Scripture vs. Logic. Which one trumps?

[Savaric]

Originally posted by Elvion
For it to be a discussion those who believe in God have to be willing to embrace the possibility that God does not exist and accept it as truth. If I become thoroughly convinced and on the other side of the coin so too do the people who do not believe in God be willing to accept that he does exist and is fully interactive the way described.

I don't completely discount the possibility of a divine being. I could be completely wrong and perhaps burn like a tire when I die (but honestly- if it is all true I think heaven would be a lonely place anyway). Maybe there is a God. Nobody can prove it and nobody can disprove it. However, those that believe have been here longer and take seniority. It's apparent that the more people believe in something the more credit that thing gets- but it doesn't make it any more real or true.

Say Anthson how can you be so confident in the bible? I mean, you don't know who wrote it, right? I think Graeblyn was pretty accurate on the bible's origins. I have Christian friends that quote bible passages as if they are historical records of unquestionable authority. I don't think it's good to blindly follow something without question or without ensuring validity. Anyone who studies politics could stress the importance of that.

I like to think these days we are further away from religion than we've ever been (remember those lovely dark times when men and women could be executed for heresy? Hold that thought and pan over to the middle east- oh still happening. Thanks God for your crystal clear message- you've sure shown us the way). We are doing a lot better than we used to. Or some of us at least. Maybe it's because we're getting away from ignorance and superstition. Whatever gets you through the day I suppose.

[anthson]

Originally posted by Savaric
Say Anthson how can you be so confident in the bible? I mean, you don't know who wrote it, right? I think Graeblyn was pretty accurate on the bible's origins.

How is it you've come to the conclusion Graeblyn was right and I was incorrect? Is it possible maybe you just wanted to believe one over the other? Certainly not, given your other statement.

Originally posted by Savaric
I don't think it's good to blindly follow something without question or without ensuring validity. Anyone who studies politics could stress the importance of that.

So I'm sure you did tons to question the validity of Graeblyn's post. Please tell us all about it. Also, as I pointed out, Graeblyn wasn't quite accurate on what I said. For example, I never said Jesus wrote the Bible and gave it to the early church. It's quite apparent you're reading exactly what you want to where you want to, but if I'm wrong, please let me know how.

EDIT: The answer answer to your first question will be posted in the Bible questions thread.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
If you are referring to Matthew 19:4, Jesus was answering a question about a man and woman divorcing, rather than commenting on marriage generally.

No, it was in one of Paul's letters - Ephesians I think. Sorry, I'm at work and don't have the time to check now.

[ejda]

Originally posted by anthson
Where has the universal law been proven that things from one dimension can't interact with things from another?

There is no such universal law. However, my point is it:

1) To consciously move your arm you need electrical signals from the neurons of your brain.
2) If there is a soul which is responsible for our consciousness, somewhere its will must somehow trasnlate into electrical signals.
3) Clearly, this soul cannot be based in matter so assumption 1 and 2 imply there a phenomenon of "non-physical matter interacting with matter, causing formation of electrical signals" which happens in the brain.
4) Obviously, this phenonmenon happens every second in every human's brain.
5) And finally, one would assume that this *extremely* common phenomenon should be at least confirmed by some physical examination in laboratory.
6) The availability of exactly *zero* evidence in addition to existence of *zero* physical theories describing this can only lead us to the conclusion that with almost 100% confidence this whole thing is bullshit.
7) The most reasonable explanation is that this "soul" thing was invented to explain something "complex" through simple means. Much like how people in the old days used to expalin thunder, creation of universe, movement of sun and etc.

[Kravenar]

Originally posted by ejda

The most reasonable explanation is that this "soul" thing was invented to explain something "complex" through simple means. Much like how people in the old days used to expalin thunder, creation of universe, movement of sun and etc.

I think there is one thing which modern science/medicine struggles to explain.

If we are just the sum of our bits, they why is it that we can't simply "jump start" a life that was dead, or sew bits together and make it live - and I don't mean simple defibrillation. Exactly "what" makes the difference between living and slab in the morgue is still somewhat of a mystery, albeit a diminishing one.

"Believers" will likely say this is what your "soul" does, hardcore scientists probably say something along the line of delicate chemical and hormonal balances in the brain/body and adequate perfusion and oxygenation of the tissues etc etc.

