God versus Evolution

[Yahweh]

And what you don't understand is that what I'm trying to present to you is based upon what I already know.

The easiest way to get a point across to me is through epistemological analysis.

That when we die our spirit or soul passes on to the spiritual world -- or, afterlife.

In that case, I do not believe we are spiritual beings.

At least one reason is the concept of supernaturalism. I reject Supernaturalism probably because I would have no idea how to define a reality based on Supernaturalism. Further, it is quite impossible to distinguish one supernatural explanation for an event from another supernatural explanation for an event. Therefore, Supernatural explanations are worthless.

I reject the belief in spirit or soul because it cannot be described in terms of matter or natural phenomena, it has never been observed of demonstrated, and it is quite supernatural.

When you say "we" you are speaking for yourself and the scientific community. So?

It is important that I speak in terms of the Scientific Community.

I wrote this proof for my "Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism" thread:

Premise 1: It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical beliefs on that of natural science

Premise 2: The metaphysical picture of the world one gets when led by natural science is that of Naturalism.

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.


Speaking in terms of Scientific Scrutiny is quite essential when you want to understand the world around you. It is a very good tool for analysis.

If you dont speak in terms of Science, or if your view of reality is opposite that of one led by natural science, then you have a false view of reality. I have no interest in a false view of reality.

If you're interested I've created a Spiritual Timeline thread over at Physics Forums which accounts for this 10,000 year period I'm talking about.

I havent visited PhysicsForums in a while. The JREF boards are more fun!

I've read through your thread, and as you can imagine, I would disagree with a great deal of it.

I for one happen to know that I have a soul, in which case it gives a lot more credibility to the Bible.

Well, I do not believe that the soul exists. However, ever skeptical I am, I would like to know how can prove to myself that I do in fact have a soul. How would I go about doing this?

And yet it's all contingent upon the fact that we have a soul or not, as far as I'm concerned.

I would disagree. The information we gather is completely neutral question of whether we have a soul.

However, an analysis of this information, it does not look positive. Cynical, yes, but that cynicism is only a result of preconcieved expectations.

Yes, it's important to understand why we do what we you do, which is why I don't think science should (necessarily) overlook such things.

Which is what we do.

If there is any substance in the Spiritual World, then it should be quite easy to make a case for it.

It is not unusual for Scientists to make conclusions which are contrary to their preconceptions. Scientists start with evidence which leads them to the conclusion, while creationists start with the conclusion and look for facts to support it (I've already mentioned this, I feel its necessary to mention again). The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads.

It sounds to me like a means by which to dismiss it, the use of allegory that is. I didn't follow the link by the way.

Actually, I see the allegorical approach as a means to do anything but dismiss it.

Unfortunately, Genesis has no scientific or historical value. The Allegorical approach allows you to get something out of the bible, to use it as a resource to guide you in ways to live. The purpose of Genesis is not lost simply because there is no literal application for it, it is merely refined.

All I can tell you is that I know the soul is affixed to conscioussness, and it's this "conscious energy" that departs when we die.

"Consciousness Energy" comes in the form of Sodium-Potassium pumps, which are involved in cellular metabolism.

At best, when you die, all the potential energy which is stored inside your body goes right back into the Earth, or is becomes useless Entropy.

I would say that oxygen and water are inert in terms of the body, but this is just a guess?

All the atoms and energy which compose your body come from everywhere around the universe. Parts of your body fall off all the time (fingernails, skin cells, hair).

When you eat food, it becomes part of your body. Some of it will be stored as fat, and it would be quite difficult to consider that fat as something which is not your own body.

Let me ask you this? What would we be without consciousness? Would we even know that we exist?

We would continue to be what we are without consciousness, we would just be unaware of our own existence.

In fact, when you go to sleep, you are quite unaware of your own existence. That would be part of the process of being "unconscious" while dreaming, wouldnt it?

We would not know that we existed.

