Existence of the Soul

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Science is the study of how our natural world works and reacts, not what lies behind or beneath it.

You're ignoring what I said. I said that reason deals with the immaterial, not science.

Now you will sit here and deny that a soul exists, deny God

Funny. I never did that.

Studying something that is immaterial by something that deals with the physical world, is not possible. You yourself have stated here repeatedly that the immaterial cannot be proven by science and now you want to use science to study the immaterial?

You're making an unfounded assumption by saying that consciousness is entirely immaterial. Even if it is, that can still proven by showing that no material aspect of the brain can account for it. There is more than one way of studying something, Mousy. Open your mind. Click on this, courtest of EvrLstngDze: Science and Consciousness Review.

As for logic, logic is precisely what we use for the material world, not the immaterial. According to reason and logic God cannot exist, I have already highlighted this. But I have also highlighted that logic, reason, science, are all limited, because they deal with our physical realm. Faith cannot be logic, for it is faith. That is your mistaken assumption.

You're the one assuming that, Mousy. Click here for an account of why Christianity should be and many believe is a rational faith: Christian Logic.

The belief in the big bang is not based on reason, it is based on faith.

It is based on reason. The universe is continually expanding. If you take that process backward, accounting for deceleration, fifteen billion years ago the borders of the observable universe would exist as a singularity. That is logic, not faith. It isn't knowledge, to be sure, as there is certainly no way to prove it. That is why it is a theory and only a theory; it is not the only theory with scientific credibility. There are also the steady-state and ekpyrotic models.

You will not admit that reason, logic, and science, ergo human "knowledge" are limited at a certain point, and from that the invisible and the immaterial is based on faith.

Wrong again. You are the one making a knowledge claim about something that I have repeatedly said the human mind cannot have knowledge of.

The scientific method simply cannot answer all questions, therefore cannot be possibly the only source of knowledge. Science has a very important job which I do not dispute. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes, that is not a scientific question, nor it is one based on logic.

Every question in the human mind is answered through the use of logic. It is the principle on which the human mind operates. I never said science was the only possible source of knowledge. There are rational knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and self-knowledge, all of which do not come from science.

Whether or not an intelligence beyond our universe and comprehension exists, reason and the scientific method cannot answer. Anyone who attempts to answer that question, even scientists with their "big bang" are making a philosophical or metaphysical assumption, not a scientific statement, therefore they are using faith.

Nope. I have already demonstrated the logic of the big bang model. It is not based on faith. Uncritical acceptance of it would be based on faith. The model itself is not. Same thing with your belief in God. The hypothesis that our universe has an intelligent creator is one that you postulated based on logic. Given the nature of our universe and our consciousness, it seems logical to you that there is a larger consciousness that created us. Fair enough. But that is only a hypothesis, and it has not held up to critical analysis. Your uncritical acceptance of it is what is based on faith.

The total rejection of all faith and belief would strike out a principle from human nature, which human nature is hopelessly tied to, man is a faithful creature. After all faith must flow out from some inner source within us when the evidence of that which we are to believe is not presented to our senses, thus I call this the soul.

I call it the brain. We have two competing hypotheses. I do not claim that mine is correct and yours is incorrect. I claim that we need to further analyze the question and the answers before we can determine which is correct. We may never know, and that is fine with me. The pursuit of knowledge is something that I find noble in itself.

And like I said, if science and knowledge is the sun, belief is the man.

Vague sophist statements, no matter how eloquent, do not make your argument any stronger.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You're ignoring what I said. I said that reason deals with the immaterial, not science.


You're making an unfounded assumption by saying that consciousness is entirely immaterial. Even if it is, that can still proven by showing that no material aspect of the brain can account for it. There is more than one way of studying something, Mousy. Open your mind. Click on this, courtest of EvrLstngDze: Science and Consciousness Review.




You're the one assuming that, Mousy. Click here for an account of why Christianity should be and many believe is a rational faith: Christian Logic.



It is based on reason. The universe is continually expanding. If you take that process backward, accounting for deceleration, fifteen billion years ago the borders of the observable universe would exist as a singularity. That is logic, not faith. It isn't knowledge, to be sure, as there is certainly no way to prove it. That is why it is a theory and only a theory; it is not the only theory with scientific credibility. There are also the steady-state and ekpyrotic models.



Wrong again. You are the one making a knowledge claim about something that I have repeatedly said the human mind cannot have knowledge of.



Every question in the human mind is answered through the use of logic. It is the principle on which the human mind operates. I never said science was the only possible source of knowledge. There are rational knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and self-knowledge, all of which do not come from science.






I call it the brain. We have two competing hypotheses. I do not claim that mine is correct and yours is incorrect. I claim that we need to further analyze the question and the answers before we can determine which is correct. We may never know, and that is fine with me. The pursuit of knowledge is something that I find noble in itself.



Vague sophist statements, no matter how eloquent, do not make your argument any stronger.

Consciousness is the awareness we have over ourselves, our inner self, why we are an "organismic consciousness", and why we have free will. These are immaterial things that science cannot prove. It might say that we are alive becuase our heart beats, blood flows and brain works sending information, etc., etc., but that only explains a process, not how or why we are aware of ourselves at a given point in time.

To reason is to not believe in faith, to reason is to deal with the world around us using logic, which negates anything relating to faith or belief, since these are not based on reason or logic, since we don't use evidence to come to our conclusions as we do with reason. No one denies the importance of reason. But reason, and logic all fail, are finite, so human intelligence via reason and logic will be finite. We can reason all we want about God or the hereafter, yet it doesn't fall into accordance with reason. According to reason God and the hereafter shouldn't exist at all. But we have faith. Therein is the distinction. Knowledge also comes through faith, and ones own experiences are testament to that.

Of course the human mind cannot have knowledge of God or the Soul through reason and logic, for they require faith, for faith is the antithesis of reason and logic. Even in the ordinary affairs of our lives we are governed far more by what we believe than by what we know, by faith and analgy, than by reason. As the French Revolution taught any thinking mind about the "Age of reason" and what a folly it is to enthrone reason by itself as supreme. Reason is at fault when it deals with the infinite. There we must revere and believe. Faith is necessary to man, even you have faith.

We believe that the soul of another is of a certain nature and possess certain qualities that he or she is generous, or honest, or penurious, or that he or she is virtious and amiable or ill tempered, without knowing. We venture our fortune on the signature of a man on the other side of the world whom we've never seen, but upon the belief that he is honest and trustworthy. We believe that occurances have taken place upon the assertions of others. We can look at a sunsets beauty and our reaction to that beauty is that we possess an inner self that yurns for something deeper and more spiritual, and a multidude of other things reason cannot explain.

You just cannot admit that science, logic, reason, all fail, when subjected to faith, and likewise faith fails when subjected to science, reason, and logic, for they are mutually exclusive. Your further adamance that I'm wrong and you're right only shows your the obstinate one, since I am not arguing for the negation of science or reason, but rather it is limited, and so is the human knowledge that comes with it.

