This is disgusting [modified]
-
Yes. Show me some evidence that says there is a soul, a mind, something that is measurably distinct from the brain. Because right now the simplest and best supported hypotheses say that the workings of the brain is sufficient to explain the human experience. If you have evidence for a soul or a mind separate from that process, let's hear about it. It's absolutely a serious question.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because right now the simplest and best supported hypotheses say that the workings of the brain is sufficient to explain the human experience
A hypothesis is not a natural law. Implicit in your question is proof that you are not necessarily right. I have never claimed - read what I wrote instead of the straw-man you wish you were arguing with - that there is a mind/soul only that there is no Scientific Law nor Theory so accepted by the Scientific Community that the matter can be regarded as proven. If you wish to believe as a matter of faith that there is no such critter as a mind or a soul, that is, of course, your right. We have freedom of religion here. But, please, stop asking me to genuflect in front of the altar you have built to a supposition,
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ohh, OK. Awesome. So, quick quiz: 1) How many layers does the pericardium have? 2) How many ATPs are produced by aerobic cellular respiration? 3) How many sacral vertebrae form the sacrum? ;P Good luck!
Oh, gawd. 1) I saw this question and my brain yelled, "Three! Myo, epi, pericardium!" Which obviously wasn't right, so I had to Wiki it to find the real answer. No points for me. (If you're interested in a disease process involving the pericardium, check out cardiac tamponade.) 2) ~30 mol ATP/1 mol glucose, IIRC, mostly from the ETC. 4 from glucose-->2 pyruvate and 3NADH+1GTP for the Krebs cycle? I could actually draw the whole damn thing out at one point including enzymes. 3) Usually five, fused. How'd I do? :D
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because right now the simplest and best supported hypotheses say that the workings of the brain is sufficient to explain the human experience
A hypothesis is not a natural law. Implicit in your question is proof that you are not necessarily right. I have never claimed - read what I wrote instead of the straw-man you wish you were arguing with - that there is a mind/soul only that there is no Scientific Law nor Theory so accepted by the Scientific Community that the matter can be regarded as proven. If you wish to believe as a matter of faith that there is no such critter as a mind or a soul, that is, of course, your right. We have freedom of religion here. But, please, stop asking me to genuflect in front of the altar you have built to a supposition,
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
OK, I'm getting a clearer picture of where you're coming from, so I can say I start from the philosophical position: 1) That it's reasonable to require evidence for any belief including the existence of a soul 2) That a simpler explanation not requiring appealing to magical forces is usually a better and more useful one If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural), then I guess that's fine, but I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life. My apologies if I did misrepresent your position.
- F
-
Jesus loves you, why do you keep rejecting Him?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
OK, I'm getting a clearer picture of where you're coming from, so I can say I start from the philosophical position: 1) That it's reasonable to require evidence for any belief including the existence of a soul 2) That a simpler explanation not requiring appealing to magical forces is usually a better and more useful one If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural), then I guess that's fine, but I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life. My apologies if I did misrepresent your position.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural),
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life.
Don't be silly. Your "philosophical position" and Ilion are essentially the same. Both of you claim that your belief system defines the universe.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural),
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life.
Don't be silly. Your "philosophical position" and Ilion are essentially the same. Both of you claim that your belief system defines the universe.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Einstein took his hypothesis that better explained observations inconsistent with existing hypotheses and formulated testable predictions from it. Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence. But instead of doing that, you seem to concentrate your discussion on telling me what I think. You really have the temerity to lecture me on the scientific method? When was the last time you were near a science lab or involved in research, the 1950s? The irony here is that if your doctor went to you and said, "Well, your child has leukemia, but it might be because of God's plan, so we might want to just let it go and see what happens, after all, there are things we don't know about the universe" you would throw a shit fit. Nevertheless, this is exactly the attitude you are complicit in encouraging. The simple fact is that while it will always be incomplete about the knowledge of the universe, scientific thinking affords us the luxury of being able to manipulate natural forces for our own benefit, whereas focusing on the fact that aspects of the universe will remain unknowable accomplishes absolutely nothing. I reiterate: It's lazy. The brain houses the entire human experience: consciousness, self-awareness, personality. I await any evidence demonstrating differently.
