"What is life" debate, inlcuding viruses

[sinnerdexter]

Clearly they are both life forms.

The question is whether these some people would say that each human is committing “murder” millions of times per day?

If yes, then what is the remedy for this moral crime?

What you call murder, another life form calls “My next meal”. There is no ‘remedy’. It is a succession of life forms which has been going on for millions of years.

For these some people, ‘Morality’ is a human concept. Is a lion ‘moral’ when it kills, and then eats, a gazelle? Is it ‘moral’ when a human kills and then eats a cow, or a goat or a pig or a carrot or a potato?

 

[R_Daneel]

Computers and viruses are extensions of the human mind really. they are offshoots of human life.

Correct, but what is the relevance? Chlidren are the result of human activity, too. Or, if you prefer, they are also offshots of human life.

 

[ContegoFides]

What you call murder, another life form calls “My next meal”. There is no ‘remedy’. It is a succession of life forms which has been going on for millions of years.

For these some people, ‘Morality’ is a human concept. Is a lion ‘moral’ when it kills, and then eats, a gazelle? Is it ‘moral’ when a human kills and then eats a cow, or a goat or a pig or a carrot or a potato?

Morality is not a human concept, it is a truth that applies to all humans. If morality were a human concept, then humans would have radically different concepts of morality. However, at a very basic level across all cultures, we have a surprisingly similar concept of what is moral. True that we disagree about many of the details, but everyone everwhere knows that murder is wrong, incest is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying to the detriment of others is wrong, helping one’s fellow humans is right, praying (or meditating) is right, being truthful is right, self-sacrifice for the benefit of others is both right and noble. This is the natural law written on all human hearts.

Morality does not apply to animals or plants, not because morality is not true, but rather because morality only extends to humans (excluding the possibility of sentient alien life for the moment). Humans are in a different qualitative category than animals. Thus, when a lion kills the act is “amoral” - not a moral event. However, when a human kills, even an animal, the act takes on a moral dimension. Is it right to kill the lion in self defense? Sure. How about just for fun and torture? No. Is it right to kill a fellow human? It depends.

The concept that morality is a purely human concept that has no truth or bearing in our nature is an extremely dangerous philosophy that has shocking results when actually lived out. We see it in atheistic societies such as China, the old Soviet Union, and others. We also saw it in Nazi Germany which, while not exactly atheistic, sought to construct and construe its own version of morality. Would you say that what the Nazis did is no different in concept than Mother Theresa’s actions? There really are people who would argue, “no,” but frankly that’s a ludicrous position that most intelligent people rightly reject out of hand.

In either example, if morality is merely our construct, our “concept,” then we may construct and construe morality as we wish. The state becomes the ultimate arbiter of morality. The result is disaster and death.

Even when the state does not control morality, such as in our culture today, each individual person merely has to say “because morality is merely a human concept, I can create my own morality - and really there’s no reason why your morality is any better than mine.” Again, the result is disaster and the toleration of extremely grave evils. Besides, we return to the paradoxical and self-defeating notion that “absolutely there are absolutes.”

Clearly, the concept that morality is merely our “concept” is both broken and dangerous. Therefore, this concept should be abandoned in favor of the objective truth.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Your immune system fights almost all germs (life form)? Under whose concept?

When immune system gets weak, human might get flu (another life form)
Once human had flu his plates and utensils should be dropped in a boiling water to kill germs and prevent the spread. Under whose concept?

 

[ContegoFides]

Your immune system fights almost all germs (life form)? Under whose concept?

When immune system gets weak, human might get flu (another life form)
Once human had flu his plates and utensils should be dropped in a boiling water to kill germs and prevent the spread. Under whose concept?

You are not making any sense. It’s beyond reasonable debate that my immune system fights “germs” (bacteria and viruses) and that boiling utensils is one method of sterilizing them (killing the “germs.”) So, I think you’re trying to say something else.

 

[sinnerdexter]

You are not making any sense. It’s beyond reasonable debate that my immune system fights “germs” (bacteria and viruses) and that boiling utensils is one method of sterilizing them (killing the “germs.”) So, I think you’re trying to say something else.

You claimed that “life” is defined by the existence of a soul.

Please define soul.

If soul = emotion, well…

Studeis show that 85% of all disease is rooted in our emotions.

That means that among the 17 million people who died of heart disease last year, and among the 7.2 million people who died of cancer last year, 85% of those diseases were rooted in their emotions.

