Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

What I am trying to illustrate is that the concept of the spiritual human soul, which has been in existence for several thousand years, is not contradicted or explained away by modern science, and indeed fits in quite well.

The concept of a soul has been around for several thousand years, I agree. The idea of consciousness, including in other animals, has been around for thousands of years too, as has a belief in reincarnation. So, are you suggesting that how true a statement is depends on how long the idea has been around?

Of course it is not contradicted or explained away by science because such supernatural ideas are not within the range of science. You may as well say that leukocytes each have an individual miniscule 'soul'. All science can do is produce evidence that the body and mind function perfectly adequately without recourse to such supernatural ideas, and even where science has not yet adequately explained or produced evidence for something, it, by the very nature of its remit, does not invoke supernatural explanations because they can in no way be verified by material evidence or scientific method.

I'm not sure what you mean by the idea that your 'soul' idea fits in quite well with science? So far, you have not produced any evidence to support such a suggestion.

However, I am certainly open to look at any evidence you wish to give in support of your suggestion?

NB Of course simply by suggesting that science cannot yet explain self awareness adequately is not a logical reason of itself to suggest that your idea of a 'soul' fits well with science.

[ippy]

I believe there are some idiots who think Elvis is still around!

Which statement makes the most sense?

ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

Which statement makes the most sense?

ippy

You choose.......
a) I believe
b) there are some idiots who think
c) Elvis is still around

[Dicky Underpants]

What I am trying to illustrate is that the concept of the spiritual human soul, which has been in existence for several thousand years, is not contradicted or explained away by modern science, and indeed fits in quite well.

The 'spiritual human soul' is a concept that began with Socrates and Plato. That's over two thousand years, but not several thousand. The Hindu concept of Atman (=Brahman) is older, but I'm guessing you didn't mean that, not wanting to equate the human soul with God, as the Hindus are happy to do.

[jeremyp]

 Instead of man seeking God, Christians will find that it is God who seeks them.

He's a bit rubbish then. I'm not making any effort to hide but he still can't find me.

[Alan Burns]

Of course simply by suggesting that science cannot yet explain self awareness adequately is not a logical reason of itself to suggest that your idea of a 'soul' fits well with science.

The concept of science is contained within the knowledge which comes from conscious human awareness.  As such, science does not exist outside human awareness. Science cannot perceive itself, for perception itself is not defineable within science as we know it.  So if conscious awareness is a property of the human soul, science can only be perceived by the human soul.

All the literature written about science is only ink stains on paper until it is perceived in human awareness.

[torridon]

The concept of science is contained within the knowledge which comes from conscious human awareness.  As such, science does not exist outside human awareness. Science cannot perceive itself, for perception itself is not defineable within science as we know it.  So if conscious awareness is a property of the human soul, science can only be perceived by the human soul.

Science doesn't do perception, science is not a sentient being.  Sentient beings do not perceive science, they learn about it and understand it and apply it.  So much for the nitpicking, but the last sentence is self referential; all you seem to be saying is that if souls exist, and they have explanatory value, then that would explain things.  Hmphh.  Doesn't amount to much of an argument.

[Enki]

The concept of science is contained within the knowledge which comes from conscious human awareness.  As such, science does not exist outside human awareness. Science cannot perceive itself, for perception itself is not defineable within science as we know it.  So if conscious awareness is a property of the human soul, science can only be perceived by the human soul.

All the literature written about science is only ink stains on paper until it is perceived in human awareness.

Science is a word which is simply a generalised label given by humankind to define  the ideas underpinning our attempts to examine and describe the natural world with its attendant processes and methodologies.  Pretty obviously, if there were no human beings, there would be no such word, and no scientific knowledge, but what science appertains to would still be there i.e. the natural world(unless, of course, you are some kind of solipsist).

So, obviously, science cannot perceive itself because its aims and processes are a result of the human intellect. But the human intellect can perceive itself, and nothing has been discovered afaik that suggests that this perception is dependent on something extraneous to the human brain.

The bald statement:

So if conscious awareness is a property of the human soul, science can only be perceived by the human soul.

might well be true, but unless you can give actual evidence that this 'soul' exists,( and so far you have given none whatsoever), your statement becomes simply a fatuous assertion. I could just as validly say that if conscious awareness is a property of a minute, invisible, pink unicorn which lives in the pineal gland, science can only be perceived by this unicorn.

Remember you did say that the idea of a 'soul' fits in quite well' with modern science. Does this mean that the unicorn idea fits in just as well then? Actually, thinking about it, I think the 'unicorn' idea fits better because, at least, I have given its location, even though, being invisible(to all scientific testing of course) it can never be found.

Still waiting then for evidence for this 'soul' and how it 'fits in quite well' with modern science.

[Leonard James]

Science is a word which is simply a generalised label given by humankind to define  the ideas underpinning our attempts to examine and describe the natural world with its attendant processes and methodologies.  Pretty obviously, if there were no human beings, there would be no such word, and no scientific knowledge, but what science appertains to would still be there i.e. the natural world(unless, of course, you are some kind of solipsist).

So, obviously, science cannot perceive itself because its aims and processes are a result of the human intellect. But the human intellect can perceive itself, and nothing has been discovered afaik that suggests that this perception is dependent on something extraneous to the human brain.

The bald statement:

might well be true, but unless you can give actual evidence that this 'soul' exists,( and so far you have given none whatsoever), your statement becomes simply a fatuous assertion. I could just as validly say that if conscious awareness is a property of a minute, invisible, pink unicorn which lives in the pineal gland, science can only be perceived by this unicorn.

