Soul as in the spirit and things like that. I'm not really talking about the soul/spirit from any particular religious or other viewpoint. Mainly thinking of the soul/spirit in general like it is a separate thing and not your brain.

When does life actually begin? When the sperm meets the egg? When the fetus has a beating heart? When God(s) decide to create another human being?
Just saying life actually begins when we are born, would the soul be created then as well?Can souls be created/destroyed? Or are they existing beforehand and enter/join the body? Would the soul be released after that?

If life is created,lives and inevitably dies and the soul doesn't, is the soul really alive?
If it can does it break down into smaller particles or mass like other matter?

Is the soul connected to the body, or the body to the soul?both?(If the soul does indeed stay in our physical bodies)

Would a god or god have a soul itself?(speaking as if there is a high being of some sort)

All questions I'm asking to anyone willing to answer and discuss them them.
I realize some of these questions might not have real answers and some varying answers but I want to hear all.

(btw mods, if for some reason this belongs in science of the damned or something, sorry and move please)

My God Can Beat the Shit Out of Your God (2 Viewing), Lol. *waits for replies*

The soul is never created. Souls aren't real.

There's not much traffic here, but expect a lot of very different responses on this! You managed to cover the mind-body problem, the characteristics God might have (if God exists) and extropy, all rolled up into one post. :)

Here's is what I have come to understand about it:

When does life actually begin? When the sperm meets the egg? When the fetus has a beating heart? When God(s) decide to create another human being?

Way I see it, life begins at fertilization. Human-ness begins after maturing for about 20 weeks in the womb. Personhood begins the moment it is born, thus becoming independent of it's mother's tissue. We'll call it Personhood, even though (in my opinion), there is absolutely no reason why a soul (as I'm describing it) couldn't apply to other animals besides us.

Just saying life actually begins when we are born, would the soul be created then as well?

Could you have a soul without ever having a brain? It seems like consciousness would be a requirement for us to think a creature has a soul. Do animals have souls? Surely! Are they self-aware of it? Good question, but we can't very well tap into qualia other than our own, so we'll never really know. Do plants have souls? Seems highly unlikely, to me. A rabid member of ELF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front) might heartily disagree. :D

I believe that the soul is in a developmental stage, up until the time Personhood begins. It's created, alright - as a by-product of brain activity. I believe it emerges as the mind emerges, a result of incredibly complex processes - neurons firing and connecting with other neurons in the brain.

The end product is this teeming ball of energy confined to the brain that *created* it. It's where our spirit, in the loosest sense of the word, arises. It's where our minds reside. It's what we feel like we're made of. And self-awareness assures us it's unique to us as individuals.

No wonder somebody down the line dreamt up that God assigned souls, one-by-one, into people upon the moment of conception. It just feels extraordinary to contemplate the most intimate thing we can relate to.

If life is created,lives and inevitably dies and the soul doesn't, is the soul really alive? If it can does it break down into smaller particles or mass like other matter?

From my view - If it's created by the brain, lives as long as the brain does and extinguishes when the brain completely dies, it's not any more "alive" than the cadaver it just occupied. Maybe during the exact moment of death, the energy that was present in the brain leaves the body, and doesn't extinguish completely after all. By that, I mean continues to exist long enough to [insert physicist comment about how useless energy is absorbed by surrounding energy]. By that rote, you can say the soul is infinite, and lives on forever. But are "we" connected to it still? I don't believe we are.

Is the soul connected to the body, or the body to the soul?both?

What I like to believe - both! The soul is essentially the energy that the brain produces. If it's completely absent, then we are considered brain-dead, i.e. not alive. In this way, the body requires the soul be present in order for the body to be considered alive. However, the soul depends on the body (brain) to exist before it can become a possibility!

Please define the term "soul" and then provide evidence that it exists.

Note: You can effectively answer this with "Scatman Crothers."

The soul is never created. Souls aren't real.

