This thread was pretty much dead until your post. I predict it peters out pretty soon.
I’ll accept that people have spirits as soon as you show me good evidence. So far, you’ve made a poor attempt at even defining what you’re talking about. Was that bolded part of the definition you quoted the one you’re referring to? Which part of that? The immaterial part? Or the sentient part? If my “spirit” is my sentient part, I already believe in it - it’s my brain.
How do you define immaterial? If a running program is immaterial, then our intelligence is also. If however you mean a sentience not tied to a physical body, please demonstrate such a thing exists.
First of all, you people keep telling us that no one can understand god. Second, I can imagine people believing in god but not spirit or spirit and not god.
Third, everything existing had to come from somewhere, but you have no basis for assuming an active creation. Not everything that happens is caused, and certainly not caused by intelligence.
CurtC,
You would need to read my responses in similar threads to get a better idea of what I am talking about. I am lazy, which is why I made my comment relatively brief. Regarding your comment," I’ll accept that people have spirits as soon as you show me good evidence."
There is no evidence to show you. If you are looking at something you can observe and measure you will be dissapointed. There could be a case made for finding evidence of God in the physical world but I am not that articulate and I have refered people to other sources.
Shows like “Ghosthunters” has become qute popular because it satisfies peoples fascination about the possibility of life beyond. They are always seeking evidence of “spirit” but even when they have something they still qustion it because they have to remain “scientific.” However, shows like this unfortunately fall short and are just a means of entertainment.
But surely this “spirit” manifests somehow into our observable world? If not, then in what sense can it be said to exist?
In the immaterial, unmeasurable sense, of course. :rolleyes:
Did you mean to imply that what we cannot measure is not real? Pick a particle and tell me its vector.
Not even remotely the same thing. We can detect particles, their vectors, and their effects, even if imperfectly; we have neither evidence for “spirit”, or evidence that any such things exist, or even that they are possible.
Oy, the “we” again. Well, we disagree — on a number of levels. For one thing, it is not the case that we can detect the vector of a particle “imperfectly”; it’s that we cannot detect it at all. Unless by “detect” you mean “make a wild ass guess”. For another, we do indeed detect evidence of spiritual experience in tests on the brain’s limbic system. Now, at this point, we believe it is time for y’all to put up or shut up. We offer as authorities for what we have said Werner Heisenberg and VS Ramachandran. Whom do y’all cite, besides yourselves, as authorities for what y’all have said? Or do we continue to read y’all’s posts as just more random, angry, useless bluster?
That’s “We” as in “humanity”. I think it’s a same assumption we both qualify.
Hello ? It’s done all the time. Heisenbergian uncertainty limits how precise you can be; it doesn’t mean you can’t do it at all.
No, we don’t, not if you mean evidence of a spirit doing anything.
I cite all of science, including the two you have mentioned, none of which has any evidence for any spirit. Your misunderstanding or distortion of other people’s work isn’t a viable cite.
Pick a spirit and tell me at least one piece of information, direction, mass, anything.
Inasmuch as I disagree with you, one of us must be non-human.
It completely limits your precision, specifically to zero. You make a weak argument for science if you claim, as you seem to, that it doesn’t matter if a measurement is accurate.
Yes, we do. You’re just uninformed.
So, you got nothin’.
I think we can say it’s noncorporeal. That’s information. And it shows that questions about its direction or mass are simply nonsense. Lot’s of things don’t have direction or mass. What’s the mass of natural selection? What’s the direction of the Big Bang? One can’t refute something just by asking dumb questions about it.
:rolleyes:
That’s one of the wronger things said on the boards. The vectors of particles can and are measured all the time, with great precision. Just not with PERFECT precision.
Yeah, sure. After thousands of years, evidence is finally found for a “spirit”, and it doesn’t even make the news.
No, I have everything. As I said, all of science. There’s zero evidence for spirits, and no known way for such a thing to even be possible using known laws.
