Existence of the Soul

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Reason is confined to the material world. My reference was in discussion about the immaterial since we are obviously communicating. Perhaps that came off wrong. And no, I'm far from backpedaling my little boy lost.

Never mind then. You just aren't as skilled at articulating yourself in the English language as I am.

I'm glad that you are once again trying to use logic and reason, to try to negate faith. If you actually read all my responses point by point, I have already mentioned that it is unreasonable to believe in God or have faith, or what have you.

Nope. I am using reason to discredit the use of faith as a basis for positive belief. As you have pointed out, we are having a discussion, which requires that we use reason. If you don't feel reason can in any way have anything to say about faith, then don't bring faith into a philosophical debate, which requires the use of reason.

You may have not asserted a belief, but your statement is initself a belief indirectly since you stated that you don't believe God created this universe, now changed to "I don't know". In otherwords, do you know that God didn't create this world? And if so, how do you?

I do not believe that the universe was created. I do not believe that the universe was uncreated. Is it too much for you to handle? What's so complicated about the idea of not holding a belief?

Why shouldn't we? I am perfectly comfortable with you not believing in God or any purpose or plan. You on the other hand are uncomfortable with me believing in God since this is lacking reason. Notice that I am not trying to convince you to believe in God, I was merely trying to get you to understand the distinction between faith and reason which is essentially what this was all about. You on the other hand have a desire to have your views reaffirmed by having people agree with you that there is no God and we shouldn't have faith thus you're bent on using "reason" to prove my "faith" to be "wrong".

There you go again, speculating as to what other people are desiring. I desire that faith not be used as epistemological backing, ever. I have stated before it is immoral, and I will battle everywhere I encounter it. I assure you it is nothing personal.

And now we admit that there is something deeper in us that science cannot explain, a force, an awareness of our inner self and our inner needs. You simply "know it as a fact of your own being" is perfectly put.

Neither can faith. It is a mystery of life. Life is full of these, and it is what makes life so wonderful. If we had all the answers, it would be an incredibly dull existence. I bet if there is a God, he envies us greatly.

By the way, I never called love a tool of the State, that would be Marx, in fact I challenge you to offer evidence of where I said that. I may have been sardonic about love in the Love and Romance section, that is in no way my serious opinion. And no I'm the champion of post whorring, you are the champion of love on the forum, thus lover not a fighter.

When that is all you ever post, there is a tendency among those who read to believe that that is actually how you feel. You have never once had anything positive to say about love.

But these are just giving names and explanations for their behavior, not how one thinks. To KNOW how an animal thinks implies that we should ourselves be animals. Thus we don't know or feel what they feel, we can only guess and assume, so how do we know that they themselves do not have an idea of awareness or being?

I repeat. Go read up on behavioral biology. You will see the techniques used to determine these things. I am not going to sit here and lecture on a topic that you know nothing about.

Since you're cherry picking single quotations and not the entire context of the passage I am having difficulty comprehending what you're saying. Suffice to say that I haven't backpedaled and I have remained by my assertion that the big bang is an 'educated guess', and that's your phrase that I have been using.

First you said there was no evidence. Once I showed you the evidence, you said there was evidence, but not enough to make the big bang theory a law. That is backpedalling. Suffice it to say that I have repeatedly asserted that I do not subscrive to big bang theory. There is no reason to continue in this vein.

Yes I am a fool, but notice that I didn't call you a fool because you don't believe in God. It was you, the unbeliever who called me a fool for not adhering to your dogma. Strange world where the logical and rational people are the exact ones to resort to lack of reason and emotions.

What is irrational or illogical about calling a fool a fool?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname This is what I've been trying to get you to admit to all along. You have faith, not knowledge, and the two are far different from each other.

You see this is where I disagree since you believe that knowledge can only come from research and not revelation and that in itself is a metaphysical assumption. I believe I have a case of the latter.

Originally posted by loseyourname Now read your previous post, where you state that reason is not confined to the material.

I have already stated that reason is not confined to the material with regards to a discussion on the immaterial. To try to use that as a yardstick to KNOW God is counter to reason. I have maintained this all along. I don't see what you disagree with here.

Originally posted by loseyourname Exactly. And as reason and science are the only ways of obtaining knowledge of the external world, you are left with nothing.

This goes back to our metaphysical assumption that all knowledge comes from research and no knowledge comes from revelation.

Originally posted by loseyourname And now we know. Time is not composed of matter. It has no mass, and it does not occupy any space. However, many known particles do not occupy any space nor do they have any mass. A good example is the neutrino, or the photon. Nobody knows exactly what space/time is built of, but it does have material existence of some sort, in that it is warped by the presence of matter. Read Einstein's paper on General Relativity and you will get some idea of this. Further research being done currently involving Calabi-Yau spaces and dimensional inversion indicate that both time and space are at least theoretically capable of being torn, though we don't know if this has ever actually occured. It's fine that you don't know this. Almost nobody that doesn't have a PhD in theoretical physics or isn't a complete nerd that sits around reading all the time has any reason to know this. But I assure you that time is materially measurable.