Your further assertions about theories and such as evidence of logic are weak, for a theory is not a scientific law, it is a theory. A theory such as evolution that they refuse to let go of, is based on faith. As for your assertions of the universe expanding and the earth being billions of years old, well the idea of telling time is an arbitrary thing, thus many cultures have different calenders, and even the scientific method, while may dip into carbon dating, or counting tree rings, it nonetheless subscribes to the Gregorian calender. In fact the Mayan Calender is perhaps more accurate than ours. According to the Chinese calender I'm not 21 years of age. Do you understand the elastic nature of time? The only thing we know, is the amount of time we have been on this earth, and have recorded evidence of it, aside from that all things are a conjecture agreed upon. So for scientists to sit there and tell us the age of earth is nothing but an assumption by humans that is agreed upon by faith, while it may claim to be using scientific methods.

Nope. I have already demonstrated the logic of the big bang model. It is not based on faith. Uncritical acceptance of it would be based on faith. The model itself is not. Same thing with your belief in God. The hypothesis that our universe has an intelligent creator is one that you postulated based on logic. Given the nature of our universe and our consciousness, it seems logical to you that there is a larger consciousness that created us. Fair enough. But that is only a hypothesis, and it has not held up to critical analysis. Your uncritical acceptance of it is what is based on faith.

Well duh sherlock, that is why God and reason contadict each other. According to reason God cannot exist, but that is why we must and do believe. That is my whole point essentially that reason and faith are mutually exclusive and you cannot use one to prove or disprove the other, you can only form distinctions. This seems to be something you can't understand and are bent on using reason to conquer faith, which is pretty illogical.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Consciousness is the awareness we have over ourselves, our inner self, why we are an "organismic consciousness", and why we have free will. These are immaterial things that science cannot prove. It might say that we are alive becuase our heart beats, blood flows and brain works sending information, etc., etc., but that only explains a process, not how or why we are aware of ourselves at a given point in time.

You are assuming an awful lot, and you are backing your assumptions with nothing. Click on the link, and you will find that there are people who, believe it or not, actually study things and make observations before drawing conclusions. It's quite a revolutionary idea - well, it was 2000 years ago when Aristotle first did it.

To reason is to not believe in faith, to reason is to deal with the world around us using logic, which negates anything relating to faith or belief, since these are not based on reason or logic, since we don't use evidence to come to our conclusions as we do with reason.

Then what do you use? A guess backed up by the strength of your conviction?

No one denies the importance of reason. But reason, and logic all fail, are finite, so human intelligence via reason and logic will be finite. Knowledge also comes through faith, and ones own experiences are testament to that.

No, knowledge does not come through faith. Faith comes in when, as you said, knowledge fails, and people like you can't stand to admit that they don't have the answer. So they make up and answer and defend it by saying it isn't subject to critical analysis.

Even in the ordinary affairs of our lives we are governed far more by what we believe than by what we know, by faith and analgy, than by reason. As the French Revolution taught any thinking mind about the "Age of reason" and what a folly it is to enthrone reason by itself as supreme. Faith is necessary to man, even you have faith.

Small leaps of faith are necessary. Belief systems that are illogical and fly in the face of all evidence are not.

We believe that the soul of another is of a certain nature and possess certain qualities that he or she is generous, or honest, or penurious, or that he or she is virtious and amiable or ill tempered, without knowing.

Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

We venture our fortune on the signature of a man on the other side of the world whom we've never seen, but upon the belief that he is honest and trustworthy. We believe that occurances have taken place upon the assertions of others.

Of course. We do not, however, come to unwarranted metaphysical conclusions concerning the nature of some mythical reality external to our own universe.

We can look at a sunsets beauty and our reaction to that beauty is that we possess an inner self that yurns for something deeper and more spiritual, and a multidude of other things reason cannot explain.

Richard Ramirez looks at a little girl and yearns to slice her head from her body. I don't see this as proof of religious statements, nor do I see any reason why this can't be explained rationally. Psychology may be lacking, but you are speaking like a man who is truly ignorant of neuropsychiatry and all of the strides it has recently made.

You just cannot admit that science, logic, reason, all fail, when subjected to faith.

You have never shown any of them to fail. You have only asserted that they do. Contrary to your belief, an unfounded assertion does not count as evidence.

Your further assertions about theories and such as evidence of logic are weak, for a theory is not a scientific law, it is a theory.

A hypothesis is formed based on logical analysis. It is an educated guess. It becomes a theory when it has held up to certain standards of verification. I don't see where my descriptions of this process have gone wrong.

A theory such as evolution that they refuse to let go of, is based on faith.

You are an idiot. It is based on a logical conclusion drawn from the facts that the fossil record is stratified and species show a morphological and genomic progression. Darwin didn't just wake up one morning and say "oh, a light has gone on, species evolved" based on nothing.

As for your assertions of the universe expanding and the earth being billions of years old, well the idea of telling time is an arbitrary thing, thus many cultures have different calenders, and even the scientific method, while may dip into carbon dating, or counting tree rings, it nonetheless subscribes to the Gregorian calender.

The idea of assigning names to certain spans of time is arbitrary. The age of the universe is not. It can be calculated rather easily.

The only thing we know, is the amount of time we have been on this earth, and have recorded evidence of it, aside from that all things are a conjecture agreed upon. So for scientists to sit there and tell us the age of earth is nothing but an assumption by humans that is agreed upon by faith, while it may claim to be using scientific methods.

You are a damn fool. The age of the earth is not an assumption. It is an educated guess made with a certain margin of error based on known rates of decay of radioisotopes. I'd give you a lecture on nuclear chemistry here if I wasn't completely certain you'd come back with an assertion that nuclear chemistry is based on faith. You are a damn fool! Stick with reading the history books, Mousy. You have no place critiquing the methodology of geophysics.

That is my whole point essentially that reason and faith are mutually exclusive and you cannot use one to prove or disprove the other, you can only form distinctions. This seems to be something you can't understand and are bent on using reason to conquer faith, which is pretty illogical.

I'm not bent on conquering anything. My only assertion is that reason can be used as proof, faith cannot. Simple as that. If you want to base a belief system on faith, fine. I believe it to be dangerous and immoral to do so, but you are entitled to your viewpoint. Just don't go around acting as if you have knowledge when you only have faith.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You are assuming an awful lot, and you are backing your assumptions with nothing. Click on the link, and you will find that there are people who, believe it or not, actually study things and make observations before drawing conclusions. It's quite a revolutionary idea - well, it was 2000 years ago when Aristotle first did it.

Having an organismic awareness over ourselves, and free will, what we call "consciousness" cannot be proven by material evidence. We just "know" and "fee" we are aware.

Originally posted by loseyourname Then what do you use? A guess backed up by the strength of your conviction?

Faith doesn't use reasoning because it is faith. Can'y you grasp that? It is inborn in us, it is something that doesn't require evidence, but personal conviction as you pointed out. And I don't have to go into the multidude of things in our daily life that are more based on belief, than they are on what we actually know.

