Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[AlanFromWichita]

However, if one holds the belief that reality is comprised of something other than obsevable phenomena, then I would have to ask by what criteria he finds such a proposition worthy of belief. In the absence of norms by which beliefs are justified, one is at the mercy of fantasy and imagination.

There certainly are unknowns in the cosmos, but, the absence of evience is not evidence of whatever one wishes to imagine.

Reality always contains unobservable phenomena. Science peels the universe like an onion. What is unobservable today is tomorrow’s exploration frontier.

While one has no evidence of what we can’t imagine, we are not going to get to the last page of the book, and find we have observed everything that could be observed. “We finally found the Higgs Boson, and the quanta which make it – so we’re done and we can all go home now.” So science isn’t going to have all the answers at any given time in history. Meanwhile, “what one wishes to imagine” is what guides further exploration.

It’s kind of like randomness. A lottery ticket purchase is far from an actual random process. The computer selects numbers according to a very specific formula. What we’re betting on is the formula is “random enough” that we purchasers and sellers and lottery workers cannot detect any patterns nor any biases in favor of one purchaser over another. So we say, “well, that’s random enough,” and treat it for all intents and purposes as if it were. So really it is deterministic, but we wish it to be random, and it’s close enough we can’t tell the diff, so what the hey? We just say it’s random.

Then of course some day somebody will find a pattern and there will be lawsuits and small minds will say, “hey you CAN’T cheat! This is a RANDOM process.” So I’m saying we take what’s “close enough” and live as if that’s all there is, then eventually when it’s time to evolve we’re all sitting there resisting new information, “there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that there is a bias.” These people are the ones who have to be moved out of the way for progress to happen – but they will resist because their minds are ever in “protection” mode and they will defend their beliefs that it is random even if it goes to court.

Is science going to find a cure for the common cold in our lifetimes? That is a question for philosophy, not science. Scientists can guess at it, but they are extrapolating to the point that it really is just a wild guess. As far as science is concerned, it may be theoretically impossible. When I was studying communications, it was considered theoretically impossible to push this much bandwidth of information – videos and all – over a POTS phone line. DSL had bandwidths that would take a long time to load one photo.

So what we have now would have been fairy tales and magic then. If all the good little scientists had stuck to the book and followed the limits instead of reaching with their philosophy and imaginations to what might be forward – damn the mentally imposed limits – then we wouldn’t have the tools to have this discussion. So it is their imaginations, their dreams, their philosophical “what-ifs” that give them something to go on. If they limited their quest for only that knowledge that is already known, they will implode.

Nature will always stay ahead of science – and from what we know from just this past century, our views change in massive, material ways. Quantum theory and relativity aren’t just cute little ideas. If we didn’t take them into account, we wouldn’t even have computer chips or LED’s, our GPS systems would drift by over seven miles a day (IOW we wouldn’t have them) and we would never made it to the moon. Because relativity and quantum physics screw up the calculations for those who are pledged strictly to Newtonian physics beyond any usefulness in these areas of endeavor.

Like Rush says in “The Prophet’s Song”

God gave you grace to purge this place
And peace all around may be your fortune

Oh oh children of the land
Love is still the answer take my hand
The vision fades a voice I hear
Listen to the madman!

But still I fear and still I dare not
Laugh at the madman!

Until you find a real madman, I guess you can laugh at me.

Alan

 

[Gaber]

…

Like Rush says in “The Prophet’s Song”

God gave you grace to purge this place
And peace all around may be your fortune

Oh oh children of the land
Love is still the answer take my hand
The vision fades a voice I hear
Listen to the madman!

But still I fear and still I dare not
Laugh at the madman!

Until you find a real madman, I guess you can laugh at me.

Alan

Love the poem!

Hey, if anyone’s a reader, I can provide a list of men and women and take some mad heat off of Alan!

Hey…wasn’t Jesus one of those? Uh-oh… Watch out Alan, someone might get cross with you!

 

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita
Those who are fighting and defending their positions, through fear or pride or whatever, are operating in protection mode where the brain defends its contents by shutting off access by new ideas. It isn’t so much they refuse to understand; their very biology prevents them from being able to.

That’s very interesting.

I might go back into my ignore list and review the contents, in the light of that new understanding

Sarah x

Further to that, I will try to find the link to the reported MRI study that suggested that conservatives (a sadly misleading moniker) act from the fear center of the brain, while liberals act more from a whole brain activity, thus being more inclusive, and dare I say it?, Christian, imho.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Further to that, I will try to find the link to the reported MRI study that suggested that conservatives (a sadly misleading moniker) act from the fear center of the brain, while liberals act more from a whole brain activity, thus being more inclusive, and dare I say it?, Christian, imho.

