all4naija: Jeez! Plant doesn't posses soul for the simple reason it doesn't have sense of identity. You guys keep looking at Aristotle forgetting the time when they exist limit their reasoning. Please, let us not be irrational about soul because it is immaterial and characterized by the state of the mind.

very true a plant doesnt have a sense of identity and accding to d athiestic explanation calld materialism the difference in thing lies in d different mathematical formular governing the movement of their respective particle, a mathematical formular presupposes that th equation must alway have the same answer but reality shows otherwise man has an ability to reason which is unexplainable by mathematical formula, and even d same man doesnt have alway thesame response to a particular situation. Man does not behave like a program and materialism fails to explain mans behaviour, his conciousness, his feeling and his desires. What is the formula for live? This leaves me with the only rational option, "man has a immeterial soul".
Peace

mkmyers45:

and in the case that the two are wrong?

do u have an alternative which u think is what looking into? And do u have poof that defeat my alternative?
Peace

all4naija: You said science can't answer the question of 'what is life'? That I think is your assertion and doesn't necessarily reflects reality. Science can define life but life beyond reality is speculative and that is religion destination which it doesn't agree with. Life by simple definition is about living things, their properties and nature encompassing activities. Yes, if you mean origin of life, science is there to speculate and religion is not exempted from the flaws as well.I would rather accept science speculations as close to the truth than the primitive myths coming from religion.

here we go, your definition is so wild, it is like say 'loving is about loving people', nurtrition is about norishing' that is d worst definition posible. I thought everybody knew that a reality cant be define by repeating d same reality. Like say 'talking is about talking'.
Peace.

Ubenedictus: very true a plant doesnt have a sense of identity and accding to d athiestic explanation calld materialism the difference in thing lies in d different mathematical formular governing the movement of their respective particle, a mathematical formular presupposes that th equation must alway have the same answer but reality shows otherwise man has an ability to reason which is unexplainable by mathematical formula, and even d same man doesnt have alway thesame response to a particular situation. Man does not behave like a program and materialism fails to explain mans behaviour, his conciousness, his feeling and his desires. What is the formula for live? This leaves me with the only rational option, "man has a immeterial soul".
Peace

If we are to go by your immaterial soul explanation, the soul thing becomes different from what we know it to be made up to be - of thoughts, moralities, sense of emotions and identity. These can be predicted based on individual reactions to some degree to make choices.I doubt what you are speculating about should be called soul in sense of reality, that is, leaving the spiritual(baseless idea) out of it.

However, mathematics and its formulas have no bearing in this soul thing which is more a non-quantifiable. On the other hand mathematics is an abstract science of number(soul cannot be counted), quantity(which soul doesn't have) and space(soul has no particular area) which you are trying to mix up in this regard. resorting to complication might as well makes one misses the reality of what soul is and also gives wrong definition to it.

Supposedly, the soul we posses based on abilities to interpreted them through the eye of mind(the telescope to transcend - figuratively not necessarily), the brain(where most of these thoughts are made and processed),etc are immaterial only as you said, the eyes and brain wouldn't have be able to process them based on their nature. We cannot see them(but we process them with the aid of the mind) don't mean they are immaterial only.Mathematics is an evidence of abstract activity and the dark matter is another thing that comes to mind we can't see yet exist in space. This proves that we are only limited by our abilities. In fact, it comes to prove the question the reasons why scientists make use of aiding materials to see and interact with these things in nature.

There is no need resorting to complicate things to better have understanding of what is necessary on what soul is all about.

Ubenedictus: here we go, your definition is so wild, it is like say 'loving is about loving people', nurtrition is about norishing' that is d worst definition posible. I thought everybody knew that a reality cant be define by repeating d same reality. Like say 'talking is about talking'.
Peace.

No. Your inordinate rant about what life is has no definite direction rather than to be accepted science has no evidence in defining what life is. If what life is by definition is wrong from my statement then you are the one complicating issue. Your question is that what life is? And the answer by definition is what I presented to you. If your intention is to coerce me to explain it beyond what nature has presented to us then it is no longer what life is but something else which is out of nature and not longer a real world phenomenon.

Ubenedictus: do u have an alternative which u think is what looking into? And do u have poof that defeat my alternative?
Peace

Please clearly define your alternative in your own words..Its important for further discuss

mollie12:

Apparently, your ideas of 'complexity' and 'encompassing unity' are subjective because they very much apply to man, yes they do.

Controlling the universe? You mean you really need examples from me about how man has conquered nature through technology?

I've actually been wondering what this your post is actually about, and your answer to philip @ 11.04am pretty sums it up. If this is about discrediting God through some scientific mish-mash of high-sounding babbles and the like, well - its a free world. (Because let's face it, even you can not explain the gist of what you posted). But if you are really willing to follow a rational, logic train of thought, and not just bash a thing because you are not willing to agree with it or don't understand it, you'll realise the truth is, God is.

I'm out.

