Are we purely material beings or do we have souls?

[(Q)]

Nobody is saying it is.
It defines the God theists believe in.
So if you want evidence of God, we believe in, then you have to find evidence that matches a transcendental origin of everything. Otherwise asking for evidence is nothing short of lip service.

It’s not for me to give you anything, as your the one who requires evidence. For me it is obvious that God Is.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Asking for evidence is being honest,

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

No evidence for a transcendental origin of everything has ever been found in the thousands of years religions have plagued mankind.

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?

Science is slowly and methodically uncovering the origins as we speak, relentlessly chipping away at the foundation of theists beliefs,

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.

Their only defense to this is the dishonest denial and rejection of facts. How low they have stooped.

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.

 

[(Q)]

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

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?

The Big Bang is evidence of transcendental agency.

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

Unless the Uni brought itself into existence. Do you believe something can create itself out of nothing?

Like God creating Himself from 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.

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

Doing a nice job of revealing scriptural prophecy by the way.

What scriptural prophecy?

Otherwise honest science is going on, even though it’s not pop science. But who cares, they have to do what they do.

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

Facts like Piltdown, and Nebraska Man?

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.

Didn’t they take a sledgehammer Lucy’s hip, just so she fits the consensus.

Nope.

The future is looking very dim.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, asking for evidence is the same as lying?

For God, from an explicit, yes.

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

Stands to reason.

Like God creating Himself from nothing?

You’re in denial, and rejection mode again.

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

Explicit atheists seem duty bound.

What scriptural prophecy?

Look it up.

Yes, scientists do what they do,

Fortunately. Yes.

just so dishonest, arrogant, hypocritical theists can take advantage of their work for their own benefit.

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.

Nope.

Perhaps “sledgehammer was a bit strong. Heh?

Those were facts,

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

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

For anybody.
Even explicits.
Psychopathy has no friends.

 

[(Q)]

For God, from an explicit, yes.

Why?

Stands to reason.

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

You’re in denial, and rejection mode again.

What am I denying now, Jan?

Explicit atheists seem duty bound.

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

Look it up.

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

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.

What are you ranting about now, Jan?

Perhaps “sledgehammer was a bit strong. Heh?

Seemed more stupid.

We’re they really?

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

Then again I’m not surprised, given what accept as facts.

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

For anybody.
Even explicits.
Psychopathy has no friends.

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

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

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

 

[paddoboy]

It’s not for me to give you anything, as your the one who requires evidence. For me it is obvious that God Is.

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

 

[iceaura]

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

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.

Perhaps “sledgehammer was a bit strong. Heh?

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.

 

[Write4U]

Thus, God may transcend both the universe and knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind).

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.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Piltdown Man

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

 

[Vociferous]

That's all well and good, but you avoided addressing the Occam razor argument I put to you.

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.

Your soul idea requires not just a brain to produce consciousness, but a brain and an immortal, immaterial soul. You're multiplying entities unnecessarily, unless and until you can show that the soul is a required element. We already know that a brain is required for consciousness.

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.

Also, it's worth noting, once again, that we have established that bodies exist, whereas we can't detect souls by any objective method. Therefore, given the observed correlation between mind and body, it is much more plausible that the physical body causes the mind than this invisible, undetectable, supposedly immortal soul.

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.

You assert that the brain is merely a switchboard through which the soul controls the body. But no communication method has been identified through which a soul could possibly contact a brain. Compare this to the brain controlling the body. That works through good old-fashioned chemistry and electromagnetism.

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.

A series of physical connections can be traced from my phone to the guy in India. It's about a billion times more plausible that he exists than that an undetectable, untraceable soul exists in communication with each brain.

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.

The null hypothesis is that two specified things (typically measured characteristics of a group) have no relationship of a specified kind. It's most often used in statistics.

And? That's basically what I just said.

Similarly, the operation of one cannot be put down to the operation of the other without actual evidence to that particular end. We have actual evidence that minds do not operate without brains. We have no actual evidence that minds do not operate without souls.

