Originally posted by Starrmana moment ago you claimed science would confirm the soul
And you are talking in circles, a moment ago you claimed science would confirm the soul, no you claim using science to locate an origin is a mistake.
Clearly this is a pointless debate. On the one hand you suggest that the soul cannot be measured on the other you claim it is a matter of time before it can be, but when challenged on the implications, you ...[text shortened]... to saying it cannot be measured again. You have no more support for your view than Kelly does.
No, I did not make that claim.
you claim using science to locate an origin is a mistake.
Given science's limited ability (relegated to measurements and effects, never the cause behind the physical world), I do assert that science will never get any closer than asking the question... very much like its struggle with all of reality.
On the one hand you suggest that the soul cannot be measured on the other you claim it is a matter of time before it can be, but when challenged on the implications, you resort to saying it cannot be measured again.
As we have yet to measure the soul, I can't believe you would object to my suggestion along the same lines. We see the movement of the soul all the time when measuring the reactions in the brain. Stimuli is unnecessary for items to register; simple thought will yield similar results. What is thought? Oh, that's right: thought is merely the reaction being measured, caused by--- shoot! That's where we get into trouble, again.
Talk about faith! At least faith in the Bible is based on authority in total agreement with logic. Here is something--- as clearly measureable as the effects of the wind--- which you refuse to accept because you cannot otherwise see (read: explain). What is that belief based upon?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat gibberish! You are asserting that thoughts are the effects of the soul without any evidence whatsoever. I could just as soon assert that thought are the effect of the computer programming in the Matrix we all exist in. You are again confusing your assertions with reality.
[b]a moment ago you claimed science would confirm the soul
No, I did not make that claim.
you claim using science to locate an origin is a mistake.
Given science's limited ability (relegated to measurements and effects, never the cause behind the physical world), I do assert that science will never get any closer than asking the question... to accept because you cannot otherwise see (read: explain). What is that belief based upon?[/b]
Please address my point regarding the thoughts of a dog; do you regard that as irrefutable evidence of the existence of dog souls? If so, it's an interesting theology you've come up with. If not, then your argument falls to pieces; since a dog's brain has the same type of basic wiring as a human one you cannot rationally assert that firing of synapses in the human brain are caused by a "soul" but the firing of synapses in the dog brain are not. Or will you simply continue to refuse to address this contradiction?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I did not make that claim.
it is but a matter of time before the soul is 'announced' via scientific means.
Given science's limited ability (relegated to measurements and effects, never the cause behind the physical world), I do assert that science will never get any closer than asking the question... very much like its struggle with all of reality.
And yet you accept a completely unjustified answer; that goddunnit.
As we have yet to measure the soul, I can't believe you would object to my suggestion along the same lines.
You're just not getting it, I don't object to measuring the soul or not, I object to the existence of a soul. Either you are saying:
1) a soul is a specifically natural entity, the origin of thought and consciousness which can potentially be measured. In which case the word 'soul' os merely a term of reference for something we do not yet fully understand.
OR
2) You are saying that the soul is a supernatural entity which cannot be measured and as such the word 'soul' is a specific term of definition. Yet you have yet to define this 'soul' in any way which does not rely on the definienda.
We see the movement of the soul all the time when measuring the reactions in the brain.
Conjecture; you must first establish what this soul is before you can show that it does anything.
Stimuli is unnecessary for items to register; simple thought will yield similar results.
I have no idea what this means, please clarify.
What is thought? Oh, that's right: thought is merely the reaction being measured, caused by--- shoot! That's where we get into trouble, again.
Again, you're not making sense. I have yet to see you coherrently present your argument. At the moment you seem to be elaborating theatrically on something, but it's all a stage show as far as I can tell.
Talk about faith! At least faith in the Bible is based on authority in total agreement with logic.
Hahahahahahah!
Here is something--- as clearly measureable as the effects of the wind--- which you refuse to accept because you cannot otherwise see (read: explain).
Please, give me a measurement of the soul.
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease address my point regarding the thoughts of a dog
What gibberish! You are asserting that thoughts are the effects of the soul without any evidence whatsoever. I could just as soon assert that thought are the effect of the computer programming in the Matrix we all exist in. You are again confusing your assertions with reality.
Please address my point regarding the thoughts of a dog; do you reg ...[text shortened]... the dog brain are not. Or will you simply continue to refuse to address this contradiction?
I will do so, right after you address my point regarding what causes a thought.
Originally posted by StarrmanOriginally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]No, I did not make that claim.
it is but a matter of time before the soul is 'announced' via scientific means.
Given science's limited ability (relegated to measurements and effects, never the cause behind the physical world), I do assert that science will never get any closer than asking the que ...[text shortened]... otherwise see (read: explain).
Please, give me a measurement of the soul.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I did not make that claim.
it is but a matter of time before the soul is 'announced' via scientific means.
That being said, if at all possible to detect using physical instruments, it is...
Oops! Come on. I know you can do better than this. You wouldn't want to have the reputation of being the Dan Rather of TimeForChess, now would you?
And yet you accept a completely unjustified answer; that goddunnit.
Given our inability to explain the cause of reality, and given the Bible's perfect track record, I'll (again) stick with the Bible. Of course, I could always accept that truly unjustifiable answer: wecannotseeitsoitdoesnotexistandorconcernus.
I object to the existence of a soul. Either you are saying...
For the record. The soul is the invisible, immaterial essence of man which cannot be examined through scientific observation. While we (again) can see the soul's effect through the animation of personality, we cannot see the soul.
Conjecture; you must first establish what this soul is before you can show that it does anything.
