Evolution vs Creationism

Remove all ads!

You are the one who is trying to deny their existance so it falls to you to prove that they don't exist.

Wow, think a little highly of yourself dont you(me and the rest of the scientific community)
You have provided no evidence just some other peoples opinions, again this is not scientific proof.
Scientific Proof - This must consist of repeatable experiments backed up with a theory that has a mathematical base.
There is no actual direct evidence against a soul - only arguments refuting the specific examples of evidence for life after death as not being sufficient proof.

You can't prove they don't exist just as i can't prove to you they do.
Unlike you though, i'm not so impressed with my own self to think i know it all.
See you try to put everything you believe across as facts & knowledge when it plainly isn't.
Oh, i leave the religious fights to those that know it best(that would be chev, gnarff & possibly chandos).

 

If we humans or any other creatures have souls then the soul is spirit and not matter. It is not found in the brain. At one time it was believed to reside in the heart and of course there are varieties of theories as to what the soul is and were it resides.

Human beings may be part of the animal kingdom but they are not animals pure and simple. There is nothing simple about humans. Our minds are complex and new things are constantly being discovered.

Not all scientists are atheists or do not believe that humans might have souls. Stating as a fact that the soul does not exists is akin to stating as a fact that god does not exist. Religious or spiritual people may not be able to prove to others that god and the soul exist but the scientific believers can not prove that god and the soul do not exist.

If you believe the Judea/Christian Bible to be the unaltered Word of God then you believe that God created man apart from the animal kingdom and breathed his soul into him. If you don't believe the Bible to be the unaltered Word of God than you are free to believe what ever you want.

DNA only proves that human bodies were made from the same matter as the other animals. It does not prove that humans have no souls. Maybe every living thing has a soul, a bit of divinity. Christian Scientists believe that 'all is Infinite Mind in all of its infinite manifestations'.

To quote Martaug's signature:

Once upon a time the majority of people believed the Earth to be flat. We all have our own ideas, theories and beliefs about evolution and creation and we should repect opinions that differ from ours.

 

The burden of proof lies on the claimant, it is a very old argument. It is very easy to claim that things exists an whole other thing to prove that they don't. The soul and god is just as real as invisible purple space monkeys on the dark side of the moon. You can't prove that there are no invisible purple space monkeys just as we can't prove that there is no god or soul. However, reason and what information we have of the universe seems to point quite clearly that none of the above exist.

If you claim something outrageous you should expect to have some kind of proof more tangible than: I think or some guy said so 2000 years ago.

 

I totally agree with you on this. We are part of the animal kingdom but we are special in our own way due to our brains being as they are. Our minds are certainly complex, more complex than the brain I think. However, the antiquated notion of mind-body duality leads to no new discoveries in cognitive science being made. The belief that humans are born with a soul of a non-physical kind hinders progress in areas such as stem cell research, amongst other areas of research.

Stating that something non-physical is an integral component of any organism is not the same as stating that god does not exist. The Judeo-Christian concept of god is for the most part that of vanilla theism, god being distinct from creation. From this you can deduce that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is outside the universe and not tinkering with anything. This is testable in physics and chemistry. When a physicist or a chemist sets up an experiment they do not take in to account the possibility that god, angels, demons, flying spaghetti monsters, santa or unicorns will step in and fiddle with the results for some reason or another. The reason why they dont have a 'god tinkering with things' variable in their experiments is because not only will they get laughed at, but they know that such superstition is unfounded. So, back to god...another aspect to the Judeo-Christian belief in god is that their god is active daily in the universe, therefore he does, as far as they are concerned, exist in the universe. Here is the illogical circular reasoning of Christian thought. God is distinct and separate, yet he is not...yet he is...but, yet again, he is not...and so on. Now, back to souls. A soul is something believed to be inside organisms, or only just humans...no one has decided on a consensus here. If it is present in our bodies, it should be easy to observe even indirectly. Yet, it is not. In life what you actually see is that there are atoms making up molecules, molecules making up organelles, organelles making up cells, cells making up fluids or tissues, tissues making up organs, organs making up bodies, bodies making up populations, populations making up communities, communities making up ecosystems, ecosystems making up biomes, biomes making up the biosphere. At which level does the soul appear? No where. There is no where for the soul to be, there is no spirit or any non-physical part of any level of organization. If it is there then god must be tricking us into making it look like it really isnt there, and that would make god deceptive. Just like he is being deceptive about human chromosome 2, unless...of course, evolution is true, which it is. So here we have god who could be outside the universe and therefore unable to be tested empirically, and we also have souls, supposedly inside us, which can be tested empirically...every result showing that they do not exist.

