06 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioDo you believe that 1) frogs, 2) sea stars, 3) spiders, 4) jelly fish, 5) maple trees
Do you believe that 1) frogs, 2) sea stars, 3) spiders, 4) jelly fish, 5) maple trees
have souls?
None of these have consciousness, I might add.
And, for those higher animals -- birds and mammals -- does their having souls
(albeit less evolved consciousness) entitle them to the full measure of respect
and consideration iterated in the Commandments (e ...[text shortened]... outfit maintains that fish have
even a rudimentary consciousness, though I am willing to learn.[/b]
have souls?
None of these have consciousness, I might add.
Yes, and they do have consciousness to varying degrees. Trees show the symptoms of fear in their biochemistry when they are about to be cut down. This has been demonstrated scientifically.
And, for those higher animals -- birds and mammals -- does their having souls
(albeit less evolved consciousness) entitle them to the full measure of respect
and consideration iterated in the Commandments (especially, Thou Shalt Not
Kill/Murder)?
Good question. I hope the answer is no or else we are all murders. Another question for God.
We have to eat, so I would say that there comes a point when it is ok to kill for our survival. I won’t be killing any chimpanzees though.
edit: missed your edit. Fish do not demonstrate any of the hallmarks of
consciousness, in particular, the ability to recognize themselves in the world.
I'm reasonably sure that no major scientific outfit maintains that fish have
even a rudimentary consciousness, though I am willing to learn.
Fish have a much less evolved consciousness than we do. Fish don’t want to die, and they know what things they need and like. Just because a tuna cannot do calculus does not mean that they have no soul.
Last post for tonight.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressActually, I just noticed in your response you refer to the evolution of the conciousness, but in the previous post you simply say the evolution of the animal. The two are not synonyms. The conciousness is, perhaps, part of the animal, but not the whole animal, at least in the context of evolutionary biology.
[b]Many animals have fantastic evoutionary adaptions that allow them to live in environments that we can't.
These are physical adaptations. Nothing to do with consciousness.
That's just the kind of snobby, eletist thinking that humans employ to justify how special we are, and how we can feel free to do anything we like.
We are ...[text shortened]... cause God gave fish fins and gills does not mean that their consciousness is as evolved as ours.[/b]
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess Express"Yes, and they do have consciousness to varying degrees. Trees show the symptoms of fear in their biochemistry when they are about to be cut down. This has been demonstrated scientifically."
[b]Do you believe that 1) frogs, 2) sea stars, 3) spiders, 4) jelly fish, 5) maple trees
have souls?
None of these have consciousness, I might add.
Yes, and they do have consciousness to varying degrees. Trees show the symptoms of fear in their biochemistry when they are about to be cut down. This has been demonstrated scientifically. ...[text shortened]... cause a tuna cannot do calculus does not mean that they have no soul.
Last post for tonight.[/b]
Your reference? I know about wound responses, but they're quite a different thing.
"Fish don’t want to die, and they know what things they need and like. Just because a tuna cannot do calculus does not mean that they have no soul. "
And there are other factors other than just conciousness when it comes to evolution. Please read up on it. I'll look forward to the discussions I'm sure will follow!
G'night mate.
06 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by joelekSo why bother praying for someone to be saved if it's all their own responsibility? Is RBHILL wasting his time praying for me?
No one deserves salvation at all. Not myself. Not RBHILL. Salvation is totally of grace, independent of anything any of us can do. So no one deserves it more or less than anyone else.
Each of us is responsible for whether or not we turn to God to save us from our sins. We are all sinners. That is what separates us from God. There is only one answer ...[text shortened]... for them. If a person is not saved, it's because they have not come to Christ for forgiveness.
And if salvation is one's one responsibility, why doesn't one deserve it?
And if it's all grace, then it isn't up to me, is it? Please deal with this responsibility issue cogently.
Are you really claiming that a person who of his own free will tries hard to be decent and nice, and that a person who of his own free will decides to exploit other people, are equally undeserving of salvation?
That's a weird claim.
And you haven't yet addressed the important issue of why people are not responsible for what they believe.
