Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

May I ask another thing? So far science has not come up with the idea of how the very first cell was created no? So life as the Bible itself says must have been created directly by God

---

Actually science has said how it came about. Its just that the numbers are mind boggling. But in the beginning it is believed the soup was from amino acids and from there and some electricity the building blocks were formed. That is the theory in a bottle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

I didn't ask a metaphysical question. It was plain and simple physics.

---

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Could you put it to me again please?

Tut

SO califdadof3 you are saying that life didn't require God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Actually science has said how it came about. Its just that the numbers are mind boggling. But in the begining it is believed the soup was from amino acids and from there and some electricity the building blocks were formed. That is the theory in a bottle.

---

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

ANother question which I have is how come that a dog for example can be cloned? DOesn't this shed light on whether the spirit exists or not because if it does how does it transfer from the original dog to the new dog?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

---

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

---

Who is Thomas F. Heinze?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Who is Thomas F. Heinze?

---

I don't know; what does that have to do with my question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

I don't know; what does that have to do with my question?

---

He was the link you provided. YOU brought him up, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

He was the link you provided. YOU brought him up, not me.

---

WHat difference does it make who it is? I brought him up to see whether you agree or not with what he says which is very credible and scientifcally proven and if you do not agree on what basis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

WHat difference does it make who it is? I brought him up to see whether you agree or not with what he says which is very credible and scientifcally proven and if you do not agree on what basis

---

He is a biblical literalist and believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, in other words, a Christian fundamentalist. And no, his "evidence" is not scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

SO you are alluding that God didn't have a hand in life formation and it came about by itself?

---

You asked a question as to how science explains it. I had answered it. Then you try to inject words into what I have said. If you want to have a pure discussion then you will need to accept what is said and work with it. Not put other words in its place. I never said nor intimated that god didn't create. I just explained what science said about its own theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

I find this website as supporting what I said - i.e. that God did create life

---

All that website does is spout a opinion. That is fine as he owns that opinion. But he is in denial of statistical truth. If there is a 1 in a billion chance something can happen and that process is repeated over a billion times then its likely that the 1 in a billion outcome may happen at least 1 time. The author of that site seems to ignore that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

All that website does is spout a personal opinion. That is fine as he owns that opinion. But he is in denial of statistical truth. If there is a 1 in a billion chance something can happen and that process is repeated over a billion times then its likely that the 1 in a billion outcome may happen atleast 1 time. The author of that site seems to ignore that fact.

---

I by no means wanted to put words in your mouth and if I did sorry! So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

---

There is no proof. That's what faith is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

I by no means wanted to put words in your mouth and if I did sorry! So what proof is there that God created life; proof which can be relied upon?

---

The proof is in the hearts and minds of the believers. That is enough to make it so. Some answers are beyond us and can not be explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

ANother question which I have is how come that a dog for example can be cloned? DOesn't this shed light on whether the spirit exists or not because if it does how does it transfer from the original dog to the new dog?

---

Hi again Roddilla,

This is somewhat of a different type of question and the answer probably has something to do with 'dualism'.

Instead of dogs let us imagine that we are talking about two identical humans.

A materialist ( a scientist who only studies physical things like brains) would argue that two people who are physically identical would have physically identical brains. Therefore,they exhibit the potential to have exactly the same thoughts. So there is no need to transfer consciousness( spirit) because consciousness is just a function of the workings of the brain. On this basis there is no such mysterious entity as spirit or consciousness.So there is no requirement to transfer 'spirit' because if you have a brain then you already have this 'spirit'. However, materialists would deny this is in any way a spirit. They say, we are fooled into thinking there is a spirit but it is just the working of the brain that gives us this illusion.

Opposed to this idea are the substance dualists who want to claim there are two types of things in this world physical; things and spiritual things. The important point from their point of view is that the spiritual things are non-physical. So such things as mind, consciousness or spirituality is actually substance that we cannot detect because it is not physical.

Basically we can say from the substance dualist point of view that physical things occupy the physical world and non- physical spirituality occupies a different world that is not physical. Now despite these two different substances occupying different worlds they do interact.

