burden of proof and existence of god

"Earthly life would simply become the waiting room for the afterlife. What would be the point of trying to discover cures for cancer that would prolong life and delay entrance to paradise? Why waste time searching the stars for new discoveries knowing that all will be revealed when one dies?"
-----------------------------


Interesting perspective. Are your questions rhetorical? Since we are dealing in hypotheticals, why would God create such a mysterious Earth, solar system and laws of nature? Why would He give us the gift of reasoning to accurately interpret our discoveries, grant us the abilities and knowledge to study them, bestow upon us the body of knowledge known as science? Does this appear to be a God who wishes to suppress our learning?

><>
 
wutsupyall,

Your arguments, while complelling are no more than the irrational ramblings of an irate fool. While the steadfastness you display in regards to your convictions are unrivaled, save by lemmings, and commendable to the upmost, they do not change the simple fact that you are a senseless and asenine individual. While you always seem to cosider the ontological underpinnings of said arguments, you never fail to disrepute the epistimological infrastructure of the associated contention. I find it unnerving that a man of such moral aptitude can fail to appreciate the inter-judeochristianographic parasympathetic archeotypes that are intertwined at the very core of what constitutes your line of reasoning. I believe I speak for everyone when I ask you to please refrain from posting until the afformentioned issues are addressed.

Thank you,
Harry Balzonya
 
All these debates comes down to Absolute Truth. if somethings
Absolute, then its irrefutable with no doubt. The truths of religions and sciences and have its validity questioned. So called truths have been destroyed to bring out new truths. I believe and science and spirituality have parts of truth. It's just we still dont what REALLY happened? We just think we do. We accept theories and religious doctrine without challenging it. Maybe Truth is unattainable. I accept that. But I enjoy the pursuit.
 
Harry : Although I'm not sure I understand completely what you just said, i think I agree with you. I'm consulting my dictionary. I do take comfort in knowing that whatsup is probably doing exactly the same thing though.

Old School : Absolute truth does not yet exist. Who is the "we" who think we know?
 
Inpsector,

…why would God create such a mysterious Earth, solar system and laws of nature? Why would He give us the gift of reasoning to accurately interpret our discoveries, grant us the abilities and knowledge to study them, bestow upon us the body of knowledge known as science? Does this appear to be a God who wishes to suppress our learning?
Click to expand...
All good questions and there are no good answers if his existence is known for certain. However, all those abilities that we have and are developing together with the laws of nature are more consistent with a universe where God does not exist.
 
Squid,

You people of course realise, that in replying to Whatisnamey at all, is merely feeding his belief that he's worth your time?
Click to expand...
Yes but if his statements are so ridiculous then those who oppose him should have no difficulty in formulating correct responses. One should look at whatsups contributions as not a target for someone to be converted, but an opportunity for others to learn by thinking through and creating the answers.

If you can also reply and at the same time maintain high levels of courtesy then you will have gained significantly in personal development.
 
"However, all those abilities that we have and are developing together with the laws of nature are more consistent with a universe where God does not exist."
------------------------------------


A beautiful, naturalistic explanation, delivered in a beautifully, subjective manner. However, subjectivity is an entirely different topic altogether.

><>
 
inspector,

A beautiful, naturalistic explanation, delivered in a beautifully, subjective manner. However, subjectivity is an entirely different topic altogether.
Click to expand...
Since certainty of the existence of a god is not apparent then of course a ‘what if’ discussion is subjective. But then what is the alternative? Surely this only leaves us with a discussion on the uncertainty of the existence of a god, and isn’t that equally if not more subjective.

Without definitive evidence for a god there can only be hypothetical arguments and speculation as to such an existence. If you claim evidence that does not lead to any degree of certainty then all we have are your subjective opinions.

But that does not detract from the value of a subjective discussion on the implications of certain knowledge that a god exists. Your have repeatedly said that there is plenty of evidence but that non-believers refuse to accept it. So in this scenario I am suggesting that everyone does accept your claims for evidence and that God does certainly exist. It seems to me that that knowledge will dramatically change the way people live and run their lives.

If you get your way and everyone accepts that God exists then, now what? What does it mean to have an earthly life? Why bother with science? Why bother to extend longevity etc.
 
