Let's assume for a moment that human clones would NOT have souls.

Theologically, I would say that it wouldn't be possible that a human clone not have a soul. The breath of life (everything we define as a life form) is given by God to all life. This includes everything from humanity down to protozoa. If it's alive, it has the breath of life. This is because God is the author of life and He is the only author of life. And the breath of life makes one "a living soul". (Genesis 2:7)

"Natural clones" do exist. They are called identical twins (triplets, quads etc.). Though even at that, identical twins don't exactly have the same DNA. There are some subtle genetic difference between identical twins.

So any viable clone that's born, because it is a life form; would be deserving of the same respect we would give other lifeforms in it's category. Whether it's a cloned plant, animal or human.

Personally I believe every life form has a soul. They just don't all have the same types of souls. Plant "souls" aren't the same as animal "souls", aren't the same as human "souls". They all vary by capacity to consider their own actions in the environment; as those actions relate to their accountability to God.

I also believe all life has some form of awareness of God. But again, that awareness is dependent on the type of life form. Since a tree can't "think"; it can't consider it's purpose. But make no mistake, plants respond to the presence of other life forms as well as the presence of threats (like fires). So there is a demonstrable form of "intelligence" there.

Animals, having more complex brains though bear the capacity to "connect" to other animals as well as humans. Animals learn from each other and they also learn from man. Domesticated animals and animals in captivity have different behavior patterns than those who have limited or no exposure to humans. Thus we recognize human emotional traits like empathy and even gratitude in animal behavior.

There was an experiment that researchers did with monkeys that was very interesting. One group of monkeys only got "monkey chow" while the other got fresh fruit in addition to monkey chow. These monkeys were in cages where they could see each other. Well once the monkeys that were only getting monkey chow realized the other monkeys were getting fresh fruit; they got mad. They wanted the fruit too. It wasn't "fair" that the other monkeys were getting fruit and they weren't.

So even other traits that we only associate with humans can be seen in animals. And that recognition I believe is because all life possess the breath of life. And because the breath of life comes from God, that is the thread we all have in common. Thus if you've ever had dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, even rodents and reptiles, they all have different and varying degrees of "personality". And this is because all life is not "static". It is individual and it is adaptable and that's the result of life being created by God.

maves said:

Are there really any issues with cloning people as long as they do not have souls?

In a theoretical scenario where their consciousness is limited to bodily and physical awareness as well as rationality and logic. They would not question their purpose.

Would there really be any issue?

(This is a question that was posed to me.)

Click to expand...

I am certain the clone will have a soul and Spirit afterall ,the DNA is still originally from God and His image is embedded in it. The clone will be given free will and the choice to love Him. Blessings.

maves said:

Let's assume for a moment that human clones would NOT have souls.​

Click to expand...

The definition of the word soul is "the principle that animates a living body", so what you posit is identical to assuming that they're not alive. If a body is alive it has a soul, and if it has a soul then it's alive.

Human beings are the only beings that have rational souls, and since you specify that these clones possess rationality they therefore must be fully human. Just like you and me.

maves said:

Are there really any issues with cloning people as long as they do not have souls?

In a theoretical scenario where their consciousness is limited to bodily and physical awareness as well as rationality and logic. They would not question their purpose.

Would there really be any issue?

(This is a question that was posed to me.)

Click to expand...

It would depend on a persons assumptions and beliefs about reality. According the the materialist or naturalist view consciousness and the soul are an epiphenomena as a result of the physical brain. Somehow the compex combination of physical parts can produce consciousness which is not something physical in itself. So hypothetically a robot could have consciousness and a soul if the brain is replicated exactly through Ai.

On the other hand according to the non-materialist or spiritualist view consciousness is beyond brain, a real phenomena that is fundemental in the universe and beyond and not reducible to the physical. So no matter how good we replicated humans through Ai robots can never be conscious or have a soul.

The Zombie thought experiment hypothesized by David Chambers poses that theorectically theres no reason why evolution couled not have produced Zombies which are exactly like humans but lacking consciousness and a soul. That is because theorectically there is nothing about matter that is thinking and conscious.

A Zombie could still function like a human adapting to survive without consciousness just like we could create a robot that can survive. Mars rovers are a simple example but we could now build one that also repairs itself and has survival skills.

But cloning seems different in that we are replicating a human exactly like nature. Unless there is something missing from what makes a human during the cloning process I cannot see how it would not turn out exactly like a human and have consciousness and a soul.

BUt I think this is where it gets a bit murky as far as where is the line between natural and unnatural and whether we can reproduce a human exactly. Is the clone really the same as the original piece by piece. Under the Christian view this would seem impossible as each and every person is unique. God knows every hair on our heads.

Can our uniqueness be seperated from our consciousness and soul. Does a clone gain a unique soul once it is replicated which would mean the body is just a vessel for a soul. If the clone had a conscience which you would hope it would then is this part of consciouness and the soul because they know right from wrong. If they don't have consciouness and a soul then are they really a human clone or some strange frankenstein creation. A lot of ethical dilemmas either way.

maves said:

Are there really any issues with cloning people as long as they do not have souls?

In a theoretical scenario where their consciousness is limited to bodily and physical awareness as well as rationality and logic. They would not question their purpose.

Would there really be any issue?

(This is a question that was posed to me.)

Click to expand...

