Are we souls or are we machines?

[Michelle]

I think that's what we're doing all the time. The mind is what the brain does for a living. Consciousness is what the mind produces. Then consciousness ponders the nature of mind, and what it means to be objective or subjective. There is something fundamentally recursive about brain studies, since those doing the studies are using the operation of the very brains they are studying to conduct and interpret their experiments and their results. If our computer hardware and software become sophisticated enough, for all we know the same thing will happen - the computer will become self-aware and ponder its own nature. And maybe reprogram itself in ways we can only dream of.

Okay, I get what you're saying. I thought you were saying that the brain becomes aware that it's aware (which, I suppose you ARE saying, in a way) but you meant it more globally, like, we humans are aware that each of us, and all the others, are aware.

Well, I have a blind spot when it comes to religious faith. I don't know what it might be like. But it seems clear to me that this entire thread reflects a certain tension between what we understand of the physical, and what certain individuals apparently desperately wish to believe is not physical, whatever that might mean if anything. I personally have no problem conceiving of myself, my personality, as emerging from the simultaneous chemical and electrical processes going on in my brain. I see no reason to ask for more than that. So I can't guess why anyone would want to.

Nor do I deny the sheer imaginative power of our brains. We have used that power to literally move mountains - to invent both science and gods, to produce universally appreciated works of music, art, literature, and engineering. And nothing more than the operation of the brain is required for all of this. WHY try to talk yourself into something nonexistent as far as we can tell, when it's not necessary and not rational? Beats me.

I don't doubt for a moment that religious faith is an enigma to you. Could you, perhaps, grant that for those of us who possess faith it is as real as love is to a romantic partner? If so, could you imagine how frustrating it would be to see terms such as "... talk yourself into something nonexistent.." and "not necessary and not rational"? Would you, or do you, confront a lover this way?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think anyone can fully describe anything that exists. All we have is data. Science operates by making increasingly better observations of whatever seems to exist, until it's pretty well pinned down. From time to time, this process shows that what was thought to exist actually did not - things like N-rays and phlogiston. But it's helpful to notice that the evidence for either of these was either highly indirect (emerging from an inaccurate model which made a wrong prediction), or right at the very limit of inappropriate observation technology and instrumentation. Better instruments and better models, and the apparent either became better documented, or it vanished.

Science is a tool phank, just like another other, but it isn't end all answer to all of life's questions.

And this is all qualitatively different from investigating what there is NO data for, except in our imaginations, and which may not exist at all. There is an ENORMOUS difference between saying "well, we don't know what causes these observations, but here's what we see" and saying "I claim X exists, despite NO observations, because I WANT TO BELIEVE that X exists." Equating them is a category error.

Since I did not argue that way and did present something you subsequently ignored, that isn't at all what I said. I do love your scientisim though, quite revealing if you ask me.

There is an infinity of things we can imagine that don't exist. So the only way to make any progress is to OBSERVE something. As Isaac Asimov wrote, the most powerful words in science are not "Eureka, I found it" but rather "hmmm, that's odd..." In other words, an unexpected OBSERVATION. Something very different from pure wishful thinking. And so nobody investigates something for which there is no evidence, except occasionally to establish more firmly that there IS no evidence. To put it another way, for practical reasons, the default is that if there is no observational indication that something exists, it simply does not exist until such time as such an indication should be found.

In other words,

1. Start with the assumption material is all that exist.
2. Ignore things such as people's experiences, historical evidence for things outside of nature, etc.
3. Therefore, nothing outside of material exist.

I'm sorry, that is a strawmen and will be treated as such until you can provide an actual argument to refute number 2. Are you saying that EVERY spiritual experience around is automatically false and can't be evidence at all? Are you saying that philosophers and historians that have argued for things like the resurrection do not present evidence at all? Are you saying that those who dare to disagree with the great phank do not have any evidence for their beliefs at all? With all your assertions and assumptions you use, with no evidence at all, it's a wonder you can even see past your own nose. I'm sorry, but discounting anything you disagree with and narrowly defining something as needing to be detected by science as the prime requirement for existence isn't intellectual honesty at all. It is an attempt to stack your deck and try to impress everybody with your ability to pull out a royal flush every time.

(And interestingly, things we can't detect are the EASIEST to describe. In incredible detail. This is true becauser there are no annoying observations to get in the way. Our imaginations are free to pile creative BS as high as we wish, with no limit. I've seen literally hundreds of treatments of what life is like after death, from Mark Twain to the Twilight Zone to countless science fiction stories to religious tales like The Inferno and on ad infinitum. Why not? Piece of cake!)

