There is no way for science to establish the soul - working parts still take a leap of faith

Gottservant · Aug 6, 2019

Hi there,

So to some of you, this will seem as obvious as Daylight, to others it may start to look brighter but only inasmuch as is an offence to you:

Gottservant said:
There is no way for science to establish the soul.

In other words, science will see evidence of the soul but not know why; then science will attempt to discover the machinery around the soul and will assume that evidence of the process is the explanation for both (in principle). This is still a leap of faith. No matter how coherently something works when it has a soul, that soul is indivisible in the same context that that working has function.

Even if "lifeforce" has been discovered, that does not explain the soul.

Even if "quantum entanglement" has been discovered, the soul is stronger than that which is discovered by it.

This is the limit of Man, in discovering himself, that there always be hope in God, that the soul be delivered. It explains why Man finds himself obsessed with words that describe his mastery over that which he would one day like to rule, his own soul.

Subduction Zone · Aug 7, 2019

Gottservant said:
Hi there,

So to some of you, this will seem as obvious as Daylight, to others it may start to look brighter but only inasmuch as is an offence to you:

In other words, science will see evidence of the soul but not know why; then science will attempt to discover the machinery around the soul and will assume that evidence of the process is the explanation for both (in principle). This is still a leap of faith. No matter how coherently something works when it has a soul, that soul is indivisible in the same context that that working has function.

Even if "lifeforce" has been discovered, that does not explain the soul.

Even if "quantum entanglement" has been discovered, the soul is stronger than that which is discovered by it.

This is the limit of Man, in discovering himself, that there always be hope in God, that the soul be delivered. It explains why Man finds himself obsessed with words that describe his mastery over that which he would one day like to rule, his own soul.

What evidence is there of a "soul"?

Belk · Aug 7, 2019

Gottservant said:
Hi there,

So to some of you, this will seem as obvious as Daylight, to others it may start to look brighter but only inasmuch as is an offence to you:

In other words, science will see evidence of the soul but not know why; then science will attempt to discover the machinery around the soul and will assume that evidence of the process is the explanation for both (in principle). This is still a leap of faith. No matter how coherently something works when it has a soul, that soul is indivisible in the same context that that working has function.

Even if "lifeforce" has been discovered, that does not explain the soul.

Even if "quantum entanglement" has been discovered, the soul is stronger than that which is discovered by it.

This is the limit of Man, in discovering himself, that there always be hope in God, that the soul be delivered. It explains why Man finds himself obsessed with words that describe his mastery over that which he would one day like to rule, his own soul.

I agree with your statement but not your explanation. I am unaware of any evidence for a soul.

Theophilus2019 · Aug 7, 2019

There is no “Leap of Faith” in Christianity, about the soul or anything else. The Bible presents reliable evidence, good authority and clear argument that should lead us confidently to belief.

Carl Emerson · Aug 7, 2019

I thought there was a measurable weight loss at death?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 7, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
I thought there was a measurable weight loss at death?

Sloppy science - Snopes covers it quite well.

There are numerous other problems with the idea of an immaterial soul having measurable mass...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 7, 2019

Gottservant said:
Even if "lifeforce" has been discovered, that does not explain the soul.

Do you think "lifeforce" has been discovered? If so, citation required.

SkyWriting · Aug 7, 2019

Gottservant said:
Hi there,

So to some of you, this will seem as obvious as Daylight, to others it may start to look brighter but only inasmuch as is an offence to you:

In other words, science will see evidence of the soul but not know why; then science will attempt to discover the machinery around the soul and will assume that evidence of the process is the explanation for both (in principle). This is still a leap of faith. No matter how coherently something works when it has a soul, that soul is indivisible in the same context that that working has function.

Even if "lifeforce" has been discovered, that does not explain the soul.

Even if "quantum entanglement" has been discovered, the soul is stronger than that which is discovered by it.

This is the limit of Man, in discovering himself, that there always be hope in God, that the soul be delivered. It explains why Man finds himself obsessed with words that describe his mastery over that which he would one day like to rule, his own soul.

"Quantum entanglement" means that entangled particles are instantly aware of each other over any distance. That's a fairly powerful concept. This might well be how man is different and in the image of God compared to animals.

SkyWriting · Aug 7, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
I thought there was a measurable weight loss at death?

Accurate monitoring is a low priority at death.

