A few questions for atheists...

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The part that is really us. If you cut off a fingernail. or another part of the temporary phyiscal body we dwell in, it does not affect the real spirit in us. We still love, for example.

So what role does this 'real spirit' play? Clearly it doesn't provide any useful information in infancy - neonates have to learn how to interpret the world, how to think, how to walk, etc. And in old age, when dementia sets in and individuals can no longer function properly, losing memory, personality, identity, etc., what is 'real spirit' doing?

After death, what distinguishes 'real spirit' from nothing at all?

 

[dad]

So what role does this 'real spirit' play? Clearly it doesn't provide any useful information in infancy - neonates have to learn how to interpret the world, how to think, how to walk, etc.

We are born with personalities, and the bible says God knows us and forms us. Our spirit is not what does it all, God does.

And in old age, when dementia sets in and individuals can no longer function properly, losing memory, personality, identity, etc., what is 'real spirit' doing?

Waiting to go home maybe. We will have great minds and bodies there.

After death, what distinguishes 'real spirit' from nothing at all?

Same thing as here. People will recognize us there you know. This life is kidergarden.

 

[Kylie]

Clearly it is a strong implication for you. It is not even a weak implication for legions of fellow evolutionists. As TM noted in post #193 it is only an issue when confronting hard core creationists. I have no intention of compromising my vocabulary to accommodate the prejudices of extremists. (For further views on the matter consult my signature.)

Normally I would agree with you, and if I was having a discussion about this with someone who was not liable to interpret it as implying a designer.

But here, in a forum intended for discussion and debate with creationists, I find it a very poor word to use.

 

[Kylie]

Yes it will. In a new body!

Citation needed.

(BTW, great to see you back!)

 

[Ophiolite]

But here, in a forum intended for discussion and debate with creationists, I find it a very poor word to use.

I find it an excellent word to use, since it provides an opportunity to directly confront the misinterpretation that creationists, through ignorance, accident, or intent place upon the word.

 

[Kylie]

I find it an excellent word to use, since it provides an opportunity to directly confront the misinterpretation that creationists, through ignorance, accident, or intent place upon the word.

That, of course, relies on having creationists who are actually willing to honestly discuss the issue. In my experience, many creationists tend to just say, "Look, they admit it was designed! Therefore they know that it must have a designer! We win!" And refuse to continue the discussion.

 

[dad]

Citation needed.

(BTW, great to see you back!)

Thanks. Just for today maybe.


50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on a mountain, they were still alive and well.

 

[Kylie]

Thanks. Just for today maybe.


50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on a mountain, they were still alive and well.

Quoting from some old text is not a citation. It's just an old story.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes it will. In a new body!

Care to test that statement?

 

[Ophiolite]

That, of course, relies on having creationists who are actually willing to honestly discuss the issue. In my experience, many creationists tend to just say, "Look, they admit it was designed! Therefore they know that it must have a designer! We win!" And refuse to continue the discussion.

When I discuss with creationists such matters with creationists I believe I have two audiences.

The creationist I am addressing is unlikely to be swayed by my arguments, perhaps because they are not listening, perhaps because I present my case badly. I don't really hold out much hope of changing their minds. I think in a decade of making the case for evolution on a variety of science forums I have persuaded only two creationists to properly reconsider and then to abandon their position.

What I do hope to do is to provide enough sound reasoning and reference to evidence to persuade the undecided lurkers that evolutionary theory provides a viable explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, while hard line creationism fails in this regard. I have no way of knowing if many, or any such lurkers have been so persuaded.

And, I realise, I have third audience: myself. Over the years to address the arguments of creationists I have had to dig into my memory, my textbooks, research papers and do some serious study. All of this has enhanced my own understanding and appreciation of evolutionary theory. For that alone the effort has been worth it. Contrary to what some creationists accuse evolutionists of, I make no assumptions. I find the best way of understanding an a creationist argument is to make it myself. The best way of appreciating the counter argument is to try to tear it down. The best self education, begins with self questioning.

 

[Kylie]

When I discuss with creationists such matters with creationists I believe I have two audiences.

The creationist I am addressing is unlikely to be swayed by my arguments, perhaps because they are not listening, perhaps because I present my case badly. I don't really hold out much hope of changing their minds. I think in a decade of making the case for evolution on a variety of science forums I have persuaded only two creationists to properly reconsider and then to abandon their position.

What I do hope to do is to provide enough sound reasoning and reference to evidence to persuade the undecided lurkers that evolutionary theory provides a viable explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, while hard line creationism fails in this regard. I have no way of knowing if many, or any such lurkers have been so persuaded.

And, I realise, I have third audience: myself. Over the years to address the arguments of creationists I have had to dig into my memory, my textbooks, research papers and do some serious study. All of this has enhanced my own understanding and appreciation of evolutionary theory. For that alone the effort has been worth it. Contrary to what some creationists accuse evolutionists of, I make no assumptions. I find the best way of understanding an a creationist argument is to make it myself. The best way of appreciating the counter argument is to try to tear it down. The best self education, begins with self questioning.

But why make it easy for them to use an intellectually dishonest reason to claim a false victory?

 

[Ophiolite]

But why make it easy for them to use an intellectually dishonest reason to claim a false victory?

While it is not my intention, it does have the advantage of highlighting that intellectual dishonesty. They will claim a false victory anyway. Let it be blatant.

 

[Kylie]

While it is not my intention, it does have the advantage of highlighting that intellectual dishonesty. They will claim a false victory anyway. Let it be blatant.

Unfortunately, many people who do not understand science may believe them...

 

[Ophiolite]

Unfortunately, many people who do not understand science may believe them...

And those persons shall believe nonsense no matter how it is refuted.

I think it best you continue to fight the battle your way and I mine. Good luck with it.

 

[dad]

Quoting from some old text is not a citation. It's just an old story.

If God is old He must have spoke in an old text. Elementary.

 

[dad]

Care to test that statement?

Yes. I care to. Christians bet their life on it.

 

[Kylie]

If God is old He must have spoke in an old text. Elementary.

And there would be supporting evidence, wouldn't there?

Maybe evidence that a huge number of people walked out of Egypt at some point... But there is no evidence for that. And such evidence should exist. I mean, it's not like all those people - including the vast majority of the labour force - could get up and leave for good and nothing would change.

And since such evidence should exist, and yet it doesn't, the most rational explanation is that it never happened.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes. I care to. Christians bet their life on it.

And yet, when they cross the street, they don't pray, they look both ways.

Bet lost.

 

[dad]

And there would be supporting evidence, wouldn't there?

Maybe evidence that a huge number of people walked out of Egypt at some point... But there is no evidence for that. And such evidence should exist. I mean, it's not like all those people - including the vast majority of the labour force - could get up and leave for good and nothing would change.

And since such evidence should exist, and yet it doesn't, the most rational explanation is that it never happened.

God led the march from slavery out of Egypt, and He is a tidy Guy! You thought we would see the normal waste???

 

[dad]

And yet, when they cross the street, they don't pray, they look both ways.

Bet lost.

Doesn't matter, in any case their life is secure, totally. Our life includes more than the life inside the body here.