The Soul Vs The Brain.

[Mythra]

So, Jedah - are you basically saying that in spite of any amount of knowledge that we accumulate about the human brain, we can never come to a place where we can say it has been proven that human beings have no soul?

[bleedblue22]

 

And once again I said nothing of the sort. I think you are the one misunderstanding me. Otherwise you've just been very poor at articulating what exactly the analogy is you are arguing for. I've been using pretty much exactly the language you've provided in my examples of how the analogy breaks down.

I understand you perfectly. The problem is you are trying to add things to my analogy that have absolutely nothing to do with the main point, and confusing yourself in the process. I'll admit it isn't the easiest to understand since I didn't make clear who and what the observers were so I'll use a different analogy instead:

 

Imagine a humanoid robot/android is sent to an island with an indigenous native population that has absolutely no knowledge of robotics and computer science ( This is very important ). The android is being remote controlled via satellite from somewhere in the first world. He ( The Android ) is based on a neural node type AI, and thus has a computerized "mind" that feeds data back to his controller while having some level of autonomy and AI reasoning even without being given commands. The natives are unable to tell the difference between the android and a normal person, but one day the android bumps his head and damages the part of his "mind" necessary for calculating distance. The controller is unable to make up for this problem, as the android is unable to feedback any significant information. Thus to the natives perspective, the android has incurred brain damage and can no longer judge length properly, same with the android. But in reality the controller is perfectly capable of doing so but simply cannot due to hardware damage, but the natives have no way of knowing this.

 

This is why brain damage doesn't necessarily disprove a type of soul can exist, as from our perspective we have a knowledge of science but no knowledge of any sort of spiritual realm. Thus we can connect the dots and see that damage to regions of the brain also seem to damage the mind, but we have no way of knowing if there is a higher order above it or not. In the hypothetical situation there was a soul and a persons brain was suffering from short term memory loss, it could easily be that the soul is perfectly capable of forming short term memories but cannot because the "hardware" needed to do so is damaged and thus the brain is unable to feedback short term memories correctly. In this case, the soul and the brain are actually copies of each other both having a mind but only one we can be aware of. Thus brain damage doesn't prove a soul doesn't exist, rather it just proves that a soul doesn't need to exist to explain the phenomena of the "mind".

Yes that's exactly what I thought you're analogy was. Let me ask you a question. Should damaging the robot make the person working the controller to think irrationally or to have periods of time with absolutely no recollection? I'm talking about from the first person perspective of the person controlling, not of the robot or what the indigenous people were observing the robot doing.

[Mythra]

I see it like this.  If a soul exists, it must do something.  So let's see a list of exactly what the soul is supposed to do..

 

If it is responsible for our sense of morality, fine.

 

But if we then find the area in the brain where morality can be compromised by injury or experimentation, we can conclude that it is not something external such as a soul that performs that function.

 

This is simplified of course, but I've read several books on the subject by cognitive neuroscientists, and this is also a conclusion that they reach.

[bleedblue22]

^ At best you can say the soul is an extraneous concept. But it seems to me to be incoherent anyway you conceive of it

[Jedah]

You say that you thought that was what the analogy was and yet you are again trying to add things to it that have nothing to do with the main point. Obviously the robot cannot damage the users memories, but that's completely irrelevant and why I used calculating distance instead to use an example where it would affect the users abilities as well. The point is that the android and the controller can be separate and have their own minds, and failure in one doesn't imply failure in the other. In logic, this can be summarized as "Not X does not imply Not Y", and you seem to be misunderstanding it as "Not X implies X".

 

The problem here is you are trying to dissect the analogy and how it differs when translated to our biological model rather than understand it. Every analogy ever made breaks down when you do that.

[Jedah]

  If a soul exists, it must do something. 

 

Actually one of the points I was trying to make is that this thinking is a faulty premise. It doesn't have to do anything at all to exist. Of course, the lack of what it does means it doesn't need to exist ( to explain the mind ) and therefore most likely does not.

