Are we purely material beings or do we have souls?

Asking for evidence is being honest, but it's unlikely we'll ever see that kind of honesty from theists. No evidence for a transcendental origin of everything has ever been found in the thousands of years religions have plagued mankind. Science is slowly and methodically uncovering the origins as we speak, relentlessly chipping away at the foundation of theists beliefs, much to their chagrin. Although they remain stalwart in their convictions, their once powerful "obvious" reasons to believe now seem little more than childish musings in light of our understanding of the world around us. Their only defense to this is the dishonest denial and rejection of facts. How low they have stooped.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not in the case of explicit atheists.
Explicits lie their asses off.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Big Bang is evidence of transcendental agency. Unless the Uni brought itself into existence. Do you believe something can create itself out of nothing?

Some scientists are desperately trying to make their worldview stick, by chipping away at the foundation of theists beliefs, who unfortunately are part of the tipsy turvy, structure of power. Doing a nice job of revealing scriptural prophecy by the way. Otherwise honest science is going on, even though it’s not pop science. But who cares, they have to do what they do.

Facts like Piltdown, and Nebraska Man?
Didn’t they take a sledgehammer Lucy’s hip, just so she fits the consensus.
The future is looking very dim.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, asking for evidence is the same as lying? When you ask your mechanic for evidence that your car has bee repaired, you're lying? When you ask for evidence from your doctor that you're going to live, you're lying?

Then, prove it, don't just make the claim.

Like God creating Himself from nothing?

No, all scientists are simply doing research, it just so happens their work is demonstrating your beliefs have no foundation.

What scriptural prophecy?

Yes, scientists do what they do, just so dishonest, arrogant, hypocritical theists can take advantage of their work for their own benefit.

Those were facts, they were exposed by scientists, this has been explained to many times now, but you still dishonestly bring it up as one of your weak, ignorant arguments.

Nope.

For those who cling to ancient myths and superstitions, yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For God, from an explicit, yes.

Stands to reason.

You’re in denial, and rejection mode again.

Explicit atheists seem duty bound.

Look it up.

Fortunately. Yes.

Nice to see you trying to control to control the chaos of your explicitly, atheist mind set.
Must be horrible being on alert every time someone chips always at your fictional reality.
I feel sorry for you.

Perhaps “sledgehammer was a bit strong. Heh?

We’re they really?
Then again I’m not surprised, given what accept as facts.

For anybody.
Even explicits.
Psychopathy has no friends.

 

Why?

That's not proof of anything. I take it no proof is forthcoming?

What am I denying now, Jan?

In asking for evidence? How does that work, Jan?

I did, there was no such prophecy, you just made it up.

What are you ranting about now, Jan?

Seemed more stupid.

Yes, that was explained to you several times, but I understand the very heavy use of marijuana gives you short term memory.

I'm not so sure you know what a fact is.

Again, are you just making up stuff as you go along?

 

Would Jan do that?

You really should stop sidtracking Jan so he can tell us all about the soul as I am sure in his address on the matter he will back up his claims with evidence and I am as sure of that as I am that JC will come back and raise all the dead bodies from the ground.

I do wonder what makes up a soul.

Maybe those clever scientists at ID could explain the soul at a quantum level and perhaps how it "runs" and gets its energy after it has to leave the body.

Like all the stories from theist and they crumble when one casually considers the detail..oops there I go generalizing re theists...clearly I am only talking about theists who take their good book literally not the sophisticated ones who take their good book and "interprete" it...well I did get a glimpse of Jan trying to do some interpretation re the days in creation, in fact I felt he was going to attempt to interprete "days" into billions of years but no..maybe in the future.

The way I see it the soul must by made up of something physical..hydrogen maybe the main component...which would help it float around..but I think the concept is that it is mere "energy" and from what I have read on the subject is put there at conception...now that needs to be nailed down...I expect at that moment the sperm penetrates the wall of the egg...again probably the scientists at ID could tell us more...but at that point god creates the soul..an energy packet..maybe in photon form? Now from here on I do wonder how the soul gets its batteries topped up and more importantly how it keeps charged after it leaves the body...and the big question for me is..does it have a form ...a shape...I get the impression it is probably like a puff of smoke ...one wonders if it could be of any use actually.
It's hard to imagine a heaven full of souls...it probably would look like a foggy morning...You can see why faith is so important...you know the ability to unplug all reason and critical thinking as this soul thing seems to have a few holes in it if you actually think about it..but if you have faith you dont have to think about it but just keep spluterring like old Jan.

