A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
And your evidence that you have a soul? And if you can provide evidence that you have a soul, what does that have to do with establishing:
"love is from God.
(The hate and murder, that is from the devil.)"
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
"love is from God.
(The hate and murder, that is from the devil.)"
C
cheddarsox
Guest
how convenient!Look at all of the love in the world, love is from God.
(The hate and murder, that is from the devil.)
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Soul–the ability to think, choose, love and have passions.
It is not a mystery. Soul is a reality.
I am unable to love on my own.
As a side note, proof and belief are two different beings.
Also, math and physical science are not powerful enough to get to the soul. Whether math and physical science like it or not, they are not designed to measure, weigh or investigate psychological realities. They were designed by human beings to measure and weigh physical and not psychological beings.
Furthermore, they were not designed to proof God’s existence.
To use math and science to proof God’s existence is a transcategorization, you are mixing apples and pears.
It is not a mystery. Soul is a reality.
I am unable to love on my own.
As a side note, proof and belief are two different beings.
Also, math and physical science are not powerful enough to get to the soul. Whether math and physical science like it or not, they are not designed to measure, weigh or investigate psychological realities. They were designed by human beings to measure and weigh physical and not psychological beings.
Furthermore, they were not designed to proof God’s existence.
To use math and science to proof God’s existence is a transcategorization, you are mixing apples and pears.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
How much does a thought weigh?
How fast is a choice?
What is the size of a feeling that the passions emote?
Do thoughts, choices, and feelings exist?
How do you know the answer?
Can one prove that thought, choices, and passions exist?
Can one prove love exists?
How fast is a choice?
What is the size of a feeling that the passions emote?
Do thoughts, choices, and feelings exist?
How do you know the answer?
Can one prove that thought, choices, and passions exist?
Can one prove love exists?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Those all sound like they could be just processes that occur in the brain. Why do you need to add a soul into the mix? What evidence do you have that a soul in necessary for these things?Soul–the ability to think, choose, love and have passions.
It is not a mystery. Soul is a reality.
I am unable to love on my own.
As a side note, I have not asked for proof, but evidence.As a side note, proof and belief are two different beings.
Ok, what are you going to use to get to God? How do test your conclusions to see if they are actually true?To use math and science to proof God’s existence is a transcategorization, you are mixing apples and pears.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
I don’t see the point to many of these questions. They are just stupid.How much does a thought weigh?
How fast is a choice?
What is the size of a feeling that the passions emote?
Do thoughts, choices, and feelings exist?
How do you know the answer?
Can one prove that thought, choices, and passions exist?
Can one prove love exists?
As to proving that thought, choices, and passions exist I don’t think we can prove these things. However, we do have powerful evidence that they do exist. We all subjectively experience these things. Plus, people discuss their subjective experinces. The best (and simplest) conclusion is that these exist both objectively as well as subjectively.
Where is the evidence that God exists? All the personal experience establish that people have experiences. They do not establish the truth of the contents of those experiences.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Those all sound like they could be just processes that occur in the brain.
In your opinion: Are they, or are they not?
In your opinion: Are they, or are they not?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
The evidence points to them being processes in the brain. Nobody has ever presented any evidence that the soul actually exists. If you have such evidence, please present it.Those all sound like they could be just processes that occur in the brain.
In your opinion: Are they, or are they not?
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Where is your documentation?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Here is a nice article from National Georaphic:Where is your documentation?
magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0503/feature1/
Or you can look at the research of Steven Pinker.
Again, do you have any evidence that souls actually exist?
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
“Now science is delving deeper into what we know of the mind. ….
Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine.”
This is far as I could get. I could not access the actual article, sorry.
I did read what was there.
Are you a scientist?
Please forgive me, I thought you wanted evidence and wanted to use the evidence to see if it proved God’s existence, sorry.
Also, I was addressing more positions than just yours.
Please forgive me; honestly, there is a distinction between the mind and the brain.
I asked Dr. Miles at Harvard about these matters. She held the position that there is a distinction.
I asked Dr. John Paul Kline, University of Wisconsin, who researched the connection between the lungs and the brain. However, these conversations were in the 80s.
I have not taken the time to do the research on such matters, nor have many people.
I make a distinction between reading the research and doing the research. I have done a great deal of reading.
I will go with my own experiences. I have never bumped into a thought. I have never seen a decision. I have never tasted wisdom. I have never measured love. I have never smelled prudence.
Thought and choice are immaterial. Or in other words, thought and choice are spiritual realities.
Many philosophers have come to the conclusion that our intellect (ability to think) and will (our ability to make choices) are spiritual (two parts of our soul). I said philosophers and not theologians. So, too, philosophers have come to the conclusion that some Being made the physical and spiritual beings. Many of those philosophers called that being God. Some of those philosophers were not Jewish or Christian. I assume that you know this, too.
