S
StAnastasia
Guest
What is your evidence supporting this claim?
That is a theological, not a scientific statement.
That’s an interesting question, which cosmologists currently work on.
Why would that not be a scientific answer?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
“Why” is not a scientific question in this context. “How” is a good question, but unconsciousness did not direct itself.
This is not a scientific question.
This is not a scientific question.
That is a theological rather than a scientific question. And how do you know humans are the only creature capabler of this?
No; yes.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Imagination has taken us to great places.
However, having a deity as part of imagination has added nothing to the human annals of knowledge.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What is your argument for the claim that a deity is imaginary?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I do not argue that a deity is imaginary.
I do not see a deity adding anything to what we now know and continue to strive to know.
Can you come up with anything? It was what our primitive ancestors understood about the natural world. Nothing more.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Anastasia
I said: Or do you think the Big Bang was self started? If so, that is no scientific answer.
You said:** Why would that not be a scientific answer? **
Because there is absolutely no science that the universe started itself up.
I said: Or do you think the Big Bang was self started? If so, that is no scientific answer.
You said:** Why would that not be a scientific answer? **
Because there is absolutely no science that the universe started itself up.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Strawberry
**
It was what our primitive ancestors understood about the natural world. Nothing more. **
And how do you know this “nothing more.” You certainly did not learn it from your primitive ancestors.
Exactly how old are you?
**
It was what our primitive ancestors understood about the natural world. Nothing more. **
And how do you know this “nothing more.” You certainly did not learn it from your primitive ancestors.
Exactly how old are you?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That’s an assumption that the idea of God was invented to explain the natural world. And there are plenty of educated Christians now who know perfectly well that science explains the world, and yet who believe thy have a personal relationship with God.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
On what grounds have you ruled out that possibility?
I
inocente
Guest
Hi You. No.
Personally I’ve never seen violent or aggressive symptoms in Alzheimer’s, but guess there could be, and certainly other disorders could produce that behavior. But none of them could affect the soul as traditionally thought of, for instance the CCC says it’s our innermost aspect, that which is of greatest value to us, the “form” of the body.And certainly anything we do as a result of a disease can’t result in eternal damnation when none of us deserve to be loved anyway, for I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons [which don’t exist btw
], neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Rom 8:37-39 NIVImho theories involving the supernatural are always counter-productive. If we think dementia is caused by demons then we don’t stand a chance of finding a treatment, we can only do that by first associating the mind with the physical brain.
I
inocente
Guest
Orthodox Baptists?
Baptists believe in individual competence before God, it’s kind of the point, so “orthodox” and “Baptist” are oxymoronic. Whichever comic book says you can coerce Baptists by telling them what they should believe, it lies, throw it out.
The way you phrased it sounds strange too - surely no monotheist believes in “three Persons who know and love one another” but that they coexist in unity?
Generally speaking Baptists don’t believe baptism has any supernatural power, nor in holy water, nor in sanctified ground. Ghosts, vampires, zombies, etc. are somewhat superfluous given we believe in dust to dust, that when you’re dead you’re dead until judgment day.
I do believe in trolls though, and so am starting to wonder as this is the third time you’ve refused to answer my question and instead tried to turn it back on me. Try again or see you around.
I
inocente
Guest
= emergent complexity.
The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe.The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts. - P W Anderson
Some cosmologists are questioning the first split second of the big bang as it introduces infinities, and infinities are anathema. Getting rid of them means replacing the singularity with something bigger, which implies a time before the big bang, hidden from us by the big bang. Lemaître himself thought this was a possibility. Which brings it home that the standard model is still provisional.
Y
You
Guest
I only mention it because I seem to remember, rightly or wrongly I don’t know, that you said once that the soul is the electrical aspect of the brain. So I thought that if the brain was damaged to change the personality than you might have believed the soul itself was also changed. As where else would your soul be if you believe it to be the electrical aspect of the brain.Hi You. No.
And certainly anything we do as a result of a disease can’t result in eternal damnation when none of us deserve to be loved anyway, for I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons [which don’t exist btw
Imho theories involving the supernatural are always counter-productive. If we think dementia is caused by demons then we don’t stand a chance of finding a treatment, we can only do that by first associating the mind with the physical brain.
I
inocente
Guest
Don’t think so.
