How many souls do identical twins have?

[Col. Tartleton]

I read temperaments as temperatures lol.

[sumskilz]

Even though identical twins are physically born by the splitting of a single egg, they have striking contrasts in temperament. Their difference in temperament cannot be explained on the basis of genetics because their bodies had resulted from the same genetic material.

Empirically, they don't have striking contrasts in temperament. Their differences make sense based on our understanding of how genes interact with environment.

[DaniCatBurger]

If a soul was a "guest in a body", then identical twins would have two souls because identical twins still have two bodies.*

*Guest in a body is a metaphor. Soul, body and identical twin are metaphors, of course, too.

... is the soul split as well?

The example treats soul as a property of a concept identical twin. I think that would prevent splitting. If soul is more a kind of property of body or belongs with body to a third class of terms (e.g. "guest in a body"), then the number of properties would not concern the concept identical twin. I would propose to explain it as a question of classification. If you class soul as property of identical twins, a split would affect your definition of class. If you class soul as nonproperty of identical twin, you have other options to look on the problem, e.g. unrelated sets.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Empirically, they don't have striking contrasts in temperament. Their differences make sense based on our understanding of how genes interact with environment.

But, they do have differences.

[sumskilz]

But, they do have differences.

Yeah they do, but that doesn't serve as scientific proof of souls because differences are expected based on our understanding of how genes function.

[Himster]

Zero.

[Phier]

I'm rather disappointed in this thread. Obviously the biological explanation is there, but I was hoping for the religious opinion on when and where souls come from? Sphere's example of a Chimera is an even better example. Would such an individual have two souls?

[Visna]

I'm rather disappointed in this thread. Obviously the biological explanation is there, but I was hoping for the religious opinion on when and where souls come from? Sphere's example of a Chimera is an even better example. Would such an individual have two souls?

Question: "How are human souls created?"

Answer: There are two biblically plausible views on how the human soul is created. Traducianism is the theory that a soul is generated by the physical parents along with the physical body. Support for Traducianism is as follows: (A) In Genesis 2:7, God breathed the breath of life into Adam, causing Adam to become a “living soul.” Scripture nowhere records God performing this action again. (B) Adam had a son in his own likeness (Genesis 5:3). Adam’s descendants seem to be “living souls” without God breathing into them. (C) Genesis 2:2-3 seems to indicate that God ceased His creative work. (D) Adam's sin affects all men—both physically and spiritually—this makes sense if the body and soul both come from the parents. The weakness of Traducianism is that it is unclear how an immaterial soul can be generated through an entirely physical process. Traducianism can only be true if the body and soul are inextricably connected.

Creationism is the view that God creates a new soul when a human being is conceived. Creationism was held by many early church fathers and also has scriptural support. First, Scripture differentiates the origin of the soul from the origin of the body (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9). Second, if God creates each individual soul at the moment it is needed, the separation of soul and body is held firm. The weakness of Creationism is that it has God continually creating new human souls, while Genesis 2:2-3 indicates that God ceased creating. Also, since the entire human existence—body, soul, and spirit—are infected by sin and God creates a new soul for every human being, how is that soul then infected with sin?

A third view, but one that lacks biblical support, is the concept that God created all human souls at the same time, and “attaches” a soul to a human being at the moment of conception. This view holds that there is sort of a “warehouse of souls” in heaven where God stores souls that await a human body to be attached to. Again, this view has no biblical support, and is usually held by those of a “new age” or reincarnation mindset.

Whether the Traducianist view or the Creationist view is correct, both agree that the soul does not exist prior to conception. This seems to be the clear teaching of the Bible. Whether God creates a new human soul at the moment of conception, or whether God designed the human reproductive process to also reproduce a soul, God is ultimately responsible for the creation of each and every human soul.

http://www.gotquestions.org/souls-created.html

And if you, like me, have no idea what the finer details of "traducianism" are without googling it, gotquestions kindly provide the following explanation.

