"Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!" (2015)

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I remember some years ago, 20+, a scientific study was done. It was found, at death, the human body looses weight. They took into fact that oxygen left the body, but there was 2-3 ounces that was lost that could not be accounted for.

I think we can only use the term 'scientific study' very loosely in this instance. MacDougall (the scientist i believe you refer to) used a very small sample size (only four bodies) and his results were inconsistent. 'Furthermore, the precise moment of death is not always clear even today, and in 1907 medical measurement methods were even cruder. The weight of the soul turned out to be simply the result of sloppy science,'

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think we can only use the term 'scientific study' very loosely in this instance. MacDougall (the scientist i believe you refer to) used a very small sample size (only four bodies) and his results were inconsistent. 'Furthermore, the precise moment of death is not always clear even today, and in 1907 medical measurement methods were even cruder. The weight of the soul turned out to be simply the result of sloppy science,'

I remember reading about it. Why, no clue why it has stuck with me. It was before computers were a big thing to the public. But the impression I have today is that this study was not done in 1907. Although the writer might have been talking of that time.

I have always liked science.

Other studies that took place during the late 70's that I thought were interesting had to do with physical energy. For example, cutting a leaf in half. The leaf, after being cut would still show an electrical energy pattern of the whole leaf. Or another study done using electricity on broken bones. An arm, with a broken bone would heal faster if an electrical field (like a cord) was wrapped around it.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I remember reading about it. Why, no clue why it has stuck with me. It was before computers were a big thing to the public. But the impression I have today is that this study was not done in 1907. Although the writer might have been talking of that time.

I have always liked science.

Other studies that took place during the late 70's that I thought we ...[text shortened]... with a broken bone would heal faster if an electrical field (like a cord) was wrapped around it.

Don't forget the 'God helmet"

YouTube

Originally posted by sonhouse
Don't forget the 'God helmet"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_aGlm9QjU

The God Helmet & Polygraph Test Near-death Experiencer challenge

YouTube

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I have always liked science.

Good for you. But I recommend you always double check any extraordinary claims even when they come under the label 'science'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Good for you. But I recommend you always double check any extraordinary claims even when they come under the label 'science'.

Yeah, like billions of years of evolution. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead

No, your point is invalid. Your point demands that information have certain properties which most information simply does not. You have already violated your own definition when it comes to DNA and admitted that it does not necessarily require an entity to interpret it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't giving a complete definition. I was speaking of a characteristic of information - to inform.

A characteristic of clouds is that rain falls from them. That is not a complete definition of clouds.

A few exceptions (which are arguable probably) don't invalidate that information informs.

me: Lately, I think some biologists referring to "junk DNA" were educated to realize that that information was in fact not "junk". It did fulfill a purpose. Some atheist types were sure it was left over junk. Some ID proponents predicted that its purpose would be discovered.

This was an instance of Atheism actually holding back the progress of Science, ironically. Where as the predictiveness of Intelligent Designed furthered the advancement of Science.

tw: Far more likely it is a case of you passing on a made up story from some creationist website.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What website was it taken from ?
If you have no idea then we can dismiss your criticism as most likely your reactionary genetic fallacy.

The reality of the situation is quite different, and junk DNA does actually exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reality is that some evolutionists used "junk DNA" as evidence of evolution. Evolution champion Ken Miller did, I do recall. (He's Catholic like Michael Behe the ID scientists).

Atheists seized upon this "proof" of evolution - "junk DNA" and it has proved to be not junk as some ID researchers like Stephen Meyer explained.

It is true that much of the non-coding DNA is now known to have a purpose,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about that? So give some credit to ID researchers who warned evolutionists that that would prove to be the case.

but totally false that atheist types were sure it was left over junk, or that Athiesm was holding back the progress of Science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some were touting junk DNA as proof for evolution against intelligent design. And you seem to think Atheists can make no errors.

Even junk DNA serves a grander purpose in that it is used by evolution. But I am sure you don't want to hear that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am happy that it has found NOT to be junk and Science has progressed. Whether it evidences evolution or design probably depends on whether one suspects such ingenuity can occur by accident of unguided process or by intelligence.

This debate is likely to continue into the 21rst century.

The point that the "junk" was predicted to be discovered as useful rather than junk, by IDers, I believe, was given to me by Dr. Stephen Meyer. I think he knows more about the modern history biology debates, than you.

Maybe you don't want to hear that ID science actually does have some predictive aspects to it. Some evolutionists dismiss ID as non-science because it doesn't predict anything. Surprise!

cont. latter

Originally posted by sonship
[b] No, your point is invalid. Your point demands that information have certain properties which most information simply does not. You have already violated your own definition when it comes to DNA and admitted that it does not necessarily require an entity to interpret it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... nists dismiss ID as non-science because it doesn't predict anything. Surprise!

cont. latter[/b]

All well and good but there is ZERO proof of humans having souls. Humans have a soul wish, that is all. Humans imagine themselves so self important a deity would automatically be interested in them.

me: No I do not tell you that. That is not a corner I paint myself into. Programs exist. In my case this afternoon, my mind is the end user in the operation of my computer.

tw: But not the end user of all computers. There are computers that operate entirely separately from humans and never ever give any output to humans. I believe they still work with information. [/b]

I know of no such computers NOT being used by people. But you can tell me where they are.