Isn't it in fact consciousness that defines reality?

Reality would continue to exist, regardless of whether you possessed consciousness or not.

Therefore when our body dies, and our consciousness departs (which it no doubt does), is it possible that it goes on to define a different reality?

I define reality as "the totality of all things which exist objectively".

I do not see any coherent way how consciousness (being an adjective, this adjective describes self-awareness) departs from the body. It is incoherent because it treats something which exists in an abstract sense as something which exists concretely.

Essentially, that is comparable to me claiming that no man is evil, simply because evil cannot be observed in a petri dish. I would be treating the abstract concept of evil, as something which exists concretely, and thats bad.

No, it's more a matter of aligning yourself in a certain way, say like pivoting the rabbit ears on a TV set, in order to get a better reception of the signal.

I remain ever open-minded.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the fact that we have a soul which, transcends the natural world upon death. Which of course is stressed throughout the Bible, at least in the New Testament anyway.

Originally posted by exarch
Please provide the scientific study which concluded that human beings have a soul? Otherwise I see no reason for you to call that a fact.

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, if I said alleged fact would it sound more correct?

No, still not sufficient. I think the phrase "Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the assumption that we have a soul which, presumably transcends the natural world upon death." is more correct.

I still wouldn't agree with your assumptions and presumptions, but at least it's written correctly.

Not necessarily, because we either have a soul or we don't, and there are those who accept it as a "fact" that we do.

That's their problem. They have no reason to accept it as a fact, since there is no evidence, and there most likely never will be. There's also no logical reason to believe that we have a soul, so whenever they try to use logic to prove their assumed "fact", they will fail, or make a logical fallacy.

 

[Atlas]

I define reality as "the totality of all things which exist objectively".

First let me say, I really like your stuff. This is not a criticism. More of a longwinded response to that one thought you expressed.

To me Objective Reality as you describe it, unquestionably real though it is, is the bleak airless moonscape of human experience. Something happens in the apprehension of that reality, something tied to but not limited to awareness of it: appreciation.

When the poet decribes the same reality as the scientist, he too communicates a truth. It speaks to a different part of us than the cold facts of reality. It is in that Subjective Reality that soul and god and evil and all the angels and devils that haunt the mind dwell. Don't you agree?

To me, that is that part of us which contemplates the universe and it is that same part that contemplates ourselves within the universe. That self referential experience gives rise to the notion that we are somehow transcendent.

Artists and religionists cannot accept that human beings are merely talking meatbags. That is too untranscendent. While an omnipotent god could do it... He wouldn't. Not to them. They know that they are special creatures; and how many of us think we are not "special" in some regard. Indeed, knowing that you are a special creature has evolutionary advantages. It makes you 'fitter' than someone who lacks esteem.

So what makes us special? Well the great thing about Subjective Reality is you can make it up. And here is where the soul of man is born, an essential part that is pure and good. The part that hopes on tomorrow. The part that percieves the unknown with a name - God.

And, of course, for many it is the part that gives meaning to experience and life itself. So ingrained in the subjective realities of human beings, the soul - or delusion of it, must be considered part of our objective reality. We see it operate.

It can serve man when it is the inspiration of art and architecture, those creative impulses (soulplus). Where it serves to inspire others to kill or to voodoo superstitions(soulminus), it is a threat to humankind. ('Soul' should breakdown into several other concepts too.)

Anyway - I guess I'm trying to get at a definition of soul that operates within the living human. There is no evidence against the observation that when death takes the living human it takes it all. But since 'soul' is that part that hopes on tomorrow, I can see another's need to disagree.

 

[Iacchus]

Please tell us iacchus, how would we be different if we were not spiritual beings?

That would be like me asking you what came before the Big Bang.

According to the bible, adam and eve did not know the difference between good and evil. So somebody comes along, and tells them to eat a certain tree, and it will make their creator happy. How are they supposed to know that one being is good, and one is evil? How should they know who to believe? If they had no way of knowing, why the punishment? It would be like punishing a 3 month old from spitting up on you.