06 Dec 05
So why bother praying for someone to be saved if it's all their own responsibility? Is RBHILL wasting his time praying for me?
I pray for the unsaved because I want to see them saved. God doesn't NEED my prayers for the lost, but he still desires them. He desires me to speak to him regarding the desires of my heart, and to want the things he wants. I want to see people saved, so I pray for it. I pray that God will bring circumstances into a person's life that will help them see their need of Him as their Saviour.
And if salvation is one's one responsibility, why doesn't one deserve it?
How can you deserve something the right to which you cannot earn? Do you honestly think there's something you can do to possibly deserve it? If so, you don't understand the present condition of your heart in God's eyes.
And if it's all grace, then it isn't up to me, is it?
Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that you aren't making a choice, right now even, whether or not to believe what the Bible says and trust in Jesus?
Are you really claiming that a person who of his own free will tries hard to be decent and nice, and that a person who of his own free will decides to exploit other people, are equally undeserving of salvation?
That's a weird claim.
That's exactly what I am saying, and it's exactly what Scripture says. Rom 3:10-12: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Isa 64:6: " All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."
And you haven't yet addressed the important issue of why people are not responsible for what they believe.
I'm not sure where you're coming from here. I definitely think people are responsible for what they believe.
06 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWell sure. I'm not saying that emotions are not a result of brain-processes; but what drives our brain? Is it our consciousness? What drives our consciousness? If this is a science of cause and effect, this would always take it a step back, but ultimately there has to be a first cause. This is what I believe is the soul. Of course, when one of the links in the chain is broken such as in case of brain damage, transcendental communication is impossible.
What do you mean by 'love?' The term 'love' is rather vague, because it
usually entails a number of other feelings like compassion, or sympathy,
or eroticism, or passion, or contentedness.
We can say this: whatever chemicals drive love, it is processed by the
brain. That is, a damaged brain can result in the inability to love.
That should give a ...[text shortened]... ains show certain areas are not
lit up that are lit up on 'normal' people.
Nemesio
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm not sure that you can unequivocally state that the conciousness drives our brain. If that were the case then why have a brain, you wouldn't need it - you already (by your definition) have a conciousness.
Well sure. I'm not saying that emotions are not a result of brain-processes; but what drives our brain? Our consciousness? What drives our consciousness? This would always take it a step back, but ultimately there has to be a first cause. This is what I believe is the soul. Of course, when one of the links in the chain is broken such as in case of brain damage, transcendental communication is impossible.
My own thoughts is that conciousness is what we term in biology an 'emergent property'. It's an outcome which is a result of many lower level actions and reactions, and is related to each of them, but in a complex, intractible manner. For example, the straight line speed of a formula 1 car is an emergent property of the interactions between the aerodynamic set up of the car, the engine capacity, the driver, the gearbox, the amount of wear on the tyres, the tyre temperature etc etc etc.. That's an exceedingly simple example. The brain is more complex.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressA can of beans one day, rubbish the next, and then part of many other cans of beans a month later.
So people are just the recycled substances of the natural world and nothing more. Is this your position?
Seems like a good analogy to me.
You're more than just metal, you can hold beans !
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI didn't make any such statement. It was a question; as by your own admition, science doesn't yet have all the answers to the human psyche - it is just too complex. You choose to believe without absolute proof that physical processes and physical processes alone are all that drive our consciousness. Fine. I simply believe otherwise.
I'm not sure that you can unequivocally state that the conciousness drives our brain. If that were the case then why have a brain, you wouldn't need it - you already (by your definition) have a conciousness.
My own thoughts is that conciousness is what we term in biology an 'emergent property'. It's an outcome which is a result of many lower l ...[text shortened]... re temperature etc etc etc.. That's an exceedingly simple example. The brain is more complex.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseFine fine fine.
I didn't make any such statement. It was a question; as by your own admition, science doesn't yet have all the answers to the human psyche - it is just too complex. You choose to believe without absolute proof that physical processes and physical processes alone are all that drive our consciousness. Fine. I simply believe otherwise.
But I can prove the existance (as much as we can prove the existance of anything (cognito, eppur sum)) of these physical processes. We can measure brain activity.