If your going to reply with that can you at least put some content in that post? Can you tell me why souls aren't real or why you don't think they are?

I will admit I do not believe in souls or spirits as some religions describe them and I do not believe in any religion known to man but I do not dismiss the fact that it is in fact possible for souls/the spirit or anything like that to exist no matter how stupid it sounds. Unless of course there is somehow rock hard evidence that proves or disproves them or the idea of them.Which I don't think or I don't know if it would be possible for such evidence to exist.

Please define the term "soul" and then provide evidence that it exists.

Note: You can effectively answer this with "Scatman Crothers."

I only know what I've read and heard about souls(which isn't much). I have no true definition of souls because I don't know alot about them and haven't really discussed it with anyone.I don't even think there is a true definition of souls or the spirit.
I cannot provide any evidence because well like I said I'm not sure what I think a soul is or could be.(I'm not saying they are real but I am not dismissing the idea or saying they aren't real)

If you have your own evidence that proves souls do or do not exist please post it. Tell me what you think a soul is or could be.

AngryFemme,thanks for the great reply.Your post was pretty interesting even though i think my half asleep brain didn't fully process it.I'm going to read it again tomorrow and think about it more when I am fully awake and no longer fatigued.

The soul/spirit was originally an idea that was meant to explain the difference between a person who is alive and one who is dead. They realized there was some life force that disappeared at the time of death and figured the body must have lost its spirit. In the discussion since then, many people have equated the idea of soul to that of the mind (not brain) such as Descartes. It seems every conception has one thing in common and that is the soul/spirit/mind is immaterial. Thus, there is no way to speak of it being observed or proven, though nor can it be disproven. It is like stating there is an invisible dragon in my stomach.

Obviously since ancient times, we have disproven the original conception as some life force, we now understand through biology and neurology what really happens at death, so we no longer need mystical explanations.

Imo, what people now consider their 'soul' or 'mind' is nothing more than their conscious experience and personality, both of which are better explained through identity theory and the functioning of the material brain. As science progresses, we can break the bonds of mysticism and realize the real workings of the universe.

The soul/spirit was originally an idea that was meant to explain the difference between a person who is alive and one who is dead. They realized there was some life force that disappeared at the time of death and figured the body must have lost its spirit. In the discussion since then, many people have equated the idea of soul to that of the mind (not brain) such as Descartes. It seems every conception has one thing in common and that is the soul/spirit/mind is immaterial. Thus, there is no way to speak of it being observed or proven, though nor can it be disproven. It is like stating there is an invisible dragon in my stomach.

Obviously since ancient times, we have disproven the original conception as some life force, we now understand through biology and neurology what really happens at death, so we no longer need mystical explanations.


First, very nice post and thanks for posting.


Can you be more specific on who "they" is? Or do you just mean ancient civilizations in general?

I think if there is a spirit or soul in the religious view, well just in any perspective, such as your soul/spirit goes to heaven or an afterlife or possesses another physical body or anything like that and the soul is a creation of a Higher being(or is another form of matter created when the universe was created) then it would not be the same as other matter we know and have observed. I don't think it could be. If the soul was infinite(or a higher being made it inf.) then it would have to be made of something we have not observed or could possibly observe(at least with what we have to observe with) or conceive. If that were true than our current scientific instruments and natural senses are pretty much useless in detecting/observing such a thing.


Imo, what people now consider their 'soul' or 'mind' is nothing more than their conscious experience and personality, both of which are better explained through identity theory and the functioning of the material brain. As science progresses, we can break the bonds of mysticism and realize the real workings of the universe.

If people define or consider their personality and/or experience their soul or spirit than I agree with you that it could be better or sophisticatedly explained with present day science.
But the Identity theory is still just a theory and isn't a law of science.
and before anyone replies to that comment saying well it is not fully proven but has a more logical and rational explanation than the idea of a soul. Yes I realize this and I realize there isn't really any evidence of a soul or spirit.