Man! If only someone taught them to work on their emotions (not just on their bodies), some of them might still be alive today.

Going back to flu. We blame germs for our sickness. But that’s only partly true. But one thing that causes it to weaken is our negative emotions.

Here’s what I believe.

Most of our diseases are messages.

What message? If your definition of soul = emotion, the diseases are telling us that we have a spiritual need that we need to fill.

But instead of listening to the message, we kill the messenger. We get rid of the sickness without addressing our soul needs. Very soon, the sickness will reappear.

If your definition of soul is different, tell us how it will make sense in this discussion.

 

[ContegoFides]

You claimed that “life” is defined by the existence of a soul.

Please define soul.

If soul = emotion, well…

Studeis show that 85% of all disease is rooted in our emotions.

I challenge this assertion. Show me these studies. While it is well known that one’s emotional state has a profound effect on health, I am skeptical that 85% of all disease is caused by negative emotional states.

That means that among the 17 million people who died of heart disease last year, and among the 7.2 million people who died of cancer last year, 85% of those diseases were rooted in their emotions.

Man! If only someone taught them to work on their emotions (not just on their bodies), some of them might still be alive today.

Going back to flu. We blame germs for our sickness. But that’s only partly true. But one thing that causes it to weaken is our negative emotions.

Here’s what I believe.

Most of our diseases are messages.

What message? If your definition of soul = emotion, the diseases are telling us that we have a spiritual need that we need to fill.

But instead of listening to the message, we kill the messenger. We get rid of the sickness without addressing our soul needs. Very soon, the sickness will reappear.

Well, in principle I agree that many, if not most people do not address their spiritual needs. Without taking the time to find the source, I remember reading somewhere that people are generally very poor at making decisions that actually increase their happiness.

However, diseases have existence independent of emotion or spirtitual fulfillment. We can measure them.

Additionally, some very peaceful, very happy people were very sick for a long time and where happy and fulfilled while sick. Several saints come to mind off the top of my head, including St. Faustina, St. Padre Pio, and others. My own mother, I remember, was at her most peaceful and was happiest in the midst of incredibly intense sickness and suffering that nearly took her life, and it lasted for about a year.

So, again, it is not a lack of spiritual fulfillment that necessarily causes disease.

If your definition of soul is different, tell us how it will make sense in this discussion.

Well, I can say that the soul is not defined by emotions. In part, the soul animates a body. A person might be in a vegetative state, but still “alive” (breathing and heart beating on its own). A person in a vegetative state does not feel emotions (we can take brain scans to determine this fact), so emotions cannot possibly be the definition of a soul.

As the soul is ineffable, it is not easily subject to a quick definition. However, I will distill some of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in defining the soul (paragraphs 326-368).

The soul is the “spark” of life, the spiritual principle of a living creature.

In humans, the soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom, and soul and body together form one unique human nature. The soul refers to the innermost aspect of a human, that which is of greatest value to the individual.

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. In other words, it is *because *of soul’s spiritual nature that the body (which is made of matter) becomes a living human body. Without the soul, the body is not animated. The soul is indivisible, it cannot be broken down; indeed, it cannot be measured. Human souls, at least, are immortal.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I challenge this assertion. Show me these studies. While it is well known that one’s emotional state has a profound effect on health, I am skeptical that 85% of all disease is caused by negative emotional states.

This and this and this and this

Well, in principle I agree that many, if not most people do not address their spiritual needs. Without taking the time to find the source, I remember reading somewhere that people are generally very poor at making decisions that actually increase their happiness.

However, diseases have existence independent of emotion or spirtitual fulfillment. We can measure them.

Additionally, some very peaceful, very happy people were very sick for a long time and where happy and fulfilled while sick. Several saints come to mind off the top of my head, including St. Faustina, St. Padre Pio, and others. My own mother, I remember, was at her most peaceful and was happiest in the midst of incredibly intense sickness and suffering that nearly took her life, and it lasted for about a year.

So, again, it is not a lack of spiritual fulfillment that necessarily causes disease.

Medical community has already said that a huge majority of our diseases are Psychosomatic.

Stress is the number one cause of heart disease.

Well, I can say that the soul is not defined by emotions. In part, the soul animates a body. A person might be in a vegetative state, but still “alive” (breathing and heart beating on its own). A person in a vegetative state does not feel emotions (we can take brain scans to determine this fact), so emotions cannot possibly be the definition of a soul.

As the soul is ineffable, it is not easily subject to a quick definition. However, I will distill some of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in defining the soul (paragraphs 326-368).