I asked the questions about weight and size because physical science cannot measure these kinds of acts and beings. But physical scientists know that they exist. They experience them subjectively.
God cannot be measured, but I know that He exists. I have felt His love, mercy, forgiveness and beauty. The experience is subjective and limited.
I cannot prove that to any other person. But I cannot prove my wife’s love either. She has great love for me. I have experience it.
Again, physical science cannot measure thought and choice. Physical science cannot measure GOD!
Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine.”
This is far as I could get. I could not access the actual article, sorry.
I did read what was there.
Are you a scientist?
Please forgive me, I thought you wanted evidence and wanted to use the evidence to see if it proved God’s existence, sorry.
Also, I was addressing more positions than just yours.
Please forgive me; honestly, there is a distinction between the mind and the brain.
I asked Dr. Miles at Harvard about these matters. She held the position that there is a distinction.
I asked Dr. John Paul Kline, University of Wisconsin, who researched the connection between the lungs and the brain. However, these conversations were in the 80s.
I have not taken the time to do the research on such matters, nor have many people.
I make a distinction between reading the research and doing the research. I have done a great deal of reading.
I will go with my own experiences. I have never bumped into a thought. I have never seen a decision. I have never tasted wisdom. I have never measured love. I have never smelled prudence.
Thought and choice are immaterial. Or in other words, thought and choice are spiritual realities.
Many philosophers have come to the conclusion that our intellect (ability to think) and will (our ability to make choices) are spiritual (two parts of our soul). I said philosophers and not theologians. So, too, philosophers have come to the conclusion that some Being made the physical and spiritual beings. Many of those philosophers called that being God. Some of those philosophers were not Jewish or Christian. I assume that you know this, too.
I asked the questions about weight and size because physical science cannot measure these kinds of acts and beings. But physical scientists know that they exist. They experience them subjectively.
God cannot be measured, but I know that He exists. I have felt His love, mercy, forgiveness and beauty. The experience is subjective and limited.
I cannot prove that to any other person. But I cannot prove my wife’s love either. She has great love for me. I have experience it.
Again, physical science cannot measure thought and choice. Physical science cannot measure GOD!
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
For the sake of argument, say I agree with this statement. How exactly do we get testable evidence for God? How do we know your feelings about God are right and the Muslim is wrong? Or the atheist?Again, physical science cannot measure thought and choice. Physical science cannot measure GOD!
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
How exactly do we get testable evidence for God?
You are using terms from science. I am not sure you need that.
I see a preponderance of evidence all around me.
How could there be life?
From the lowest levels of life to the highest levels, beings that can think, know, choose and love.
For me that is more than enough evidence to lead to a natural knowledge that some Being must be responible for that. Many people would name that Being GOD!
How do we know your feelings about God are right and the Muslim is wrong? Or the atheist?
Now we are in belief!
You don’t!
However blasphemous this might sound to all three religions, they could all be correct, could they not?
They are all feeling God’s love, however, they may not understand it. Concerning all three, they may not know what they are experiencing. All three might not be conscious of what they are feeling and experiencing.
As I said, this might seems as if it is heresy to all three religions.
However, God does love all people.
God does share His beauty with all people.
God does share His happiness with all people.
God does share His peace with all people.
Make God smile, share His love!
You are using terms from science. I am not sure you need that.
I see a preponderance of evidence all around me.
How could there be life?
From the lowest levels of life to the highest levels, beings that can think, know, choose and love.
For me that is more than enough evidence to lead to a natural knowledge that some Being must be responible for that. Many people would name that Being GOD!
How do we know your feelings about God are right and the Muslim is wrong? Or the atheist?
Now we are in belief!
You don’t!
However blasphemous this might sound to all three religions, they could all be correct, could they not?
They are all feeling God’s love, however, they may not understand it. Concerning all three, they may not know what they are experiencing. All three might not be conscious of what they are feeling and experiencing.
As I said, this might seems as if it is heresy to all three religions.
However, God does love all people.
God does share His beauty with all people.
God does share His happiness with all people.
God does share His peace with all people.
Make God smile, share His love!
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
There are numerous theories of abiogenesis that do not require God. The simple fact in that we do not know how life started, but it is not necessary to say God did it. At best you are evoking a God the Gaps argument.How could there be life?
How do we know your feelings about God are right and the Muslim is wrong? Or the atheist?
Now we are in belief!
Wait. You don’t know if the atheist is wrong. But you know know there is a God. How does that work?You don’t!
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Perhaps you have more faith than you realize.
You believe scientists.
Again there is a preponderance of evidence.
Life!
One has a least two questions to ask oneself:
Don’t I comprehend the evidence?
Or, won’t I comprehend the evidence?
The choice really belongs to the individual.
Again, you have a lot of belief; you believe scientists.
