Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Elendur]

First of all; Nothing is immortal, not even black holes nor the universe. Secondly you have yet to show us any evidence of this thing you call a "SOUL".

All hades will freeze over before the supernatural acquires empirical evidence proving its existence!

Correction, nothing we know of

 

[Non sequitur]

Um... sorry, but no you don't. We have biblical evidence that mind isnt reducible to matter, there is the fact that a mind and mental behavior runs the physical universe and determines the events, we have the effect of faith, prayer, the transcendence of time, evidence that cells are conscious (no brain required), and so forth. The latest attempt is to enslave electrons and pretend that consciousness does not already extend into and past that level. It's as if when one enslaves an ant and uses chemtrails as circuitry, conscious behavior originated with the field's circuit.

No scientific effect of prayer has ever been shown. In some of the scientific studies done on it, there was either positive, negative or no effects. You can't measure prayer.

"Biblical evidence that mind isn't reducible to matter" is not evidence. If it evidences itself in your bible, then there it stays. It can't hop on out of the pages to reality and apply to matter; it doesn't get a free pass, because of what it means to you or how its own definition can get around it. Putting words together do not make them so or more credible.

Spirit + Toaster Oven = Spirit Toaster Oven (it's a real legit thing!)

You take words that apply to the natural, apply un-demonstrable and un-falsifiable "other things" (OOoooOOOooooo), mash them together and continue on.

I think even your god would call shenanigans on that.

Stop it. Just stop it.

 

[Greg1234]

No scientific effect of prayer has ever been shown.

No prayer has ever gone unanswered. The soul is the beneficiary and its welfare is priority.

"Biblical evidence that mind isn't reducible to matter" is not evidence.

Why are your explanations evidence but biblical explanations aren't?

 

[sandwiches]

No prayer has ever gone unanswered. The soul is the beneficiary and its welfare is priority.



Why are your explanations evidence but biblical explanations aren't?

Because empirical evidence can be shown to be true and not all extrapolations from the Bible can be shown to be true and even more so to the point, some of those "Biblical explanations" have been shown to be false.

 

[Greg1234]

Because empirical evidence can be shown to be true and not all extrapolations from the Bible can be shown to be true and even more so to the point, some of those "Biblical explanations" have been shown to be false.

Can it be shown to be true that a man is reducible to what your chosen instrument can detect?

 

[Non sequitur]

No prayer has ever gone unanswered. The soul is the beneficiary and its welfare is priority.

If you cannot show that it has never been unanswered and it gets out of the problem of knowing that (by being circular and justifying how "it doesn't work that way), it doesn't count.

If any answer is always either yes, no, maybe, or later
, you can never falsify it, so you can't use it or declare it to exist as a reality.

Why are your explanations evidence but biblical explanations aren't?

Now it's "explanations", huh.

Again, you are adding unnecessary words, to give it more weight.

There is no special kind of or "better" Harry Potter Evidence or Chemistry Evidence.

It's just evidence.


Now, if you want to switch it to Biblical Explanations, then ok. However, Now Harry Potter or Chemistry Explanations are different than explanations.

Plus, they somehow get to operate outside of standard evidence.

Awesome.

 

[Greg1234]

If you cannot show that it has never been unanswered

And you can show that it has been unanswered?

Now it's "explanations", huh.

Again, you are adding unnecessary words, to give it more weight.

There is no special kind of or "better" Harry Potter Evidence or Chemistry Evidence.

It's just evidence.


Now, if you want to switch it to Biblical Explanations, then ok. However, Now Harry Potter or Chemistry Explanations are different than explanations.

Plus, they somehow get to operate outside of standard evidence.

Awesome.

What is this "standard evidence?" The bible explains the phenomenon but your explanation is standard evidence? Ok, suit yourself.

 

[Non sequitur]

And you can show that it has been unanswered?

You cannot show or not show that it has been unanswered. If the only way you can, is by defining how it works, then you have accomplished nothing.

Then there is no point is saying, "And you can show that it has been unanswered?" You just have a circular definition.

Now, I can create my own circular definition that supersedes or disproves yours.

Your logic and argument would favor either my definition being true and yours not, or we go on endlessly, and neither is valid.

So, which one?

What is this "standard evidence?" The bible explains the phenomenon but your explanation is standard evidence? Ok, suit yourself.

Ok, accept things written in books, that are circular and cannot be falsified or re-demonstrated, as evidence.

Suit yourself.

 

[Greg1234]

You cannot show or not show that it has been unanswered. If the only way you can, is by defining how it works, then you have accomplished nothing.

Then there is no point is saying, "And you can show that it has been unanswered?" You just have a circular definition.

Now, I can create my own circular definition that supersedes or disproves yours.

Your logic and argument would favor either my definition being true and yours not, or we go on endlessly, and neither is valid.

So, which one?

I never said that wisdom could be mined from natural science. We would have to consult the bible on that. Through faith we understand that no action, whether prayer or otherwise, is without consequence.

 

[Doveaman]

Because empirical evidence can be shown to be true

Empirical evidence is just evidence supporting a scientific idea. Scientific ideas can never be shown to be true, despite the evidence.

and not all extrapolations from the Bible can be shown to be true

Not all scientific ideas can be shown to be true.

and even more so to the point, some of those "Biblical explanations" have been shown to be false.

Which ones?

By "Biblical explanations" do you mean what the Bible itself says, or what we interpret it as saying?

 

[Guy1]

Empirical evidence is just evidence supporting a scientific idea. Scientific ideas can never be shown to be true, despite the evidence.

If by "true" you mean absolutely true, then you're right. All scientific laws and theories are "true" until demonstrated otherwise.

Not all scientific ideas can be show to be true.