Ah...thank you. This is my point exactly. IF you believe the bible to be what Nakia said, then humans and not 'animals' have souls. Yet...since humans are a species of animals, we have no souls...simple as that. IF evolution is true then humans ARE just another species of animals, albeit pretty darn clever ones. So...bible = humans are not animals...evolution = humans are animals. According to the bible, animals have no souls. So...as far as I am concerned it is either one or the other. You cannot pick and choose as you see fit. You have to either accept the bible or science in regards to the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

Well, now I might venture back into the realm of unsubstantiated beliefs. I believe that the energy of the universe is in the mind, or mind-equivalent, of Shiva. I believe that all matter is sacred, including life. I believe that when any organism dies it ceases to exist as an individual, because individuality is purely subjective anyway, and the matter is then free to be used in new ways. So...technically in my belief system there is no death or life. Everything is just the flow of matter from one temporary form to the next. Nothing is constant, everything flows. These are my beliefs, I have no way of backing them up empirically.

And grudgingly nearly all of them accepted the truth under the weight of the evidence. This is what will eventually happen with evolution. It is also what will happen with the next revolution in scientific thought, possibly when we find other life out there.

There is only one theory of evolution, yet many ideas about some of the mechanisms, and even more beliefs about what it is and isnt from non-specialists. I mean that in the nicest way, as I know what its like having beliefs that may or may not be true in regards to most of physics and a lot of chemistry. A lot of what my flatmates talk about, for example, makes no sense to me. All the talk about masers and lasers and neutrino detector-whatevers, straight over my head.

 

God interacts with the universe about the same way as a watch repairman interacts with the watch. Is he 'in' the watch? Insomuch as his tools are an extension of him, yes, he is, but he's still distinct and seperate from the watch. He can see everything (or at least lots) that happens in the watch, and he knows a all (or at least a great deal) about it, but he's still seperate.

As to your belief that we should be able to observe the soul, what exactly do you expect to observe? Do you expect the soul to have mass, to emit radiation, to posess heat? How do you propose we try to observe it?

As to your claim that the burden of proof is on us to prove the soul, there's one problem with that. Science accepts nothing as real proof of anything. Scientific theories cannot be 'proven' only disproven. Therefore it is up to you to disprove the soul.

I think your problem is that you only believe in the physical, therefore you expect that, if there is a soul, it must be part of the physical universe and observable as such. If there is anything beyond the physical universe, though, you must admit it is entirely outside the range of science to observe or test.

 

The very definition of existance is the physical, if something exists it must on some level be physical. It may not be on any level we have figured out yet but if it exists it is physical. Anyway, I think we are back to square one here and there really isn't much point in arguing. I will add this point, toss away all the theology, all the craziness in religion, toss away the fact that there are thousands of them and they are all convinced that they are right, toss away how it on pretty much every level contradicts what we actually know of the world, toss away that every piece of historical evidence we have points quite clearly to it all being man made and toss away that is plain just doesn't make sense. You claim for things to exists something needs to have created it yes? Well, if something created everything that exists then that something must exist no? If that something exists doesn't it need a creator or else it wouldn't be able to exist? The very base of religion ends up in an eternal loop.