So from a substance dualist point of view we can argue that two identical humans can have different spirits because spirits are not dependent on any particular physical form. It is also possible to argue from a substance dualist point of view that we have a unique soul.

Roughly speaking the last dualist on the list is the property dualist. Like the materialist the property dualist argues that there are no souls or spirits in a disembodied state that interacts with our physical make up. The important difference from the property dualists point of view is that 'spiritual stuff' cannot exist without a physical brain. Basically, we can say that once the brain dies there is no soul or spirit to carry on a separate existence. It dies with the brain.

As far as identical individuals are concerned from this perspective we can say identical individuals can have thoughts independent on the physical nature of their brains. In other words, despite their brains being exact copies it is possible for them to have different thoughts.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi again Roddilla,

This is somewhat of a different type of question and the answer probably has something to do with 'dualism'.

Instead of dogs let us imagine that we are talking about two identical humans.

A materialist ( a scientist who only studies physical things like brains) would argue that two people who are physically identical would have physically identical brains. Therefore,they exhibit the potential to have exactly the same thoughts. So there is no need to transfer consciousness( spirit) because consciousness is just a function of the workings of the brain. On this basis there is no such mysterious entity as spirit or consciousness.So there is no requirement to transfer 'spirit' because if you have a brain then you already have this 'spirit'. However, materialists would deny this is in any way a spirit. They say, we are fooled into thinking there is a spirit but it is just the working of the brain that gives us this illusion.

Opposed to this idea are the substance dualists who want to claim there are two types of things in this world physical; things and spiritual things. The important point from their point of view is that the spiritual things are non-physical. So such things as mind, consciousness or spirituality is actually substance that we cannot detect because it is not physical.

Basically we can say from the substance dualist point of view that physical things occupy the physical world and non- physical spirituality occupies a different world that is not physical. Now despite these two different substances occupying different worlds they do interact.

So from a substance dualist point of view we can argue that two identical humans can have different spirits because spirits are not dependent on any particular physical form. It is also possible to argue from a substance dualist point of view that we have a unique soul.

Roughly speaking the last dualist on the list is the property dualist. Like the materialist the property dualist argues that there are no souls or spirits in a disembodied state that interacts with our physical make up. The important difference from the property dualists point of view is that 'spiritual stuff' cannot exist without a physical brain. Basically, we can say that once the brain dies there is no soul or spirit to carry on a separate existence. It dies with the brain.

As far as identical individuals are concerned from this perspective we can say identical individuals can have thoughts independent on the physical nature of their brains. In other words, despite their brains being exact copies it is possible for them to have different thoughts.

Tut

---

Firstly thanks for your help! You mentioned 3 theories but how do we know that our theory is correct? What is there to prove if for example someone who doesn't believe in the spirit comes along and asks you: what makes you sure that there is a spirit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

Firstly thanks for your help! You mentioned 3 theories but how do we know that our theory is correct? What is there to prove if for example someone who doesn't believe in the spirit comes along and asks you: what makes you sure that there is a spirit?

---

Well, again it is very difficult to prove the existence of non-physical things. My favourite way of trying to do this is through what has becomes know as knowledge arguments. Knowledge arguments outline a case against physical things being the only type of that that can possibly exist.

As you can appreciate most of my explanations so far have been on the rough side, but I think we have to start somewhere in trying to understand the issues.

Knowledge arguments are a little bit difficult and probably require a pretty good understanding of philosophy. However, if you want to Google: Knowledge Argument. Looking at the wikipedia article you will probably find that it is one of the best at an explanation.


Tut

The is a very basic falacy in what is stated here and that is mind or consciousness is the same as spirit. The human being is a tripartied beast.; body, mind and spirit. Difficult to prove I know but if I can hear my spirit, I do so with my mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

the is a very basic falacy in what is stated here and that is mind or consciousness is the same as spirit. The human being is a tripartied beast.; body, mind and spirit. difficult to prove I know but if I can hear my spirit, I do so with my mind

---

A lot depends on whether you are talking science, psychology, sociology, religion or philosophy. Each discipline presents us with a different view of mind, brain, consciousness, spirit and soul. Some disciplines use these terms interchangeably while other assign specific meanings to certain terms.