I would think that “fear” being roughly equivalent to “protection mode,” would be a good way to describe conservative – in the classical sense that conservatives don’t like change and want to preserve what they have.

Back when I first learned the world “liberal” it implied somebody who wants to change things all the time. Isn’t satisfied with how it is. Wants to make something better.

When I get called a “liberal” my conservative roots stand up and protest and defend my love for the Church and my desire for tradition, because when the term is used as a pejorative term it seems to imply that I’m lacking that. I would rather think I have both hemispheres.

I do appreciate extreme people, completely immersed in either stick-in-the-mud or damn-tradition-change-everything, because they explore extremes of thinking within their specialties, and people like us can from them learn to appreciate what all is possible in the thinking realm. I appreciate them; I just don’t want to be one.

Alan

 

[lemondiesel]

Yes. In philosophy “laws of nature” is the standard term.

When did we start using “law” to describe regularities? Law gives the presumption of a law giver, which may or may not be true.

The question is how? It need not be a physical explanation.

I don’t understand how? A sun gains stability, a solar system forms, a planet gains an atmosphere, etc etc. Or are we once again left with the question of how everything came to be in the first place?

Pure luck is hardly a convincing explanation of the power of reason.

Can’t it make the ability just as spectacular?

We understand reality sufficiently to achieve success in science but not sufficiently to live in peace and harmony - which require far more insight than science provides.

Science could drug us all up to the point where everyone could be in peace and harmony. Drugs are not the answer though, so yes, we need some form of social stability… i.e. religion. edit: spirituality would be a better word than religion

What caused that release?

The plant. Food releases chemicals in our body, which in turn, our brain reacts as well through chemical releases.

Why did religion appear?

The need to explain natural events in the known world, and alo to put a “control” on citizens by kings that were “god” incarnate.

Attachment is different from love because it is due to instinct or habit but the highest form of love is freely chosen.

Free will or determined?

-LD, finally got my password back.

 

[Solus_vistor]

if one holds the belief that reality is comprised of something other than observable phenomena, then I would have to ask by what criteria he finds such a proposition worthy of belief. In the absence of norms by which beliefs are justified, one is at the mercy of fantasy and imagination

Science, notably theoretical physics, works with many concepts that are directly “unobservable”, but lead to a representations of reality that agree with observation/experimentation where observable phenomena are involved. So even within what physics investigates, the existence of an observer- and theory-independent reality must be assumed (see e.g. my post # 397), since science has access only to phenomena perceived by our senses (directly or through instruments) to test its theories, their ability to predict. Science does not have a direct access to an a priori given reality. There are philosophers of science (called scientific realists) who assume this reality and those who do not (c.f. constructive empiricism of Bas C. van Fraassen).

The situation is even more complicated where the assumed reality necessarily involves the observer, his/her personal experience, his/her culture and education, as is the case with the Reality that religions usually refer to. The believer, assumes (i.e. believes) that this or that narrative, mythical or conceptual model, reflects those aspects of reality, that cannot be represented by scientific theories but he/she feels indispensable for his/her existential experience.

As complicated as the question of adequacy (verification) of this or that representation (theory) in physics is, there is no equivalent of it in case of the Reality that a religious believer refers to: “verification” is personal, called faith.

You do not need to justify, provide criteria, evidence for such basic assumptions, axioms or presuppositions of your world-view. You can mostly ask to have the abstract terms involved explained, so as to see whether they coincide with your understanding of them. People understand different things under reality, evidence etc., unless one speaks about trivial every-day matters, where no philosophy needs to be involved.

 

[tonyrey]

Dear Pope,

I wish to make you aware that a worldwide conspiracy of neuroscientists, including Catholic neuroscientists, is constructing a weapon of awesome magnitude that will eliminate God from the face of Creation.They call this weapon Knowledge.

I strongly recommend you disband all universities and burn all libraries forthwith. That should spoil their dastardly plot.

Yours etc.

PS: They may try to tell you that Knowledge will only destroy false gods, but beware, that’s how they get to you, with their dark powers of enlightened reason and logic.

