[QUOTE=lekatt]
I have a very good understanding of science, and that’s why I am not bedazzeled by it.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, judging by your mischaracterization of the term ‘theory’ in regards to science, no, you don’t have a very good understanding of science. In fact, you have demonstrated that you can’t even get the basic terms correct.
I agree with Voyager - you shouldn’t criticize something you don’t understand.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Sorry, that assertion is contradicted by you saying that a theory is just a guess. It’s not like the definition of a theory hasn’t been covered many, many times already.
[/QUOTE]
Theory is not fact, nor truth, nor even real evidence. Therefore it is opinion, and guesses.
A scientist speaking on public radio several year ago said science is really great at understanding material things like rocks, but when it comes to non-material things like thought science is not good.
He is correct, science is great with material studies, but, in the 1960’s, when science decided to apply their methods to things like mind, emotions, spirit, and the beginnings of man and the universe, science failed. So instead of saying we don’t know, they said these things are material also or they don’t exist. This has caused science to lose their credibility with the general public, when they told the public that spiritual things are nonsense. Now if science continues on its present path it will lose all credibility with the general public.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Theory is not fact, nor truth, nor even real evidence. Therefore it is opinion, and guesses.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, you don’t know science.
Scientists currently researching the brain would disagree with this. Thought is not immaterial, it takes place within the physical pathways of the brain.
What? Science will lose all credibility? And you typed this on a computer did you?
Please. Your argument is laughable and transparent. You of course know that spirituality exists, you cant prove it or anything but you really do know it, so of course all the scientists that have ever investigated anything labelled spiritual or whatever have to be wrong. That has to be it, they can’t be right, because you know you’re right.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
…non-material things like thought…
[/QUOTE]
Thoughts are as non-material as houses.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
You can read anything into and out of the Bible you want. It has been interpretated by billions of people and produce thousands of variations of Christianity. Can’t believe in devil and demons, nor something like eternal pain and suffering. Been there and seen it. Focus on Jesus’ teachings of love one another. That is all that is necessary.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if Jesus taught a Hell of eternal suffering. It’s not an unreasonable interpretation of His words. He certainly taught some degree of Hellish suffering. Also, He sure acted like the Devil & demons were real- maybe He just adopted the metaphors of His time & was actually confronting temptation & casting out mental afflictions, but He could have made it clearer.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Yup, you don’t know science.
Scientists currently researching the brain would disagree with this. Thought is not immaterial, it takes place within the physical pathways of the brain.
What? Science will lose all credibility? And you typed this on a computer did you?
Please. Your argument is laughable and transparent. You of course know that spirituality exists, you cant prove it or anything but you really do know it, so of course all the scientists that have ever investigated anything labelled spiritual or whatever have to be wrong. That has to be it, they can’t be right, because you know you’re right.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do know that the spirit world exists, so do millions of other people through experience. Yes, there is proof the consciousness and the brain are separate entities. Yes, it can be proved that consciousness lives on after the death of the brain.
Can you show me thought or just the result of thought. It is thought that moves everything in our bodies. If the brain created us, then the brain would have to be greater than us. Yet, when the brain is damaged we can teach our brain new paths of control and bypass the damaged part of the brain. This in itself proves we are not our brain. If you believe you were created by your brain, why are not identical twins born with the same personality. They are not, you know.
Do we even need a brain? alternativescience.com
Show me some proof, I can cover you up with studies, science experiments, and real Doctors testimony to prove you are wrong.
[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Thoughts are as non-material as houses.
[/QUOTE]
Show me a material thought, please.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I don’t know if Jesus taught a Hell of eternal suffering. It’s not an unreasonable interpretation of His words. He certainly taught some degree of Hellish suffering. Also, He sure acted like the Devil & demons were real- maybe He just adopted the metaphors of His time & was actually confronting temptation & casting out mental afflictions, but He could have made it clearer.
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure He didn’t, but over the years people have used their imagination on His words.
Following the path of love as He taught and fear nothing.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Show me a material thought, please.
[/QUOTE]
Easy. Just crack open a person’s skull (but you’ll need to keep the owner alive and conscious as you do it.) Now, show me a material house that’s not just an arrangement of lumber, bricks, or such.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, I do know that the spirit world exists, so do millions of other people through experience.
[/QUOTE]
Here we go again. Argumentum ad Numerum It doesn’t matter how many people think X, it won’t make X true.
Do you have any actual evidence for this, or are you just going to trot out your usual collection of stories and books? A couple of interpreted anecdotes != evidence.
What’s the difference?
Tell that to your autonomic nervous system.
How would the brain create us? Where did this come from?
Always? Every single time, with no difficulty? Cuz I’m pretty sure that quite a lot of permanent brain damage is just that: permanent. If you want to declare that we are not our brain then you’re going to have to show more than just occasional healing reactions.
Yeah, you’ve said this before, and then completely and utterly failed. One or two stories, doctors or not, does comprise proof, and is only vaguely evidence. In fact, it may not be evidence of what you’re trying to claim at all. ‘Hey look we found something odd’. In the scientific world this normally indicates that more study is needed, not that you can start claiming supernatural stuff is true.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Here we go again. Argumentum ad Numerum It doesn’t matter how many people think X, it won’t make X true.
