[_ Old Earth _] Living or Bionic

[Barth Jones]

The ultimate question, for scientific minds, with a rather obvious answer, refuting atheistic science is this—are we bionic beings or are we living beings?


Science provides a very useful way of looking at many areas of nature. But there are certain areas of nature where science will not ever serve us well. Science does a fine job of explaining the 5 inferior senses. But science cannot ever explain our consummate sense, which is thought or awareness. It is this consummate sense of mind (not brain) that gives definition to each of our 5 inferior senses, and it distinguishes living beings from bionic machines.


Science explains that electrical pulses flow through our bodies continuously through our neurosystem, interacting with our muscular system and every part of our body. Science does not address that those pulses do not always terminate materially and mechanically, but quite often with thought, and sensation of which we are aware.


If we were merely bionic creatures, those pulses would terminate physically, without any thought. But we are living beings—experiencing—life. Science cannot explain that part of nature because it terminates in a living soul—immaterial and eternal. That, my friends, will never be duly explained by science.


A soul is like a vast, empty universe; and spirit is like the stars and all the galaxies that fill it. Don't be fooled or foolish, devoting your own soul to lies. Use the incredible mind and material body God gave you to eternal purposes, without neglecting the earthly ones. It's the only way you'll ever discover your own true purpose—and enduring happiness.

 

[Chopper]

The ultimate question, for scientific minds, with a rather obvious answer, refuting atheistic science is this—are we bionic beings or are we living beings?


Science provides a very useful way of looking at many areas of nature. But there are certain areas of nature where science will not ever serve us well. Science does a fine job of explaining the 5 inferior senses. But science cannot ever explain our consummate sense, which is thought or awareness. It is this consummate sense of mind (not brain) that gives definition to each of our 5 inferior senses, and it distinguishes living beings from bionic machines.


Science explains that electrical pulses flow through our bodies continuously through our neurosystem, interacting with our muscular system and every part of our body. Science does not address that those pulses do not always terminate materially and mechanically, but quite often with thought, and sensation of which we are aware.


If we were merely bionic creatures, those pulses would terminate physically, without any thought. But we are living beings—experiencing—life. Science cannot explain that part of nature because it terminates in a living soul—immaterial and eternal. That, my friends, will never be duly explained by science.


A soul is like a vast, empty universe; and spirit is like the stars and all the galaxies that fill it. Don't be fooled or foolish, devoting your own soul to lies. Use the incredible mind and material body God gave you to eternal purposes, without neglecting the earthly ones. It's the only way you'll ever discover your own true purpose—and enduring happiness.

Welcome to the Forum Barth. I'm sure you will find some science minded folk to make friends with. You have a very interesting thread there, thanks for the info.

 

[Barbarian]

There is no such thing as "atheistic science." It's like imagining that you could have "atheistic plumbing." Of course there have been and still are those who think they can have "Aryan science" or "Christian science" or whatever. But it's all in vain. Science is just a method that happens to be the best way we have of understanding the physical universe.

If we were merely bionic creatures, those pulses would terminate physically, without any thought.

How would you know? You might want to do a little research on what neuroscience is doing these days. You think scientists can't study thoughts?
http://www.ibtimes.com/scientists-hack-fish-brain-observe-thoughts-swimming-1053050

It turns out that empathy depends on things called "mirror neurons." Disorders in these critical pathways leads to a number of things, including autism.

But we are living beings—experiencing—life. Science cannot explain that part of nature because it terminates in a living soul—immaterial and eternal.

It's not supposed to understand souls. It can only understand nature. Souls are not part of nature.

 

[Barth Jones]

There is no such thing as "atheistic science." It's like imagining that you could have "atheistic plumbing." Of course there have been and still are those who think they can have "Aryan science" or "Christian science" or whatever. But it's all in vain. Science is just a method that happens to be the best way we have of understanding the physical universe.[/quot

There is no such thing as "atheistic science." It's like imagining that you could have "atheistic plumbing." Of course there have been and still are those who think they can have "Aryan science" or "Christian science" or whatever. But it's all in vain. Science is just a method that happens to be the best way we have of understanding the physical universe.[/quote

There is no such thing as "atheistic science." It's like imagining that you could have "atheistic plumbing." Of course there have been and still are those who think they can have "Aryan science" or "Christian science" or whatever. But it's all in vain. Science is just a method that happens to be the best way we have of understanding the physical universe.

Let me rephrase then. Science from the point of view of an atheist. Science from that point of view is in fact very different from that of someone who knows God.