Originally posted by loseyourname No, knowledge does not come through faith. Faith comes in when, as you said, knowledge fails, and people like you can't stand to admit that they don't have the answer. So they make up and answer and defend it by saying it isn't subject to critical analysis.?

Of course for me knowledge of God has come through faith for my faith God has proven, and my beliefs remain my own, thus because I have experienced transcendence I have experienced things that reason cannot explain. You are once again confusing faith and reason. How can you subject faith to critical analysis? Any right minded person by now would have understood that faith cannot hold against reason, and the inverse is true as well, since the two are mutually exclusive and involve different criteria. One is based on logic and evidence, the other is based on belief. I never said I have the answer by the way, I have faith in God, and that is my only answer for the things that science and reason are otherwise lacking in explanation. Those like you who try to use the biological sciences, to study the immaterial world are the ones that cannot understand nor grasp the difference between what is the material world and what is the immaterial. We have repeatedly pointed out that science only deals with how things reaction and behave, not how they got here or what lies beneath, thus science cannot deal with anything outside of that framework. Anytime it steps out of that and tries to create answers such as the big bang, it is using faith and belief.

Originally posted by loseyourname Small leaps of faith are necessary. Belief systems that are illogical and fly in the face of all evidence are not.

Since belief systems deal with things that are not of this world, how is it, or why is it do you assume science can? If science is supposed to be based on the study of our material, physical world, why are you defending it now regarding the immaterial?

Originally posted by loseyourname Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

So you don't believe that the soul of another is of a certain nature and possesses certain qualities? So everyone is just a blob of chemical reactions and compositions?

Originally posted by loseyourname Of course. We do not, however, come to unwarranted metaphysical conclusions concerning the nature of some mythical reality external to our own universe.

We do arrive at conclusions about the immaterial and the infinite based on faith, because reason, logic, and science, deal with the material world, which itself is limited, thus all knowledge through those endeavores is limited, so the measure of the visible is the measure of the invisible. The conclusions arrived through faith are something that is unique to our inner self where we feel at peace.

Originally posted by loseyourname Richard Ramirez looks at a little girl and yearns to slice her head from her body. I don't see this as proof of religious statements, nor do I see any reason why this can't be explained rationally. Psychology may be lacking, but you are speaking like a man who is truly ignorant of neuropsychiatry and all of the strides it has recently made.

Good and evil are something that not even science can materialize. Of course you don't like it, but that is the way it goes.

Originally posted by loseyourname You have never shown any of them to fail. You have only asserted that they do. Contrary to your belief, an unfounded assertion does not count as evidence.

Sure I have. Everytime scientists claim how the earth began, or how old it is, or that we evolved, it is all based on faith. On the contrary, it is they are spouting unsubstantiated assertions and you are believing them, because you are an adherent of the religion of "science" and "atheism". That in itself is a religion although its adherents are so blinded by their eternal question against organized dogma that they themselves do not realize that they are in a religion of its own kind.

Originally posted by loseyourname A hypothesis is formed based on logical analysis. It is an educated guess. It becomes a theory when it has held up to certain standards of verification. I don't see where my descriptions of this process have gone wrong.

A theory may be a theory, but it is not a scientific law, it is an "educated guess" a nice scientific way of saying they are assuming. Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts , to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more to be a certain and proven theory it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Whenever it is irreconcilable with any fact, it should be rejected, as it cant be a true theory. Every true theory passes through these three stages of possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is not science until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge.

Originally posted by loseyourname You are an idiot. It is based on a logical conclusion drawn from the facts that the fossil record is stratified and species show a morphological and genomic progression. Darwin didn't just wake up one morning and say "oh, a light has gone on, species evolved" based on nothing.

How arduous and noble of you to call me an idiot when all reason and logic fail. The same person that is all about reason, is displaying the antithesis of reason and appealing to his emotions about defending his own dogmas, thus verifying he is somehow, somewhay believing in them.

Evolution is in a desperate struggle to show that it may possibly be a true theory or hypothesis. Yet some who are ready to admit that they are "scientists" claim evolution a proven theory. It is clear, to me at least anyway, that this theory cannot withstand scrutiny, therefore must be rejected.

Like I have said, we have fossil A, and we have fossil B, so fossil B must have evolved from fossil A. That may be suggested by the fossil record, but that is not proven. It is entirely assumed that fossil A leads to fossil B, thus you are putting that it is evolved, it is on the contrary a logical fallacy since it is, as your standards allow, a conclusion not based on evidence.

Originally posted by loseyourname The idea of assigning names to certain spans of time is arbitrary. The age of the universe is not. It can be calculated rather easily.

It is a guess. Every culture and civlization other than assigning names had methods and intervals of telling time and their own calculations. Thus we can only speculate at best. To claim something is absolute about things which we do not even know such as how we got here or when, well that is how science becomes a dogma, and the scientists that are chastising the Bible thumpers for their dogma, are resorting to the same ends.

Originally posted by loseyourname You are a damn fool. The age of the earth is not an assumption. It is an educated guess made with a certain margin of error based on known rates of decay of radioisotopes. I'd give you a lecture on nuclear chemistry here if I wasn't completely certain you'd come back with an assertion that nuclear chemistry is based on faith. You are a damn fool! Stick with reading the history books, Mousy. You have no place critiquing the methodology of geophysics.

I'm only a fool on weekdays and when "rational" people fail to prove how rational they can be. First Mr. Lose states that the age of earth is not an assumption. Whoever is reading this, pay close attention to words such as "educated guess". It appears Mr. Lose has contradicted himself. it also appears that the "irrational" mouse, has just used his reasoning skills to show the lack of reason in the "rational" Mr. Lose. I will stick with all books, not just history books.

Originally posted by loseyourname I'm not bent on conquering anything. My only assertion is that reason can be used as proof, faith cannot. Simple as that. If you want to base a belief system on faith, fine. I believe it to be dangerous and immoral to do so, but you are entitled to your viewpoint. Just don't go around acting as if you have knowledge when you only have faith.

That reason can be used as proof and faith cannot is itself already an assumption. How can you compare one can and the other cannot when the two are entirely different things? How anyone can confuse reason and faith is beyond me.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Having an organismic awareness over ourselves, and free will, what we call "consciousness" cannot be proven by material evidence. We just "know" and "fee" we are aware.

The fact that we are aware of our actions and thoughts is self-knowledge, as I said earlier. An understanding of what parts of the brain are under conscious control, and which are not, which parts are responsible for this awareness and which are not, is the goal of studying the neuronal basis of consciousness, as opposed to this immaterial basis you keep speaking of. There is more to it than you will admit.

Faith doesn't use reasoning because it is faith. Can'y you grasp that? It is inborn in us, it is something that doesn't require evidence, but personal conviction as you pointed out.

