Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
By the way, your claims of "That's not science" are shallow for the simple reason that there's no need to call it a "soul". Take a car known to be comprised of inert substance. Observe the car. If your observations establish that the car is definitely self-propelling, you basically have two choices.
(1) Abandon your assumption that all matter is inert. (2) Postulate that a self-propelling substance is now within the car.
I'm not being dogmatic here. I'm perfectly content with the atheist who goes with #1, although I've been proposing #2 because ordinary matter does seem to be inert, according to most observations.
The propellant substance in the car is fuel. In the body, it is glycolysis and the Kreb's Cycle supplemented by lactic acid fermentation.
Are you still trying to say cellular life is even vaguely comparable with rocks and cars? A car is mainly inert matter, a body is made up almost entirely of living cells that are constantly powered by internal chemical reactions. That is the qualitative scientific difference.
The propellant substance in the car is fuel. In the body, it is glycolysis and the Kreb's Cycle supplemented by lactic acid fermentation.
But those substances obey ordinary physical laws. These substances and processes are not touted as exceptions to the law of inertia.
The Big Bang theory is typically understood as originating in a singularity where the physical laws of our universe as we know them are not yet established. However, shortly after the big bang, those laws are said to be firmly in place, as detailed in the physics textbooks. To suggest that a sandwich, having become brain matter, no longer obeys these physical laws (sort of a regression back toward the original singularity) is a pretty radical statement. I challenge you to demonstrate that the scientific community at large agrees with you on this point.
Furthermore, such a transition from inertia to self-propulsion is hardly less miraculous than a soul. No known physical principles could account for it.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
But those substances obey ordinary physical laws. These substances and processes are not touted as exceptions to the law of inertia.
I never said they did. What is your point?
Originally Posted by JAL
To suggest that a sandwich, having become brain matter, no longer obeys these physical laws
But it does, and food does not directly translate into brain matter. It will be broken down into carbohydrates for fuel, amino acids for proteins, nucleotides for DNA/RNA synthesis and the fats will be stored.
You are the only one who seems to believe that it violates physical laws. Our brain is powered by chemical reactions. Once again, if you took a biology class, you would understand this.
Originally Posted by JAL
(sort of a regression back toward the original singularity) is a pretty radical statement. I challenge you to demonstrate that the scientific community at large agrees with you on this point.
Furthermore, such a transition from inertia to self-propulsion is hardly less miraculous than a soul. No known physical principles could account for it.
Wrong, take General Biology. The theory of how self-organizing biological systems develop is not a mystery, despite your constant claims that this is the case.
But it does, and food does not directly translate into brain matter. It will be broken down into carbohydrates for fuel, amino acids for proteins, nucleotides for DNA/RNA synthesis and the fats will be stored.
You are the only one who seems to believe that it violates physical laws. Our brain is powered by chemical reactions. Once again, if you took a biology class, you would understand this.
Wrong, take General Biology. The theory of how self-organizing biological systems develop is not a mystery, despite your constant claims that this is the case.
These are just word games. You're dancing around the issue. You're pretending that I deny ordinary biological processes. That's just silly.
It states:
The state of a particle in space and time is characterized by its mass and spin, which therefore determine the inertial properties of the particle. The coupling of intrinsic spin with rotation is examined and the corresponding inertial effects of intrinsic spin are studied. An experiment to measure directly the spin–rotation coupling via neutron interferometry is analyzed in detail.
Notice it doesn't say, "The question of whether a particle is subject to inertial principles depends first on all whether that particle happens to be a component of a living organism. If it is, the law of inertia might not apply."
My argument stands (post #10). If all matter is inert (and it is, as just quoted), then we cannot hold people responsible for their behavior (we can't ascribe it to free will) because their bodies are simply conforming, irrevocably, to the physical laws of motion. When ordinary physical laws are at work, no one is to blame. Example. Two men are standing on a cliff. A tornado blows person B into person A, knocking person A off the cliff. Is person B to blame? Nope. That's just physics at work, principles of inertial law. When ordinary physics is at work, no one is to blame. Now imagine that person B stretches out his hand, as an act of free will, pushing person A off the cliff. Is ordinary physics at work? If so, no one is to blame. In both cases person B pushed person A off the cliff. Ordinary physics describes deterministic motions for which no one is to blame. If someone is to blame, this is an exception to ordinary physics that can only be described as a force exerted by free will.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
You're certainly entitled to play devil's advocate (to defend an athestic world view just for the sake of discussion). But if you actually hold to all these statements you make, you need to show them consistent within a theological system.
For instance let's suppose you maintain that brain matter suffices to explain, and is responsible for, human behavior. In that case, then, God should only punish your body, not your soul.
So you need to admit, as a Christian, that the soul drives the body's behavior. If you define the soul as a non-corporeal substance, it can have no impact on the body. That won't work, logically. (It's called the classic mind-body problem. Look into it). So let's define it as a tangible substance. What moves it? Fuel combustion? But even if that were true, we're back to a determinism. God can't blame me for external agents driving me. He can blame me for freely willed behavior. Here again we see that the data points to a soul defined as a tangible substance self-propelled by free will, not by fuel.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
It states:
The state of a particle in space and time is characterized by its mass and spin, which therefore determine the inertial properties of the particle. The coupling of intrinsic spin with rotation is examined and the corresponding inertial effects of intrinsic spin are studied. An experiment to measure directly the spin–rotation coupling via neutron interferometry is analyzed in detail.