 

[Barth Jones]

There is no such thing as "atheistic science." It's like imagining that you could have "atheistic plumbing." Of course there have been and still are those who think they can have "Aryan science" or "Christian science" or whatever. But it's all in vain. Science is just a method that happens to be the best way we have of understanding the physical universe.[/quot

There is no such thing as "atheistic science." It's like imagining that you could have "atheistic plumbing." Of course there have been and still are those who think they can have "Aryan science" or "Christian science" or whatever. But it's all in vain. Science is just a method that happens to be the best way we have of understanding the physical universe.[/quote

There is no such thing as "atheistic science." It's like imagining that you could have "atheistic plumbing." Of course there have been and still are those who think they can have "Aryan science" or "Christian science" or whatever. But it's all in vain. Science is just a method that happens to be the best way we have of understanding the physical universe.

Let me rephrase then. Science from the point of view of an atheist. Science from that point of view is in fact very different from that of someone who knows God.

 

[Barth Jones]

You think scientists can't study thoughts?

They're studying incidentals of thought.

It's not supposed to understand souls. It can only understand nature. Souls are not part of nature.

How do you know? Is space a part of nature? It's not physical (air is physical, but not space). It's non-physical nature does not exclude it from nature. In fact everything physical depends on space for existence.

 

[Barbarian]

Let me rephrase then. Science from the point of view of an atheist. Science from that point of view is in fact very different from that of someone who knows God.

I don't think so. I've been in science for a lot of years, and far as I can see, we all went about it the same way, using the same methods. We differed on a lot of other things, but not on the way we saw the process or the conclusions.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's not supposed to understand souls. It can only understand nature. Souls are not part of nature.

How do you know?

For one thing, God says He directly gives us a soul. Been that way since Adam. He used nature to make our bodies, but our souls are not part of nature. They aren't measurable or detectable by natural means.

Is space a part of nature? It's not physical

Actually, it is. It's even got a minimum dimension, at the Planck level.

(air is physical, but not space). It's non-physical nature does not exclude it from nature.

It is even distorted by gravity. So yes, it's natural.

In fact everything physical depends on space for existence.

But, of course, space is natural.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
You think scientists can't study thoughts?

They're studying incidentals of thought.

Accompanying the announcement of the new "neuroheadset," Emotiv's news
release describes features that would have been science fiction not long ago: sensors
that detect conscious thoughts, expressions and non-conscious emotions based on
electrical signals around the brain. This new technology processes these
signals, enabling players to control their game character's expressions or actions and
influence game play using their own thoughts, expressions and emotions.

As science fiction continues to become science fact, it behooves us to ask
some pointed questions: how far into the workings of the brain do we
really want to take technology? Where are the ethical lines and moral issues?
More importantly, who will we trust to decide these issues? And who will give us a
penny for our thoughts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/29/idUS64917+29-May-2008+MW20080529

Things have moved a little farther along than one might think.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The ultimate question, for scientific minds is, are we bionic beings or are we living beings?

We are easily living beings. When you and I consider what it means to be al I ve. We would find that humans share all the needed criyeria to be alive. However we are some times augmented with bionic means, such as prostetics and devixes that aid us medically.

Science provides a very useful way of looking at many areas of nature. But there are certain areas of nature where science will not ever serve us well.

Science in itself is just a field of study. it is meant to only study observable and testable data.

Science does a fine job of explaining the 5 inferior senses. But science cannot ever explain our consummate sense, which is thought or awareness. It is this consummate sense of mind (not brain) that gives definition to each of our 5 inferior senses, and it distinguishes living beings from bionic machines.

The mind in itself isntva sense. The mind is and abstract concept given to the function of our brain and nuerolgical imoulses. It is very useful in fascilitating our senses.

Science explains that electrical pulses flow through our bodies continuously through our neurosystem, interacting with our muscular system and every part of our body. Science does not address that those pulses do not always terminate materially and mechanically, but quite often with thought, and sensation of which we are aware.

If we arent aware of how impulses effect the soul? Also, Nuero science is capable of defining hiw thought works.

If we were merely bionic creatures, those pulses would terminate physically, without any thought. But we are living beings—experiencing—life. Science cannot explain that part of nature because it terminates in a living soul—immaterial and eternal. That, my friends, will never be duly explained by science.

