Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Soul

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Argument From Interaction:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and traveling to the body.

The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 10:22:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The Argument From Interaction:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,


Matter is not as solid, substantial, as you think it is. Quantum mechanics show Matter to be more immaterial then you think.

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.


Your presupposition is a materialistic view with a naturalist expectation of all evidence. You reject a transcendental cause in any and all cases. Let's assume by matter you also mean anything that can be converted to Energy.

Is Time material? Does Time effect anything?
Is Space material? Does space bend in a gravitational field? Is space matter?
is gravity matter? Does it effect the material world?

Proof first that only your so called "real" matter things are the only things that effect matter.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and traveling to the body.

Through quantum computations in the mind, [1] form worm holes that transmit information from this world to an alternate dimension that contains our souls.[2]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://news.sciencemag.org...


The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)


they have detected these effects. And have labeled them random neuron firing.[1]

[1]http://www.scholarpedia.org...

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.


Another bridge would be Idealism.

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 11:40:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The Argument From Interaction:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,

Defined as immaterial by whom?
http://www.merriam-webster.com... defines it as....
Soul
*the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever
*a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
* the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.

The Strongs Lexicon ( H5315) defines soul as....
soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
A. that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
B. living being
C. living being (with life in the blood)
D. the man himself, self, person or individual
E. seat of the appetites
F. seat of emotions and passions
G. activity of mind

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.

Using the Strongs definitions .......
Can you detect that which breathes?
Can you detect a living being?
Can you detect a living being with life in the blood?
Can you detect a man himself, your own self, person or individual?
Can you detect your own appetites?
Can you detect emotions and passions?
Can you detect activity of mind?

All the above are perfectly detectable.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and traveling to the body.

Don't your thoughts, appetites, passions and emotions etc come from your body and also express themselves through your body?

The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

What's contradictory about the notion that the soul interacts with the body?
Is there something contradictory about the air you breathe in and out interacting with your body?
Is there something contradictory about your own appetites, thoughts or emotions interacting with your body?

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.

Thoughts are immaterial yet they exist in the body and affect the body in many ways. The body can be destroyed. Thoughts cannot. Thoughts are like energy which cannot be created or destroyed. An idea which starts in your mind to do something can be transformed into an action to do it. An action can also be transformed into an idea or thought. Hence we gather "inspiration" from the outward actions of things we see around us. A thought can be mass less yet produce a massive result as in the thought that started the internet. Where did that thought come from? Inspired by sound and picture waves which came from...B... ? which came from...C... ? which came from..D..... ? etc etc

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.

That depends on whose definitions you use.
How do your thoughts become actions? How do you turn your "dreams" into a reality by creating what you have imagined? There is obviously some exchange in the body which turns thoughts and ideas into actions and creates the inventions which men create. Is there a scientific explanation for that process? What causes you to do and say what you do? Instinct? Will? Preprogamming? Intelligence? Ignorance? Wisdom? Foolishness? Chemicals?
What causes some people to be smart and some to be stupid?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 4:03:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The Argument From Interaction:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and traveling to the body.

The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.

Response: Quite an interesting perspective and point of view. It also carries the common notion, which appears to be the basis of atheism, is that if it cannot be seen or observed through testing, then it does not exist or it does not make sense in claiming it exist. This is quite contradictory, since no one has seen directly a species evolve into another species or non-life create life, yet claim both evolution and creation from a non-living being is true. Or the fact that the claim that non-choice can create because you have alleged examples is contradicted by the fact that there are examples of non-choice not creating order. Yet despite the observable contradiction, many claim that there is no logical evidence for intelligent design.

The point being is that the soul is considered unseen. So to expect to use a method like science to detect a soul is invalid, since science is based on observation. Rather, one can only conclude that there is no soul according to the scientific method. Not because there is no evidence, for science is not the only method of evidence. There is also deductive logic. No one has seen a dinosaur, their own great grandparents who lived thousands of years ago, or Alexander the Great. Yet you would accept they all existed. Not by science, but by deductive logic. You deduced logically, based on what you have seen and observed, that these characters existed.

The same applies to the soul. For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God. Then we can test the alleged word of God to find if there is any error, indecency, or teaching of wrong doing. If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

Another form of validity is science. For we see that despite the fact we are made of the same matter, we experience vastly different feelings and develop different psychology. In fact, life is the only matter that goes through this. You take matter that has no life and put it through different but the same tests, the results are practically identical. You do this to humans or any life, the emotional and psychological responses differ and vary. You also see that the difference between life and non-life beings is of course, one dies and one does not. Meaning one (non-life) can exist in a state unchanged for almost forever. Whereas life dies, and the matter instantly changes. So we can see and observe a significant difference between matter that has life and matter that does not, thus showing a sign that there is an unseen element and it does interact with matter. And when we consider what is called the spirit or the soul, then it becomes more valid as to what is the unseen element. That is the soul.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 5:10:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 10:22:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The Argument From Interaction:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,


Matter is not as solid, substantial, as you think it is. Quantum mechanics show Matter to be more immaterial then you think.

But it must be of substance, material or energy to be studied at all. Quantum mechanics is a science after all. The soul is not a matter of quantum mechanics, as it can not be studied.

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.


Your presupposition is a materialistic view with a naturalist expectation of all evidence. You reject a transcendental cause in any and all cases. Let's assume by matter you also mean anything that can be converted to Energy.

You counter Russe's materialistic presupposition with a transcendental presupposition. Given that we can prove the material world exists over the supernatural world as far as valid presuppositions go the material one has a face. We can prove the material world exists, you are making the extra claim w/o evidence.

Is Time material? Does Time effect anything?
Is Space material? Does space bend in a gravitational field? Is space matter?
is gravity matter? Does it effect the material world?

These things may not constitute "matter" in the literal sense but they certainly have energy involved. And they can all be studied and verified, unlike the soul.