Yep, ignoring evidence that disagrees with Phank is the way to go. Keep those blinders on, may they serve you well oh mighty one of assertions! Thanks for proving you are just another Jorge, wrapped up in a different wrapper.

[DuraGizer]

Here's to hoping we're soulful machines.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, with respect, I don't see any clear idea about what a soul or spirit is or what it does. Are souls different to spirits? Does either the soul or spirit develop and mature with time? If we were to imagine a human being with all the same neurological and hormonal equipment as you or me but who did NOT have a soul or spirit, how would they differ from us in behaviour or personality? If spirits or souls influence the physical brain does that influence flow backwards as well? In other words, can brain injury affect souls or spirits? Do drugs which affect the brain affect either the soul or spirit? What exactly do we know about souls or spirits aside from the bare assertion that they exist? It seems to me we are far more talking about philosophy and metaphysics than we are about natural science when we talk about these things and we all know how definitive THEY are.

Who knows? I don't claim to know everything about the idea and unlike phank, I will not claim it is all nonsense because it disagrees with X or Y belief. That is the nature of when you get into something that is said to be immaterial, you can't debate it with science since science only studies the material, you have to debate it through philosophy and metaphysics.

[phank]

Okay, I get what you're saying. I thought you were saying that the brain becomes aware that it's aware (which, I suppose you ARE saying, in a way) but you meant it more globally, like, we humans are aware that each of us, and all the others, are aware.

And also that the mind is aware of itself. The essence of "I" is recursive.

I don't doubt for a moment that religious faith is an enigma to you. Could you, perhaps, grant that for those of us who possess faith it is as real as love is to a romantic partner? If so, could you imagine how frustrating it would be to see terms such as "... talk yourself into something nonexistent.." and "not necessary and not rational"? Would you, or do you, confront a lover this way?

Good point. I really have no choice but to take your word for it. And just so we don't misunderstand. I have no doubt whatsoever that religious faith is just as real and just as strong as any emotional love between people. It's not the FACT of the faith that baffles me, but rather the CONTENT of the faith.

[lilpixieofterror]

Here's to hoping we're soulful machines.

Never heard of 'soul music'?

[phank]

Science is a tool phank, just like another other, but it isn't end all answer to all of life's questions.

I agree. Science is a tool. However, it has the advantage of being able to provide intersubjectively satisfying answers to those questions it is competent to address. Granted there are questions science is useless to address, but any answers to THOSE questions are not intersubjectively satsifying. They are individual and personal.

In other words,

1. Start with the assumption material is all that exist.

Not so, and this is where we start failing to communicate. Material things fully explainable through material explanations does NOT imply that there are other immaterial things, or even that they might be explainable in immaterial ways. The argument in this thread is that the mechanics of the brain are SUFFICIENT, all by themselves, to explain everything about our consciousness.

2. Ignore things such as people's experiences, historical evidence for things outside of nature, etc.

Only if they are not relevant to the issue. And subjective experiences ARE material, in terms of the operations of our biology.

3. Therefore, nothing outside of material exist.

Since your premises are wrong, your conclusion is useless.

But I notice that you have never produced anything resembling an operational definition of "outside the material". What IS it?

I'm sorry, that is a strawmen

Yes it is. But it's what YOU are trying to cram into MY mouth. It's not what I said at all.

Are you saying that EVERY spiritual experience around is automatically false and can't be evidence at all?

No, of course not. Spiritual experiences are very real. And fully biological and organic. Indeed, mystics in various cultures use such mechanisms as psychoactive drugs, sensory deprivation, starvation, etc. to bring on the visions and spiritual experiences. This doesn't make such experiences any less real, or any less biological.

Let's simplify this. If I get drunk and see pink elephants, this is a REAL experience, not false at all. It's what I'm genuinely experiencing. But there are no elephants outside my inebriated perception.

Are you saying that philosophers and historians that have argued for things like the resurrection do not present evidence at all?

No, I'm not saying that. But I imagine you are aware that much of the evidence is equivocal. Which means much of it MIGHT be as inaccurate as legal testimony we see every day in court, where two eyewitnesses swear on their bibles to VERY different versions of the same event, and both are equally sincere. On the record, testimonial evidence is the weakest of all evidence. So it's helpful to distinguish between NO evidence and dubious evidence.

Are you saying that those who dare to disagree with the great phank do not have any evidence for their beliefs at all?