 

The reason I am pestering you guys with this is because I've seen atheists try to use this argument on religious people in debates, and it never works for the same reason you cannot prove the magical pink unicorn doesn't exist. Something doesn't implicitly need a purpose to be real, and thus people who believe in its existence will be unswayed by you pointing out the lack of need. An argument that leads to a "Most likely doesn't exist" doesn't mean anything to people who want to believe. People will grasp at straws.

[Mythra]

Well now, I'll correct you.  You're not pestering.  It's interesting.  Slightly above my head, but that's how we learn.

[bleedblue22]

You say that you thought that was what the analogy was and yet you are again trying to add things to it that have nothing to do with the main point. Obviously the robot cannot damage the users memories, but that's completely irrelevant and why I used calculating distance instead to use an example where it would affect the users abilities as well. The point is that the android and the controller can be separate and have their own minds, and failure in one doesn't imply failure in the other. In logic, this can be summarized as "Not X does not imply Not Y", and you seem to be misunderstanding it as "Not X implies X".

 

The problem here is you are trying to dissect the analogy and how it differs when translated to our biological model rather than understand it. Every analogy ever made breaks down when you do that.

I've heard this analogy in many different ways. If a radio receiver breaks down does that mean the music contained in radio waves doesn't still exist? If a car breaks down and can't move anymore does this mean that the driver no longer exists? Of course not! In the second analogy, the car is supposed to be your body, and the driver is supposed to be your soul. But this analogy is ineffective in that we know that when you injure your brain the problem does not just lie in the "body" (extending this to a few mental properties of the brain as in being able to measure length as in your example) but the problem also lies in the qualia, or subjective experience of the person. When I am tired I will actually think in irrational ways or feel different emotions. It's not just that others see me acting in strange ways and I have some problems in interacting with the world. If I am under the influence of drugs, things are altered that constitute the main components of my identity. My memory acts differently, my personality changes, and only in hindsight can I remember how different my thought patterns were. If my memories, thoughts, and personality are parts of only this robot and not the person controlling it, then the person controlling it is an entirely seperate entity from the robot with little to no overlap. So the "me" I experience daily(the robot), would have nothing to do with the user and I could no longer identify with the controller or my "soul."

 

My response is not failing to meet your analogy in the way you think it is.

[bleedblue22]

*calculate distance not measure length

[Mythra]

I think if I were arguing with a religionist, I would make them define the functions that the soul performs, according to them.  Then argue against that. 

Even if intangible things can't be disproved, they can be rendered highly improbable.

[Jedah]

My response is not failing to meet your analogy in the way you think it is.

 

 

You are actually half right there, I now see you were actually misunderstanding something else other than what I thought.

 

What you didn't pick up on was that one of the central tenants of what I am saying is that a soul doesn't need to follow conventional ideas on what a soul is to exist. The mind and the soul could potentially work independently of one another or in the "opposite direction", and thus apparent cognitive failure doesn't imply nor require any sort of failure of the other.

 

A better way to look at this is the "Ship of Theseus" paradox.

 

How this sorts into what I am saying: A modern spin of the Ship of Theseus is "The Brain of Theseus". Same philosophical concept and flow, but with a twist: Instead of it being a ship it is your brain. Imagine if in the future you got a sort of neural refreshment treatment, where a small segment of your brain is replaced with an identical, but biologically younger and more efficient, neural tissue. The entire thing takes 5 years, from a course of over 1000 operations with only a small amount of your brain being replaced by new tissue at once thus giving your "mind" time to adjust. Then finally your brain is completely "new" but still "you". Or is it? What if the neurosurgeon who was giving you these operations was actually collecting your old brains remains and preserving them, then reconstructs your old brain resulting in a "brain in a vat" that is fully functional and the same as what you had 5 years ago. So which brain is "you"? Where is your "mind"? Your revitalized brain in your skull, or the old one now sitting in a mad scientist lab? If one of these brains is terminated, do "you" die? This is the higher order concept in my analogy, where the CPU and USER would effectively be independent whilst representing the same "mind", but from the perspective of computer bits this would be impossible to discern.