Human beings are not born with a set of metaphysical beliefs. You come to conclusions based on evidence, such as the religious experiences you have spoken of. Your conclusion is a product of logic, not of faith. You only use faith to justify it because it does not hold up to logical analysis.

Of course for me knowledge of God has come through faith for my faith God has proven, and my beliefs remain my own, thus because I have experienced transcendence I have experienced things that reason cannot explain.

First you assert your knowledge has come through faith, then you assert that it has an evidential basis in your experience. Which is it?

Those like you who try to use the biological sciences, to study the immaterial world are the ones that cannot understand nor grasp the difference between what is the material world and what is the immaterial.

Then there are those like you, who continue to assert, with no backing whatsoever, that consciousness is a completely immaterial phenomenon, despite the fact that our knowledge of the human brain is too imcomplete to draw any such conclusions. You may very well be right, but we will not know until, through the biological sciences, we have attained a more complete understanding of neuronal processes. Until then, we study. That is how rational people come to attain knowledge. Not through unfounded assertions.

We have repeatedly pointed out that science only deals with how things reaction and behave, not how they got here or what lies beneath, thus science cannot deal with anything outside of that framework. Anytime it steps out of that and tries to create answers such as the big bang, it is using faith and belief.

No, you repeatedly point that out, then ignore my demonstration of why you are wrong.

Since belief systems deal with things that are not of this world, how is it, or why is it do you assume science can?

Not everybody's belief systems deal with matters not pertaining to this world. Many of us actually have beliefs dealing with this world, as amazing as you may find that.

If science is supposed to be based on the study of our material, physical world, why are you defending it now regarding the immaterial?

I haven't. I have repeatedly said that knowledge of that which is external to our universe is not possible as long as our knowledge-processing organs exist in this universe. Deal with it and admit that you don't know what you don't know.

So you don't believe that the soul of another is of a certain nature and possesses certain qualities? So everyone is just a blob of chemical reactions and compositions?

Perhaps. I don't feel that any positive belief is justified in this matter. All we have is educated conjecture. You speak as if you have certainty, and you do not.

We do arrive at conclusions about the immaterial and the infinite based on faith.

No, you do. Rational people admit that we don't the answers.

Sure I have. Everytime scientists claim how the earth began, or how old it is, or that we evolved, it is all based on faith.

It is based on an analysis of doppler-shifting, radioisotope decay, and other phenomena which all obey strict mathematical laws. You can say that it is based on faith until pigs fly; your continued ignorance doesn't make you right.

A theory may be a theory, but it is not a scientific law.

Which is exactly what I said.

A theory is not science until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge.

By your definition, gravitational theory is not science. Science does not provide complete. Science provides logical, repeatable, and usable results that follow strict epistemological requirements and which are rigorously criticized, as opposed to your faith, which is apparently beyond all criticism.

Or perhaps I should try another method. Since you keep saying reason cannot discredit faith, can faith discredit faith? All right then, I have faith that you are wrong. Look at the idiocy of that. An argument based on personal conviction alone is an argument of ignorance. Quit being ignorant.

Evolution is in a desperate struggle to show that it may possibly be a true theory or hypothesis.

What world are you living in?

Like I have said, we have fossil A, and we have fossil B, so fossil B must have evolved from fossil A. That may be suggested by the fossil record, but that is not proven. It is entirely assumed that fossil A leads to fossil B, thus you are putting that it is evolved, it is on the contrary a logical fallacy since it is, as your standards allow, a conclusion not based on evidence.

Fossil B follows fossil A temporally and exists in the same geographic region. Fossil B shows morphologic similarities to fossil A, with only a few slight modifications that made it better suited to survive in the given environment. Thus, it is logical to say that fossil B evolved from fossil A, especially when this phenomenon is repeatedly observed everywhere in the fossil world, point mutations are known to result in favorable adaptations, and evolutionary theory answers just about question that was previously unanswerable in biology. Where is the lack of evidence? Where is the logical fallacy?

It is a guess. Every culture and civlization other than assigning names had methods and intervals of telling time and their own calculations. Thus we can only speculate at best.

Some cultures said the earth was flat. Some cultures said the moon was a fire set by a wolf. Guess what? Some cultures were wrong. Radioisotopic dating gives a very certain age range that is very small. There is no nuclear chemist or geophysicist that comes up with a different answer than others.

That reason can be used as proof and faith cannot is itself already an assumption. How can you compare one can and the other cannot when the two are entirely different things? How anyone can confuse reason and faith is beyond me.

Who is confused here? I never compared faith and reason. I contrasted them. Reason is known to result in usable, repeatable knowledge. It can provide a detailed description of its epistemic principles and has a basis in observation of the world's behavior. Faith has what? You have never shown faith to do anything other than be faithful. 3 + 2 = 5. Take three rocks, take two rocks, put them together, you will have five rocks. Reason has been proven to result in knowledge. Demonstrate to me how faith can do the same.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname The fact that we are aware of our actions and thoughts is self-knowledge, as I said earlier. An understanding of what parts of the brain are under conscious control, and which are not, which parts are responsible for this awareness and which are not, is the goal of studying the neuronal basis of consciousness, as opposed to this immaterial basis you keep speaking of. There is more to it than you will admit.

But what the nature of that "conscious" control is, or how it got there in the first place, that is entirely a mystery. Science might explain and label the different parts of the brain, however it is doing nothing more than making a new name for essentially what is our ignorance. However one chooses to hyphenate it, it nonetheless remains we have "awareness", unless you want to totally deny this as well.

Originally posted by loseyourname Human beings are not born with a set of metaphysical beliefs. You come to conclusions based on evidence, such as the religious experiences you have spoken of. Your conclusion is a product of logic, not of faith. You only use faith to justify it because it does not hold up to logical analysis.

The "evidences" are spiritual "evidences", once again you are confusing logic and reason with faith. You are attempting to use the brush of reason to explain faith which once again is a fool mans game. Faith does not hold up to logical analysis, nor does logical analysis hold up to faith. What is it that you do not understand between the differences regarding faith and reason?

Originally posted by loseyourname First you assert your knowledge has come through faith, then you assert that it has an evidential basis in your experience. Which is it?

They are the same thing. Because I have had experiences that science and logic cannot in anyway answer, my belief in God, my faith in it, has grown exponentially.

Originally posted by loseyourname Then there are those like you, who continue to assert, with no backing whatsoever, that consciousness is a completely immaterial phenomenon, despite the fact that our knowledge of the human brain is too imcomplete to draw any such conclusions. You may very well be right, but we will not know until, through the biological sciences, we have attained a more complete understanding of neuronal processes. Until then, we study. That is how rational people come to attain knowledge. Not through unfounded assertions.

Such thinking implies that science will eventually conquer nature, but disregards the fact that consciousness just like many other things are immaterial, and science therefore will never conquer the infinite, or what is not in the physical realm. Such thinking only displays the belief that through science man can conquer all and that in itself is a belief, thus you are placing no more faith in science, than I am in God. Assertions, whether unfounded or not, are assertions. That has nothing to do regarding faith and reason. Assertions can be made for both, and both remain exclusive.