No, I'm saying that your evidence of your subjective convictions is no more compelling than mine.

With all your assertions and assumptions you use, with no evidence at all, it's a wonder you can even see past your own nose. I'm sorry, but discounting anything you disagree with and narrowly defining something as needing to be detected by science as the prime requirement for existence isn't intellectual honesty at all. It is an attempt to stack your deck and try to impress everybody with your ability to pull out a royal flush every time.

Once again, we're circling the concept of VALIDITY of evidence. One thing science does is goes out of its way to establish validity. This is not always possible, but it is always useful where it's possible. I'm not saying science is the answer to all questions, but hopefully you are not saying that Making Stuff Up, just because you find it congenial, is somehow just as valid.

Yep, ignoring evidence that disagrees with Phank is the way to go. Keep those blinders on, may they serve you well oh mighty one of assertions! Thanks for proving you are just another Jorge, wrapped up in a different wrapper.

This is so astoundingly unresponsive to what I wrote that I suspect you are operating in pure emotion.

[Michelle]

Good point. I really have no choice but to take your word for it. And just so we don't misunderstand. I have no doubt whatsoever that religious faith is just as real and just as strong as any emotional love between people. It's not the FACT of the faith that baffles me, but rather the CONTENT of the faith.

Fair enough. I suppose the analogy between love and faith could continue to be stretched since so often the OBJECT of one's love is bewildering to onlookers.

[lilpixieofterror]

I agree. Science is a tool. However, it has the advantage of being able to provide intersubjectively satisfying answers to those questions it is competent to address. Granted there are questions science is useless to address, but any answers to THOSE questions are not intersubjectively satsifying. They are individual and personal.

Not always Phank, I can't scientifically prove facts of history like rather or not George Washington was the first president of the US. This is a question reserved for historical analysis.

Not so, and this is where we start failing to communicate. Material things fully explainable through material explanations does NOT imply that there are other immaterial things, or even that they might be explainable in immaterial ways. The argument in this thread is that the mechanics of the brain are SUFFICIENT, all by themselves, to explain everything about our consciousness.

That is an assertion Phank that can't be proved because that would require a nature of understanding about our consciousness that we simply do not have. How do you know that the mechanics of the brain, all by itself, is sufficient to explain everything about our consciousness? Do you know everything about our consciousness to know that for a fact or do you believe that, on faith and nothing else? If you believe that the spirit and the body are somehow linked together, then naturally a change in one is going to manifest itself elsewhere. It is a question psychologist and neurologist have wondered since they started, is it the brain that makes the person, the person that makes the brain, or do they both somehow contribute to each other?

Only if they are not relevant to the issue. And subjective experiences ARE material, in terms of the operations of our biology.

This should be entertaining to watch, go ahead and prove that. I'd love to see it.

Since your premises are wrong, your conclusion is useless.

No it isn't, you just really want that deck stacked up so you can try to impress with all those straights and four of a kinds you keep pulling. You're just like Jorge, now perhaps you can show how you proved something that doctors haven't yet. I'd love to see you do it.

But I notice that you have never produced anything resembling an operational definition of "outside the material". What IS it?

I did, you just don't like the answers and just IGNORE them like a good fundy. It is pretty simple, what isn't material, is outside of the material world and outside of science to study. Is that hard for you to grasp?

Yes it is. But it's what YOU are trying to cram into MY mouth. It's not what I said at all.

You should be at home since I've watched you do that before. I have seen you enough here to know that is just what you believe phank.

No, of course not. Spiritual experiences are very real. And fully biological and organic. Indeed, mystics in various cultures use such mechanisms as psychoactive drugs, sensory deprivation, starvation, etc. to bring on the visions and spiritual experiences. This doesn't make such experiences any less real, or any less biological.

So you can show that every single spiritual experience ever had is the results of some kind of drug, sensory deprivation, starvation, etc? WOW! When did you do that? I'd love to read your paper on this and speech on this ASAP. The thing is Phank, I don't believe most people who claim a 'spiritual experience' really had one at all, I also know though that there are some that, as far as we can find, have nothing to show anything like that happening. Unless of course, you can show any of that with the resurrection.

Let's simplify this. If I get drunk and see pink elephants, this is a REAL experience, not false at all. It's what I'm genuinely experiencing. But there are no elephants outside my inebriated perception.

Nice strawmen. Too bad I didn't argue that EVERY spiritual experience really happened or is real, did I? That and it only takes ONE to be true to invalidate your entire belief system. There is a reason I could never be a 'strong' atheist, it takes too much faith.