 

Going back to the concept of the soul, the conventional understanding is that the soul explains the mind, and the brain takes direction from the soul. But it is entirely possible ( Although unlikely ) something closer to the opposite could be true. Everything about your mind and personality could be explained as a biological process of the brain, while the soul could be something that simply copies it into another plane of existence and then transfers consciousness after death. While there is zero proof of such a thing being true, and it most likely isn't, my point is that it can exist in such a way that is basically unverifiable.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Actually one of the points I was trying to make is that this thinking is a faulty premise. It doesn't have to do anything at all to exist. Of course, the lack of what it does means it doesn't need to exist ( to explain the mind ) and therefore most likely does not.

 

 

A "soul" that does nothing is merely an undetectable, pointless trait.  It might as well not exist.  Talking about such a thing is meaningless.  We could never know it exists and have no reason to care that it exists.

 

 

 

 

The reason I am pestering you guys with this is because I've seen atheists try to use this argument on religious people in debates, and it never works for the same reason you cannot prove the magical pink unicorn doesn't exist. Something doesn't implicitly need a purpose to be real, and thus people who believe in its existence will be unswayed by you pointing out the lack of need. An argument that leads to a "Most likely doesn't exist" doesn't mean anything to people who want to believe. People will grasp at straws.

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you.  We can't (mathematically) prove that magical pink unicorn don't exist, yet nobody spends government money on unicorn hunting equipment.  There would be outrage is anybody tried to divert tax money to such an endeavor.  A soul is just as ridiculous yet the vast majority of our population wastes a significant amount of time and resources protecting these ridiculous things that are without foundation.  Again mathematic proof is only found in mathematics.  In the real world the best we can do is prove an issue beyond a reasonable doubt.  And here we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that souls do not exist.  Of course unreasonable doubts can always remain.  Perhaps invisible pink unicorns use their magic to render souls undetectable to us.  If we cannot flesh out those doubts and support them with evidence then we can safely ignore them until evidence for them becomes available.  There is always a chance that someday down the road we will get better technology and then scientists will discover Dark Mind.  If that day happens we can enjoy the breakthrough.  However Dark Mind won't be some bronze age myth.  And in order for science to detect it this thing would have to do something.

[midniterider]

midniterider:  So by what means do you envision the soul transmitting a signal to the brain?

 

Smoke signals? Radio waves? I'm not sure. Maybe the same way quantum entangled particles transmit spin information? I dont know.

 

 

 And what's to keep my soul from transmitting a signal to your brain?

 

What keeps me from opening someone else's garage door with my transmitter? Why arent my cell phone calls intercepted by someone else's phone? Why don't I ever get someone else's internet porn on my computer? Maybe it has it's own frequency? IP Address? Packet routing. I don't know. 

 

Seems like a much simpler explanation is - everything is contained in the brain.  And eventually, as our understanding increases, we will know that the mind, the soul, everything is contained there and operates by chemical / electrical signals and neuron firing.  They say the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe.  Maybe they're right.

 

That is a much simpler explanation. But I dont think it accounts for awareness/consciousness or creative thought or inspiration. Where do new thoughts come from? New thoughts never seem to arise from a computer system. If the brain alone 'is' who I am, how does that work? I think it is the ultimate question...and most fascinating.

 

I just keep finding myself in an infinite regression when I think about.... all these sensory signals ride along neurons to the brain and are analyzed .. by whom, by what? If awareness is just brain electricity, then we are saying that electrical signals are analyzing other electrical signals. I think there's more to creative thought than electricity. 

 

If a Christian says, "I dont know how it works, so God did it", we call it "God in the gaps argument." If we say, "I dont know how it works, but consciousness/mind/soul must be the brain electro-chemistry only" , I call it a "Science in the gaps argument." I think the best we can get from this thread is a stalemate. We dont have enough knowledge yet. 