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Einstein took his hypothesis that better explained observations inconsistent with existing hypotheses and formulated testable predictions from it. Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence. But instead of doing that, you seem to concentrate your discussion on telling me what I think. You really have the temerity to lecture me on the scientific method? When was the last time you were near a science lab or involved in research, the 1950s? The irony here is that if your doctor went to you and said, "Well, your child has leukemia, but it might be because of God's plan, so we might want to just let it go and see what happens, after all, there are things we don't know about the universe" you would throw a shit fit. Nevertheless, this is exactly the attitude you are complicit in encouraging. The simple fact is that while it will always be incomplete about the knowledge of the universe, scientific thinking affords us the luxury of being able to manipulate natural forces for our own benefit, whereas focusing on the fact that aspects of the universe will remain unknowable accomplishes absolutely nothing. I reiterate: It's lazy. The brain houses the entire human experience: consciousness, self-awareness, personality. I await any evidence demonstrating differently.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence
English cannot be your first language. I. Have. Never. Said. There. Was. A. Soul! There. Did I type slowly enough? I'm not going to bother taking this any further. Whether you can't understand or refuse to understand, the fact remains that I can't find words simple enough to communicate with you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence
English cannot be your first language. I. Have. Never. Said. There. Was. A. Soul! There. Did I type slowly enough? I'm not going to bother taking this any further. Whether you can't understand or refuse to understand, the fact remains that I can't find words simple enough to communicate with you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Okay, so you have no evidence that there's anything beyond the brain to explain human behavior. Thanks for conceding the point. It's hilarious, however, that you're unwilling to actually take a stance on it. I suppose that when you and Stan take issue with my positions and say "OH BUT SCIENCE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING HA HA" I'm supposed to think this is some kind of deep profound philosophical pronouncement? It just means you don't have the balls to make assertive statements or back them up - you're really just annoyed about the fact that someone knows more than you do and you lack the ability to debate the argument on it's merits. Sorry I made you feel bad. :laugh:
- F
-
Oh, gawd. 1) I saw this question and my brain yelled, "Three! Myo, epi, pericardium!" Which obviously wasn't right, so I had to Wiki it to find the real answer. No points for me. (If you're interested in a disease process involving the pericardium, check out cardiac tamponade.) 2) ~30 mol ATP/1 mol glucose, IIRC, mostly from the ETC. 4 from glucose-->2 pyruvate and 3NADH+1GTP for the Krebs cycle? I could actually draw the whole damn thing out at one point including enzymes. 3) Usually five, fused. How'd I do? :D
- F
You did good! :cool: :rose: I didn't know the answer to the first one either, but the other two are right. I'm a little bit sketchy on the details for number two, but yeah, about 30.
Fisticuffs wrote:
cardiac tamponade
Thanks. I'd never heard of that before. It sounds like a fizzy drink, but it's so much more horrible! :wtf:
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural),
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life.
Don't be silly. Your "philosophical position" and Ilion are essentially the same. Both of you claim that your belief system defines the universe.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
You need to stop being a jackass. Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing. Just because there is a limit to scientific understanding, doesn't mean that suddenly everything is a possibility. There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that. Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Everyone thinks that the scientific community
I wasn't referring to the scientific community. I was refering to you, fisty, and the entire social movement that uses every otherwise unrelated bit of scientific research to give its political views some sort of phoney legitimacy. I realize that it might be difficult for you to accept, but you have no relationship at all to any entity that can be legitimately called 'the scientific community' and probably never will.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I wasn't referring to the scientific community. I was refering to you, fisty, and the entire social movement that uses every otherwise unrelated bit of scientific research to give its political views some sort of phoney legitimacy. I realize that it might be difficult for you to accept, but you have no relationship at all to any entity that can be legitimately called 'the scientific community' and probably never will.
This may come as a huge shock for you, but I don't actually really consider myself to have a political affiliation. Simply because I don't care. I certainly wouldn't intentionally bastardise scientific research to further my 'political views'. I would gladly accept some good scientific evidence for what you're saying, but there isn't any. I know you think you have good arguments, but you don't. They show a profound lack of understanding in the matter.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It has the same physical reality as a traffic jam. It doesn't exist until you have traffic, and it depends on how many cars you have and how they're arranged.
That is actually a perfect example. The traffic jam consists of component parts, what does conscioiusness consist of?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would there be a completely undetectable 'mind field' extending throughout all of space
Why would there be space itself?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
only interacting with a particular arrangement of matter
I never suggested that. Perhaps it pervades everything as a fundamental property of the universe. Perhpas the brain is merely adpated to provide observational properties to consciousness.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would people have separate consciousnesses if they were all interacting with the same field?
Perhaps we don't - only different perspectives.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And what 'property of reality' did the gallbladder adapt to?
I don't know, but my guess would be teenagers...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is actually a perfect example. The traffic jam consists of component parts, what does conscioiusness consist of?
It's a good analogy, but not in the way that you think it is. The cars represent the neurons in the brain, and a 'traffic jam' is the name of the phenomenon arising from a specific kind of interaction between them. A traffic jam is not a 'thing' per se, in the same way that the mind is not a 'thing'. A traffic jam doesn't just consist of component parts, it's also very much about how they interact.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why would there be space itself?
I dunno. But there is. And it's existence doesn't prove the other thing's.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I never suggested that. Perhaps it pervades everything as a fundamental property of the universe. Perhpas the brain is merely adpated to provide observational properties to consciousness.
Perhaps it does. Or perhaps we're all figments of a dream of a wise and very ancient ice-cream man who lives in the centre of Saturn? It has just as much evidence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps we don't - only different perspectives.
And this is a good explanation...how?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't know, but my guess would be teenagers...
The fact is that it didn't. Its purpose is to concentrate bile produced by the liver, and that's why it's there. It doesn't see light, feel heat, point North. It evolved because it's useful, and so did the brain. It's there to help organisms survive by processing information and making rational judgments based off it, to learn from mistakes, to remember, etc.