No, I'm not saying that. But I imagine you are aware that much of the evidence is equivocal. Which means much of it MIGHT be as inaccurate as legal testimony we see every day in court, where two eyewitnesses swear on their bibles to VERY different versions of the same event, and both are equally sincere. On the record, testimonial evidence is the weakest of all evidence. So it's helpful to distinguish between NO evidence and dubious evidence.

Much of it, sure, not all of it. It only takes one to be true to cause your entire belief system to crash down around you while mine doesn't need such an assumption to function.

No, I'm saying that your evidence of your subjective convictions is no more compelling than mine.

So thus, you believe on faith as well?

Once again, we're circling the concept of VALIDITY of evidence. One thing science does is goes out of its way to establish validity. This is not always possible, but it is always useful where it's possible. I'm not saying science is the answer to all questions, but hopefully you are not saying that Making Stuff Up, just because you find it congenial, is somehow just as valid.

Nah Phank for you see, my faith isn't built upon a huge assumption that you can't prove. It only takes one spiritual experience to destroy your entire belief system, several can happen and mine would be just fine. There is a reason I was never able to be a strong atheist, you have to assume too much.

This is so astoundingly unresponsive to what I wrote that I suspect you are operating in pure emotion.

You're as bad at reading emotion as you are at logical thought. No Phank, for you see, it only takes one spiritual experience being true to destroy your entire belief system. Do you have evidence that every single spiritual experience, ever, happened by pure physical means? If not (and I know you do not), you have some pretty strong faith there, stronger then I personally could hold to.

[Whag]

The endless question game, always amusing. I think I remember doing this at 12, so do I have to explain every little thing and how it works? In that case, explain to me the nature of dark matter, how it works, what it is, how it interacts, etc. Can you do this?

Scientists wouldn't have formulated the concept of dark matter without seeing its effect. Have you seen the soul having an effect on the physical nature of a person?

[phank]

Not always Phank, I can't scientifically prove facts of history like rather or not George Washington was the first president of the US. This is a question reserved for historical analysis.

Agreed. This is a historical question. And historical questions tend to rest on the scope of their documentation or documentability. When such material is thin, historical events become dubious or disputed.

That is an assertion Phank that can't be proved because that would require a nature of understanding about our consciousness that we simply do not have. How do you know that the mechanics of the brain, all by itself, is sufficient to explain everything about our consciousness? Do you know everything about our consciousness to know that for a fact or do you believe that, on faith and nothing else? If you believe that the spirit and the body are somehow linked together, then naturally a change in one is going to manifest itself elsewhere. It is a question psychologist and neurologist have wondered since they started, is it the brain that makes the person, the person that makes the brain, or do they both somehow contribute to each other?

You are assuming a dichotomy that may not exist as you seem to imply. However, there are numerous feedback loops at different levels of abstraction between neural firings and conscious beliefs, with many levels in between. Feedback loops means these levels influence one another in a complex circular fashion. If you are curious, you might read up on recent research into the underlying mechanisms of consciousness. Recently there was a long series about this in Scientific American, written simply enough so that even I could understand it.

But you seem not to understand the point I was trying to make, which is that there is currently no reason to project into this process something beyond what is known today. Perhaps as more and more is learned about how the brain works, it will become clear that the operation of the brain, all by itself, is insufficient to explain something. But currently, there's no compelling reason to confect such a phenomenon.

This should be entertaining to watch, go ahead and prove that. I'd love to see it.

And what, exactly, would satisfy you? Already, as far as I can tell, you're willing to concede that physical manipulations of the brain produce various subjective experiences. This has been done with drugs, with electric probes, through trauma, etc. So are you changing your position now and claiming these things do NOT cause subjective experiences? If not, what are you saying?

No it isn't, you just really want that deck stacked up so you can try to impress with all those straights and four of a kinds you keep pulling. You're just like Jorge, now perhaps you can show how you proved something that doctors haven't yet. I'd love to see you do it.

Chuckle. OK, you asked, I explained, now you say LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Good for you.

I did, you just don't like the answers and just IGNORE them like a good fundy. It is pretty simple, what isn't material, is outside of the material world and outside of science to study. Is that hard for you to grasp?

I interpret this bit of nastiness to mean you have no clue what is meant by an operational definition. And no, you have not produced an operational definition. Or anything close.

So you can show that every single spiritual experience ever had is the results of some kind of drug, sensory deprivation, starvation, etc? WOW! When did you do that?