The soul is the “spark” of life, the spiritual principle of a living creature.

In humans, the soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom, and soul and body together form one unique human nature. The soul refers to the innermost aspect of a human, that which is of greatest value to the individual.

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. In other words, it is *because *of soul’s spiritual nature that the body (which is made of matter) becomes a living human body. Without the soul, the body is not animated. The soul is indivisible, it cannot be broken down; indeed, it cannot be measured. Human souls, at least, are immortal.

Again, Psyche means soul. Soma means body.

 

[sinnerdexter]

The Bible says a cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.

What does this say about emotional life?

Going back to “what is life” debate, I suggest you start HERE

Bacteria, as well as viruses, and certain fungus and plants, and many other organisms, do not use fertilization to reproduce, so we cannot use fertilization as a definition of life.

Reproduction is the process by which new living things are created. People, animals, plants, and even bacteria, reproduce. There are two methods by which living things reproduce - asexual or sexual. Asexual reproduction allows for a living thing to reproduce without another member of its species, while sexual reproduction requires genetic material from two different members of the species, usually but not always, a male and a female. There are a few rare species that have the ability to reproduce both sexually and asexually.

 

[ContegoFides]

This and this and this and this

I have reviewed all four of these references. None of them support your claim that 85% of all illnesses are psychosomatic. The first three only define psychomatic illness, which I already stated is known to exist. The fourth reference states that 60% of all heart disease is caused by stress; however, 1) this reference is notoriously old - dating to 1949, and medical science has advanced substantially since then, and 2) most importantly, the 60% quote is based on the unsupported anecdotal statement of one phycisian. In other words, the last reference is unreliable and is further unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific studies.

So, I continue to challenge your assertion that 85% of all diseases are psychosomatic in nature.

Please be aware, I do not challenge the *existence *of psychosomatic illnesses - their existence is well documented. All you have done is proven what I have already asserted: That it is well known that a patient’s emotional state can have a substantial impact on one’s health.

However, the full truth is that diseases have an inherent existence independent of one’s attitude or spirit. Ones attitude or spirit can make one more or less predisposed to getting a disease, but diseases even happen to happy people. Indeed, some people are happy in the midst of terrible suffering.

Medical community has already said that a huge majority of our diseases are Psychosomatic.

Again, your cited reference does not support your assertion. The cited reference only describes what psychosomatic illness is; it does not provide any indication of how widespread psychosomatic illness is relative to non-psychosomatic illness.

Stress is the number one cause of heart disease.

Again, your cited reference does not support your assertion. The cited reference only states that stress can cause heart disease through increased levels of cortisol; however, the reference does not indicate the proportion of heart disease caused by stress relative the proportion of heart disease caused by other factors.

Again, Psyche means soul. Soma means body.

I disagree. The psyche is your self awareness, the causes of behavior. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology One may be alive, but not self aware or capable of behaviors - such as when one is in an unconscious vegestative state with brain activity. Something is keeping the body alive, and it can’t be the psyche. It is the spiritual soul that animates the body; the soul is the ineffible spark of life.

Note that my reference to the wikipedia article states that the psyche in modern psychology might be considered the soul, (as well as self, mind, thought, behavior, etc.). However, this definition is clearly flawed for purposes of defining the soul, because the mind or behavior do not animate the body - as shown by the persistent vegetative state example.

Nevertheless, the definition is useful to show that the term “psyche” refers to consciousness, behavior, or the “mind” - which is inadequate to describe the spark of life that animates the body (the soul).

 

[ContegoFides]

The Bible says a cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.

Indeed! Proverbs 17:22. Not surprising that Biblical Truth is in harmony with the scientific truth that psychosomatic illness exists, and that a good attitude can help keep diseases away.

What does this say about emotional life?

Only what I said above - that it is important. However important is not dispostive, or even critical.

Going back to “what is life” debate, I suggest you start HERE

Reproduction is the process by which new living things are created. People, animals, plants, and even bacteria, reproduce. There are two methods by which living things reproduce - asexual or sexual. Asexual reproduction allows for a living thing to reproduce without another member of its species, while sexual reproduction requires genetic material from two different members of the species, usually but not always, a male and a female. There are a few rare species that have the ability to reproduce both sexually and asexually.

I have read your reference. In scientific terms, it is a fairly well developed description for defining life in terms of observable characterisitics.