Proof first that only your so called "real" matter things are the only things that effect matter.

This is an attempt to shift the BoP. Natural science can prove its claim that matter and energy interacts with matter and energy. It is on you to prove that there is more. If you expect us to believe there is a black swan you must show it to us.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and traveling to the body.

Through quantum computations in the mind, [1] form worm holes that transmit information from this world to an alternate dimension that contains our souls.[2]

Even your cited wiki article discredits quantum mind theory.

Please don't try to use science, real scientists hate it http://www.rawstory.com...


The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)


they have detected these effects. And have labeled them random neuron firing.[1]

[1]http://www.scholarpedia.org...

But they didn't label it the soul, interesting. Do you mind explaining how random nueron firing proves the soul?

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.


Another bridge would be Idealism.

Another bridge would be realism.

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:00:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 4:03:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Quite an interesting perspective and point of view. It also carries the common notion, which appears to be the basis of atheism, is that if it cannot be seen or observed through testing, then it does not exist or it does not make sense in claiming it exist.

More the latter than the former but yes that could be a simplified interpretation of science based atheism.

This is quite contradictory, since no one has seen directly a species evolve into another species or non-life create life, yet claim both evolution and creation from a non-living being is true.

It's strange how you assume there is no observable evidence for evolution or abiogenisis. As if conveniently for just these 2 questions science no longer applied to the scientific community.

There is evidence for speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
This is a youtube that explains evolution more: https://www.youtube.com...
Genetics shows how speciation is a thing, do you know why dog and wolves are so genetically similar?

Evidence for abiogenisis:
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.wired.com...

Or the fact that the claim that non-choice can create because you have alleged examples is contradicted by the fact that there are examples of non-choice not creating order. Yet despite the observable contradiction, many claim that there is no logical evidence for intelligent design.

I'm confused by this argument. First, crystallization is a perfect example of "non-choice" creating order and patterns. Second, are you saying that just because non-choice can lead to disorder (however you define it) then that proves non-choice is an impossibility? By this logic choice is impossible because choice can lead to chaos and disorder too.

The point being is that the soul is considered unseen. So to expect to use a method like science to detect a soul is invalid, since science is based on observation. Rather, one can only conclude that there is no soul according to the scientific method. Not because there is no evidence, for science is not the only method of evidence. There is also deductive logic.

If you can produce evidence that isn't mere speculation then go ahead.

No one has seen a dinosaur, their own great grandparents who lived thousands of years ago, or Alexander the Great. Yet you would accept they all existed. Not by science, but by deductive logic. You deduced logically, based on what you have seen and observed, that these characters existed. The same applies to the soul.

Not at all. We can prove dinosaurs existed. We have physical evidence that proves they existed. We can see their remains. We can't prove the soul exists.

For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God.

Evidence please.

Then we can test the alleged word of God to find if there is any error, indecency, or teaching of wrong doing.

How would we go about testing this? How can we test God for indecency or wrong doing when by definition God is neither?

If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

lol evidence please.

Another form of validity is science.

WHAT?! You reject science because it can't prove the soul now you're referring to science as valid??? What about the science behind evolution?!

For we see that despite the fact we are made of the same matter, we experience vastly different feelings and develop different psychology. In fact, life is the only matter that goes through this. You take matter that has no life and put it through different but the same tests, the results are practically identical. You do this to humans or any life, the emotional and psychological responses differ and vary. You also see that the difference between life and non-life beings is of course, one dies and one does not. Meaning one (non-life) can exist in a state unchanged for almost forever. Whereas life dies, and the matter instantly changes. So we can see and observe a significant difference between matter that has life and matter that does not, thus showing a sign that there is an unseen element and it does interact with matter. And when we consider what is called the spirit or the soul, then it becomes more valid as to what is the unseen element. That is the soul.

Not a lick of science in that paragraph. And to think I was worried. From what I gather from what you've just said the soul is a type of energy that keeps matter animated. Why can we not detect this energy in a way that proves the soul? Also when we die matter does not change instantly, decay is not instantaneous.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:26:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 6:00:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

It's strange how you assume there is no observable evidence for evolution or abiogenisis. As if conveniently for just these 2 questions science no longer applied to the scientific community.

There is evidence for speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
This is a youtube that explains evolution more: https://www.youtube.com...
Genetics shows how speciation is a thing, do you know why dog and wolves are so genetically similar?

Evidence for abiogenisis:
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.wired.com...

Response: You only make my point. For when asked to provide observable, testable evidence of a species evolving into another or non-life create life, you provide a link. A link is not a species evolving or non-life creating life. Thus it is not observable testable evidence. And if asked of what proof you have that the information in your link is scientifically proven, peer-reviewed, etc.,, your answer is "because it says so". Saying so is not proof it is so. thus you have not provided observable, testable evidence.

Or the fact that the claim that non-choice can create because you have alleged examples is contradicted by the fact that there are examples of non-choice not creating order. Yet despite the observable contradiction, many claim that there is no logical evidence for intelligent design.

I'm confused by this argument. First, crystallization is a perfect example of "non-choice" creating order and patterns. Second, are you saying that just because non-choice can lead to disorder (however you define it) then that proves non-choice is an impossibility? By this logic choice is impossible because choice can lead to chaos and disorder too.

Response: The reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. That is why it is a contradiction. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Whereas, saying choice creates chaos is not a contradiction because the argument is that choice can do both, You can apply choice and non-choice to the same act and see firsthand different results. Whereas your examples of crystals, snowflakes, etc.. was not created by you, Thus whatever you gather is not firsthand. Thus it is invalid.

The point being is that the soul is considered unseen. So to expect to use a method like science to detect a soul is invalid, since science is based on observation. Rather, one can only conclude that there is no soul according to the scientific method. Not because there is no evidence, for science is not the only method of evidence. There is also deductive logic.

