Humans are intelligent creatures. Our intelligence makes use of knowledge, and one of the human animal's most amazing (imo) abilities is imaginination. The Humans ability to imagine possible outcomes to a given course of actions has allowed humanity to operate with a sort of foresight.

I can imagine a primitive hunter gatherer human stalking prey in the bush. I can see how questioning and imagining outcomes can come in handy. Say the hunter packed an extra waterskin, just in case he got lost, and low and behold he gets lost and survives because he imagined this possiblity.

This questioning and imaginative human nature has allowed homo sapiens to rise very quickly to the top of the food chain. There were many, many things we did not understand. One thing was so unknowable that primitive humans feared and did not understand it to the greatest degree. Death.

All religions revolve around death. All religions were invented to help primitive inquisitive human beings cope with death. To overcome the fear of death. But who invented the stories of life and death?

Primitive wise men. Star gazers. Ancient astronomers. These men and women were key in the ancient tribal world and their wisdom was venerated. They knew when to plant crops, when to harvest. In coastal communities they were the ones who knew when low tide was coming, when the hurricane season was. They were the ones who knew about trade winds, and how to navigate by the stars.

They were probably the ones the primitive humans turned to when an eclipse occured, a comet passed, when famine struck, when natural disaster occurred. They were the ones you went to when you got sick and just before you died.

How did the ancient astronomers and wise men pass down information to their great, great, grand children? Oral tradition. They invented stories and drew pictures out of stars to signal when you should plant crops, harvest them, how to find north. They gave them names and were easy patterns in the sky for tribesmen to see and teach each other.

The ancient astronomers began to invent reasons for things that were beyond their understanding. Death was most certainly beyond their understanding. Disease, hurricanes, famine, war, and death became a punishment from the great sky, the sun, or the moon. The names and pictures in the constellations began to take on a life of their own.

Primitive man was probably skeptical at first, still questioning, and it was he the tribe probably blamed when disease struck. His disbelief brought curses to the whole population. Dissention would probably not be tolerated and at a very early time in religion. I would imagine religious tribal warfare would ensue until a few large tribes dominated particular regions.

With the growth of population throuh rapid conquest came needs to control large numbers of primitive men living in close proximity. Religion evolved from something that explained the natural order of the universe into something that allowed social cohesion through strict control of mankind's baser primitive desires, food, sex, and shelter. Laws were created, monuments built, and dissenters murdered.

Now begins the murky time period of about 15,000 B.C. and the rest is history.

Well done.

Nice. Fast forward to 2008, and you've got God: The Multi-version.

Religion evolved from something that explained the natural order of the universe into something that allowed social cohesion through strict control of mankind's baser primitive desires, food, sex, and shelter. .

Exactly.

Most people don't realize it, but religion is just another institution that controls society.

"God created Man; Man created God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!" - Excerpt from the Gospel of Phillip

What does this mean, we a literal level we are told religion is man made however, this excerpt refers to one of two things or BOTH:

1) Many of the gods are illusionary made real by the human mind for its own limited purposes. Reality has become a self-delusion which is ran by the demiurge who continues to fight for the delusion.

2) The ideas, projections, and attachments that most people nourish are no more than lifeless and the worship is useless.

Every age has its "gods" in medieval times it was the christian ideal dictated by the popes and bishops. In the age of reason and science it is the "god" of human progress infused with postmodern ideas and sorrowful lessons of history, yet to challege this "god" of human progress why have we lived through the most bloodiest and painful century of all? Were hitler, stalin, mao really the products of progress.

IMHO: as stated by Biologist David Ehrenfeld (THE ARROGANCE OF HUMANISM): "the idea of progress is a disease of our time, we are not inventing our futures but modifying our present and we cannot predict the outcomes of the modifications yet, the result is more so turning out to be terrible."

Truly i tell you you should not be interested in changing the world but transcending it...

Truly i tell you you should not be interested in changing the world but transcending it...

I think that is what Jesus meant when he advised us to be in the world, but not of the world.

Anyway, if you want to change the world, change yourself.

I think that is what Jesus meant when he advised us to be in the world, but not of the world.

Anyway, if you want to change the world, change yourself.

