• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] The end is coming

  • Thread starter Thread starter reznwerks
  • Start date Start date
well, some of the points we ar emaking, are basically void. you believing in god and me not believing would never allow us to agree on some of these, so the point of arguing is. well, there isnt.[quote:eede6]

Yes. We just don't have credibility for eachother.

[quote:eede6]~yes i know, this is an atheist site, not a christian site, but i doubt a christian site would say something like this.~
[/quote:eede6][/quote:eede6]

You're right. It doesn't hold credibility with me.
(The name of the site itself.....)

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Nice talking to you anyway.


Marck
 
asimov,

So says you, but there is nothing to suggest that you have a soul or even a spirit.

there is a recent study which has provided convincing proof that consciousness continues after the brain has stopped functioning and a person is clinically dead: S. Parnia, D.G. Waller, R. Yeates, and P. Fenwick, "A Qualitative and Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experience in Cardiac Arrest Survivors," Resuscitation (February 2001)

and there's more:

"What Is consciousness?" on the television program Closer to Truth, first aired June 2000.

Sam Parnia, "Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest and the Mystery of Consciousness," available at http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/libra ... ia_nde.htm (accessed June 13, 2003)

Sarah Tippit, "Scientist Says Mind Continues After Brain Dies."

Gary R. Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Beyond Death, 155-218, and Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence (Rocklin, Calif.: Forum, 1997), 99-137.

"What Is Consciousness?" on Closer to Truth.

Antonio R. Damasio, "How the Brain Creates the Mind," Scientific American (December 1999).

John C. Eccles, The Human Mystery (New York: Spinger-Verlag, 1979), vii, quoted in: Robert M. Augros and George N. Stanciu, The New Story of Science, 171.

"Do Brains Make Minds?" on Closer to Truth.Arthur C. Custance, The Mysterious Matter of Mind, 90.

there's more, but i'm tired of typing.
 
dragon said:
asimov,

So says you, but there is nothing to suggest that you have a soul or even a spirit.

there is a recent study which has provided convincing proof that consciousness continues after the brain has stopped functioning and a person is clinically dead: S. Parnia, D.G. Waller, R. Yeates, and P. Fenwick, "A Qualitative and Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experience in Cardiac Arrest Survivors," Resuscitation (February 2001)
there's more, but i'm tired of typing.

could you possibly expound a little on the meaning of clinically dead?
 
Speaking of a soul, I have read a dead body weighs slightly less right after death has occurred. The supposed difference? 3/4 ounce.
 
Darck Marck said:
Speaking of a soul, I have read a dead body weighs slightly less right after death has occurred. The supposed difference? 3/4 ounce.

I thought souls were immaterial.
 
Asimov said:
Darck Marck said:
Speaking of a soul, I have read a dead body weighs slightly less right after death has occurred. The supposed difference? 3/4 ounce.

I thought souls were immaterial.

I don't know, can immaterial stuff have weight? :-D
 
Darck Marck said:
Asimov said:
[quote="Darck Marck":fffbd]Speaking of a soul, I have read a dead body weighs slightly less right after death has occurred. The supposed difference? 3/4 ounce.

I thought souls were immaterial.

I don't know, can immaterial stuff have weight? :-D[/quote:fffbd]

haha...sure....but that would kinda defeat the immaterial concept...how much does God weigh?
 
asimov,

Could you possibly expound a little on the meaning of clinically dead?

sorry man, i can't do all your research for you. if you really want to know, you're going to have to go look that up for yourself.
 
dragon said:
asimov,

Could you possibly expound a little on the meaning of clinically dead?

sorry man, i can't do all your research for you. if you really want to know, you're going to have to go look that up for yourself.

No, dude. I know what clinically dead means, I want you to tell me what you think it means.
 
I think that the question of explaining the phenomenology of the mind (our "felt" experiences) in terms of the physical composition and structure of the brain is truly fascinating. Dragon, I have seen the "Closer to the Truth" show on consciousness. I do not not know what other stuff you may have seen or read, but I highly recommend the writings of Australian philosopher David Chalmers (I believe he was on the show you refer to). I have no reason to believe that Chalmers thinks that mind (consciousness) can survive death - in fact I think he believes the opposite. However, he does a great job of showing that "conventional physicalism" does not make the grade in explaining consciousness. He is an excellent writer and his material is accessible to the general public. He makes a powerful case that fundamentally new laws of nature need to be articulated in order to explain consciousness.

In short, I believe that Chalmers argues that "conventional" arguments to explain consciousness do not work - he claims that "information processing", no matter how complex, can explain why we have internal subjective experiences. My opinion is that Chalmers is correct in predicting that a "new theory" is needed. And I wonder whether a "rational" case can be made that consciousness can be "disconnected" from the purely physical. Such a position is not widely held in philosophical circles - if consciousness is fundamentally distinct from the physical, how can it possibly interact with the physical as it so obviously does?

My whole point is that this question can be addressed in a systematic and serious way. And there is a lot of interesting ideas out there.....
 
drew,

cool stuff, huh? i'm sure alot more research is yet to come!
 
The end is coming for the present heavens and earth.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Hebrews 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

Hebrews 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

God exists and so does the soul and spirit of man.

Proof? Don't need any. The proof will be revealed to all when they step out of their bodies at death.

Carl Sagan is now a believer. His theology is right on the mark.
 
bibleberean said:
Proof? Don't need any.

Your fanciful imagination is aaaallll you need right?

Yes whatever you desire to be true is therefore true. Yes that makes a loooot of sense.
 
Back
Top