An Open Question

[Elioenai26]

The heart pumps blood. The only organ we think with is the brain.


(Though I do find it humorous that we still have idioms in the English language because the ancient Egyptians thought the heart the seat of consciousness and had no clue what the brain was. )

Do you have a heart Mr. Belk? I of course am not speaking of your organ that pumps blood, I know you have one of those, but that from which flows compassion, sympathy, love, hate and other various and well known emotions. It is akin to me asking you if you have a conscience. Do you have one? Or is it all, as you would say: "flesh and blood?"

When I speak of the heart, I speak of the central organ in the body, which is the locus for its vital action. It has come to stand for the center of its moral, spiritual, intellectual life. "In particular the heart is the place in which the process of self-consciousness is carried out, in which the soul is at home with itself, and is conscious of all its doing and suffering as its own" (Oehler).

The heart in Scripture is variously used, sometimes for the mind and understanding, sometimes for the will, sometimes for the affections, sometimes for the conscience, sometimes for the whole soul. Generally, it denotes the whole soul of man and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing of good and evil."

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Do you have a heart Mr. Belk? I of course am not speaking of your organ that pumps blood, I know you have one of those, but that from which flows compassion, sympathy, love, hate and other various and well known emotions. It is akin to me asking you if you have a conscience. Do you have one? Or is it all, as you would say: "flesh and blood?"

When I speak of the heart, I speak of the central organ in the body, which is the locus for its vital action. It has come to stand for the center of its moral, spiritual, intellectual life. "In particular the heart is the place in which the process of self-consciousness is carried out, in which the soul is at home with itself, and is conscious of all its doing and suffering as its own" (Oehler).

The heart in Scripture is variously used, sometimes for the mind and understanding, sometimes for the will, sometimes for the affections, sometimes for the conscience, sometimes for the whole soul. Generally, it denotes the whole soul of man and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing of good and evil."

The heart is a metaphor in that sense, nothing more. All emotions stem from chemical signals and neurons in the brain, not from a literal "heart". It is a nice metaphor, but still just a metaphor.

 

[Elioenai26]

The heart is a metaphor in that sense, nothing more.

Just not in any way that you can prove empirically.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Just not in any way that you can prove empirically.

And the enormity of evidence against it. I refer you back to the posts on substance dualism.

 

[Belk]

Do you have a heart Mr. Belk?

Dude, Mr. Belk is my father. No need to be formal. Just Belk will do.

I of course am not speaking of your organ that pumps blood, I know you have one of those, but that from which flows compassion, sympathy, love, hate and other various and well known emotions. It is akin to me asking you if you have a conscience. Do you have one? Or is it all, as you would say: "flesh and blood?"

Those all originate in the brain. We have seen how damage to the brain can alter emotions and personality. We have activity scans that show what regions cause what effects and we can stimulate those regions to reproduce them.

When I speak of the heart, I speak of the central organ in the body, which is the locus for its vital action. It has come to stand for the center of its moral, spiritual, intellectual life. "In particular the heart is the place in which the process of self-consciousness is carried out, in which the soul is at home with itself, and is conscious of all its doing and suffering as its own" (Oehler).

The heart in Scripture is variously used, sometimes for the mind and understanding, sometimes for the will, sometimes for the affections, sometimes for the conscience, sometimes for the whole soul. Generally, it denotes the whole soul of man and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing of good and evil."

Do you know why the bible speaks that way? It is a hold over from the beliefs of the Egyptians (Who were considered the intellectual powerhouse back then). It is an incorrect view because we had no organized means of collecting and testing knowledge.

Egypt: The Ancient Egyptian Heart

 

[Gadarene]

Dualists are so adorable sometimes.

 

[Elioenai26]

Do you know why the bible speaks that way? It is a hold over from the beliefs of the Egyptians (Who were considered the intellectual powerhouse back then). It is an incorrect view because we had no organized means of collecting and testing knowledge.

I know very well the view of the ancient Egyptians on the heart. But one must ask... Why did they view the heart in this manner?