 

I have a good friend who is dying as we speak from Alzheimers.  His brain is very close to not functioning at all.  I cannot accept that his soul is just fine somewhere and his brain just isn't receiving the signal properly.  His memories and knowledge are gone forever.  And he won't become suddenly lucid again once he dies.  (not that you were proposing such a thing, but lots of people think that).

 

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. My father had Alzheimers/Dementia in his last few years of life. He was not the same person that I had always known. It's a rotten illness. Well, I dont know what happens when someone dies...but in the interest of honoring loved ones .... thinking of my Dad now. Keep your friend in your heart. Take care.

[bornagainathiest]

 

My 50 cents worth.

 

Whenever (or if) we get round to creating an artificial intelligence, that might well have some impact on the soul/brain issue.

 

If this machine is (as best we can tell) fully aware, conscious and intelligent, then we will have created a brain from dead, unliving material that arguably 'lives' without being inhabited by a soul.  

 

This then raises the pertinent question, "If said machine doesn't require a soul to be just as aware and intelligent as we are, why do we believe we need one?"  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

What you say does not necessarily hold because the machine with self awareness was created by living beings with self awareness, too. What your hypothetical would show is that if you start with a self aware intelligent being, that being can create machines with similar attributes, sort of how Christians and other theists would say God did it.

 

To me, there has to be another proven example of non living matter achieving self awareness without the intervention of a self aware living being. That may very well be what happened on earth, but as yet no one can explain how or even define consciousness. It is a great mystery.

 

 

Not exactly, Overcame.

 

Christians would assert that God created self-aware and intelligent beings (humans and angels) by supernatural means.

 

Whereas, humans would have created a self-aware and intelligent being by entirely natural means.

 

Therefore, should we ever do this, it would strongly argue that an immaterial component (soul or spirit) is not needed for self-awareness and intelligence.

 

It would further argue that we probably don't possess such an unneeded component.

 

And it would also argue against the necessary existence of the supernatural.

 

By using only nature to bring about self-aware and intelligence, we would demonstrate that the supernatural is superfluous. 

[Mythra]

midniterider said:

 

 

 

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. My father had Alzheimers/Dementia in his last few years of life. He was not the same person that I had always known. It's a rotten illness. Well, I dont know what happens when someone dies...but in the interest of honoring loved ones .... thinking of my Dad now. Keep your friend in your heart. Take care.

 

Thanks for the kind words.  I saw my friend yesterday. He's my best friend, actually - and has been for 30 years. Even though he's 15 years my senior.  We were golf partners and travelled all around playing golf together and competing. Just about a month ago he beat me at gin rummy and won $5. 

 

When I saw him yesterday he was a bruised up skeleton.  His brain function is all but gone.  He still recognized me but can no longer say my name.  

They're now going to palliative care for him to ease his exit from this world.  Sorry you lost your dad to the same disease.  Because it's a devastating thing to watch. 

[Overcame Faith]

Not exactly, Overcame.

 

Christians would assert that God created self-aware and intelligent beings (humans and angels) by supernatural means.

 

Whereas, humans would have created a self-aware and intelligent being by entirely natural means.

 

Therefore, should we ever do this, it would strongly argue that an immaterial component (soul or spirit) is not needed for self-awareness and intelligence.

 

It would further argue that we probably don't possess such an unneeded component.

 

And it would also argue against the necessary existence of the supernatural.

 

By using only nature to bring about self-aware and intelligence, we would demonstrate that the supernatural is superfluous.

 

Very interesting, BAA, and well worth thinking about.

 

Yes, I suppose it would demonstrate that nothing supernatural needed, no soul necessary for self awareness and intelligence. The only thing is that for people to achieve such a self aware, intelligent device does not eliminate the necessity for another self aware and intelligent being (human beings in this case) to have created it. Thus it does not disprove that but for a pre-existing self aware, intelligent being no self aware, intelligence can exist. So the need for a creator to accomplish something like that would still not be eliminated as a requirement for it to come about.

