Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Souls enter bodies at the moment of breaking umbilical cords

Skip to first unread message


Jan 20, 2011, 8:29:53 PM1/20/11
The web page named "soul_proof.htm" (addresses of which are provided
near the end of this post) indicates the sufficient body of proofs
(and empirical evidence in support of these proofs), to provide
knowledge and certainty to these people, who already matured
philosophically to accept the knowledge and certainty regarding souls.
In fact, the proofs and evidence indicated in there confirm the
existence of immortal souls in people with even a greater certainty,
than e.g. evidence that is in disposal of official science confirms
the occurrence in the universe of the so-called "big bang". Thus, on
the basis of this knowledge which reinforces our certainty that
immortal souls reside in humans, the time is to shift to next stages
of our learning process, namely to determining the most vital facts
regarding souls.

For people that are sure of the existence of soul, probably there is
NO more weighty question than the issue "when newly-born people
receive souls?" (Means the question: "when a foetus transforms from a
piece of meat into a thinking, remembering, and feeling human?") After
all, from the appearance or from movements of foetuses, we CANNOT
reason whether they already are humans - similarly like from the
appearance of statues nor from movements of sea waves we are NOT
allowed to claim that these are humans. Only the entrance of souls
into bodies changes these bodies into humans - similarly like only the
return of souls to bodies which previously fall victims of so-called
"coma" (see descriptions of "coma" in item #F9 of the web page named
"soul_proof.htm") restores these bodies to life, thinking, and
feeling; similarly like the entrance of souls to foetuses turns these
foetuses into children instead of "stillborn"; and also similarly like
the input of software into a new computer turns this inanimate machine
into a responding companion of humans. Thus, from the correct reply to
the abovementioned question "when souls enter bodies" depends e.g.
whether measures of pregnancy prevention and taking contraceptives run
against God's requirements, whether abortions really are taking lives,
etc., etc. (see also item #J4.3 near the end of the web page named

At present two drastically different beliefs coexist regarding the
issue of when souls enter bodies. Unfortunately, so-far the humanity
have NOT carried out any experimental research nor accumulated any
empirical findings regarding this matter. The first one amongst these
two beliefs, most vigorously promoted by religions, states that "souls
enter bodies at the moment of conception". For this reason some highly
religious people condemn abortions of pregnancies. It is also because
of this belief that some religions are against the use of
contraceptives. Unfortunately, NO scientific premises are known which
would confirm this belief. The second belief, adhered mainly by
representatives of the so-called "New Age" (such as healers, UFO-
contactees, occultists, etc.) states that "souls enter bodies at the
moment of breaking umbilical cords". The possible future confirmation
of this belief by research or empirical findings would turn out to be
extremely important. After all, if it turns out to be correct and
confirmed, then e.g. abortions of pregnancies wouldn’t almost differ
from innocent procedures of e.g. removal of tonsils. In such a case
the condemnation of contraceptives and abortion-clinics would at least
be "misunderstanding" - if not the acting that fulfils the definition
of "sin".

On the basis of many theoretical analyses, the "philosophy of
totalizm" takes the stand, that true and correct is the belief (2)
that "souls enter bodies at the moment of breaking umbilical cords".
This is because there are numerous premises which suggest the
correctness of this particular belief. In addition, each one amongst
these premises negates the correctness of belief (1) that "souls enter
bodies at the moment of conception". Here is a list of most important
amongst these premises:

1. The Bible completely disregards the indication of the moment when
souls enter bodies. This is the most important premise. After all, the
content of Bible contains a detailed list of God's requirements that
apply to every human activity. So if souls entered bodies at the
moment of conception, than this fact would be very vital and would be
emphasized in the content of Bible. In addition, the Bible disregards
also the taking stand regarding contraceptives and abortion of
unwanted pregnancies. Thus, most clearly these matters are for God
rather insignificant - such a situation can occur only if souls
actually enter bodies at the moment of breaking umbilical cords.

2. UFOnauts teach people how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This is
another vital premise. After all, according to findings of the
philosophy of totalizm "UFOnauts are temporary 'simulations' of
God" (e.g. see item #M3 on the web page named "day26.htm"). So if
"simulations" of God Himself teach people how to prevent unwanted
pregnancies, then this suggests that for God the fact of prevention or
abortion of pregnancies is rather an insignificant matter. This in
turn may take place only if souls really enter bodies at the moment of
breaking umbilical cords. By the way, an example of a lesson from
UFOnauts how to prevent unwanted pregnancies is provided, amongst
others, in the report from abduction of "Miss Nosbocaj" to a UFO deck
- this report is provided in "chapter UB" from volume 16 of my newest
monograph [1/5e] and also in "appendix Z" from my monograph [2e].

