Are Evolution and A God Irreconcilable?

pinksoir

GWolf wrote:

Or we have a native energy that we can't detect, which is far from implausible.

But why on earth would something you have never encountered, can never measure and for all intents and purposes does not exist make you believe in a soul? What exactly do you understand a soul to be?

GWolf

pinksoir wrote:

But why on earth would something you have never encountered, can never measure and for all intents and purposes does not exist make you believe in a soul?

That's kinda the reason I think it's possible. We have thoughts and personalities, urges and all that. but logically, there seems to be no reason some electircal currents running thorugh your body should be able to come together in conjunction with the brain to form...well..us. So if what we can detect doesn't seem to work out, it's what e can't that we should be thinking about

Again, no solid belief for or against it, but I find it.....intriguing

What exactly do you understand a soul to be?

Primus only knows

Zombrex

GWolf wrote:

Oh and Zillah, I already said 'everything living". Don't bother trying to catch me out.

"Living" is an arbitrary definition that isn't even that well defined

The first "life" on Earth were chemical molecules that through a chemical reaction started to replicated. Did these have souls?

Living things are simply combinations of complex chemical molecules that replicate.

Fallen Seraph

GWolf wrote:

Or we have a native energy that we can't detect, which is far from implausible.

If we can't detect it, then we can't interact with it; and if we can't interact with it then it can't possibly fulfill the job of soul that you suggest it has.

Also, why does logic dictate that electrical currents can't make us who we are? I really don't see why one can't understand humans as incredibly complex computers.

Zombrex

GWolf wrote:

Or we have a native energy that we can't detect, which is far from implausible.

Actually it is rather implausible, since if this "energy" existed but we could not detect it it probably wouldn't be interacting with anything in any useful way.

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

If we can't detect it, then we can't interact with it; and if we can't interact with it then it can't possibly fulfill the job of soul that you suggest it has.

Snap

GWolf

Fallen Seraph wrote:

If we can't detect it, then we can't interact with it; and if we can't interact with it then it can't possibly fulfill the job of soul that you suggest it has.

No we can't detect it. We can't detect microscopic particles, but we interact with them on some level. Then we get machines which can. If we lack the technology to find it, well then, that just means we can't detect it.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The temptation to found my own church is nearly overwhelming sometimes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its the best way to make a million, according to L. Ron Hubbard

Zombrex

GWolf wrote:

No we can't detect it. We can't detect microscopic particles, but we interact with them on some level. Then we get machines which can. If we lack the technology to find it, well then, that just means we can't detect it.

You don't think we would have discovered this energy by now? Considering we have found far more exotic particles

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Had pH claimed that evolution disproved the Catholic Church's view of souls, I would probably just have agreed.

Oh excuse me for using a common definition of the word 'soul' that's been in use for thousands of years rather than the one you were just about to make up, my mistake, I'll try and not let it happen again.

GWolf

Wicknight wrote:

You don't think we would have discovered this energy by now? Considering we have found far more exotic particles

nope, I don't think we would have. A lot of what we found was discovered by accident, and a lot are still theory. If you don't know what to look for....well, heres a needle, and there's a very big hay stack



BTW, absolutley love the sig.

Fallen Seraph

GWolf wrote:

No we can't detect it. We can't detect microscopic particles, but we interact with them on some level. Then we get machines which can. If we lack the technology to find it, well then, that just means we can't detect it.

but how can we know that there's something to detect in the first place? and if we don't know that there's something to detect why would we make machines to detect it; or even go so far as to postulate it in the first place? Doesn't this kinda hark back to the unicorn thing?

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Oh excuse me for using a common definition of the word 'soul' that's been in use for thousands of years rather than the one you were just about to make up, my mistake, I'll try and not let it happen again.

lol

That happens a lot around here ...

Zombrex

GWolf wrote:

nope, I don't think we would have. A lot of what we found was discovered by accident, and a lot are still theory. If you don't know what to look for....well, heres a needle, and there's a very big hay stack



BTW, absolutley love the sig.

But at this stage then it is just an complete guess. If something is undetectable we have no idea if it exists or not. We only have the concept in the first place because someone made it up in their own imagination. You can do that with anything.

Another way to look at it is what evolutionary process would it provide

GWolf

Fallen Seraph wrote:

but how can we know that there's something to detect in the first place? and if we don't know that there's something to detect why would we make machines to detect it; or even go so far as to postulate it in the first place? Doesn't this kinda hark back to the unicorn thing?