However, the reference doesn’t (and can’t) tell you what life is in its essence. What is it about life that gives life the seven characteristics mentioned in the reference?

Let me explain what I’m getting at. Here are the seven observable characteristics of life that the author has used to define life:

Let’s take #1: (Living organisms must have a program to make a copy of themselves.) OK. But what is it that allows some DNA to replicate, but others not? Also, on a marco scale, we can observe people - even animals - dying when no physical reason exists to do so. So, the DNA and its replication alone, nor the instructions DNA provides to other biological processes, is not what animates the living body.

#2 (Life Adapts). This characteristic only defines observed behavior, not what actually animates the living body.

#3 (Metabolisis). OK, but again, why would highly advanced and otherwise healthy creatures die? There is something that animates the organs to act and metabolisis to take place. It’s not just neurotransmitters failing to function properly; as we observe some people living with extremely low neurotransmitters. They are depressed, but not dead. Something causes such people (even some animals) to “let go” of life. How can this be?

#4 (Transformation of energy). This characteristic only defines observed behavior, not what actually animates the living body. Also, fire also take energy from the environment, but is not alive, so this characteristic is of limited usefulness to defining life.

#5 (Regeneration). Again, but what causes some highly advanced organisms to regenerate properly, but not others? What is the essence of life that makes this regeneration possible? Again, it can’t be purely physical processes for the reasons given above.

#6 (Response to stimuli). This characteristic only defines observed behavior, not what actually animates the living body. Also, fire also responds to stimuli, but is not alive, so this characteristic is of limited usefulness to defining life.

#7 (Industrial complexity - numerous maintained reactions). If anything, this observed characteristic points to the ineffable spark of life that is the soul. On the surface, it’s just an observed effect - not the essence of what makes that effect possible. What is it that makes the effect possible? The extreme complexity of a single human body is mind boggling, how can it really stay together and work effectively? Sure, I can’t prove that it’s something other than mere physical processes - but that just defies reason as well as Occom’s Razor.

I recommend reading this reference for a better developed argument based on industrial complexity: Signature in the Cell signatureinthecell.com/

The only thing that actually ties these observed characteristics together, and gets at the underlying essence of life, is the soul - the ineffable spark of life that animates the body.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I have reviewed all four of these references. None of them support your claim that 85% of all illnesses are psychosomatic. The first three only define psychomatic illness, which I already stated is known to exist. The fourth reference states that 60% of all heart disease is caused by stress; however, 1) this reference is notoriously old - dating to 1949, and medical science has advanced substantially since then, and 2) most importantly, the 60% quote is based on the unsupported anecdotal statement of one phycisian. In other words, the last reference is unreliable and is further unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific studies.

So, I continue to challenge your assertion that 85% of all diseases are psychosomatic in nature.

Please be aware, I do not challenge the *existence *of psychosomatic illnesses - their existence is well documented. All you have done is proven what I have already asserted: That it is well known that a patient’s emotional state can have a substantial impact on one’s health.

However, the full truth is that diseases have an inherent existence independent of one’s attitude or spirit. Ones attitude or spirit can make one more or less predisposed to getting a disease, but diseases even happen to happy people. Indeed, some people are happy in the midst of terrible suffering.
**
Again, your cited reference does not support your assertion. ** The cited reference only describes what psychosomatic illness is; it does not provide any indication of how widespread psychosomatic illness is relative to non-psychosomatic illness.

Again, your cited reference does not support your assertion. The cited reference only states that stress can cause heart disease through increased levels of cortisol; however, the reference does not indicate the proportion of heart disease caused by stress relative the proportion of heart disease caused by other factors.

** I disagree. The psyche is your self awareness, the causes of behavior. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology One may be alive, but not self aware or capable of behaviors - such as when one is in an unconscious vegestative state with brain activity. Something is keeping the body alive, and it can’t be the psyche. It is the spiritual soul that animates the body; the soul is the ineffible spark of life.

**Note that my reference to the wikipedia article states that the psyche in modern psychology might be considered the soul, (as well as self, mind, thought, behavior, etc.). However, this definition is clearly flawed for purposes of defining the soul, because the mind or behavior do not animate the body - as shown by the persistent vegetative state example. **

Nevertheless, the definition is useful to show that the term “psyche” refers to consciousness, behavior, or the “mind” - which is inadequate to describe the spark of life that animates the body (the soul).

Haven’t read your last two posts thoroughly because I am very busy but just hitting the highlighted parts.

A simply made a quick google search of ‘psychosomatic diseases’ and I found those references.