Well, science cant explain thins that arent defined or have a means of being tested. Mr Jones is saying a lot of pretty language, but he isnt actually defining a s I ul. He also makes the statement that there are imoulses that respond to the siul. What does he mean by that. What he is saying is more poetic than scientific.

 

[Milk-Drops]

They're studying incidentals of thought.

The scientists are studying how thoughts form and function actually.

Is space a part of nature? It's not physical (air is physical, but not space). It's non-physical nature does not exclude it from nature. In fact everything physical depends on space for existence.

Space is actually just the measurement between matter. Space is not a thing in itself, but the lack of a thing. Its a me a srement of dimension.

 

[Barth Jones]

The scientists are studying how thoughts form and function actually.

(In my firm opinion . . .) It's bold to say, "I know God, but more than a little reckless to say, "I study God." It's sufficient for a human being to know him through prayer and the study of his Word.

The same God says, "No man knows the thoughts. of a man," except the man himself (1 Cor 2:11). In my opinion It's reckless to say man studies human thought by science. No. Rather they they study incidentals and stimuli of thought.

Space is actually just the measurement between matter. Space is not a thing in itself, but the lack of a thing. Its a me a srement of dimension.

Regardless of how we choose (sic) to define space, the point is that a soul is as much a part of nature as is space. God creates the human soul. It's perhaps the vehicle from the nature that decays to the eternal nature.

 

[Barth Jones]

And aren't science and art more perfect in union (poetry)?

 

[Barth Jones]

The concepts of brain-mind, and the human neurological system, can be reduced intuitively to exactly one conveyor of exactly one electrical pulse to the terminal nerve ending: 1) contributing to a blinking of the eye, or a heart beat or a balancing calculation, or 2) supporting or stimulating something rather miraculous--conscious thought, such as what the eye perceives, or a sensation of chest pain, or the first realization that "self" is stumbling.

The first set is completely mechanical--brain (with the exception perhaps of "subconscious thought"). The second set uses mechanical means, an electrical pulse, to support or stimulate something that occurs in a being's mind (not brain)--the thoughts of a living soul (I doubt the analogy applies to a perishing soul, or a soul at home with Christ, in which cases science and nature as we know them are rendered obsolete in eternity).

 

[Barbarian]

(In my firm opinion . . .) It's bold to say, "I know God, but more than a little reckless to say, "I study God." It's sufficient for a human being to know him through prayer and the study of his Word.

St. Paul thinks otherwise. He says you can learn about God by learning about His creation.

The same God says, "No man knows the thoughts. of a man," except the man himself (1 Cor 2:11).

I have sometimes told people "I know what you're thinking." And often, they tell me that I did. So... We might not know all of a person's thoughts, but often, we can know some of them. And neuroscience is now showing how it happens in the brain; it is increasingly clear that one can watch brain activity and know what it is that the thought concerns.

In my opinion It's reckless to say man studies human thought by science.

But you aren't a neuroscientist, so you really don't know.


Milk-Drops said: ↑
Space is actually just the measurement between matter. Space is not a thing in itself, but the lack of a thing. Its a me a srement of dimension.

Regardless of how we choose (sic) to define space, the point is that a soul is as much a part of nature as is space.

I have yet to see a soul affected by any physical phenomenon, but space is bent by gravity. You'll have to show some sort of evidence for your belief that the soul is not of God, but of nature.

God creates the human soul.

God creates all things. Our bodies, He does naturally. Our souls are given directly by Him.

It's perhaps the vehicle from the nature that decays to the eternal nature.

It is that which is eternal in you.

 

[Barbarian]

The concepts of brain-mind, and the human neurological system, can be reduced intuitively to exactly one conveyor of exactly one electrical pulse to the terminal nerve ending: 1) contributing to a blinking of the eye, or a heart beat or a balancing calculation, or 2) supporting or stimulating something rather miraculous--conscious thought, such as what the eye perceives, or a sensation of chest pain, or the first realization that "self" is stumbling.

Show us your evidence that these are entirely different things.

 

[Barth Jones]

I'm very sorry. I have but moments to argue. I'll give my best answers now, and perhaps attempt again later:

St. Paul thinks otherwise. He says you can learn about God by learning about His creation.

That wasn't merely Paul. Christ illuminates nature (1 John). Knowing him depends on prayer; and truth, conveyed only jointly, through nature (including script) and God revealed through Scripture.

I have sometimes told people "I know what you're thinking." And often, they tell me that I did. So... We might not know all of a person's thoughts, but often, we can know some of them. And neuroscience is now showing how it happens in the brain; it is increasingly clear that one can watch brain activity and know what it is that the thought concerns.

