Creator does not imply afterlife.

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

So if most people think it is okay to kill people from another race or culture then you also give it the thumbs up? ”



Another false analogy. Scientific consensus is there for good reason. If it didn't exist, it would allow bogus theories with no evidence to become mainstay.

So if the scientific consensus says that it is okay to kill people from another race or culture then you also give it the thumbs up?


“ “ Correction - Science acknowledges the "theory" of evolution
There is just this little thing called "evidence" required for it to make the next step - and scientists contend the "fact" of evolution on these grounds ” ”



Amazing. I don't quite know what to say other than you obviously don't know what constitutes evidence. You could even narrow it down further and say that there is no evidence for anything, which I'm sure your ignorance is capable of.

“ So facts do not necessarily innvolve perfect knowledge?
And I am immensely stupid for suggesting this?
I think this one warrants the sciforums hall of fame !!! ”



I doubt it beats your epistemoliogy of faith

Going by your logic, there are no facts in science. None. We don't have perfect knowledge of anything.

This is getting good - So the theory of evolution could theoretically be a theory?

How does language and tribal drifts tie in with the fossil record? If you are suggesting it is proof against evolution then you'll need to explain why.

Thats the point - it doesn't tie in - despite the scientific consensus

“ Well maybe you should present your case to all those scientists in the field that are having a tough time establishing what you are declaring ”



I don't have anything to present to them since I am only going by what science has observed in the brain.

So you've taken a step down from your previous post then?

"Firstly the activity WITHIN the brain demonstrates quite clearly, by scientific or otherwise, observation that this is the shell that holds everything that makes up our culture, music, God, and personal lives. Quite empirical."

This is where you fail to understand science. It can't make a claim if there is no evidence for it. Intelligent designer, the soul... relevant to philosophy, but nothing else.

And (as above in italics)is where you make divergent claims from the understandings of science


“ LOL - they cannot even come to a consensus on that - yet you seem to have it all worked out - maybe you could explain it to them ”

Because the 'self' is just a word which has philisophical meaning.

Well they haven't reached a consensus on that either

I think the consensus in science is that our thoughts are from physical reactions in the brain as can be observed in one of those scannery-majig things.

seems like you are a wealth of knowledge since you have all the answers

“ Sounds like a sky daddy
"It is true. It is a fact. It is proven. But we don't have the evidence and we don't understand it properly yet"

”

I can't really argue with your strawman. First you must give me example of what you consider a fact and what is evidence. Clearly your definitions of these things are far different that scientific definitions.

OK - eg of fact - I pull out a spade and say "this is a spade"

 

[KennyJC]

So if the scientific consensus says that it is okay to kill people from another race or culture then you also give it the thumbs up?

In what way is this analogy any more valid than your previous effort? Fortunately science hasn't and will not instruct people to kill - that's religion's job.

This is getting good - So the theory of evolution could theoretically be a theory?

Clearly you never read the link the link that Plunkies provided you with:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Thats the point - it doesn't tie in - despite the scientific consensus

Then please do explain the alleged contradiction between the fossil record and minor puzzles in anthropology.

So you've taken a step down from your previous post then?

"Firstly the activity WITHIN the brain demonstrates quite clearly, by scientific or otherwise, observation that this is the shell that holds everything that makes up our culture, music, God, and personal lives. Quite empirical."

I have consistently based my opinion on scientific experiment and observation that everything a human does is rooted in the brain. Good luck finding proof of an external force. It is a task similar to trying to prove that a pulse is a phenomena not caused by the heart.

And (as above in italics)is where you make divergent claims from the understandings of science

The understandings of science are clear, there is no evidence to suggest that anyone even needs to come up with a theory of the soul. The soul is therefore philosophy. When it has evidence (like I said, good luck), it will be considered a scientific matter.

"Because the 'self' is just a word which has philisophical meaning."