Name one.

 

[Michael]

Name one.

How about "dark energy"? Plasma redshift has already been observed in the lab, so what empirical evidence suggest that space "expands", or that the universe accelerates?

ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

When was there EVER any empirical link between redshifted photons and "dark energy"?

 

[Guy1]

(One tangent later)

1. I'm not talking to you.
2. Your complaints have been addressed by people much smarter than myself.
3. You really should stop acting like they haven't.
4. Stop asking questions you don't want to hear the answer to.
5. Ask actual scientists these questions if you actually want to learn something.

 

[Doveaman]

Name one.

What he said.

 

[Guy1]

What he said.

Dove, I wouldn't side with him if I were you. He's had 3 physicists explaining, in great detail, just why his assertions are wrong. They've explained everything he's talked about, and refuted all his claims to the contrary. Please, Dove. I don't want to see you go through that as well.

 

[Doveaman]

Dove, I wouldn't side with him if I were you. He's had 3 physicists explaining, in great detail, just why his assertions are wrong. They've explained everything he's talked about, and refuted all his claims to the contrary. Please, Dove. I don't want to see you go through that as well.

 

[Michael]

Dove, I wouldn't side with him if I were you. He's had 3 physicists explaining, in great detail, just why his assertions are wrong.

Excuse me? Not one of them produced a single SHRED of empirical scientific evidence that redshift is related to "space expansion" let alone "dark energy". That kind of nonscience/nonsense never happens in the lab, not EVER!

What DOES occur in the lab is PLASMA REDSHIFT just as PC/EU theory predicts! Talk about pure denial of scientific facts. You guys are absolutely AMAZING at twisting reality to suit yourselves.

I named one. You don't like it. You've got NO empirical link between "acceleration" and "dark energy". In fact you've got no empirical link between redshifted photons and "space expansion". You've got ZIP in the way of empirical support, and a lot of "blind faith" in anything with the label "science" attached to it apparently.

 

[Doveaman]

Dove, I wouldn't side with him if I were you. He's had 3 physicists explaining, in great detail, just why his assertions are wrong.

Are you one of those physicists?

If not, how do you know they are right and he is wrong?

 

[Guy1]

Are you one of those physicists?

If not, how do you know they are right and he is wrong?

I'm going to answer yours first, largely because I want to go on a tangent.

First of all- no. I am not one of those physicists. I am a 2nd year molecular biology undergrad.

Now how do I know they're right? Well I don't know that they're right, but I have good reason to take their word over Michael's These people have spent a good portion of their lives studying, working, practically crawling over glass to understand the subject at hand. These are not some random schmucks off the street; they're scientists.

In the end it's the fact that I'm an elitist. I believe certain people are especially qualified in certain areas and whose opinions should be regarded above all other's. We go to the doctor when we feel ill, we go to the dentist when we want our cavities filled, and we go to the surgeon when we need an operation. We do not go to the slack-jawed hillbilly when we want to learn about the laws that govern the universe. When a scientist is telling you that every single thing you're saying is wrong, you stop and seriously reconsider your position.

Ok. I'm done for now. Sorry for dumping all of this on you, but scientists are my heroes. I can't quite stand it when people don't listen to them.

Excuse me? Not one of them produced a single SHRED of empirical scientific evidence that redshift is related to "space expansion" let alone "dark energy". That kind of nonscience/nonsense never happens in the lab, not EVER!

What DOES occur in the lab is PLASMA REDSHIFT just as PC/EU theory predicts! Talk about pure denial of scientific facts. You guys are absolutely AMAZING at twisting reality to suit yourselves.

I named one. You don't like it. You've got NO empirical link between "acceleration" and "dark energy". In fact you've got no empirical link between redshifted photons and "space expansion". You've got ZIP in the way of empirical support, and a lot of "blind faith" in anything with the label "science" attached to it apparently.

They gave you the evidence, they corrected your mistakes, and they explained it in exquisite detail. You didn't like it, is the thing. If you have a problem; I suggest you sit down, ask them honest questions, and listen to their answers before rationalizing it away and going into denial.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm going to answer yours first, largely because I want to go on a tangent.

First of all- no. I am not one of those physicists. I am a 2nd year molecular biology undergrad.

Now how do I know they're right? Well I don't know that they're right, but I have good reason to take their word over Michael's These people have spent a good portion of their lives studying, working, practically crawling over glass to understand the subject at hand. These are not some random schmucks off the street; they're scientists.

If they are scientists, then why are they not open to competing ideas which have empirical support in a science lab, such as plasma redshift? The least they can do is check out the actual experiment in the science lab rather than pick at a math equation.

In the end it's the fact that I'm an elitist. I believe certain people are especially qualified in certain areas and whose opinions should be regarded above all other's. We go to the doctor when we feel ill, we go to the dentist when we want our cavities filled, and we go to the surgeon when we need an operation. We do not go to the slack-jawed hillbilly when we want to learn about the laws that govern the universe. When a scientist is telling you that every single thing you're saying is wrong, you stop and seriously reconsider your position.

Ok. I'm done for now. Sorry for dumping all of this on you, but scientists are my heroes. I can't quite stand it when people don't listen to them.

So the only reason you support their ideas is because they are physicists? Is that it?

I think what you have here are two different and competing scientific ideas (the Big Bang model and EU/PC model), both of which are studied and proposed by physicists. Real physicists.

It's then a matter of which ideas and physicists you choose to support.

I’m not a physicist, but I’m thinking mathematics is used in science to support an idea that has been empirically verified, so even if there are difficulties with the math that does not change the fact that the idea has been empirically verified.

Maybe that's what Einstein was alluding to when he said:

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." - Albert Einstein