GrimKingGrim
The Thin Dead Line of sanity
- Apr 13, 2015
- 1,237
- 177
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
soul - particles of light we have not yet learned to detect contained inside our blood/DNA.
soul - particles of light we have not yet learned to detect contained inside our blood/DNA.
body - physical matter, time, space, everything we can detect and measure.
When we die the particles of light inside our blood/DNA are able to transverse among the other particles of light already all around us, it is our physical body containing our blood, that stops our soul from interacting with the light.
Say what? I have photons in my blood? I don't have photons in my blood.
Shine a torch through your finger-tip
Huh ?Shine a torch through your finger-tip
Huh ?
From what I remember reading (article published a couple years ago), bioluminescence in humans has nothing to do with "blood" specifically, rather it's related to metabolism, and it is so dim that it's not visible by the naked eye. So shining a flashlight through your finger-tip is arguably going to show photons that come from the flashlight lol, not your fingertip. No ?
Remember there are those who still believe the earth is flat ...I honestly thought this was common sense.
Remember there are those who still believe the earth is flat ...
Why? Because of your religious presuppositions?Definitions of cosciousness belong to or derive from metaphysics ultimately. I think so anyway.
I would not claim that brain activity is identical to "consciousness", particularly in that I am still not sure what you mean by that term.There are correlates to consciousness, like brain activity, and correlates to brain activity, like consciousness. But it is neather testable not falsifiable that brain acivity is identical to consciousness.
That they say it is a fact does not make it fact.Of course you have identiy theorists, but they belong to philosophy, not to science. Many contemporary philosophers say that it is in fact irreducible.
...
No because of the access to consiocusness, its pre scientific. Its one of our axiokms of experience if you like, or a fiundamental disposition at the foundations of knowledge. This is true for the atheist and the theist a like.
Consciousness, awareness, the property or condistion of knowing especially through sensory modalities (when we first learn the term).Originally Posted by GrowingSmaller
There are correlates to consciousness, like brain activity, and correlates to brain activity, like consciousness. But it is neather testable not falsifiable that brain acivity is identical to consciousness.I would not claim that brain activity is identical to "consciousness", particularly in that I am still not sure what you mean by that term.
Ok it may be reducible in theory at least, but, but, returning to the original idea of the OP. The soul concept A] forms a part of peoples identity, so not caring about the soul enlails not caring about them. And B] connotes in part "mind" and as such (because mental life is intrinsically care about worthy) it matters.That they say it is a fact does not make it fact.
We can pick this back up if you decide to return to this thread.
So not caring about the soul (not giving a damn) is in part anti humanistic, even from a secular perspective.
Its like saying (under one interpretation) "I dont care about you, because your mental self model is inaccurate."
OR "You are a soul? Sorry, you dont exist."
Thats the general argument anyway....
Saying that something is not scientific simply begs the question, by what methodology do you know that?No because of the access to consiocusness, its pre scientific. Its one of our axiokms of experience if you like, or a fiundamental disposition at the foundations of knowledge. This is true for the atheist and the theist a like.
I do not see why. A "soul" may be seen as as a synonymous term for "mind", as an emergent property of a healthy brain. That still does not make it a mystical, indestructible, entropy-defying platform on which to build religious beliefs.Consciousness, awareness, the property or condistion of knowing especially through sensory modalities (when we first learn the term).
Ok it may be reducible in theory at least, but, but, returning to the original idea of the OP. The soul concept A] forms a part of peoples identity, so not caring about the soul enlails not caring about them. And B] connotes in part "mind" and as such (because mental life is intrinsically care about worthy) it matters.
So not caring about the soul (not giving a damn) is in part anti humanistic, even from a secular perspective.
No by any interpretation that I am aware of.Its like saying (under one interpretation) "I dont care about you, because your mental self model is inaccurate."
OR "You are a soul? Sorry, you dont exist."
Thats the general argument anyway....
History, people talked of consciousness long before the culture of science developed. Youre not going to argue we discovered consciousness when we discovered the brain are you?Davian said:Saying that something is not scientific simply begs the question, by what methodology do you know that?
Of course the soul may not exist, thats not the point.I do not see why. A "soul" may be seen as as a synonymous term for "mind", as an emergent property of a healthy brain. That still does not make it a mystical, indestructible, entropy-defying platform on which to build religious beliefs.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20How do you know this?
I'm not giving religion anything,neither was i talking about religion.He doesn't. It makes me cringe when fundamentalists try to give religion a pseudo-scientific basis. It doesn't need it. It can stand on its own two feet.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20
Revelation 10:1-2, 7.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20
Revelation 10:1-2, 7.
If you can accept what Steven Hawking concludes about the universe, then you can accept what the Bible says about God.
You can see the light all around you, right? You know that there are particles of light we can not see, right? And also that they can not make anything go faster than 99.9% the speed of light, therefore, as Romans 1:20 states, it is evident in nature/science that there is a spiritual realm and therefore most likely a God in that realm, who has created the physical realm we are in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?