Answer: Traducianism is the belief that at conception both the child’s body and soul or spirit are passed on to the child from the parents. In other words, the child inherits both the material and immaterial aspects of his being from his biological parents.

A differing view is creationism, which holds that God creates a new soul ex nihilo for each child conceived. Both traducianism and creationism have their strengths and weaknesses, and both have been held by various theologians of the past. There is a third view, not supported by the Bible at all, which sets forth the theory that God created all human souls at the same time, prior to Adam in Genesis 1. At the time of conception, God attaches a soul to the child’s body.

Some find biblical support for traducianism in the creation narrative. Genesis 2:7 says that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into Adam the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This tells us that Adam was not just a physical being, with a body, but he also had an immaterial part made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27)—he had a spirit and personality. The Scripture nowhere records God doing this again. In fact Genesis 2:2–3 indicates that God ceased His creative work. Later, Adam “had a son in his own likeness, in his own image” (Genesis 5:3)—the wording is similar to that used of Adam’s creation in Genesis 1:26. And, just like Adam, Seth had a body and a soul.

Psalm 51:5 says, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” From the moment of conception, David had a sinful nature. Note the words I and me; these indicate that David considered himself a whole person (body and spirit) at conception. Traducianism helps explain how David could have possessed a sin nature at conception—his spirit/soul was inherited from his father, who had inherited his spirit/soul from his father, and so on, all the way back to sinful Adam.

Another passage used to support traducianism is Hebrews 7:9–10, which reads, “One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.” Levi is considered to be “in the body” of his ancestor, even before conception. In this way, Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through his grandfather Abraham.

It’s usually easy to trace red hair or freckles through one parent or the other. Physical characteristics may skip a generation, but they eventually show up. We speak in the same way of personality traits: “Oh, no, he has my temper”; “She has her father’s disposition”; “He has his mother’s love of animals.” There is no gene we can point to that would explain the soul, yet we commonly see evidence of personality inherited from parents. Could this be the result of the parents’ passing on the soul as well as the body at conception? Scripture does not clearly affirm or deny traducianism.

http://www.gotquestions.org/traducianism.html

I kinda like the idea of the soul being the overall personality of a person. I watched something on reincarnation on Oprah, that's pretty neat too.

[fkizz]

I'm rather disappointed in this thread. Obviously the biological explanation is there, but I was hoping for the religious opinion on when and where souls come from? Sphere's example of a Chimera is an even better example. Would such an individual have two souls?

I have this question from child time, still not sure, but I can give my answer.

I'd say in Chimera example, only one soul is at play; for example, it is theoretically possible for me to have most of my organs transplanted from other person, and I retain my consciousness. I can have body parts of another person, or another person blood, and I retain my indivuality. For me chimerism while problematic is not paradoxical.

in twins, it's a rather complicated question. I would guess life still begins at conception, and either:

-two souls were already in place, due to omniscience of creator, he knew it would be twins;
-begins developing normally, and a second soul of sorts joins in later to make up for the split

As for souls not existing, such materialism is ironic, because it would imply a return to old primitive religions of animism, where you imagine certain objects possessing a supernatural life force, except in this example said object would be the brain. Without soul the level of supernatural properties increases in case of certain matter such as the brain matter, which is ironic. In case of soul, the brain is just a vessel, a material vessel, in the same way a cup is a vessel for water. The supernaturality element of brain decreases, in striking irony.

Without soul the brain is a magic matter, with soul the brain is just matter that connects to a less material world

I hope you apreciated my post.

[Col. Tartleton]

If Traducianism is accurate and breathing life is the source of the soul, and it passed on from parents to children, Eve, like other animals didn't have a soul, although her descendants male and female did. Which is interesting. Although I guess its possible that her soul came from Adam.

[Sir Adrian]

If human life begins at conception.
If human beings are spiritual creatures beyond flesh and blood.
Then the human soul is present at conception.
If the soul is present and the egg splits into identical twins, and humans are spiritual beings, is the soul split as well?