-
Okay, so you have no evidence that there's anything beyond the brain to explain human behavior. Thanks for conceding the point. It's hilarious, however, that you're unwilling to actually take a stance on it. I suppose that when you and Stan take issue with my positions and say "OH BUT SCIENCE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING HA HA" I'm supposed to think this is some kind of deep profound philosophical pronouncement? It just means you don't have the balls to make assertive statements or back them up - you're really just annoyed about the fact that someone knows more than you do and you lack the ability to debate the argument on it's merits. Sorry I made you feel bad. :laugh:
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Okay, so you have no evidence that there's anything beyond the brain to explain human behavior.
And you have no evidence that proves that it does - so the Never mind. A long time ago I was told that wehen the wise man argues too long with the fool it becaomes difficult to tell the differenbce. I have no interest in continuing this discussion - someone might question my wisdom in doing so.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
You need to stop being a jackass. Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing. Just because there is a limit to scientific understanding, doesn't mean that suddenly everything is a possibility. There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that. Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You need to stop being a jackass.
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be. When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing.
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that.
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullshit. Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously
ROFL. Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing, I do not need to, nor am I at all worried about being taken seriously by someone not out of highschool.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Okay, so you have no evidence that there's anything beyond the brain to explain human behavior.
And you have no evidence that proves that it does - so the Never mind. A long time ago I was told that wehen the wise man argues too long with the fool it becaomes difficult to tell the differenbce. I have no interest in continuing this discussion - someone might question my wisdom in doing so.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And you have no evidence that proves that it does - so the
- Science doesn't prove things by definition - continuing to harp on this point just enforces the fact you don't really get science at all despite your persistent lecturing 2) My evidence is from autopsies, lesion studies, brain imaging studies, live brain stimulation studies, and animal studies. What do you have again? Right. Nothing except for tired old cliches and parables. Whoopie.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You need to stop being a jackass.
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be. When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing.
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that.
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullshit. Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously
ROFL. Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing, I do not need to, nor am I at all worried about being taken seriously by someone not out of highschool.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Science is about asking testable and falsifiable questions. Science is about repeatable and empirical evidence. I say again: you are not well versed on the philosophy of science and would do yourself better to get educated on it before opening your mouth.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You need to stop being a jackass.
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be. When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing.
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that.
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullshit. Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously
ROFL. Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing, I do not need to, nor am I at all worried about being taken seriously by someone not out of highschool.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be.
What do you mean? You're the one that said that you only liked me when I was saying hurtful and clever things to/about people.
Oakman wrote:
When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
It doesn't challenge me, that's the point. Troy ignores evidence that he doesn't like. Me, I'm craving some evidence from you and Stan's side.
Oakman wrote:
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
I'd contest that it was an appropriate time to use the double negative, and it was intentional. It isn't always bad practice, you know. In this case, it's a direct refutation of your position, that 'science knows nothing'.
Oakman wrote:
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullsh*t.
In science, that happens a lot less frequently than you would imagine, assuming that by 'bullshit' you mean 'completely wrong'.
Oakman wrote:
Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view.
Hey, I'm asking these questions. When there's a good answer, let me know.
Oakman wrote:
Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing
You're certainly fighting hard to make sure that we consider it equally as likely when it so clearly isn't.
-
Ask a general question, get a general answer. You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Synaptrik wrote:
You cannot provide empirical evidence that there is only a physical component to mind.
I absolutely can, and it's suggested by Ravel's posts - that there are discrete aspects of what we would consider personality affected in a predictable way when that part of the brain is lesioned. That the complexity of the brain is consistent with the complexity of human behaviour. Etc. All of that is certainly empirical evidence. It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.' I'll give that opinion all due consideration.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Gary isn't a threat. You are using your generic example to justify attempting to sway Gary's beliefs. I do find it funny that you both attempt to sway the other. Nothing like watching two true-believers going at it trying to convince the other.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I absolutely can,
Provide it then. And let me preface that Stan wasn't suggesting that what Ravel was presenting wasn't true on its own, but not exclusive to the debate. That there could in fact be more than what's presented. That mind may in fact be more than the interaction of synapses and neurons. But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain.
This statement is false
-
Ask a general question, get a general answer. You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Synaptrik wrote:
You cannot provide empirical evidence that there is only a physical component to mind.
I absolutely can, and it's suggested by Ravel's posts - that there are discrete aspects of what we would consider personality affected in a predictable way when that part of the brain is lesioned. That the complexity of the brain is consistent with the complexity of human behaviour. Etc. All of that is certainly empirical evidence. It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.' I'll give that opinion all due consideration.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.'
What I called a fool's quest was both you and Gary attempting to convince the other of your position. That is a fool's quest. The attempt of a true believer to convince an opposing true believer. Believe me, I harbor no delusions of grandeur. No great wisdom here. Just some suppositions and a healthy open minded skepticism. "He who knows says he knows not, while he who knows not says he knows." I'm saying that we don't know. And I'm open to the possibilities that it could be more than physical, or just physical. Both are fine with me.
This statement is false
-
Jesus loves you, why do you keep rejecting Him?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read