Remember you did say that the idea of a 'soul' fits in quite well' with modern science. Does this mean that the unicorn idea fits in just as well then? Actually, thinking about it, I think the 'unicorn' idea fits better because, at least, I have given its location, even though, being invisible(to all scientific testing of course) it can never be found.

Still waiting then for evidence for this 'soul' and how it 'fits in quite well' with modern science.

All very true, Enki. The whole of the natural world would still exist and react in the same way even if humans had never appeared, just as it did before evolution produced us. We have only been here for the blink of an eye in evolutionary time, and our ability to observe it all has changed nothing.

[Leonard James]

Science doesn't do perception, science is not a sentient being.  Sentient beings do not perceive science, they learn about it and understand it and apply it.  So much for the nitpicking, but the last sentence is self referential; all you seem to be saying is that if souls exist, and they have explanatory value, then that would explain things.  Hmphh.  Doesn't amount to much of an argument.

Spot on, Torri.

[Alan Burns]

... unless you can give actual evidence that this 'soul' exists,( and so far you have given none whatsoever), your statement becomes simply a fatuous assertion. I could just as validly say that if conscious awareness is a property of a minute, invisible, pink unicorn which lives in the pineal gland, science can only be perceived by this unicorn.

But it is you, yourself, that is evidence that self awareness exists.  It is you, not a pink unicorn, which perceives scientific theory.  What I am saying is that perception is a separate entity from that which is being perceived.  Perception is needed to understand science, but science does not define perception.

[Sassy]

And one should also realise that constant repetition of Bible verses doesn't fool everybody into believing them true.

One would need to know that repetition does not make believers. The truth about Christ is what makes believers and the bible is opened up to them by the power of God in the Spirit.

Where did you learn your christianity from?? as it is does not fit in with the mainstream teachings does it?
That is Gods way in Jesus Christ.

[Sassy]

Wheres the bit about the Bible god wanting their foreskins?

Which came first... the bible or circumcision?

[Leonard James]

One would need to know that repetition does not make believers.

Oh, but it very much does, especially if the victims are children. if The truth about Christ is what makes believers and the bible is opened up to them by the power of God in the Spirit.

Where did you learn your christianity from?? as it is does not fit in with the mainstream teachings does it?

From Christians and the Bible, and it certainly did fit the mainstream when I was young.

That is Gods way in Jesus Christ.

Fable!

[Ricky Spanish]

Which came first... the bible or circumcision?

Circumcision.

[Ricky Spanish]

<snip>
That is Gods way in Jesus Christ.

Shouldn't that read that is Pauls way in Christ Jesus?

[floo]

Which came first... the bible or circumcision?

Well obviously circumcision, the Bible wasn't put together until a good few thousand years after Jesus was dead.

[Sassy]

Oh, but it very much does, especially if the victims are children. if The truth about Christ is what makes believers and the bible is opened up to them by the power of God in the Spirit.

If that was true according to your history you would still be a believer and would understand the bible which you don't.
So epic fail there.

From Christians and the Bible, and it certainly did fit the mainstream when I was young.

Fable!

Nothing was mainstream about Christianity when you were young. As your choices in life have proven.
No fear and no belief. So fear, repetition and the bible does not make anyone from a child a Christian then or in adulthood.

[Sassy]

Circumcision.

Correct! but he needs to realise that. Do you think you could explain why his belief about the bible is wrong and his misuse of it.
Would save me an awful lot of posts...

[Sassy]

Shouldn't that read that is Pauls way in Christ Jesus?

No! How would Paul have known anything but for Christ?

So we can never give Paul credit  for without Christ Paul would have died in history never having been known for anything...

[floo]

Correct! but he needs to realise that. Do you think you could explain why his belief about the bible is wrong and his misuse of it.
Would save me an awful lot of posts...

I wonder what the result would be if we did a poll asking how many people take your posts seriously?

[Sassy]

I wonder what the result would be if we did a poll asking how many people take your posts seriously?

I wonder what the poll would be about anyone taking your posts seriously.
You would win hands down. No one takes your posts really seriously. They all know your knowledge is half baked and soggy in the middle when it comes to Christ and the God of Christianity...

 

[floo]

I wonder what the poll would be about anyone taking your posts seriously.
You would win hands down. No one takes your posts really seriously. They all know your knowledge is half baked and soggy in the middle when it comes to Christ and the God of Christianity...

 

Really?

[Enki]

But it is you, yourself, that is evidence that self awareness exists.  It is you, not a pink unicorn, which perceives scientific theory.  What I am saying is that perception is a separate entity from that which is being perceived.  Perception is needed to understand science, but science does not define perception.

Which doesn't help your assertions about your 'soul' idea one jot as I have not disagreed that humans are self aware creatures.

I'm very happy to agree that this pink unicorn doesn't necessarily exist of course, in exactly the same way that I would say that your 'soul' doesn't necesarily exist. They are both  simply conjectures on both our parts because there is not the slightest evidence that either actually exists.

Of course science needs perception for it to be meaningful to the person using their perceptive abilities. However science also needs information which is processed in the brain to build a picture of the world. Science also needs computational abilities in order to access and assess the value of this information. Indeed, why limit all this just to science?
 
I have already said the following:

NB Of course simply by suggesting that science cannot yet explain self awareness adequately is not a logical reason of itself to suggest that your idea of a 'soul' fits well with science.

Hence I suggest that your last sentence is redundant.

If you think that your idea of a 'soul' fits in quite well with modern science, as you suggested, then I want to know the objective science methodology( e.g. the experimentation, the rigorous testing, the peer reviews, the successful predictions) which modern science entails. Failure to do this suggests that your ideas are presently just so much hot air.

[floo]

When all is said and done none of us really know the BIG PICTURE, however much we think we do. One day it is possible we might be surprised to discover it is totally different to anything we have ever thought of.