Which, is why I suggest they weren't spirtual -- although they were no doubt spiritual beings -- because they weren't grounded in what they knew ... hence the nature of the fall, i.e., in the sense that it was inevitable. Perhaps like an apple falling from a tree?

(BTW, are you saying that adam and eve did not have spirits)

No, obviously.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Atlas

Are you fishing for a language award

 

[Atlas]

Are you fishing for a language award

I was nominated for newbie of the month and I'm angling for the prize. I'm falling behind in the number of posts so I'm trying to make 'em count.

Thanks

 

[Chanileslie]

Yes, but how do you know that I'm not imaginary and you just didn't make me up? The imagination can be a very powerful thing, especially when people start hearing voices and what not -- that won't go away!

Because no matter how hard I concentrate, your posts don't disappear from this forum. And no matter how much I try to pretend my computer doesn't exist, it refuses to go away, and no matter how much I would like my ISP not to charge me monthly, alas, there is still a bill to pay every month.

In reference to hearing voices, if you are the only one hearing them, then maybe you should consider that as a problem that is singular to yourself, not to society as a whole.

 

[DarkMagician]

(BTW, are you saying that adam and eve did not have spirits)

That's a good question.



Were there bars in Eden?

Okay, two spirit puns in one day. Please kill me now.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

The soul exists in an abstract sense, just as aesthetics, goodness, evilness, and other abstract concept does, but if these concepts survives the death of the body is quite another question! I have no reason to believe that they do so, except my wishful thinking! The burden of proof is on the shoulders of them who allege so! Since it is close to impossible to prove something negative ("no reincarnation")! I cannot say that there is no such thing as eternal souls, but I can agnostically say that I have no reason to believe that there is any such phenomenon!

 

[Iacchus]

The soul exists in an abstract sense, just as aesthetics, goodness, evilness, and other abstract concept does, but if these concepts survives the death of the body is quite another question! I have no reason to believe that they do so, except my wishful thinking! The burden of proof is on the shoulders of them who allege so! Since it is close to impossible to prove something negative ("no reincarnation")! I cannot say that there is no such thing as eternal souls, but I can agnostically say that I have no reason to believe that there is any such phenomenon!

If the soul exists only in the abstract sense then it doesn't exist.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Metaphysics!

Hypothetically; the sound waves which bombarding my eardrums is not the beautiful music I feel, because beauty have no wavelengths, it doesn't have any objective existence, because my neighbor hate it! It is an illusion as far as science of physics is concerned!

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Metaphysics!

Hypothetically; the sound waves which bombarding my eardrums is not the beautiful music I feel, because beauty have no wavelengths, it doesn't have any objective existence, because my neighbor hate it! It is an illusion as far as science of physics is concerned!

Then it "sounds" to me like something is missing here. Science tends to get lost in the mechanics of things and lose sight of their overall functionality. Which, would be akin to not being able to see the forest from trees, and I agree.

 

[Iacchus]

The easiest way to get a point across to me is through epistemological analysis.

Yes, and this is usually I how I try to explain it, except when someone suggests I'm going about it backwards, which in effect says I have no grounds which by to speak ... and, that "their" position is obviously the default postion.

In that case, I do not believe we are spiritual beings.

At least one reason is the concept of supernaturalism. I reject Supernaturalism probably because I would have no idea how to define a reality based on Supernaturalism. Further, it is quite impossible to distinguish one supernatural explanation for an event from another supernatural explanation for an event. Therefore, Supernatural explanations are worthless.

In other words by worthless you're suggesting it doesn't exist.

I reject the belief in spirit or soul because it cannot be described in terms of matter or natural phenomena, it has never been observed of demonstrated, and it is quite supernatural.

It's never been observed in a petri dish in other words.