Notice it doesn't say, "The question of whether a particle is subject to inertial principles depends first on all whether that particle happens to be a component of a living organism. If it is, the law of inertia might not apply."
I never said that. You are the one who seems to think inertia contradicts evolutionary theory, not me.
Originally Posted by JAL
My argument stands (post #10). If all matter is inert (and it is, as just quoted), then we cannot hold people responsible for their behavior (we can't ascribe it to free will) because their bodies are simply conforming, irrevocably, to the physical laws of motion.
That is more philosophy then science. All matter is inert, but the matter in a living body is being driven by chemical processes, and some of those processes, such as muscular contractions can be directly initiated by the central nervous system. Therefore, you can hold people responsible for their actions.
Laconicstuden,
But if you actually hold to all these statements you make, you need to show them consistent within a theological system.
I most certainly am not. If you want to mix philosophy and religion with science in violation of scientific method, that is your own business.
Originally Posted by JAL
For instance let's suppose you maintain that brain matter suffices to explain, and is responsible for, human behavior. In that case, then, God should only punish your body, not your soul.
No, I only said that science could adequately explain human mental functioning through physical structures. I didn't say I didn't believe in a soul. I do, but I don't believe it on the basis of science, obviously.
Originally Posted by JAL
So you need to admit, as a Christian, that the soul drives the body's behavior.
No. That is your own interpretation. You don't get to speak for God, and declare what Christians should believe.
Originally Posted by JAL
If you define the soul as a non-corporeal substance, it can have no impact on the body. That won't work, logically. (It's called the classic mind-body problem. Look into it). So let's define it as a tangible substance. What moves it? Fuel combustion? But even if that were true, we're back to a determinism. God can't blame me for external agents driving me. He can blame me for freely willed behavior. Here again we see that the data points to a soul defined as a tangible substance self-propelled by free will, not by fuel.
But you don't have any data. The soul is purely spiritual. Attempting to interpret our existence as spiritual entities with empirical science will fail hideously.
I most certainly am not. If you want to mix philosophy and religion with science in violation of scientific method, that is your own business.
[/b][/font]
No, I only said that science could adequately explain human mental functioning through physical structures. I didn't say I didn't believe in a soul. I do, but I don't believe it on the basis of science, obviously.
[/b][/font]
No. That is your own interpretation. You don't get to speak for God, and declare what Christians should believe.
[/b][/font]
But you don't have any data. The soul is purely spiritual. Attempting to interpret our existence as spiritual entities with empirical science will fail hideously.
Again, you're making assertions without addressing the logic of my objections. You're not responding to any of my challenges. If the soul is intangible it CANNOT tangibly impact the body. Why not? That's the definition of tangibility versus intangibility.
if the soul has no tangible impact on the brain, then the brain, which is a thoroughly tangible substance, isn't to any extent driven by the soul. In this case my behavior is the result of my brain (as you YOURSELF already suggested), and God should judge (and blame) my brain, not my soul.
But of course, you'll just do more dancing, because your assumptions cannot address this sort of objection.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
I never said that. You are the one who seems to think inertia contradicts evolutionary theory, not me.
Huh? Evolution? Where did we get on THAT topic ???
That is more philosophy then science. All matter is inert...
The words in bold are in direct contradiction to statements you made earlier. This proves that you've only been dancing around in circles.
...but the matter in a living body is being driven by chemical processes, and some of those processes, such as muscular contractions can be directly initiated by the central nervous system. Therefore, you can hold people responsible for their actions.
So what drives the CNS? More chemical processes? Or the soul? I'm not denying chemical processes. But if they are the CHIEF impetus in bodily movement, God has only Himself to blame for my behavior as He allowed me to have this body.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
Just so we are all on the same page, could you give a definition for inert?
Secondly, back in post #18, I kind of got a feeling on what you think. Not one specific thing to quote, but it seems like you think the Big Bang went something like this:
Mass is.
Mass remains motionless.
Mass suddenly expands.
While it goes more like:
?
Spacetime expands.
Mass expands.
If there was just a lump sitting there before time as we know it existed that just SUDDENLY happened to randomly explode... well, we don't know it and the Big Bang theory is not predicated on that having happened.
Third, did you consider quantum phenomena? Quantum mechanics is WEIRD. Actually violates several other laws of physics. Energy, mass, motion can pop into and out of nothing. So this 'first motion' could be a known (but not necessarily understood, at least by me) quantum fluctuation in motion that is perfectly consistent with how humanity understands things to operate.
After all, if
It’s irrational to state that inert matter moved itself.
is true, then saying that 'matter can pop into and out of existence, and so can energy' is also irrational, but it happens. True, only on the pico scale (that I know humanity knows of)... but maybe that was all it took ?
EDIT!
So what drives the CNS? More chemical processes? Or the soul? I'm not denying chemical processes. But if they are the CHIEF impetus in bodily movement, God has only Himself to blame for my behavior as He allowed me to have this body.
But then again, God would ALSO only have Himself to blame for your behavior as He provided you with your soul, no?
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
Linear Mode