Dear Baptists,

I wish to make you aware there is a notorious Baptist in Spain who is actually designing with others, including so-called Christians (who are materialists in disguise), a weapon of awesome magnitude that will replace God with a neuroscientific artefact. They call this weapon Science.

I strongly recommend you immediately organise protests outside all Catholic churches, monasteries and convents, particularly in Spain - where the aforementioned Baptist has established residence for the specific purpose of obtaining inside information about allegedly futile spiritual activities like prayer and contemplation. He has also devised the ingenious stratagem of using a Catholic forum to obtain information at any hour of the day or night to gain access to the most confidential details which can further their nefarious plans. I recommend that you contact the media to give the utmost publicity to these underhand tactics and expose him and his cronies for what they are: ruthless believers in the blind Goddess.

Yours etc.

PS: They may try to tell you that neuroscience will only destroy false gods, but beware, that’s how they get to you, with their dark powers of obscure faith in purposeless particles.

 

[tonyrey]

Science, notably theoretical physics, works with many concepts that are directly “unobservable”, but lead to a representations of reality that agree with observation/experimentation where observable phenomena are involved. So even within what physics investigates, the existence of an observer- and theory-independent reality must be assumed (see e.g. my post # 397), since science has access only to phenomena perceived by our senses (directly or through instruments) to test its theories, their ability to predict. Science does not have a direct access to an a priori given reality. There are philosophers of science (called scientific realists) who assume this reality and those who do not (c.f. constructive empiricism of Bas C. van Fraassen).

The situation is even more complicated where the assumed reality necessarily involves the observer, his/her personal experience, his/her culture and education, as is the case with the Reality that religions usually refer to. The believer, assumes (i.e. believes) that this or that narrative, mythical or conceptual model, reflects those aspects of reality, that cannot be represented by scientific theories but he/she feels indispensable for his/her existential experience.

As complicated as the question of adequacy (verification) of this or that representation (theory) in physics is, there is no equivalent of it in case of the Reality that a religious believer refers to: “verification” is personal, called faith.

You do not need to justify, provide criteria, evidence for such basic assumptions, axioms or presuppositions of your world-view. You can mostly ask to have the abstract terms involved explained, so as to see whether they coincide with your understanding of them. People understand different things under reality, evidence etc., unless one speaks about trivial every-day matters, where no philosophy needs to be involved.

The presuppositions of materialists rely on inference from their perceptions whereas the beliefs of theists are based on direct knowledge of their thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The presuppositions of materialists rely on inference from their perceptions whereas the beliefs of theists are based on direct knowledge of their thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions.

Do theists in general consider God as something apart from themselves? Or do we seek to merge with God – such as “Divine Union” to use a Christian term. When we experience Divine Union, which I guess means when we make it to a future phase of togetherness we don’t experience before some point of awakening or transition, then do we still consider God an “other?”

 

[tonyrey]

The presuppositions of materialists rely on inference

I believe we always remain conscious of our own identity even in the presence of God in heaven - unlike many Buddhists who seem to lose their identity and merge with the Absolute. Prayer to the saints presupposes their awareness of themselves and us!

 

[WillP]

Science, notably theoretical physics, works with many concepts that are directly “unobservable”, but lead to a representations of reality that agree with observation/experimentation where observable phenomena are involved. So even within what physics investigates, the existence of an observer- and theory-independent reality must be assumed (see e.g. my post # 397), since science has access only to phenomena perceived by our senses (directly or through instruments) to test its theories, their ability to predict. Science does not have a direct access to an a priori given reality. There are philosophers of science (called scientific realists) who assume this reality and those who do not (c.f. constructive empiricism of Bas C. van Fraassen).

The situation is even more complicated where the assumed reality necessarily involves the observer, his/her personal experience, his/her culture and education, as is the case with the Reality that religions usually refer to. The believer, assumes (i.e. believes) that this or that narrative, mythical or conceptual model, reflects those aspects of reality, that cannot be represented by scientific theories but he/she feels indispensable for his/her existential experience.

As complicated as the question of adequacy (verification) of this or that representation (theory) in physics is, there is no equivalent of it in case of the Reality that a religious believer refers to: “verification” is personal, called faith.

You do not need to justify, provide criteria, evidence for such basic assumptions, axioms or presuppositions of your world-view. You can mostly ask to have the abstract terms involved explained, so as to see whether they coincide with your understanding of them. People understand different things under reality, evidence etc., unless one speaks about trivial every-day matters, where no philosophy needs to be involved.