40 yrs ago, doctors were saying that 50% of diseases were psychomatic. 30 yrs ago, they raised it to 60%. 20 yrs ago, it was 75%. Last year, I read the report: Some doctors now believe that over 85% to 90% of our diseases have emotional roots.
I know that you’re looking at 85%, forgive me I don’t have the report at hand, but the links shows that diseases have emotional roots.

With regard to your link, we can play dueling-links all day long. Nonetheless, I see nothing in what you’ve provided to undermine my position. However, I leave the door open for new evidence.

Now, you provided your definition of “soul”. Whenever we evaluate claims of truth or correctness, we should necessarily look for evidence. Can you show me?

You rejected the definition psyche = soul and Soma = body. Read this and get back to me.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Well, I can say that the soul is not defined by emotions. In part, the soul animates a body. A person might be in a vegetative state, but still “alive” (breathing and heart beating on its own). A person in a vegetative state does not feel emotions (we can take brain scans to determine this fact), so emotions cannot possibly be the definition of a soul.

As the soul is ineffable, it is not easily subject to a quick definition. However, I will distill some of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in defining the soul (paragraphs 326-368).

The soul is the “spark” of life, the spiritual principle of a living creature.

In humans, the soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom, and soul and body together form one unique human nature. The soul refers to the innermost aspect of a human, that which is of greatest value to the individual.

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. In other words, it is because of soul’s spiritual nature that the body (which is made of matter) becomes a living human body. Without the soul, the body is not animated. The soul is indivisible, it cannot be broken down; indeed, it cannot be measured. Human souls, at least, are immortal.

Hence, it then does not prove that large percentage of diseases was not rooted in human’s emotions.

However, the full truth is that diseases have an inherent existence independent of one’s attitude or spirit. Ones attitude or spirit can make one more or less predisposed to getting a disease, but diseases even happen to happy people. Indeed, some people are happy in the midst of terrible suffering.

Please, go on. If you have evidence I am listening, but I thought that your earlier argument is outside the parameters of proof.

Indeed! Proverbs 17:22. Not surprising that Biblical Truth is in harmony with the scientific truth that psychosomatic illness exists, and that a good attitude can help keep diseases away.

Only what I said above - that it is important. However important is not dispostive, or even critical.

I have read your reference. In scientific terms, it is a fairly well developed description for defining life in terms of observable characterisitics.

However, the reference doesn’t (and can’t) tell you what life is in its essence. What is it about life that gives life the seven characteristics mentioned in the reference?

Let me explain what I’m getting at. Here are the seven observable characteristics of life that the author has used to define life:

Let’s take #1: (Living organisms must have a program to make a copy of themselves.) OK. But what is it that allows some DNA to replicate, but others not? Also, on a marco scale, we can observe people - even animals - dying when no physical reason exists to do so. So, the DNA and its replication alone, nor the instructions DNA provides to other biological processes, is not what animates the living body.

#2 (Life Adapts). This characteristic only defines observed behavior, not what actually animates the living body.

#3 (Metabolisis). OK, but again, why would highly advanced and otherwise healthy creatures die? There is something that animates the organs to act and metabolisis to take place. It’s not just neurotransmitters failing to function properly; as we observe some people living with extremely low neurotransmitters. They are depressed, but not dead. Something causes such people (even some animals) to “let go” of life. How can this be?

#4 (Transformation of energy). This characteristic only defines observed behavior, not what actually animates the living body. Also, fire also take energy from the environment, but is not alive, so this characteristic is of limited usefulness to defining life.

#5 (Regeneration). Again, but what causes some highly advanced organisms to regenerate properly, but not others? What is the essence of life that makes this regeneration possible? Again, it can’t be purely physical processes for the reasons given above.

#6 (Response to stimuli). This characteristic only defines observed behavior, not what actually animates the living body. Also, fire also responds to stimuli, but is not alive, so this characteristic is of limited usefulness to defining life.

#7 (Industrial complexity - numerous maintained reactions). If anything, this observed characteristic points to the ineffable spark of life that is the soul. On the surface, it’s just an observed effect - not the essence of what makes that effect possible. What is it that makes the effect possible? The extreme complexity of a single human body is mind boggling, how can it really stay together and work effectively? Sure, I can’t prove that it’s something other than mere physical processes - but that just defies reason as well as Occom’s Razor.