Do twins share a conscience and consciousness? Nope. Same with the soul.

[Himster]

Do twins share a conscience and consciousness? Nope. Same with the soul.

So consciousness is the same as a soul?

[Border Patrol]

I have this question from child time, still not sure, but I can give my answer.

I'd say in Chimera example, only one soul is at play; for example, it is theoretically possible for me to have most of my organs transplanted from other person, and I retain my consciousness. I can have body parts of another person, or another person blood, and I retain my indivuality. For me chimerism while problematic is not paradoxical.

in twins, it's a rather complicated question. I would guess life still begins at conception, and either:

-two souls were already in place, due to omniscience of creator, he knew it would be twins;
-begins developing normally, and a second soul of sorts joins in later to make up for the split

As for souls not existing, such materialism is ironic, because it would imply a return to old primitive religions of animism, where you imagine certain objects possessing a supernatural life force, except in this example said object would be the brain. Without soul the level of supernatural properties increases in case of certain matter such as the brain matter, which is ironic. In case of soul, the brain is just a vessel, a material vessel, in the same way a cup is a vessel for water. The supernaturality element of brain decreases, in striking irony.

Without soul the brain is a magic matter, with soul the brain is just matter that connects to a less material world

I hope you apreciated my post.

So then what would cause such an omniscient creator to create a soul for a fetus whose pregnancy he knew would be terminated?

(this thread was just BEGGING for that question)

[Edelfred]

If life begins at conception, and the twin event, by definition, is after conception, who gets the soul?

This would be a very legitimate question for the Church I would think.

In order to answer your question the Church must first to agree on your proposed idea of the life begining at conception ,which the Church will not do because you mistake
the different things here: the physical life and the never-ending or started life of immortal soul .

[Lazarus]

An equally interesting question arises with the rarer, but still very much real case where two fertilized eggs merge early in development creating a genetic "Chimera".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

Do these bodies contain two separate souls? How could free will exist for both souls in such a situation?

As a very probable Chimera, I'm particularly interested in this. If the soul is imparted at conception and I (probably) extinguished the soul of my uterus-mate, in the eyes of the lord am I a murderer?

[Sphere]

in the eyes of the lord am I a murderer?

You are in the eyes of the Great State of Nevada. That's for sure.

But as to your in vitro murder, it begs the question; do fertilized eggs have free will? I think the gut reaction is to say no, but if free will is something given by God and independent of biological chemistry, I wouldn't think a nervous system would be a prerequisite.

Surely if divinely given free will can control the behavior of a complex biological system like a human body, a small cluster of undefined cells is no challenge. So the actions taken upon a fellow zygote would be an act of free will subject to divine judgement.

[SorelusImperion]

You are in the eyes of the State of Arizona. That's for sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

While a life is destroyed it can not possibly be considered murder because it is not the result of a conscious choice.

[basics]

If life begins at conception, and the twin event, by definition, is after conception, who gets the soul? This would be a very legitimate question for the Church I would think.

Phier,

When God created Adam there were moments when he was formed but not alive. It wasn't until God breathed life into him by way of a soul and activated his blood that Adam actually came alive. So, in the case of any baby at birth, it is when God breathes the same into them that they can become free of their host mother. So twins or triplets and more are treated exactly the same.

Of course we all know of the controversy about when life begins so whenever that is it cannot be until there is a separation, free breathing, because otherwise a baby still linked to its mother internally relies on her to sustain it. It is part of her and as such can move, can smile, can survive but only through her at that time. Independence only comes when God breathes the breath of life into it wherein the link, the cord, can be cut.

[Denny Crane!]

only answer provided by an atheist.

shocking. vaguely.

[Lazarus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea[/B]

While a life is destroyed it can not possibly be considered murder because it is not the result of a conscious choice.

So manslaughter, then.