damage to a part of brain=fundamentalism

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A politer version of Joseph's 'delusional' or 'lying.'

You not bringing anything new to the party sir, apart from a back catalogue of irrational beliefs?

Does the ocean need a swelling symphony cascade for you to acknowledge its power?

Originally posted by sonship

While the body, soul and spirit are inextricably linked, only the death of the body can separate the spirit and soul from the body, but an unregenerate spirit keeps one separated from God.

That's right.

spirit AND soul?
Don 't you mean MIND and spirit/soul ?

Or don't you have a mind?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Always find it strange when you say this Kelly. If Adam existed, wouldn't he be a common ancestor?

Mitochondrial 'Eve' ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Does the ocean need a swelling symphony cascade for you to acknowledge its power?

The ocean doesn't need our belief.

I'm tempted to list the gods for you, but I think that isn't helpful here.

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe the universe and various forms of life in it have always existed. That's also an explanation. So your assertion that your preferred explanation is the only one isn't true.

"Maybe" isn't an explanation. Go ahead, base your world view on speculation. Imagine, dream and fantasize. Your assertions are a charade based in fantasy.

Originally posted by josephw
"Maybe" isn't an explanation. Go ahead, base your world view on speculation. Imagine, dream and fantasize. Your assertions are a charade based in fantasy.

Be that as it may, but your claim on the previous page that your explanation is the only one still isn't true.

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe the universe and various forms of life in it have always existed. That's also an explanation. So your assertion that your preferred explanation is the only one isn't true.

And this is somehow not wishful thinking on your part?

Originally posted by dj2becker
And this is somehow not wishful thinking on your part?

I am not "wishful" about or for anything.

My comment was made in the context of the claim josephw made.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not "wishful" about or for anything.

My comment was made in the context of the claim josephw made.

Saying maybe this that or the other sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Saying maybe this that or the other sounds like wishful thinking to me.

It was simply suggesting to josephw that his conjecture about the origin of life is not the only one, as he mistakenly claimed. Read the conversation, please. Your attempt here to be contrary is pretty clumsy.

Originally posted by FMF
It was simply suggesting to josephw that his conjecture about the origin of life is not the only one, as he mistakenly claimed. Read the conversation, please. Your attempt here to be contrary is pretty clumsy.

So you are saying it is rational based upon evidence to believe that life has always existed?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you are saying it is rational based upon evidence to believe that life has always existed?

Read the conversation. josephw's preferred conjecture is not the only one. As for me, I do not know what the origin of life is. Neither do you. Neither does josephw. Nobody does yet, as far as I am aware.

Originally posted by FMF
Read the conversation. josephw's preferred conjecture is not the only one. As for me, I do not know what the origin of life is. Neither do you. Neither does josephw. Nobody does yet, as far as I am aware.

So if a scientist were to say that there is scientific evidence that life and the universe had a beginning at some point in the past you think that is merely conjecture that is equally valid to a claim that life may have always existed even if evidence seems to suggest otherwise?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So if a scientist were to say that there is scientific evidence that life and the universe had a beginning at some point in the past you think that is merely conjecture that is equally valid to a claim that life may have always existed even if evidence seems to suggest otherwise?

I haven't talked about whether conjecture X is "equally valid" as conjecture Y. It's not my field of expertise. I was simply pointing out josephw's erroneous claim.

Originally posted by FMF
I haven't talked about whether conjecture X is "equally valid" as conjecture Y. It's not my field of expertise. I was simply pointing out josephw's erroneous claim.

So if as you admit you are not an expert in this field how do you know that joseph's claim is erroneous? How would you know that X is not the only valid option? 🙄