I know thats why I had the "Truly I tell you..." part in there :)

Exactly, I said this earlier people are to busy putting there utopias on others, when in reality they should be putting there utopia on themselves, Change starts within NOT Without.

Every age has its "gods" in medieval times it was the christian ideal dictated by the popes and bishops. In the age of reason and science it is the "god" of human progress infused with postmodern ideas and sorrowful lessons of history, yet to challege this "god" of human progress why have we lived through the most bloodiest and painful century of all? Were hitler, stalin, mao really the products of progress.

Science does not fall within the definition of a god or any deity. To make the square peg of science fit into the round hole of religion, you must change the fundamental natures and definition of one, the other, or both.

If Hitler, Stalin and Mao the products of progress, I say fine. The progress and the good things it brings out weigh the atrocities committed by these men. I do not believe, however, that they are the products of progress. I do not attribute the natures of these men with the age of reason. Every age, every century has its villians. Technology brought about in the age of reason made mayhem more efficient. It did not make men more or less evil.

Science does not fall within the definition of a god or any deity. To make the square peg of science fit into the round hole of religion, you must change the fundamental natures and definition of one, the other, or both.

If Hitler, Stalin and Mao the products of progress, I say fine. The progress and the good things it brings out weigh the atrocities committed by these men. I do not believe, however, that they are the products of progress. I do not attribute the natures of these men with the age of reason. Every age, every century has its villians. Technology brought about in the age of reason made mayhem more efficient. It did not make men more or less evil.

Science is an idea, a projections, and an attachment... You give it life by being interested in it, if everyone stopped with being interested in Science than it would die. Science under the definition of God I said earlier is a god. We praise our discoveries and worship science as our only way to know anything.

I never said these characters were products of progress, your right the new technology of the age has made mayhem more efficient and thanks to that technology has cost more peoples lives than any other age in history, I am not here to condemn science but to put it in its place but not in the same way an atheist or just an anti-religious likes to put religion down...

Thats why I say this age of Reason and Science because, its become disproportionate to other aspects of humanity. People idolize science; The same way the major world religions are idolized by there leaders.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, 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.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

Both definitions brought to you by Wiki.

These things are not readily comparable. Like I said, science is a square peg and religion a round hole. You have set forth your own definition of God (rounding the square peg) so it can fit into the hole. This does not make it correct. It just means you have modified one, or both definitions to make your comparision, as I state would need to be done.

Under your PERSONAL definition of God, everything a person shows interest in becomes a God. This can become rather ridiculous. If I masterbate, showing interest in my penis, it becomes a God. My chicken dinner becomes a God. A fart I am intrested in having becomes a God.

This is also the most heavily populated time in history on the Earth. There are many factors at work in your deadliest century, making your place putting of science a bit difficult it would seem. If we were to work on a per capita, I would say the century of the black death would be the deadliest.

If you are a believer in God, then you have to contend that this is not the deadliest age in mankind's history. The great deluge would be the bloodiest I think.

To say that people worship science b/c it provides truth is extreme. People respect science for it's uncanny ability to deliver truth. There is a difference. Science is a tool and nothing more. To compare it to religion, again, you must corrupt the definition of one, the other or both.

I have run afoul of this problem talking with theists before, in so much, that they seem unable to recognize anyone who does not worship something.

Science is often the anti-god.

In most cases, science disproves/proves what a god says is true/false.

I don't need a god to be a moral and intelligent person. Gods provide a empty reason to be good, and often rely on the unintelligence of it's followers to stay in power.

Science is fact. Although somethings are proven wrong by science that was once believed true by science, but atleast science can be wrong and be corrected. With a god you are on it's side or you are wrong.

I find science to be much more satisfying than God. The mysterious of science and what is unknown at the leading edge of scientific research is so much more interesting than a simple mythological story.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, 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.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

Both definitions brought to you by Wiki.

These things are not readily comparable. Like I said, science is a square peg and religion a round hole. You have set forth your own definition of God (rounding the square peg) so it can fit into the hole. This does not make it correct. It just means you have modified one, or both definitions to make your comparision, as I state would need to be done.

