quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Your Faith is showing.

I was commenting on your faith. But hey, don't get me wrong. I think that story about big clumps of dead matter running around creating fruit-loops and symphonies is great! I just think actually believing it is a bit irrational.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

The problem with claiming that the soul is what makes us who we are as people is, that job is already taken by the brain.

Ooooo, I know this story. This is the one about how a collection of dead matter became alive one day, right? Tell it again? I love the part about how it finally came to walk and talk and keep a Summer place at the seashore.

K.

quote:

It is well known that anti-matter, brought into contact with matter, causes a big explosion. Human life is generally not accompanied by a big boom (some screaming sure, but no bang), so the soul is not anti-matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
That`s any worse than a super-natural,unable to duplicated,seen nowhere in the nature world,un-scientific ... explanation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I believe that science will eventually lead us to God...

That's going to take pushing our current paradigm quite a bit, but I'm at least very sure that whatever we may come to understand is not going to conform to the tribal conceits of our Western monotheisms.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Monozygotic (i.e. identical) twins divide after conception.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Either the soul must be divisible or it does not come into existance at conception but at some later stage.

quote:


OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I think, maybe, if we look at what someone brought up before ... it's what makes us who we are, as individuals. When someone said this, earlier in the thread, someone else said that was our brain and while I think that's part of it, I think there's something else ...

Some of the most evil, sociopathic, malevolent pieces of cheese have been pretty smart guys. I don't think their brain is lacking. I think it's their soul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I know I can't define "soul". I also can't help but vehemently agree that there is such a thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
In fact, I think we do humankind a disservice if we don't accept the concept of a soul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Science certainly has some theories and maybe even some "facts" about what makes a person evil but, I don't think the idea that science has gotten a handle on some of the causes of the behavior negates the existence of a "soul".

I think I said on these threads, once before, that I believe that science will eventually lead us to God. That said, from where I come from, the fact that science can examin or explain, to some degree what I consider to be elements of a "soul" doesn't negate its existence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/09/29/seriously-the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-really-are-completely-understood/
Of course we can’t be sure, but that’s not the point. We can’t be sure that the motion of the planets isn’t governed by hard-working angels keeping them on their orbits, in the metaphysical-certitude sense of being “sure.” That’s not a criterion that is useful in science. Rather, in the face of admittedly incomplete understanding, we evaluate the relative merits of competing hypotheses. In this case, one hypothesis says that the operation of the brain is affected in a rather ill-defined way by influences that are not described by the known laws of physics, and that these effects will ultimately help us make sense of human consciousness; the other says that brains are complicated, so it’s no surprise that we don’t understand everything, but that an ultimate explanation will fit comfortably within the framework of known fundamental physics. This is not really a close call; by conventional scientific measures, the idea that known physics will be able to account for the brain is enormously far in the lead. To persuade anyone otherwise, you would have to point to something the brain does that is in apparent conflict with the Standard Model or general relativity. (Bending spoons across large distances would qualify.) Until then, the fact that something is complicated isn’t evidence that the particular collection of atoms we call the brain obeys different rules than other collections of atoms.