Alex

 

The most obvious points, even in this thread, is that Jan is nothing more then a fraudulent liar and a troll.
The same fraudulent lying behavour he was previously banned for.

 

Jan has many times used the phrase pertaining to his myth of "transcendental", nearly as much as his hatred and obsessions with "Atheism" And as those that have crossed swords with him and his nonsense, he completely lacks the intestinal fortitude to reveal what denomination/cult or whatever bunch of loonies he belongs to.
Anyway I checked out the definition of transcendentalism....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
Transcendentalism is a philosophical movement that developed in the late 1820s and 1830s in the eastern United States.[1][2][3] A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature, [1] and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.

Religious definition[edit]
See also: Transcendence (religion)
In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. In religious experience transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence and by some definitions has also become independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer, séance, meditation, psychedelics and paranormal "visions". [fits Jan to a "T"]

It is affirmed in various religious traditions' concept of the divine, which contrasts with the notion of a god (or, the Absolute) that exists exclusively in the physical order (immanentism), or indistinguishable from it (pantheism). Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, God may transcend both the universe and knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind).
comment in blue is mine.

 

Nebraska Man was a mistake, corrected in a couple of years - not by creationists, who have never corrected anyone's mistakes let alone their own, but by the attention of scientific researchers - who were dubious from the moment it was reported.
Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, somewhat similar to the Shroud of Turin and other "scientific" frauds, except that it only lasted forty years (and only survived that long because it was so well done). It remains an example of one of the chief virtues of scientific endeavor as opposed to the efforts involved in propping up the Shroud of Turin et al: the evidence and arguments and methods and everything else is publicly available for examination by anyone. It's hard to maintain a falsehood over a long time if one's evidence is public.

It was dishonest. It was even phrased as a Fox question (the kind used on Fox News to suggest something that if stated directly would be obviously wrong), which is a liar's format.

 

Not if the universe is mathematical in essence. We have trouble enough trying to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness in living organisms, but we know that it resides in, and is a product of our 3 lb physical brains.

Where does this universal brain that has been dubbed "God" reside, and how big is it? Would that also mean that non-biological AIs can eventually become conscious.

WHERE CAN THE PHYSICS OF GOD BE FOUND? Are we suddenly required to ignore the way things work and adopt a belief that some "unseen power" is consciously directing the physics of the universe? That is going way back to mythology, over and over again, ad nauseam.

 

Out of the vast number of fossils it is interesting that Jan and some of the creationist tribe can only ever mention the fraud and the mistake..what about all the other fossils that support The Theory of Evolution????...and how they can be so critical when in their good book we find mistake upon mistake tells us they are hypocrits..of course they won't acknowledge any mistake in their good book explain it...dishonest behaviour is all they offer.
Alex

 

Parsimony isn't only about the simplest answer. It's also about how much is explained. It's easy to have simple answers that explain very little, or just make you feel like you have a handle on something we really don't understand at all. And when the evidence is that we understand very little, pretending there isn't more to the story is obtuse scientism.

No, the body and brain are just the telephone-like apparatus. We have them laying around in morgues without any sign of consciousness at all. So obviously there is an extra something needed.

Simply knowing something exists is a preposterous reason to just assume it explains something. Minds and bodies do nothing at all without some mysterious motive force we call life. If bodies alone produce minds, it would stand to reason that we could Frankenstein up some people. We can't, because we don't understand what life ultimately is, how it comes to exist, nor how it might be artificially produced.

And? Without the proper equipment, you'd have no chance of identifying the invisible cellphone signals either. Your incredulity isn't much of an argument. But to that, synapses in the brain fire due to quantum potentials. While those are individually stochastic, the ensemble of activity over 100 trillion may not entirely be so.

Only if you have the wherewithal to do such tracing. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think we can do that in the human mind and thoughts.

And? That's basically what I just said.

No, you're just conflating minds and brains, without any real evidence that they are anything more than correlated. Again, if the brain is a switchboard, losing the connection tells us nothing about the other end. We have plenty of evidence that brains do not operate without some mysterious motive force we call life. The soul is "the breath of life".

That just because we know some things exist and science has a good track record, that that must mean that those things and science will eventually explain the currently unknown. It's a kind of faith I don't even possess, as I don't believe God will do or explain anything for me.

Why are you conflating cause with correlation?