You still haven't given me a defininton of a soul that allows testing. That would not pass the scientific test of being a valid hypothesis, since it is (currently at least, unless you can suggest a way) untestable.
Summing it up, my story at least has some basis in fact. Yours remains based on faith, with no experimental evidence or even observations that cannot be explained by my hypothesis.
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI have no time tonight for an extended post, but I want to address this point:
Yes, and they do have consciousness to varying degrees. Trees show the symptoms of fear in their biochemistry when they are about to be cut down. This has been demonstrated scientifically.
...
Fish have a much less evolved consciousness than we do. Fish don’t want to die, and they know what things they need and like. Just because a tuna cannot do calculus does not mean that they have no soul.
Because an organism can find what it needs to survive does not entail that it
has consciousness. And, similarly, just because something doesn't want to die
or reacts when under attack, doesn't mean it has consciousness.
All living things -- your cells for example -- show reaction to stimuli. An
amoeba will move away from great heat or towards a food source. A tree
will grow towards light, and a fish will swim towards a wriggling worm.
You are confusing reaction to outside stimuli and, in more advanced organisms,
tropisms with consciousness. They are not the same thing. The tree that
reacts when attacked is not self-aware -- it is a reflex, just like your neuron
or spinal cord isn't self aware when you jerk your hand away from a hot stove.
These are not signs of consciousness. Consciousness entails self- and other-
awareness. It is located in a specific part of the brain. Without this part of
the brain, you have no consciousness. A fish does not have this part of the
brain (because, on the evolutionary ladder, it isn't 'high' enough, loosely
speaking). A spider lacks it entirely.
This has nothing to do with thinking which resides in a different part of
the brain, mind you. So whether fish can or cannot do calculus is irrelevant;
we're not talking about thought, we are talking about consciousness.
Nemesio
07 Dec 05
Humans are a trichotomy -- body, soul and spirit.
Animals are a dichotomy -- body and soul.
Plants are a ?chotomy (not sure the term) -- body.
A plant has a body, but it really doesn't care whether it lives or dies.
An animal has a body and a soul. An animal has a survival instinct, and will even attack others to defend itself and its young.
A human has a body, a soul and a spirit. A not only wants to live, but it spends time looking at the stars, thinking about whether there is a higher purpose, whether there is a god (God), and can even have a personal relationship with God. An animal doesn't do those things.
In fact, when the Bible says that God made man in His own image, that's what it means -- he gave man a spirit, which is the image of God (who is spirit). Only about man does the Bible make that claim.
07 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThis starts to make more sense if you entertain the idea of past lives. According to some religions the soul starts out in a very primitive state and begins its journey back to God.
Actually, I just noticed in your response you refer to the evolution of the conciousness, but in the previous post you simply say the evolution of the animal. The two are not synonyms. The conciousness is, perhaps, part of the animal, but not the whole animal, at least in the context of evolutionary biology.
As the soul gets closer to God, it gets more evolved. This is the process of evolution from a spiritual perspective. By this way of believing, the soul of a star fish for example will one day become a human who finds God.
The theory of reincarnation is not well accepted by the Christian religion, but there are places in the Bible that discuss it. As is typical with many people, the church accepts the parts of the scripture that support its rhetoric and rejects the rest.
The bodies that we occupy for a lifetime are just vehicles we use to experience this world and learn whatever lessons we need to learn in order to complete our journey. The bodies are probably evolving as well.
I know there are some that reject the theory of evolution, but personally I think that there is something to it. The truth probably lies somewhere in between creationism and evolution.
If God created everything that means that the laws of science are his laws as well, so it’s impossible to have the complete picture if one accept one side but rejects the other.
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzGive me a few days for the references. This week has been pretty busy.
"Yes, and they do have consciousness to varying degrees. Trees show the symptoms of fear in their biochemistry when they are about to be cut down. This has been demonstrated scientifically."
Your reference? I know about wound responses, but they're quite a different thing.
"Fish don’t want to die, and they know what things they need and like. ...[text shortened]... e read up on it. I'll look forward to the discussions I'm sure will follow!
G'night mate.