Under your PERSONAL definition of God, everything a person shows interest in becomes a God. This can become rather ridiculous. If I masterbate, showing interest in my penis, it becomes a God. My chicken dinner becomes a God. A fart I am intrested in having becomes a God.

This is also the most heavily populated time in history on the Earth. There are many factors at work in your deadliest century, making your place putting of science a bit difficult it would seem. If we were to work on a per capita, I would say the century of the black death would be the deadliest.

If you are a believer in God, then you have to contend that this is not the deadliest age in mankind's history. The great deluge would be the bloodiest I think.

To say that people worship science b/c it provides truth is extreme. People respect science for it's uncanny ability to deliver truth. There is a difference. Science is a tool and nothing more. To compare it to religion, again, you must corrupt the definition of one, the other or both.

I have run afoul of this problem talking with theists before, in so much, that they seem unable to recognize anyone who does not worship something.

First of all let it be clear I am not suggesting i am against science. Second of all when qith most people when it comes to looking for God they look outside of themselves not within... What people worship are idols, images and things of that sort NOT the actual thing itself.

Passions themselves are not evil or imperfect rather its the means you do to get the passion fulfilled are what could be evil or imperfect. Your penis is not a God rather the reason why you would masturbate which is for pleasure is treated like a God you idolize the lust and therefore, worshiped your own lustfulness.

As the population increased so the interest in science. With more advancements came more application for those advancements, including military applications. So to say money solely drove these instances wouldn't be entirely true either.

Your narrow-mindedness contradicts your claim to being so open-minded. "If I Believe in God I Would..." that alone tries to define someone and I find it rude to define someone especially someone you speak to on a forum and not face to face. Second of all, the great deluge and any other bible story is a myth it represents not externalities but internalities. Third, those actions are not the actions of the God I believe in. So I conclude Your narrow-mindedness contradicts your claim to being so open-minded.

Science and Religion have the same purpose to discover the truth. However, where science ends its physical discoveries and if you count psychology than mental discoveries, is where religion begins in its philosophical, mental, and broad-range of mental discoveries. Ultimately Science represents one side of mind (the logical) and religion represents the other (the creative), until yo make the two into one and integrate than will we find TRUTH. Both sides will be way to condescending to do that... Notice I said BOTH SIDES.

I recognize you first and foremost as a human being, like me and everyone else on this forum, your beliefs or disbeliefs, your worldview is second. If we can survive together and have fellowship than thats all that really matters. (Non)Religion is a personal matter.

Your narrow-mindedness contradicts your claim to being so open-minded. "If I Believe in God I Would..." that alone tries to define someone and I find it rude to define someone especially someone you speak to on a forum and not face to face. Second of all, the great deluge and any other bible story is a myth it represents not externalities but internalities. Third, those actions are not the actions of the God I believe in. So I conclude Your narrow-mindedness contradicts your claim to being so open-minded.

It was a bit narrow of me to assume that you believe in the christian god and the bible. I am sorry for that. What religion are you, or did you make up your "own" based off of a myriad of other religions?

I believe that to state Science is on one side representing logic and religion on the other representing creativity is a bit narrow minded in itself. Creativity does not require religion and logic does not require science. Now logic has helped science and creativity has helped religion. Science is a tool for discerning truth, nothing more. Religion is a tool to control human behavior on a massive scale, nothing more.

It was a bit narrow of me to assume that you believe in the christian god and the bible. I am sorry for that. What religion are you, or did you make up your "own" based off of a myriad of other religions?

I believe that to state Science is on one side representing logic and religion on the other representing creativity is a bit narrow minded in itself. Creativity does not require religion and logic does not require science. Now logic has helped science and creativity has helped religion. Science is a tool for discerning truth, nothing more. Religion is a tool to control human behavior on a massive scale, nothing more.

1) I am what I am my friend... No myriad of religions needed. I'm spiritual (try to be) not religious. Gnosticism with some Christian undertones is were I root myself. If your going to do research on it I would be careful there is a massive Disinformation Campaign out there to misinform you of Gnosticism. I have spent the last year trying to find the right texts to explain gnosticism luckily I found them, just go for the Nag Hammadi Library it should be helpful.