It is important that I speak in terms of the Scientific Community.

I wrote this proof for my "Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism" thread:

Premise 1: It is rational and reasonable to base one's metaphysical beliefs on that of natural science

Premise 2: The metaphysical picture of the world one gets when led by natural science is that of Naturalism.

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.

But by its very name, metaphysical describes what "precedes" physical science. So you don't know that it's not spiritual.

Speaking in terms of Scientific Scrutiny is quite essential when you want to understand the world around you. It is a very good tool for analysis.

If you dont speak in terms of Science, or if your view of reality is opposite that of one led by natural science, then you have a false view of reality. I have no interest in a false view of reality.

Yes, natural science is very good for describing what is "physical."

I havent visited PhysicsForums in a while. The JREF boards are more fun!

I've read through your thread, and as you can imagine, I would disagree with a great deal of it.

Well, I do not believe that the soul exists. However, ever skeptical I am, I would like to know how can prove to myself that I do in fact have a soul. How would I go about doing this?

It's like the radio analogy I keep giving, you need to understand that "you" are the radio and "you" are the one who needs to tune in.

I would disagree. The information we gather is completely neutral question of whether we have a soul.

However, an analysis of this information, it does not look positive. Cynical, yes, but that cynicism is only a result of preconcieved expectations.

Again it all depends on "who" established what.

Which is what we do.

If there is any substance in the Spiritual World, then it should be quite easy to make a case for it.

Not if you're looking for a completely natural explanation without understanding that the spiritual precedes the natural.

It is not unusual for Scientists to make conclusions which are contrary to their preconceptions. Scientists start with evidence which leads them to the conclusion, while creationists start with the conclusion and look for facts to support it (I've already mentioned this, I feel its necessary to mention again). The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads.

If scientists understood that the material world is the outcropping of the spritil world, then they may begin to find the need to look into their own minds.

Actually, I see the allegorical approach as a means to do anything but dismiss it.

Yes, I believe much of the Bible is like this, but that isn't to say you should use this to dismiss a possible literal meaning as well.

Unfortunately, Genesis has no scientific or historical value. The Allegorical approach allows you to get something out of the bible, to use it as a resource to guide you in ways to live. The purpose of Genesis is not lost simply because there is no literal application for it, it is merely refined.

This is completely untrue.

"Consciousness Energy" comes in the form of Sodium-Potassium pumps, which are involved in cellular metabolism.

At best, when you die, all the potential energy which is stored inside your body goes right back into the Earth, or is becomes useless Entropy.

From the standpoint of not partaking in the actual process yourself of course.

All the atoms and energy which compose your body come from everywhere around the universe. Parts of your body fall off all the time (fingernails, skin cells, hair).

When you eat food, it becomes part of your body. Some of it will be stored as fat, and it would be quite difficult to consider that fat as something which is not your own body.

In spite of all that there's still a navigator in the midst of it all, and that's "you."

We would continue to be what we are without consciousness, we would just be unaware of our own existence.

In fact, when you go to sleep, you are quite unaware of your own existence. That would be part of the process of being "unconscious" while dreaming, wouldnt it?

We would not know that we existed.

Yes, but aren't we also conscious in our dreams? I've had dreams where I was completey wide awake, but not in the "physical sense" ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

Reality would continue to exist, regardless of whether you possessed consciousness or not.

Possibly, but who's to say it isn't driven by some Universal Consciousness, comparable to say the hollodeck on Star Trek?

I define reality as "the totality of all things which exist objectively".

Yes, but who or what is defining it?

I do not see any coherent way how consciousness (being an adjective, this adjective describes self-awareness) departs from the body. It is incoherent because it treats something which exists in an abstract sense as something which exists concretely.

If you're saying consciousness is merely abstract, then I would have to ask "you" to get real. The very "thing" that establishes what is concrete is not concrete itself?

