Man raised back to life in Jesus' name

Personal? You're the one that made it personal, as your post proves. In fact the whole post is nothing but a personal attack against me, and a dodge against my questions.Not a single one of the statements that you've quoted is a personal attack, so it boggles my mind that I'm the one being accused of making it personal.What I meant by "old enough to know better" is that I'm old enough to know better that to dismiss an argument based on the age of my opponent; what I asked was "what's your excuse for trying to dismiss my argument based on my age?"Your post is simply a personal attack. You haven't substantially responded to a single point of mine. Why is that? Is that why you asked how old I am? To respect me?

quote:

---

I asked this question because the flippant nature of his post seemed rather juvenile.

---

Oh, I guess not. But I'm the one making personal attacks, eh?Hilarious. Let's try to bring it back to the topic. If your model of the soul in scientific terms can't answer any questions about souls, then what is even the point of considering it? Do you understand that a scientific model needs to actually answer questions?What question, exactly, does your hypothesis purport to answer? Judging by your responses so far, it answers nothing. But feel free to prove me wrong. Hey, I'm glad you found it amusing. That was the intent; I'm trying to keep it jovial and friendly. Which makes it all the more flabbergasting for you to descend into these breathless screeds against me. How can I understand your model if you refuse to answer questions about it? The lack of furthering understanding is entirely your fault, Mr. Ex. If unerstanding is to be furthered, you have to be a part of the discussion. That requires more than ad hominem. It requires a response to relevant points raised against your position, instead of dodges and personal attacks.I'm hoping you can start being part of the discussion. If you came here to insult and not discuss, you're at the wrong forum. By answering the questions. It's really not all that hard.

You haven't answered any of my questions, though. Exactly what does your hypothesis purport to explain? Where's the necessity? And how, in your model, does a human body generate a soul effect? Sex generates human bodies; how does sex generate a soul?

But no explanation is needed for that phenomenon, because purely natural means can account for why some people mistakenly believe that consciousness can persist independantly from the brain.So you still have a model that wants a purpose. I don't see how that answers my question. Where does the soul come from? Why would the two souls mingle? How do the souls know how many new souls to make? And how is it then that a woman can not know she's pregnant, or pregnant with twins, if her soul knows how many new souls it had to generate? If the soul is consciousness, then how can the soul know something her mind does not?These are serious flaws in your model. Serious inconsistencies not just with your model, but with any conception of the "soul" - the existence of an eternal, indestructable soul is simply not consistent with our observations of the human life cycle. We know how new human beings are generated, and at no point during that process is a link to the initial conditions of the Big Bang created, because otherwise sex would be time travel.So again, I ask - does all this malarkey really seem more reasonable to you than the entirely reasonable position that life and consciousness are entirely physical, material phenomenon? Because that's what the evidence indicates.

What I don't understand is how souls can mingle against their will, being that they are will.

Why? Who says that one brain can't be the hardware that runs two minds? In fact doesn't the existence of multiple personality disorder prove that this can be the case?My computer has no trouble running two different operating systems. Why should a brain have trouble running two different minds?Why is it that the stuff you think proves the independance of consciousness doesn't prove anything of the sort to me? Do you deal with computers, much? You'd be surprised how independant-seeming software can be on an abstracted hardware layer, but the independance is just an illusion. Like, say, the operation of a Java Virtual Machine has nothing to do with the hardware it operates on - by design - but the JVM, like any other software, won't run when you turn the computer off.