I can't stop people from willfully deluding themselves (even if I to my dismay sometimes try) but try to argue the points and claiming rationality or even rationality is just plain stupid. You often talk about faith, these discussion always end up there afterall, you need to have faith to see the world as you do. It is an irrational way of seeing it and you have to shut off most of your brain to be able to do it but again, if people like it that there is no way to convince them otherwise. Religion is a house of card resting on quicksand and I am just constantly baffled that adults choose that as the foundation of their lives.

 

I obviously see religion in a much different light. One of the fundamental beliefs of the 3 Abrahamic religions is that God is far, far superior to us in all possible ways. He imbued us with reason, but using that reason and logic and scientific skills we still cannot come close to understanding our Creator because he is so much superior to us and we have not progressed to a point where we can use our own faculties to comprehend him.

In other words, my belief in God exemplifies my attempt at humility, because I do not see my abilities -- or those of the human race in general -- as being the ultimate in the universe.

I respect science immensely, and always did quite well in science classes. What little I know about good scientists is that they will readily tell us how little they truly know, how much there is to still learn. As many have mentioned, today's scientific certainty is tomorrows blasted theory.

Someone mentioned this:

Which I found a little insulting all around -- while at the same time agreeing with it. Let me explain:

We our, of ourselves, not that bloody superior to "primitive" people who lived even 10,000 years ago. We have benefitted from thousands -- millions -- of years of slow progress in many areas of study. In some senses, then, what you are saying here is the equivalent of me calling my great-grandfather an idiot for not using an airplane to come to North America. They weren't invented yet, and I'd have to be able to demonstrate my ability to independently invent and build a functioning 747 before claiming to be superior to him.

HOWEVER, in another sense we are all primitive -- 400 years from now smart alecks will be laughing at our 'primitive' technologies and calling a lot of our present behaviours the result of having 'small' minds. I acknowledge that our present scientific understanding of the world is imperfect -- as do many scientists.

Moving on to God, well, he is far beyond us -- just because our present, limited scientific method cannot detect him does not preclude the possibility of his existence, and it is hubris of an extreme order to say otherwise.

None of this is intended in any way as an insult to those scientists who strive every day to increase our knowledge and understanding of the infinitely complex Universe, and thereby improve our standard of living.

 

That's an nteresting point. In the future they may have better science, and that's great in many ways, but is that progress? Someone commented on "advancing," but that's a tricky idea if you have a different definition of "progress."

 

I thought we were in the end times and that the lord would return any day now?

 

So send all your money now, so that you can be "saved." It won't do you any good anyway. The oldest sales pitch in the world.

 

I find these discussions interesting and of value in aiding me in defining my own beliefs. Having made that statement I have a few comments.

1) The argument is that religion in what ever form creates a paradox. God created the Universe but what created God? The answer is invariably that God is totally beyond our current understanding. What I fail to understand is why those who insist on a scientific provable theory seem to think that out of nothing, from no where came a sudden Big Bang that created the Universe out of nothing. Upon my death bed if you lean close you will hear me mutter "Nothing begets nothing". Something had to exist for that Big Bang to happen. So where did that something come from? IMO the paradox exists whether you believe in God, a First Cause or the Big Bang. quote from the Wikipedia:

Hokay, someone explain to me where this 'primordial hot and dense initial condition' came from.

I am currently not a member of any organized religion but I find it easier to believe in a First Cause then that this primordial condition just appeared out of no where. Either something exists infinitely and is infinite in size or we aren't really here. I don't care what you call it. I call it the Multiverse, it is, it was, it will always be. We are dealing with theories here. Science says it can prove certain things and the Creationists say that Science is using faulty data. We can argue for a long time but the fact is that whether you believe in evolution or creationism you are dealing with theories. Take your pick and have fun but don't knock the other view points simply because they don't agree with your pet theory.

2) I can't see air, or feel air, or smell air but it exists. Yes, we now have means to study air and separate it's components or gases. In sufficiently cold weather we can see our breath but mostly we common folk just take air for granted. I can see the effects of lack of oxygen, carbon dioxide or monoxide but I don't see them. Science is based on cause and effect.