You're reducing God to a scientific creator. Science is part of the human method to invent conveniences, comforts, entertainments, institutions and the like.

It's actually written, "God breathed into man the breath of life." So in fact God gave man breath and--life, directly. Then man--became--a living soul.

All of this was a singular act of God's creation of man--body, life and soul. The human soul is not equated with the breath of God. In fact, I know with certainty that there is absolutely nothing good within my own fallen soul except the Kingdom of Christ.

But you aren't a neuroscientist

No, but I'm a Christian . . .

so you really don't know.

And it was our common hero Paul who said that Christians have "the mind of Christ." And certainly you'll agree, that Christ is greater than even the best concert of neuroscientists.

Milk-Drops said: ↑
Space is actually just the measurement between matter. Space is not a thing in itself, but the lack of a thing. Its a me a srement of dimension.

I have yet to see a soul affected by any physical phenomenon.

I'm surprised a human being has seen souls. Please excuse the sarcasm. So your soul is not effected by Jesus' physical death on a physical cross, nor his time physically in the grave, nor his physical (sic) resurrection, nor his physical assension to the right hand of God?

You'll have to show some sort of evidence for your belief that the soul is not of God, but of nature.

Again, God created nature, nature's crown being man, and woman.

God creates all things. Our bodies, He does naturally. Our souls are given directly by Him.

This was answered earlier here.

It is that which is eternal in you.

Not the only part--also Christ, my perfecter. Without him there's only corruption.

Show us your evidence that these are entirely different things.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. I have a little intuition, and also the mind of Christ. Of course, a man knows his thoughts, but not those of another mortal.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian said: ↑
I have sometimes told people "I know what you're thinking." And often, they tell me that I did. So... We might not know all of a person's thoughts, but often, we can know some of them. And neuroscience is now showing how it happens in the brain; it is increasingly clear that one can watch brain activity and know what it is that the thought concerns.

You're reducing God to a scientific creator.

No. He had no need to theorize or test. He's just the Creator. Men do science. God does creation.

Science is part of the human method to invent conveniences, comforts, entertainments, institutions and the like.

No, that's engineering. Science just tries to find out. Just for the fun of finding out.

It's actually written, "God breathed into man the breath of life." So in fact God gave man breath and--life, directly. Then man--became--a living soul.

All of this was a singular act of God's creation of man--body, life and soul.

No. First, He made man's body. And only later gave him a soul.

The human soul is not equated with the breath of God. In fact, I know with certainty that there is absolutely nothing good within my own fallen soul except the Kingdom of Christ.

Nevertheless, God gave you a soul directly, as He did Adam.

Barbarian said: ↑
But you aren't a neuroscientist, so you really don't know.

No, but I'm a Christian . . .

Unfortunately, that won't help you understand how thoughts are produced and experienced in the brain.

And it was our common hero Paul who said that Christians have "the mind of Christ." And certainly you'll agree, that Christ is greater than even the best concert of neuroscientists.

I certainly hope you don't think Paul was saying that your mind is capable of understanding as Christ's mind was. He is God.

Milk-Drops said: ↑
Space is actually just the measurement between matter. Space is not a thing in itself, but the lack of a thing. Its a me a srement of dimension.

Barbarian said: ↑
I have yet to see a soul affected by any physical phenomenon.

I'm surprised a human being has seen souls.

Can't see souls. They are supernatural, not natural.

So your soul is not effected by Jesus' physical death on a physical cross,

His physical death was not what affects us. Any man can do that.

nor his time physically in the grave, nor his physical (sic) resurrection, nor his physical assension to the right hand of God?

All supernatural things. And yes, those do.

Barbarian said: ↑

You'll have to show some sort of evidence for your belief that the soul is not of God, but of nature.​

Again, God created nature, nature's crown being man, and woman.

This doesn't seem to remotely answer the question. What is your evidence for your belief that souls are natural?

Barbarian said: ↑

God creates all things. Our bodies, He does naturally. Our souls are given directly by Him.​

This was answered earlier here.

God's word trumps anyone's reasoning. Sorry.

Barbarian said: ↑

It is that which is eternal in you.​

Barbarian said: ↑

Show us your evidence that these are entirely different things.
​

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

So, it comes down to "I just believe it."

 

[Barth Jones]

Thank you Lord for the freedom to cease from arguing.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

So, it comes down to "I just believe it."

but there's more to it than that isn't there..

tob