The phenomenon and the explanation

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Suppose some serendipitous events unfolded that corralled a crowd to a specific place. At that place a miracle takes place. Someone missing a leg grows another one. Maybe an image with physics defying properties. Something that would serve as 'proof' that God exists.
As the miracle was happening, proof that God exists was certain. Powerful certainty. Still, the evidence is a matter of faith since the miraculous event is a memory. The miraculous event recedes into the past, requiring more and more faith to believe. The miraculous matter it left here is explained away as a nuisance to be ignored.

What kind of proof is required to know God exists?

A much simpler example, entirely consistent with what we know about the workings of the world and the behaviour of people, is for the crowd of corralled people to hear or see something unusual but not miraculous, and for a few excitable types to think they saw something miraculous. If the crowd is expecting something significant to occur, that suggestion could well be enough to have them believing they too saw something miraculous. A few people with strongly voiced opinions of what happened at some event can influence a larger group to believe or claim the same.

However, it isn't necessary that the crowd was convinced at the time. If the few excitable types leave the event and start telling their miracle story or stories, they will quickly spread and not just others who attended, but many who didn't, will go on to claim they were there and also saw the miracle.

However, it is not necessary that any excitable types reported seeing a miracle. It is quite possible that in the retelling of the story of the relatively mundane event, some exaggerations and embellishments occur to liven it up a bit, and with repetition from person to person, the event ends up being described as miraculous.

What kind of proof is required to know that a miracle didn't occur?

All three mechanisms of story distortion above have been observed and documented for both real events and experimentally. None of them requires deliberate dishonesty, they're just products of the way human perception and memory work and the way casual storytelling works.

Which is more likely, a real miracle or people just behaving as people do?

 

[Eloy Craft]

You didn't say what counts as a defect in a soul/person that makes them imperfect.

When we don't do what we know we ought to do is defective behavior.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When we don't do what we know we ought to do is defective behavior.

OK, so it's completely subjective...

Suppose we have a moral dilemma, so, for example, we know we ought not to do something but we know that not doing that something will result in something else we know we ought to prevent?

Does this also mean that if we do what we know we ought to do, we're perfect?

 

[Eloy Craft]

We have perfectly sound and detailed physical explanations that account for respiration, circulation, neuron activity and muscle activity. There is no evidence whatsoever that the cessation of these

Science doesn't concern itself with the existence of the soul.

I'm confident there is one for anger, but I suspect that if I presented you the evidence for it you would find a reason to reject it.

There maybe chemicals that can move sentient beings. It doesn't explain sentience. Sentience is required for chemicals to move an animal.

 

[Phred]

Science doesn't concern itself with the existence of the soul.

That's not true. Science concerns itself with everything. But nobody can find this thing called a "soul." It can't be measured by any known instrument. There have been a variety of experiments trying to find it. None have been successful.

It's as if it's not real.

 

[Eloy Craft]

That seems to be a story demonstrating that animals have intellect and emotions, if different or sometimes less sophisticated than humans.


If sentience can be heavily modified and controlled by base physical changes like chemicals, sickness and organ damage/repair... why isn't it reasonable to just assume it's a product of those kinds of processes.

Intellect manifests free will. A moral agent.
There is no evidence any other animal can imagine their world without them in it. These things require intellect. Intellect doesn't come in partial packages. An animal either has intellect or it doesn't. Humans are the only animals that manifest intellect.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That seems to be a story demonstrating that animals have intellect and emotions, if different or sometimes less sophisticated than humans.


If sentience can be heavily modified and controlled by base physical changes like chemicals, sickness and organ damage/repair... why isn't it reasonable to just assume it's a product of those kinds of processes.

I'm ambivalent on the question of animals having a semblance of conscience or moral agency —not that I can't make up my mind, but because it doesn't matter to me. They are innocent of sin, either way. That's why I told the story —because sometimes it seems, animals seem to have a sense of right and wrong, even if they (like us) get outraged selfishly. I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone, but pointing out that there may be more to the picture than we think.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. Have you?

I've seen an animal mad at the world. That cat's sense of justice was certainly disturbed.

