I rode the sledge for a while and decided to get into the car and drove again. But then there was a hole in the ground and the car was stuck. My dad was inside his car while me and my mother was outside praying. When sudden there was two guys out of nowhere who came and helped dad and got his car out of the hole- we thanked them and we went on our marry way.

It is things like this that gets me convinced that God is real. Not to mention few years ago my sister went to Tanzania as her mission trip and when she came back she testified on seeing incredible stuff like blind seeing and people curing and praising God like it was written in the Bible! I may doubt it sometimes but I remind myself on how God showed his evidence throughout my life and that he is always there for me.

5522051
1) Look up "coincidence"
2) Most people will try and help out a fellow person if their car is stuck, y'know. Good will towards man. Most people can be good without a Sky Daddy.

5522066

in other words I don't believe in coincidences... I believe everything happens for a reason. And there is the fact that my sister witnessed through her eyes bind people seeing through the power of prayer when she went to Tanzania and she became strong Christian ever since. I admire her about that.

5522070 Did she record this fact? Where are the medical records of inexplicable blindness cure?
I can't trust "my sister said..."

I believe everything happens for a reason.

And I believe that some things just happen with no greater purpose or plan.

Did the Holocaust happen for a reason? What of Stalin's Great Purge? The Black Death?

Besides, Einstein wasn't a Christian. He was more of a Deist, so using him to prove Christianity is almost disrespectful.
Besides, that's one man's belief.

5522083

Did she record this fact? Where are the medical records of inexplicable blindness cure?
I can't trust "my sister said..."

you DO realise oral history is just as important as written/"recorded" history right? I mean one of my university professor specialises in oral history. there are times in which you can't record it... but she and many different students have witnessed it and all three of her friends also went to missionary trip and witnessed same thing.

Besides, Einstein wasn't a Christian. He was more of a Deist, so using him to prove Christianity is almost disrespectful.
Besides, that's one man's belief.

just using him as an example of learned man who was not a Christian NOT believing in coincidences.

5522088 There are many who think Elvis is still alive. There are many who think the Holocaust didn't happen. Saying "these people also saw it" means nothing unless it can be backed up. Oral history still relies on some form of outside proof. Someone can't simply say "I saw Hitler still alive" and have everyone believe it. If the spoken story contradicts the proven story, it is likely false.
And her claim is so outrageous that some form of actual evidence is needed.

just using him as an example of learned man who was not a Christian NOT believing in coincidences.

And that's fine for Einstein, but I still disagree with him. Some things just happen with no higher design or purpose.

5522105

There are many who think Elvis is still alive. There are many who think the Holocaust didn't happen. Saying "these people also saw it" means nothing unless it can be backed up. Oral history still relies on some form of outside proof.

There were NUMEROUS witnesses... about 100 or so students and several teachers and even local Tanzania people who were there.
If numbers of witnesses is not enough I don't know what to say but... you are dead set on treating this as an delusion aren't you?
You remind me of Cornelius Fudge of Harry Potter franchise.

5522110 The fact that you've resorted to likening me to one of the worst-written characters in the Harry Potter franchise just because you can't provide a decent-enough response/counter-argument is a testament to both your immaturity and the sheer weakness of your argument.
You began the game. You remind me of Patrick Star. Or Minister Fudge, I suppose.

I'm not predisposed to trusting sheer numbers unless I have a written, recorded, physical account that does not rely on witnesses. I need more than that to believe.

5522145

I'm not predisposed to trusting sheer numbers unless I have a written, recorded, physical account that does not rely on witnesses.

Implying that you do not believe in oral history at all... You know how oral history works right? Sure some historians can use both oral and written... BUT ONCE IT IS RECORDED IN "PAPER" IT IS NO LONGER ORAL. Plus one's testimony... like testimony of veteran's experience in Vietnam War or Korean War... is just as taken ON ITS OWN much as any written accounts.
In other words words itself is just as legit as written evidence...
if you want written version then here
http://www.hebron.ac.nz/News++Events/Overseas+Missions/2013+Mission+to+Tanzania.html
this is my and my sister's old school that were part of missionary team. READ it.

5522159 Let's use a hypothetical scenario, as you clearly don't seem to understand this simple concept.
Suppose a veteran from WW2 told the press "Hitler and Stalin were in cahoots after 1941".
That contradicts written fact, and is also incredibly unlikely. Thus, it is false.
Oral history has its place, but it must be linked to recorded history. Oral history cannot stand on its own.
As such, if this story about a Tanzanian blindness cure isn't backed up by any sort of unbiased, concrete proof, it's simply false.
False until proven true.

http://www.hebron.ac.nz/News++Events/Overseas+Missions/2013+Mission+to+Tanzania.html

Note how I said "unbiased". A Christian college is naturally going to be biased towards this happening. As such, unless it is written in such a way where they look for any other possible explanation, they are hopelessly biased, and thus illegitimate.
Try again.