There's not much traffic here, but expect a lot of very different responses on this! You managed to cover the mind-body problem, the characteristics God might have (if God exists) and extropy, all rolled up into one post. :)


Yeah I notice there isn't alot of people round these parts but I don't see why not, I assume cause the majority of totseans are atheist and/or just think discussion with the subject god is pointless or something. I see Discussion such as this not only a learning experience but very interesting and entertaining on its own.

Way I see it, life begins at fertilization. Human-ness begins after maturing for about 20 weeks in the womb. Personhood begins the moment it is born, thus becoming independent of it's mother's tissue. We'll call it Personhood, even though (in my opinion), there is absolutely no reason why a soul (as I'm describing it) couldn't apply to other animals besides us.
The process of life starting at fertilization makes good sense to me but would you say it alive right when it's fertilized? Hmm, well I suppose so would be just not alive in the same way we are?
I don't think a soul is limited to just humans the way you describe or the the different ways I'm thinking of it. Same with "heaven" and animals. I don't actually know if they say in the bible that animals do or don't go to heaven or hell(I'm guessing they don't) but I kinda think they should be included.
Plant have a soul? I think different life forms would have different type of souls or the soul would be built up of something different but still similar,If souls exist. From your description, well they don't have a brain and aren't exactly born but they are multicellular. I think they could have soul with your description but it would not be the same as a human one. So if you define the soul as only being created by a brain then I guess plants wouldn't have souls but what do you think about different types or souls made of different types of energy or matter? Possible?

Could you have a soul without ever having a brain? It seems like consciousness would be a requirement for us to think a creature has a soul. Do animals have souls? Surely! Are they self-aware of it? Good question, but we can't very well tap into qualia other than our own, so we'll never really know. Do plants have souls? Seems highly unlikely, to me. A rabid member of ELF might heartily disagree.

I believe that the soul is in a developmental stage, up until the time Personhood begins. It's created, alright - as a by-product of brain activity. I believe it emerges as the mind emerges, a result of incredibly complex processes - neurons firing and connecting with other neurons in the brain.

The end product is this teeming ball of energy confined to the brain that *created* it. It's where our spirit, in the loosest sense of the word, arises. It's where our minds reside. It's what we feel like we're made of. And self-awareness assures us it's unique to us as individuals.


Soul without a brain? Hmm,if all life had souls regardless of having a brain or not then yes but I'd say it could possible the way you describe it. in your description of the soul-do you think it could be possible to extract the soul or possibly absorb it?Or possibly replace one soul with another?

I think animals could very well have a soul but what about one celled organisms that aren't really considered an animal?and what about a human brain without a soul?Possible? do you think there could there be some kind of defect or glitch causing a soul or this energy to not create or to mutate into something that isn't a normal soul?(from your description of a soul)

our physical body is constantly growing from when life begins.So when the brain grows wouldn't the soul grow with it? if the brain can do more complex actions when its fully developed would that mean the soul would grow more complex also?

If a mother was having identical twins with the same dna and genes, do you think it vould it be possible they would have identical souls?


No wonder somebody down the line dreamt up that God assigned souls, one-by-one, into people upon the moment of conception. It just feels extraordinary to contemplate the most intimate thing we can relate to.
Indeed :)

From my view - If it's created by the brain, lives as long as the brain does and extinguishes when the brain completely dies, it's not any more "alive" than the cadaver it just occupied. Maybe during the exact moment of death, the energy that was present in the brain leaves the body, and doesn't extinguish completely after all. By that, I mean continues to exist long enough to [insert physicist comment about how useless energy is absorbed by surrounding energy]. By that rote, you can say the soul is infinite, and lives on forever. But are "we" connected to it still? I don't believe we are.
From your view do you think all brains create a soul the same way each time?
I think if our brains did create our soul then they would be unique because of the amount or varying types of "energy", assuming the human brain is already unique when the brain creates or spawns it.
I think damaged(from birth or injury), or abnormal brains(from birth) would have a difference in their soul.
Do you think they would in your description or any others?