2) That Zeitgiestian view of religion as a mass-control scheme does not fool me. Religion controls but a spiritual life does not, thats what people need to aim for a spiritual life. Ultimately a spiritual life is up to you a religious one is forced upon you. Spirituality offers wisdom of life experiences, science does not it says "You can do this, but cant do that, maybe we do this or maybe we cant." That sounds a lot like religion though does it not?

Don't get me wrong Im glad I know I cant start floating up while in my body, Im glad I know there is gravity (unless I am falling...) But I am glad in my religion that I know how deep people are controlled in there life "the degree to which I am a robot is astounding" is what one Gnostic Priest said.

In fact Gnosticism has influenced Existentialism and has influenced the development of the modern world, in what areas and aspects I have to find that paper again. This isn't some Sunday school religion its a spiritual tradition you carry with you everyday.

If you have seen the film Zeitgiest theres apart that says "Jesus was made up by the Gnostics." Now, we blow it off like "oh religion is BS" however, the RCC like I said earlier is going out for a massive disinformation campaign to make the Gnostics look bad... Why? I mean after all "If Christ is made up by men than why is the RCC getting upset for?" The powerful, Rich and above all maintaining this tradition for over 1500 years... They had a lot to lose if the truth came out! So, do research and know the gnostic message find it and make your decision from their as to what Christ means. Than make a decision...

I'm spiritual (try to be) not religious. Gnosticism with some Christian undertones is were I root myself.

Here is the thing.........would you even think you have a spirit if someone (most likely a religious person and a christian to boot) did not insist that you do?

I appreciate you not participating in mainstream religion and that you realize it as a means for social control, but by continuing to maintain even the slightest of attatchments to it, aren't you kind of willfully being part of the problem?

Let's say that Christianity dies out along with every other controlling major religion and people just become spiritual.........how long would it take for people to organize around just being spiritual? How long would it take before being spiritual were just as bad as being Christian?

Nice story. Hell, you could've wrote the bible.

But, for what reason did you choose to write this?

I felt like sharing a bit of what I believe...

What I WONT do is make a claim that this is fact. This is just the only conclusion that makes sense to me.

Thats great. And I agree with a lot of it, too.

But I believe this would be more the birth of religions and human recognition/interpretation of God, then of God.

You see it your way and I see it mine.

I believe it was the birth of the Gods.

Here is the thing.........would you even think you have a spirit if someone (most likely a religious person and a christian to boot) did not insist that you do?

I appreciate you not participating in mainstream religion and that you realize it as a means for social control, but by continuing to maintain even the slightest of attatchments to it, aren't you kind of willfully being part of the problem?

Let's say that Christianity dies out along with every other controlling major religion and people just become spiritual.........how long would it take for people to organize around just being spiritual? How long would it take before being spiritual were just as bad as being Christian?

I can look around at the world and see a system of birth, death and rebirth. I can state from that observation than that everything can live after that, this idea is going to need a name, soul, spirit, life energy whatever you want to call it. I dont need a person to tell me its already built in to ask something that the Age of Reason has suggested: "To Inquire, To Find out"

In my belief I can participate in any tradition for each tradition has something of worth to it, in the spiritual sense. I don't need to attach myself to Catholicism and agree with the actions of the Roman Catholic Church for the Inquisitions or Crusades. Just like you can call yourself an atheist and say I dont agree with the actions of Mao or Stalin. Am I contributing to religious fanaticism? Only as much as you might be contributing to militant atheism contributing to killing innocent civilians.

Look at the top 3 world religions and than you would realize that other traditions are going to spring up. Religious traditions start usually as a mystical / divine experience, people gather around to discover the experience, in time the tradition is written down and less people experience the experience, than in time the tradition is turned into secondhand dogma, only for it to collapse and start again. This is what makes spirituality living, it has humble beginnings and than rises, climaxes and falls only to start again.

What I am saying is all you probably would see is a birth, death, BIRTH cycle. No rebirth unless someone told you of a spirit and the rebirth part.

If religions of any kind are so true, why do they REQUIRE people to spread the word?

If a soul is so obvious, why is it the billions of people who believe in it were most likely told by someone else that they had a soul?

Things that are obvious do not need to be explained.