3. The interconnection of foetuses and mothers' bodies during the time
when these bodies are united with umbilical cords. In turn, this
interconnection causes that in the biological sense the foetuses still
then are parts of bodies of mothers, in the same manner as parts of
bodies of mothers are e.g. all growths on their skin and organs, their
nails, or their hair. In turn, by being parts of mothers' bodies,
foetuses CANNOT have separate souls. After all, two souls residing in
a single body means a "possession". So the soul of a child sometime
could "fight" with the soul of the mother for the prevalence over her
body, and the child could need the intervention of e.g. an "exorcist".
Even in best scenario a pregnant woman carrying such a child with own
soul could display so-called "double personality".

4. The foetus that has own soul could choose the life and role of a
parasite. After all, souls have so-called "free will" and can choose
what they do next. So the soul of child could e.g. feel so good in the
role of a foetus, that it would refuse to be born and would extend its
existence as a kind of parasite. Thus, it would need to be removed by
force. Such "second" souls residing in someone's body are even
described in the Bible as parasites ("demons") which Jesus and His
Apostles removed by force from bodies that they possessed.

5. The moment of breaking the umbilical cord is also the moment of
symbolic "breathing" the life and first breath into the child's body.
In turn to this first "breath" all religions of the world refer as to
the manner of acquiring the soul by body - e.g. see words "God's own
spirit made me, and the Almighty's own breath proceeded to bring me to
life" (Bible, "Book of Job" 33:4) discussed in item #D2 of the web
page "soul_proof.htm". See also descriptions of "breathing" souls to
bodies in other religions of the world presented in items #D1 and #D3
from a different web page named "newzealand_visit.htm" and in item #C6
from the separate web page named "prawda_uk.htm". Explaining this in
other words, in spite that the Bible (and an array of various
religions of the world) could use many different descriptions to
explain the manner in which souls are entering bodies, all these
religions use the expression "breathing" which refers simultaneously
to the first breath being taken. From this can be deduced, that the
reason for use of just this expression is that both these processes,
i.e. entering the soul and taking the first breath, take place

The unambiguous confirmation as to whether "souls enter bodies at the
moment of breaking umbilical cords", can be accomplished with
experimental research and with empirical findings. After all, the
entering of souls into bodies must cause the manifestations of a
number of phenomena that can be detected and registered with present
instruments. An example of these can be an equivalent of "Death Flash"
described in item #E2 of the web page "soul_proof.htm", only that
appearing at the moment of entrance (instead of exit) of the soul. In
turn the present science (of course additionally supported with
findings of the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity" which clarifies the
entire subject of other world and which is described on the web page
"dipolar_gravity.htm") is already able to detect and to measure such
phenomena with the existing apparatuses. In addition, while it is
difficult to establish an exact moment of conception to carry out the
required research, if "souls really enter bodies at the moment of
breaking the umbilical cords" then the precise moment when it happens
is clearly defined and exactly known. Thus, appropriately motivated
scientists are able to complete such research without greater
difficulties. Unfortunately, the problem is that in present world of
atheistic scientists, NO-ONE may want to carry out such research.
After all, this kind of research runs against the "official
philosophy" of present atheistic science. This in turn causes, that a
courageous researcher who would undertake it, would also bring on his
or her head the entire fury and revenge of the official science -
similarly as I brought this fury and revenge on myself with my own
research. So it looks that until the time when the humanity develops a
separate path for the "totaliztic science" which is to compete with
the extension of the present atheistic science, such research will NOT
be officially carried out. However, if someone wishes to carry them
out e.g. privately and in secrecy, then he or she can count on my full
cooperation and the required scientific advice.

Taking under consideration all facts and logical deductions presented
in this item, the "philosophy of totalizm" recommends to all people
who already practice totalizm, that they (1) acted (at the present
state of our knowledge) in the manner as one should act when is
certain that "souls enter bodies at the moment of breaking umbilical
cords", while simultaneously they (2) seek further empirical,
religious, logical, or theoretical confirmations for reinforcing this
certainty, and that they (3) inform me if they encounter somewhere any
further such confirmations.

* * *

This post represents item #C6 from the totaliztic web page named
"soul_proof.htm" (updated on 17 January 2011, or later). Thus, reading
the above descriptions would be even more effective from that web page
"soul_proof.htm" than from this post, as on the web page are working
all (green) links to other related web pages with additional
explanations, it is printed in colour, it is supported with
illustrations, the content of it is updated regularly, etc. The latest
update of the web page "soul_proof.htm" can be viewed, amongst others,
at addresses:
Notice that every above web site contains all totaliztic web pages,
including pages "text_1_5.htm" with free copies of monograph [1/5].
However, volume 1 and 12 of monograph [1/5] I would recommend to
download from the address where
this monograph is updated the most frequently.

Each topic which I am subjecting to a public discussion, including
this one, is published on all blogs of totalizm still in existence
(seek in there this topic under the number #194E). At the moment two
blogs of totalizm still remain operational, which can be viewed at
following internet addresses:
It is also worth to have look in there at related posts, e.g. at posts
number #167E and #168E which also discuss souls.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. I should also recommend my previous posts about human souls,
posted at addresses:


Jan 20, 2011, 8:42:52 PM1/20/11
On Jan 20, 5:29 pm, JP3 <> wrote:
> The web page named "soul_proof.htm" (addresses of which are provided
> near the end of this post) indicates the sufficient body of proofs
> (and empirical evidence in support of these proofs), to provide
> knowledge and certainty to these people, who already matured
> philosophically to accept the knowledge and certainty regarding souls.