Nature and the Universe are distinct..He asked a question and i gave an answer..We are all looking for true solace aren't we? I'm not bashing anything? Are you still interested?

mkmyers45:

Please take time and read ok? How can you try to even suggest that mobile phone was invented by error? ever heard of waves? Your post is very depressing to say in the least...Gravity is a force mr that we can logically agree is present and it premises can be tested for all to see...

You talk about waves like you've done an experiment on it.
More than half of what we know in science is based on faith....there was a time the world was believed to be round & you get atoned for saying otherwise & I tell you that it made more sense logically than round one....but 'scientific discoveries' told us it was round.....& then elliptical. & I won't be surprised if the shape changes in the next decade.
You talk about waves like you understand it.....but then everything you know about it...you read in a book. Were u in school when the atom was the smallest indivisible particle..is it not "divisible" now?
Everything you know.....you read. None of us have repeated Rutherford model of relativity but we could kill for it cos we were taught since we were babies that it existed.
What proof do YOU have that mercury & Mars & Venus do exist? Ur books? Ave u ever personally looked thru a telescope to see one? Our Prof write 2000page book from reading other books so don't preach to me about waves.
Gravity, Atoms, Light & Waves are all concept on which facts rest on.
Cells YOU have not seen.....Electrons YOU have not & you're explaining how a mobile phone works. You try oo

infolekan:
You talk about waves like you've done an experiment on it.
More than half of what we know in science is based on faith....there was a time the world was believed to be round & you get atoned for saying otherwise & I tell you that it made more sense logically than round one....but 'scientific discoveries' told us it was round.....& then elliptical. & I won't be surprised if the shape changes in the next decade.
You talk about waves like you understand it.....but then everything you know about it...you read in a book. Were u in school when the atom was the smallest indivisible particle..is it not "divisible" now?
Everything you know.....you read. None of us have repeated Rutherford model of relativity but we could kill for it cos we were taught since we were babies that it existed.
What proof do YOU have that mercury & Mars & Venus do exist? Ur books? Ave u ever personally looked thru a telescope to see one? Our Prof write 2000page book from reading other books so don't preach to me about waves.
Gravity, Atoms, Light & Waves are all concept on which facts rest on.
Cells YOU have not seen.....Electrons YOU have not & you're explaining how a mobile phone works. You try oo

Brilliant. Good sir pls have a 'like'

infolekan:
You talk about waves like you've done an experiment on it.
More than half of what we know in science is based on faith....there was a time the world was believed to be round & you get atoned for saying otherwise & I tell you that it made more sense logically than round one....but 'scientific discoveries' told us it was round.....& then elliptical. & I won't be surprised if the shape changes in the next decade.
You talk about waves like you understand it.....but then everything you know about it...you read in a book. Were u in school when the atom was the smallest indivisible particle..is it not "divisible" now?
Everything you know.....you read. None of us have repeated Rutherford model of relativity but we could kill for it cos we were taught since we were babies that it existed.
What proof do YOU have that mercury & Mars & Venus do exist? Ur books? Ave u ever personally looked thru a telescope to see one? Our Prof write 2000page book from reading other books so don't preach to me about waves.
Gravity, Atoms, Light & Waves are all concept on which facts rest on.
Cells YOU have not seen.....Electrons YOU have not & you're explaining how a mobile phone works. You try oo

There is no argument here. Those who have looked through the telescope prove they are. It doesn't necessarily mean he needs to look through telescope before he can prove something. Just as it is not required of you to visit New York city to know that such a city bombed twin center is under construction exist(there are images of it on news media everyday).

I still think you misunderstand science and its theories. Science never said it understands it all but religion on the other hand says it is encompassing and final premise yet with many discrepancies. Such ideology I can't buy into as a reasonable human being.

infolekan:
You talk about waves like you've done an experiment on it.
More than half of what we know in science is based on faith....there was a time the world was believed to be round & you get atoned for saying otherwise & I tell you that it made more sense logically than round one....but 'scientific discoveries' told us it was round.....& then elliptical. & I won't be surprised if the shape changes in the next decade.
You talk about waves like you understand it.....but then everything you know about it...you read in a book. Were u in school when the atom was the smallest indivisible particle..is it not "divisible" now?
Everything you know.....you read. None of us have repeated Rutherford model of relativity but we could kill for it cos we were taught since we were babies that it existed.
What proof do YOU have that mercury & Mars & Venus do exist? Ur books? Ave u ever personally looked thru a telescope to see one? Our Prof write 2000page book from reading other books so don't preach to me about waves.
Gravity, Atoms, Light & Waves are all concept on which facts rest on.
Cells YOU have not seen.....Electrons YOU have not & you're explaining how a mobile phone works. You try oo

I don't think you've followed my posts mr, Scientific premises are open to test (reasoning) for stronger evidence...Please do check my posts on this thread and stop blabbing and for all the bolded you see i have personally observed. Science is not elusively constant.....It evolves with reasoning.

Cheers

If Religion be logic,there would be more than a billion reason never to believe..

all4naija: If we are to go by your immaterial soul explanation, the soul thing becomes different from what we know it to be made up to be - of thoughts, moralities, sense of emotions and identity. These can be predicted based on individual reactions to some degree to make choices.I doubt what you are speculating about should be called soul in sense of reality, that is, leaving the spiritual(baseless idea) out of it.