What I am saying is all you probably would see is a birth, death, BIRTH cycle. No rebirth unless someone told you of a spirit and the rebirth part.

If religions of any kind are so true, why do they REQUIRE people to spread the word?

If a soul is so obvious, why is it the billions of people who believe in it were most likely told by someone else that they had a soul?

Things that are obvious do not need to be explained.

In Summer the leaves are full on a tree... In Fall the leaves turn colors and start falling off... In Winter we believe the tree looks dead (assuming than that nobody came along and said scientific stuff)... In Spring Leaves Grow back and life starts anew. This cycle looks like rebirth, because it is... The tree did not die although it appeared to, no one told me that it was just an observation.

Mine does not, people should come to it naturally, IMHO, Christ did not intend for his religion to become this Pop Culture thing it is today but rather another religion for others to come to on their own, The Parable of the City on the Hill shows this, no evangelism needed, IMHO, evangelism is business selling you faith w/o understanding it naturally.

You cant see a soul and as science is showing us now, the five senses only allow us to see detect so much, but not all of it. People can just have that intuitive nodge that there is more to life than meets the eye, some people are more sensitive after all to intuition than others.

You cant see a soul and as science is showing us now, the five senses only allow us to see detect so much, but not all of it. People can just have that intuitive nodge that there is more to life than meets the eye, some people are more sensitive after all to intuition than others.

Are you suggesting my soul detecting sense is broken or inferior to others?

I don't believe in the supernatural. A soul is supernatural. A special ability to detect a soul is supernatural.

People can have an intuitive notion that there is more to life than meets the eye, I just find it odd that most of these notions put humanity (the self included) in a special high place, and that place is a very comforting (no death).

A more likely explanation for me is that the natural inquisitive minds of humans became fearful of the unknown and answered it with imagination. This explains why so much of the intuitive notions, have a rather pleasant and self serving quality about them.

If we are going to imagine that tornadoes are the wrath of God, lets imagine that peaceful days are the good nature of God. Since there are more good days than bad......God loves us, but must discipline some of us, like a father does a child. Since none of us TRULY die, it not considered bad even when he disciplines us with mass genocide.

Religion is not complex.

I see very valid points in both BrokePhophet's and godfather89's statements. BPs statements on organized religion and science are agreeable. And so are gf89's.

I'm not stating my own beliefs and two cents into this thread because I'm simply not in the mood to argue today. I have neither the patience nor the intent to tell people what they don't believe and be put down for what I believe. As someone said on these forums once before "you cant teach a pig to dance, it's a waste of time and it annoys the pig".

However I will state that both of you need to see the validity of the others posts, and respond to them...not just keep talking about your beliefs while putting the other down for his own (this part was mainly directed at brokeprophet).

Also, who's to say that you couldn't believe in a soul unless someone else told you it existed? If that were the case than wouldn't all spiritual/religious beliefs simply not exist?

Humans, being as intelligent as we are, can think and come up with ideas of our own.

That is all I have to say.

Good day.....ilikedots......

Also, who's to say that you couldn't believe in a soul unless someone else told you it existed? If that were the case than wouldn't all spiritual/religious beliefs simply not exist?

Not saying a human being cannot "discover" the soul without the aid of others (that would run contrary to my OP), just saying it has probably not happened since 10,000 bc or better.

All I am saying is IF having a soul is so obvious, why do most religions and ALL the major ones, tell their followers to spread this belief? Same goes for God, heaven, hell, and the rest.

If a con man approached you and did not explain the con, would you give him money? Of course not.

I see very valid points in both BrokePhophet's and godfather89's statements. BPs statements on organized religion and science are agreeable. And so are gf89's.

I'm not stating my own beliefs and two cents into this thread because I'm simply not in the mood to argue today. I have neither the patience nor the intent to tell people what they don't believe and be put down for what I believe. As someone said on these forums once before "you cant teach a pig to dance, it's a waste of time and it annoys the pig".

However I will state that both of you need to see the validity of the others posts, and respond to them...not just keep talking about your beliefs while putting the other down for his own (this part was mainly directed at brokeprophet).