If you can produce evidence that isn't mere speculation then go ahead.

Response: The fact that no one can refute the deductive logic by falsifying the premise shows it is not speculation.

No one has seen a dinosaur, their own great grandparents who lived thousands of years ago, or Alexander the Great. Yet you would accept they all existed. Not by science, but by deductive logic. You deduced logically, based on what you have seen and observed, that these characters existed. The same applies to the soul.

Not at all. We can prove dinosaurs existed. We have physical evidence that proves they existed. We can see their remains. We can't prove the soul exists.

Response: You never saw a dinosaur to see them leave something behind. Thus you cannot see their remains.

For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God.

Evidence please.

Response: Your inability to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating choice, as explained above.

Then we can test the alleged word of God to find if there is any error, indecency, or teaching of wrong doing.

How would we go about testing this? How can we test God for indecency or wrong doing when by definition God is neither?

Response: The definition of God is not neither.

If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

lol evidence please.

Response: Refer above.

Another form of validity is science.

WHAT?! You reject science because it can't prove the soul now you're referring to science as valid??? What about the science behind evolution?!

Response: The science behind evolution shows evolution is false, as shown by your inability to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another.

For we see that despite the fact we are made of the same matter, we experience vastly different feelings and develop different psychology. In fact, life is the only matter that goes through this. You take matter that has no life and put it through different but the same tests, the results are practically identical. You do this to humans or any life, the emotional and psychological responses differ and vary. You also see that the difference between life and non-life beings is of course, one dies and one does not. Meaning one (non-life) can exist in a state unchanged for almost forever. Whereas life dies, and the matter instantly changes. So we can see and observe a significant difference between matter that has life and matter that does not, thus showing a sign that there is an unseen element and it does interact with matter. And when we consider what is called the spirit or the soul, then it becomes more valid as to what is the unseen element. That is the soul.

Not a lick of science in that paragraph. And to think I was worried. From what I gather from what you've just said the soul is a type of energy that keeps matter animated. Why can we not detect this energy in a way that proves the soul? Also when we die matter does not change instantly, decay is not instantaneous.

Response: Yet your inability to refute what was stated show otherwise supports evidence to the contrary that your response is invalid, not my claim.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 7:12:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 6:26:38 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/3/2015 6:00:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

It's strange how you assume there is no observable evidence for evolution or abiogenisis. As if conveniently for just these 2 questions science no longer applied to the scientific community.

There is evidence for speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
This is a youtube that explains evolution more: https://www.youtube.com...
Genetics shows how speciation is a thing, do you know why dog and wolves are so genetically similar?

Evidence for abiogenisis:
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.wired.com...

Response: You only make my point. For when asked to provide observable, testable evidence of a species evolving into another or non-life create life, you provide a link. A link is not a species evolving or non-life creating life. Thus it is not observable testable evidence. And if asked of what proof you have that the information in your link is scientifically proven, peer-reviewed, etc.,, your answer is "because it says so". Saying so is not proof it is so. thus you have not provided observable, testable evidence.

lol are you insane? We're communicating through the internet. Do you expect me to mail you scientific studies in the mail? To fly you to a university to see first hand research? The link documents said evidence. If you doubt its authenticity prove its fallacious.

Or the fact that the claim that non-choice can create because you have alleged examples is contradicted by the fact that there are examples of non-choice not creating order. Yet despite the observable contradiction, many claim that there is no logical evidence for intelligent design.

I'm confused by this argument. First, crystallization is a perfect example of "non-choice" creating order and patterns. Second, are you saying that just because non-choice can lead to disorder (however you define it) then that proves non-choice is an impossibility? By this logic choice is impossible because choice can lead to chaos and disorder too.

Response: The reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. That is why it is a contradiction. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples).

I was pointing out the flaw in your logic. So now that you've mistaken my thoughts for yours and deemed them a contradiction do you see your contradiction?

Whereas, saying choice creates chaos is not a contradiction because the argument is that choice can do both, You can apply choice and non-choice to the same act and see firsthand different results. Whereas your examples of crystals, snowflakes, etc.. was not created by you, Thus whatever you gather is not firsthand. Thus it is invalid.

lol what????? Because I don't make crystals firsthand crystals don't exist or something?? Or is this some red herring appeal to sophistry???

The point being is that the soul is considered unseen. So to expect to use a method like science to detect a soul is invalid, since science is based on observation. Rather, one can only conclude that there is no soul according to the scientific method. Not because there is no evidence, for science is not the only method of evidence. There is also deductive logic.

If you can produce evidence that isn't mere speculation then go ahead.

Response: The fact that no one can refute the deductive logic by falsifying the premise shows it is not speculation.

What premise? God? If you make the premise unfalsifiable then of course. Just as unicorns and leprechauns are unfalsifiable.

No one has seen a dinosaur, their own great grandparents who lived thousands of years ago, or Alexander the Great. Yet you would accept they all existed. Not by science, but by deductive logic. You deduced logically, based on what you have seen and observed, that these characters existed. The same applies to the soul.

Not at all. We can prove dinosaurs existed. We have physical evidence that proves they existed. We can see their remains. We can't prove the soul exists.

Response: You never saw a dinosaur to see them leave something behind. Thus you cannot see their remains.

Ahhh I see. So despite your appeal to logic dinosaurs don't exist. ok.

For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God.

Evidence please.

Response: Your inability to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating choice, as explained above.

That's because "choice" is a false concept. Do crystals choose to form the pattern that they do?

Then we can test the alleged word of God to find if there is any error, indecency, or teaching of wrong doing.

How would we go about testing this? How can we test God for indecency or wrong doing when by definition God is neither?

Response: The definition of God is not neither.