Look at it this way. Without any talk whatsoever of mathematical or physics principles, we can analyze this in a very simple way. Let's just say that space and time are both immaterial, as they are in a broad sense of "immaterial." Now how do we measure space? We use objects that exist within space, and take up space. By the same notion, we measure time using objects, or processes, that exist within and occur within time. In the case of the second, as I noted above, we use a known fixed rate of radionuclear decay. You extend the temporal length of this process to however many seconds translate into 4.6 billion years, and you have the age of the Earth. The problem you noted above is with conscious awareness of time. Of course in a dream something may seem to occur over a span of ten minutes when it really occured in five seconds. This has no bearing on the fact that five seconds have passed. Time itself exists separately from human perception, and this is why we use objective rates of decay to measure it, not human perception.

I have already highlighted that the methods to measure time, are real every culture has used one method or another to try to map time, but time itself cannot be objective. Thus for evolutionists to claim they alone the objective time is silly. Nearly everyone has had dreams lasting only a few minutes, which required at least twenty or thirty minutes to fully explain in the waking state. People have fallen asleep in church or in the theatre or elsewhere for only a few minutes, and have had dreams that "in the duration of consciousness" occupied many hours and included a long ride in railroads or boats, the spending of an evening at a friends house, or other incidents having a considerable element of "time" in them. Therefore we see that mans objective faculties produce a different sense of "duration of consciousness" than do the inner faculties.

In regard to the element of space, we have the same problem. We have consciousness of that which is common during our waking state which gives it a false nature, or unreal quality. We have established various measurements for space such as feet, or meters and fractions thereof. All these stnadards are arbitrarily chosen and were established by man in order to help him apply his false interpretation of his consciousness of space through objective faculties. Man has so objectified this consciousness of space, made it appear a thing, that it is impossible for him to dissociate or separate it from objective ideas. The same applies to time.

Originally posted by loseyourname You just ignored my question again. Muslims and Jews have knowledge of Jesus. They do believe he existed. They do not, however, believe he was the son of God. You, and other Christians, believe he is. Both groups base this belief on faith. The cool thing about reason is that it has epistemic principles by which you can judge opposing viewpoints. Faith has no such thing. Both groups in this matter cannot be right, and yet there is no way of evaluating which group is.

If you actually read you will see that I answered your question but for some reason you keep asking it over again. Muslims and Jews have knowledge of Jesus. They don't believe in Jesus. Does this mean they cannot lead ethical lives? No. Does this mean they are "going to go to hell"? No. I will not be the judge of that. Faith is our own. Once again you assume due to a conception of fundamentalism that somehow we have to strike them down for being infidels. You are once again trying to use reason to negate faith, and further showing you have no working knowledge of the differences between faith and reason since the two rely on different methods entirely.

Originally posted by loseyourname Your arguments here are pathetic. You better believe that thread is coming back.

I'm sure my arguments are pathetic. If they are pathetic, why do you bother to spend time on them? Why are you perturbed by them? If they are pathetic and if you are surely "right", why not just let it be and let me revel in "ignorance"? Ahh but we must defend what we believe, no?

Originally posted by loseyourname No, you explained the arbitrariness of conscious perception of time. I explained why time itself is not arbitrary. Neither are rates of radionuclear decay.

It is from the arbitrariness of our conscious perception of time that we cannot objectify time, even though we try. This assumes that science has "conquered time".

Originally posted by loseyourname You contended that something material came from something immaterial, but that knowledge of the material can not be extended to the immaterial. Why is there the separation of two things when one came from the other? What example is there in daily experience of a creation being incapable of having knowledge of its creator?

We were created by our mother and father, they in turn by theirs, etc. Keep asking the question and you eventually get back to the beginning that something has to have created man. Here is a little secret. This is where I as a fallible man confess that man will never know, that is why I believe.

Originally posted by loseyourname Of coures. Humans believed that the earth was flat and existed at the center of the universe. Humans believed that organic matter was imbued with a life force and could not come from inorganic matter. Humans believed that the cosmos existed within a space roughly the size of the planet earth. Humans believed that thunderstorms were caused by angry deities. Guess what? Humans were wrong? Unsubstantiated belief has proven, in every case to be wrong. Belief based not on reason but rather on faith has always been wrong. Why would you have us think that your belief is somehow unique? Why would Christian belief be alone in the annals of all faith in that it is the one faith that has ever existed that is correct?

Did I say Christian faith is the one faith that is correct? No I did not. You assumed that I did in order to have a point of contention to "prove me wrong". Science has increased our knowledge of the world indeed, and that has come through the ages since man was ignorant of the workings of nature around him. It is not so much the fault of "religion" that man didn't know it was simply tjhe rate of progress. You can call it a thunderstorm or a lightning yet how it came to be to begin with is a mystery. You can assign many names to many functions yet it answers nothing more than just another process.

Originally posted by loseyourname Thus what we believe is confined to the material world. All else is speculation.

I just said I believe in God. That is not confining it to the material world. On the contrary science, when dealing outside of its realm, is purely speculation.

Originally posted by loseyourname The fact that your belief is comforting does not make it correct. I'm glad that you are comforted. I am as well, without needing to resort to illogical, unsubstantiated metaphysical worldviews.

Well, that's great. My belief is not just comforting to me something more is revealed than just mere comfort. It is from mans belief that our system of morality springs. Thus, those that are Darwinists, atheists, evolutionists, Marxists, that don't believe in God are also the ones that tend not to believe in morality as being objective or universal.

Originally posted by loseyourname No, it isn't belief. It's speculation. I never said the universe is uncreated or purposeless. I said that it could be.