I explained why I think it's possible. Post should be on this page somewhere. I'm nowhere near convinced, but howsever. Plus I already explained the unicron thing

I love unicrons.

Fallen Seraph

GWolf wrote:

nope, I don't think we would have. A lot of what we found was discovered by accident, and a lot are still theory. If you don't know what to look for....well, heres a needle, and there's a very big hay stack

I'm afraid if one is to look at the history of particles and when they were discovered, the vast majority were postulated years; even decades (in the case of atoms; millenia) before they were discovered... And with most of the exotic ones they were only found because people knew exactly what was being looked for...

GWolf

Postulated. Long, long before there was a shred of real evidence. Nothing but an idea until someone found some tiny bit of evidence. I believe Zillah used that to argue against me a while back

Fallen Seraph

GWolf wrote:

I explained why I think it's possible. Post should be on this page somewhere. I'm nowhere near convinced, but howsever. Plus I already explained the unicron thing

I love unicrons.

true enough, I suppose I ignored what had been said earlier; and after re-reading that post I think it must be concluded that this is the point in the argument where faith is invoked. I believe science will be able to explain it all completely adequately; given enough time, and based on science's track record, I see no reason why they won't.

GWolf

Fallen Seraph wrote:

true enough, I suppose I ignored what had been said earlier; and after re-reading that post I think it must be concluded that this is the point in the argument where faith is invoked. I believe science will be able to explain it all completely adequately; given enough time, and based on science's track record, I see no reason why they won't.

I think it could all end up being very scientific one way or the other

pinksoir

It's certainly interesing, in fact i studied the subject for four years (not exclusively but it was part of my degree), but believe me, any argument you could possibly think of for the existence of the soul can be explained more elegantly through different areas of science. What we can detect DOES WORK OUT!!

Yes we have thoughts and personalities, but the argument for the existence of a constant 'self' is so easily refuted. You only have to look at examples of permanent amnesia patients to see that personality does not persevere. what makes you up as a person is genes and experiences. if you lose all memory of those experiences you would essentially become a different 'person', but some traits would remain - those dictated by genes.

There is absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of a soul. Anything that was ever associated with the soul has either been explained through the sciences or is in the process of being explained through the sciences. The theory of 'mind', probably the greatest argument for the soul, is being quite sufficiently explained through what the brain does rather than as an entity in itself. Humans are extremely complex organisms and to explain away this complexity through ideas such as souls and designers is to take away from the true majesty of our origins.

Generally I have found that belief in a soul is more for a yearning for meaning or the sense of individual importance. A desire for what people think 'should be' over 'what is'.

Fallen Seraph

GWolf wrote:

Postulated. Long, long before there was a shred of real evidence. Nothing but an idea until someone found some tiny bit of evidence. I believe Zillah used that to argue against me a while back

your point is? there were countless other metaphysical theories at the time; and what of them? does the fact that science hasn't validated them have any bearing on the fact that a lot of the discovered sub-atomic particles were predicted mathematically years before there was technology to detect them and not by pure chance?

GWolf

pinksoir wrote:

It's certainly interesing, in fact i studied the subject for four years (not exclusively but it was part of my degree), but believe me, any argument you could possibly think of for the existence of the soul can be explained more elegantly through different areas of science. What we can detect DOES WORK OUT!!

Yes we have thoughts and personalities, but the argument for the existence of a constant 'self' is so easily refuted. You only have to look at examples of permanent amnesia patients to see that personality does not persevere. what makes you up as a person is genes and experiences. if you lose all memory of those experiences you would essentially become a different 'person', but some traits would remain - those dictated by genes.

There is absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of a soul. Anything that was ever associated with the soul has either been explained through the sciences or is in the process of being explained through the sciences. The theory of 'mind', probably the greatest argument for the soul, is being quite sufficiently explained through what the brain does rather than as an entity in itself. Humans are extremely complex organisms and to explain away this complexity through ideas such as souls and designers is to take away from the true majesty of our origins.

Generally I have found that belief in a soul is more for a yearning for meaning or the sense of individual importance. A desire for what people think 'should be' over 'what is'.

My life has plenty of meaning thankfully. And I'm as important as I need to be. And I think we should be less then what we think we are, but that's that, and this is this.

pinksoir

Quite.

bonkey

GWolf wrote:

Lets see. In order to see we use light and it has been theorised that if we reflected the light just right we'd be outside the visual spectrum.

Sure. But lots of things are outside the visible spectrum and we can still detect them.

Now, if the unicron posessedd a covering which had a reflective quality then yes, it's perfectly possible.