 

A second thought is whether we will ever be able to create a self aware and intelligent machine. It seems to me that it would be difficult to tell whether that would have been accomplished. I wonder how we would measure such a thing and how could we know if it had achieved anything beyond what its programming would allow for?

[bleedblue22]

 

My response is not failing to meet your analogy in the way you think it is.

 

You are actually half right there, I now see you were actually misunderstanding something else other than what I thought.

 

What you didn't pick up on was that one of the central tenants of what I am saying is that a soul doesn't need to follow conventional ideas on what a soul is to exist. The mind and the soul could potentially work independently of one another or in the "opposite direction", and thus apparent cognitive failure doesn't imply nor require any sort of failure of the other.

 

A better way to look at this is the "Ship of Theseus" paradox.

 

How this sorts into what I am saying: A modern spin of the Ship of Theseus is "The Brain of Theseus". Same philosophical concept and flow, but with a twist: Instead of it being a ship it is your brain. Imagine if in the future you got a sort of neural refreshment treatment, where a small segment of your brain is replaced with an identical, but biologically younger and more efficient, neural tissue. The entire thing takes 5 years, from a course of over 1000 operations with only a small amount of your brain being replaced by new tissue at once thus giving your "mind" time to adjust. Then finally your brain is completely "new" but still "you". Or is it? What if the neurosurgeon who was giving you these operations was actually collecting your old brains remains and preserving them, then reconstructs your old brain resulting in a "brain in a vat" that is fully functional and the same as what you had 5 years ago. So which brain is "you"? Where is your "mind"? Your revitalized brain in your skull, or the old one now sitting in a mad scientist lab? If one of these brains is terminated, do "you" die? This is the higher order concept in my analogy, where the CPU and USER would effectively be independent whilst representing the same "mind", but from the perspective of computer bits this would be impossible to discern.

 

Going back to the concept of the soul, the conventional understanding is that the soul explains the mind, and the brain takes direction from the soul. But it is entirely possible ( Although unlikely ) something closer to the opposite could be true. Everything about your mind and personality could be explained as a biological process of the brain, while the soul could be something that simply copies it into another plane of existence and then transfers consciousness after death. While there is zero proof of such a thing being true, and it most likely isn't, my point is that it can exist in such a way that is basically unverifiable.

Your concept of the soul bears almost no resemblance to the religious understanding. I guess your concept of the soul is like an escape pod, similar to the ones in Star Wars where if your the ship(your body) goes down, you would just escape (be copied) into another realm to keep on going. In a metaphysical sense, I suppose I can't say it's impossible, but it brings in all these extra assumptions that are not necessary and seems as strained a theory as the one that says that yes gravity works on its own: but actually magical invisible fairies are what push and pull things to create the force at a rate exactly consistent with observation. Add to the fact that the idea of such a soul seems like such a blatant psychological band aid to the fear of death and you have no problem understanding the belief came from human desire rather than rational reflection or some other reliable form of getting at the truth.

 

I do think such thought experiments leads to interesting conversation on developing a theory of mind though. I personally go for the idea that some copy of you would remain to be you as long as it is psychologically continuous with you. If you went through a teleporter and what actually happened was you, who stepped into the machine to be teleported was destroyed and a copy was created in the location you wanted to teleport to, that copy would actually be you since to it, it contains all the memories of past psychological states leading up to stepping in the machine.

[midniterider]

BAA: "Therefore, should we ever do this, it would strongly argue that an immaterial component (soul or spirit) is not needed for self-awareness and intelligence.

It would further argue that we probably don't possess such an unneeded component.

And it would also argue against the necessary existence of the supernatural."

 

...

 

Maybe there is no "need" for a soul to make a physical body work. Maybe the physical body isn't the important part. Maybe the soul is the important part and the physical body is just some unimportant offshoot of existence. Why is this physical life important?

