None. There is no soul by any testable or measurable definition. You define the experiment since it's your hypothesis.
If there is a soul what does it do in an afterlife
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
No, they're the exact opposite.
Science = Theory, observation, test, evaluation, conclusion.
Religion = Blind belief.
I don't know. What are you on about?
It depends how you define physical/material. In some definitions it is defined as being made of matter, with mass, etc...
There fore something immaterial would be without mass, matter, etc...
Why does it have to be supernatural or outside energy? After Gorillas were proven to be real, they were no longer mythical.Cris said:
The mind, not made of matter, is made of energy (similar to EMF, but different). This is what I've personally found to be true. Also check the electromagnetic theories of consciousness, they propose something similar to what I've said but different. Their theory lacks the unacknowledged ether-energy in my opinion.
Thats what science is all about, people developing theories, evidence being gathered, and one coming out to be proven true, however you atheists seem to discourage anything that points to a soul or immaterial mind or God existing. You are no different from theists or any other religious person, just trying to defend your faith.
You can't say anything besides I'm full of shit, because everything I said was true. But I understand your anger, having left to say, what can you say? You also confirm what I just said, "Let's ridicule and condemn them, because we know everything".
There are many theories proposing that there is an immaterial mind or soul. Check them yourselves.
Its obvious that you have no knowledge in the area. Go read something about consciousness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness ) and see the various different theories yourself.
Prove it and I'll retract my statements.
Look, I know there are lots of theories out there and I've read many of them.
Where's the fucking EVIDENCE and EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT for ANY OF THEM???
Sauna,
An amplifier is not independent since it needs an input. And my statement included the terms “independent” and “thinking”, i.e. the ability to think enables free choice and the will.
Your analogy is invalid on both counts.
No, you missed the point and misrepresented what I said.
An amplifier is not independent since it needs an input. And my statement included the terms “independent” and “thinking”, i.e. the ability to think enables free choice and the will.
Your analogy is invalid on both counts.
And in the case of the brain, it’s ability to think is the input and the control is the brain since the brain is what makes you – you.
It's obvious that you're a loon with no desire to learn anything about reality. Go back to middle earth. The elves are waiting.
Infinite regression?
The will is by definition progressesive, not regressive.
Do you hope to halt regression by suppossing the brain to be the soul the will and the consciousness? That's just stupid. They don't buy this idea that they're nothing more than a peculiar accumulation of chemicals.
So, you're very afraid of my questions about evidence and experimental testing of your soul idea.Just keep on confirming what I said about atheists
Typical. Coward.
Ok, but by your logic you should not believe that the brain is the mind nor should you believe that the brain isn't the mind. Through your logic, you should not believe in a soul nor a brain as consciousness.
Since neurology has yet to explain the "hard problem of consciousness" (to explain how all these flows and electrochemical processes in the brain give rise to the inner experience of subjective awareness), it is also lacking.
So all you can believe is that there is a brain, and that it is connected to consciousness in some way, there is no other evidence available.
Huh?
What exactly is your position here? Are you a theist? Do you believe in a soul? Are you a mystic? Or are you just another philosopher who just likes to babble for the fun of it?
Seriously, what are you on about?