So then, in your view, there are no norms by which you would justify beliefs? If so, then do you consider certain beliefs, no matter how counter intuitive, to be justified if they come from a biblical source?

I am afraid, I have to disagree. Religious and theological beliefs should be tested as any other belief lest we be relativistic in that regard. The only “basic assumptions” of science are consistency in logic founded upon honest observation. Before I come to believe a proposition—“the moon is made of green cheese”, for example----I require comportment with evidence to jstify the belief. Even once there is evidence----analysied moon materials, for example—acceptance of the proposition is always subject to revision if additional evidence is garnered—evidence of fraudulent analysis, for example.

Verification by faith is belief without evidence. Such a belief doesn’t require evidence, but, rather rests upon the “assumption” that the source of the proposition is inerrant.

In the abstract, one can argue, I suppose, that beliefs drawn from evidence are no better than those drawn from faith; but, if I had to decide if the moon were made of green cheese, I would prefer to determine it by evidence rather than to accept the proposition on faith.

Now, having said all of that, I have to concede some small wiggle room for the operation of “faith”. For example, if Stephen Hawking told me that the moon is made of green cheese, I would not immediately reject the idea as pure nonsense, becaue of his reputation, standing and my famiarity with his work. I would give him a hearing, a fair hearing to be sure, and thus entertain his arguments. At the end of the day, nowever, this proposition would would have to “tee up” with logic and observation (ie make sense). If there appeared to be a failure to meet these criteria, then I, would even be inclined to make further inquiry to determine if there were something I missed (after all I have a lot of “faith” in Dr. Hawking). After exhausting that possibility, however, I could not then betray my own intellect and accept the proposition that “the moon is made of green cheese.” Indeed, the hypothesis that Dr. Hawking may be loosing his grip may then appear plausable. In other words, when reliance upon a faith source is no longer consistent with criteria justifying continuing trust, it must be abandoned.

Bottom line is that one should not accept propositions as silly as the moon is made of green cheese without evidence comporting with norms sufficiently justifying such a belief.

My question to you, is “could you?” Danke vielmal

 

[inocente]

Dear Baptists,

I wish to make you aware there is a notorious Baptist in Spain who is actually designing with others, including so-called Christians (who are materialists in disguise), a weapon of awesome magnitude that will replace God with a neuroscientific artefact. They call this weapon Science.

I strongly recommend you immediately organise protests outside all Catholic churches, monasteries and convents, particularly in Spain - where the aforementioned Baptist has established residence for the specific purpose of obtaining inside information about allegedly futile spiritual activities like prayer and contemplation. He has also devised the ingenious stratagem of using a Catholic forum to obtain information at any hour of the day or night to gain access to the most confidential details which can further their nefarious plans. I recommend that you contact the media to give the utmost publicity to these underhand tactics and expose him and his cronies for what they are: ruthless believers in the blind Goddess.

Yours etc.

PS: They may try to tell you that neuroscience will only destroy false gods, but beware, that’s how they get to you, with their dark powers of obscure faith in purposeless particles.

There’s nothing in the Bible to support your animist ghost-in-a-machine beliefs, and animism is usually paired with atheism or paganism, indeed the Church did its best to stamp it out in earlier times.

So it’s unsurprising that you find your beliefs at odds with other Christians, although it’s a bit rich to call us materialists and pretend we’re part of a grand conspiracy when all we’re doing is denying animism plays any part in reality, or indeed in Christ.

Whatever.

 

[tonyrey]

There’s nothing in the Bible to support your animist ghost-in-a-machine beliefs, and animism is usually paired with atheism or paganism, indeed the Church did its best to stamp it out in earlier times.

So it’s unsurprising that you find your beliefs at odds with other Christians, although it’s a bit rich to call us materialists and pretend we’re part of a grand conspiracy when all we’re doing is denying animism plays any part in reality, or indeed in Christ.

Whatever.

The assertion that I have “animist ghost-in-a-machine beliefs” is unsubstantiated and therefore worthless whereas you have made it abundantly clear in your posts that you consider everything in the universe to be scientifically explicable, leaving no scope whatsoever for divine Providence and even casting doubt on the supernatural nature of God since you have rejected the validity of the term “supernatural”, thereby implying that materialism is the most appropriate interpretation of reality - unless of course you can provide us with a more accurate description.

 

[Solus_vistor]

So then, in your view, there are no norms by which you would justify beliefs? If so, then do you consider certain beliefs, no matter how counter intuitive, to be justified if they come from a biblical source?