I had a period of depression some years back, thankfully just the one. My doctor prescribed amitriptyline (one of the first generation of “wonder drugs”) because it worked for her husband and I fitted the same profile (no history, just burned out from too much work and not enough play). It works by preventing re-absorption of serotonin and noradrenaline, relieving the depression until the brain chemistry sorts itself out. Many people get depression, it takes many forms. Point is, with me it was remarkable how, from the inside, you recognize how it changes your personality, you become different, you are a different person for the duration. So I can’t be sentimental about this subject anymore, depression taught me otherwise, as it were we are our brain and our brain is precious beyond precious.
To me soul is about what we most value in ourselves, our intrinsic worth, that which depression can’t attack, and as such it doesn’t really fit with concepts like mind or brain. It’s looking at ourselves from a different hilltop, kind of holy, set apart, soul isn’t some substance to be theorized over.
Don’t know if that’s an answer, but it’s the best you’ll get.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Incente, I think you’re right. “Soul” doesn’t act like a substance, so much as like a quality. It’s not as if there are a bunch of souls floating around, sometimes attached to bodies and sometimes not. Up to fifty percent of conceptions end up being flushed out of the mother’s body – often long before she even realizes she was pregnant – because the genetics of the conception is so screwed up they are what geneticists call “incompatible with life.” Does this mean that fifty percent of human “souls” were never attached to a body, that they never made a moral decision, and that they enter into eternity without ever having lived a human moral life? It’s an interesting conundrum.
Y
You
Guest
I’m glad your trouble is behind you. This [bolded above] is approaching what I would see as the Catholic thought on the soul. It is neither the mind fully nor the brain nor even the electrical activity of the brain. Skirting around ideas sentimental that the soul might be just like an ideal, like a happy memory or such; this neither satisfies our knowledge that it is our soul, a real thing, which will live in heaven, if we are that fortunate, like Moses and Elias’s souls were real and seen by the Apostles, living in heaven.Don’t think so.
…
To me soul is about what we most value in ourselves, our intrinsic worth, that which depression can’t attack, and as such it doesn’t really fit with concepts like mind or brain. It’s looking at ourselves from a different hilltop, kind of holy, set apart, soul isn’t some substance to be theorized over.
Don’t know if that’s an answer, but it’s the best you’ll get.
Yes, this cow has probably been milked dry; my parsnips will not be buttered; nor will my knife be greased.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Anastasia
**On what grounds have you ruled out that possibility? **
On the grounds that nobody has produced the evidence. And nobody can produce the evidence. Nobody knows how or why, from the laws of nature, the Big Bang happened. Nobody ever will, except those who believe that God said “Let their be light!” And there was light.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
**On what grounds have you ruled out that possibility? **
On the grounds that nobody has produced the evidence. And nobody can produce the evidence. Nobody knows how or why, from the laws of nature, the Big Bang happened. Nobody ever will, except those who believe that God said “Let their be light!” And there was light.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
**Some cosmologists are questioning the first split second of the big bang as it introduces infinities, and infinities are anathema. Getting rid of them means replacing the singularity with something bigger, which implies a time before the big bang, hidden from us by the big bang. Lemaître himself thought this was a possibility. Which brings it home that the standard model is still provisional. **
Evasive to say the least. “Some cosmologists” and “a possibility” are proof of nothing.
Le Maitre certainly was not an atheist, since he was a Catholic priest, and believed in the Creation.
**Some cosmologists are questioning the first split second of the big bang as it introduces infinities, and infinities are anathema. Getting rid of them means replacing the singularity with something bigger, which implies a time before the big bang, hidden from us by the big bang. Lemaître himself thought this was a possibility. Which brings it home that the standard model is still provisional. **
Evasive to say the least. “Some cosmologists” and “a possibility” are proof of nothing.
Le Maitre certainly was not an atheist, since he was a Catholic priest, and believed in the Creation.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
**
Whichever comic book says you can coerce Baptists by telling them what they should believe, it lies, throw it out.**
I very much agree with this. The hallmark of virtually all Protestantism is that you can believe whatever you like. No need for one flock and one shepherd.
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21
“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).
“I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all” Saint Paul (Ephesians 4:2-6).
**
Whichever comic book says you can coerce Baptists by telling them what they should believe, it lies, throw it out.**
I very much agree with this. The hallmark of virtually all Protestantism is that you can believe whatever you like. No need for one flock and one shepherd.
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21
“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).
“I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all” Saint Paul (Ephesians 4:2-6).
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Charles, it seems an assumption on your part to claim that “nobody can produce the evidence.” 300 years ago nobody could have predicted the discover of relativity or quantum mechanics.
- Status