Originally posted by loseyourname No, you repeatedly point that out, then ignore my demonstration of why you are wrong.

This statement is ignorance on so many levels, which I will not attempt to go into, but suffice to say that this assumes science, which deals with the physical world, how things behave and react, can conquer the immaterial. When science steps outside of its boundaries and tries to answer the infinite, it is no different than making metaphysical assumptions. I'm sorry, but that is the way it goes, I cannot change it. If you were a true scientist, you would have rejected all possibility of soul, of the immaterial, but you are not, because you have faith and you want to use science to prove it, thus you yourself can feel it to be true, yet won't admit to this.

Originally posted by loseyourname Not everybody's belief systems deal with matters not pertaining to this world. Many of us actually have beliefs dealing with this world, as amazing as you may find that.

I was obviously referring to organized religion as "belief systems". Indeed, we all have beliefs that deal with this world as well as things that do not pertain to this world. Beliefs are beliefs, treat them all the same.

Originally posted by loseyourname I haven't. I have repeatedly said that knowledge of that which is external to our universe is not possible as long as our knowledge-processing organs exist in this universe. Deal with it and admit that you don't know what you don't know.

Precisely, and because we use reason, and logic and the five senses for this world, it means it cannot deal with the externals. That is why we have, and must believe.

Originally posted by loseyourname Perhaps. I don't feel that any positive belief is justified in this matter. All we have is educated conjecture. You speak as if you have certainty, and you do not.

Certainly we have certainty when we say someone is "arrogant" or "kind" or "generous" or "knavish" or "amiable". These are traits of their character and soul, immaterial things which you cannot prove, yet we recognize some people are kinder than others, and you are a lover not a fighter, perhaps more sensitive to the ladies than the brute next door. These are not conjectures I would say, but rather descriptions of the character and soul of another person, such as when we say "he is a kind soul" or a "caring soul".

Originally posted by loseyourname No, you do. Rational people admit that we don't the answers.

To assume that the big bang explains how we got here is silly at best, and requires faith. To deny that is to claim that there is evidence for the big bang. Since the big bang doesn't deal with our material world, it is a metaphysical assumption, a counter to "God created...", thus requiring faith in its own way. The big bang is not a scientific law, it is a theory, and in your words "an educated guess", which means nothing more than an assumption. But semantics go a long way in making people believe they have knowledge when they really have belief.

Originally posted by loseyourname It is based on an analysis of doppler-shifting, radioisotope decay, and other phenomena which all obey strict mathematical laws. You can say that it is based on faith until pigs fly; your continued ignorance doesn't make you right.

It might create its own method of trying to tell time, yet it fails no more than the Gregorian or Julian attempts to tell time, in fact when it says "2 billion years old" it is using that in reference to our Gregorian calender since our conception of "years" is based on that. Pigs can't fly by the way. It is possible, but not probable.

Originally posted by loseyourname Which is exactly what I said.

Precisely, then there is no need to claim it is knowledge because it is not a law, it is an "educated guess", thus evolution is an "educated guess" not a scientific law, therefore we don't know it, we believe we do.

Originally posted by loseyourname By your definition, gravitational theory is not science. Science does not provide complete. Science provides logical, repeatable, and usable results that follow strict epistemological requirements and which are rigorously criticized, as opposed to your faith, which is apparently beyond all criticism.

Faith can be criticized just as science can. To assume that nothing can be criticized is to assume we are perfect creatures capable of perfect knowledge. Now I am not versed on gravitational theory, but I thought it was the "law of gravity". If it's a theory then it is not knowledge. Thus even gravitational theory is a theory, not a law. Those who subscribe to the Hollow Earth Theory, or the Theory of Concentric Spheres believe something else to be the cause of why we don't float away and remain on the ground, not "gravity". Thus even then all we have are educated guesses, and we choose to believe one over the other.

Originally posted by loseyourname Or perhaps I should try another method. Since you keep saying reason cannot discredit faith, can faith discredit faith? All right then, I have faith that you are wrong. Look at the idiocy of that. An argument based on personal conviction alone is an argument of ignorance. Quit being ignorant.

Reason cannot discredit faith, because then reason would be attempting to sidestep its boundaries and deal with something that doesn't belong to it, such as faith. Faith likewise, cannot attempt to discredit reason because we know reason to involve strict critical analysis and evidence. The two are mutually exclusive. Faith is our own thus you are free to believe in what you want. I do not know if faith can discredit faith since that to me itself seems illogical. An argument based on personal conviction and faith is my own, which you cannot understand because you are approaching it entirely with reason. You are limited to and confined with reason thus you cannot understand peoples faith or why they have faith. It is "delusional" and "superstitious" to scientists to have faith in the hereafter or God, because they assume that it is illogical from a purely rational point. Well of course it is, just like reason itself falls on its face when pushed against faith. Moreover, we saw what the "Age of Reason" of the French Revolution taught, we know, what a folly it is to enthrone reason by itself as supreme. Reason is at fault when it deals with the infinite. There we must revere and believe. There is a dualism that makes these forces mutually exclusive which is why we have science and reason for one realm, and faith for another.

Originally posted by loseyourname What world are you living in?

The same one you're on. And from using my reasoning skills regarding critical analysis of evolution - the same standards you are desperately trying to defend here against faith, not realizing that they are different things - it is obvious that it cannot withstand scrutiny, since it is a theory attempting to explain our natural world. If evolution is subjected to reason and evidence, what you are here claiming to defend, then it fails. Why is it that you are so desperate to uphold faith in evolution but all to quick to criticize faith in anything else?

Originally posted by loseyourname Fossil B follows fossil A temporally and exists in the same geographic region. Fossil B shows morphologic similarities to fossil A, with only a few slight modifications that made it better suited to survive in the given environment. Thus, it is logical to say that fossil B evolved from fossil A, especially when this phenomenon is repeatedly observed everywhere in the fossil world, point mutations are known to result in favorable adaptations, and evolutionary theory answers just about question that was previously unanswerable in biology. Where is the lack of evidence? Where is the logical fallacy?

It is not logical to say fossil B followed fossil A, but rather it is an "educated guess" or an assumption. Have you proven that fossil A leads to fossil B? Has Darwin proven that? Stephen Jay Gould? Futuyma?

Originally posted by loseyourname Some cultures said the earth was flat. Some cultures said the moon was a fire set by a wolf. Guess what? Some cultures were wrong. Radioisotopic dating gives a very certain age range that is very small. There is no nuclear chemist or geophysicist that comes up with a different answer than others.

But this is in itself a guess, as you can see in the semantics when they say "scientists say that the earth may be 2 billion years old". This assumes that you know exactly when the earth was "created". I doubt there is any scientist who has given a precise age of the earth without using words such as "probably" or "believe" or "maybe". And when they say a certain "billion years old" they are obviously using that in reference to the Gregorian calender since that is how we have our conception of "year", thus they themselves are forced to use another cultures arbitrary method.

