Life is explained by biology; metabolism, evolution, homeostasis, transformation, genetics, etc.
Spirits are not part of that explanation.
Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Life is explained by biology; metabolism, evolution, homeostasis, transformation, genetics, etc.
Spirits are not part of that explanation.
Agreed, if it doesn't exist, it can't be part of the explanation.
Then why has it never been shown to exist?
Not sure who you chatting with as they would be on my Iggy list
Don't want to know either
I am guessing they are trying to shoehorn a spirit as being needed for a human to be a human and alive
Because it doesn't
Religion seems to have taken the biological PROCESS of life and given the process a physicality spirit
Not sure who you chatting with as they would be on my Iggy list
Don't want to know either
I am guessing they are trying to shoehorn a spirit as being needed for a human to be a human and alive
Because it doesn't
Religion seems to have taken the biological PROCESS of life and given the process a physicality spirit
Spirit is an after life form of energy .
We both know that's not true. If it were, it would be knowledge and we would all know about it.
So, spirit is a form of life and after life energy that nobody has ever seen, even though you claim it's a form of energy.
Please present your evidence that "spirit" has been proven to exist. No need at this stage to show that this has been proven "many times". Once will do.
Thank you!
What kind of knowledge are you thinking of when you refer to art, music and literature, for starters? Is it individual knowledge, or are we talking about the community pool of knowledge?
Can we agree that art, music and literature can't give us new knowledge about things that exist in the natural world? I mean, I can read a piece of literature and I might learn some new fact that I, personally, was not aware of before, but fiction doesn't add to the total stock of human knowledge about the natural world. I agree that it can give us some insight into what it feels like to be human and what kinds of things matter to people; is that the kind of knowledge you're thinking of?
Similarly, philosophy can give us insights into how to think about things, and into possible worlds and the like, but that kind of knowledge is an abstract kind of knowledge, isn't it?
What do you regard as spiritual knowledge?
I ask you for evidence, and one word is the best you can come up with?
I'm not aware of any proof from hauntings that spirits exist.
Please explain how you think that hauntings establish the existence of spirit. Try for more than one word, if you can.
Experience of a haunting .
Congratulations, you managed to string together 4 words in a row. It's a pity that you didn't answer my question with those words.
Want to try again?
What I said is good enough . Your not discussing my post .
You're another rare case of somebody who cannot be (or who doesn't want to be) educated.
Recall that I asked you: "Please explain how you think that hauntings establish the existence of spirit."
Your response was the semi-coherent: "Experience of a haunting."
Now, where in your response is the answer to the "how" question that I asked? Nowhere, that's where.
I am very well aware that some people claim to "experience" hauntings. I asked you how you think that in any way advances the case for the existence of spirits.
There is nothing for us to discuss unless and until you can explain what actual evidence you have to support your belief in spirits.
Over the past week or so, I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for a number of baseless claims that you have made on this forum. Each time, you have come up blank. So much so, in fact, that I have to wonder whether you have any idea what the word "evidence" actually means, or what kinds of things would count as objective evidence for something.
My impression of you is that you exist in a state of almost childlike naivete. You hear stories that people tell you and you like them, so you decide for yourself to believe they are true. You think that your own belief in the stories is enough to make them true.
This is a science forum. Realise that "true for river" is not the same as "true". When you make silly claims like "ghosts are real" or "space doesn't bend", we want more than just bald statements about your personal beliefs. What is required here is that you make a case for the claims you are making. That is, you should attempt to provide an argument for your views, preferably with supporting evidence where it is possible to gather any, in order to make try to persuade other people that the state of affairs you claim is extant is objectively perceivable to all.
What is proposed with no evidence or argument is just as easily dismissed with no evidence or argument.
All indications from your history here are that this is the best you have to offer. I feel a bit sorry for you, truth be told. There must be so many things that you don't understand in the world. It must make your everyday life difficult, if this is what you're like all the time.