Really? The omnibenevolent God can be tested to show indecency and wrongness? How do we do this?

If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

lol evidence please.

Response: Refer above.

lol so no evidence then

Another form of validity is science.

WHAT?! You reject science because it can't prove the soul now you're referring to science as valid??? What about the science behind evolution?!

Response: The science behind evolution shows evolution is false, as shown by your inability to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another.

ha ha hahahahahahaha haa ha

For we see that despite the fact we are made of the same matter, we experience vastly different feelings and develop different psychology. In fact, life is the only matter that goes through this. You take matter that has no life and put it through different but the same tests, the results are practically identical. You do this to humans or any life, the emotional and psychological responses differ and vary. You also see that the difference between life and non-life beings is of course, one dies and one does not. Meaning one (non-life) can exist in a state unchanged for almost forever. Whereas life dies, and the matter instantly changes. So we can see and observe a significant difference between matter that has life and matter that does not, thus showing a sign that there is an unseen element and it does interact with matter. And when we consider what is called the spirit or the soul, then it becomes more valid as to what is the unseen element. That is the soul.

Not a lick of science in that paragraph. And to think I was worried. From what I gather from what you've just said the soul is a type of energy that keeps matter animated. Why can we not detect this energy in a way that proves the soul? Also when we die matter does not change instantly, decay is not instantaneous.

Response: Yet your inability to refute what was stated show otherwise supports evidence to the contrary that your response is invalid, not my claim.

hhHAHAHA HA hahahahha You're a joke. A bad scientifically illiterate joke.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:00:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 7:12:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

lol are you insane? We're communicating through the internet. Do you expect me to mail you scientific studies in the mail? To fly you to a university to see first hand research? The link documents said evidence. If you doubt its authenticity prove its fallacious.


Response: I expected you to do exactly what you did, which is proving my point that there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another. As you provided a link as evidence. A link is not a species evolving. Thus you made my point, while refuting your own. Thus the laugh is on you.

Response: The reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. That is why it is a contradiction. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples).

I was pointing out the flaw in your logic. So now that you've mistaken my thoughts for yours and deemed them a contradiction do you see your contradiction?

Response: My logic is that the evidence of non-choice contradicts, whereas the evidence for choice does not, while you have failed to show otherwise. Again, making my point.
Whereas, saying choice creates chaos is not a contradiction because the argument is that choice can do both, You can apply choice and non-choice to the same act and see firsthand different results. Whereas your examples of crystals, snowflakes, etc.. was not created by you, Thus whatever you gather is not firsthand. Thus it is invalid.

lol what????? Because I don't make crystals firsthand crystals don't exist or something?? Or is this some red herring appeal to sophistry???

Response: No. Because you can't provide observable evidence of non-choice creating order without contradicting yourself supports the fact that order cannot originate from non-choice.


Response: The fact that no one can refute the deductive logic by falsifying the premise shows it is not speculation.

What premise? God? If you make the premise unfalsifiable then of course. Just as unicorns and leprechauns are unfalsifiable.

Response: Which implies that you believe in Unicorns and Leprechauns. Another example of the delusion of atheism.

Response: You never saw a dinosaur to see them leave something behind. Thus you cannot see their remains.

Ahhh I see. So despite your appeal to logic dinosaurs don't exist. ok.

Response: Exactly.
For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God.

Evidence please.

Response: Your inability to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating choice, as explained above.

That's because "choice" is a false concept. Do crystals choose to form the pattern that they do?

Response: The fact you continue to fail to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating order shows otherwise, thus debunking your claim that choice is a false concept. As for crystals, the natural elements that make up a crystal originated from choice. Thus the ability to form crystals originate from choice. Not from non-choice.
The better question is the soon to be contradiction or hypocrisy in your reasoning that will arise shortly. For how do you know crystals came from non-choice? Your answer is because you did not see a choice made. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand, you would accept the fact that it was created by choice, despite not seeing one choose to make it. As usual, we see another example of the hypocrisy and contradictions that a non-choice argument is built upon. thus non-choice is utterly false.

How would we go about testing this? How can we test God for indecency or wrong doing when by definition God is neither?

Response: The definition of God is not neither.

Really? The omnibenevolent God can be tested to show indecency and wrongness? How do we do this?

Response: You do this by analyzing the scripture of God, which is the Qur'an. When analyzed, you can see firsthand that the Qur'an is without error, indecency, immorality, and is a guidance to righteousness.

If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

lol evidence please.

Response: Refer to the Qur'an.

hhHAHAHA HA hahahahha You're a joke. A bad scientifically illiterate joke.

Response: Yet your weak rebuttals continue to show otherwise.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:10:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The Argument From Interaction:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and traveling to the body.

The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.

You cannot possibly understand what a soul is as long as yuo stick top teh Apostate teachign about it.

We do not have a soul, we are a soul, according to scripture.

Animals also are souls.

However there is an intangible part to us, the spirit that powers us, and since that spirit comesfrom God, God, and all spirit creatures, can communicatre with us through it.

That, unfortuantely includes Satan.

As Paul said at Romans 8:16
ASV(i) 16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:

Spirit is nto a sentient being, it is a form of energy, part of God's very sub stance, and of those he created from it, as he created everyting from it. Hence our spirit could, if he wished, be used by God to inlfuence, even controll every part of us.

That is why holy spirit is such an "evnergising" thing to those of us who get it, but in a much more peaceful way than Satan's spirit works on us.

When we are conn ected to God and h8is spirit beings through spirit we show the fruits of teh spirit, and teh extent to which we show tham denotes how strongly connected we are.

Galatians 5:22-23
ASV(i) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

That is because these things reflect God's personality in us.

The fruitage of Satan's spirit is the exact opposite, and again the strength to whihc it shows reveals that amount of influence his spirit is havig on our minds.