That it could be, it might be, it ought to be, is of no importance, thus it remains a mystery that science cannot grasp.

Originally posted by loseyourname Wrong. It would not satisfy your nature. There are many who are perfectly satisfied without religious beliefs.

How is my belief in God wrong? In fact I could say youre wrong. The point in that is? By saying "youre wrong" is a way of reinforcing ourselves that our position is valid thus trying to appear mighty towards the opponent that we somehow are right.

Originally posted by loseyourname Again, it will not satisfy your mind. I do not need a God, nor do I need eternality to validate my existence. I do not need it to validate my good actions either. They are noble in themselves.

Okay, no one is making you believe. Why are you desperately justifying your lack of need for God to me? I didn't ask for it I was just giving my take.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You see this is where I disagree since you believe that knowledge can only come from research and not revelation and that in itself is a metaphysical assumption. I believe I have a case of the latter.

I never disputed knowledge through revelation. I have nothing to say about revelation. Furthermore, you never said anything had been revealed to you. As I have said before, if God has spoken to you and told you that he exists and that Jesus was his human incarnation and that you have an immortal soul, then so be it. Lucky you.

I have already highlighted that the methods to measure time, are real every culture has used one method or another to try to map time, but time itself cannot be objective. Thus for evolutionists to claim they alone the objective time is silly. Nearly everyone has had dreams lasting only a few minutes, which required at least twenty or thirty minutes to fully explain in the waking state. People have fallen asleep in church or in the theatre or elsewhere for only a few minutes, and have had dreams that "in the duration of consciousness" occupied many hours and included a long ride in railroads or boats, the spending of an evening at a friends house, or other incidents having a considerable element of "time" in them. Therefore we see that mans objective faculties produce a different sense of "duration of consciousness" than do the inner faculties.

In regard to the element of space, we have the same problem. We have consciousness of that which is common during our waking state which gives it a false nature, or unreal quality. We have established various measurements for space such as feet, or meters and fractions thereof. All these stnadards are arbitrarily chosen and were established by man in order to help him apply his false interpretation of his consciousness of space through objective faculties. Man has so objectified this consciousness of space, made it appear a thing, that it is impossible for him to dissociate or separate it from objective ideas. The same applies to time.

You're going in circles, Mousy. You just once again stated how human perception is not objective. You have not given any reason why time itself is not objective. You are using techniques of psychology now to criticize geophysics, which is surely far more fallacious than an attempt to use reason to discredit faith.

If you actually read you will see that I answered your question but for some reason you keep asking it over again. Muslims and Jews have knowledge of Jesus. They don't believe in Jesus. Does this mean they cannot lead ethical lives? No. Does this mean they are "going to go to hell"? No. I will not be the judge of that. Faith is our own. Once again you assume due to a conception of fundamentalism that somehow we have to strike them down for being infidels. You are once again trying to use reason to negate faith, and further showing you have no working knowledge of the differences between faith and reason since the two rely on different methods entirely.

If you would actually read my question, you will see that I never asked anything regarding their moral value. I said that both sets of beliefs cannot be correct. Jesus cannot both be and not be the human incarnation of God. You have repeatedly ignored this and I suspect you will again ignore it.

I'm sure my arguments are pathetic. If they are pathetic, why do you bother to spend time on them?

Because it's so damn fool to watch you make a fool of yourself. Your knowledge of history and economics is impressive, but when you start critiquing science and metaphysics, ah man does it get fun to watch you. The reason I argue with you is the same reason I hung out with stoners in high school.

It is from the arbitrariness of our conscious perception of time that we cannot objectify time, even though we try. This assumes that science has "conquered time".

Once again ignoring every single point I made. An interesting technique you use. You present an argument. I present a detailed examination showing why that argument is wrong. You ignore me and repeat the same argument. Ah man, this is getting fun.

We were created by our mother and father, they in turn by theirs, etc. Keep asking the question and you eventually get back to the beginning that something has to have created man. Here is a little secret. This is where I as a fallible man confess that man will never know, that is why I believe.

You think that's a secret? I know damn well that you don't know.

Did I say Christian faith is the one faith that is correct? No I did not. You assumed that I did in order to have a point of contention to "prove me wrong".

You said you had knowledge, which is by definition correct, and that it was based on faith. You said you are a Christian. That implies that you believe the Christian faith to be correct. If it is correct, then other faiths that contradict the Christian faith cannot be correct. Keep track here, Mousy. I know it's getting hard to follow.

I just said I believe in God. That is not confining it to the material world. On the contrary science, when dealing outside of its realm, is purely speculation.

Of course. I have not taken science outside of its realm. You are the one taking human knowledge outside of its realm.

Well, that's great. My belief is not just comforting to me something more is revealed than just mere comfort. It is from mans belief that our system of morality springs. Thus, those that are Darwinists, atheists, evolutionists, Marxists, that don't believe in God are also the ones that tend not to believe in morality as being objective or universal.

I don't give a xxxx what people tend to believe. I am an agnostic, and I believe that morality is objective.

That it could be, it might be, it ought to be, is of no importance, thus it remains a mystery that science cannot grasp.

It remains a mystery, period.

How is my belief in God wrong? In fact I could say youre wrong.

You can say that, but you would be wrong.