3) Energy - Scientists define energy as the ability to do work. I can see the fire that creates energy for heat and cooking but I do not actually see the energy. Again we have cause and effect. My lights and computer will work because of electrical energy if I remember to pay the bill but if I was stupid enough to open up a live wire would I see the energy. Yeah, I know, I would feel the effect of that energy and maybe some sparks when it hit the air.

Come, come, Horatio, there are more things in heaven and earth then we know or understand.

4) Faith -Don't knock it. I have faith that my retinal specialists know what they are doing. Once I could not see much besides weird lights and blurry forms but miracle of miracles I have a few injections and can see to post my thoughts and opinions on SP. Oh, sorry, you don'[t believe in miracles. At least I picked a good time to go blind, there are drugs that can and have helped me.

5) What I have gone through these past eight months does affect my point of view and how I deal with things. I freely admit that I have little patient for the "My point of view is the only right one and yours is a bunch of nonsense since it doesn't agree with mine" syndrome. Most of you see in colors. Does color exist for a person born blind?

6) Science is on going research. It builds on past research and opens the way for new research. Any scientist that is rigid in his thinking is doomed to ultimate failure even if he is right. A good scientist has an open mind, accepts proper criticism and is willing to change his theory if it is shown to be in error. My lack of interest in organized religion is because of the rigidity and unwillingness to accept new things or ideas. But that is strictly my own opinion.

by the way 1 + 1 does so = 10.

 

To me the Creator sounds like a metaphor for the Big Bang.

 

...Or it could be the reverse.

 

Nakia that is what I said for things to exists they must be physical on *some* level. There must be some way to measure them even if only by ways I have no idea about such as the way they are searching for dark matter now. It is like ghosts, now I don't believe in ghosts and think they figments of our imagination but I would not be too surprised if someone in the future figures out a way to actually find out what ghosts are and that a phenomen exists that could explain ghost experiences. My point is, if something exists there is a way to measure it or observe it even if it is in ways we as of yet haven't figured out.

I also do not see why the universe/multiverse couldn't always have existed, there is no need for a first cause. The expansion of the current universe may be the start of what we know but there is nothing to say that it didn't exist forever before that. The way the fundaments of the universe is constructed it actually seems like it is a quite reasonable explanation. We know now that nothing ever disapears, everything is around forever. It may change its form but the "stuff" never disapear.

As for faith, here we come back again to the fundamental difference between the scientific method and religion. I do not have faith in the scientiest or the particular science, I am no expert but I do have faith in the scientific method that if someone claims something that it has been peer reviewed, that it has been tested and that if I had the energy, the time and the intellect I could check it up for myself to see if it was truth. Religion works the exact same opposite, it promises solution without offering up any way short of death to check up if it is true or not. In a way science does work on faith just as religion, we have faith that the doctors know what they are doing, that the engineers know what they are doing heck I even have faith that my mechanic know what he is doing but it is a verifiable faith but sometimes you might get burned. Religious faith is completely unverifiable it is the equivalent to letting some stranger come to your home and perform that eye surgery with nothing but his word that he is a competent surgeon.

As for my "I am wrong everyone else is wrong" attitude it is something I have developed in later years. I used to be more open minded but the more I learn about the world the more the lunacy in it gets on my nerves and of course I am not so worried about offending people or being friends with everyone as I used to be. In this case however I can't say I really have this attitude. I am not sure what the truth is, how everything works. I do not know. As Bill Maher said (really like the guy) I am a follower of doubt, the only thing I am sure of is that anyone who claims to know the answer to life, the universe and everything is either lying or deluded. All science is claiming to do is to try to figure out these things, religion claims to know them.

 

Good response, joacqin, at least IMO. I think we agree on many points. I do not know what the ultimate answers are either. I don't believe in ghosts and do not care for shows that claim to be able contact the dead. If by some wild chance that is possible they better not get in contact with me. Let me rest in peace, I have served my time.