Originally posted by loseyourname Who is confused here? I never compared faith and reason. I contrasted them. Reason is known to result in usable, repeatable knowledge. It can provide a detailed description of its epistemic principles and has a basis in observation of the world's behavior. Faith has what? You have never shown faith to do anything other than be faithful. 3 + 2 = 5. Take three rocks, take two rocks, put them together, you will have five rocks. Reason has been proven to result in knowledge. Demonstrate to me how faith can do the same.

Precisely, reason belongs in this world. When it attempts to claim it can answer things outside of this world that pertain to the infinite, then it is not reason, it becomes faith. By the way, I have never question the validity of reason and the logic of math since obviously math. These are all provable and testable regarding our material world. How does reason answer things regarding the infinite? It doesn't, but you would have us believe that through science we can conquer all.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse But what the nature of that "conscious" control is, or how it got there in the first place, that is entirely a mystery. Science might explain and label the different parts of the brain, however it is doing nothing more than making a new name for essentially what is our ignorance. However one chooses to hyphenate it, it nonetheless remains we have "awareness", unless you want to totally deny this as well.

Mousy, I'm not trying to figure out anything regarding the metaphysical aspect of consciousness, if indeed there is one. There can be no doubt that consciousness has a neuronal basis, and it is worth studying. You will not successfully argue that studying the brain is without merit.

The "evidences" are spiritual "evidences", once again you are confusing logic and reason with faith. You are attempting to use the brush of reason to explain faith which once again is a fool mans game.

What is spiritual evidence? You have experience, which means you have memory. Memory exists as a chemical potential in a certain part of your brain. This is a demonstrable physical phenomenon. I'm guessing that whatever experience you had involved your body somehow, or sensual perception, which are also physical. I could be wrong, but since you won't provide any account of the "evidence" you have, how are we to evaluate it?

They are the same thing. Because I have had experiences that science and logic cannot in anyway answer, my belief in God, my faith in it, has grown exponentially.

Tell me what they are, and we will see if science and logic can or cannot explain them. Perhaps your knowledge of science and logic are simply too limited to know the explanation.

Such thinking implies that science will eventually conquer nature, but disregards the fact that consciousness just like many other things are immaterial, and science therefore will never conquer the infinite, or what is not in the physical realm.

Such thinking implies nothing of the sort. Such thinking admits ignorance of the exact nature of consciousness and instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, such thinking studies the phenomenon. Consciousness itself is most certainly immaterial, but its cause may be directly traceable to observable and empirical brain phenomena. Consciousness may very well cease with the death of the brain. It may not. I don't know. Neither do you.

This statement is ignorance on so many levels, which I will not attempt to go into, but suffice to say that this assumes science, which deals with the physical world, how things behave and react, can conquer the immaterial.

I am not trying conquer anything, Mousy. You're the one that claims to have knowledge that you do not have. I am well aware of the limitations of science, as well as the limitations of human understanding in general. You are the one that cannot fathom not having the answers.

If you were a true scientist, you would have rejected all possibility of soul, of the immaterial, but you are not, because you have faith and you want to use science to prove it, thus you yourself can feel it to be true, yet won't admit to this.

When did I ever not admit to this? Of course I feel that there is more to the world than what is physically observable. My feeling does not constitute proof that my suspicion is true. As I said before, I am not as easily convinced as you. Human conviction has been wrong quite a few times before, and only science and reason have been shown to provide repeatable, reliable knowledge. Faith has always been at odds with itself, people of different faiths having different ideas. They can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

Precisely, and because we use reason, and logic and the five senses for this world, it means it cannot deal with the externals. That is why we have, and must believe.

Or we admit that we don't know certain things and leave it at that. We may or may not come to know it through different methods of study. If personal conviction constituted knowledge, then truth would be so elastic that it would lose all relevance. Human souls would both be reincarnated and go to hell. God would be both an immaterial entity and a physical body. Jesus would both be and not be God incarnate. Even you must admit that this is not an acceptable conclusion.

Certainly we have certainty when we say someone is "arrogant" or "kind" or "generous" or "knavish" or "amiable". These are traits of their character and soul, immaterial things which you cannot prove, yet we recognize some people are kinder than others, and you are a lover not a fighter, perhaps more sensitive to the ladies than the brute next door. These are not conjectures I would say, but rather descriptions of the character and soul of another person, such as when we say "he is a kind soul" or a "caring soul".

Again, spoken like a man with no knowledge of neuropsychiatry. A person's character traits may be completely explainable - they are at least partially explainable - through genetic and environmental analysis. Though the traits themselves are immaterial, again, their cause need not be.

To assume that the big bang explains how we got here is silly at best, and requires faith.

Sure, if it were an assumption. It is not. It is a rational conclusion drawn from mathematical analysis of physical evidence that I have already documented. It is not certain, nor have I ever claimed that it is. In fact, I will say right here that I find ekpyrotic theory to be far more satisfying. Even so, it does not mean that I am certain it happened that way. I don't know, and I am happy that say that. I don't need to know.

To deny that is to claim that there is evidence for the big bang.

There is evidence for the big bang. Expansion of the universe, red shift of galaxies in proportion to their distance, inexplicable static found at the edges of the observable universe, and calculations drawn from deceleration of space all lead to a singularity - perhaps. As I said, there is also ekpyrotic theory, which avoids the difficulties of superluminal expansion and compression into a singularity.

Since the big bang doesn't deal with our material world.

Are you now claiming that the physical universe is not material? You are free to begin coherent thinking any time now.

It is a metaphysical assumption, a counter to "God created...", thus requiring faith in its own way.

Absolute belief in it requires faith. The theory itself does not. It is not a metaphysical assumption. The expansion of a cosmic singularity is a physical occurence. It is not a competing theory to creation by an intelligent designer. It is a theory regarding the physical universe. How that singularity itself came to be or why it expanded is a matter not to be dealt with by science.

It might create its own method of trying to tell time, yet it fails no more than the Gregorian or Julian attempts to tell time, in fact when it says "2 billion years old" it is using that in reference to our Gregorian calender since our conception of "years" is based on that.

It is 15 billion revolutions of the earth about the sun. Is that so difficult to understand? The rate of slowing of the expansion is measured, then it is calculated backward to the point where everything comes together. It's quite ingenius.

Precisely, then there is no need to claim it is knowledge because it is not a law, it is an "educated guess", thus evolution is an "educated guess" not a scientific law, therefore we don't know it, we believe we do.

It is as complete as a theory can get without being directly observable. Evolution explains perfectly every question that had previously plagued biology. It is a consistent model with the fossil record and with common logic. It is not absolute certainty, but it is enough to accept. It does far better than any competing theory.

Now I am not versed on gravitational theory, but I thought it was the "law of gravity". If it's a theory then it is not knowledge.