For example, Sociology is interested as to why people actually believe in spirits, souls and religion. It doesn't actually investigate whether such things actually exist.

Science on the other hand doesn't actually accept the soul or spirit as some type of abstract entity or substance independent of the physical. From a scientific point of view we can say that, "to know how the brain works is to know how the soul works ". In the end science is only investigates physical things in order to turn up physical explanations.

I would assume that different religions tend to have different explanations as to what the soul or spirit actually is. The essence of such explanations is probably centred on the claim that the soul/spirit continues on an existence even after death.

Philosophy provides an interesting history in this area. The idea of soul and spirit was the basis for much philosophical discussions for a thousand years or more. Recent development in the field has largely done away with the idea of soul/spirit in favour of brain and mind identity theories. Soul/spirit has been largely replaced with theories of consciousness.


Tut

Well Tut I don't seek to explain soul and spirit by investigating theories. I understand what spirit is by experience

A soul or spirit can not be explained by any theory, it can not be investigated, once you believe you can, you have lost the concept and faith and belief. There are things that humans can not understand and can not prove. This is one.

Most faiths and religions have very same concept of soul or spirit. From Buddhist to Christians and the dozens between, it is the true person or self that lives past death. Where it goes or how it does it, may vary but the soul is who we are, the body is merely the shell it is in at this time.

I am still in doubt sorry. How can an Atheist start to believe in the soul? There must be some sort of reasoning if not proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

I am still in doubt sorry. How can an Atheist start to believe in the soul? There must be some sort of reasoning if not proof.

---

What proof would you like to see? It seems on many subjects short of an actual capture nothing is proof enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

A soul or spirit can not be explained by any theory, it can not be investigated, once you believe you can, you have lost the concept and faith and belief. There are things that humans can not understand and can not prove. This is one.

Most faiths and religions have very same concept of soul or spirit. From Buddhist to Christians and the dozens between, it is the true person or self that lives past death. Where it goes or how it does it, may vary but the soul is who we are, the body is merely the shell it is in at this time.

---

Hi Fr. Chuck,

I learn towards that opinion, but I can not prove it.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddilla

I am still in doubt sorry. How can an Atheist start to believe in the soul? There must be some sort of reasoning if not proof.

---

Hi again Roddilla,

I guess the answer to the first part of your question is really centred on individual atheist. In other words, it depends on the atheist. However, I am reasonably confident in saying that most atheists only accept proof of physical things. By proof of physical things, I mean scientific proof.

As far as the second part of your question is concerned I would say there have been many 'proofs' over the centuries for the existence of a soul/spirit. Because we cannot see, touch, smell, or hear a soul then we are restricted largely to metaphysical arguments for the existence of such things.

An atheist may well ask the question in a scientific sense, "Can you let me feel, see, touch or hear a soul?" If we cannot accommodate him/her then, from their point of view, there is no proof a soul exists.

This is the legacy of science and some people believe this is the be all and end all of the argument. I think in scientific terms these are strong arguments that are difficult to overcome.

Kant was probably right when he claimed that the problem with metaphysical arguments is that it is very easy to construct a metaphysical argument that argues for the exact opposite ( in this particular instance-there is no soul). We have no way of determining the valid argument. This is because we cannot test the validity of such arguments in terms of seeing, hearing touching or smelling.

*Please note that Kant did not actually say, there is no soul. I just used that as an example of the reasoning process.

When it comes to science we find it relatively easy to prove the existence of
Physical things. When it comes to the non-physical soul it is easy to prove its existence to ourselves. The problem is proving it to the satisfaction of everyone.

Tut

Tut
The real question is are you in the right place at the right time or are you going to stand on the street corner and watch the bus go by. That's how I see athiests, standing on the street corner saying did you see the destination of that bus.

Spiritual things can be manifested, physically felt, but you have to have faith and really you have to be seeking. An attitude of it doesn't exist because I can't see it will get you nowhere, after all who are you?