Okay, no one is making you believe. Why are you desperately justifying your lack of need for God to me? I didn't ask for it I was just giving my take.

Who said anything about desperation? You are presenting fallacious arguments, and I am pointing out their fallacy. Simple as that.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Never mind then. You just aren't as skilled at articulating yourself in the English language as I am.

Yes, I really suck. I marvel at your skill.

Originally posted by loseyourname Nope. I am using reason to discredit the use of faith as a basis for positive belief. As you have pointed out, we are having a discussion, which requires that we use reason. If you don't feel reason can in any way have anything to say about faith, then don't bring faith into a philosophical debate, which requires the use of reason.

Since reason and faith are themselves mutually exclusive it is stupid to use one to negate the other. We are using reason to discuss, but whatever we are discussing about we have faith in our convictions in whatever we are defending. We can use reason only so far as to discuss, since it is communicating. To use reason to discredit faith, is once again showing youre lack of understanding between reason and faith, one deals with this world, the other with things that reason cannot answer. You haven't grasped this thus you keep making the same assertions.

Originally posted by loseyourname I do not believe that the universe was created. I do not believe that the universe was uncreated. Is it too much for you to handle? What's so complicated about the idea of not holding a belief?

That's great! That in itself is a belief. It is a belief that the world was not create by a God since logically you cannot disprove the existence of a God.

Originally posted by loseyourname There you go again, speculating as to what other people are desiring. I desire that faith not be used as epistemological backing, ever. I have stated before it is immoral, and I will battle everywhere I encounter it. I assure you it is nothing personal.

I never speculated as to what others desire. You assumed that. If you actually read carefully and were intent on honestly responding to what I said, you wouldn't make or assume things along the corner to have something to argue against. I only spoke about me and my desire to believe. I merely highlighted your insecurity in others who believe in God, nothing about desire.

Originally posted by loseyourname Neither can faith. It is a mystery of life. Life is full of these, and it is what makes life so wonderful. If we had all the answers, it would be an incredibly dull existence. I bet if there is a God, he envies us greatly.

Well, you can call it a mystery, I call it God. How is that any different? You do realize we all have a drive towards that ideal to reach that "mystery" and understand it.

Originally posted by loseyourname When that is all you ever post, there is a tendency among those who read to believe that that is actually how you feel. You have never once had anything positive to say about love.

I have many things positive to say. Because I haven't said them it is illogical, and unreasonable, to assume otherwise, wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by loseyourname I repeat. Go read up on behavioral biology. You will see the techniques used to determine these things. I am not going to sit here and lecture on a topic that you know nothing about.

I repeat, only human arrogance would assume we know what animals are thinking or what they are aware of. All science does is label and give names certain functions and processes, nothing deeper than that. No one said you should lecture about anything, but you shouldn't assume humans know animals, when they really know names of certain functions animals carry out.

Originally posted by loseyourname First you said there was no evidence. Once I showed you the evidence, you said there was evidence, but not enough to make the big bang theory a law. That is backpedalling. Suffice it to say that I have repeatedly asserted that I do not subscrive to big bang theory. There is no reason to continue in this vein.

That is not backpedaling, but rather going back to my initial statements about the big bang being an educated guess. You can virtually find evidence for any theory, even the Theory of Concentric spheres. It doesn't make it a law, therefore it is not human knowledge. So, according to you, since human knowledge is only a product of research, evolution, and big bang are not human knowledge since they are theories, not yet laws to be constituted as human knowledge.

Originally posted by loseyourname What is irrational or illogical about calling a fool a fool?

And this ties in to our discussion how? I am to guess since the self styled rational person ran out of rational arguments he resorted to irrational means to make his point. Brilliantly displayed. I give your performance 4 stars.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I never disputed knowledge through revelation. I have nothing to say about revelation. Furthermore, you never said anything had been revealed to you. As I have said before, if God has spoken to you and told you that he exists and that Jesus was his human incarnation and that you have an immortal soul, then so be it. Lucky you.

God hasn't "spoken to me" nor any of those silly things Bible thumpers feel. Rather, my experiences cannot be summed up in human language. It deals with many of my lifes experiences as well as the most little ones since I was a child. Stuff happened that made everything else make sense and fit perfectly into the equation of life.

Originally posted by loseyourname You're going in circles, Mousy. You just once again stated how human perception is not objective. You have not given any reason why time itself is not objective. You are using techniques of psychology now to criticize geophysics, which is surely far more fallacious than an attempt to use reason to discredit faith.

Since humanity is finite and imperfect and its perception flawed, therefore any attempt by humans to measure time is going to be flawed, yes even biologists. For instance, the average person will find it difficult to think of unlimited space. Yet theology and religion offer us the idea of unlimited space of the universe. Man has become accustomed to thinking of space as having some beginning and consequently some ending. People think that, since they have rules and tape measures by which people can measure the space around them, there cannot be space taht is immeasurable, or going to such an extent as to have no limit and be beyond any measurement.

Unconsciously, man has also associated the duration of time with the extent of space. Through his objective consciosness of a 3 dimensional world man has come to believe that time extends itself and that space extends itself. He is of the opinion that both extensions are much alike and are somewhat coincidental or related to each other. Thus, man thinks that it must require a certain number of minutes to move himself or anything else a certain number of meters. We believe that if we roll a ball along the ground the extent of space it covers is related to the extent of time it will take to cover that space. And we have learned that we can cut down or reduce the extent in that same direction of space by faster motion and therefore by being rolle dfaster the ball will go the same distance in a shorter time.