That is one way that, with practice, one can recognise who is influence and to what extent, by either God or Christ.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:19:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 8:00:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/3/2015 7:12:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

lol are you insane? We're communicating through the internet. Do you expect me to mail you scientific studies in the mail? To fly you to a university to see first hand research? The link documents said evidence. If you doubt its authenticity prove its fallacious.


Response: I expected you to do exactly what you did, which is proving my point that there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another. As you provided a link as evidence. A link is not a species evolving. Thus you made my point, while refuting your own. Thus the laugh is on you.

And yet here is observed evidence of a species evolving. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Response: The reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. That is why it is a contradiction. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples).

I was pointing out the flaw in your logic. So now that you've mistaken my thoughts for yours and deemed them a contradiction do you see your contradiction?

Response: My logic is that the evidence of non-choice contradicts, whereas the evidence for choice does not, while you have failed to show otherwise. Again, making my point.

And what evidence is this? All you've done is talk about choice and non-choice incoherently claiming contradictions when you're the only one advancing the argument.

Whereas, saying choice creates chaos is not a contradiction because the argument is that choice can do both, You can apply choice and non-choice to the same act and see firsthand different results. Whereas your examples of crystals, snowflakes, etc.. was not created by you, Thus whatever you gather is not firsthand. Thus it is invalid.

lol what????? Because I don't make crystals firsthand crystals don't exist or something?? Or is this some red herring appeal to sophistry???

Response: No. Because you can't provide observable evidence of non-choice creating order without contradicting yourself supports the fact that order cannot originate from non-choice.

I did but you ignored it. How does the existence of crystals contradict myself?

Response: The fact that no one can refute the deductive logic by falsifying the premise shows it is not speculation.

What premise? God? If you make the premise unfalsifiable then of course. Just as unicorns and leprechauns are unfalsifiable.

Response: Which implies that you believe in Unicorns and Leprechauns. Another example of the delusion of atheism.

You believe in just as fanciful a being.

Response: You never saw a dinosaur to see them leave something behind. Thus you cannot see their remains.

Ahhh I see. So despite your appeal to logic dinosaurs don't exist. ok.

Response: Exactly.

It's like you don't even care that you're crazy. Oh religion, you do wondrous things with your slaves.

For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God.

Evidence please.

Response: Your inability to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating choice, as explained above.

That's because "choice" is a false concept. Do crystals choose to form the pattern that they do?

Response: The fact you continue to fail to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating order shows otherwise, thus debunking your claim that choice is a false concept. As for crystals, the natural elements that make up a crystal originated from choice. Thus the ability to form crystals originate from choice. Not from non-choice.

Evidence??????????????????????????????/

The better question is the soon to be contradiction or hypocrisy in your reasoning that will arise shortly. For how do you know crystals came from non-choice? Your answer is because you did not see a choice made. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand, you would accept the fact that it was created by choice, despite not seeing one choose to make it. As usual, we see another example of the hypocrisy and contradictions that a non-choice argument is built upon. thus non-choice is utterly false.

So you call me a hypocrite because iphones are not naturally occurring structures??? You don't even bother defining choice, you just keep repeating the same assertions over and over again.

How would we go about testing this? How can we test God for indecency or wrong doing when by definition God is neither?

Response: The definition of God is not neither.

Really? The omnibenevolent God can be tested to show indecency and wrongness? How do we do this?

Response: You do this by analyzing the scripture of God, which is the Qur'an. When analyzed, you can see firsthand that the Qur'an is without error, indecency, immorality, and is a guidance to righteousness.

lol BS
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

lol evidence please.

Response: Refer to the Qur'an.

So when I provide you science links you reject them, yet you point me to an unsubstantiated book ... You ... I have no words for the pity I feel for you.

hhHAHAHA HA hahahahha You're a joke. A bad scientifically illiterate joke.

Response: Yet your weak rebuttals continue to show otherwise.

Only in your deluded mind.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:41:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 8:19:09 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

And yet here is observed evidence of a species evolving. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Response: Yet a link is not an actual species evolving. Thus evolution is false.

Response: My logic is that the evidence of non-choice contradicts, whereas the evidence for choice does not, while you have failed to show otherwise. Again, making my point.

And what evidence is this? All you've done is talk about choice and non-choice incoherently claiming contradictions when you're the only one advancing the argument.

Response: The evidence is your own failure to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating order without contradicting reasoning.

I did but you ignored it. How does the existence of crystals contradict myself?

Response: The reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against it. That is why it is a contradiction. . So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples such as crystals) also goes against you ( there are examples, such as your failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so).

Response: You never saw a dinosaur to see them leave something behind. Thus you cannot see their remains.

Ahhh I see. So despite your appeal to logic dinosaurs don't exist. ok.

Response: Exactly.

It's like you don't even care that you're crazy. Oh religion, you do wondrous things with your slaves.

Response: Your weak rebuttal shows otherwise.

Response: The fact you continue to fail to provide observable evidence of non-choice creating order shows otherwise, thus debunking your claim that choice is a false concept. As for crystals, the natural elements that make up a crystal originated from choice. Thus the ability to form crystals originate from choice. Not from non-choice.

Evidence??????????????????????????????/

Response: Refer to the above.

The better question is the soon to be contradiction or hypocrisy in your reasoning that will arise shortly. For how do you know crystals came from non-choice? Your answer is because you did not see a choice made. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand, you would accept the fact that it was created by choice, despite not seeing one choose to make it. As usual, we see another example of the hypocrisy and contradictions that a non-choice argument is built upon. thus non-choice is utterly false.

So you call me a hypocrite because iphones are not naturally occurring structures??? You don't even bother defining choice, you just keep repeating the same assertions over and over again.