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".

What assumptions?

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.

If your research question is "Are minds caused by brains?" then the null hypothesis is "Minds are not correlated with brains".

Why are you conflating cause with correlation?

The statistical analysis of the available data will show that, in fact, minds are correlated with brains, thus refuting the null hypothesis.

If, on the other hand, your research question is "Are minds caused by souls?" then before we start formulating a null hypothesis we have ask how we're going to collect data about souls, separate from minds. (We can certainly do that for brains.) Once we have the soul data, then we can formulate a suitable null hypothesis and test it. But where's the soul data?

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.

 

[Vociferous]

Cont...

That's why scientific conclusions about correlations between mind and brain are not based on personal experiences!

Another non sequitur. Who ever said they did?

I agree with you, of course. You're saying you have no material evidence for the existence of souls, but you believe in them anyway. That's all very clear. Thankyou for your honesty.

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

It's more a case of: if there are two equally powerful explanations, we should prefer the simpler one. I know what the simpler explanation is out of "brain is needed for mind" and "brain and soul are both needed for mind". What extra does adding the soul have to offer?

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.

Parsimony actually has nothing to do with justified relationships. It's all about not multiplying entities unnecessarily.

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.

My scientism? What are you talking about, exactly? You keep bringing it up, so it must be important to you. Can you explain, please?

Here you are talking about null hypotheses and the like, and you want to leave science, statistics and the like out of the discussion? Do null hypotheses work differently in religious discussions?

Also, you imply that I "assume" an answer. I infer an answer, based on the observations and explanatory power of the theories used to account for them, taking advantage of rules of thumb such as Occam's razor. That's quite a different process than making unwarranted assumptions.

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.

What's the signal, in the case of the soul?

Those invisible electromagnetic waves are certainly detectable, in many different ways. Moreover, they can be isolated from individual devices such as television sets, radios, stars, light bulbs, etc. Where are the isolated souls? How do you detect them?

You didn't really answer the question I asked you: by what process does your soul connect to your body? Instead, you tried to give me an analogy about how the connection might work, comparing it to radio or a telephone line. I asked you how it does work. Give me the explanation, not the analogy. I already understand the analogy.

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.

I agree. But nowhere near as far as we are from detecting an immaterial, immortal soul.

We readily detect life all the time.

I'm not sure which positive assertions of mine you're taking issue with. Please explain.

I'm not arguing with you here. I simply asked why you (theists) believe in souls, and I invited you all to present your best evidence for their existence. You've told me you have no objective evidence for their existence, which is fine. Now all you need to do is to tell me why you believe in souls and we'll be done here. So far, all you've said is that you have reasons that you don't think will convince me. That's just fine, too, but I'd still like to hear your reasons even if I'm not convinced by them.

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.

Why "Of course..."? Do you think I'm in a special position where I'm unable to understand why millions of people believe in souls? I'm quite a smart guy, you know. Why don't you try me?

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

Are you ever interested in hearing opinions and points of view from people who think or believe differently to you? Ever been curious about how the other half lives? Do you really think there's nothing to be gained from listening to what people who believe or think differently have to say? Personally, I think that kind of attitude, which isn't that uncommon, is a problem in our modern world of ideological bubbles.

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.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

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.

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

. So obviously there is an extra something needed

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

 

[Vociferous]

Your speculation is simply speculation.

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

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

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...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.

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

 

[Beer w/Straw]

"the best available science" does not "suggests that the "mind" is purely a product of the brain"

WTF does that even mean?

 

[Michael 345]

mysterious motive force we call life

Life is a PROCESS

Like cooking is a PROCESS

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

The question is whether minds are caused by brains

They are

mysterious motive force we call life.

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

Maybe one day other signals will be detectable, may not

Guarantee none will be from a non existent soul

 

[paddoboy]

stuff up

 

[paddoboy]

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

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.

 

[Michael 345]

recently debunked Libet experiment illustrates

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?