I haven't slept yet so I hope there isn't too many errors or comprehension mistakes, if they are, I apologize :)

Yeah I notice there isn't alot of people round these parts but I don't see why not, I assume cause the majority of totseans are atheist and/or just think discussion with the subject god is pointless or something.
For centuries, God has been the given answer to everything we can't fully explain yet. Thanks to great strides in how we comprehend the process of life, that is no longer an acceptable explanation for a lot of people. Science certainly feels it's worth contemplating, if only to find a less complex explanation for it. If someone wants to accept that "God did it" and that answer satisfies their curiosity, then I guess for them, it would seem pointless to discuss alternative explanations.

So if you define the soul as only being created by a brain then I guess plants wouldn't have souls but what do you think about different types or souls made of different types of energy or matter? Possible?

Absolutely. But at some point, we're going to have to let go of the word "soul" to describe it. There's definitely a different process going on in the life-force of plants, but since plants aren't alive in the same sense we are, using such an antiquated term like "soul" is unnecessary.

IMO, we're at a point in time where our understanding of neurological processes makes our concept of the "soul" as we previously knew it to be less ethereal and spiritual and more tethered to the physical.

in your description of the soul-do you think it could be possible to extract the soul or possibly absorb it?Or possibly replace one soul with another?

Well - maybe. Remember, I believe the "soul" is dependent on the brain. Read on Deep Brain Stimulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_brain_stimulation) and you might find it plausible to think that since we can already manipulate the brain as treatment for neurological diseases, eventually science will figure out how to duplicate enough processes in the brain to make someone seem alive. But due to so many people believing that the soul is something that is exclusive to being a God's personal handiwork, it would be highly controversial.

our physical body is constantly growing from when life begins.So when the brain grows wouldn't the soul grow with it? if the brain can do more complex actions when its fully developed would that mean the soul would grow more complex also?

In short: Yes

If a mother was having identical twins with the same dna and genes, do you think it vould it be possible they would have identical souls?

Shoot, I already believe all humans have identical souls, related or not - at least in the sense that it's a common emergent property of the same organ.

From your view do you think all brains create a soul the same way each time?

Yes. I don't believe souls are special or unique.

"I only know what I've read and heard about souls(which isn't much). I have no true definition of souls because I don't know alot about them and haven't really discussed it with anyone.I don't even think there is a true definition of souls or the spirit.
I cannot provide any evidence because well like I said I'm not sure what I think a soul is or could be.(I'm not saying they are real but I am not dismissing the idea or saying they aren't real)

If you have your own evidence that proves souls do or do not exist please post it. Tell me what you think a soul is or could be."

I think KiloSanchez nailed it; a "soul" is an explaination ancient peoples who didn't know any better had for death. The modern definition has changed to include references to certain kinds of music, or more commonly just a person's personality.

However, there is no evidence that the ancient and modern religious definition has any merit, and in fact modern science tells us that the information storage device that contains every aspect of what makes us each unique (the brain) is useless shortly after death, and in fact that information in the form of electrochemical reactions is lost.

I sure this is disappointing information for those few who enjoyed "Ghost Dad," but it's the truth.

No such thing.

Law of Conservation of Energy.

You can't make shit out of nothing. So if every one had a soul, they would have one/quadrillionth of a soul.

In the highest reality, we are all one, and share one soul--collectively we are God. The spirit is something different, being the force that animates any discrete entity.

First, very nice post and thanks for posting.


Thank you and the same to you. We need more nice people like you on totse and fewer of the rageaholic angst kids that post one-liner messages of ad hominen attacks. Then again, it just wouldn't be totse without them, lol.



Can you be more specific on who "they" is? Or do you just mean ancient civilizations in general?