Essentially, that is comparable to me claiming that no man is evil, simply because evil cannot be observed in a petri dish. I would be treating the abstract concept of evil, as something which exists concretely, and thats bad.

Evil would have to be driven by something other than what is material then. Besides, where do our thoughts and feelings come from?

I remain ever open-minded.

It seems like I used to have an open mind once.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

If consciousness is impotent, why did the genes built the human brain big, when genes for lesser brain should have competition advantage over the more wasteful genes? And it follows from that; Impotent consciousness doesn't fit the Darwinian description! It doesn't fit Newton's third law of motion either, which states that; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction! Impotent consciousness has sometimes been likened with shadows, or steams which, doesn't have any impact on the world! But that is wrong, since steams from engines can lift dust in the atmosphere, and shadows can influence photocells, and it follows from that; if stimulus can impinge (act) upon the mind, and so make us aware about something, then the mind can react back upon the world too! Consciousness is like soap opera, which can be seen in our TV, but who can say that; the origin of soap opera is interaction of conductors in the TV? Consciousness is mediated by neurons, just as conductors in the TV mediate soap opera, but neither consciousness, nor soap opera, can be understood in terms of interaction of component parts!

The second law of thermodynamics is an emergent phenomenon, since heat has no meaning to a single particle; it is a collection of particles in random motion! I mean that how can something be random if you have nothing to compare with? The sum is more than the component parts in nonlinear systems! For instance in the experiments with the two holes in quantum mechanics, there is a light strip to the left, when the left hole is open, and a light strip to the right when the right hole is open, and it stand to reason that two light strips should be there when both holes are open, but nope; there are always a fence there with five or six light strips when both holes are open! A complex nonlinear system raises emergent properties, which cannot be found in its individual elements. For instance a vortex in your bathtub cannot be understood from the knowledge of the properties, of the molecules, which makes up the water! Because interaction between these indefinitely many molecules rises emergent properties (a vortex), which can only be understood on higher level, or order, namely, at the laws of fluid dynamics.

A single ant is considered as automaton and has only 6 ways to signalizing to his fellows, and is considered unconscious by the biologists. But interactions between ants in an anthill is very complex, for instance some ant species takes other ants as slaves, and some of these ants are "farmers" and cultivates fungus, and other keep aphids as domestics, and milking them, etc! These emergent properties cannot be found in a single ant's psychology, not in its physiology either! Hofstadter & Dennett has said in the Mind's I. Ants in the anthill, and neurons in the brain is analogous, and the anthill is an individual, eloquently named; Anthillary! I seriously doubt that consciousness can be reduced to matter until someone can pin down the pattern of consciousness and show that; "this" is how a pattern in a human look like when he has a predilection for fruit, but instead of that, he begins to like chocolate, if we change the pattern into this particular configuration!

 

[exarch]

Re: Re: Metaphysics!

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then it "sounds" to me like something is missing here. Science tends to get lost in the mechanics of things and lose sight of their overall functionality. Which, would be akin to not being able to see the forest from trees, and I agree.

There is nothing scientific about things like "pretty", "nice", "delicious", and other such subjective terms, and science isn't really interested in them either.

That's why many woowoo things can't be quantified or validated, because they rely so much on subjective experience (since that is the only effect they really have).

If there was a way to objectively measure prettyness, or deliciousness, then maybe science could categorise everything according to, for instance, "Cleopatra's prettyness scale", and you could actually have discussions about which is prettier. Unfortunately, pretty is not a rock solid quality. Something does not become heavier or lighter depending on who is holding it, but it does become prettier or uglier depending on who's looking at it, so there's no point in saying science is flawed. On the contrary, science is able to ignore irrelevant data by only taking into account those properties that can be measured. If they didn't, they really would be unable to see the forest through the trees.

So all you have to do to convince the scientific world that the soul exists is devise a way to measure or detect the soul. It's that simple. Until then, it's just a hypothesis.