"If you get your way and everyone accepts that God exists then, now what? What does it mean to have an earthly life? Why bother with science? Why bother to extend longevity etc."
-----------------------


I must address your comment, "if you get your way...". First, it is not 'my' way, the way you falsely connect it to a possessive nature. I am simply instructed in 1 Peter 3:15 to give an account for the hope that I have. Second, it is unlikely that all will ever accept that God exists, since there were people who rejected Christ even as He dwelt among them 2000 years ago. If the evidence of His existence were conclusive and unanimous, this would contradict His gift of free will for us. We have a choice. Always, we have a choice.

To know that God exists does not diminish our earthly lives, contrary to what you are required to believe. We have the skills and tools to do whatever we want to do during our time here on Earth, limited only by our imagination, whether God exists or not. Regarding longevity, if you were diagnosed with a terminal illness, wouldn't you want all available medical treatments so that you would have the opportunity to see your daughters a little while longer during your time here on Earth? Is it human nature, sociologically derived? Or, is it, perhaps, divinely inspired to spend as much time as we can with our loved ones during our brief time here on Earth? We have a choice, always.

><>
 
Originally posted by Cris
whatsup,

The topic was souls, not life.
Click to expand...


Did you read the post aforementioned? The christianity's claim is that everything that lives, have a soul that gives it life. In other words, a soul is a living reflection of everything that lives, this has been taught over 2000 years ago, NOW IF YOU REFUTE THIS AND CLAIM THAT A SOUL DONT EXIST, YOU MUST BE IMPLYING THAT THE REASON WHY CREATURES HAVE "LIFE" IS NOT BECAUSE OF A SOUL, BUT BECAUSE OF _____( YOU MAY SAY SUBATOMIC PARTICLE CHUPACABRA, WHATEVER YOU MAY NAME IT). BUT WE CALL IT A "SOUL". Yes I may have the burden of proof for claiming that a soul exist, AND THE PROOF OF THAT IS WE LIVE, WE EXIST, CREATURES LIVE, THATS A FACT....IN THE SAME WAY YOU ALSO HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR CLAIMING THAT SOUL DONT EXIST, THEREFORE PROVE IT AND CREATE LIFE FORMS, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS A FORM OF "CHEMICALS" THAT GIVES IT LIFE..(IM SURPRISED YOU DIDNT CALL IT "SUB-ATOMIC CHUPACABRA" INSTEAD OF "CHEMICALS"...)


Originally posted by Cris

It was your speculation. I have nothing to prove. It was you who made the unsupported assertion that souls exist. .
Click to expand...

YOUR STUPID...At first many of you made a claim that "God dont exist" now because you cannot prove your claim, then many off ou lied and denied your claim then said "I am agnostic and i never said that, it is possible that God exist but to my BELIEF, he doesn't"...
IF YOU MADE A CLAIM GOD DONT EXIST, THEN PROVE IT....IF YOU ALSO MADE THE CLAIM THAT SOUL DONT EXIST, THEN PROVE IT...I MADE A CLAIM GOD EXIST, AND I HAVE GIVEN TONS OF EVIDENCE YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT, AND MY EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL IS THAT WE LIVE, WE EXIST...SIMPLE....IF YOU SAY IT IS NOT A SOUL THAT GIVES US LIFE, THEN PROVE IT........THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ONE WHO MADE A CLAIM....otherwise just say "I dont know" of course you dont know, your an atheist...:)
If you want to call it "giant purple squid monkey" FINE, your are free to be stupid and immature, BUT THE ORIGINAL NAME FOR IT IS "SOUL", OVER 2000 YEARS AGO WAS THAT LABELED...again if u insist it is "fuzzy pink elephants", then fine, just make sure you dont watch powerpuff girls too much, its jacking up your head...

Originally posted by Cris

No, but because such things as souls have never been shown to exist, or have ever been detected. Without any observation or detection the idea is no different from speculation or a fantasy..
Click to expand...

Your brain is too immature to understand things Cris..Listen what do you labbel as fantasy? explain, non tangible? non visual? nonphysical? what is non physical? Again you need to think before posting..
Is life detected? IF IT IS NOT A SOUL, THEN WHAT GIVES US LIFE? "SUB ATOMIC CHUPACARBA METEORITES MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE?" IS THAT HOW YOU WILL NAME IT? OR WILL YOU ONCE AGAIN CAL IT "GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY"? IF YOU LABELED IT IN THE NAME OF "SCIENCE", THEN I ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT THESE ARE, THEREFORE PROVE IT AND CREATE LIFE FORMS TO REFUTE THE EXISTENCE OF SOUL...OH YOU CANT? THEN ONCE AGAIN SHUT UP....
WE MADE THE FIRST AND ORIGINAL CLAIM, IT HAS BEEN THESE WAY FOR CENTURIES, YOU WANT TO REFUTE IT? THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON YOU AS WELL EVEN MORE...