The law of gravity is a method used to calculate force and acceleration. The theory pertains to the nature of gravity itself. That theory is an extension of general relativity that postulates the existence of a graviton, a particle which, although never observed, is predicted by supersymmetry and ties gravity in with the other three forces that all involve the observable exchange of force particles.

Thus even gravitational theory is a theory, not a law. Those who subscribe to the Hollow Earth Theory, or the Theory of Concentric Spheres believe something else to be the cause of why we don't float away and remain on the ground, not "gravity". Thus even then all we have are educated guesses, and we choose to believe one over the other.

Hollow earth and concentric sphere theory are not educated guesses, they are ignorant guesses. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of geology knows the earth is not hollow and anyone with the slightest knowledge of astronomy knows that the cosmos does not consist of concentric spheres. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of general relativity and supersymmtry knows that the existence of the graviton, though it may never be observed because it is so weak, is almost certain.

I do not know if faith can discredit faith since that to me itself seems illogical.

And what? The existence of competing faiths that cannot all be true doesn't seem illogical to you? You say Jesus is the incarnation of God. Judaism and Islam say he is not. One of you is incorrect. Without rational, objective standards by which to judge your claims, how do you come to a conclusion?

An argument based on personal conviction and faith is my own, which you cannot understand because you are approaching it entirely with reason. You are limited to and confined with reason thus you cannot understand peoples faith or why they have faith. It is "delusional" and "superstitious" to scientists to have faith in the hereafter or God, because they assume that it is illogical from a purely rational point. Well of course it is, just like reason itself falls on its face when pushed against faith. Moreover, we saw what the "Age of Reason" of the French Revolution taught, we know, what a folly it is to enthrone reason by itself as supreme. Reason is at fault when it deals with the infinite. There we must revere and believe. There is a dualism that makes these forces mutually exclusive which is why we have science and reason for one realm, and faith for another.

Another very eloquent but completely irrelevant point.

The same one you're on. And from using my reasoning skills regarding critical analysis of evolution - the same standards you are desperately trying to defend here against faith, not realizing that they are different things - it is obvious that it cannot withstand scrutiny, since it is a theory attempting to explain our natural world. If evolution is subjected to reason and evidence, what you are here claiming to defend, then it fails. Why is it that you are so desperate to uphold faith in evolution but all to quick to criticize faith in anything else?

I suggest you bring back Arvy's evolution thread if you want to get back into this.

It is not logical to say fossil B followed fossil A, but rather it is an "educated guess" or an assumption. Have you proven that fossil A leads to fossil B? Has Darwin proven that? Stephen Jay Gould? Futuyma?

Both fossils exist in the same geographic region. One fossil, showing only slight morphologic dissimilarities with the other, appears in the rock strata right about the time the other disappears. What is illogical about saying that one followed the other? The principle of biogenesis dictates that life comes from life. Species do not appear from nowhere. They appear from the loins of other species.

But this is in itself a guess, as you can see in the semantics when they say "scientists say that the earth may be 2 billion years old". This assumes that you know exactly when the earth was "created".

Nope. All you need to know is naturally occuring levels of radioisotopes, the levels occurent in old rocks, and the half-life of that isotope. A very simple calculation will get you an acceptable time frame. It isn't nailed down to the exact minute the earth separated from the solar systemic debris, but there is a span of between 4-6 billion years in which you can be damn certain it happened. One thing that does not change is the laws of nuclear physics.

And when they say a certain "billion years old" they are obviously using that in reference to the Gregorian calender since that is how we have our conception of "year", thus they themselves are forced to use another cultures arbitrary method.

They are obviously speaking of 5 billion multiplied by the time it takes the earth to make one full revolution of the sun. Nothing arbitrary about it.

Precisely, reason belongs in this world. When it attempts to claim it can answer things outside of this world that pertain to the infinite, then it is not reason, it becomes faith.

What do you even mean by infinite? Are you speaking of mathematical infinity? The unboundedness of space? Or are you speaking of temporal infinity, or eternality? I hate to say it, Mousy, but math, space, and time are all quite physical phenomena, most certainly of this world.

By the way, I have never question the validity of reason and the logic of math since obviously math. These are all provable and testable regarding our material world. How does reason answer things regarding the infinite? It doesn't, but you would have us believe that through science we can conquer all.

No, I would have us believe that when we do not have the answers, it is not acceptable to make up an answer and back it up solely with personal conviction.

[sSsflamesSs]

You guys are truly amazing.

[violette829]

JEEZ LOUISE!
I can tell u both would make excellent lovers...Grrgr...



PS: Success!
(I have turned this one into a sex talk as well)

Hurrayyyy!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Mousy, I'm not trying to figure out anything regarding the metaphysical aspect of consciousness, if indeed there is one. There can be no doubt that consciousness has a neuronal basis, and it is worth studying. You will not successfully argue that studying the brain is without merit.

Studying the brain is indeed not without merit. It's is unfair to assume that because science, which deals with the material world, shouldn't be used to study further into our brain or our organs or what have you. In its pursuit it will only reach so much and reveal alot, but the underlying questions will thus remain a mystery. It might explain certain neurohormonal aspects of the brain or nerves or the sensory organs or what have you, but it will do nothing more than provide a function of a behavior and reaction of how the brain works. It will add nothing more than a name to a process further reaffirming our ignorance of its cause. That it works we know, it is merely validating that it works in its intricacies.

Originally posted by loseyourname What is spiritual evidence? You have experience, which means you have memory. Memory exists as a chemical potential in a certain part of your brain. This is a demonstrable physical phenomenon. I'm guessing that whatever experience you had involved your body somehow, or sensual perception, which are also physical. I could be wrong, but since you won't provide any account of the "evidence" you have, how are we to evaluate it?.

You are once again confusing spiritual experiences with experiences that we have based on our five senses in our everyday world. You have not yet made the break between faith and reason and are still relying on the latter to understand the former. Spiritual "evidences" are those things that make one experiences moments of transcendence that speak to our inner self of the truth of our faith. Such things that one may experience is not something one can materialize nor express in language or human knowledge, for human knowledge, derived from science and reason in a material world, is finite. Thus you cannot evaluate anyones spiritual experiences or faith via such things as the scientific method because peoples' faith are their own. You must first have a working knowledge of what distinguishes reason and faith, to understand that using one as a yardstick to judge the other is a failure. Often times men of "reason" and "science" will greatly laff and proclaim the idiocy and adamance of those that proselytize, or condemn people of other religions who are not of their faith as being "guilty" or "will end up in hell" since they are atheists, yet it seems people of reason and science engage in the same sort of behavior of "youre wrong since we cannot qualitatively and quantitatively measure your spiritual evidences".

Originally posted by loseyourname Tell me what they are, and we will see if science and logic can or cannot explain them. Perhaps your knowledge of science and logic are simply too limited to know the explanation.