 

[Iacchus]

There is nothing scientific about things like "pretty", "nice", "delicious", and other such subjective terms, and science isn't really interested in them either.

What are you saying these things don't exist then? Bah!

That's why many woowoo things can't be quantified or validated, because they rely so much on subjective experience (since that is the only effect they really have).

Hey speak for yourself.

Why, because they don't have Big Brother science to back them up?

If there was a way to objectively measure prettyness, or deliciousness, then maybe science could categorise everything according to, for instance, "Cleopatra's prettyness scale", and you could actually have discussions about which is prettier. Unfortunately, pretty is not a rock solid quality. Something does not become heavier or lighter depending on who is holding it, but it does become prettier or uglier depending on who's looking at it, so there's no point in saying science is flawed. On the contrary, science is able to ignore irrelevant data by only taking into account those properties that can be measured. If they didn't, they really would be unable to see the forest through the trees.

What's the point in having a life if you don't enjoy it?

So all you have to do to convince the scientific world that the soul exists is devise a way to measure or detect the soul. It's that simple. Until then, it's just a hypothesis.

Do you realize that this is the whole crux of existence that we're talking about? And you insist on taking it so lightly? Damn if I wasn't beginning to think science was just another woo woo practice!

 

[exarch]

What are you saying these things don't exist then? Bah!

I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm merely saying that they aren't universal values, they differ from person to person, that's the meaning of the word "subjective".

That's why many woowoo things can't be quantified or validated, because they rely so much on subjective experience (since that is the only effect they really have).

Hey speak for yourself.

Why, because they don't have Big Brother science to back them up?

No, read what I wrote: Because they don't have any measurable effects except subjective experience of test subjects. In other words, there's no way to prove something is really happening. When chemicals react, there's a measurable effect (explosions, combustion, creation of fumes, change in colour, etc...), when a homepath says he's healing someone, all we know is that the person thinks they're feeling better, and maybe they are, but we don't have any other measurable value ...

What's the point in having a life if you don't enjoy it?

What does having a life and enjoying it have to do with objective scientific research? Are you suggesting scientists can't enjoy their life? Are you suggesting people who ignore things like "the mars rock is pretty" but instead like to find out what it's made of are unable to enjoy the fact their car is a pretty colour and has a "cool" design?

So all you have to do to convince the scientific world that the soul exists is devise a way to measure or detect the soul. It's that simple. Until then, it's just a hypothesis.

Do you realize that this is the whole crux of existence that we're talking about? And you insist on taking it so lightly? Damn if I wasn't beginning to think science was just another woo woo practice!

But is it? Is it the whole crux of existence? You keep saying that, but why should I take your word for it? Why should I take someone else's word for it? Why should I take anyone's word for it, even god, who may not even exist. Why should I believe this at all when there is no evidence to support this hypothesis? There is just as much evidence for the hypothesis of "pink unicorns" and "greater vampire wombats", i.e. none whatsoever ...

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's never been observed in a petri dish in other words.

Or anywhere else for that matter. It has never been observed at all. Some people may think they have seen something and assumed it was the soul, but there is nothing to support the belief there is really something there to observe.

But by its very name, metaphysical describes what "precedes" physical science. So you don't know that it's not spiritual.

The REAL definition of "metaphysical":

2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
b : SUPERNATURAL
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : THEORETICAL

And of "metaphysics"

2 : the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject : PHILOSOPHY

So in other words, metaphysical describes by its very name those things that are unobservable and theoretical. Those things that cannot be proven or disproven. It doesn't "precede" science at all, in fact, it has very little to do with science, it is a form of phylosophy, despite the word "physical".

And just for good measure, the definition of "meta-":

1 a : occurring later than or in succession to : after
b : situated behind or beyond

It's like the radio analogy I keep giving, you need to understand that "you" are the radio and "you" are the one who needs to tune in.

