If the soul forms at conception, then how do twins, triplets, etc. factor in?

[redleghunter]

If it can be observed directly by different individuals, it is objective.

Indeed, and we have a multitude of people who witnessed the Glory and Power of God in both the NT and OT. That is objective. They even wrote down their eyewitness accounts. You may or may not believe what the Bible records or maybe portions of it, but that does not change the witness presented. Unless of course we impeach the witness before ever hearing them.

Objective testimony is not getting everyone in the room and experiencing the same event. Again, you would have to get everyone in the world, alive, dead and future for such to be objective according to your standard. If that is not your standard, then how many eyewitness accounts makes something 'objective?' If you give me an answer, the answer would be subject of course, just being consistent.

This makes it a matter of faith which is a subjective matter.

Not a matter of faith, although that is important. It is a matter of Truth:

Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (John 18:37)

I approach objectively. You may call it unorthodox if you wish but the question of soul remains open for me.

One would approach a subject 'objectively' by considering even the propositions revealed by God. One cannot just write off the written revelation of God as 'faith' and be done with it. Doing such immediately puts such an analysis into the subjective mode. It's impeaching the witness before trial. A staple of post-modernist skepticism.

Now back to the soul. Why do you care if we have one or not?

 

[wndwalkr99]

What flaw do you detect in it?

I'm sorry I've taken so long to reply. I've been horribly busy at work and on the farm, and also had house guests.

Anyway, I would encourage you to apply the "outsider test of faith" on this one. Would you agree that the are people who believe things that are untrue, using faith as a justification? Muslims, for example.

 

[Radrook]

I'm sorry I've taken so long to reply. I've been horribly busy at work and on the farm, and also had house guests.

Anyway, I would encourage you to apply the "outsider test of faith" on this one. Would you agree that the are people who believe things that are untrue, using faith as a justification? Muslims, for example.

If it is blind faith then there is absolutely no justification for having it.

 

[wndwalkr99]

If it is blind faith then there is absolutely no justification for having it.

I don't know what "blind faith" means. I have been using the definition you provided for "faith".

 

[Radrook]

I don't know what "blind faith" means. I have been using the definition you provided for "faith".

Blind faith means believing without being provided with any justifiable reason.