This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe (page 18)

John_Mann

No, I do understand the scientific method. The issue here seems to be that either we have different definitions of "physical," or you don't understand energy. I would define physical as anything which exists materially. Energy is immaterial, therefore not physical.

You have no idea what scientific method is. You can cry a river but energy is physical.

My God this is basic science...

I have enjoyed our debate, I believe that debate has value in its ability to make one think and refine their own ideas. I will do my best to examine your arguments, but as things stand now I still see no way for metaphysics or philosophy to prove the existence of a soul, creator, or life after death. I believe that philosophy and metaphysics are tools for introspection, therefore they will only tell you more about who you are as a person, not about the nature of the Universe.

I like your thinking. Just remember: philosophy is a universal tool but the scientific method is not.

deegee

John_Mann,

"Spiritism/Spiritualism is BS."

According to the Bible it isn't.

I can however see why you have decided to go against the Bible in this:

Based on what the Bible states regarding spiritism/spiritualism as per my comments above, it should definitely be possible to contact the "conscious" dead to ask them about what the afterlife is like and about their conversations with God.

Yet no one has been able to do this. No wonder spiritism/spiritualism is BS.......go figure.

Saethydd

No, I do understand the scientific method. The issue here seems to be that either we have different definitions of "physical," or you don't understand energy. I would define physical as anything which exists materially. Energy is immaterial, therefore not physical.
You have no idea what scientific method is. You can cry a river but energy is physical.
My God this is basic science...

I'm using the second definition of physical found here.

Material means made up of matter.

Matter and energy are not the same, the following article by a theoretical physicist discusses that very subject. I'll sum it up, matter (physical objects) have energy, but energy is not a physical object.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Perhaps this is making my argument too semantic, but still, the scientific method CAN be applied even to things that can't be directly observed.

John_Mann

According to the Bible it isn't.

The Bible texts you mentioned can be interpreted by several ways and I can't use my reason to select the best interpretation. I don't need to accept things that are not clear in the Bible. These particular events were meaningful to the people directly involved (private revelation) but not necessarily meaningful to me.

I don't have a Sola Scriptura view about the Bible.

Actually I think Sola Scriptura is BS too.

John_Mann

Matter and energy are not the same

Of course not!

Physical in scientific language = material + immaterial.

Energy is physical.

Spiritual is immaterial too but is not physical it's metaphysical.

Saethydd

Physical = material + immaterial.
Spiritual is immaterial too but is not physical it's metaphysical.

Okay, so as I said earlier, we have been using different definitions for the word physical. So correct me if I have this wrong. The physical and spiritual world would have to be connected by immaterial means?

Energy is immaterial.

The scientific method can be used to study energy.

Therefore, it might be possible that the scientific method could, at some point in the future, be used to study this immaterial connection between the physical and spiritual/non-physical, if such a connection exists at all.

John_Mann

The physical and spiritual world would have to be connected by immaterial means?

Probably. But we don't have any idea how. There's no satisfactory view about this. But Saint Aquinas talked about an intermediate mortal soul. He just not made clear if this mortal soul is physical or spiritual. This mortal soul (anima) can be the link of the brain and the immortal soul.

Therefore, it might be possible that the scientific method could, at some point in the future, be used to study this immaterial connection between the physical and spiritual/non-physical, if such a connection exists at all.

I know what you mean. You are talking about scientific falseability about some metaphysical entity.

Well there's a way to test the causation of consciousness.

When we reach the exascale computing we will have, in theory, the same capacity of the brain (this exascale is predicted to be reached between 2025 and 2040).

Combining the exascale computing with the brain simulation in the ongoing Blue Brain Project, we can try to run a virtual brain and see if a consciousness (strong artificial intelligence capable to pass the Turing test) emerges from it.

This would be the ultimate experiment.

I bet a consciousness will not arise. But I'm not sure about the birth of Skynet. Lol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project

cofty

John_Mann you have put a lot of effort into this thread. However you have totally failed to address the OP.

Your comments have illustrated the point I made about how believers have to add layer upon layer of post hoc excuses and special pleading to justify their beliefs. I thank you for that.

John_Mann

However you have totally failed to address the OP.

This is very subjective, cofty.

cofty

No it's based on empirical data. I wrote the OP and I have read every one of your comments. They are all interesting but none of them address the main point.

Reality and theology don't fit. In lots of little ways theism doesn't pass the common-sense test.

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

Share this