 

The human appendix. It's not needed for anything. Is it real? Or no?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Not exactly, Overcame.

 

Christians would assert that God created self-aware and intelligent beings (humans and angels) by supernatural means.

 

Whereas, humans would have created a self-aware and intelligent being by entirely natural means.

 

Therefore, should we ever do this, it would strongly argue that an immaterial component (soul or spirit) is not needed for self-awareness and intelligence.

 

It would further argue that we probably don't possess such an unneeded component.

 

And it would also argue against the necessary existence of the supernatural.

 

By using only nature to bring about self-aware and intelligence, we would demonstrate that the supernatural is superfluous.

Very interesting, BAA, and well worth thinking about.

 

Yes, I suppose it would demonstrate that nothing supernatural needed, no soul necessary for self awareness and intelligence. The only thing is that for people to achieve such a self aware, intelligent device does not eliminate the necessity for another self aware and intelligent being (human beings in this case) to have created it. Thus it does not disprove that but for a pre-existing self aware, intelligent being no self aware, intelligence can exist. So the need for a creator to accomplish something like that would still not be eliminated as a requirement for it to come about.

 

Ah yes Overcame, but science cannot and must not invoke any supernatural causes to explain anything.  

Not for the evolution of humans.  Not for the abiogenetic origin of life.  Not for the origin of the universe.  Supernatural causation is not within science's remit.  So science cannot and must not regress to a supernatural, pre-existing self-aware creator to explain who made us.  If supernatural explanations are necessarily excluded from all of science, then the notion of a supernatural creator must be rejected as well.

 

When something cannot be explained by science, it's perfectly legitimate to say, 'We don't know'.

 

A second thought is whether we will ever be able to create a self aware and intelligent machine. It seems to me that it would be difficult to tell whether that would have been accomplished. I wonder how we would measure such a thing and how could we know if it had achieved anything beyond what its programming would allow for?

 

Agree.

 

It seems difficult enough understanding ourselves, let alone duplicating ourselves.

 

[bornagainathiest]

BAA: "Therefore, should we ever do this, it would strongly argue that an immaterial component (soul or spirit) is not needed for self-awareness and intelligence.

 

It would further argue that we probably don't possess such an unneeded component.

 

And it would also argue against the necessary existence of the supernatural."

 

...

 

Maybe there is no "need" for a soul to make a physical body work. Maybe the physical body isn't the important part. Maybe the soul is the important part and the physical body is just some unimportant offshoot of existence. Why is this physical life important?

 

The human appendix. It's not needed for anything. Is it real? Or no?

 

Rider,

 

The appendix may not be needed for anything now, but according to this, it once was.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

 

It had a function.

 

But, if by making an artificial sentient being, we show that a soul was never necessary for self-awareness and intelligence, what then?

 

Why do we need to make an argument for souls to exist in humans?

 

If a physical (artificial) body doesn't need a soul to make it work, then what need to is there to invoke it's existence in a natural human body?

 

I can see no evolutionary, practical or functional need for one.

.

.

.

I can't answer any question about the non-physical Rider, because I'm making a strictly reductionist, pragmatic and materialist argument by raising the possibility of artificial intelligence.

 

As far as I know there's no non-physical component involved - so I can't address that point.

 

Sorry!  

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[Mythra]

 

I have a good friend who is dying as we speak from Alzheimers.  His brain is very close to not functioning at all.  I cannot accept that his soul is just fine somewhere and his brain just isn't receiving the signal properly.  His memories and knowledge are gone forever.  And he won't become suddenly lucid again once he dies.  (not that you were proposing such a thing, but lots of people think that). 

Last night as I was falling asleep, I woke up and knew that my friend had died. I even told him goodbye. This morning I got the text that it was indeed the case.

 

Kind of weird.  Not totally out of the blue, since I knew he was dying.  But still kinda weird.

[Justus]

I dont think I've ever heard what a "soul" actually is.  I dont think there can be a good explanation.