Originally posted by Cris

Prove what? That you have a ripe imagination and can dream up invisible imaginary objects? ..
Click to expand...

Oh dream up invisible imaginary objects? ALOT LIKE KING HENRY, SHAKESPEARE, QUEEN ELIZABETH, BLACK HOLE, QUANTUM MECHANICS, WHAT GIVES US LIFE, NAPOLEON, ETC...ACCORDING TO YUR PATHETIC BRAIN, THEY ARE IMAGINARY TOO...:) GROW UP CRIS...


Originally posted by Cris

You introduced the idea of a soul existing and haven’t shown that such things do or can exist. Life seems to work just fine without such a dream. ..
Click to expand...

SO NOW YOU MADE A CLAIM THAT "SOUL" IS JUST A DREAM? IN OTHER WORDS "FANTASY" OR "MYTH"? BY WHAT REASONS? BECAUSE IT IS INVISIBLE? SHAKESPEAE IS JUST A DREAM TOO RIGHT? CRIS GROW UP...BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLAIM "GIVE REASONS AND EVIDENCE" AND IF YOU CANT, THEN SHUT UP....


Originally posted by Cris

You have assumed that souls exist in order to help explain another issue. Your assumption has no value if you cannot give a basis for your claim. Without showing some evidence for souls your argument is just empty words...
Click to expand...

I HAVE GIVEN YOU EVIDENCE, YOU RAMBLE AND WHINE WITHOUT EVIDENCE AT ALL...YOUR ARGUMENT IS INDEED NOTHING....


Originally posted by Cris

Here are a few references showing how the brain generates emotions. I’ll find some more for you if you like. There is little doubt in neurobiology that the brain causes emotions. I think your statements emphasize your need to be more aware of current science research and not be so ready to believe millennia old superstitions like Christianity.

Limbic System: The Center of Emotions:
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n05/mente/limbic_i.htm

Brain functions:
http://brainmuseum.org/functions/

University of Wisconsin-Madison brain and emotions research references:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/emotion/index.msql?get=bios
Click to expand...


You dont think I know this claim? THEY INDEED HAVE ACCUSED CERTAIN PART OF BRAIN TO BE RESPONSIBLE, YESS THEY SPECULATE...BUT THEY CANNOT PROVE THAT INDEED IT IS THE BRAIN...THAT IS THE SAME SAY ABOUT "THE HOLY SPIRIT AND EVIL INFLUENCE" IS WHAT GIVES US THOSE EMOTIONS, WHICH ORIGINALLY COMES FROM THE MIND, AS IT IS THE SEAT OF WISDOM, THATS CHRISTIANITY'S CLAIM...WHATS THE DIFFERENCE? YOU LABELED PART OF BRAIN "NEUROBIOLOGY", THATS FINE, NOW PROVE IT....DEMONSTRATE IT....THAT IS THE SAME SPECULATION AS "PLACEBO" YES IT SEEMED TO "MAKE SENSE" BUT IT CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED, ALOT LIKE THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER TO YOU....
TAKE PHILOSOPHY CLASS..LEARN THAT A MIND AND THE BRAIN IS A SEPARATE ENTITY...YOU CAN SAY "THE MIND LIVES BECAUSE OF THE BRAIN" IN THE SAME WAY YOU CAN ALSO SAY "THE BRAIN LIVES BECAUSE OF THE MIND"...LIKE EMOTIONS, YOU CAN ALSO SAY "THE EMOTIONS LIVE BECAUSE OF THE HEART", OR "THE HEART LIVES BECAUSE OF THE EMOTIONS"...YOU CAN DETECT EVERY MATTER EVEN TO THE POINT OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, BUT EVEN THAT A CERTAIN FORCE GIVES US LIFE....

Originally posted by Cris

Well no, that is the job of food and water.
]
Click to expand...

WHY DONT YOU GO TO CEMETERY AND PUT FOOD AND WATER IN FRONT OF A DEAD CORPSE, SEE IF THEY COME TO LIFE, DUMB PIECE OF _____....

Originally posted by Cris

Yes and we can immediately see where Christianity has gone wrong.

It’s a pretty story, but nothing more than just a story, unless you can show otherwise, rather than just making unsupported assertions.]
Click to expand...