You also do not do the Egyptians justice when you speak of them as having no means of collecting and testing knowledge. Any archaeologist who has studied these cultures will tell you the exact opposite of what you just asserted. These people's intellectual skills were highly developed especially considering the time periods in which they lived, and were matched only by their engineering prowess.

The Egyptians knew that within a person, there was more than just flesh and blood organs that facilitated bodily functions, but that there was that which could not be examined by the eye of probing men that actually made an individual unique from everyone else. This quality of individuality was the soul, and was explained in the best possible ways that their language could afford.

This view of man is still held today by all except those who are naturalistic in their explanation of life. The naturalist cannot accept the existence or reality of these things we speak of which are immaterial i.e. the heart and or soul, and yet he will not deny that he is uniquely "himself". His individuality, he maintains, as you do, is simply the result of the random dispersion of molecules, atoms, and matter in a completely undesigned process that happens by chance and just so happens to produce a thinking, feeling, moral, volitional man.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This view of man is still held today by all except those who are naturalistic in their explanation of life. The naturalist cannot accept the existence or reality of these things we speak of which are immaterial i.e. the heart and or soul, and yet he will not deny that he is uniquely "himself". His individuality, he maintains, as you do, is simply the result of the random dispersion of molecules, atoms, and matter in a completely undesigned process that happens by chance and just so happens to produce a thinking, feeling, moral, volitional man.

It's not random, it's not by chance...

For pete's sake, did you pay attention in school at all?

 

[Belk]

I know very well the view of the ancient Egyptians on the heart. But one must ask... Why did they view the heart in this manner?

You also do not do the Egyptians justice when you speak of them as having no means of collecting and testing knowledge. Any archaeologist who has studied these cultures will tell you the exact opposite of what you just asserted. These people's intellectual skills were highly developed especially considering the time periods in which they lived, and were matched only by their engineering prowess.

I did not say they no means of collecting and testing knowledge, I said they had no organized means. And yes, they did manage amazing feats with the knowledge they had. They did not, however, understand a lot of the functioning of the human body.

The Egyptians knew that within a person, there was more than just flesh and blood organs that facilitated bodily functions, but that there was that which could not be examined by the eye of probing men that actually made an individual unique from everyone else. This quality of individuality was the soul, and was explained in the best possible ways that their language could afford.

They also knew that the heart was linked to channels that delivered blood, air, tears, saliva, mucus, sperm, nutriment and even bodily waste to different parts of the body. Their knowledge was to say the least incomplete. You make claims of a soul. So what does this soul do? How does it interact with us without any sort of receptors or energy expenditures? Why can we not detect anything about it?

This view of man is still held today by all except those who are naturalistic in their explanation of life. The naturalist cannot accept the existence or reality of these things we speak of which are immaterial i.e. the heart and or soul, and yet he will not deny that he is uniquely "himself". His individuality, he maintains, as you do, is simply the result of the random dispersion of molecules, atoms, and matter in a completely undesigned process that happens by chance and just so happens to produce a thinking, feeling, moral, volitional man.

If you want to know what I think on a subject simply ask me. I'll be happy to tell you. If you are simply going to assign me your straw men arguments you might just as well head off and do something useful in the meantime since you really don't need me to be here.

So why do you believe there is a soul? What would you say convinced you that such a thing exists?

 

[Elioenai26]

I did not say they no means of collecting and testing knowledge, I said they had no organized means. And yes, they did manage amazing feats with the knowledge they had. They did not, however, understand a lot of the functioning of the human body.



They also knew that the heart was linked to channels that delivered blood, air, tears, saliva, mucus, sperm, nutriment and even bodily waste to different parts of the body. Their knowledge was to say the least incomplete. You make claims of a soul. So what does this soul do? How does it interact with us without any sort of receptors or energy expenditures? Why can we not detect anything about it?





If you want to know what I think on a subject simply ask me. I'll be happy to tell you. If you are simply going to assign me your straw men arguments you might just as well head off and do something useful in the meantime since you really don't need me to be here.

So why do you believe there is a soul? What would you say convinced you that such a thing exists?