Actually, no, its not. Not unless it also had the ability to violate several fundamental laws of physics. If you bend light around something (theoretically possible) then it must take longer to arrive at its destination then if it travelled a straight path.

And if they're vocal cords were altered so that they had more sing song voices, and they were at least partially nocturnal, then yes, a unicorn could be flying past you at night singing.

Except it could also be detected by a pickup which had a different range than the human ear. Lower frequencies, higher frequencies....we can detect them all.

The point here is that any way you try and explain the existence of the unicorn leads to a test which can show whether or not you are correct. Only when you reduce things to the situation where there is no evidence for its existence can it be truly undetectable.

In other words, only when you reduce it to the point where it is indistinguishable from something which doesn't exist can you actually suggest it is beyond detection.

All things are possible,

Actually, no, they're not...or at least, there is no evidence to suggest they are.

Plus I already explained the unicron thing

I'm afraid you haven't.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Had pH claimed that evolution disproved the Catholic Church's view of souls, I would probably just have agreed.

Oh excuse me for using a common definition of the word 'soul' that's been in use for thousands of years rather than the one you were just about to make up, my mistake, I'll try and not let it happen again.

Since the thing almost certainly doesn't exist, I don't see how on earth one can claim that there is a correct and singular definition of it. If you did mean specifically the Catholic Church's definition, you could have said so!

The comment was originally aimed at Zillah, but if you like, I will pardon you for using such a very parochial definition as that given by one specific religious organisation without noting that fact, as long as you promise not to do it again.

annoyingly, I suspect,
Scofflaw

bonkey

pH wrote:

Oh excuse me for using a common definition of the word 'soul' that's been in use for thousands of years rather than the one you were just about to make up, my mistake, I'll try and not let it happen again.

Could you do the same with your use of the word "disproveprove" then?

pH wrote:

The other thing that it almost certainly disproves is the concept of a soul.

Your argument doesn't disprove, almost disprove, or almost certainly disprove the notion of a soul.

It raises some interesting questions.

Proof or disproof comes from answers, not questions.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

In other words, only when you reduce it to the point where it is indistinguishable from something which doesn't exist can you actually suggest it is beyond detection.

Hmm. That's not quite true of everything (although it is true of unicorns on this planet at this time). If God powered the entire Universe - that is to say, was all the relevant forces etc, how would we know?

There are times when our inability to detect the presence of something comes from our inability to contrast it with absence - not because it is undetectable as such, but because it is the baseline reading itself, against which all readings are calibrated. An example might be, say, an omnipresent God - how would one subtract out the "God signal" if it is omnipresent?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Anyway seeing as robin posted a link on another thread here's AQ Ingersoll's take on this:

"This century will be called Darwin's century. He was one of the greatest men who ever touched this globe. He has explained more of the phenomena of life than all of the religious teachers. Write the name of Charles Darwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived on the other, and from that name has come more light to the world than from all of those. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity. He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the inspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that the Bible is a book written by ignorance at the instigation of fear. Think of the men who replied to him. Only a few years ago there was no person too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and the more ignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task. He was held up to the ridicule, the scorn and contempt of the Christian world, and yet when he died, England was proud to put his dust with that of her noblest and her grandest. Charles Darwin conquered the intellectual world, and his doctrines are now accepted facts."

"Orthodoxy", 1884

DublinWriter

pinksoir wrote:

Generally I have found that belief in a soul is more for a yearning for meaning or the sense of individual importance. A desire for what people think 'should be' over 'what is'.

In doing some very general research recently, I stubled across a group of American scientists that have discovered that the human heart contains about 40,000 neuron-like cells and that the heart itself performs some kind of cognitive activity. They also discovered that there's a lot more traffic in terms of communication going from heart to brain than brain to heart.

Interesting how people ever since the dawn of man have equated feelings and emotions to dwell, or have some close relation to the heart, an organ which on the surface appears to be little more than a pumping station.

Stepping into wild speculation, I'd say the 'soul' is basically a collection of anti-matter of some sort that dwells inside us. After all, if the body is comprised of physical matter, then if you accept that the logical opposite of the body is the 'soul', then the soul must be comprised of anti-matter.

Scofflaw

DublinWriter wrote:

Stepping into wild speculation, I'd say the 'soul' is basically a collection of anti-matter of some sort that dwells inside us. After all, if the body is comprised of physical matter, then if you accept that the logical opposite of the body is the 'soul', then the soul must be comprised of anti-matter.

Which would make "spontaneous combustion" a containment failure, I suppose...

cordially,
Scofflaw