Response: Rather, your own reasoning call you a hypocrite, since it says that proof of non-choice is not seeing a choice made, which contradicts the fact that you would claim an IPhone was made my choice, despite not seeing someone make it. Once again exposing non-choice and proving intelligent design.

How would we go about testing this? How can we test God for indecency or wrong doing when by definition God is neither?

Response: The definition of God is not neither.

Really? The omnibenevolent God can be tested to show indecency and wrongness? How do we do this?

Response: You do this by analyzing the scripture of God, which is the Qur'an. When analyzed, you can see firsthand that the Qur'an is without error, indecency, immorality, and is a guidance to righteousness.

lol BS
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Response: In other words, you cannot show error or indecency in the Qur'an, thus supporting that it is true. Thanks.

If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

lol evidence please.

Response: Refer to the Qur'an.

So when I provide you science links you reject them, yet you point me to an unsubstantiated book ... You ... I have no words for the pity I feel for you.

Response: Science is what you test and observe yourself. A link is words, not observable testable evidence you do yourself. So the pity is how you insult science and your own logic. For no scientists goes to a laboratory and say " I have proof. Read my link". Debunked as usual.

hhHAHAHA HA hahahahha You're a joke. A bad scientifically illiterate joke.

Response: Yet your weak rebuttals continue to show otherwise.

Only in your deluded mind.

Response: Says the deluded.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:05:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 10:22:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Matter is not as solid, substantial, as you think it is. Quantum mechanics show Matter to be more immaterial then you think.

False,


Your presupposition is a materialistic view with a naturalist expectation of all evidence. You reject a transcendental cause in any and all cases.

False.

Is Time material? Does Time effect anything?
Is Space material? Does space bend in a gravitational field? Is space matter?
is gravity matter? Does it effect the material world?

Strawmen.

Proof first that only your so called "real" matter things are the only things that effect matter.

Through quantum computations in the mind, [1] form worm holes that transmit information from this world to an alternate dimension that contains our souls.[2]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://news.sciencemag.org...

Laughable.

Terrible response.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:10:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 11:40:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Defined as immaterial by whom?
http://www.merriam-webster.com... defines it as....
Soul
*the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever
*a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
* the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.

The Strongs Lexicon ( H5315) defines soul as....
soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
A. that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
B. living being
C. living being (with life in the blood)
D. the man himself, self, person or individual
E. seat of the appetites
F. seat of emotions and passions
G. activity of mind
Using the Strongs definitions .......
Can you detect that which breathes?
Can you detect a living being?
Can you detect a living being with life in the blood?
Can you detect a man himself, your own self, person or individual?
Can you detect your own appetites?
Can you detect emotions and passions?
Can you detect activity of mind?

All the above are perfectly detectable.

And, all of the above have nothing to do with this thread other than this:

*the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever

This is the religion forum, or hadn't you noticed?

Thoughts are immaterial ,,,

No, they are not.

Thoughts are like energy...

Then, you just contradicted yourself.

Another very poor response.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:16:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 4:03:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Quite an interesting perspective and point of view. It also carries the common notion, which appears to be the basis of atheism, is that if it cannot be seen or observed through testing, then it does not exist or it does not make sense in claiming it exist.

Sorry, that is not even remotely how atheism is defined.

This is quite contradictory, since no one has seen directly a species evolve into another species or non-life create life, yet claim both evolution and creation from a non-living being is true.

Evolution is a fact because there are mountains of evidence for species evolving,

Or the fact that the claim that non-choice can create because you have alleged examples is contradicted by the fact that there are examples of non-choice not creating order. Yet despite the observable contradiction, many claim that there is no logical evidence for intelligent design.

There isn't any evidence for intelligent design. Strawman.

The point being is that the soul is considered unseen. So to expect to use a method like science to detect a soul is invalid, since science is based on observation. Rather, one can only conclude that there is no soul according to the scientific method. Not because there is no evidence, for science is not the only method of evidence. There is also deductive logic. No one has seen a dinosaur

Strawman, there are fossils of many dinosaurs.

The same applies to the soul. For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God.

False.

Then we can test the alleged word of God to find if there is any error, indecency, or teaching of wrong doing. If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

Fallacious reasoning, appeal to belief.

Another form of validity is science. For we see that despite the fact we are made of the same matter, we experience vastly different feelings and develop different psychology.

No, we don't. False.

In fact, life is the only matter that goes through this. You take matter that has no life and put it through different but the same tests, the results are practically identical. You do this to humans or any life, the emotional and psychological responses differ and vary. You also see that the difference between life and non-life beings is of course, one dies and one does not. Meaning one (non-life) can exist in a state unchanged for almost forever. Whereas life dies, and the matter instantly changes. So we can see and observe a significant difference between matter that has life and matter that does not, thus showing a sign that there is an unseen element and it does interact with matter. And when we consider what is called the spirit or the soul, then it becomes more valid as to what is the unseen element. That is the soul.

Complete nonsense.

Yet another very bad response. This one doesn't even respond to the OP, just faith based ramblings and lies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:17:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 8:43:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
And this.


Lol, the OP is "The soul", not "soul, lol.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:18:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 8:10:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

You cannot possibly understand what a soul is as long as yuo stick top teh Apostate teachign about it.

We do not have a soul, we are a soul, according to scripture.

Animals also are souls.

However there is an intangible part to us, the spirit that powers us, and since that spirit comesfrom God, God, and all spirit creatures, can communicatre with us through it.

That, unfortuantely includes Satan.

As Paul said at Romans 8:16
ASV(i) 16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:

Spirit is nto a sentient being, it is a form of energy, part of God's very sub stance, and of those he created from it, as he created everyting from it. Hence our spirit could, if he wished, be used by God to inlfuence, even controll every part of us.

That is why holy spirit is such an "evnergising" thing to those of us who get it, but in a much more peaceful way than Satan's spirit works on us.