Either way.. its still not totally unlocked.. and its mysteries like that which make the existance of a soul easier to swallow for many.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Rosuav
No. It is change. If I take a floppy disk with the first edition of a document, and wave a magnet over it, that's going to tend to realign things in one direction rather than the other. Is that going to bring me to a second edition, with all the errors removed and five new chapters? No. Most likely it'll corrupt things and make the whole disk unusable, but assuming it doesn't, it's still not going to write my paper for me.

Sorry for the late reply. The theory of evolution hinges on the fact that the subjects can reproduce. A floppy disk cannot reproduce, and thus, this is an extremely inappropriate tool to use to discuss evolution.

Part of evolution is the study of ecology and habitats. Thus, change that effects an entire habitat and causing change to occur in those species in that habitat is part of evolution.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by kravenar
I think there is one thing which modern science/medicine struggles to explain.

If we are just the sum of our bits, they why is it that we can't simply "jump start" a life that was dead, or sew bits together and make it live - and I don't mean simple defibrillation. Exactly "what" makes the difference between living and slab in the morgue is still somewhat of a mystery, albeit a diminishing one.

"Believers" will likely say this is what your "soul" does, hardcore scientists probably say something along the line of delicate chemical and hormonal balances in the brain/body and adequate perfusion and oxygenation of the tissues etc etc.

Either way.. its still not totally unlocked.. and its mysteries like that which make the existance of a soul easier to swallow for many.

I don't really think it's hard for medicine or science to explain why we can't sew things together and jump start life. It might be hard for people to comprehend it, but it's not hard to explain.

First of all, we do sew things into people all the time that weren't there to start with, and we have it prolong life. We have liver transplants, heart transplants, etc. However, the reason that some people still die after all this is because bits and pieces are not all interchangeable. We have antibodies that will actually attack and kill parts that do not "fit" with our body. (This is an oversimplification of an explanation, but I think that a scientific explanation would be extremely difficult to comprehend unless you were to study the subject.) Thus, you have to have a match, and this is actually MUCH more difficult to find than people think. You can't just swap parts around like they're legos.

We also do "jump start" life that has already died. You see it all the time in TV!! Those pesky defibrilators literally jump starts life. (Hey, you know this, right? Aren't you in emergency rescue?)

The soul, however, is something much more complicated, in my opinion, if it exists. For example, if I cloned myself and had an exact genetic replica of me in every way, would it still behave like me and think like me and share the same thought processes as me? Probably not because we already see this phenomenon with identical twins. I've never met identical twins that don't have their own distinct personalities apart from each other. Most twins share the same life experiences and have very similar upbringings, yet most of them are extremely different in personalities and rationalities. What makes them so different even though they're so much the same genetically? Maybe the "soul".

[Savaric]

Originally posted by Dalaena
For example, if I cloned myself and had an exact genetic replica of me in every way, would it still behave like me and think like me and share the same thought processes as me? Probably not because we already see this phenomenon with identical twins.

That's an interesting point. It sounds logical to me that you could get that identical result if you duplicated a person down to the exact placement and arrangement of every molecule and atom in the body (maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think that will remain science fiction forever). But twins are not physically identical on that kind of scale. Then the environmental factors come into play, like different memories and such that would create differences in behavior.

That leads off into good philosophical debate. But not one I wanna get into.

[ejda]

Originally posted by Dalaena
For example, if I cloned myself and had an exact genetic replica of me in every way, would it still behave like me and think like me and share the same thought processes as me? Probably not because we already see this phenomenon with identical twins. I've never met identical twins that don't have their own distinct personalities apart from each other.

Hey, that's easy to answer. You can never get two identical people even if you start from identical genetic material because the developement process of the fetus highly depends on the environment. Even if we assume that the identical twins grow up in identical environment (which doesn't happen) still the womb is a random and highly assymetric place for developement. So, there's no way that you can fix the environment to be identical for two people.

[Jyn]

Also, they have individual identities because they are each given one. Experiments on humans, especially children, tend to be frowned upon. However, if you were to create and raise identical twins in an identical environment, and give them the same identity, then they may just grow up to be identical. (It is the differences in womb environment, nutritional availability, etc. that many scientists believe cause the differences in twins that were mentioned above. Another example would be that twins don't have the same fingerprints.)

There are plenty of factors in this scenario, of course. There could still be differences in identity simply because the people they interact with would know that they are two different people (ie one twin is experiment A and the other experiment B). Would they be raised together or apart? Would they be allowed to see their reflection? It's all somewhat interesting to think about, but most people would consider it unethical.