Originally posted by loseyourname If you would actually read my question, you will see that I never asked anything regarding their moral value. I said that both sets of beliefs cannot be correct. Jesus cannot both be and not be the human incarnation of God. You have repeatedly ignored this and I suspect you will again ignore it.

You are using logic to negate faith which itself falls on its head. For all we know all religions contain the same truths of humility and morality in different allegories and symbols, that is why some people are dialectically of their spiritual persuasion, but ethically sinners. Why cannot both sets of beliefs be correct? Can it be that it was man who got confused with God and separated the word of God into different religions, but since we all know all religions preach morality and humility and the like that we try to lead moral lives, we are all correct? We don't know that. Thus we have faith. I am Christian so I have faith. I'm not a church goer but my faith is my own. Anyone who has studied cultures and religions knows that all have essentially the same root and many things in common. Your approach to this is one of the misinformed.

Originally posted by loseyourname Because it's so damn fool to watch you make a fool of yourself. Your knowledge of history and economics is impressive, but when you start critiquing science and metaphysics, ah man does it get fun to watch you. The reason I argue with you is the same reason I hung out with stoners in high school.

Wow, I feel special all of a sudden.

Originally posted by loseyourname Once again ignoring every single point I made. An interesting technique you use. You present an argument. I present a detailed examination showing why that argument is wrong. You ignore me and repeat the same argument. Ah man, this is getting fun.

Well, I can say the same thing. "You have constantly ignored my point of how reason and faith are different and you cannot use one to understand another" and sit here and whine, but I don't. I'm still discussing aren't I? You have deviated from the most part, from the cordial discussion and have now resorted to what Alan Greenspan would say "irrational exhuberance". I avoided nothing in your argument merely pointed out which I have been pointing out throughout our discussion, you are trying to use logic to negate faith. I have said repeatedly that according to reason we shouldn't believe in God. I am, in other words, taking your position for the purposes of this discussion. I then state that poeple still believe in God despite reason saying it is unreasonable to believe in God. This means that reason and faith are exclusive things since one cannot negate the other.

Originally posted by loseyourname You think that's a secret? I know damn well that you don't know.

But you obviously wouldn't know the difference between faith and reason, for you wouldnt have tried to present a logical argument using reason to negate faith, which is the anti thesis of reason.

Originally posted by loseyourname You said you had knowledge, which is by definition correct, and that it was based on faith. You said you are a Christian. That implies that you believe the Christian faith to be correct. If it is correct, then other faiths that contradict the Christian faith cannot be correct. Keep track here, Mousy. I know it's getting hard to follow.

Yes I am Christian and I believe to me that it is the correct faith. You have however cherry picked my other points in that other non Christians can lead moral lives, and only in the end will we know who is or is not correct. I will not judge others for not being Christian, merely show them the same respect I show the local atheist. You assume that because of the image you have gotten via the media about fundamentalist Bible thumpers that I am out to protest with picket signs those that do not believe. I am not a church goer nor a proselytizer.

Originally posted by loseyourname Of course. I have not taken science outside of its realm. You are the one taking human knowledge outside of its realm.

I am using faith for what is outside of this realm. You are trying to use reason to say that faith is wrong. How do you know? Since faith and reason are different things, it is silly to use one to negate the other.

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't give a xxxx what people tend to believe. I am an agnostic, and I believe that morality is objective.

Good for you. Then from morality being objective, do you admit that we strive towards a goodness, towards an ideal of things we ought to do and how we ought to live?

Originally posted by loseyourname It remains a mystery, period.

I would differ. I'd say that Providence is revealed to us in everything, from the intricacies of nature, to the experiences we have in life regarding love, honor, trust, and strive toward a goodness. Thus all is not a mystery. Well, to you maybe if you want to call that a mystery.

Originally posted by loseyourname You can say that, but you would be wrong.

Arguing belief against belief is not wrong is it? How is my belief in God wrong? You will say there is no proof, and once again compare it to reason and try to use the mans limited sense of the world to try to answer that which transcends reason. It cannot be wrong to have faith in something higher than you, a nobler purpose, aside from our hedonistic and self gratifying ends. But to venture into depths our selves and examine the things that we live, and strive for and seek to acquiesce in, that in itself is evidence of our soul, of divine thought implanted in us by a supreme force. It was precisely this sense of awe that accompanies thought, a force, that science has never been able to answer the innate desires of mans need to feel connected to the whole. You may laugh at a cosmic consciousness but we are all connected in that consciousness, through thought.

I will now return to what this thread was, about God and soul. You believe that all things through the five senses constitute knowledge. However there are things that are not of the five senses that we know of. Thought, volition, and perception are not the soul, but its attributes, and we have no cognizance of the soul itself, but only of them, its manifestations. Nor of God, but onyl of Gods power. Yet we know that there is a soul within our body, a God that has breathed it into us.