ONCE AGAIN YOU MADE A CLAIM THAT IT IS JUST A "STORY".. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "JUST A STORY"..EXPLAIN...IS IT A FAIRY TALE? A FANTASY? A MYTH? ARE YOU MAKING A CLAIM IT IS A MYTH? IF SO PROVE IT..GIVE YOUR REASONS AND EVIDENCE...ANYONE CAN MAKE A CLAIM, BUT NOT ANYONE HAVE TRUTH IN WHAT THEY SAY AND CAN GIVE EVIDENCE AND REASON, LIKE YOU....SHAKESPEARE AND NAPLOEON IS ALSO "JUST A STORY" AS WELL....IF YOU CANT PROVE YOUR CLAIM, THEN SHUT UP...(YOU NEVER EVER GIVE EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR YOUR CLAIM, YOU INDEED RAMBLE...)

Originally posted by Cris

Only if you promise to prove that flying green elephants don’t exist. I’m bored with the pink ones.
Click to expand...

GROW UP.....
 
Last edited:
Whatsupyall,

How many times must we tell you, according to the theory of relativity NOTHING can go faster than 300000000 meters per second. No matter what. Any observed speed is equal to or less than that. And, the accuracy of the measured momentum and the measured position combined cannot be greater than a certain fixed value. More accuracy in the momentum measurement means more uncertainty in the measured position and vice versa. That's called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I'll bet you'll skip this part and change the subject, lol I KNOW I'm right (<=DIRECT quote from whatsupyall!! from Whatsup's live concert).

As for the 'soul' that you claim to keep us alive, there is no physical evidence for a soul (refer to the definition I wrote for you....yes just for you....now don't you feel special? there there...). What keeps us alive are the energy-creating chemical reactions that consume carbohydrates and oxygen and expel carbon dioxide...which is known as respiration. No role in a soul there. As for all the thinking we do? The synapses and cells in our brains communicate with ion exchange. The whole notion of a god or any thinking we do depends on those cells and ions. No soul there either. Must be pretty humbling for you and your god, knowing that your god depends so much on those particles otherwise he wouldn't exist. We wouldn't have invented that concept without brains.
 
TAKE PHILOSOPHY CLASS..LEARN THAT A MIND AND THE BRAIN IS A SEPARATE ENTITY
Click to expand...

Actually, whether or not that is the case is one of the prime questions of philosophy of the mind ie. the mind-body problem. Any self-respecting philosophy teacher would slap you silly for making such an assumption.
 
Whatsupyall,

Stop stalling. Answer the questions presented to you. Usually, those you do not believe in God have evidence to back up claims. To keep the conversation going, you need to punctually answer with out accusing people of ignorance because, sadly, you are the one who is having the most trouble proving your case.

The problem with monotheism is that God supposedly gave humans freewill, but this is nullified by the fact that God lives in atleast two dimesions of time. Certain technicalities like this confuse many people. I stopped believing in God because, if there is a God, He stopped giving a damn about us a long time ago. If God has the power to change events in all parts of time, why would he let so many innocent people die?

Questions like these further confuse people, but in this forum, it is obvious that every one would rather decide if God exists or not. It is completely possible because God can cange the Laws of Physics whenever he wants to, but there are so many factual properties of science that God has faded from many people's minds.

Ask your self this: as a Christian, you expect to hopefully go to Heaven, but where will all of the people who do not accpet Jesus go? Read a Bible, you might be surprised....

God so loved the Earth......?
 
mind-body problem

TAKE PHILOSOPHY CLASS..LEARN THAT A MIND AND THE BRAIN IS A SEPARATE ENTITY
Click to expand...

Whatsupyall, first of all I will attack the fact that you are using all caps again. I would like to use an example to try to get you to stop. Think of a man on the streets of New York, screaming his head off about doomsday. The first day you listen, someone in a trance because this person while not intelligent has a few points. Next day you walk the same road, he is there, screaming that the end of days is tomorrow, just like he did the day before. Next day the same thing happens, for weeks and weeks. After awhile you do not even notice that he is there. Now, no matter how much he screams, and no matter how right or wrong he is, you will not hear him. I would advise you not to become this person, so try to stop screaming. I have been only this board for a very short while, and I find myself skipping over most of your posts, and the only time I get to read what you say is when someone else quotes you in their post.

Now I will attack your idea that a mind and the brain are separate. First of all, I will say that I have “taken a philosophy class.” I have also written a few papers on the philosophy of mind, particularly dualism, so I am fairly educated in the subject. Also, you are wrong, the mind-body problem has not been solved, as Voodoo stated earlier.