Yes, people being taught in the Aristotelian Scholastic/Aquinian tradition. This tradition of philosophical thought led all the way up to the 17th century when Descartes, Locke, and others began to attack the it and offer new ideas. So this would have been the popular western view atleast from the time of Aristotle up until the scientific revolution, though some notions such as the soul/spirit have survived, largely because of religious dogma in popular thought.

In the highest reality, we are all one, and share one soul--collectively we are God.

Yes.

It's creation has only ever been an illusion, a 'point' for an expereince to begin. A point within that which already is. It has always been, and it always will be ... in fact, the sense of 'time' implied just now is also an illusion itself.

It simply is.

we are made up of different components that compose our sense of self and our ego. Physically we are made up of different components that form our physical being, and mentally we are too. This components can be seen as 'imprints' in consciousness imprinted by action. Physical components are obviously quite bonding, we don't lose them until after death. After death, we still have components that compose an ego that we have when we're incarnated. You can consider this the soul.

Yes. I don't believe souls are special or unique.

Even if all souls are made of the same material they can still be unique in shape, size or amount.

The soul has no evidence for it. There is more evidence for bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster than there is for the soul. There is more evidence 9/11 was our government than there is evidence for a soul.

You would not know about a soul or think you had one if someone had not told you about it. If someone never told you of a God or a Soul you would have no concept of either.

You are regurgitating ideas of very primitive peoples.

You would not know about a soul or think you had one if someone had not told you about it. If someone never told you of a God or a Soul you would have no concept of either.


If you are able to recognize yourself, then sure you would.

'The soul', or 'God', is all that you can truly know.

If you are able to recognize yourself, then sure you would.

'The soul', or 'God', is all that you can truly know.

Nope.

We have been over this. Your simple philosophy has no value.

The soul has no evidence for it. There is more evidence for bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster than there is for the soul. There is more evidence 9/11 was our government than there is evidence for a soul.

You would not know about a soul or think you had one if someone had not told you about it. If someone never told you of a God or a Soul you would have no concept of either.

You are regurgitating ideas of very primitive peoples.

If that's your logic for finding answers you are the primitive little shit.

Nope.

We have been over this. Your simple philosophy has no value.

Nope...what?

Yes, I understand you do not value my philosophy.

If that's your logic for finding answers you are the primitive little shit.

My logic for finding answers is grounded in science. Science today is not primitive and certainly not as primitive as a caveman crying over the loss of his son trying to cope with the big, scary unknown world and turning to his imagination for answers.

Science does not recognize a soul. Has not found a soul or anything resembling what you have all defined as a soul. Science does recognize memes.

Welcome to yours.

My logic for finding answers is grounded in science. Science today is not primitive and certainly not as primitive as a caveman crying over the loss of his son trying to cope with the big, scary unknown world and turning to his imagination for answers.

Science does not recognize a soul. Has not found a soul or anything resembling what you have all defined as a soul. Science does recognize memes.

Welcome to yours.

Those are just thoughts based around the word science, you are acting like the word itself holds any substance other than the intended meaning, it's the same as saying: "because it's in the bible".

That isn't even a real response, just thoughts based around the word science, you are acting like the word itself holds any substance other than the intended meaning, it's the same as saying: "because it's in the bible".

LOL.

You understand what science is and what it does. I can explain science to you but that would derail the argument. If that is your agenda then so be it.

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

In short science is a truth machine. It seeks the truth. The truth, the FACTS, can only be supported with empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence for a soul. NONE. There is empirical evidence for a primitive belief in a soul. A reason why someone would buy into the belief without evidence.

It is more comforting and easier to cope with death if you believe it is not final. PERIOD. It is more comfoting to think that you are more important than the parts (your body) that make you. There is even a reason why someone would pass this information on to you (which IS the only reason you "know" about it today). Profit.