I do not need to ask you what you think about this subject. You have made it very clear in your presvious posts. Now if you are going to be concerned about how your words are interpreted, then I would recommend you choose them more carefully from now on.

If you want to know what I think about the soul, do a little research on the internet and make sure it is from the Christian perspective.

As it stands, the existence of the soul within a human is something that has been held by humans for thousands of years. If you are wanting to assert a position contrary to this commonly held belief, the burden of proof is upon you to do so.

 

[Belk]

I do not need to ask you what you think about this subject. You have made it very clear in your presvious posts. Now if you are going to be concerned about how your words are interpreted, then I would recommend you choose them more carefully from now on.

An honest man, when he finds he is mistaken on a position, does one of two things.

Ceases to hold that position.
Ceases to be honest.

If you want to know what I think about the soul, do a little research on the internet and make sure it is from the Christian perspective.

Or you could tell me since I asked about your specific position and there is a wide variety of different thoughts on the subject from a number of different Christians

As it stands, the existence of the soul within a human is something that has been held by humans for thousands of years. If you are wanting to assert a position contrary to this commonly held belief, the burden of proof is upon you to do so.

There have been many positions held by humans for thousands of years. A lot of those have been incorrect. Demons do not cause disease or psychosis. Magic is not real and can not be used to affect the world around us. In all of our searching we have found absolutely no hard evidence that souls exist. There is no interaction between humans and some immaterial force that we can find. There is no energy expenditure. There is no receptors that fire for reasons we can not explain. So what other reason then "People have believed this for a long time" is there for thinking there is a soul?

 

[Gadarene]

No evidence for non material minds nor souls. That which we do know about emotion and brain activity is measurable. Opponents however constantly resort to mere dualism-of-the-gaps.

Like I said, dualists are so adorable.

 

[Gadarene]

As it stands, the existence of the soul within a human is something that has been held by humans for thousands of years. If you are wanting to assert a position contrary to this commonly held belief, the burden of proof is upon you to do so.

Incorrect. You first claimed there was a soul in this debate, your burden of proof.

No need for more evasion from you.

 

[Elioenai26]

Incorrect. You first claimed there was a soul in this debate, your burden of proof.

No need for more evasion from you.

That is exactly what I claimed. So... where is the evasion.

Do you have a conscience Gadarene?

 

[Gadarene]

That is exactly what I claimed. So... where is the evasion.

Your attempt to dodge your burden of proof.

Do you have a conscience Gadarene?

Define conscience.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

As it stands, the existence of the soul within a human is something that has been held by humans for thousands of years. If you are wanting to assert a position contrary to this commonly held belief, the burden of proof is upon you to do so.

I think you need a refresher course on what the burden of proof means.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, in the opinion of some, including three theoretical physicists, and two cosmologists I can think of, the odds against a universe with the properties this one has is "good enough" evidence for God.

References to peer reviewed publications with this conclusion, please.

They only had to happen once, and so far as we know, it did only happen once. So with odds of about 10 to the power of thirty against

References to peer reviewed publications showing a derivation of this number, please.

I only need one God, and, what is more, he isn't a hypothesis specially cooked up for the job.

Replacing long odds with something that can't exist due to internal contradictions isn't exactly an upgrade.

 

[KCfromNC]

Theoretical physicists can quite easily design "toy" universes on the back of envelopes, and then see what the modified constants imply. That is where the figure comes from.

But how do they know the constants could be anything other than what we observe? Sure, I can pretend the speed of light is 55 miles per hour and do a bunch of math, but no matter much I write down on the back on an envelope, it doesn't change reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

Got a link to where he claims this?

Likely a misunderstanding of a discussion between Dawkins and other atheists (PZ Meyers maybe?). Dawkins took the side that it's at least in theory possible that maybe we could in theory find evidence for god. It's mainly just a contrast to the noncognitivist view of the people he was talking with - that is, that god is so poorly defined that evidence isn't even possible for it in theory.

 

[KCfromNC]

Just not in any way that you can prove empirically.

Sure you can, look how much "heart" brain dead patients with a working circulatory system show.