Poll: Does a Planet have a Soul?

[Cookiegerard]

Well...... planets are pretty much giant rocks, and secondly, give me proof of souls.

 

[Outlaw Torn]

Souls do not exist, so a planet can't have one. Nor can any other object in existence.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Really depends on who you ask.

Certain people of certain beliefs will believe that nature do have souls, while others believe that only Human beings have souls.

In my opinon, no they don't.

 

[The Shade]

No, it doesn't. But, then again, nothing does. So no worries.

 

[Davrel]

It looks like a simple question, but if you ask someone about this he/she would look at you either as a madman/woman or think it's stupid, but then thinking only that the center of a planet is made of Nikel and Iron (mainly) is rather coldly logical and lacks this unexplainable thingy no?

imho: i won't answer neither yes or no.

There is no such thing as a soul. Even the fairy-tales that claim there is such a thing stop short of attributing one to what is essentially a large rock.
In short: No.

 

[Dexiro]

By that logic a dead tree can produce apples.

A tree is a separate organism. By your logic a small mound of dirt is 'alive' because a plant can be grown in it.
That's all the earth is, just a giant plant pot.

 

[LeonLethality]

Someone has been playing FF7 lately, you could do much better.

OT: No, it isn't alive therefor it has no soul as a soul is vague enough as it is in a living thing.

 

[PhiMed]

First, define and prove that souls even exist before we speculate what has them.

someone said that you lose weight when you die... i don't remember how much though...

I heard about that. Apparently, some doctors weighed people with extremely sensitive equipment right before and right after they died, and they were always left with a difference of about 21 grams, so they concluded it must be a 'soul'. I don't know if it really was the soul or not, but until we have a better explanation it'll have to do.

A doctor did. In 1907. His name was Duncan MacDougall. And no one thinks his study has any scientific merit.

His experiement was never repeated (not even by him), and it has never been cited in any medical or scientific journal. But that's not the most damning criticism. It's his data. He weighed six people prior to and after death. He discarded two sets of data, and three of his data sets conflicted with his conclusion. Out of six, only one of his six subjects were actually consistent with his conclusion, and a more logical explaination was offered for this one observation within the week. Compelling!

But of course, you're free to believe that his conclusion was valid. If you do, I've got another mystery for you to solve. I heard that gullible isn't in the dictionary! You should run and go check!

I think that this is one of the questions that don't need to be answered. I'm not saying that it doesn't, I'm not saying that it does. I'm saying that noone knows, and it's meant to be that way.

Every question needs to be answered, that's the force behind progress. Knowledge.
Well, except the meaning of life. That would just screw with our heads.

Progress isn't always needed.

Oh, yes it is.
Stagnation is the worst that could happen to our society.

I'd rather live in a simple but spiritualistic, than in an advanced, but meaningles society.

You shouldn't be on the internet, then. If you have the resources to connect to the internet and spend time talking about how meaningless modern life is, you probably have the resources to move to a dirt poor "spiritualistic" society. You'd probably die of a treatable illness rather quickly, but still... At least you'd be surrounded by superstitious people when you pass.

 

[randomrob]

I don't beleive in souls anyway. but i suppose a planet/star being conciouss could be possible...

 

[reg42]

This question does not consider the fact that nothing has a soul.

I'd hardly call that a fact.

 

[lasherman]

Wiccans would tell you that. I actually sort of agree. It's proven that certain things like music help plants grow in different ways, and if they were completely inanimate that wouldn't happen. I wouldn't say the planet has a soul, but the planet is definitely "alive" IMO.

But plants and stuff aren't really part of the planet; they're just growing on top of it. The earth itself is just a big ball of dirt with a chewy centre. It might be full of relatively tiny living organisms, but the dirt itself isn't really alive.

By that logic a dead tree can produce apples.

No, because the apple itself relies on the tree to provide nutrients. If the tree died, so would all the apples. However, a bunch of bugs can live on the dead tree itself, just like humans (or all living things, really), do with the earth. Living things aren't connected to the planet, and we don't take sustenance from it; We simple live on top of it, consuming other living things that also live on top of it.

I'm not really talking about humans. Plants grow from the earth. The soil needs nutrients in order to sustain said plants. When the soil gets used enough it's useless and, basically, "dead". In the previous metaphor I was considering the plants as the apples, the earth as the tree, and I guess that would make animals as the bugs.

True, you have a point, but I still wouldn't consider the soil as being alive. I would think of it more as just being full of living things.

 

[AvsJoe]

The logical side of my brain and my religion say no, but if I believe in souls (I'm not sure if I do or not) then I believe that our planet has one. I have to sort out my spiritual beliefs before I can answer this question correctly though.