See above. Also, see the wind. Prior to scientifically understanding what caused the wind, were its effects real? If we cannot understand something scientifically, are its effects real?
I have no idea what this means, please clarify.
Thoughts in the brain can register the same reactions as actual stimuli such as pain, pleasure or etc. What is causing those thoughts?
Again, you're not making sense.
Sorry you're not able to follow. Try getting some sleep and take a run at it later.
Hahahahahahah!
HahahahahahahaHA!
Please, give me a measurement of the soul.
Thought, for one.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI already answered that; "electrical" activity in the brain. In fact, I seem to remember research being done on the human brain where specific thoughts were brought forth by stimulation of certain areas of the brain. I'll see if I can find a link.
[b]Please address my point regarding the thoughts of a dog
I will do so, right after you address my point regarding what causes a thought.[/b]
Now please stop dodging.
Here's something for ya, Freaky:
Of all the syndromes in neurology and of all the discoveries in brain research, none is more wondrous than the behavior of a split-brain human patient. Everytime split-brain patients are examined, they reveal truths about how brain enables mind. Split-brain effects have to be exposed in a laboratory, where special techniques separately test each half-brain. >From such tests we can discover the amazing effects of disconnection. Over the years hundreds of experiments have been carried out, and they mainly reveal that the thoughts and perceptions of one hemisphere go on outside the realm of awareness of the other.
The article's worth a read, even for the "Goddunnit" crew: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web1/Vasiliadis.html
Originally posted by no1marauder"electrical" activity in the brain.
I already answered that; "electrical" activity in the brain. In fact, I seem to remember research being done on the human brain where specific thoughts were brought forth by stimulation of certain areas of the brain. I'll see if I can find a link.
Now please stop dodging.
I see. So, from your perspective, that which is being measured is also the cause of what is being measured. I know your brain is better than that.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease stop the nonsense. A) Why does the "electrical" activity that is thought have to have a prior cause? and B) In your theology, does a dog have a soul too since it has "electrical" activity in its brain?
[b]"electrical" activity in the brain.
I see. So, from your perspective, that which is being measured is also the cause of what is being measured. I know your brain is better than that.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oops! Come on. I know you can do better than this. You wouldn't want to have the reputation of being the Dan Rather of TimeForChess, now would you?
If you can't post what you mean and instead post what you don't mean, how is anyone expected to hold meaningful discourse with you?
Given our inability to explain the cause of reality, and given the Bible's perfect track record, I'll (again) stick with the Bible. Of course, I could always accept that truly unjustifiable answer: wecannotseeitsoitdoesnotexistandorconcernus.
This 'perfect' track record you talk of is debatable both in itself and under the banner of a required proof of god and that the bible is not a work of man alone.
For the record. The soul is the invisible, immaterial essence of man which cannot be examined through scientific observation. While we (again) can see the soul's effect through the animation of personality, we cannot see the soul.
And again, you need to prove the soul exists before you can see anything being the result of it.
See above. Also, see the wind. Prior to scientifically understanding what caused the wind, were its effects real? If we cannot understand something scientifically, are its effects real?
We looked for a cause using science, located it and defined the wind. You are suggesting a definition of the soul without this process and based on effects of which you have yet to show any reason why we should consider them tied to your notion of a the soul.
Thoughts in the brain can register the same reactions as actual stimuli such as pain, pleasure or etc. What is causing those thoughts?
Electrical impulses due to a flow of ions across chemical gradients, triggering certain receptors and initiating further electrical processes, I'd imagine.
Sorry you're not able to follow. Try getting some sleep and take a run at it later.
Nope, it still comes across as poorly presented and detached from any robust presentation of your argument.
Thought, for one.
Thought is not a measurement, it is an example and until you give me any reason to believe that thought and your idea of a soul have a necessary connection, it is meaningless.
Originally posted by no1marauderA) Why does the "electrical" activity that is thought have to have a prior cause?
Please stop the nonsense. A) Why does the "electrical" activity that is thought have to have a prior cause? and B) In your theology, does a dog have a soul too since it has "electrical" activity in its brain?
Firstly, natural science (which discovered the "electrical activity" ) assumes causality by definition. Would you say this brain activity is the "uncaused" exception?
Secondly, it has philosophical ramifications -- allow me to quote from Lewis's "Miracles":
[N]otice the two senses of the word because. We can say, “Grandfather is ill to-day because he ate lobster yesterday.” We can also say, “Grandfather must be ill to-day because he hasn’t got up up yet” (and we know he is an invariably early riser when he is well). In the first sentence because indicates the relation of Cause and Effect: The eating made him ill. In the second, it indicates the relation of what logicians call Ground and Consequent. The old man’s later rising is not the cause of his disorder but the reason why we believe him to be disordered. There is a similar difference between, “He cried out because it hurt him” (Cause and Effect) and “It must have hurt him because he cried out” (Ground and Consequent). We are especially familiar with the Ground and Consequent because in mathematical reasoning: “A=C because, as we have already proved, they are both equal to B.”
The one indicates a dynamic connection between events or “states of affairs”; the other, a logical relation between beliefs or assertions.
Now a train of reasoning has no value as a means of finding truth unless each step in it is connected with what went before in the Ground-Consequent relation. If our B does not follow logically from our A, we think in vain. If what we think at the end of our reasoning is to be true, the correct answer to the question, “Why do you think this?” must begin with the Ground-Consequent because.
Lewis’s argument presses that naturalism (an "electrical" based reason) entails epistemic skepticism of our reason, because it has no basis for internalist (ground-and-consequent) inferences.