Now it does not matter whether or not you can or will accept this, saying something is scientific is IN NO WAY relatable to a theist saying "it is in the bible". One is speaking from knowledge and evidence and the other is talking about magic. I find it laughable that you can attempt to make that connection.

The point of my post is, if you use the word science, use scientific reason to back your claims up or it'll be the same as a Christian saying: "it's in the bible". Handy to know, but useless reasoning. Hopefully you got it this time so you won't have to waste your time again.

The point of my post is, if you use the word science, use scientific reason to back your claims up or it'll be the same as a Christian saying: "it's in the bible". Handy to know, but useless reasoning. Hopefully you got it this time so you won't have to waste your time again.

LOL. I agree it is completely useless but would argue your reasoning capabilities if you truly believe that.

It is not the same. Scientific research bears results. The results of which you are typing on right now. How is science able to do ALL the undeniably amazing shit it does? B/C if differs from "It's in the bible". THAT IS WHY. "It's in the bible" lacks real observable merit unlike science.

I do not use science the same way a christian uses the bible. Here is the fundamental difference:

Religion is based on imagination. Science is based on F A C T S.

The bibles cure for leprosy:
God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That's all there is to it.

Sciences cure for leprosy:
Doctors prescribe antibiotics that kill the bacteria responsible for the disease.

Clearly one holds more truth, merit and value than the other. CLEARLY. It cannot be the same when one says "Scientifically speaking...." and one says "It's in the bible". One has MORE PROVEN value than the other.

I hold no real illusions you will accept or understand this, very, very simple observation, so feel free to waste all the time you require.

If you held no illusions you would never think of one thing to be more true than another.

If you held no illusions you would never think of one thing to be more true than another.

;)

Oh, and ...

Has anyone else ever noticed that when BP gets really riled up, how well his manner of writing mimics that of a religious fundamentalist? All shouty and pushy ...

:p

^It's quite amusing really, once you get past the aggravating aspects of the situation.^

Very, very funny kids...

Seriously, after making my final point you three decide to resort to COMPLETE ad hominem. Do what you CAN I suppose.

One is speaking from knowledge and evidence and the other is talking about magic.

What exactly is unknown about my idea of the soul?

Actually, its all that is known to be true.

What exactly is unknown about my idea of the soul?

Actually, its all that is known to be true.

No.

I AM does not prove or represent a soul. I AM represents a conscious mind and that is all. You have no evidence for a soul in your one sentence philosophy.

You think the great philosophers of the world never thought about your mind boggling sentence? Why did others write volumes on philosophy when all they needed was your one sentence? Answer: Your one sentence is completely useless to humanity.

Your one sentence is completely useless to humanity.

Sure, because it doesn't explain the whole concept. Its just the base.

'I AM' recognizes simply 'being'. Simply 'being' is the allness and oneness of reality and existence.

Sure, because it doesn't explain the whole concept. Its just the base.

'I AM' recognizes simply 'being'. Simply 'being' is the allness and oneness of reality and existence.

NO. It explains it all. You can assume whatever you like based off your one sentence, but everyone will assume different things. Assumptions are useless.

Your one sentence is the whole of your philosophy. You cannot really add a whole lot to it can you?

ALL (every fucking thing in the universe) that can be KNOWN (total accumulation of human knowledge) is that I AM.

DONE. Nothing else goes before or after this statement, else you realize the statement itself is false.

ALL that can be KNOWN is that I AM.

DONE. Nothing else goes before or after this statement, else you realize the statement itself is false.

The statement is not false, just anything that come before or after it is an illusion. Experiences of others, of separation, are illusions when compared with the absolute truth.

But you can imagine another perspective. You can imagine the perspective of an illusory person. Absolute truth would be the same for them.

All illusions can come forth from and revert back to simply being. Thats the allness and oneness of simply being.

Here's a crazy idea:

Let's address the OP's questions, stay on topic and not derail the thread arguing amongst ourselves.