Does that imply that having matured on this matter that there is a
solution to "Dualism" or how this sould connects to the body and other
old questions?;

In philosophy of mind, dualism is a set of beliefs which begins with
the claim that the mental and the physical have a fundamentally
different nature. It is contrasted with varying kinds of monism,
including materialism and phenomenalism. Dualism is one answer to the
mind-body problem. Pluralism holds that there are even more kinds of
events or things in the world...

...How can something totally immaterial, people ask, affect something
totally material? That's the basic problem. We can analyze the problem
here in three parts.

First, it is not clear where the interaction would take place. Burning
my fingers causes pain, right? Well, apparently there is some chain of
events, leading from the burning of skin, to the stimulation of nerve
endings, to something happening in the nerves of my body that lead to
my brain, to something happening in a particular part of my brain; and
then, I feel pain. But the pain is not supposed to be spatially
located. So what I want to know is, where does the interaction take
place? If you say, "It takes place in the brain," then I will say,
"But I thought pains weren't located anywhere." And you, as a dualist,
might stick to your guns and say, "That's right, pains aren't located
anywhere; but the brain event that immediately leads to the pain is
located in the brain." But then we have a very strange causal relation
on our hands. The cause is located in a particular place but the
effect is not located anywhere. Well, you might say, that might be
puzzling but it's not a devastating criticism.

(Problems with the above paragraph: 1) some dualisms maintain that the
mind resides in a particular place, say, in the pineal(?) gland. In
this case the arguments about the mental being "nowhere" look less
strange. 2) it seems a little blurred -- is the problem locating the
mind or the mental events or both? 3) it should at least be emphasized
that things don't necessarily have to be in the same place to
interact, as we see with the "attraction at a distance" in gravity.)

So look at a second problem about the interaction. Namely, how does
the interaction take place? Maybe you think, "Well, that's a matter
for science -- scientists will eventually discover the connection
between mental and physical events." But philosophers have something
to say about the matter, because the very idea of a mechanism, which
explains the connection between the mental and the physical, would be
very strange, at best. Why do I say it would be strange? Compare it to
a mechanism that we do understand. Take a very simple causal relation,
such as when the cue ball strikes the eight ball and causes it to go
into the pocket. Here we can say that the cue ball has a certain
amount of momentum as its mass moves across the pool table with some
velocity, and then that momentum is transferred to the eight ball,
which then heads toward the pocket. Now compare that to the situation
in the brain, where we want to say a decision causes some neurons to
fire and thus cause my body to move across the room. The decision, "I
will cross the room now," is a mental event; and as such it does not
have physical properties such as force. If it has no force, then how
on earth could it cause any neuron to fire? Is it magic? Honestly, how
could something without any physical properties have any physical
effects at all?

Here you might reply, as some philosophers have indeed replied, as
follows. You might say: "Well sure, there is a mystery about how the
interaction between mental and physical events can occur; but the fact
that there is a mystery doesn't mean that there is no interaction.
Because plainly there is an interaction and plainly the interaction is
between two totally different sorts of events." Now I expect that some
of you may want to say this. But the problem with it is that it does
not seem to answer the full power of the objection.

So let me explain the objection more precisely. Let's take as our
example my decision to walk across the room. We say: my decision, a
mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in my brain to
fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in my walking across
the room. The problem is that if we have something totally nonphysical
causing a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no physical event
which causes the firing. That means that some physical energy seems to
have appeared out of thin air. Even if we say that my decision has
some sort of mental energy, and that the decision causes the firing,
we still haven't explained where the physical energy, for the firing,
came from. It just seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

A fundamental principle of physics is involved, the conservation of
energy. According to this principle, "In all physical processes, the
total amount of energy in the universe remains constant." Or in a form
you may have heard before: in any change anything undergoes, energy is
neither created nor destroyed. This is a basic principle you probably
learned about in high school physics. So the point is that nerve
firings, which are allegedly caused by a totally nonphysical decision,
would appear to violate the Principle of the Conservation of Energy.

Now, dualistic interactionists have tried to answer these objections,
and other such objections, but most philosophers these days are not
impressed by their answers. It has come to the point where, in fact,
there aren't very many interactionists around, and there haven't been
many for decades. When I say this, I don't mean to imply that
dualistic interactionism is false. All I mean to imply is that many
philosophers today think it is false, and perhaps also that, if you
want to hold onto interactionism yourself, you should try to come up
with some effective replies to these objections.

(Another very interesting route to take for the aspiring substance
dualist might be to question the causal closure of the physical
domain. Briefly: there seem to be events on the quantum level which
lack a physical cause; if they lack a physical cause, then either they
have a nonphysical cause or they are uncaused; in either of these
cases, the physical domain is not causally closed. But it remains true
that there are very serious objections to substance dualism which must
be met.)

0 new messages