…
[/QUOTE]
I prefer calling it the “Fifty Million Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong” Fallacy 
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Theory is not fact, nor truth, nor even real evidence. Therefore it is opinion, and guesses.
[/quote]
No one who understands science claims that a theory is truth, and it is totally different from evidence. But it is a lot more than a guess, since a hypothesis (which is closer to a guess) becomes a theory only after there is an attempt to falsify it, and only after significant supporting evidence has been gathered. You might call it an opinion, but certainly an informed one.
Right, science is not great at dealing with non-material things like energy, force, acceleration gravity, etc. :rolleyes: There has been some good work on thought also. You’re going to have to do better than a fuzzy recollection of some scientist at some time. I rather suspect you totally misunderstood his or her point.
I don’t know what spirit means. But saying that science has failed in understanding the beginning of the universe and the beginning of man is just absurd. The final answers are not in, but we’ve made a lot of progress. Really. a cosmology book is not poison.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Show me a material thought, please.
[/QUOTE]
Only after you show me a material process running on a computer. By your lights, the browser you use to enter a reply either doesn’t exist or is some sort of spiritual entity.
I think this whole argument is simply the atheist way of patting themselves on the back. To say “Hey we are pre-wired, but I have risen above that, and now believe only what I can test! I’m so much smarter than the other 5 billion people on this planet!”.
Not sure what I get tired of more on this board, religious nutters trying to use science to prove God, or atheist nutters trying to use science to disprove God.
[QUOTE=Dob]
I think this whole argument is simply the atheist way of patting themselves on the back. To say “Hey we are pre-wired, but I have risen above that, and now believe only what I can test! I’m so much smarter than the other 5 billion people on this planet!”.
Not sure what I get tired of more on this board, religious nutters trying to use science to prove God, or atheist nutters trying to use science to disprove God.
[/QUOTE]
No one is trying to prove the existence of God, there is research showing consciousness continues after the death of the brain and body. Good solid research by more than one research team.
[QUOTE=Dob]
Not sure what I get tired of more on this board, religious nutters trying to use science to prove God, or atheist nutters trying to use science to disprove God.
[/QUOTE]
(my bolding) Care to cite us up a point where this has been done? Unless it’s Der Trihs, i’m pretty much not seeing what you want to.
The most I as an atheist have ever said as to science and gods is that science suggests gods may not be necessary. I would never say that science makes god impossible.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
No one is trying to prove the existence of God, there is research showing consciousness continues after the death of the brain and body.
[/QUOTE]
How long for?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Only after you show me a material process running on a computer. By your lights, the browser you use to enter a reply either doesn’t exist or is some sort of spiritual entity.
[/QUOTE]
There are called software programs, I have written one or two in my time, they are easy to see and understand how and why they make a computer work.
There is a theory about the brain called “Strong I” which suggests something like a program that runs in the brain and produces “us.” No one has ever found it yet.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
No one who understands science claims that a theory is truth, and it is totally different from evidence. But it is a lot more than a guess, since a hypothesis (which is closer to a guess) becomes a theory only after there is an attempt to falsify it, and only after significant supporting evidence has been gathered. You might call it an opinion, but certainly an informed one.
Right, science is not great at dealing with non-material things like energy, force, acceleration gravity, etc. :rolleyes: There has been some good work on thought also. You’re going to have to do better than a fuzzy recollection of some scientist at some time. I rather suspect you totally misunderstood his or her point.
I don’t know what spirit means. But saying that science has failed in understanding the beginning of the universe and the beginning of man is just absurd. The final answers are not in, but we’ve made a lot of progress. Really. a cosmology book is not poison.
[/QUOTE]
I think you answered your own question, but who can determine the lot of progress. I have read more than one cosmology book. Carl Sagan wrote a good one.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Here we go again. Argumentum ad Numerum It doesn’t matter how many people think X, it won’t make X true.
Do you have any actual evidence for this, or are you just going to trot out your usual collection of stories and books? A couple of interpreted anecdotes != evidence.
What’s the difference?
Tell that to your autonomic nervous system.
How would the brain create us? Where did this come from?
Always? Every single time, with no difficulty? Cuz I’m pretty sure that quite a lot of permanent brain damage is just that: permanent. If you want to declare that we are not our brain then you’re going to have to show more than just occasional healing reactions.
Yeah, you’ve said this before, and then completely and utterly failed. One or two stories, doctors or not, does comprise proof, and is only vaguely evidence. In fact, it may not be evidence of what you’re trying to claim at all. ‘Hey look we found something odd’. In the scientific world this normally indicates that more study is needed, not that you can start claiming supernatural stuff is true.
[/QUOTE]
You think or desire which is a thought to move your arm. The thought is different from your arm moving.
The injured with brain damage coming back from Iraq are being helped to retrain almost all body functions. They are helped to talk, walk, use their arms, and retain memory. This is done by thought, and physical therapy. Thoughts are very important. I do provide links to what I talk about, far more links than my opponents do, try this one.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
(my bolding) Care to cite us up a point where this has been done? Unless it’s Der Trihs, i’m pretty much not seeing what you want to.
The most I as an atheist have ever said as to science and gods is that science suggests gods may not be necessary. I would never say that science makes god impossible. How long for?
[/QUOTE]
Forever.