Do you agree that the possibility of cloning a human being is a great proof against the existence of the soul?

Answer 1

hmmmm.... sounds logical.... I would agree with you on this point

Answer 2

Um...no. You see, the human body is pure science. The soul is a belief within a person if it exists or not. Doesn't mean it DOES and doesn't mean it DOES NOT. Yet, when I see a clone alive and walking around like a normal human being it was cloned from, I'd like to see that as mere proof that cloning even works that well.

Answer 3

But who's to say that the soul can only be generated by sexual reproduction? How does that soul get there? Cloning is still creation of life (even though it's WRONG), so maybe there is a higher being that would put a soul in that body as well. What is humans reproduced asexually? Would that mean no souls as well?

Answer 4

I don't think so because I don't know the mechanism in which the soul is implanted, for all I know it may appear when we first become conscious of ourselves. As far s cloning goes, bad idea,for people to be healthy they need human touch and interaction growing up in a tube would and with no parents would put that person at a considerable disadvantage.

Answer 5

I would not agree, even if an exact replica of a human was cloned, it would still have all the necessary requirements for a soul, and a clone of a human won't live the exact same life, have the same mindset, same heart, same personality, etc.

Answer 6

at first, i might want to favor to talk about that you won't be able to even educate soles exist. If I walked as a lot as someone and stated, "Excuse me, do you've a sole?" they would not be able of educate they particularly have a sole. with the objective to assert they are not almost as good as us, the purely reason being, because we've soles and they don't is insane. i trust there are quite some advantages to reproductive cloning, one reason being that faster or later we are going to be able of fabricate a genetically changed era of people with immunity to maximum cancers, particularly extreme IQ's, higher appropriate, more advantageous ability, good immune equipment, and est. And to assert that a clone isn't a human is anti-progressionalist bigotry. Which sounds more beneficial alluring, a guy and a lady screwing one yet another's brains out in some seventy 5$ inn room, or a crew of extraordinarily respected scientists operating around the clock to furnish a superhuman newborn 3 circumstances more beneficial in good condition, smart, and mentally good. in reality human cloning is the subsequent step in human evolution.

Answer 7

As a geneticist and a Christian, I believe the human soul to be instilled by God into His creations. Even if a human were to be cloned (which I consider unethical in any situation), I believe still it is God who allows this life to exist, and therefore, yes, it would have a soul.

Answer 8

Thats a really good question.....I think everybody has a soul thats what makes them who they are. but if somebody is cloned without a soul they cannot feel anything love or hate.

Answer 9

Does this mean that the existence of identical twins already proved that there is no such thing as the soul? I don't think so. The genetic principle is the same: identical genes. But there are still two people, with distinct personalities, and they each make their own choices.

Answer 10

not necessarily,,,a soul could be somethin
which always accompany sex cells--sperm or egg

another good question--would the clone hav less of
a soul? like sometimes u make too many
paper copies it comes out fuzzy

Answer 11

i think some people are born soul-less now. thats why there is so many sick individuals in the world. but i dont think cloning would create souless people. if god didnt want us to figure this stuff out he wouldnt let us.