This is not what I said.

I'd love to read your paper on this and speech on this ASAP.

I said nothing like this either.

The thing is Phank, I don't believe most people who claim a 'spiritual experience' really had one at all, I also know though that there are some that, as far as we can find, have nothing to show anything like that happening. Unless of course, you can show any of that with the resurrection.

I would be delighted if you could provide an experimental methodology that can reliably distinguish between "true" and "false" spiritual experiences. Failing that, I'd like it if you could provide a clear, unambiguous definition so that someone else might try such an experiment.

Nice strawmen. Too bad I didn't argue that EVERY spiritual experience really happened or is real, did I? That and it only takes ONE to be true to invalidate your entire belief system. There is a reason I could never be a 'strong' atheist, it takes too much faith.

You're arguing again about something I never said.

Much of it, sure, not all of it. It only takes one to be true to cause your entire belief system to crash down around you while mine doesn't need such an assumption to function.

One WHAT to be true? One testimonial about a spiritual experience? I already agreed that such things are real, and you decided that was a straw man! How very convenient.

Nah Phank for you see, my faith isn't built upon a huge assumption that you can't prove.

LOL! That's ALL your faith is based on. Nothing but, nothing else.

ANyway, keep protesting the truth of your faith. Remember, in religion-land, words spoken twice double in meaning.

[Whag]

Perhaps as more and more is learned about how the brain works, it will become clear that the operation of the brain, all by itself, is insufficient to explain something. But currently, there's no compelling reason to confect such a phenomenon.

That's the point she keeps missing. Because scientists had good reason to assume dark energy exists, there's no comparing the soul to dark energy unless you assume dark energy is metaphysical. No scientist thinks its non-physical, which is precisely why they study it. The soul isn't a scientific mystery because there's no material evidence for us to test.

[JimL]

You're as bad at reading emotion as you are at logical thought. No Phank, for you see, it only takes one spiritual experience being true to destroy your entire belief system. Do you have evidence that every single spiritual experience, ever, happened by pure physical means? If not (and I know you do not), you have some pretty strong faith there, stronger then I personally could hold to.

We don't even have empirical evidence of a single true spiritual experience, since we don't have empirical evidence of whatever it is that you call the spiritual, or the spirit. The only evidence we can have of anothers experience is his own interpretation of it, but the fact that he concludes the experience to be of a spiritual nature is evidence of nothing other than his own conclusion.

[lilpixieofterror]

Agreed. This is a historical question. And historical questions tend to rest on the scope of their documentation or documentability. When such material is thin, historical events become dubious or disputed.

Which really doesn't deal with the fact that not everything is scientifically testable.

You are assuming a dichotomy that may not exist as you seem to imply. However, there are numerous feedback loops at different levels of abstraction between neural firings and conscious beliefs, with many levels in between. Feedback loops means these levels influence one another in a complex circular fashion. If you are curious, you might read up on recent research into the underlying mechanisms of consciousness. Recently there was a long series about this in Scientific American, written simply enough so that even I could understand it.

But you seem not to understand the point I was trying to make, which is that there is currently no reason to project into this process something beyond what is known today. Perhaps as more and more is learned about how the brain works, it will become clear that the operation of the brain, all by itself, is insufficient to explain something. But currently, there's no compelling reason to confect such a phenomenon.

No phank, I just see no reason to automatically assume something isn't there because well... we can't scientifically test it. Plus, you seem to imply I am stupid or ill informed, I read too and I even have the issues from Scientific American and Discovery that cover the science of the brain. Funny thing is, even they admit there are things they do not understand either about why things are what they are. Why does consciousness even exist? What is it? Is it something that is produced simply due to computing power or is it something that can't be explained by the sum of it's parts. I know these questions are far from answered, so stop with the patronizing attitude, unless you want me to keep giving you one in return.

And what, exactly, would satisfy you? Already, as far as I can tell, you're willing to concede that physical manipulations of the brain produce various subjective experiences. This has been done with drugs, with electric probes, through trauma, etc. So are you changing your position now and claiming these things do NOT cause subjective experiences? If not, what are you saying?