It would be a waste of time for me to tell you my experiences which are really person and dear to me that go into the personal aspects of my life for me to sit here and type it for you. Your assumption that with reason and logic you will conquer faith is unfounded and shows a lack of understanding on what differentiates the two to begin with, thus your approach is not objective in asking me to state my experiences since one cannot measure faith by reason, nor vice versa. We seem to be stating, and you confirming it other times, yet somehow keep forgetting it and going back to your same adamance on measuring faith with reason. My grasp of reason and logic is sufficient enough to be fused with my faith, for I think I have a good understanding of what separates reason and faith. Every creed whether secular or religious, or political has two regions the ethical and the dialectical. As Socrates would agree, it is only when the two are harmoniously blended that one might have a perfect discipline and that is what we strive for. Some people are dialectically Christians, while ethically unbelievers, just like there are dialectical skeptics, that are ethical believers.

Originally posted by loseyourname Such thinking implies nothing of the sort. Such thinking admits ignorance of the exact nature of consciousness and instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, such thinking studies the phenomenon. Consciousness itself is most certainly immaterial, but its cause may be directly traceable to observable and empirical brain phenomena. Consciousness may very well cease with the death of the brain. It may not. I don't know. Neither do you.

To state that consciousness is "most certainly immaterial" then to go on and try to find an explanation or cause for it in the material world begs the question of existence itself, for the infinite preceded man, the material creature, and that something must have been there to create something else, the infinite is a void filled with the material, i.e. God filled man within the infinite. I don't want to stray too far off topic but this is the exact sort of thinking that science cannot ever break, and evolutionists with their imaginitive big bangs are only making assumptions, or as you would call "educated guesses". I am in no way trying to bash science or people who are ethically scientists, but rather those that claim to be dialectical scientists but are ethically religious. This applies to any self styled scientists who tries to use science that deals with the physical world to try to map out the immaterial or the infinite. Science is science precisely because it deals with things relating to this world, otherwise it is of the metaphysical and requires faith.

Originally posted by loseyourname I am not trying conquer anything, Mousy. You're the one that claims to have knowledge that you do not have. I am well aware of the limitations of science, as well as the limitations of human understanding in general. You are the one that cannot fathom not having the answers.

How can I claim to have knowledge that I do not have? If I have faith and my spiritual experiences have proven to me that my faith was true, then how would you know what I do or do not have? Once again you are attempting to quantify faith by comparing it to reason. Such displays, for the thousandth time, the basic misunderstanding most people have regarding faith and reason. I can fathom not having the answers just fine, that is why I have faith, and bits and pieces to me are revealed. It appears you cannot fathom facing up to your own self and admitting that science, therefore human knowledge derived from science is limited.

Originally posted by loseyourname When did I ever not admit to this? Of course I feel that there is more to the world than what is physically observable. My feeling does not constitute proof that my suspicion is true. As I said before, I am not as easily convinced as you. Human conviction has been wrong quite a few times before, and only science and reason have been shown to provide repeatable, reliable knowledge. Faith has always been at odds with itself, people of different faiths having different ideas. They can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

When you stated you want to go into the biological sciences ( which deals with the material world ) to study human consciousness ( an immaterial ), you are trying to quantify faith or the immaterial by the rules of science and the material. Everytime you ask for me to state my spiritual experiences so you can examine them with reason and logic, you are trying to measure the immaterial with the material. If we approach this whole topic, from a purely rational and scientific point of view, you shouldn't even be in this discussion since none of this stuff has 'evidence', nor can hold to 'logic', therefore it is useless to believe since the only knowledge, as pure rationalists and scientists would say, comes only from reason, logic, and the scientific method. Strange that you, a student of biology, are not approaching like a pure rational and scientific person would to this topic.

Originally posted by loseyourname Or we admit that we don't know certain things and leave it at that. We may or may not come to know it through different methods of study. If personal conviction constituted knowledge, then truth would be so elastic that it would lose all relevance. Human souls would both be reincarnated and go to hell. God would be both an immaterial entity and a physical body. Jesus would both be and not be God incarnate. Even you must admit that this is not an acceptable conclusion.

We must believe in something higher and nobler than just the mere material world and ideologies that claim to bring an earthly utopia. We believe we ought to act good and moral, even though most of the time we don't. We strive for a higher purpose, and we believe we are doing the noble deeds by helping our fellow man, being honest, sacrificing, etc. All these qualities, and mans system of morality was not something man made, or something parents simply taught their children, for something or some force or someone must have taught them first. No one could be content to believe tha there was no mind that thought for man, or no conscience to enact eternal laws, no God to care or love those whom no one else loved or cared. We cannot believe that there is no plan, no purpose, and we are just mindless atoms haphazardly living in the fortuitious concourse of events, moreoever, we cannot believe that all things beautiful, all things wise and just and moral are simply an accident and can end tomorrow. I don't know what world you come from that places scientific knowledge above the knowledge that we can obtain of the soul of another person, which is furnished by that person actions and their life conduct.

Originally posted by loseyourname Again, spoken like a man with no knowledge of neuropsychiatry. A person's character traits may be completely explainable - they are at least partially explainable - through genetic and environmental analysis. Though the traits themselves are immaterial, again, their cause need not be.

Notice how you start of by saying that they are "completelely explainable" then going off to saying that are "at least partially explainable". Such confusion and play of semantics, if I had to guess is an attempt to cling to the materialistic explanation of things. You then confuse the issue even more by admitting that the traits themselves are immaterial, yet they have a cause that is material. If man as a soul it is immaterial and infinite given to a material body, and the traits that you admit are immaterial must therefore be a part of our soul, and not our material body, therefore there cause would be immaterial, would it not?

Originally posted by loseyourname Sure, if it were an assumption. It is not. It is a rational conclusion drawn from mathematical analysis of physical evidence that I have already documented. It is not certain, nor have I ever claimed that it is. In fact, I will say right here that I find ekpyrotic theory to be far more satisfying. Even so, it does not mean that I am certain it happened that way. I don't know, and I am happy that say that. I don't need to know.

There is evidence for the big bang. Expansion of the universe, red shift of galaxies in proportion to their distance, inexplicable static found at the edges of the observable universe, and calculations drawn from deceleration of space all lead to a singularity - perhaps. As I said, there is also ekpyrotic theory, which avoids the difficulties of superluminal expansion and compression into a singularity.

That there is evidence for the big bang is true, just like one may find evidence for evolution, but that doesn't make something automatically a scientific law, as all theories go through three steps before becoming a law, and must meet all the evidence and facts to establish certainty, not just some. Thus so long as we have theories we have educated guesses that require faith. If you addmited this, it means you should also admit that evolution is an educated guess that requires faith.

The explanation of the big bang fails on the grounds that whatever it sees observing with a telescope into the distant space, it is only giving its own explanation, not what is happening, thereby only adding a name and something we believe is occuring, not what is actually occuring itself, therefore from this flows that the construction of the big bang, is entirely an educated guess not a scientific law, because one can poke many holes in the big bang, which I don't want to stray off of this thread to do, if you want to make another thread fine.