By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[shunyadragon]

What’s your definition of objective evidence and what is your objective evidence that there is nothing beyond the physical?

Objective verifiable evidence must repeatable, consistent and predictable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence. It is at the foundation of Methodological Naturalism and science. Science cannot apply to the subjective world of religious beliefs, because of the lack of objective evidence to be the basis of a predictable theory or hypothesis. This is the reason why Intelligent Design is a religious belief and cannot be falsified by science. The complexity of nature cannot be objectively determined as Created by a subjective Designer, whether God or an Alien.

The epistemology of science as described by Popper is the foundation of science deals with what is evidence and how it may be used to falsify theories and hypotheses. The epistemology of the justification of Meta physical beliefs cannot be used to justify science.

 

[Ebionite]

It's the same one used in ccourt and science.

They're not the same. In court the rules of evidence are set by judges, but in science evidence is based on repeatable phenomena.

 

[metis]

You can say this because you have traversed the width, height and depths of all spiritual matters and are omniscient, have reached the height of all knowledge and experience of the universe? Sorry you haven’t heard anything from Him, maybe you’ve quenched and grieved the Holy Spirit or worse blasphemed Him.

As far as the others you mentioned, I’m not them so can’t say who they heard from, I know who I have heard from and don’t bother with those others.

You've made it clear that you really don't believe in Jesus for several reasons, including his "judge ye not" teaching that you blow off. So, there's nowhere to go forward with this.

 

[metis]

All I can deduct here is that the whole of the field of Psychology which includes psychiatrists and other areas that use it, is the same as studying leprechauns, unicorns and bigfoots.

So, I guess teaching psychology to adults at Chrysler Corporation as I did for one year about 40 years ago falls into that category.

The irony is I never took a psychology course in my life with the exception of two social psychology courses during my undergrad years. However, I got stuck teaching it at the high school level for two years because of a scheduling mix-up and loved it, and that led to doing it at Chrysler.

Seems that you don't like or respect science and scientists very much, which is "good" for me to know.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, that would be where we differ. I would also say that our firsthand experiences have taught us that the Bible is correct.

As I have said often, “Two people looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusions”.

I’m not sure about some of your deductions… would you like me to address them on that post? Or should we leave well enough alone.

Thanks for your response, Kenny. I appreciate it. I think it's best that we leave well enough alone. The fact is that I don't argue or debate with others about my experiences. This is a personal boundary that I have had for a long time. What I do online is the same as it is in real life. As in real life, I provide what I believe to be evidence of my encounters and let the chips fall where they may. To be quite honest, I'm not interested in convincing skeptics that what I'm experiencing is real. I learned a long time ago that trying to convince skeptics isn't something I need to focus on because confirmation from them comes naturally when they witness firsthand what I'm experiencing. All I have to do is trust in my ability when talking to them, and the rest will take care of itself.

 

[shunyadragon]

They're not the same. In court the rules of evidence are set by judges, but in science evidence is based on repeatable phenomena.

Disagree on our legal system the rules of evidence are determined by Law, The judges over time interprete the application of the rules of law and evidence within parameters determined by law.

 

[metis]

And that is the flaw in science, isn’t it? It never goes beyond what it sees? Doesn’t consider all possibilities?

False. Google "hypothesis".

 

[ElishaElijah]

You've made it clear that you really don't believe in Jesus for several reasons, including his "judge ye not" teaching that you blow off. So, there's nowhere to go forward with this.

Probably because I know what Jesus meant by judge ye not, but you don’t even believe the Holy Spirit speaks so you definitely have no idea what He meant.
”Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.“
‭‭John‬ ‭16‬:‭7‬-‭15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[metis]

but you don’t even believe the Holy Spirit speaks so you definitely have no idea what He meant.

I did not and never have said that, so your depravity is clearly at work with the above. Do you have any sense of shame whatsoever?

I'm putting you back on my ignore list, and then questioning my sanity as to why I ever took you off it to begin with.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I did not and never have said that, so your depravity is clearly at work with the above. Do you have any sense of shame whatsoever?

I'm putting you back on my ignore list, and then questioning my sanity as to why I ever took you off it to begin with.

1911

He doesn't speak to anyone now? Also, did God speak to the authors of the Bhagavad Gita? the Qu'ran? the Talmud?

That’s what you said

 

[shunyadragon]

Big surprise.
Not a lick of evidence presented.

Spoken like an informed Kitty.

 

[Kenny]

So, I guess teaching psychology to adults at Chrysler Corporation as I did for one year about 40 years ago falls into that category.

The irony is I never took a psychology course in my life with the exception of two social psychology courses during my undergrad years. However, I got stuck teaching it at the high school level for two years because of a scheduling mix-up and loved it, and that led to doing it at Chrysler.

Seems that you don't like or respect science and scientists very much, which is "good" for me to know.

I think you missed the previous post. It was the previous poster put psychology along the lines of leprechauns - not me. I agree with the field (although not all positions of that field)

 

[metis]

I think you missed the previous post. It was the previous poster put psychology along the lines of leprechauns - not me. I agree with the field (although not all positions of that field)

Sorry about that as I missed that post.