When we are conn ected to God and h8is spirit beings through spirit we show the fruits of teh spirit, and teh extent to which we show tham denotes how strongly connected we are.

Galatians 5:22-23
ASV(i) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

That is because these things reflect God's personality in us.

The fruitage of Satan's spirit is the exact opposite, and again the strength to whihc it shows reveals that amount of influence his spirit is havig on our minds.

That is one way that, with practice, one can recognise who is influence and to what extent, by either God or Christ.

Boogeyman evoked evangelism.

A completely worthless response that does not respond to the OP whatsoever.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:24:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 9:42:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The Argument From Interaction:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and traveling to the body.

The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.

Ths soul that sins shall surely die. You have sinned, you will die. Death is eternal the same as life is eternal, you have one of the other. You are asking questions from a postion of blindness which cannot be answered as darkness is dispelled by light and you prefer darkness because the stains of sin on your soul have turned you evil against God.

The problem in getting this accross to you is "The problem of good". Why is there a part of you that desires goodness and to do good in the world? That is the part that makes you proud against God, so you desire to excuse the things you have done based on the fact that you desired good. I'm sure you are a wonderful person, and I am being truthful here with no insults. We are both of the same human hearts, tending to be proud based on the fact that we feel our desires are good and we actually have done some good things.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:25:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:18:42 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 8:10:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

You cannot possibly understand what a soul is as long as yuo stick top teh Apostate teachign about it.

We do not have a soul, we are a soul, according to scripture.

Animals also are souls.

However there is an intangible part to us, the spirit that powers us, and since that spirit comesfrom God, God, and all spirit creatures, can communicatre with us through it.

That, unfortuantely includes Satan.

As Paul said at Romans 8:16
ASV(i) 16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:

Spirit is nto a sentient being, it is a form of energy, part of God's very sub stance, and of those he created from it, as he created everyting from it. Hence our spirit could, if he wished, be used by God to inlfuence, even controll every part of us.

That is why holy spirit is such an "evnergising" thing to those of us who get it, but in a much more peaceful way than Satan's spirit works on us.

When we are conn ected to God and h8is spirit beings through spirit we show the fruits of teh spirit, and teh extent to which we show tham denotes how strongly connected we are.

Galatians 5:22-23
ASV(i) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

That is because these things reflect God's personality in us.

The fruitage of Satan's spirit is the exact opposite, and again the strength to whihc it shows reveals that amount of influence his spirit is havig on our minds.

That is one way that, with practice, one can recognise who is influence and to what extent, by either God or Christ.

Boogeyman evoked evangelism.

A completely worthless response that does not respond to the OP whatsoever.

Well, as scripture says it is him we are really fighting against.

Ephesians 6:12
ASV(i) 12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

They influence the vast majority of humans, including you, whether you know it, believe it, or whether you don't. It is an inescapable fdact of life.

You can only choose to be influenced by God, as I do, or leave yourself in teh hands of Satan. You cannot refuse both because whislt God waits for an invitation Satan doesn't, and there is nothing any human has the power to do that can stop him.

Believe it or believe it not, it remains an immutable fact of life at present.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:29:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:24:23 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Ths soul that sins shall surely die.
Contradicts ALL of your preaching.
game over.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:39:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:29:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:24:23 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Ths soul that sins shall surely die.
Contradicts ALL of your preaching.
game over.

It's not a game, it's life or death. God offers you full pardon of your sins, forgiveness, and eternal life through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His blood is satisfactory payment to God for your sins, and in Him you can have forgiveness, pardon from paying in the fire of Hell for your sins, and eternal life.

You think you are playing a game, but you can't win playing against God. You can only lose, and that's what you are doing. You are going the wrong way.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:44:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:24:23 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:

Ths soul that sins shall surely die. You have sinned, you will die. Death is eternal the same as life is eternal, you have one of the other. You are asking questions from a postion of blindness which cannot be answered as darkness is dispelled by light and you prefer darkness because the stains of sin on your soul have turned you evil against God.

The problem in getting this accross to you is "The problem of good". Why is there a part of you that desires goodness and to do good in the world? That is the part that makes you proud against God, so you desire to excuse the things you have done based on the fact that you desired good. I'm sure you are a wonderful person, and I am being truthful here with no insults. We are both of the same human hearts, tending to be proud based on the fact that we feel our desires are good and we actually have done some good things.

Gibberish.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:46:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:25:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:18:42 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 8:10:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

You cannot possibly understand what a soul is as long as yuo stick top teh Apostate teachign about it.

We do not have a soul, we are a soul, according to scripture.

Animals also are souls.

However there is an intangible part to us, the spirit that powers us, and since that spirit comesfrom God, God, and all spirit creatures, can communicatre with us through it.

That, unfortuantely includes Satan.

As Paul said at Romans 8:16
ASV(i) 16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:

Spirit is nto a sentient being, it is a form of energy, part of God's very sub stance, and of those he created from it, as he created everyting from it. Hence our spirit could, if he wished, be used by God to inlfuence, even controll every part of us.

That is why holy spirit is such an "evnergising" thing to those of us who get it, but in a much more peaceful way than Satan's spirit works on us.

When we are conn ected to God and h8is spirit beings through spirit we show the fruits of teh spirit, and teh extent to which we show tham denotes how strongly connected we are.

Galatians 5:22-23
ASV(i) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

That is because these things reflect God's personality in us.

The fruitage of Satan's spirit is the exact opposite, and again the strength to whihc it shows reveals that amount of influence his spirit is havig on our minds.

That is one way that, with practice, one can recognise who is influence and to what extent, by either God or Christ.

Boogeyman evoked evangelism.

A completely worthless response that does not respond to the OP whatsoever.

Well, as scripture says it is him we are really fighting against.

