I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
But this set is divided into material and spiritual, the former is applicable, the latter is not. Emotions are immaterial, and you can observe them being at least irrational, I claim them being illogical just because you can't determine what emotion will be caused in yourself if you do something. Women's emotions are the best approximation of entirely indeterministic state, which cannot be described by logic, this means logic can't apply to something that exists. (I sense there are flaws in this argument, though can't determine them)
This was so carefully hidden, I missed them altogether yesterday!
Well, your first statement is that things in the "spiritual realm" are not subject to the laws of logic.
But surely, if they exist, they exist. And they either: Exist OR Don't Exist.
They can't simultaneously Exist AND Not exist.
And If they exist, then they exist no matter what else exists (basically, anything implies a true statement).
And if they exist, and their existence implies some P, then that P must also be (axiom Modus Ponens).
And if them not existing implies that some P doesn't exist, then P existing implies that they also exist (due to them either existing or not existing).
It seems as though we can derive a great deal of theorems for these axioms stated. It is clear that they are subject to the same laws of logic as everything else that either exists or doesn't exist.
But this set is divided into material and spiritual, the former is applicable, the latter is not. Emotions are immaterial, and you can observe them being at least irrational, I claim them being illogical just because you can't determine what emotion will be caused in yourself if you do something.
Emotions are the result of biochemical stimuli. There's nothing metaphysical about them.
Emotions are the result of biochemical stimuli. There's nothing metaphysical about them.
Even if they are in the "spiritual realm", the statements that you say about them are still either right or wrong, and they either exist or don't exist. Thus, logic is still applicable.
Went we ask him for evidence let's keep in mind what he considers evidence.
"okay, you have already disregarded the Bible, you disregard personal evidence, even cumulative like Fatima's miracle, some of you have also disregarded church tradition. I'm out of sources."
For me this statement put the final nail in his argument.
Can any Christianity prove Christianity by any means other than I feel Jesus out there?
Since in every religion there are people saying they feel their God I think you all must be wrong since the chance of any small group of you being right isn't even worth considering because it is so unlikely.
qwerty1011, you are way too late, read first 20 pages of this topic please.
Do I have to prove that your soul exists? Uhm... yes.
Okay. I need some basis to be aligned first. What is consciousness? What kind of biochemical reactions cease when a person is knocked out cold, by any means? What kind of biochemical reactions apply in the case of humans with prolonged absence of consciousness that were experimented to provide "conscious" answers? SourceAnother one And, what causes them to not recover into active form of consciousness?
But surely, if they exist, they exist. And they either: Exist OR Don't Exist.
You're applying logic to a single factor of existance. Okay, "If soul does not exist, then any human is a biomachine" - is this following true? If yes, this in turn implies that a biomachine cannot create anything abstract, based on a statement that a machine in general is a superclass of biomachine (AKA "All biomachine are machine" and the statement "All machine operate with objects". But logic is abstract, and is created by humanity - you yourself have defined this. This results in total "If soul does not exist, then false".
For me this statement put the final nail in his argument.
For you, yes, since it's your own disregard. However this does not disprove the original statement.
Even if they are in the "spiritual realm", the statements that you say about them are still either right or wrong, and they either exist or don't exist. Thus, logic is still applicable.
I wasn't addressing the implications of them, just what they were.
Okay. I need some basis to be aligned first. What is consciousness?
It's an emergent property of the mind. There has been hypotheses indicating there may be key areas of the brain that are responsible but from what I know it hasn't been confirmed.
You're applying logic to a single factor of existance. Okay, "If soul does not exist, then any human is a biomachine" - is this following true? If yes, this in turn implies that a biomachine cannot create anything abstract,
You're applying logic to a single factor of existance.
A deduction is being made, yes. All he was stating is that if they exist then they are real, factual, and thus would be able to be observed, measured, tested, etc. And he's also saying that there are only two possible states, either they do exist, or they do not.
Okay, "If soul does not exist, then any human is a biomachine" - is this following true?
No, and your statement is nonsense to be perfectly honest. The nonexistence of a soul does not demand that the only other state that a human could occupy is that of synthetic life.
For you, yes, since it's your own disregard.
They are disregarded because they have no grounding in fact. If you cannot prove something then you do not know it, and if you do not know it then there is no point in discussing it. Furthermore, if you cannot prove it then it is intellectually dishonest to claim you know it. End of story.
The only problem is that it's a youtube video and could have been faked
I severely doubt that an elephant could paint that unless it had been trained to do it which still doesn't prove the existance of a soul. Anyway if all animals have souls then all should be able to do that. Anyway does it matter if people have a soul or not
it doesn't change what we are apart from your opinion