But if you consider that they DO give "output" then that if information provided to some entity. Right? Buffering output and transmitting to the outgoing apparatus of this user-less computer is conveying information just the same.

Do you mean to tell me that nothing inputed or outputed by such user-less computers is utilized by humans ?

Why do they not have a circularity problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I told you that if the entire soul is a matter of stored information, it is problem of contradictory circularity.

What I have not been able to get from you yet is whether you are saying the entire SOUL is SDM coded information in the brain or just memories.

There is no reason to hesitate on clarifying that for me.

me: That is not a circularity problem. It terminates with me being the end user. I think the circularity problem arises when everything pertaining to the SOUL in its widest definition is a matter of physically stored information.

tw: So explain what the problem is. Merely saying 'there is a problem' doesn't make a problem. In what way is a soul being information based make it circular and in what way is that a problem? I certainly fail to see any infinite regression that you talk of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term "infinite regress" may not have been the best expression for me to use. Then again it may have been. For if you just have material information supplied to more materially stored information, supplied to more materially stored information, etc. etc. etc I don't see when the living person concludes this. Infinitely, you're stretching back and back to find the non-material life.

Saying that only physicality exists here is a problem. Now I have restated this in several ways now. Your method seems to get the other poster talking more and more until you can seize on some smaller error and demand apologizes.

Keep you eye on the big picture though details are important.
The big picture is whether a totally physical SOUL makes sense or not. I don't think it does. And I have not been entirely clear how your caveat "information based" plays into this. You said something to the effect that the Mind or Soul is non-material only in that it is "information based".

Clarify that please. No need to be condescending about clarifying it.



me: I just did. Your mind is the end user. Physically stored information being the end user of physically stored information is the circularity dilemma.

tw: There is no dilemma. If you see one, then explain it clearly because right now I just don't see it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you don't see it because we hold two different presuppositions about what the end user is. You presume man to be only a physical information based material thing.

But that is what we are trying to determine is true or not.
One of us or possibly both of us are begging the question.


me: I will keep my eye out to see if someone else has a problem in seeing an infinite regress there.

tw: Let me know when they do. Maybe they can explain it to me in a way I can understand. [/b]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's nice. But whether you do or not, reducing the SOUL and/or consciousness to physically stored information has problems in logic.

tw: I would love to see those problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The first problem is that if you are correct then you really are not DECIDING to believe what is true. You are just determined by the fizzing and bubbling of chemicals since the Big Bang to think something (no thanks to your free will to choose to do so).

I'll be back latter.

One more -

So far you have made a claim about memory that proved to be unfounded, and now you are saying something about circularity, but I am not understanding the issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you, you yourself only material of atoms and chemical reactions ?

Yes or No ?

If you remain uncommitted or say you don't know yet, I would suggest that you include an immaterial part should be the way you lean.

If you think yes you are only material I don't see how any accidental process caused mind to emerge from matter.

Like to write more but I have to run.,

Originally posted by sonship
[b] me: No I do not tell you that. That is not a corner I paint myself into. Programs exist. In my case this afternoon, my mind is the end user in the operation of my computer.

tw: But not the end user of all computers. There are computers that operate entirely separately from humans and never ever give any output to humans. I believe they still work ...[text shortened]... accidental process caused mind to emerge from matter.

Like to write more but I have to run.,[/b]

Who said life was accidental? It was certainly NOT accidental. It was the result of literally trillions of chemical 'experiments' if you will, going on at the same time for millions of years till better and better strands of RNA and then DNA developed. Energy plus water plus carbon and a few other chemicals and maybe some kind of container like a microscopic pocket of clay is all it takes, at least that is the leading theory for now outside of 'goddidit'.

What will you say when life is unequivocally made from chemicals in a lab where it is PROVEN life came from goo?

One prominent atheist was open to follow the evidence beyond aliens all the way to God. Antony Flew was the most prominent atheist philosopher of the last century. But in 2004 after fifty years of writing in support of atheism, Flew announced he became a theist precisely because of the evidence provided by DNA.

"What I think the DNA material has done," Flew said at a symposium at New York University, "is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements to work together. "

How did atheists respond? With disdain for Flew, just like they had for Meyer and anyone else who dares to question the dogma of Darwinist believers.

"I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you could think of," Flew complained, "and none of them have read a word that I have ever written."

In case you're wondering, Flew did not become a Christian theist, nor did he come to believe in an afterlife. So this was not the cae of an older man getting spiritual fire insurance before checking out. He simply followed the evidence of biology back to an intelligent cause.

Flew recognized that science doesn't only close gaps: Sometimes it opens them! The more we learn about the natural world, the wider some gaps are getting.

[ Stealing From God - Why atheists need God to make their case, Frank Turek, NavPress, pg. 73 ]

Originally posted by sonhouse
Who said life was accidental? It was certainly NOT accidental. It was the result of literally trillions of chemical 'experiments' if you will, going on at the same time for millions of years till better and better strands of RNA and then DNA developed. Energy plus water plus carbon and a few other chemicals and maybe some kind of container like a microscop ...[text shortened]... y when life is unequivocally made from chemicals in a lab where it is PROVEN life came from goo?

You are speaking in fairy tale language now.