Take care.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry about that as I missed that post.

Take care.

You're human? - I would have never thought that!

 

[Polymath257]

Babies are a good evidence… they don’t start with a “blank soul” and then develop it.

No, their brains develop in the womb, growing according to genetic instructions (which are slightly different for each person). The wiring and initial processing happens before birth.

So, you are correct, by birth a baby does not have a simple 'blank slate'.

But all of those processes are physical processes. The differences are physical differences.

So,no, babies are NOT a good example.

And in this case, you can’t discard my position on “soul” unless you are so entrenched in your position you choose to do so.

Since no non-physical is required to understand what we actually observe, there is no good reason to assume a non-physical.

 

[metis]

You're human? - I would have never thought that!

Wow! You're the first person ever to say that!!!

 

[Kenny]

No, their brains develop in the womb, growing according to genetic instructions (which are slightly different for each person). The wiring and initial processing happens before birth.

So, you are correct, by birth a baby does not have a simple 'blank slate'.

But all of those processes are physical processes. The differences are physical differences.

So,no, babies are NOT a good example.

Opinion… no empirical and verifiable evidence. Too complicated. Mine is much simpler.

Since no non-physical is required to understand what we actually observe, there is no good reason to assume a non-physical.

Ok… we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Polymath257]

from entomology.

Which gives the history of the use and not the current use.

psychologymodern | Search Online Etymology Dictionary psychology \


And that is the flaw in science, isn’t it? It never goes beyond what it sees? Doesn’t consider all possibilities?

Science can consider any possibility that is subject to testing. And it is a good thing to reject anything that cannot, even in theory, be tested.

Certainly we know how “Modern” can change meanings. Like “Modern” understanding that a man can be a woman and visa versa and then they go through great lengths of trying to convince people on how they are right.


Ok… where do we intersect.

We can all agree that we need a mind that will operate the physical body. And that we have a will and emotions. We can extract all the understanding of how chemicals are released to produce emotions (although we really don’t know why it does that. Why is there even an emotion of “love”, only that love produces chemicals or somehow chemicals are released at the right time to the right person to produce an emotion of love.

Sounds too complicated and it is here where we diverge. I will say Occam’s Razor will fall on my side that the soul manipulates the brain that produces the chemicals

On the contrary, this is a misuse of the Razor. We *know* the physical brain exists and is immensely complex. We can actually watch (with modern imaging) how the emotions related to the physical structure of the brain.

The problem with your 'solution' is that it doesn't address HOW the soul manipulates the brain. How does it manage to do that without a violation of the conservation of energy? Does it manipulate individual neurons? Or patterns of neural behavior? in either case, how does a soul cause a neuron to fire? We *know* how chemicals can do so. in fact, we can talk about the different neurotransmitters and the different receptors and how those differences appear in the different way that the brain processes incoming information.

Precisely where in this does the 'soul' fit in?

Unless that can be answered in some reasonable clear way, you cannot apply the Razor because the introduction of the soul explains absolutely nothing. it is simply a type of hand waving.

.

Of course, we will eventually agree to disagree.

Maybe you need to look into what we have learned about how the brain works. You might be surprised how far we have come.

 

[Polymath257]

Opinion… no empirical and verifiable evidence. Too complicated. Mine is much simpler.

Absolutely this is all verifiable. We can, using modern technology, watch these things develop.

Babies develop in the womb, correct?

When they start, they have no brain, correct?

As the brain develops, it becomes more complex, correct?

The development of the brain is different in each person, correct?

Those differences are physical differences, correct?

ALL of the statements you say are 'too complicated' are, in fact, actually observed phenomena. Yes, empirical and verifiable. Do you really need references for all of this?

Ok… we will have to agree to disagree.

Your choice to ignore the *known* facts (like all babies being physically different in their brains) is noted.

 

[Kenny]

Which gives the history of the use and not the current use.

As I mentioned before, modernized changed meanings doesn’t change the reality of what it is.

Science can consider any possibility that is subject to testing. And it is a good thing to reject anything that cannot, even in theory, be tested.

There is absolutely no testing available to understand the conscience-when it is developed or how is it developed. Likewise, personality. We can see how it works but not how it comes about.

On the contrary, this is a misuse of the Razor. We *know* the physical brain exists and is immensely complex. We can actually watch (with modern imaging) how the emotions related to the physical structure of the brain.

Actually, it is the correct use.

The problem with your 'solution' is that it doesn't address HOW the soul manipulates the brain. How does it manage to do that without a violation of the conservation of energy? Does it manipulate individual neurons? Or patterns of neural behavior? in either case, how does a soul cause a neuron to fire? We *know* how chemicals can do so. in fact, we can talk about the different neurotransmitters and the different receptors and how those differences appear in the different way that the brain processes incoming information.

Precisely where in this does the 'soul' fit in?

Unless that can be answered in some reasonable clear way, you cannot apply the Razor because the introduction of the soul explains absolutely nothing. it is simply a type of hand waving.

Maybe you need to look into what we have learned about how the brain works. You might be surprised how far we have come.

yes… there is much to learn and discover. Of course, I will have a spiritual perspective on it.