I am afraid, I have to disagree. Religious and theological beliefs should be tested as any other belief lest we be relativistic in that regard. The only “basic assumptions” of science are consistency in logic founded upon honest observation. Before I come to believe a proposition—“the moon is made of green cheese”, for example----I require comportment with evidence to jstify the belief. Even once there is evidence----analysied moon materials, for example—acceptance of the proposition is always subject to revision if additional evidence is garnered—evidence of fraudulent analysis, for example.

Verification by faith is belief without evidence. Such a belief doesn’t require evidence, but, rather rests upon the “assumption” that the source of the proposition is inerrant.

In the abstract, one can argue, I suppose, that beliefs drawn from evidence are no better than those drawn from faith; but, if I had to decide if the moon were made of green cheese, I would prefer to determine it by evidence rather than to accept the proposition on faith.

Now, having said all of that, I have to concede some small wiggle room for the operation of “faith”. For example, if Stephen Hawking told me that the moon is made of green cheese, I would not immediately reject the idea as pure nonsense, becaue of his reputation, standing and my famiarity with his work. I would give him a hearing, a fair hearing to be sure, and thus entertain his arguments. At the end of the day, nowever, this proposition would would have to “tee up” with logic and observation (ie make sense). If there appeared to be a failure to meet these criteria, then I, would even be inclined to make further inquiry to determine if there were something I missed (after all I have a lot of “faith” in Dr. Hawking). After exhausting that possibility, however, I could not then betray my own intellect and accept the proposition that “the moon is made of green cheese.” Indeed, the hypothesis that Dr. Hawking may be loosing his grip may then appear plausable. In other words, when reliance upon a faith source is no longer consistent with criteria justifying continuing trust, it must be abandoned.

Bottom line is that one should not accept propositions as silly as the moon is made of green cheese without evidence comporting with norms sufficiently justifying such a belief.

My question to you, is “could you?” Danke vielmal

You apparently did not understand a word of what I wrote, and that is probably my fault since I somehow assumed that people read my previous posts. There I tried to explain my position in philosophy of science (and religion) which I thought this thread was about (hence I do not see why the Bible had to be dragged into it). Nevertheless, let me try again:

As far as reality (objective, i.e. independent of our perception) is concerned, the default position is

(A) that all reality is in principle accessible to science, i.e. everything, all reality, is physical reality. This the materialist’s/naturalist’s position which I referred to as Sagan’s maxim.

The alternative is

(nonA) that there is a reality, or aspects of reality, that are not accessible to science, even in principle.

These two positions are the two mutually exclusive world-view presuppositions. (In the past, probably (nonA) would have been seen as the default position.) Of course, this assumes that we understand abstract concepts such as “objective reality”, “physical reality”, “in principle accessible to science”, terms that could also be scrutinized (see my reference to van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism).

There is no universally compelling - logical, rational or what - reason for you to build your world-view on the one or the other presupposition, there are only arguments, more or less subjective, for the acceptance of the one or the other alternative. One argument in favour of (A) is built on Occam’s razor. And I tried to present one in favour of (nonA) by showing that even Hawking does not think that science compels you to assume the existence of physical reality, although most of us have to assume it - i.e. choose (A) or (nonA) - to make sense of our lives. Some - probably not most - of us have to opt for (nonA) to make sense of our lives.

If I understood you properly, your option is (A), i.e. the assumption that everything is accessible to science (after all, nobody denies that moon and green cheese, that you argue with, are accessible by science, and evidence is certainly one of the criterions for the adequacy, usefulness, of physical theories). That is a fair position, that does not need any rational (only perhaps personal) justification, the same as my option for position (nonA).

Changing one’s preference from (A) to (nonA) is called conversion, which is a deep reaching personal shake-up, and is certainly not achieved through rational arguments on a thread dedicated to abstract philosophical questions. (And neither does its converse, from (nonA) to (A), usually referred to as loss of faith.)

Sorry, if I still did not make myself understood, in which case we just have to accept that we talk past each other.

 

[Candide_West]

The presuppositions of materialists rely on inference from their perceptions whereas the beliefs of theists are based on direct knowledge of their thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions.

I’m afraid your claim is rather stretching what people have direct knowledge of there. It is incorrect to say that people have direct knowledge of their thoughts.*

People have thoughts, and they have perceptions about their thoughts (some of which they may verbally or internally express).*

In exactly the same way people have senses and have perceptions about those senses (some of which they may express).