I recommend reading this reference for a better developed argument based on industrial complexity: Signature in the Cell signatureinthecell.com/

The only thing that actually ties these observed characteristics together, and gets at the underlying essence of life, is the soul - the ineffable spark of life that animates the body.

We are trying to define what really life is. I apologize if I reject supernatural explanation.
If you don’t know anything substantive about soul, how do you know that any definition will fall short?

 

[ContegoFides]

Haven’t read your last two posts thoroughly because I am very busy but just hitting the highlighted parts.

…

I know that you’re looking at 85%, forgive me I don’t have the report at hand, but the links shows that diseases have emotional roots.

With regard to your link, we can play dueling-links all day long. Nonetheless, I see nothing in what you’ve provided to undermine my position. However, I leave the door open for new evidence.

…

You rejected the definition psyche = soul and Soma = body. Read this and get back to me.

I am holding you to your own standard of evidence. You must provide me with adequate, peer-reviewed proof to convince me that the vast majority of diseases are psychosomatic in origin. While I’m not a medical doctor and I have no counter proof, my experience and reason tell me that this assertion is false. You have posited a hypothesis, by your own standard of proof it is incumbent upon you to provide proof for your hypothesis in order to reasonably expect me to believe it.

I did not post the link to the wikipedia article on psyche to convince you my position was correct, but rather to establish what the word “psyche” means in psychological parlance. In particular, the modern psychological concept of “psyche” relies on observable things like behavior or self-awareness.

From this basis I provided a counter-example to show that psyche cannot be the soul. The soul being the spark of life that animates living creatures. In particular, the example of a person in a vegetative state and off of life support shows that one may be “alive” but exhibiting no behaviors. Thus, the psyche is not the soul.

Your newest link is to answers.com - which asserts that the psyche is the “mind” or “soul.” However, again, the psyche is understood in terms of “mind,” which requires some kind of self-aware thought process. The term “soul” is used in the context of “mind,” as that is the psychological and atheistic understanding of “soul.”

Again, self awareness; i.e., the mind, cannot be an adequate definition for that spark of life that animates a living body, for the reason given above. If you wish, we could refer to that “spark” as “spark,” but it is also commonly referred-to as the “soul” in the classical religious sense of the word.

Now, you provided your definition of “soul”. Whenever we evaluate claims of truth or correctness, we should necessarily look for evidence. Can you show me?

Indeed, we must look for evidence - or reasonability of belief. Physical proof is not the sole standard for belief, but rather both physical evidence and reasonability of belief. For example, you cannot know that I am wearing clothes, because I am on the other side of a computer, but you may reasonably assume that I am (which I am). We make choices based on reasonability of belief all the time.

I admit that I cannot provide physical proof for my definition of the soul. Thus, I cannot use logic to compel your belief in my definition of the soul.

However, I can show that belief in my definition of the soul is reasonable. I can also show that your definitions for life are inadequate.

For example,

1. It is obvious that something animates living things; i.e., there is some “spark” that makes an extremely complex system animate. We can know this much by sheer physical observation, so this much is beyond reasonable debate. What is open to reasonable debate is determining what that “spark” is and how to define it.
2. My definition of the soul accounts for all forms of life, including people in vegetative states, viruses, bacteria, and others.
3. Your definition of the sould (psyche) is proven inadequate by counter example. Your definition of life (taking the seven characteristics you cited in the scientific article) has holes in it that do not account for all forms of what we inherently recognize as life. Additionally, the cited seven characteristics of life is not elegant, as it is piecemeal. Elegance is a standard by which scientists (I know for a fact phycisists) evaluate the truth of a scientific theory. Additionally, the seven characteristics do not get at the underlying cause or essence of what makes a living organism alive.

Therefore, your definitions are shown to be inadequate for defining life. By your own standard of physical proof, these standards should be rejected. My definition, on the other hand, both explains all forms of what we recognize as life, and also provides an elegant rationale for what we obviously see (i.e., that something animates living bodies).

Again, I cannot use physical measurement to prove my definition of “soul.” However, I have shown that it is quite reasonable and elegant, and that no other offered explanation is adequate. By Occom’s Razor, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Therefore, the soul is the ineffable spark of life that animates living bodies.

The interesting question then becomes, where does the soul come from? Now we get to God.

I suggest you read this book: From Atheism to Catholicism, How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to the Truth. amazon.com/Atheism-Catholicism-Scientists-Philosophers-Truth/dp/1592766382. It is written by a man with a PsyD, is a member of Mensa, and in fact has sat on Mensa’s committee on intelligence (or whatever its official title is). He is, objectively speaking by modern measurement, and extremely bright man - and a former atheist - and yet he has come to recognize the Truth. You should see why this former atheist rejected atheism.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if you read this book, you’ll be convinced. Be careful what you read, you might find out you’re not correct!