So you need to learn how to see the things that you can't see. After learning how to see them, you will see them all the time. In other words, you have to go crazy to hear voices, and once you're crazy, you'll hear them all the time. I think I'll pass

Again it all depends on "who" established what.

Not really. In science, it doesn't matter who first came up with a new theory, or why, all that's important is that knowledge will increase.

Not if you're looking for a completely natural explanation without understanding that the spiritual precedes the natural.

But as I already pointed out before, you were misunderstanding the definition of the word metaphysical, so try again.

Yes, but who or what is defining it?

Many people are defining it, and the best, most complete, most correct definition is the one that stays.

If you're saying consciousness is merely abstract, then I would have to ask "you" to get real. The very "thing" that establishes what is concrete is not concrete itself?

Consciousness is merely the ability to be aware, of others and of oneself:

Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: -n&s
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

Evil would have to be driven by something other than what is material then. Besides, where do our thoughts and feelings come from?

Just because you don't know where it comes from doesn't make it supernatural. Our thoughts and feelings are chemical and electrical processes in the brain. We know this, even if we don't yet understand exactly how they work.

Besides, evil is subjective. What you would call evil, for example: a ferocious wolf killing a cute little baby rabbit, is not evil to the hungry wolf who hasn't had anything to eat in a week.

It seems like I used to have an open mind once.

Yes, what happened? Why did you close it?

 

[Iacchus]

Or anywhere else for that matter. It has never been observed at all. Some people may think they have seen something and assumed it was the soul, but there is nothing to support the belief there is really something there to observe.

That's a load of bull!

The REAL definition of "metaphysical":And of "metaphysics"So in other words, metaphysical describes by its very name those things that are unobservable and theoretical. Those things that cannot be proven or disproven. It doesn't "precede" science at all, in fact, it has very little to do with science, it is a form of phylosophy, despite the word "physical".

Yes, but how do we actually know anything until we know?

And just for good measure, the definition of "meta-":

1 a : occurring later than or in succession to : after
b : situated behind or beyond

Perhaps, but as matter begins with energy, and returns to energy, this is very much how our spirit works. First we are born into this world, with spirits (or souls), and when we die, our body decomposes and our energy (spirits) returns back to where it came. And, much in the way a circle completes itself where it begins, everything begins with and ends with, the spirit. So take your pick (about which came first).

So you need to learn how to see the things that you can't see. After learning how to see them, you will see them all the time. In other words, you have to go crazy to hear voices, and once you're crazy, you'll hear them all the time. I think I'll pass

Been there, done that ... http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

Of course people take these "little voyages" all the time.

Not really. In science, it doesn't matter who first came up with a new theory, or why, all that's important is that knowledge will increase.

Oh, it's very important for a person to have the capacity to understand things for himself though isn't it?

But as I already pointed out before, you were misunderstanding the definition of the word metaphysical, so try again.

What about the meta tags which precede the "body" of this web page?

Many people are defining it, and the best, most complete, most correct definition is the one that stays.

No, I was just asking if there was a real person behind all the processes he keeps talking about?

Consciousness is merely the ability to be aware, of others and of oneself:

Be careful of the use "merely" there.

Just because you don't know where it comes from doesn't make it supernatural. Our thoughts and feelings are chemical and electrical processes in the brain. We know this, even if we don't yet understand exactly how they work.

Yes, and this is why you can't accept the fact that you're a "real" person. I mean how dumb does it come?

Besides, evil is subjective. What you would call evil, for example: a ferocious wolf killing a cute little baby rabbit, is not evil to the hungry wolf who hasn't had anything to eat in a week.

Do you get angry by the way?

Yes, what happened? Why did you close it?

I guess I just find it hard to take other people seriously anymore?

 

[Dancing David]

If the soul exists only in the abstract sense then it doesn't exist.

Must not exist then, what a disappointment, We gave material bodies we live in a wonderful world. Why gild the lily?

Isn't life enough?