If the Multiverse has some sort of consciousness then this consciousness is a part of everything. I do not say it does but neither do I deny the possibility. I just don't know.

I do think that everything is interconnected in some way. Strongly as I feel about being an individual we are all part of something that is more than just 'me'. We are part of the team whether we like it or not.

The brain is a muscle but the human mind is quite a fascinating thing and should be treated with care, respect and even awe. IMO.

Montresor said he wasn't the person who persuaded me that the Multiverse or Universe has always existed. Maybe it was you, joacqin? Sometime in 2007, I think it was in a similar thread.

 

And here we get to the assumptions again. That may be your definition of existance, but it isn't mine.

Again, an assumption (with a lot of others tossed in for fun). I don't claim that cause and effect are absolute, not for a minute. I may claim that they are absolute within the physical universe acting by its own laws, but I would never claim that it was also true about God.

Well, I'm glad you're so willing to insult some of the greatest scientists the world has ever known. My faith does not work in opposition to rationality, but rather the two go hand-in-hand. And I certainly don't shut off most of my brain to believe.

Face it, joacqin, your position is as much based on belief and faith as mine is. You believe there is nothing beyond the physical, without any real proof this is true. I believe there is something beyond the physical, without any proof (that you will accept) that this is true.

Oh, and to respond to something you were talking about earlier, my experiences with God have not been altered states of consciousness. I have experienced altered states of consciousness and can tell what state I'm in during religious experiences. It is usually the normal, conscious, waking state. The subconscious may come into play at some points, but it doesn't seem to be a critical component. Well, no less than any other part of me.

Edit:

So you admit you don't know? Because your previous claims really sounded like you thought you did know. Claiming that there absolutely is no soul, no god, nothing beyond the physical, and that humans are just particularly interesting animals really sounds like a claim about the "answer to life, the universe and everything" to me.

 

The human is special until he gets brain damaged.

 

I don't think anyone can *know* for sure. The only way to find out for sure is when you're dead. I think that most people state their personal beliefs as facts, because to that particular person, it is a fact. Since joacquin sees no evidence of a soul, a god, or a Creator, he feels confident in concluding that these things do not exist. There's nothing irrational about that, as that particular thought process works pretty well for just about everything else. (In the sense that if we see evidence for the existance of something, we conclude that it exists, and if we do not see evidence of something, we conclude that it does not exist.) The evidence usually does not even have to come from direct experience for us to conclude that something exists. For example, I have never been to Hawaii, but I have no doubt that the archipelago exists.

My brother told me about a book he was reading about a year ago. I don't remember the name or the author, but the basic premise of the book was that belief in god or disbelief in god could be measured on a 7-point scale. If you were a "1" you had absolute unshakable belief in the existance of god. That in your mind, the existance of god was a fact. On the other extreme, if you were a "7" you were aboslutely certain that god did not exist, and that in your mind this was a fact. As you move up from 1, you are less sure of the existance of a god, and as you move down from 7 you are less sure of the non-existance of a god. An agnostic would measure a "4" on the scale.

The interesting thing that the author pointed out, was how very few people (out of thousands of interviews and surveys) actually were 1s or 7s (even though many people thought they would be 1s or 7s). As it turns out, most self-proclaimed atheists cannot be completely sure that god does not exist. Most atheists have some shred of doubt in their minds, and therefore they cannot say with absolutely certainty that there is no god. So most atheists actually are 6s. Similarly, even people who considered themselves quite devout rarely were 1s. Since most people couldn't be completely sure that god existed, they were really 2s.

 

Which was the exact point I was making when I cited that book. Most people state their beliefs as facts (most people thought they were 1s and 7s), but when you really start talking to them, most realize they aren't as sure as they initially stated they were - which is why the numbers of 2s and 6s far exceeded the numbers of 1s and 7s. I think I would be a 4, although my perception of how the test would measure my beliefs may be in error as well.