Take then the attributes of our soul. I am conscious that I exist and am the same identical person that I was 10 years ago. I am conscious that my body is not I, that if my arms were xchopped away, this person that I call me, would still remain, complete, entire, identical as before. But I cannot asertain by the most intense reflection, what I am, nor where within my body I reside, nor whether I am a point, or an expanded substance. I have no power to examine and inspect this thing that I feel and I know to be. Remember Descartes, "I think, therefore I am"? I exist, I will, I think, perceive. That I know, and nothing more. I think a sublime thought. What is that thought? It is not matter, nor spirit. It is nto a thing, but a power and force.

I make a mark on a certain paper, that represents that thought. There is no power or virtue in the marks I write, but only in the thought which they tell to others. I die, but the thought lives. It is a power. It acts on us, excites us to enthusiasm, inspires us, governs our conduct, controls our destinies, disposes of life and death. So the words we speak are a sertain succesion of partiocular sounds, that by a certain arrangement communicate to others immaterial, intangible, eternal thought. The fact taht thought continues to exist an isntant after it makes its appearance in the soul, proves it imortal.

So spoken words vanish into thin air, and written marks disappear are burned ro thrown in waterr but the thought itself lives on and lives forever. A human thought then is an actual existence and a force and power capable of acting upon and controlling matter as well as mind.

So isn't the existence of a God whos the immaterial soul of the universe whos thoght, embodied or not embodied in his word, is an infinite power, of creation and production, destruction and preservation, quite as comprehensible as the existence of a soul, of a thought separated from the soul, of the power that thought to mold the fate and influence the destinies of humanity?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Since reason and faith are themselves mutually exclusive it is stupid to use one to negate the other.

Nope. I have raised more than enough objections to your assertion that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. You have ignored them all.

That's great! That in itself is a belief. It is a belief that the world was not create by a God since logically you cannot disprove the existence of a God.

All right. You're having a tough time following here. I'll slow. I do not believe that the world was uncreated. I do not believe that the world was created. I do not hold a belief in this matter.

Perhaps if I give another example. Let's say you asked me if I believed whether or not James Madison had ever kissed a dog. My answer would be I don't know. I can't say either way. I hold no belief. Are you getting this yet?

I never speculated as to what others desire.

Go back and read again. You stated quite explicitly what I desired. You have stated in previous threads that everybody desires that there be a God. You will state later in this post that we (presumably meaning all humans) desire an answer to life's unanswerable mysteries.

Well, you can call it a mystery, I call it God. How is that any different? You do realize we all have a drive towards that ideal to reach that "mystery" and understand it.

Well, there you go. You're stating what all human beings have a drive to do.

I have many things positive to say. Because I haven't said them it is illogical, and unreasonable, to assume otherwise, wouldn't you agree?

Everything you have said is negative. You have said repeatedly that love does not exist. It would seem reasonable to assume that you believe love does not exist. Either that or you're a five year-old who is incapable of posting something serious in a thread devoted to love.

I repeat, only human arrogance would assume we know what animals are thinking or what they are aware of.

I repeat, you do not know what studies have been done regarding animal behavior. Some show signs of conscious thinking. Many do not. Wasps, for example, will continually return to the center of a pile of stones if you place a pile of stones around their nesting site, despite the fact that the nest has been removed. Their response is entirely automatic. They are programmed by visual cues, and it does not occur to them, because they do not think, that the nest is no longer there. This is but one small example. Quit talking about biological principles that you have no knowledge of. I swear to you know who Mousy, you would argue with a mathematician that tried to tell you five plus five is ten.

That is not backpedaling, but rather going back to my initial statements about the big bang being an educated guess. You can virtually find evidence for any theory, even the Theory of Concentric spheres.

You are a damn fool comparing the big bang theory to the theory of concentric spheres. That is akin to discrediting the conviction of an arsonist by pointing out that if you looked hard enough, you could find small amounts of evidence that the place spontaneously combusted half a second before the dude lit the flame.

[fstkhnan]

im not messing with this thread!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by fstkhnan im not messing with this thread!

Don't worry loser has lost all sense of coherence and has managed to address every inconsequential issue, manipulate semantics and resort to "you are a fool" or "go back and read" tactics.

I am to guess that this is his last attempt at trying to desperately mince reason and faith.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Nope. I have raised more than enough objections to your assertion that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. You have ignored them all.

I raised many objections of my own in how in most of our daily lives in our ordinary dealings, we move about more on belief, than we do on what we know. In fact, I specifically pointed out many areas of life where we have faith, not reason, even in the world we know. What's your point here? Apparently you haven't read enough on metaphysical thought, nor theology and philosophy to understand the difference between faith and reason. If you had, you wouldn't make the assumptions that you do.

Originally posted by loseyourname All right. You're having a tough time following here. I'll slow. I do not believe that the world was uncreated. I do not believe that the world was created. I do not hold a belief in this matter.

Perhaps if I give another example. Let's say you asked me if I believed whether or not James Madison had ever kissed a dog. My answer would be I don't know. I can't say either way. I hold no belief. Are you getting this yet?

So for you the world always was and is?

Originally posted by loseyourname Go back and read again. You stated quite explicitly what I desired. You have stated in previous threads that everybody desires that there be a God. You will state later in this post that we (presumably meaning all humans) desire an answer to life's unanswerable mysteries.

Well, there you go. You're stating what all human beings have a drive to do.

Oh the "Go back and read" paradigm, when all else fails. I stated that all our actions are based on reaching a certain point, leading good and noble lives, having dreams and goals, and perhaps living past our lives to have our thoughts echo for others. Do you not have that drive? You mean to tell me you are just a stagnant person that has no ambition, no sense of purpose, no nobleness, no moral guide of the things you ought to do and how you ought to live your life? This is not so much a mystery, but rather our conscience self.

