Philosophy Now Forum

[quote="Bill Wiltrack"].
There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact.

"In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul" or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise".

You probably know from the literature is plenty of evidence of people returning from the dead. They see their body lying on the table. Powered sight, mind ... What do these facts?

.






.........................................What are you attempting to say?



.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
Challenge Accepted!.

We're still waiting. You even brought the book?

cirin,

cirin wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact.

"In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul" or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise".

You probably know from the literature is plenty of evidence of people returning from the dead. They see their body lying on the table. Powered sight, mind ... What do these facts?

These are not Bill's words, he plagiarised them.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.






.........................................What are you attempting to say?



.

I want to tell Bill that your statement is a mistake, need proof. "In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul" or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise".
The experience of resurrection from the dead, says that the soul does not die.

cirin wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.






.........................................What are you attempting to say?



.

I want to tell Bill that your statement is a mistake, need proof. "In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul" or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise".
The experience of resurrection from the dead, says that the soul does not die.

In other words, you are saying we have a physical body and a non-physical soul. This is better known as substance dualism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p ... y_of_mind)

Dualism explains nothing, it is only one name. Science can not reasonably explain what the spirit, soul, consciousness.

cirin wrote:Dualism explains nothing, it is only one name.

It is not *only* one name, but it is how life on earth manifests itself. Without duality there is no electricity with it's positive and negative creating power, without duality there is no comparisons to be made. Without duality you would not be here... the union of the (M) & (F) produces our offspring as it does for all life. Without duality the Sun w/o a Moon would burn up before it ever became what it is today.

And yet you believe "it is only one name"..?

Science can not reasonably explain what the spirit, soul, consciousness.

"... the essence of our true being must transcend the intellect and into the realm of mystery, the profound mystery of existence, the metaphysical realms and beyond...beyond the persistent questioning of mind."-- mtmynd1

cirin wrote:Dualism explains nothing, it is only one name. Science can not reasonably explain what the spirit, soul, consciousness.

It's an ontological distinction used to explain the types of things that can or can not exist.

An ontology is a formal manipulation of names and definitions for which there is no essence of things. The main drawback of such an ideology is the lack of a clear understanding and definition of the things in question. Hitherto, religious and modern scientists do not understand the underlying, the cornerstones of knowledge - what is Spirit, Soul, Mind, Consciousness. I propose to talk about the nature and physics of things that we can explain, and which can not. It is imperative to create a new modern worldview to replace the outdated one-sided materialistic outlook of Darwin, on which rests the whole of science and religion, physics and metaphysics. The current worldview can not understand the world to the full.

cirin wrote:An ontology is a formal manipulation of names and definitions for which there is no essence of things. The main drawback of such an ideology is the lack of a clear understanding and definition of the things in question. Hitherto, religious and modern scientists do not understand the underlying, the cornerstones of knowledge - what is Spirit, Soul, Mind, Consciousness. I propose to talk about the nature and physics of things that we can explain, and which can not. It is imperative to create a new modern worldview to replace the outdated one-sided materialistic outlook of Darwin, on which rests the whole of science and religion, physics and metaphysics. The current worldview can not understand the world to the full.

Essences do have an ontological status.

You seem to be saying that religion and metaphysics have a materialist foundation. Religion and metaphysics can be monistic, but that doesn't make them a materialistic theory.

Perhaps you can give us your worldview.

I probably have not clearly expressed. I mean, materialistic worldview actually is the basis of science and religion. There is a concept of modern harmonious worldview, though in russian language.

Friends! Time to go across from propaganda of separate knowledge to creation of unifying motion the aim of which forming and introduction of new, harmonious world view must become in life of planet came, taking into account both sides (material and spiritual) of life of man.
But will look around - primitiveness of materialistic world view is present everywhere. I will give an example: Aims on development of humanity on Millennium, expounded in Program of UNO of 2012г., under the name the "Future which we want" and accepted by most states of planet, contains not a single point (only 283 points), sanctified to the second and main constituent of Life - spiritual.

Man is not a machine. While man's decisions are ultimately based upon processing of data from the senses, the amount of feedback loops between the data and the perceived goals of the mind that the relationship between sense-data and action is entirely unpredictable and quite different from any machine that one might otherwise encounter.

.



So says your reaction to your sense-data.




Now be off with you.


.