 

[Denamic]

First, define and prove that souls even exist before we speculate what has them.

someone said that you lose weight when you die... i don't remember how much though...

I heard about that. Apparently, some doctors weighed people with extremely sensitive equipment right before and right after they died, and they were always left with a difference of about 21 grams, so they concluded it must be a 'soul'. I don't know if it really was the soul or not, but until we have a better explanation it'll have to do.

Seriously?
"it'll have to do"?
That's the best you have?
Some 60 year old study by some nutcase without any kind of peer review?

 

[Cody211282]

No it doesn't, any anyone who thinks it does has seen Avitar to many times. The reason it doesn't is because its a spinning ball of rock, it's not alive and it's never going to be.

 

[reg42]

By that logic a dead tree can produce apples.

A tree is a separate organism. By your logic a small mound of dirt is 'alive' because a plant can be grown in it.
That's all the earth is, just a giant plant pot.

I refer you to the convo I'm having with the other dude.

Wiccans would tell you that. I actually sort of agree. It's proven that certain things like music help plants grow in different ways, and if they were completely inanimate that wouldn't happen. I wouldn't say the planet has a soul, but the planet is definitely "alive" IMO.

But plants and stuff aren't really part of the planet; they're just growing on top of it. The earth itself is just a big ball of dirt with a chewy centre. It might be full of relatively tiny living organisms, but the dirt itself isn't really alive.

By that logic a dead tree can produce apples.

No, because the apple itself relies on the tree to provide nutrients. If the tree died, so would all the apples. However, a bunch of bugs can live on the dead tree itself, just like humans (or all living things, really), do with the earth. Living things aren't connected to the planet, and we don't take sustenance from it; We simple live on top of it, consuming other living things that also live on top of it.

I'm not really talking about humans. Plants grow from the earth. The soil needs nutrients in order to sustain said plants. When the soil gets used enough it's useless and, basically, "dead". In the previous metaphor I was considering the plants as the apples, the earth as the tree, and I guess that would make animals as the bugs.

True, you have a point, but I still wouldn't consider the soil as being alive. I would think of it more as just being full of living things.

I'm not saying the planet is "alive" as such (sorry if it sounded like I was), I just mean that I find it difficult to believe that there isn't something causing it to give life. But let's just say "to each his own" and call it a night, shall we?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

First, define and prove that souls even exist before we speculate what has them.

someone said that you lose weight when you die... i don't remember how much though...

I heard about that. Apparently, some doctors weighed people with extremely sensitive equipment right before and right after they died, and they were always left with a difference of about 21 grams, so they concluded it must be a 'soul'. I don't know if it really was the soul or not, but until we have a better explanation it'll have to do.

You don't find something "out of place" then conclude something ridiculous is the cause of it. That's like finding your keys were not where you remembered them to be and concluded that pink fairies moved them there.

A long time ago someone looked at some bones. Then he turned around and he looked at the animals around him. He saw they were very different. He had the absolutely ridiculous thought that one group of animals became the other, thus he gave us the science of evolution.

In the words of Haldane [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane], father of population genetics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics]; "Theories have four stages of acceptance. i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view, iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so."

This question does not consider the fact that nothing has a soul.

[CITATION NEEDED]

What are you trying to say? That for every out of place shit we encounter in the world we should assume the most ridiculous conclusion and then search for evidence instead of searching for the evidence, adding that up and reaching that conclusion?

 

[DarkMessiah]

I don't believe that anything has a soul anyway, but a planet isn't even alive. So no, I don't think that it does.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

I'm gonna go the Biblical route here, seeing as it mentions Souls every now and again.

In said Book it mentions how Humans are unique from everything else God made because they have Souls.

So no, I do not think the Earth has a Soul.

 

[lasherman]

First, define and prove that souls even exist before we speculate what has them.

someone said that you lose weight when you die... i don't remember how much though...

I heard about that. Apparently, some doctors weighed people with extremely sensitive equipment right before and right after they died, and they were always left with a difference of about 21 grams, so they concluded it must be a 'soul'. I don't know if it really was the soul or not, but until we have a better explanation it'll have to do.

Seriously?
"it'll have to do"?
That's the best you have?
Some 60 year old study by some nutcase without any kind of peer review?

I never said I actually believed it, I'm just saying that's what the experiment was. Apparently, as someone else mentioned, only one in six of his tests actually supported what he said, so I guess it wasn't as reliable as I thought. The way I heard the story was that he came to the same result over and over, so I might be misinformed.

 

[ethaninja]

Umm, no. It's just bloody hot in the center and even hotter here in Australia.