Originally posted by loseyourname Everything you have said is negative. You have said repeatedly that love does not exist. It would seem reasonable to assume that you believe love does not exist. Either that or you're a five year-old who is incapable of posting something serious in a thread devoted to love.

Everything I have said about other religions is negative? Where did I say that. This is clearly text manipulation for the mere anything left to say other than rework phrases and words and develop your tautology. I have joked about love and mostly been sardonic. I have now told you that my personal views on love are obviously real. What part of that don't you comprehend? Now I am a five year old eh? Well, that's good to know. How did you arrive at that, by using reasoning or is that a faithful guess?

Originally posted by loseyourname I repeat, you do not know what studies have been done regarding animal behavior. Some show signs of conscious thinking. Many do not. Wasps, for example, will continually return to the center of a pile of stones if you place a pile of stones purpose of having something to say since you don't have around their nesting site, despite the fact that the nest has been removed. Their response is entirely automatic. They are programmed by visual cues, and it does not occur to them, because they do not think, that the nest is no longer there. This is but one small example. Quit talking about biological principles that you have no knowledge of. I swear to you know who Mousy, you would argue with a mathematician that tried to tell you five plus five is ten.

You sound like a fundamentalist evangelical priest with your "I REPEAT YOU DO NOT KNOW..." hokum. Calm down sport. I never claimed to know animal behavior nor anything of that nature. I merely said that science will only uncover functions and processes in their brain and behavior. What underlies that we won't know. We won't know for example if the animal is self aware like us, possessing a different consious sense of itself. We can onyl assume it and call all its actions "instinct". I wouldn't argue with a mathemetician about the outcome of 5 + 5 because math is the only medium on the earth known to be predetermined and in fact is logically provable or testable. To claim that you and scientists alone exactly know what the animal at that moment in time is thinking is a pretty big claim I'd say.

Originally posted by loseyourname You are a damn fool comparing the big bang theory to the theory of concentric spheres. That is akin to discrediting the conviction of an arsonist by pointing out that if you looked hard enough, you could find small amounts of evidence that the place spontaneously combusted half a second before the dude lit the flame.

Ahh yet more snubs. I loved the progression of our discussion how gradually name calling took over and you quietly dropped many of the points I raised. You have a strong will, thus the purpose was to show your soul in action, its need to be felt and validated, its need to persevere. Why would we assign personality traits to people if they didn't have souls eh loser?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse God hasn't "spoken to me" nor any of those silly things Bible thumpers feel. Rather, my experiences cannot be summed up in human language.

God is a word in human language. Christianity is a word in human language. You have used human langauge to explain your experiences. You are betraying your own sense of wonder by defining these things that you claim are undefinable.

Since humanity is finite and imperfect and its perception flawed, therefore any attempt by humans to measure time is going to be flawed, yes even biologists.

Mousy, your argument gets weaker with every subsequent post. Now you're saying we can't measure time because humans are imperfect? Honestly, Mousy, that's your argument? I don't even know what to say to that. I feel like I'm explaining how a clock works to a four year-old. When your legs are cut out from under you, just sit down. There is honor in admitting you are wrong. I'm not going to go so far as to say you're wrong about your belief in God. The simple fact is, I don't know. But you are most certainly wrong when you say that time is immeasurable. Furthermore, you have completely ignored my demonstration of why time is measurable and how it is measurable. You have not addressed one single point that I have brought up.

Unconsciously, man has also associated the duration of time with the extent of space. Through his objective consciosness of a 3 dimensional world man has come to believe that time extends itself and that space extends itself.

Read Einstein's paper on General Relativity. I'm not going to explain to a grown man that space and time are extended dimensions.

You are using logic to negate faith which itself falls on its head. For all we know all religions contain the same truths of humility and morality in different allegories and symbols, that is why some people are dialectically of their spiritual persuasion, but ethically sinners. Why cannot both sets of beliefs be correct?

Both sets of beliefs cannot be right. Jesus cannot both be and not be the son of God. Simple as that. Perhaps the message was misinterpreted, and the word got a little screwed up along the way. Nonetheless, Jesus either was or was not the son of God. The two options are mutually exclusive. I am using the existence of competing faiths to negate the argument that one is correct because of your personal conviction. The fact is, people of different religions have just as much conviction that you are wrong. One of you is. Perhaps both of you are. But both of you cannot be right. You can both be good moral people, you can both go to heaven, you can both lead full lives. But you cannot both be correct.

Well, I can say the same thing. "You have constantly ignored my point of how reason and faith are different and you cannot use one to understand another" and sit here and whine, but I don't.

You can do that, but it won't be true. I have repeatedly addressed your point that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, and I have repeatedly demonstrated why you are wrong. You have repeatedly ignored my demonstrations.

But you obviously wouldn't know the difference between faith and reason, for you wouldnt have tried to present a logical argument using reason to negate faith, which is the anti thesis of reason.

Yes I am Christian and I believe to me that it is the correct faith. You have however cherry picked my other points in that other non Christians can lead moral lives, and only in the end will we know who is or is not correct.

So it's only in the end that we can know if your faith is correct, and yet you know that your faith is correct. I'm confused here. When did the end come?

