What evidence is there for the existence of disembodied minds? And further, what evidence do we have that indicates that a mind can exist independent from a brain? I ask this because all the evidence I know of points to minds being functions of brains.
I have not read most of this, it is only to indicate many studies exist and methods utilized.
Mind brain debate
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force
There are countless books on NDE's when all brain function had ceased. One I remember was a lady who had here brain drained of all blood and was completely dead yet know things she had no access to, it is quite famous. Forget her name but the library and internet are full of these events.
The concept existed prior to the question? What question?
What characteristics would whatever created the universe have by necessity? Plus about a thousand just like that one that the Biblical description matches identically.
Theres nothing wrong with I dont know if we dont actually know. Id love for everything to be figured out in my lifetime, but thats an unrealistic expectation. So if I die before we get all the answers, so be it. Im not going to make things up just to satisfy my need to know because it wouldnt be satisfied that way.
That is not what people of faith do. They make a reasoned decision based on what ever evidence is known at the time they live.
Well, I dont know about you, but I waited until all the evidence was in before deciding I wanted to spend my life with someone.
No you did not. No one has or ever could.
We can use demonstrable evidence to determine how much someone actually cares for us. I mean, if someone says they love you and then starts smacking you around or telling you youre worthless, I think its pretty safe to say they dont actually love you and this isnt someone you want to be spending your life with.
Many people care about us yet we do not marry them all. I find it interesting that the greatest test to determine the love another being has for us is self sacrifice. God provided the ultimate example of this. You will never know if their faking it or not.
Youre touching on a bit on Pascals wager territory here, which in my opinion is garbage. Maybe youve been praying to the wrong god this whole time and the Muslims are right. Then youre in big trouble. Nobody really knows what happens to us when we die. Pretending to know the answer doesnt help anyone.
I followed the Biblical plan of salvation and met Christ spiritually. That could not happen unless Islam is wrong and Christianity is right. I can only say that once that experience is experienced there is no doubt of what it was. I know you will not agree because you can't but I am the one that had it.
Prophecy, ESP, out of body experiences, knowledge without access, the universe, many constants, religious spiritual experiences, miracles, tell you what look into the testing criteria for modern Catholic spiritual warfare investigations.
You know, theres a million dollar prize at stake for anyone who can produce tangible evidence for the supernatural. And guess what? No one has ever claimed it. So Id have to disagree with you that even the most rigid scientists would claim that claims of the supernatural have been demonstrated.
The Catholics are very very skeptical and reluctant to grant miracle status or saint status to anything or anyone. (liability reasons etc.....) They are usually more skeptical than secular people involved with the issues yet they have approved many genuine supernatural events. Start there.
Wed have to examine them all individually to determine this.
That is what must be done to claim any knowledge on the subject.
Are we talking about Jesus appearing on a piece of toast? Are we talking about weeping statues? Are we talking about people levitating? What are we talking about here?
Like I said search modern Catholic investigations into the demonic, miraculous or sainthood or NDEs.
Im sorry, but people have experiences they cant personally explain. So what? Does that mean theres no possible naturalistic explanation for it, or does it mean that the person experiencing it just hasnt looked for a naturalistic explanation for it, or simply isnt aware of one that might exist? Do we have to assume that everyone who says they were abducted by aliens were actually abducted by aliens just because they say so?
I tell you what we don't do is assume they all have mundane explanations without sufficient evidence to know that is the case.
And what if we have no eyewitness accounts of yeti? Does someone still get to believe in yeti, and attribute characteristics to the yeti whose existence hasnt even been demonstrated? Sure they could, but they would only be deluding themselves.
We have evidence for dinosaurs and birds obtained by studying fossils and their surroundings, and yes, even multiverses.
The chance someone is deluding themselves corresponds to how much evidence there is. They may not be deluding themselves but the chances are astronomically higher the Yeti people are than the 1/3 of the Earth that believes in Christ. I reject over 90% of claims to the miraculous but have also experienced it and find even within the 8% that is left far more events than could ever be denied.
When have you seen god in human form?
That was the editorial we not me. Though many claim to have seen Christ including a Hindu priest in the top of a Ziggurat off the coast of India. You ought to see his before and after pictures. Witch doctor to straight laced Christian in a day. I have reliably accounts of God in human form and that combined with my experiences and a million other lines of evidence is far more than enough to justify faith. I wish you spent more time on the issues than trying to technically win a word fight.
Theyre equal claims to me. Were talking about the existence of something versus the non-existence of something. The same standards apply to yetis, gods, fairies, and aliens.
There is no aspect between the two that is equal.
What mountains of evidence are there in the Bible? A Muslim will tell you there are mountains of evidence for their god. A Hindu will tell you there are mountains of evidence for their gods. All of which appear to derive from personal experience. They all have ancient holy books that they revere as much as you do yours. So who am I to believe?
Then we have to personally investigate the claims. Just a few examples.
1. Bible - 2500 detailed prophecies Quran - at best one pathetic example.
2. Bible - exploded while being persecuted Quran - languished while being mildly persecuted and exploded when they began persecuting.
3. Bible - hundreds of miracles Quran - maybe 2 or 3 that can be shown false. Muhammad refused to do any when asked. Said he was only a messenger.
4. Bible has over 40 authors and written over 1800 years. Quran - 1 very suspicious author written over 30 years or so.
It just keeps getting worse.
There is more evidence for Caesar and Alexander than there is for Christ. There are contemporary accounts for Caesar and Alexander, but not so much for Jesus. Not to mention that the accounts for Jesus contained within the Bible are quite extraordinary, and would require extraordinary evidence. Why are there no extra-Biblical accounts of thousands of zombies rising from the grave and walking the streets? Youd think someone else mightve mentioned such an extraordinary occurrence.
The by far greatest book on Caesar is the Gallic wars. It was written by him for self promotional reasons and the oldest copy is 900 years after the original and there is only a few. The Bible has 5700 very early copies. Alexander grew so tired of inaccurate accounts (oldest copies hundreds of years later in existence and few of them) he threw one in the sea and threaten another's life. Yet we teach both those men as factual. Jesus is more textual attested by far (I mean far) than any character in ancient history.
Entire societies of people believed that Zeus, Odin, Ra, Anu and a whole host of other gods actually existed and exerted their influence on human affairs. Does that make them right?
What does this have to do with anything? They are not equivalent to Christianity in any way other than being theological concepts.
Who said nothing ever claimed can be true? Im saying I need demonstrable evidence to accept something is true, otherwise Id have to believe in everything anybody ever claimed to have existed UNTIL evidence against it was presented. Thats not how anybody determines reality (save for maybe the mentally ill).
I only suggest the same standards be used. You think multiverses are legitimate concepts but claim the infinitely more evidenced Bible is not. Why? I think you view is more accurately stated that you demand proof be given before and theological issue is even considered but any other concept may be valid just on the basis it is not impossible.
Science, law and history are determined not by popularity, but by consensus of evidence.
No they are not in totality. At least anymore so than theology. Every issue beyond "I think and am" is part faith and part evidence. I am exhausted, get to the rest later.