Non sequitur, as no one has disputed that minds are correlated with brains. The question is whether minds are caused by brains. Most correlation is meaningless by itself and makes no real assertions to challenge the null hypothesis.

Minds obviously aren't caused by brains alone, as again, we have plenty of those in morgues. So minds obviously also require life, of which we have plenty of data. But we have no real understanding of how life animates brains, much less how both would/could create minds. Again, only claims of scientism would say otherwise.

 

Cont...

Another non sequitur. Who ever said they did?

I also believe in a mysterious motive force we call life.

They are not equally powerful explanations. One requires scientism to just presume unjustified explanatory power that the other possesses by simple dint of honestly accepting what we don't know. If we cannot find causative evidence in what we do know, it simply stands to reason that there's something more to the story.

No, the principle of parsimony is the simplest explanation involving the fewest assumptions, which includes unjustified relationships as well as unnecessary entities. Don't pretend that one refutes the other.

Really? You can't Google "scientism" and educate yourself?

"...the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html​

Clear enough?

Who said anything about leaving science out of the discussion? Doing so would be just as dogmatic as only allowing science in the discussion.

Inference relies on the validity of your reasoning. If that reasoning is motivated by an absolute and exclusionary faith in science, it necessarily makes unwarranted assumptions. Whereas accepting some things are not knowable allows inference without assumption.

And? Maybe one day other signals will be detectable, may not. The point is that electromagnetic waves are invisible and until relatively recently not even detectable. Before EM was detected no one could have told you how they might be either. And? What's your point? Since we can detect some signals, we should be able to currently detect all existing signals? That doesn't follow.

I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know how the soul may connect to the body, although I've given a possibility above.

We readily detect life all the time.

You sure seem to have made assertions about the capacities of science and its seemingly unique status in ascertaining knowledge. If none of those were assertions, so be it.

No objective evidence, aside from that for life. I think souls exist for the exact same reasons I think life exists. Bodies and brains, again, exist in morgues without any life at all.

Assuming you do, why do you believe in life? You can see its effects, but you don't know what it is nor how to detect it independently.

I'm saying, if you had any such aptitude, you would already understand.

I hear them all the time, interested or not. Just a byproduct of a culture and popular media that are awash in beliefs other than my own. It's good to be aware of, and I would urge anyone in that bubble to actively seek other views. And I applaud you for doing so, even in the comfort of a science forum, with some easy targets to browbeat along with many who agree with you.

 

Are you honest enough to concede you have no case for the soul...not a thing...and you rest on the following untested conclusion.

Your speculation is simply speculation.

And why would we seek to involve anything other than science particularly when all you would admit to reasonable assesment is basically unsupported waffle.

Scientism...a phony word invented by phony people...they can't come up with genuine argument or reasonable evidence but are pretty good with words to encapsulate their unjustifiable hatred of science.

Alex

 

So is scientism. But there's nothing speculative about the existence of life.

Maybe because the science put forward by the OP was wrong. "the best available science" does not "suggests that the "mind" is purely a product of the brain", as the recently debunked Libet experiment illustrates. That's a clear failure of the dogmatism of scientism, as many materialist have hung their hat on that experiment for decades.

Scientism is asserting science where gaps in our knowledge exists, akin to God of the gaps. Don't like the mirror? Don't look.

 

WTF does that even mean?

 

Life is a PROCESS

Like cooking is a PROCESS

By your logic my sponge cake in the oven has a soul (PROCESS)

They are

No mystery, chemical and electrical activity (two PROCESSES) occur within the brain and the sum of these activities is known as the mind

Guarantee none will be from a non existent soul

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

stuff up

 

Scientism is a fabricated bullshit word, supposedly to deride science because it [science] has made any need for any deity as superfluous at best, and invented by gullible fools, who cannot accept the finality of death, and the open progressive nature of science.

 

Link please. What exactly was debunked?

Extract from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419300739
*****
Brain activity preceding conscious decisions reflects the decision process rather than its outcome. Furthermore, the decision process is configured by conditional intentions that participants form at the beginning of the experiment. We conclude that Libet-style tasks do not provide a serious challenge to our intuition of free will
*****
Do you say conscious decisions are implemented directly without any pre brain activity in the as additional extract states?

Libet demonstrated that conscious intentions are preceded by a specific pattern of brain activation, suggesting that unconscious processes determine our decisions and we are only retrospectively informed about these decisions

Is it your claim this has been debunked?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!