 

[Eloy Craft]

First no scientific explanation exists. There are characteristics that offer certainty that a miracle has or has not occurred.

What kind of proof is required to know that a miracle didn't occur?

 

[Eloy Craft]

OK, so it's completely subjective...

Suppose we have a moral dilemma, so, for example, we know we ought not to do something but we know that not doing that something will result in something else we know we ought to prevent?

Does this also mean that if we do what we know we ought to do, we're perfect?

We would have to always do what we believe is good to do. We arent good urselves. If we were we wouldn't do this or that because it's good. It would be good because we did it

That's not true. Science concerns itself with everything. But nobody can find this thing called a "soul." It can't be measured by any known instrument. There have been a variety of experiments trying to find it. None have been successful.

It's as if it's not real.

Wrong. Science concerns itself with things that can be measured.

 

[pitabread]

There are characteristics that offer certainty that a miracle has or has not occurred.

Certainty, really? What characteristics would those be?

 

[Eloy Craft]

OK, so it's completely subjective...

Suppose we have a moral dilemma, so, for example, we know we ought not to do something but we know that not doing that something will result in something else we know we ought to prevent?

Does this also mean that if we do what we know we ought to do, we're perfect?

We would have to always do what we believe is good to do. We arent good ourselves. If we were we wouldn't do this or that because it's good it's good because we did it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Have you ever seen an animal get revenge for revenge's own sake?

I've never seen it happen in a non-animal. Not any plants, bacteria, archea, nor artificial lifeforms have I seen get revenge for any reason.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wrong. Science concerns itself with things that can be measured.

Anyone measure a soul sucessfully? If not, then why should I think it exists?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've never seen it happen in a non-animal. Not any plants, bacteria, archea, nor artificial lifeforms have I seen get revenge for any reason.

Lol, I can agree there!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Anyone measure a soul sucessfully? If not, then why should I think it exists?

Can you measure love?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can you measure love?

Sure. The psychological response, the neurochemical response, etc. The phenomenon of "love" can be clearly identified, even if the quantification might not be fully satisfy to some.

On the other hand, regarding my question, can the "soul" be detected?

 

[Ophiolite]

Science doesn't concern itself with the existence of the soul.


There maybe chemicals that can move sentient beings. It doesn't explain sentience. Sentience is required for chemicals to move an animal.

You seem quite good at moving goalposts. Let's examine these two points more closely:

• You made a claim that there was evidence for the soul in the absence of "something" between a living and dead organism. I cited specific examples of the difference and noted that there were well understood explanation for why those "somethings" were no longer evident. Now you ignore this and just make an assertion that is incidental to your original claim, a claim that my observations have utterly refuted.
  
• And then you make an assertion that there is no chemical that can cause anger. I refute that assertion too and your response is to change the subject to sentience.

These two instances are clear evidence that you are not arguing in good faith. I expect an acknowledgement that your orginal points have been refuted and an apology for your improper posting behaviour wouldn't go amiss.

 

[Shemjaza]

Intellect manifests free will. A moral agent.
There is no evidence any other animal can imagine their world without them in it. These things require intellect. Intellect doesn't come in partial packages. An animal either has intellect or it doesn't. Humans are the only animals that manifest intellect.

That's patently untrue.

The ability to reason philosophically isn't some hard on/off switch for intellect.

If that were true then young children, the mentally disabled, the extremely sick and those that are just very unimaginative wouldn't have free will.

Some animals clearly are aware of their surroundings, have memory of past events and use this knowledge to interact and make decisions. On a human scale they might be incredibly stupid, but they are hardly mindless.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm ambivalent on the question of animals having a semblance of conscience or moral agency —not that I can't make up my mind, but because it doesn't matter to me. They are innocent of sin, either way. That's why I told the story —because sometimes it seems, animals seem to have a sense of right and wrong, even if they (like us) get outraged selfishly. I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone, but pointing out that there may be more to the picture than we think.

I find it odd that traits and behaviors associated with grace and sin seem to be present in sinless animals. They can be loving, but also selfish and cruel... sometimes even the same animal.