Nice strawmen! It is too bad that I have never argued that physical manipulations of the brain do not produce subjective experiences. You know, it does a lot of good to actually respond to what people say or under their views. I know that drugs have shown to affect the brain, I know electromagnetic waves have been shown to create experiences in people too. I also know that poking the brain and introducing electrical stimuli will cause a reaction. So drop the patronizing attitude already, I've read the books, I've read the magazines, I've seen the TV specials too. The thing is Phank, how does any of that prove that the mind is physical and nothing else? It has also been shown (and yes, I know, I read too) that those with loving families, do tend to recover from disease and surgery faster then those who don't. It has been shown, a person's attitude has an impact on their physical well being. It has also been shown that those that consider themselves 'spiritual' do tend to also be healthier and recover faster as well. The studies are there too and make my point just as I said, when you do not feel good, you don't do well. I know when I have a migraine, I do not want to do anything but lay down. I also have the ability to not even notice I am hungry when I am wrapped up in something and only notice when pulled back into reality. Most Christians tend believe we are physical creature and that we also contain a non-physical nature. We also tend to believe that the two are linked, so of course the physical will affect the non physical and vise versa (ever hear of 'heavy of heart or depression) and I'm sorry Phank, as much as you want to believe it, there does seem to be some sort of evidence and just ignoring it and hoping it goes away will not help you at all.

Chuckle. OK, you asked, I explained, now you say LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Good for you.

Nah Phank, I have read your interactions and know you're just like Jorge, you want your beliefs assumed and you seemed to have purposely ignored studies that might not work in your favor. So do you deny the studies I mentioned do not give a result that shows that the condition of the mind is important for the physical as well?

I interpret this bit of nastiness to mean you have no clue what is meant by an operational definition. And no, you have not produced an operational definition. Or anything close.

I do, but it is really too bad I am not presenting science at all and never claimed to. You really should try to keep up Phank, might do you a load of good.

This is not what I said.

Sure it is, you just don't like your arguments shown for how silly they really are.

I said nothing like this either.

You have no problems doing the same, just returning the favor.

I would be delighted if you could provide an experimental methodology that can reliably distinguish between "true" and "false" spiritual experiences. Failing that, I'd like it if you could provide a clear, unambiguous definition so that someone else might try such an experiment.

I made something like like that in the Mormon forum if you want to go read it. You'll find I'm not too forgiving of 'spiritual experiences' either and question many of them as well.

You're arguing again about something I never said.

You've implied it, but I know you're like jorge in the sense you do not see your own implications. It's ok, I understand.

One WHAT to be true? One testimonial about a spiritual experience? I already agreed that such things are real, and you decided that was a straw man! How very convenient.

Which you respond with another strawmen while accusing me of one. Let's start here sweety, were did I say they were all true or all are accurate? Remember, it only takes one to be real in every sense for your belief system to come crashing down.

LOL! That's ALL your faith is based on. Nothing but, nothing else.

ANyway, keep protesting the truth of your faith. Remember, in religion-land, words spoken twice double in meaning.

Remember children, when you're a fundy atheist that can't debate facts with a person, whine, insult them, pretend they are stupid, burden shifting, etc are all good things to do rather then actually having to support your beliefs.

Tip of the day: If none of that works, try the negative/positive claim idiocy is a very good way to argue. Ignore the fact that the best way to prove a negative is to prove a positive, that doesn't matter in the world of a fundy atheist and puff, you can make your beliefs unable to be tested and assert that theist have to prove things you never have to.

See Phank, I can be as patronizing as you can, now are you done pretending I don't know a thing about neuroscience or biology? Does it make you feel better to believe you are smarter than all of us 'dumb Christians' are?

[lilpixieofterror]

That's the point she keeps missing. Because scientists had good reason to assume dark energy exists, there's no comparing the soul to dark energy unless you assume dark energy is metaphysical. No scientist thinks its non-physical, which is precisely why they study it. The soul isn't a scientific mystery because there's no material evidence for us to test.

All, poor Whaggy, he doesn't understand that I was using an imperfect example to make a point he refuses to see. Not understanding everything about dark matter doesn't make dark matter not exist, does it? Of course not, but yet Whaggy seems to assume that I need to explain every detail of how the soul works, what it does, and his million and one question game in order for the soul to exist. It is really too bad that:

1. I never argued the soul could be studied by science, since it's kind of hard to study the immaterial in a field that is designed to study the material.
2. I used it as an example to show that we can't even understand things we can physically test and understand, so why on earth would one claim that I should be able to answer the million and one question game with something that isn't. I'd assume the fact that Whaggy didn't answer, but shifted the burden to something else is an indication that he doesn't like where that line leads.

Now do try to drop that literalist fundy mind set. It really has no place here, but you do play the million and one question game that I used to play when I was 12 so... maybe you haven't grown up beyond the literalist view point yet?