 

[sinnerdexter]

I am holding you to your own standard of evidence. You must provide me with adequate, peer-reviewed proof to convince me that the vast majority of diseases are psychosomatic in origin. While I’m not a medical doctor and I have no counter proof, my experience and reason tell me that this assertion is false. You have posited a hypothesis, by your own standard of proof it is incumbent upon you to provide proof for your hypothesis in order to reasonably expect me to believe it.

I have read the medical reports I mentioned last year so I was not able to provide you the actual report instantly. But it’s not a good idea to assume that something I was not able to provide yesterday won’t be provided today or tomorrow.

I have a little time in my hands. This is just a quick one proof I could find easily.

Read Emotion and Disease and get back to me.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I admit that I cannot provide physical proof for my definition of the soul. Thus, I cannot use logic to compel your belief in my definition of the soul.

However, I can show that belief in my definition of the soul is reasonable. I can also show that your definitions for life are inadequate.

For example,

1. It is obvious that something animates living things; i.e., there is some “spark” that makes an extremely complex system animate. We can know this much by sheer physical observation, so this much is beyond reasonable debate. What is open to reasonable debate is determining what that “spark” is and how to define it.
2. My definition of the soul accounts for all forms of life, including people in vegetative states, viruses, bacteria, and others.
3. Your definition of the sould (psyche) is proven inadequate by counter example. Your definition of life (taking the seven characteristics you cited in the scientific article) has holes in it that do not account for all forms of what we inherently recognize as life. Additionally, the cited seven characteristics of life is not elegant, as it is piecemeal. Elegance is a standard by which scientists (I know for a fact phycisists) evaluate the truth of a scientific theory. Additionally, the seven characteristics do not get at the underlying cause or essence of what makes a living organism alive.

Therefore, your definitions are shown to be inadequate for defining life. By your own standard of physical proof, these standards should be rejected. My definition, on the other hand, both explains all forms of what we recognize as life, and also provides an elegant rationale for what we obviously see (i.e., that something animates living bodies).

Again, I cannot use physical measurement to prove my definition of “soul.” However, I have shown that it is quite reasonable and elegant, and that no other offered explanation is adequate. By Occom’s Razor, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Therefore, the soul is the ineffable spark of life that animates living bodies.

The interesting question then becomes, where does the soul come from?

While it is indeed impossible to provide physical proof for your definition of soul, they exist to the same extent, and upon the same evidence, as the fairy garden if I truly believe fairy is at the garden. Can you prove fairy is not there?

where does the fairy come from?

 

[ContegoFides]

I have read the medical reports I mentioned last year so I was not able to provide you the actual report instantly. But it’s not a good idea to assume that something I was not able to provide yesterday won’t be provided today or tomorrow.

I have a little time in my hands. This is just a quick one proof I could find easily.

Read Emotion and Disease and get back to me.

Please understand, if you find adequate proof then I will accept the premise. I am a man of both science and faith, and I come from a strong scientific background.

However, your newest citation is still unconvincing. You have provided an article by an individual woman who is promoting the sale of her services and products. She does make the claim that “the medical world” “recognizes” that 75% of all disease is stress related, but that claim is not substantiated.

So, we have an unsubstantiated claim by a single person who has a financial interest in getting you to believe her claim. Not convincing.

But you’re getting warmer.

 

[ContegoFides]

While it is indeed impossible to provide physical proof for your definition of soul, they exist to the same extent, and upon the same evidence, as the fairy garden if I truly believe fairy is at the garden. Can you prove fairy is not there?

where does the fairy come from?

Pretty picture.

However, analogies to fairies and Santa Claus, Greek Gods, and others don’t hold a candle to the arguments for the reasonability of accepting the existence God, and hence the soul.

The fairies you point me to are in no way, shape, or form capable of being the first cause. If they were asserted to be capable of being the first cause, we may exclude them as being incorrect because they do not have the properties that logically result from being the first cause (like, for example, they are changeable).

In the context of the soul, the subject for the discussion, we have no reason to believe that a fairy is the “spark” of life. We have no indication in either reason or science to believe that fairies are the source of the soul.