I can talk you through this if you need a more detailed explanation. Essentially it comes down to a question of what you want to call direct knowledge, but clearly you cannot say that we have direct knowledge of some of our own perceptions but not of others.*

Any way, in other words your statement should have read as follows:

“…materialists rely on inference from their perceptions of observable phenomena, whereas theists rely on inference from their perceptions of their thoughts and emotions.”

 

[WTSherman]

You are guilty of the same sin as me. Who can explain His graces? Reality is for us what God wills, do not be fooled.

 

[inocente]

The assertion that I have “animist ghost-in-a-machine beliefs” is unsubstantiated and therefore worthless whereas you have made it abundantly clear in your posts that you consider everything in the universe to be scientifically explicable, leaving no scope whatsoever for divine Providence and even casting doubt on the supernatural nature of God since you have rejected the validity of the term “supernatural”, thereby implying that materialism is the most appropriate interpretation of reality - unless of course you can provide us with a more accurate description.

Animism is a belief that the material body is animated by a supernatural mind, which from all you have written is a precise description of your belief.

Your claim that it is part of Christianity is baseless. Creationists can at least point to a literal reading of Genesis 1 while you have nothing in scripture to support you. Wherever you acquired your belief, it wasn’t from revelation.

Hence your claim that belief in God is impossible without animism is plain silly, as is your notion that Christianity will die unless all learning is prohibited.

If I remember my comparative religion, animism predates all other beliefs. It may arise from a tendency in the primitive part of the mind to make sense of reality by inventing supernatural “spirit” agencies. Animism tends to reassert itself even in highly educated people, for instance as a belief in the paranormal or ghosts.

It is always false. Break the bonds that bind you, "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”.

 

[tonyrey]

The assertion that I have “animist ghost-in-a-machine beliefs” is unsubstantiated and therefore worthless whereas you have made it abundantly clear in your posts that you consider everything

Materialism is the belief that everything consists of matter and all you have written is a precise description of your belief.

Your claim that it is part of Christianity is baseless. Creationists can at least point to a literal reading of Genesis 1 while you have nothing in scripture to support you. Wherever you acquired your belief, it wasn’t from revelation.

Your claim that materialism is part of Christianity is baseless and there is nothing in scripture to support the claim that we are made from matter. Wherever you acquired your belief, it wasn’t from revelation.

Hence your claim that belief in God is impossible without animism is plain silly, as is your notion that Christianity will die unless all learning is prohibited.

Hence your claim that belief in God is impossible without materialism is plain silly, as is your notion that Christianity will die unless all non-scientific learning is prohibited.

If I remember my comparative religion, animism predates all other beliefs. It may arise from a tendency in the primitive part of the mind to make sense of reality by inventing supernatural “spirit” agencies. Animism tends to reassert itself even in highly educated people, for instance as a belief in the paranormal or ghosts.

Materialism arises from the primitive tendency to equate everything with material objects and reject spiritual realities such as God, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. Materialism reassert itself even in highly educated people who reject free will and the objective reality of moral values and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

It is always false. Break the bonds that bind you, "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”.

Materialism is always false. “Fear not those who kill the** body** but those who kill the soul”.

“For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Not in permutations of atomic particles…

 

[inocente]

Materialism is the belief that everything consists of matter and all you have written is a precise description of your belief.
Your claim that materialism is part of Christianity is baseless and there is nothing in scripture to support the claim that we are made from matter. Wherever you acquired your belief, it wasn’t from revelation.

Your post is darned silly, I made no such no claims. Tell me where I did - you can’t. I didn’t make any claims at all, just said that your animism has nothing to do with Christianity. There are no passages in scripture about the basis of the mind, if there were you’d be able to quote them instead of desperately trying to deflect attention away from your belief in animism.

I’m not the one telling Christians what they must and must not believe. Why not admit to yourself, if to no one else, that no one appointed you dogma king and you’re just another layman?

*“Fear not those who kill the body but those who kill the soul”.

“For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”*

Quoting lonely isolated verses won’t cut it. The first says the soul is immortal, nothing about supernatural minds, the second that God isn’t physical (which should be blindingly obvious to all, since God created the physical universe).

 

[Gaber]

… There are no passages in scripture about the basis of the mind, if there were you’d be able to quote them …

For my part I take I AM THAT I AM as being the root Source of what appears as individuated mind.

And the rest of your assesment of that poster’s claims is accurate, as far as I’m concerned.