If you have this view (mind and brain are separate), there are a limited number of philosophies to choose from. I would say that you would most likely choose substance dualism. Also since you seem only to know popular philosophy (it seems obvious from your statement above, since that is a very basic controversy and you are wrong) I would guess that you belief in Cartesian interactionist dualism. You could also believe in occasionalism, epiphenomenalism, or preestablished harmony. However since you do not seem to know philosophy of mind to any real extent, I doubt you know these very well.

I will first give a brief overview of Cartesian dualism for the people who have not read up on it. Now, the claim of this philosophy is that each mind is a distinct nonphysical thing, a thing whose identity is independent of any physical body to which it may be temporarily attached. Mental states and activities derive their special character, on this view, from their being states and activities of this unique, nonphysical substance.

Descartes theorized that reality divides into two basic kinds of substance. The first is ordinary matter, and the essential feature of this kind of substance is that it is extended in space. A second and more radically different kind of substance is a substance that has no spatial extension or spatial position whatever, a substance whose essential feature is the activity of thinking.

As Descartes saw it, the real you is not your material body, but rather a non-spatial thinking substance, an individual unit of mind-stuff quite distinct from your material body. This nonphysical mind is in systematic causal interaction with your body.

The main reasons offered in support for this view are straightforward enough. First, Descartes thought that he could determine, by direct introspection alone, that he was essentially a thinking substance and nothing else (cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am). And second, he could not imagine how a purely physical system could ever use language in a relevant way, or engage in mathematical reasoning, as any normal human can
Now, let us address the most obvious problem with this philosophy. If the mind “stuff” has no physical properties and does not exist physically, how does it have any causal influence on the body at all? Causal means of involving or constituting a cause by the way (ex. a causal relationship between the lack of goods and the prices of such goods).

As Descartes himself was aware, ordinary matter in space behaves according to rigid laws, and one cannot get bodily movement from nothing. How is this insubstantial ‘thinking substance’ to have any influence on thinking matter?

Now, I believe that this is a large enough problem to kick the philosophy to the curb. There is no possible way for the mind-brain substances to interact.

Also, recent events in human physiology point away from dualism. The brain seems to be the seat of thought, not some nonphysical thinking substance. How else do you explain effects from cutting the corpus callosum?

If you are interested in this subject, I reference these two books the most.

Churchland, Paul. Matter and Consciousness. 2001: Mit Press; 7-22.

Cornman, James. Philosophic Problems and Arguments. 1991: Macmillian Publishing: Substance Dualism.
 
Phaedrus,

First of all, I don't believe whatsupyall has any philosophy, I believe he only believes in the Bible.

Now... I do believe mind and brain are separate. Of course there are some physical things but that are also non-physical things (and things that seems to be both... like light... ;) ).

For example, it is not the brain that produce the thoughts, but electrical impulses in the brain. Those electrical impulses are some kind of energy, as everything in this universe. Now, if you tell me atheists totally comprehend energy, then you are a liar, cause if the atheists could totally comprehend energy, the universe would be completly revealed and there would be no need for any further research on anything.

Energy is less physical then it seems. It has a lot of properties (all in the universe... probably...). Now, what everything has in common? Everything is made up of energy. By this law we can say that everything that is made of energy (everything that exists, be physical or non-physical) can interact with each other. In this sense, the "mind" and the "brain" can be quite different kinds of energies and still be able to interact with each other.

Now, to answer that sentence...
LEARN THAT A MIND AND THE BRAIN IS A SEPARATE ENTITY
Click to expand...
Yes, they are in some sense separated. However, they are not much different. The soul is not much different then the body. They are two different kinds of energy, but the soul is in a little higher level then the body. The soul is NOT spiritual. Only the spirit is spiritual (duuhhh...:bugeye::p).

We have a body, a soul and a spirit.
The two firsts are physical (in different levels, though...)
The last one is purely spiritual.
The middle one (the soul) makes the bridge between the physical and spiritual world (body <--->spirit).
The soul is composed by mind, will and emotions.
The brain is the physical centre of the soul.
Spirit is LIFE
You are a spirit (you ARE life),
You live IN a body,
You have a soul.

Could go on... but it's a little bit pointless now...

You are NOT your body. You think you are your body because you feel it. But you are no different then water inside a bottle. The water is NOT the bottle. Your body is like the bottle, your spirit is like the water. Simple as that.

When you look in a mirror, you see your body, not yourself. You see with your eyes. If you close them, you see nothing, but that doesn't mean you don't exist.