Alright.

It's creation has only ever been an illusion, a 'point' for an expereince to begin. A point within that which already is. It has always been, and it always will be ... in fact, the sense of 'time' implied just now is also an illusion itself.

It simply is.

Quoted for clarity.

The "soul" or whatever you want to call it seems to me to be a part of a unified consciousness of every being (or God, or whatever you have been taught to call it) which will keep latching itself onto these lumps of matter in samsara until one learns how to break the cycle and stay in the true nature of being as one. (or being part of God or with God, different religions and names are irrelevant it's all different paths to the same thing)

The point of my post is, if you use the word science, use scientific reason to back your claims up or it'll be the same as a Christian saying: "it's in the bible". Handy to know, but useless reasoning. Hopefully you got it this time so you won't have to waste your time again.

It seems that is completely how he is reasoning. He is saying there is no empirical evidence for of such an entity. Furthermore, if it is something immaterial, then there never could be, so why even speak of such a thing? If you still think it's something you 'experience', I simply can't help you there. The physical brain brings in sensory data and then you are able to mull over whatever you want to yourself, but I don't see why you need to call any of this your 'soul', it is all physical workings of the brain.

Soul as in the spirit and things like that. I'm not really talking about the soul/spirit from any particular religious or other viewpoint. Mainly thinking of the soul/spirit in general like it is a separate thing and not your brain.

The spirit and the soul aren't the same thing. Spirit is the vital principle or animating force within living things. The soul is a self aware ethereal substance unique to a particular being. It is the immortal essence that incarnates time and again in different bodies.


When does life actually begin? When the sperm meets the egg?

Yes


Just saying life actually begins when we are born, would the soul be created then as well?Can souls be created/destroyed? Or are they existing beforehand and enter/join the body? Would the soul be released after that?

I think that the soul is connected to the bundle of matter that makes you an 'individual'. So at the moment the seed is planted to make 'you', the immortal 'you', and the essence of 'you' are connected to that bundle of matter, to experience and grow together.


If life is created,lives and inevitably dies and the soul doesn't, is the soul really alive?
Depends on what you mean by alive. From our perspective imagining a soul is quite difficult because we only live 90 years, how could we begin to perceive eternity.
Try to look at it like this.
Our being is made of countless atoms running their course, yet we still feel we are individuals.
To better describe this I must give you some terms.

Oversoul - the larger energy from which the soul extends. You can think of it as a soul family or soul group, because 12 souls extend out from the oversoul. Those whom you feel a kinship and share a similar purpose in the world may be a part of your oversoul group. Some think of the oversoul as the higher self, or at least one aspect of the higher self.

Monad - The oversoul is rooted within the monad, the central core of consciousness that extends out from the source of creation. The monad is like the higher self of the higher self, closest to the source of creation. The monad creates twelve oversouls, who likewise each create twelve individual souls to potentially become incarnate beings. So each monad has 144 souls extending from it. The monad is also known as the monadic body, and is said to hold the monadic blueprint, or the patterns of perfect health and one's divine purpose. Monadic blueprint means true will, or dharma. The more in tune you are to your oversoul and then mondad, the better able you are to fulfill your purpose in the world.

Maybe you'll better understand if I put it in terms of a single atom.

One life (one of the 144 souls) is like an electron popping in and out of existence around the nucleus. 12 electrons are connected to one of the 12 over electrons (higher self of electron) which are connected to the nucleus (monad).


Is the soul connected to the body, or the body to the soul?both?(If the soul does indeed stay in our physical bodies)

It is connected with our etheric body which is connected to our physical bodies.

Would a god or god have a soul itself?(speaking as if there is a high being of some sort)
God would be like the ultimate monad.

That is the way I see it, for another view that links into this one you may want to check out The Ancient Egyptian Conception of the soul (http://www.kheper.net/topics/Egypt/egyptian_soul.htm).