Concerning: “Wait. You don’t know if the atheist is wrong. But you know there is a God. How does that work?”
(How exactly do we get testable evidence for God? How do we know your feelings about God are right and the Muslim is wrong? Or the atheist?)
My children have a preponderance of evidence before them that the sun gives light to the earth. They do not understand it. They experience it. They enjoy it. They benefit from it. THEY FEEL (experience) the sun. They just don’t know that they feel (experience) the sun.
The Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and all human beings experience God’s being, whether they understand it or not.
When we are talking about the preponderance of evidence, religions are not involved. It is down to natural experience.
Some have not considered the evidence.
Some cannot comprehend the evidence.
Some won’t accept the evidence.
The questions, in my judgment, are: Can’t one comprehend?
Or, won’t one comprehend?
Again, we believe many teachings of science.
How much do you believe?
Christians could be wrong about this Being. But now we are in faith. That is another set of questions.
I am a Roman Catholic Christian. I believe. I do not know. However, I do love the faith.
Again, you do have a lot of faith. You believe some of the scientists on some of the issues.
You believe scientists.
Again there is a preponderance of evidence.
Life!
One has a least two questions to ask oneself:
Don’t I comprehend the evidence?
Or, won’t I comprehend the evidence?
The choice really belongs to the individual.
Again, you have a lot of belief; you believe scientists.
Concerning: “Wait. You don’t know if the atheist is wrong. But you know there is a God. How does that work?”
(How exactly do we get testable evidence for God? How do we know your feelings about God are right and the Muslim is wrong? Or the atheist?)
My children have a preponderance of evidence before them that the sun gives light to the earth. They do not understand it. They experience it. They enjoy it. They benefit from it. THEY FEEL (experience) the sun. They just don’t know that they feel (experience) the sun.
The Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and all human beings experience God’s being, whether they understand it or not.
When we are talking about the preponderance of evidence, religions are not involved. It is down to natural experience.
Some have not considered the evidence.
Some cannot comprehend the evidence.
Some won’t accept the evidence.
The questions, in my judgment, are: Can’t one comprehend?
Or, won’t one comprehend?
Again, we believe many teachings of science.
How much do you believe?
Christians could be wrong about this Being. But now we are in faith. That is another set of questions.
I am a Roman Catholic Christian. I believe. I do not know. However, I do love the faith.
Again, you do have a lot of faith. You believe some of the scientists on some of the issues.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Ironic!
Ammonius Saccus
Your nom de plume is from a man who taught about our spirit.
“However, there are some clues: The grand aim of thinkers at the time was the ultimate liberation of the spirit.”
Ammonius Saccus
Your nom de plume is from a man who taught about our spirit.
“However, there are some clues: The grand aim of thinkers at the time was the ultimate liberation of the spirit.”
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
I don’t understand why you keep pointing to life. How does life establish that there is a God? Why are you so sure the there is not a non-supernatural explanation for life? You can’t just say life establishes that there is a God without saying how it establishes that there is God.Perhaps you have more faith than you realize.
You believe scientists.
Again there is a preponderance of evidence.
Life!
I don’t just believe everything scientists say. Science has a method that has been established to arrive at theories and facts. At the foundation of these theories and facts are evidence. It is an open and testable method. I can look at the evidence. I see if fits in with other things I know to be true. It does not take faith to believe these things that have established by evidence.
Where is the evidence at the foundation of faith-based beliefs? Faith seems to be some sort of code for belief in things for which a person does not evidence.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Are you a scientist?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
I am a lawyer (kind of, I still have to take the bar).Are you a scientist?
N
noma
Guest
I would understand faith as the acceptance of an idea, based on insufficient evidence for that idea, so long as the existing evidence points toward that idea, and there is a desire for acceptance.Where is the evidence at the foundation of faith-based beliefs? Faith seems to be some sort of code for belief in things for which a person does not evidence.
An example would be belief in the Christian God. There is evidence of an eminent creative force (Evolution would strongly suggest such eminence), evidence from ourselves (our desire to understand and reach for the infinite), and evidence from others (an objective moral standard, our battle against death, altruism). All of these make a reasonable case, but would never stand up in court. They are insufficient to establish reasonably that a God exists. Yet they suggest one does, and this, coupled with our desire to believe, leads us to faith.
Though the example of mathematics is most similar (the faith-basis being a matter of logical proof), it is somewhat complex and lengthy.
A third example would be the existence of the external world. As evidence must lie outside of something to establish it (else the argument for the existence of the thing would be circular), one would always need one more piece of evidence than exists to establish sufficiently the existence of anything we sense. Much of the consistency of our observations, and predictions, suggests strongly that we should believe that what we see has something to do with what is. But no rational argument has been made, no evidence has been or can be sufficient, to establish that anything anyone observes exists at all.
But most people have faith that their families exist.
Just a few examples. There are many more.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.