I can understand where he is coming from, I find it that if you believe in the metaphysical you are forced at the same time with the prospect of it not being real as science has to some degree shown us, you can believe in the metaphysical but you need to come to terms with the chance it could not be there as well. Where as if I just believed no such thing it limits my view to just physicality and science.

At the risk of hijacking this thread (which I would like to see not happen), we discussed this matter of why it is better to be agnostic over atheist or theist over the matter, when it comes to interpersonal debates, we need to leave room for it to exist and to not exist, to each is own if I believe it does than it does if I believe it does not than it does not, no need to force my beliefs down anyones throat.

Thanks for the Compliment BTW...

Are you suggesting my soul detecting sense is broken or inferior to others?

I don't believe in the supernatural. A soul is supernatural. A special ability to detect a soul is supernatural.

People can have an intuitive notion that there is more to life than meets the eye, I just find it odd that most of these notions put humanity (the self included) in a special high place, and that place is a very comforting (no death).

A more likely explanation for me is that the natural inquisitive minds of humans became fearful of the unknown and answered it with imagination. This explains why so much of the intuitive notions, have a rather pleasant and self serving quality about them.

If we are going to imagine that tornadoes are the wrath of God, lets imagine that peaceful days are the good nature of God. Since there are more good days than bad......God loves us, but must discipline some of us, like a father does a child. Since none of us TRULY die, it not considered bad even when he disciplines us with mass genocide.

Religion is not complex.

No... But if you close your mind to the possibilities of their being a soul, you could be altering the way you see the world, just as if I believe there is a soul I could be altering the way I see the world.

Paragraphs 2 3 and 4 are your beliefs are yours not mine... I hope you know that... :-/

I dont believe in such a God... Your thinking that THE GOD is ONLY THE CHRISTIAN GOD, I hope you are better at de-doctrinating yourself than that...

No... But if you close your mind to the possibilities of their being a soul, you could be altering the way you see the world, just as if I believe there is a soul I could be altering the way I see the world.

Paragraphs 2 3 and 4 are your beliefs are yours not mine... I hope you know that... :-/

I dont believe in such a God... Your thinking that THE GOD is ONLY THE CHRISTIAN GOD, I hope you are better at de-doctrinating yourself than that...

I never mentioned the Christian God. I was talking about and have been talking about religion in general. I dont really wish to discuss YOUR beliefs here, that was not the intent of my OP. My intent was merely to put forth a belief I have in how and why we have RELIGION at all. Since your beliefs are a product of these beliefs, it still applies.

Where your beliefs are NOW doesn't matter. I am speaking of where all religious beliefs come from.........................FEAR.

I am actually open to the idea of a god or a soul, as open as I am that Elvis still lives, or bigfoot exists. Until there is proof, or even enough empirical evidence to SUGGEST these things, I give them all the credit they are do...........none.

I never mentioned the Christian God. I was talking about and have been talking about religion in general. I dont really wish to discuss YOUR beliefs here, that was not the intent of my OP. My intent was merely to put forth a belief I have in how and why we have RELIGION at all. Since your beliefs are a product of these beliefs, it still applies.

Where your beliefs are NOW doesn't matter. I am speaking of where all religious beliefs come from.........................FEAR.

I am actually open to the idea of a god or a soul, as open as I am that Elvis still lives, or bigfoot exists. Until there is proof, or even enough empirical evidence to SUGGEST these things, I give them all the credit they are do...........none.

1. Touche...

2. Yet, they offer the "cure" if you will to those fears... I dont see a problem here, people have fears, but to just blow off religion as a waying of coping with inevitable, that I dont agree with, even when I was agnostic, I still believed that religion had value, even when I was unsure about it.

3. The realm of spirituality is not up for (dis)proving, it is meant to be experienced, no secondhand dogma will ever get in the way of that. This is why I find both theism and atheism funny, trying to (dis)prove the unprovable. Since you said you looked at every major religion (which I will just use the western religions), than I am assuming that you read the text literally, reading it literally, does more harm than good as it will have you look outside of yourself...

St. John of The Cross once said: "The further we are outside of ourselves, the further we are from God."
Interpreted, that means that since everything outside of myself, is physical, than I am getting further away from the point, further away from myself and God. I do not seek external proof for the existence of soul, I look to myself as should everyone else.