sloanstar1000 :

If relationships exist only as concepts within our minds (inter-subjectively), they do not exist outside of our minds (objectively). If everyone has the same concepts and labels in our minds (concerning relationships), the concepts/labels have nothing to do with anything outside our minds. There is not really such a thing as a parent or child or friend or lover or sibling or whatever. They are only labels.

You say what we call "parents" are the two organisms the contribute DNA. But "organism" is also a relationship. The matter of the organism is arranged in a certain way and, depending on the relationship of the bits of matter, we label it. Matter organized one way is considered "living" and we'll label it "organism". Matter organized a different way is considered "non-living". But, these are only labels. There aren't actually "organisms", but that's a label we inter-subjectively place. If I ask you to point to the "organism", you'll point toward the lump of atoms we labeled. But the lump of atoms remains a lump of atoms. You only pointed to a lump of atoms we have labeled, not an actual "organism".

That is the point of the atomism bit.

Txgangsta : Well, that is a very succinct and erudite explanation of atomism(or at least modern atomism), and as far as I can tell, atomism isn't really a philosophy as much as it is the act of simply ignoring VERY IMPORTANT subjective labels and concepts that help us as humans distinguish ourselves from each other and the world around us.

Yes, "objectively"(objective is synonymous with inter-subjective btw) there is no objective distinction between us and everything else in the universe, we are all part of the same universal soup. Without these distinctions, however, we couldn't communicate with each other, nor could we navigate the universe, and I still don't see the relevance to the topic at hand, I don't think you understood my question to you...

 what does this have to do with a soul, or metaphysical stimuli? or even a "creator's mark"?

sloanstar1000 :

" ...there is no objective distinction between us and everything else in the universe, we are all part of the same universal soup."

That's the atomism stuff. Whether concepts are held as important or not, its atomism.

"objective is synonymous with inter-subjective btw"

For the purpose of the conversation, let me define them as two different terms. "Objective" removes our concepts and labels. Regardless of our concepts and labels, there is the "universal soup", even if there are no subjects that exist. Objective fact depends on nothing. "Inter-subjectivity" does have a dependence, specifically on the minds of the subjects.

The problem with I have with "I am only universal soup" is that there is actually no "I". "I" do not exist. There is no individual who types on a computer far away that sends you messages about ridiculous "non-physical stimuli", but there is only universal soup interacting with universal soup. I do not exist. However, I'm pretty sure I exist.

I got an stung by an asp yesterday. It was awful, and even worse because its on that soft part underneath the forearm. It burned like fire for hours. I experienced no other systems, so I didn't go to a doctor or anything and am fine now, but I do still have two largish-red spots where the poison was injected.

The asp stung "me". "I" exist.

Let's pretend that doesn't convince me, and I still believe that the whole incident is universal soup in its natural swirl. We still have that old annoying question "why is there universal soup?". We still have a non-physical thingy floating around. Universal soup "exists". To "be" is non-physical. Certainly, all physical things exist, but that pseudo-property "existence" cannot be isolated and painted purple.

"what does this have to do with a soul, or metaphysical stimuli? or even a "creator's mark"?"

I'm attempting to show existence of things that are not of the universal soup, but yet we have knowledge of. We would need a non-physical organ to sense the non-physical stuff (the brain still processes it, so if it is damage the process is corrupted), the non-physical stuff has some sort of process where we receive it, and "order" and "existence" (as well as 3 other things) are a non-physical things sensed that are marks of the creator. But we're not there yet.

Of course God exists! I mean just take a look around. Everything works in an exact complex order. For example, the human body is a complex system of various cells working together. There's no way that something random could make the human body that perfect. Same thing goes with pretty much anything in nature,  trees, birds, fish, you name it. If there was no God then how would everything work so perfectly with each other? I honestly doubt that there could be that much order by chance.

If that's not enough how do you explain miracles? Do they just happen randomly? By chance? Doubt it but okay. There has to be some external factor working in favor so that something greatly impossible is possible. 

And if that's not enough why do you think the Bible and Christianity has lasted so long? If there's not a God then don't you think that the Church would have survived for so many years and still be growing? And lets be honest the Church has had some bad times as well as good ones.

There are other examples as well however, these are all I can think of at the moment.  

Vizzed Maniac : yes there is a GOD he is an all loving being but punishes us when we sin and the bible i think is its own proof that god does exist