While most will say that a "soul' is just another word for 'spirit' yet  IMO that is a incorrect interpretation.  It would be like saying "matter' is just another term for  'mass'  and that the two mean exactly the the same thing.  If the term "matter' is just another term for 'mass' then all matter has mass.  However, while it is true that anything with mass is matter, all matter does not have mass.  (Yet, for those who will disagree about all matter does not have mass, then I would ask if they would provide the atomic mass of either energy^[1] or a photon.)

 

Since I consider that the example of matter as a falsibility to this precept, then even I would disregard the precept that the spirit and soul being two different forms of massless matter.   

 

Yet, from my experience talking with Christians who refuse to even consider the possibility that  a 'spirit' and 'soul' is not the same thing, it would be an exercise of futility to attempt to explain to any further since ex-Christians refuse to even consider the possibility that they might have misinterpreted the scriptures.  We all are guilty of having a closed mind regarding some things, but the scriptures offer a good demonstration of this wherein the scriptures it is written the man called Jesus said, "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." yet also makes the statement "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not."  Which some will call the two statements a contradiction, but a rule and a principle are two different creatures, a precept or rule is generally true, but there might be some exceptions, yet a principle is always holds true.  

 

People want to live forever and claim to have souls which live eternally after you die.

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:" John 5:39

 

The principle of 'eternal'  is one of three natures that define the nature of living beings or life forms.  And in such each principle is based upon the following precepts:

 

The principle of eternal is based upon these precepts:

   1: has no beginning of existence; and

   2: has  no  end of existence; and

   3. neither changes nature or form. 

The principle of immortal is based upon the following precepts:

   1. A. has no beginning of its existence; or

       B. has a beginning of existence.

   2. If A, then it will have an end of existence; or 

       If B, then it will will not have an end of existence

   3. Both A and B can change in nature and/or form.

The principle of mortal is upon the following precepts:

   1. has a beginning of existence; and

   2. has a end of existence; and

   3. is in a perpetual state of change in nature and form. 

 

Ask yourself, did you physically exist prior to the genome produced by your biological procreators, I know that I didnt'.  Then ask yourself this, if man is simply mass, then what is the different between a corpse and a living body if life itself is soley the result of matter having mass.  

[mymistake]

 

 

Ask yourself, did you physically exist prior to the genome produced by your biological procreators, I know that I didnt'.  Then ask yourself this, if man is simply mass, then what is the different between a corpse and a living body if life itself is soley the result of matter having mass.  

 

 

 

If a TV is simply mass then what is the difference between a TV that is off and one that is playing a show?  They both weigh the same.

 

Your question ignores the fact that there is more than just hardware.

 

 

Edit:

And before you go Spirit World on us, remember the software you TV runs on is not from the Spirit World.  All known software is real.  None is imaginary/spiritual.

[bornagainathiest]

Justus,

 

Please substantiate your assertion that... Ex-Christians refuse to even consider the possibility that they might have misinterpreted the scriptures ...with evidence.

[Justus]

 

 

 

Ask yourself, did you physically exist prior to the genome produced by your biological procreators, I know that I didnt'.  Then ask yourself this, if man is simply mass, then what is the different between a corpse and a living body if life itself is soley the result of matter having mass.  

 

 

 

If a TV is simply mass then what is the difference between a TV that is off and one that is playing a show?  They both weigh the same.

 

Your question ignores the fact that there is more than just hardware.

 

 

Edit:

And before you go Spirit World on us, remember the software you TV runs on is not from the Spirit World.  All known software is real.  None is imaginary/spiritual.

 

 

Is the TV connected to the electric outlet?

 

Actually I believe my question emphasizes that there is more than just hardware.

 

Justus,

 

Please substantiate your assertion that... Ex-Christians refuse to even consider the possibility that they might have misinterpreted the scriptures ...with evidence.

 

Is your interpretation that Moses cast down a rod at Pharoah's feet really didn't turn into a serpent?