On the other hand, we do have a reason to question what is “it” that animates one complex structure, but not another similar complex structure that is otherwise able to operate as intended? “Something” animates living creatures. That “something” is the ineffable spark of life, which at least in the classical religious sense is the soul.

So, we have no reason to believe in fairies, but we do have reason to acknowledge God’s existence, and we do have reason to identify the soul as that which ultimately defines life.

Another argument for why references to fairies and such is not appropriate: Consider how many of the greatest philosophers and scientific geniuses of all of humanity, throughout history, even today, believe in God. Can we say that Francis Collins of the Human Genome project is an idiot or delusional? How about Aristotle? Newton? Anthony Flew (a notorious switcher from atheism to deism)? Makes it look like the reference to fairies is the misdirection it is.

Belief in God, by the way, is not about belief without question. It’s trust without reservation, developing a personal relationship - which really can be done over time. I urge you to learn about it and try.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Please understand, if you find adequate proof then I will accept the premise. I am a man of both science and faith, and I come from a strong scientific background.

However, your newest citation is still unconvincing. You have provided an article by an individual woman who is promoting the sale of her services and products. She does make the claim that “the medical world” “recognizes” that 75% of all disease is stress related, but that claim is not substantiated.

So, we have an unsubstantiated claim by a single person who has a financial interest in getting you to believe her claim. Not convincing.

But you’re getting warmer.

HERE is an article of Dr. Douillard from Health Education Alliance for Life and Longevity. Challenge the integrity of said physician/organization.

Pretty picture.

However, analogies to fairies and Santa Claus, Greek Gods, and others don’t hold a candle to the arguments for the reasonability of accepting the existence God, and hence the soul.

The fairies you point me to are in no way, shape, or form capable of being the first cause. If they were asserted to be capable of being the first cause, we may exclude them as being incorrect because they do not have the properties that logically result from being the first cause (like, for example, they are changeable).

In the context of the soul, the subject for the discussion, we have no reason to believe that a fairy is the “spark” of life. We have no indication in either reason or science to believe that fairies are the source of the soul.

On the other hand, we do have a reason to question what is “it” that animates one complex structure, but not another similar complex structure that is otherwise able to operate as intended? “Something” animates living creatures. That “something” is the ineffable spark of life, which at least in the classical religious sense is the soul.

So, we have no reason to believe in fairies, but we do have reason to acknowledge God’s existence, and we do have reason to identify the soul as that which ultimately defines life.

Another argument for why references to fairies and such is not appropriate: Consider how many of the greatest philosophers and scientific geniuses of all of humanity, throughout history, even today, believe in God. Can we say that Francis Collins of the Human Genome project is an idiot or delusional? How about Aristotle? Newton? Anthony Flew (a notorious switcher from atheism to deism)? Makes it look like the reference to fairies is the misdirection it is.

Belief in God, by the way, is not about belief without question. It’s trust without reservation, developing a personal relationship - which really can be done over time. I urge you to learn about it and try.

If you believe that I should be open to the possibility of existence of soul based on how you define it, that openness must also extend to belief in the possibility of the existence of fairies, Santa Claus, etc. After all, I can’t prove that any of those things don’t exist. What I can do is a sober evaluation of the available evidence and decide, provisionally, that I have no good reason to believe any of them exist.

 

[ContegoFides]

HERE is an article of Dr. Douillard from Health Education Alliance for Life and Longevity. Challenge the integrity of said physician/organization.

Warmer. However, you have again cited a web page that is oriented towards the sale of products. Additionally, the claims are unsubstantiated. The author claims that “recent studies” show that 85% of all diseases are stress related; however, the author provides no citation to these “recent studies.” There is no evidence provided to back up his claims, and he’s also trying to sell his services and products.

Ironically, the website is full of spiritual information which you would reject as being nonsense. That should be another warning sign, at least to someone like you.

Finally, Dr. Douillard’s suffix indicates that he is a “D.C.” A brief search tells me that this is “Doctor of Chiropractic.” While I personally visit a chiropractic 'cause when he adjusts my back it helps my back problems, Chiropractics are well known for making scientific claims that are not supported by the wider medical community. For example, they think that vaccines don’t help people, but rather hurt them. I’d say the larger body of scientific evidence says they are wrong.

So, we have another self-interested doctor untrained in rigorous scientific methods, with dubious scientific credentials making claims that he does not support with reference to the “recent studies” that he asserts back up his claims. Thus, there’s no way to peer review the scientific soundness of the studies he references, or even to make sure they say what he says they say.

Try again.