Carl Emerson · Aug 7, 2019

Yes very poor science it seems - as you were... !!!

Larniavc · Aug 7, 2019

SkyWriting said:
"Quantum entanglement" means that entangled particles are instantly aware of each other over any distance. That's a fairly powerful concept. This might well be how man is different and in the image of God compared to animals.

It does not mean that.

There is no awareness implied within quantum entanglement.

dickyh995 · Aug 7, 2019

Gottservant said:
Hi there,

So to some of you, this will seem as obvious as Daylight, to others it may start to look brighter but only inasmuch as is an offence to you:

In other words, science will see evidence of the soul but not know why; then science will attempt to discover the machinery around the soul and will assume that evidence of the process is the explanation for both (in principle). This is still a leap of faith. No matter how coherently something works when it has a soul, that soul is indivisible in the same context that that working has function.

Even if "lifeforce" has been discovered, that does not explain the soul.

Even if "quantum entanglement" has been discovered, the soul is stronger than that which is discovered by it.

This is the limit of Man, in discovering himself, that there always be hope in God, that the soul be delivered. It explains why Man finds himself obsessed with words that describe his mastery over that which he would one day like to rule, his own soul.

But there is no evidence to date of a soul, or do you have something to present?
Surely the right approach is to follow where the evidence leads and not believe something until there is sufficient evidence to justify that belief. Otherwise we have to accept all claims equally right? I can say that I am powered by fairy dust but you wouldn't believe that claim (I assume) without sufficient evidence.

caerlerion · Aug 7, 2019

Theophilus2019 said:
There is no “Leap of Faith” in Christianity, about the soul or anything else. The Bible presents reliable evidence, good authority and clear argument that should lead us confidently to belief.

The Bible isn't evidence that souls exist.

It's a claim that souls exist.

A claim is not evidence.

And since the soul — traditionally defined — can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, weighed, or located... There can't be evidence, since "evidence" must be something you can observe.

Ophiolite · Aug 7, 2019

SkyWriting said:
"Quantum entanglement" means that entangled particles are instantly aware of each other over any distance. That's a fairly powerful concept. This might well be how man is different and in the image of God compared to animals.

The particles are not aware of each other. Perhaps you need to rephrase that.
Are you suggesting that humans have entangled particles and animals don't? If so, what is your evidence? If not, what did you mean?

SkyWriting · Aug 7, 2019

Ophiolite said:
The particles are not aware of each other. Perhaps you need to rephrase that.
Are you suggesting that humans have entangled particles and animals don't? If so, what is your evidence? If not, what did you mean?

Am am suggesting exactly that. But I won't argue what little we understand about entangled particles. I have read that differing parts of the brain communicate faster than nerves could carry impulses to inform them.

Ophiolite · Aug 8, 2019

SkyWriting said:
Am am suggesting exactly that. But I won't argue what little we understand about entangled particles.

So, your argument runs thus:

We know, from Scripture, that men are distinct from the animals
Perhaps, the distinction is the presence of entangled particles in humans..
This would account for men being distinct from animals.

If that is your reasoning it is circular reasoning and consequently meaningless. If that is not your reasoning, then what is?

SkyWriting said:
I have read that differing parts of the brain communicate faster than nerves could carry impulses to inform them.

Where have you read this?

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 8, 2019

SkyWriting said:
Am am suggesting exactly that.

Experiments with entanglement have used photons that were not incorporated into a human being showing that entanglement does not require a human. Your assertion, therefore would mean humans have special photons/particles that don't exist in any other context that do a special kind of entanglement separate from what we've observed. That's a lot of implicit claims requiring a lot of explicit evidence.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 8, 2019

SkyWriting said:
Am am suggesting exactly that. But I won't argue what little we understand about entangled particles. I have read that differing parts of the brain communicate faster than nerves could carry impulses to inform them.

Citation?

Quantum entanglement can't be used to communicate classical information; it simply establishes a correlation between particles (see No Communication Theorem). The two particles must have a common source, and once one particle is measured, the corresponding property value of the other particle is known, and the entanglement is destroyed. So it's a one-shot peculiarity per particle pair.

There is no way for science to establish the soul - working parts still take a leap of faith

God loves your words, may men love them also

Regular Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Leading a blameless life

Newbie

Active Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

The Librarian

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Similar threads