The phenomenon and the explanation

[Ophiolite]

On a human scale they might be incredibly stupid, but they [animals] are hardly mindless.

Indeed. My cat wakes me at 3:00 am to get me up to feed her. Which animal is the stupid one in that scenario?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

There's no certainty if the reports may be unreliable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

OK, so if none of us is good, it would seem to follow that none of us is perfect.

So this idea of a perfect soul seems to be a meaningless abstraction; there is no such thing and if there were, no-one would know.

 

[Phred]

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

And they tried.

You have this blind spot where someone told you something is real and you accept that. Then they told you it can't be measured or observed and you accept that. You then get all huffy when someone else suggests it might not be real.

 

[Phred]

Indeed. My cat wakes me at 3:00 am to get me up to feed her. Which animal is the stupid one in that scenario?

Corn has succeeded in getting us to plant it everywhere on the planet. If the earth is viewed from space you would see humans tending it, caring for it and working hard to make sure it grows everywhere. You could be forgiven if you assume that corn is the dominant species on the planet.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Corn has succeeded in getting us to plant it everywhere on the planet. If the earth is viewed from space you would see humans tending it, caring for it and working hard to make sure it grows everywhere. You could be forgiven if you assume that corn is the dominant species on the planet.

It's not?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

It's not?

Nah it is weeds, far more people out tending their weed patches at any one time and those humans get down like they are praying.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nah it is weeds, far more people out tending their weed patches at any one time and those humans get down like they are praying.

Huh, OK, that makes sense...

 

[Phred]

Nah it is weeds, far more people out tending their weed patches at any one time and those humans get down like they are praying.

Now you've done it. You've offended the corn.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now you've done it. You've offended the corn.

No more sweetcorn...

 

[Phred]

No more sweetcorn...

Lend me your ears...

 

[Eloy Craft]

Certainty, really? What characteristics would those be?

Only God can heal sickness. It will be instantaneous. If it is gradual it's not a miracle. A couple of characteristics.

 

[Eloy Craft]

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

The proofs are philosophical. Aristotle, Plato, they thought it exists. It's an easy proof philosophically.

 

[Eloy Craft]

You

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.

I didn't post that chemicals can't cause anger.
You posted certain biological systems stop and claim that as a refutation for the existence of a soul? I find no refutation.

 

[Eloy Craft]

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.

Their will is free in as much as they have use of their intellect. Children begin using the intellect around 7 years of age. Freedom is the ability to do what 'ought' to be done.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The proofs are philosophical. Aristotle, Plato, they thought it exists. It's an easy proof philosophically.

Philosophical proofs. Count me unimpressed.

 

[Eloy Craft]

OK, so if none of us is good, it would seem to follow that none of us is perfect.

So this idea of a perfect soul seems to be a meaningless abstraction; there is no such thing and if there were, no-one would know.

You are correct. No person on earth is perfect.
OTOH
Other animals haven't lost their perfections.
Good and perfect are different concepts. One doesn't always interchange with the other. Only God is good.

 

[pitabread]

Only God can heal sickness. It will be instantaneous. If it is gradual it's not a miracle. A couple of characteristics.

Could you elaborate? What makes "instantaneous" healing a miracle? How would one detect such healing?

Why couldn't God heal someone or something gradually?

 

[Shemjaza]

Their will is free in as much as they have use of their intellect. Children begin using the intellect around 7 years of age. Freedom is the ability to do what 'ought' to be done.

The interesting point is "around 7 years of age", it's a developmental milestone, not a universal truth.

In addition how we feel and express morality is massively culturally dependent. (It's also found in simpler forms in more intelligent and social animals).

 

[Eloy Craft]

Could you elaborate? What makes "instantaneous" healing a miracle? How would one detect such healing?

Why couldn't God heal someone or something gradually?

You're right. If God did it gradually it just means that healing would be suspect. Gradual change implies local movement. A beginning, middle and end. A duration requires a beginning and end. Eternity has no duration.