the claim and story are the evidence of the miracle...
Claims and stories are never evidence of anything, because anything, including the false, can be claimed to be true or be shown in a story.
The onus is still on you to provide evidence or retract your claim, because you've provided none. A claim cannot be evidence of itself; that's idiotic. Why would you assert that a claim is evidence? When anything can be claimed?
Yeah, admins, I did ask for the Bible cite, and Faith provided it. She wasn't offering her own opinion; she was merely responding to a question I posed to Buz, asking him to cite the Biblical support he alluded to in support of his opinion that sin makes you unhealthy, or whatever.
The reasoning didn't feel familiar to me, from the Bible, so I asked. Faith provided. Not sure why it's still under discussion.
There are, however, some reports of "ghost limbs" appearing on the MRI's of people who have recently had a limb amputated or severed
So, what you're saying is that souls exhibit magnetic reasonance even though, being not matter, they have nothing to resonate?
I think perhaps the biggest proof that there is no supernatural is that the supernatural seems to be capable of feats that simply don't make any sense. Even if a soul exists, how would an NMRI machine pick it up?
Well, yeah. If what he means is that they're going to see activity in the motor cortex regions associated with a limb that is no longer present, well, yeah. Duh. Nothing weird about that.
I presumed from context he meant "NMRI signals emanating from body parts that are no longer present", like you put a double amputee in the scanner and, lo and behold, the image shows legs where his legs used to be.
That doesn't make any sense. NMRI detects the radio resonance from the nuclei of atoms rapidly flipped via powerful magnetic fields; to suggest that souls could show up in such a scan is to suggest that souls are made out of atoms.
Whereas matter is "self-contained" and can pop from one point to another as 'vitual particles' in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics, the soul would be an effectively open system which defies the second law.
Whereas matter is permitted to â€˜borrowâ€™ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time (and then it must return the energy and disappear again), the soul would simply be a potentially eternal openning to the initial conditions which preceeded the Big Bang (and it wculd continue on even if the matter in the universe were to revert back into a Big Crunch for example).
And how exactly does sexual intercourse cause this to happen? What's the cellular organelle in the ovum that responds to fertilization by, what exactly? Opening a portal through time back to the big bang?
Seriously - all these things sound more reasonable to you than, say, the idea of an entirely naturalistic explanation of life and consciousness? Which I might point out is the position exactly supported by the evidence?
But I didn't put forth a theory as to how sexual intercourse "creates souls".
What makes you think you get to ask one question and not the other? I mean, that seems to be a fairly reasonable question to ask about souls - where the fuck do they come from? How does a gamete know when to generate a soul? Or do all gametes have mini-souls? Where in the cell is this soul stored?
What makes you think you get to speculate about souls and not get asked these very obvious questions? Has it occured to you that the reason that you don't have obvious answers to these obvious questions is because you're not thinking this through very well?
Good theories answer questions that haven't been asked yet. They sort of anticipate explanations. For instance, the theory that DNA had a double helix structure immediately explained what Watson and Crick set out to explain - why the X-ray crystallography looked the way it did - but, almost immediately after, it occured to them that they had answered how DNA replicates, as well.
Your theory seems to barely explain something we already have an explanation for - phantom limbs - and totally fails to explain the next few obvious questions that arise.
I put forth a possible theory whereby one can, provided the knowledge of quantum gravity become more established and clarified, a potential for one to examine to see if a "soul" exists in the first place.
You and I both know that, no matter how our scientific knowledge expands, you and your fellow believers will make sure that souls and Gods and all the rest of it are handily defined in such a way that the lack of evidence for them is made to appear consistent with their existence, anyway. So what's the point?
In addition to what? A nursing student's list of anecdotes? There's no indication in any of these stories that the recipients weren't told about their donors. A girl completing phrases of songs she's never heard before? I doubt a 16-year-old teenager is capable of writing anything but the most banal, predictable songs in the first place. I regularly am able to accurately predict the ending of movies I've never seen before. Am I a sorcerer? Or just somebody familiar enough with basic movie plotting to pick up on the forshadowing?
Seriously, I'd recommend a little less credulousness on your part.
At the very least, there seems to be some corroborative evidence that one's consciuosness can exist (at least in part) after death.
No, there doesn't. The best anybody can ever present is nothing more than some unverifiable anecdotes. Well, you can have anecdotes that prove anything. That's why the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
I answered his question as best as I could. It doesn't have anything to do with sex.
People have souls, right? And we know that people come about as a result of sex, right?
It doesn't seem unreasonable, then, to ask how the process of sex results in a person with a soul. I understand how sex results in a person, but how does the soul become a part of it?
If you want to find out how sex produces souls, maybe you should go watch a porn movie and take notes. Or, better yet, spend time with your S.O. and find out for yourself.
I've had sex with my wife a number of times, and other women before that, but never once have I been a part of an act of sex that created some kind of standing-wave time-portal to the initial conditions of the Big Bang. (No pun intended.) You'd think something like that occuring in my partner's vagina would be something she would notice. Like, you'd think it would be a burning sensation, considering that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were ALMOST INFINITE HEAT!
I've just given you a definite theory.
No, you haven't. The most fundamental and obvious characteristic of an actual theory is that it answers questions. All you've done is avoid them. There's not a single thing that your idea does besides give you an opportunity to use big words from quantum mechanics.
Your theory doesn't answer or explain a thing. Nothing at all. It's the idle, and ridiculous, speculations of someone obsessed with the idea that naturalist explanations of life and consciousness have to be wrong, no matter what.
Prove me wrong. What does your theory explain?
Actually, I'll go one step further and predict that these virtual particles will be found in both solid objects and open spaces, but areas where human souls are theorized to exist will be found to have significantly less 'virtual particles'.
We know that we can induce areas of space with less virtual particle activity ("vacuumn tension" is the term, I believe) between two charged metal plates. This is what is known as the "Casimir effect." Are you telling me that the Casimir effect generates a human soul?