The person who has nothing is you. No evidence, no rational reason to believe that the “spirits” and “God” you want so much to believe in even CAN exist, much less do. And as the person who is claiming that something exists, it’s YOUR obligation to provide evidence, not mine to prove a negative.
Your oxymoron doesn’t really merit any comment. But the ignorant and, as always, uncited claim in your post needs correction. All you can detect is the potential of a particle’s vector, in terms of its probability. And you can detect that potential with, as you would call it, “perfect precision” as a range of solutions outside of which the vector is impossible. You just seem to have everything all mixed up.
Okay, sorry. I didn’t realize that your sole source of scientific epistemology was the BBC. Here’s something you apparently missed. “Prof Ramachandran denies that finding out how the brain reacts to religion negates the value of belief. He feels that brain circuitry like that Persinger and Newberg have identified, could amount to an antenna to make us receptive to god.”
Worthless and uncited babble.
First, let’s dispense with your ignorance concerning proving a negative. Read this paper by a philosophy professor. “It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. … This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong.”
But I think it is equally important to point out the complete intellectual bankruptcy and recklessness of your post in general, and its governing modus operandus. There is no more dishonest debate tactic conceivable than summarily disregarding an opponent’s evidence — especially when the disregard flows from a position of profound ignorance.
And where do you think this professor stands on the existence of a human spirit or soul?
Perfect. I actually anticipated this exact response as I drove to work this morning, (well kind of exact), although I figured you would use something like the number 4. You have no idea the amount of entertainment you have provided me.
Here’s the other beautiful part of your post:
You asked a question about a particles vector, which I assume you don’t think is a dumb question.
I asked a very similar question about the spirit, yet my question is “dumb”.
This is the best you can do, to call my question “dumb”?
Anyway, back to your points:
You state “I think it’s noncorporeal”
So we’re supposed to take Liberal’s word for it? That’s information?
What if I said “I think it’s non-existent”
Does that carry the same weight as your statement?
Regarding lacking direction and mass:
It’s true that natural selection lacks direction and mass, guess why? Hint: it is not something material/physical. It is an abstract idea cooked up by humans to explain what we see happening in the world.
Tip: You would have been better off countering with something like a force, like gravity, which, as far as I know, doesn’t have direction or mass but we would probably all agree it exists.
No idea. But I’m pretty sure where this guy stands.
The point of using a particle vector as an example was to counter the claim that for a thing to be real, one had to be able to measure it. You seem to have stepped into our discussion outside of that context because you proceeded to ask about the direction and mass of spirit, neither of which makes any sense, and then a tacked-on “or any information”, which was what I chose to provide you.
Spirit is noncorporeal by definition, as I understand it. If you are defining spirit as a biological lifeform of some kind, I need you to be more specific.
And yet, natural selection worked for quite some time without humans to cook it up. At this point, I don’t know whether you’re conflating our discovery of natural selection with the process itself. In any case, a thing need not be metaphysical to have no mass. (And you know that, I think.)
Whatever floats your boat.
So you’re happy to think that spirits exist when nothing in the universe suggests that it’s so?
Doesn’t the concept of a spirit sound like something a primitive man would think of? Like the idea that there is water behind the dome of the sky or that humans were crafted from clay? Primitive people believe things that seem logical to them given what they know.
A person can die without his body looking any different, so it’s logical to think that a spirit, the thing that animated him left. We know that when people die, it’s because a system in their body has broken down. Something breaks and a cascade of failures happen until the body as a whole stops working. From the point of view of our knowledge, nothing has to leave. So why assume that something does?
Just because an idea (the spirit or the existence of god) has a long pedigree doesn’t mean it’s worth anything. Spirits are a comforting idea, but living in ignorance and denial of reality because it’s comforting isn’t IMHO a good way to face the world.
Our “discovery” of natural selection is merely an assignment of an idea and words by humans to patterns of events that occur in the universe, much like our process of naming rivers.
It’s an idea, nothing more. If your position is that the spirit is an idea then we are in agreement.