Ephesians 6:12
ASV(i) 12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

They influence the vast majority of humans, including you, whether you know it, believe it, or whether you don't. It is an inescapable fdact of life.

You can only choose to be influenced by God, as I do, or leave yourself in teh hands of Satan. You cannot refuse both because whislt God waits for an invitation Satan doesn't, and there is nothing any human has the power to do that can stop him.

Believe it or believe it not, it remains an immutable fact of life at present.

It's unfortunate you're only capable of evangelism and you don't even do that very well.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:32:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:16:08 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 4:03:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Quite an interesting perspective and point of view. It also carries the common notion, which appears to be the basis of atheism, is that if it cannot be seen or observed through testing, then it does not exist or it does not make sense in claiming it exist.

Sorry, that is not even remotely how atheism is defined.

Response: Yes it is.
This is quite contradictory, since no one has seen directly a species evolve into another species or non-life create life, yet claim both evolution and creation from a non-living being is true.

Evolution is a fact because there are mountains of evidence for species evolving,

Response: Evolution is false, supported by your own failure to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another.

Or the fact that the claim that non-choice can create because you have alleged examples is contradicted by the fact that there are examples of non-choice not creating order. Yet despite the observable contradiction, many claim that there is no logical evidence for intelligent design.

There isn't any evidence for intelligent design. Strawman.

Response: Your weak rebuttal says otherwise. Debunked.

The point being is that the soul is considered unseen. So to expect to use a method like science to detect a soul is invalid, since science is based on observation. Rather, one can only conclude that there is no soul according to the scientific method. Not because there is no evidence, for science is not the only method of evidence. There is also deductive logic. No one has seen a dinosaur

Strawman, there are fossils of many dinosaurs.

Response: False. There are many made up fossils attributed to dinosaurs. Debunked.

The same applies to the soul. For we can see the evidence for intelligent design, thus proving a God.

False.

Response: No proof. Debunked.

Then we can test the alleged word of God to find if there is any error, indecency, or teaching of wrong doing. If discovered that there is none, this holds as evidence that God is a truthteller and reliable. Thus if God exists and God is truthful, then one can deduce logically that there is a soul because a reliable source says so. That being God.

Fallacious reasoning, appeal to belief.

Response: Your weak rebuttal just showed otherwise.

Another form of validity is science. For we see that despite the fact we are made of the same matter, we experience vastly different feelings and develop different psychology.

No, we don't. False.

Response: Yes we do. Debunked.

In fact, life is the only matter that goes through this. You take matter that has no life and put it through different but the same tests, the results are practically identical. You do this to humans or any life, the emotional and psychological responses differ and vary. You also see that the difference between life and non-life beings is of course, one dies and one does not. Meaning one (non-life) can exist in a state unchanged for almost forever. Whereas life dies, and the matter instantly changes. So we can see and observe a significant difference between matter that has life and matter that does not, thus showing a sign that there is an unseen element and it does interact with matter. And when we consider what is called the spirit or the soul, then it becomes more valid as to what is the unseen element. That is the soul.

Complete nonsense.

Response: Says the deluded.

Yet another very bad response. This one doesn't even respond to the OP, just faith based ramblings and lies.

Response: In other words, you have no logic, reason, or evidence. Thus exposing the sheer absurdity of atheism and supporting the fact that the soul exist. Thanks for the clarification.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:56:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:32:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Evolution is false, supported by your own failure to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another.

Response: False. There are many made up fossils attributed to dinosaurs. Debunked.

The Islamic propagandist claims another victory with lies. Well done.

Please attempt to educate yourself:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

http://paleobiology.si.edu...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:03:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:46:08 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:25:33 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:18:42 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/3/2015 8:10:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

You cannot possibly understand what a soul is as long as yuo stick top teh Apostate teachign about it.

We do not have a soul, we are a soul, according to scripture.

Animals also are souls.

However there is an intangible part to us, the spirit that powers us, and since that spirit comesfrom God, God, and all spirit creatures, can communicatre with us through it.

That, unfortuantely includes Satan.

As Paul said at Romans 8:16
ASV(i) 16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:

Spirit is nto a sentient being, it is a form of energy, part of God's very sub stance, and of those he created from it, as he created everyting from it. Hence our spirit could, if he wished, be used by God to inlfuence, even controll every part of us.

That is why holy spirit is such an "evnergising" thing to those of us who get it, but in a much more peaceful way than Satan's spirit works on us.

When we are conn ected to God and h8is spirit beings through spirit we show the fruits of teh spirit, and teh extent to which we show tham denotes how strongly connected we are.

Galatians 5:22-23
ASV(i) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

That is because these things reflect God's personality in us.

The fruitage of Satan's spirit is the exact opposite, and again the strength to whihc it shows reveals that amount of influence his spirit is havig on our minds.

That is one way that, with practice, one can recognise who is influence and to what extent, by either God or Christ.

Boogeyman evoked evangelism.

A completely worthless response that does not respond to the OP whatsoever.

Well, as scripture says it is him we are really fighting against.

Ephesians 6:12
ASV(i) 12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

They influence the vast majority of humans, including you, whether you know it, believe it, or whether you don't. It is an inescapable fdact of life.

You can only choose to be influenced by God, as I do, or leave yourself in teh hands of Satan. You cannot refuse both because whislt God waits for an invitation Satan doesn't, and there is nothing any human has the power to do that can stop him.

Believe it or believe it not, it remains an immutable fact of life at present.

It's unfortunate you're only capable of evangelism and you don't even do that very well.

I do it as well as I need to because the results of it are out of my hands.

John 6:44
ASV(i) 44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

God chooses who he wants and who can be useful to his purposes.

1 Corinthians 3:5-6
ASV(i) 5 What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom ye believed; and each as the Lord gave to him. 6 I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

I am only the messenger, the seed sower, If God chooses to make the seed grow, however badly sown, it will grow.