Well they haven't reached a consensus on that either

Science hasn't? The consensus is that the power of thought is a physical phenomena caused by the brain. This explains why certain area's of the brain light up depending on the thought, emotion or what the brain is telling the body to do.

OK - eg of fact - I pull out a spade and say "this is a spade"

Sometimes arguments with you feel like you are saying the spade is not a spade.

The trouble is with notions such as God and the soul etc, is that you can't prove their existence or non-existence. They are therefore completely irrelevant and classed as fantasy. Sure science can show that current understandings of the brain reveal a physical basis for all human actions and no evidence for a soul, but there will always be sufficient room for you to state a soul exists, since you will never get evidence against it.

Like all theists, you enjoy the comfort of knowing that your superstitions will never be disproven entirely, but you get frustrated with the obvious lack of proof in your favour. As a rational person, this should ring alarm bells and make you ask yourself why you believe such things. Purely for emotional benefit I suspect.

 

[lightgigantic]

So if the scientific consensus says that it is okay to kill people from another race or culture then you also give it the thumbs up? ”



In what way is this analogy any more valid than your previous effort? Fortunately science hasn't and will not instruct people to kill - that's religion's job.

My point is what discrimination do you apply to the claims of science?
You deride theists as blind followers of authority but you have just defined yourself in the same way

“ Thats the point - it doesn't tie in - despite the scientific consensus ”



Then please do explain the alleged contradiction between the fossil record and minor puzzles in anthropology.

Basically the timelines don't agree - they say 10 000 years is no where near enough time to account for the varieties we have in present human culture and language

I have consistently based my opinion on scientific experiment and observation that everything a human does is rooted in the brain. Good luck finding proof of an external force. It is a task similar to trying to prove that a pulse is a phenomena not caused by the heart.

Just like the movement of the car is attributed to the engine - doesn't mean the engine is the final cause.
Inother words just because there are molecular changes going on in the brain doesn't mean that the molecular changes are the ultimate cause of whats going on - that is for your statement to be correct you must have clear evidence of how the molecular concept of life works.

Since you don't, this is why questions like ...

How did life begin?
What is consciousness?
What is life?

were amongst the top ten unanswered questions in science about life in a recent edition of New scientist

Also amongst 125 top q's (What we don't know) in Science journal last year there were

What is the biological basis of consciousness?
How and where did life arise on earth?
How do migratory organisms find their way?
Is morality hardwired into the brain?
What are the evolutionary roots of music and language?
Do deeper principles underlie quantum uncertainty and nonlocality?
What are the roots of human culture?

In other words it is very premature for you to turf out discussions of the soul, particularly on a thread that deals with the afterlife, on the basis that all and everything is explained by the knowledge we have about the brain.

Well they haven't reached a consensus on that either ”



Science hasn't? The consensus is that the power of thought is a physical phenomena caused by the brain. This explains why certain area's of the brain light up depending on the thought, emotion or what the brain is telling the body to do.

You may have reached a consensus, but no, science has not reached a consensus

Sometimes arguments with you feel like you are saying the spade is not a spade.

The trouble is with notions such as God and the soul etc, is that you can't prove their existence or non-existence. They are therefore completely irrelevant and classed as fantasy. Sure science can show that current understandings of the brain reveal a physical basis for all human actions and no evidence for a soul, but there will always be sufficient room for you to state a soul exists, since you will never get evidence against it.

Well this is a thread titled "Creator does not imply afterlife" - You can't tell me that you didn't know what you were getting yourself into.

And I would argue thatthere is evidence of the soul , but that relies on the correct epistemology to perceive it (I guess those combinations of word "correct epistemology" must make you turn off your sense of hearing but it is true - when you say "there is no evidence" it implies that the means of perceiving and acquiring evidence is open to the person making the statement - which may not always be the case - in otherwords not everyone is equally qualified to perceive the same things - thats why we have academics and carpenters - and amongst academics and carpenters there are even more gradations according to quality etc etc)