If you like so much philosophy and dualism, remember Zen-Buddhism. There is a story about a little wave that used to think she is too small, compared to the others. However, a friendly wave :)p) said to her that she is THE ocean, and not a single wave. So, the little wave found out that she was a part of a whole, that she wasn't just a little wave...

One more thing... If you are not the body, then what you are?
You are a spirit
Which means that you are LIFE itself. You are not the body, but the LIFE that is IN the body. Have any scientists ever be able to explain life? No. Life is still a mystery for atheists. Why?

Because life is not something physical, but something purely spiritual.:)

Edit: and it is still energy...;)
 
Truthseeker,

I am not a dualist, I am something of a materialist. You are wrong if you say that if we completely comprehend energy then the universe would be completely revealed. For example, even if you completely understood energy, you would not know what time I woke up this morning. Also, knowledge of energy is not everything. By saying that you are assuming that all theories reduce to energy, which is wrong.

Also, I am not the one who said "the mind and the brain are separate", I do not know if you thought that it was me or not since the article was addressed to me. Also, I am wondering what you mean by soul, and how does it interact with the body. Next, since I have a spirit, I am wondering how it interacts with my body, how does it have a causal relationship if it is non-physical.

Also, the Buddhist tale is a good one, however are you offering up the idea that all is one?

Yes I "like" philosophy, and I "like" dualism, even if I do not agree with it. So lets just say I study dualism, no matter how wrong it is.

-Phaedrus
 
Originally posted by Maia
Whatsupyall,

How many times must we tell you, according to the theory of relativity NOTHING can go faster than 300000000 meters per second. No matter what. Any observed speed is equal to or less than that. And, the accuracy of the measured momentum and the measured position combined cannot be greater than a certain fixed value.
Click to expand...


Listen kid..There is no end to splitting an atom, heard of singularity? If all the spaces are removed, a size of a pencil can have the same mass as planet earth if compressed to that point...
Once again, it is our technology that limits it...YOU GOT THAT? Are you trying to refute this and say "It is not because of technology that we detect things?" If you say so, then I rest my case....
Are you know trying to disagree with science? LOL....

Originally posted by Maia
[
As for the 'soul' that you claim to keep us alive, there is no physical evidence for a soul (refer to the definition I wrote for you....yes just for you....now don't you feel special? there there...). What keeps us alive are the energy-creating chemical reactions that consume carbohydrates and oxygen and expel carbon dioxide...which is known as respiration..
Click to expand...

Wow...energy-creating chemical reactions that consume carbohydrates and oxygen and expel carbon dioxide,LOL, I like that...You call it "respiration"...Thats fine, now create life forms to prove your claim, oh you cant? Well then, that is just the name to replace the word "soul"...
Fact... Not one scientist can create any life forms...The most they can do is create "amino acids", alive and DEAD organisms are composed of proteins, but what gives it life? Im sure dead cells are also composed of amino acids.....Think about it child..Education is healthy for your brain :)


Originally posted by Maia
[
No role in a soul there. As for all the thinking we do? The synapses and cells in our brains communicate with ion exchange. The whole notion of a god or any thinking we do depends on those cells and ions.
Click to expand...

Ohh synapses and cells in our brains communicate with ion exchange, LISTEN YOU PILE OF MONKEY_____ YOU CANNOT CREATE A LIVING CELL OR ANY LIFE FORM, DONT EVEN MAKE LIFE FORMS AS EXAMPLES WHEN YOU DONT EVEN KNOW HOW IT EXIST TO BEGIN WITH OK KID....Sorry for the caps, but that is meant for little children, like the daddy yelling at his rebellious son..:)

Originally posted by Maia
[
No soul there either. Must be pretty humbling for you and your god, knowing that your god depends so much on those particles otherwise he wouldn't exist. We wouldn't have invented that concept without brains.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You made a claim there is no soul? WELL THEN PROVE YOUR CLAIM, if you say "the burden of proof lies on those who made a claim", well then, practice what you preace..wheres the evidence that a soul is a myth? where? give me evidence and stop rambling....
Yes we invented King Henry, Shakespeare, quantum mechanics, God, napoleon, they are all myths...... :)

Maia, you sure make a lot of claims but give no reasons and evidence behind such claims..(I HAVE A FEELING YOU INDEED WILL LIE AND CHANGE SUBJECT AS ALWAYS, THEN USE MY OWN WORDS AND FALSELY ACCUSE ME..:) Its ok, thats a sign of losing an argument...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top