I am using faith for what is outside of this realm. You are trying to use reason to say that faith is wrong. How do you know? Since faith and reason are different things, it is silly to use one to negate the other.

I don't know. All I'm trying to show is you do not know either.

Good for you. Then from morality being objective, do you admit that we strive towards a goodness, towards an ideal of things we ought to do and how we ought to live?

No. I think we should strive toward an ideal, but I don't think that many of us actually do this. I will admit, there seems to be an innate recognition of what is good is any clear-thinking human being. Arguments about morality typically come in when there are conflicting goods to be considered, such as the good of preserving the environment versus the good of boosting the economy of Brazil. This is about the strongest evidence for the existence of God that I can think of, but it isn't proof. The simple fact is, reason can submit hypotheses to explain this fact as well.

I would differ. I'd say that Providence is revealed to us in everything, from the intricacies of nature, to the experiences we have in life regarding love, honor, trust, and strive toward a goodness. Thus all is not a mystery. Well, to you maybe if you want to call that a mystery.

I'd say back it up.

Arguing belief against belief is not wrong is it? How is my belief in God wrong?

Positive belief is an unsettled matter is wrong. You have faith that God exists. Perhaps you really do have proof that you can't put into words. I don't know. Maybe something really has been revealed to you and you are absolutely certain that your assertion is true. I have, however, repeatedly shown, and I really don't think it was necessary to do so, that people can be convinced of many things that are wrong. This includes you, Mousy. To assume that what you are convinced of is correct, when so many others have been equally convinced, without any external confirmation, is just foolhardy.

I will now return to what this thread was, about God and soul. You believe that all things through the five senses constitute knowledge. However there are things that are not of the five senses that we know of. Thought, volition, and perception are not the soul, but its attributes, and we have no cognizance of the soul itself, but only of them, its manifestations.

Mousy, do you even read what I post? I never said anything of the sort. I have stated repeatedly that there are types of knowledge that do not come through the senses, most notably rational knowledge and self-knowledge. It would be nice if, during the course of a discussion, you would pay attention to what I'm saying. Not only is this common courtesy, but it's necessary if we are to have any meaningful discourse whatsoever, which I would like to think we have been doing. Thought and volition are manifestations of consciousness, which may be purely a physiological phenomenon. Even if science can't explain what it is, it can still be a physical phenomenon. Science cannot explain what an electron is. No one argues that it is immaterial because of this. Consciousness, however, may be a manifestation of an immaterial aspect to our being. Now if we can agree to put this behind us, I will post the evidence I originally intended to post that this is the case.

Take then the attributes of our soul. I am conscious that I exist and am the same identical person that I was 10 years ago. I am conscious that my body is not I, that if my arms were xchopped away, this person that I call me, would still remain, complete, entire, identical as before.

When you die, this consciousness may die as well. You may not be equated with your body, but you are equated with your mind. It is foolhardy to simply assume that your mind is separate from your brain without making any evaluation of the evidence for and against that hypothesis.

That I know, and nothing more. I think a sublime thought. What is that thought? It is not matter, nor spirit. It is nto a thing, but a power and force.

Say it all you want. The simple fact is, all known brain processes are manifested physically as the exchange of ions between nerve synapses, traceable as electric current. This included conscious thought processes. You may think of them as completely immaterial, but it doesn't mean that they are. Descartes had no knowledge of neurophysiology. For you to be quoting something written hundreds of years ago, when we had little to no knowledge of brain processes, only shows that you are so caught up in history that you are ignoring advances that have been made since that time. Every time I bring up very well-known biological and physical principles uncovered during the 20th century, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I make a mark on a certain paper, that represents that thought. There is no power or virtue in the marks I write, but only in the thought which they tell to others. I die, but the thought lives. It is a power. It acts on us, excites us to enthusiasm, inspires us, governs our conduct, controls our destinies, disposes of life and death. So the words we speak are a sertain succesion of partiocular sounds, that by a certain arrangement communicate to others immaterial, intangible, eternal thought. The fact taht thought continues to exist an isntant after it makes its appearance in the soul, proves it imortal.

Wrong. The fact that it outlives you does not show it is immortal. All thoughts will die with the death of human thinking. When all humans are gone from this planet, and all the paper biodegrades, even Shakespeare's thoughts will go with it. These thoughts, and Shakespeare himself, may live on in another form in another place (although place clearly is not the right word), but your argument is so completely invalid that I barely know how to respond.

So spoken words vanish into thin air, and written marks disappear are burned ro thrown in waterr but the thought itself lives on and lives forever. A human thought then is an actual existence and a force and power capable of acting upon and controlling matter as well as mind.

And? Are you honestly going to argue from the fact that we control our bodily actions with thoughts that man has an eternal soul? Does this honestly make sense to you? What are you on, Mousy? I will pay you $10,000 for one hit of that stuff.

So isn't the existence of a God whos the immaterial soul of the universe whos thoght, embodied or not embodied in his word, is an infinite power, of creation and production, destruction and preservation, quite as comprehensible as the existence of a soul, of a thought separated from the soul, of the power that thought to mold the fate and influence the destinies of humanity?

Nowhere in that incoherent paragraph did you even begin to approach anything that might be considered a rational thought. If I had any idea what it is you are trying to say, I would attempt to respond.