If one is human .... they are a soul ..... a soul isn't something separate in us .... it is what we are .... a complete person (soul) ....

No one has ever cloned a human being .... and never will.

Theoretically .... it's impossible ... physical awareness, rationally and logic (thinking in general) comes from what one experiences while on planet earth and is always subject to change.

eleos1954 said:

No one has ever cloned a human being .... and never will.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean artificially, because identical twins are basically clones. Even artificial human cloning isn't far fetched.

eleos1954 said:

Theoretically .... it's impossible ... physical awareness, rationally and logic (thinking in general) comes from what one experiences while on planet earth and is always subject to change.

Click to expand...

It is not impossible.

For starters, it could be easily done in an IVF clinic by splitting embryos before implantation. This is done already with livestock so the technology is not unavailable. (I can't even say it hasn't been done, but I don't know of any claims to have done it.)

Even cloning a living, non-embryo person isn't far fetched. It has been done for several large mammals already. There are commercial reasons to clone productive animals, but no good reasons for cloning adult humans. I could come up with a list of reasons, but they would all be horrible. Even just making a copy of your Aunt Betty would be bad. Imagine for the kid knowing that they are a "copy" of Aunt Betty. Parental expectations are already a potential problem for children without being a "duplicate".

Hans Blaster said:

I assume you mean artificially, because identical twins are basically clones. Even artificial human cloning isn't far fetched.


It is not impossible.

For starters, it could be easily done in an IVF clinic by splitting embryos before implantation. This is done already with livestock so the technology is not unavailable. (I can't even say it hasn't been done, but I don't know of any claims to have done it.)

Even cloning a living, non-embryo person isn't far fetched. It has been done for several large mammals already. There are commercial reasons to clone productive animals, but no good reasons for cloning adult humans. I could come up with a list of reasons, but they would all be horrible. Even just making a copy of your Aunt Betty would be bad. Imagine for the kid knowing that they are a "copy" of Aunt Betty. Parental expectations are already a potential problem for children without being a "duplicate".

Click to expand...

There is more to a person than physical form .... there are no EXACT replicas .... even in animals (having different temperaments) .... sure .... the fertilization process can and is manipulated .... but none will be EXACTLY alike.

A clone is defined as an exact carbon copy or copies of a single genetical parent.

Impossible.

eleos1954 said:

There is more to a person than physical form .... there are no EXACT replicas .... even in animals (having different temperaments) .... sure .... the fertilization process can and is manipulated .... but none will be EXACTLY alike.

A clone is defined as an exact carbon copy or copies of a single genetical parent.

Impossible.

Click to expand...

A human clone would be no more different from the "original" genetically than two identical twins.

Hans Blaster said:

A human clone would be no more different from the "original" genetically than two identical twins.

Click to expand...

Like I said .... more to it than the physical.

Hans Blaster said:

A human clone would be no more different from the "original" genetically than two identical twins.

Click to expand...

Can you clone a gestalt, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?

AV1611VET said:

Can you clone a gestalt, where the whole is greater then the sum of its parts?

Click to expand...

A clone is a genetic duplicate, not the result of a transporter accident. Clones grow from a single cell just like any other animal, including human clones.

Hans Blaster said:

A clone is a genetic duplicate, not the result of a transporter accident.

Click to expand...

-- That struck my funny bone for some reason!

AV1611VET said:

-- That struck my funny bone for some reason!

Click to expand...

I thought you might like it.

If clones appear to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they have souls because:

For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me -- John 6

And, yes, I have read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

Hans Blaster said:

A human clone would be no more different from the "original" genetically than two identical twins.

Click to expand...

More to it than the physical.

eleos1954 said:

More to it than the physical.

Click to expand...

More to what than physical? Cloning?

As I said before, a clone is a genetic duplicate. A clone starts from a single cell and then grows the same as the rest of us. The main difference between a clone and the rest of us is that we (non-clones) are formed from genetic recombination, rather than duplication, before we grow from a single cell.

Hans Blaster said:

More to what than physical? Cloning?

As I said before, a clone is a genetic duplicate. A clone starts from a single cell and then grows the same as the rest of us. The main difference between a clone and the rest of us is that we (non-clones) are formed from genetic recombination, rather than duplication, before we grow from a single cell.

Click to expand...

All of the cells within a complex multicellular organism such as a human being contain the same DNA; however, the body of such an organism is clearly composed of many different types of cells.

What is the one (single cell)?

eleos1954 said:

All of the cells within a complex multicellular organism such as a human being contain the same DNA; however, the body of such an organism is clearly composed of many different types of cells.

What is the one (single cell)?

Click to expand...

The one cell you grew from. The same type of cell I grew from. The one we *all* grew from.

Are you not familiar with human reproduction?

Hans Blaster said:

The one cell you grew from. The same type of cell I grew from. The one we *all* grew from.

Are you not familiar with human reproduction?

Click to expand...

Somewhat ... don't claim to be a scientist ...

The male genome differs from the female genome in the number of X chromosomes that it contains, as well as by the presence of a Y chromosome. It is the overriding presence of a gene on the Y chromosome (SRY) that results in development of the male gonadal phenotype.

There is manipulation of reproduction going on ..... sure .... and also study on the cellular level and experiments of such going on. Study and manipulation of something that is already there.

Show me where (without using theory) this "one cell" we all "grew from" is?