However, mathematics and its formulas have no bearing in this soul thing which is more a non-quantifiable. On the other hand mathematics is an abstract science of number(soul cannot be counted), quantity(which soul doesn't have) and space(soul has no particular area) which you are trying to mix up in this regard. resorting to complication might as well makes one misses the reality of what soul is and also gives wrong definition to it.

Supposedly, the soul we posses based on abilities to interpreted them through the eye of mind(the telescope to transcend - figuratively not necessarily), the brain(where most of these thoughts are made and processed),etc are immaterial only as you said, the eyes and brain wouldn't have be able to process them based on their nature. We cannot see them(but we process them with the aid of the mind) don't mean they are immaterial only.Mathematics is an evidence of abstract activity and the dark matter is another thing that comes to mind we can't see yet exist in space. This proves that we are only limited by our abilities. In fact, it comes to prove the question the reasons why scientists make use of aiding materials to see and interact with these things in nature.

There is no need resorting to complicate things to better have understanding of what is necessary on what soul is all about.

thank for helping me prove that materialism is illogical.
Peace

all4naija: No. Your inordinate rant about what life is has no definite direction rather than to be accepted science has no evidence in defining what life is. If what life is by definition is wrong from my statement then you are the one complicating issue. Your question is that what life is? And the answer by definition is what I presented to you. If your intention is to coerce me to explain it beyond what nature has presented to us then it is no longer what life is but something else which is out of nature and not longer a real world phenomenon.

as much as i dont appreciate ur use of d word 'rant' i would ignore it. Go and ask ur english teacher to teach u how to define, u cant repeat d word u are defining the same definition. If u dont know that i certainly cant help u.
Peace

mkmyers45: Please clearly define your alternative in your own words..Its important for further discuss

my alternative to materialism is dualism.
Peace

all4naija: There is no argument here. Those who have looked through the telescope prove they are. It doesn't necessarily mean he needs to look through telescope before he can prove something. Just as it is not required of you to visit New York city to know that such a city bombed twin center is under construction exist(there are images of it on news media everyday).

I still think you misunderstand science and its theories. Science never says it understand it all but religion on the other hand says it is encompassing and final premise yet with many discrepancies. Such ideology I can't buy into as a reasonable human being.

You talk about those who ave looked thru the telescope like you ave a first person eye witness.
The discourse isn't about the ones who saw thru d telescope...Its about the premise on which ur science that u so clearly defend was based on.
No one ever saw gravity...it evolved out of a reasonable explanation of what we can't explain. Who told us its 9.8*** & a lot of theories are based on that. What apenz when we're told its no longer that. Everything we call science keeps changing and u call science logic with proven facts?
If they told you about WIFI 80 years ago....it sounded like rocket science then....but we seem to take it in a stride now.
You need to experiment to prove conclusively that what you know is right and until then...everything you know now is based on faith in what u read & not what you've seen
N/B - everyone believed the world was round once & it was with good reasons.
BOTTOMLINE- Whenever science is at par with religion....choose religion. That's the only one that will not change

infolekan:
You talk about those who ave looked thru the telescope like you ave a first person eye witness.
The discourse isn't about the ones who saw thru d telescope...Its about the premise on which ur science that u so clearly defend was based on.
No one ever saw gravity...it evolved out of a reasonable explanation of what we can't explain. Who told us its 9.8*** & a lot of theories are based on that. What apenz when we're told its no longer that. Everything we call science keeps changing and u call science logic with proven facts?
If they told you about WIFI 80 years ago....it sounded like rocket science then....but we seem to take it in a stride now.
You need to experiment to prove conclusively that what you know is right and until then...everything you know now is based on faith in what u read & not what you've seen
N/B - everyone believed the world was round once & it was with good reasons.
BOTTOMLINE- Whenever science is at par with religion....choose religion. That's the only one that will not change

The fact that Science acknowledges and seeks higher evidence makes it logical so dont give me that bs about change. Is change permanent? p.s: u skipped my post?

Ubenedictus: as much as i dont appreciate ur use of d word 'rant' i would ignore it. Go and ask ur english teacher to teach u how to define, u cant repeat d word u are defining the same definition. If u dont know that i certainly cant help u.
Peace

You are only exercising your ineptitude here. As if definition has convention. Please, first get your I right before educating me on definition.

my alternative to materialism is dualism.

You can accept whatever you deemed right. Doesn't it reflect the fact of reality? On the other hand science and religion can't mix. Negative and positive can't be the same thing, you better accept one by being reasonable or accept the other based on indoctrination.

infolekan:
You talk about those who ave looked thru the telescope like you ave a first person eye witness.
The discourse isn't about the ones who saw thru d telescope...Its about the premise on which ur science that u so clearly defend was based on.
No one ever saw gravity...it evolved out of a reasonable explanation of what we can't explain. Who told us its 9.8*** & a lot of theories are based on that. What apenz when we're told its no longer that. Everything we call science keeps changing and u call science logic with proven facts?
If they told you about WIFI 80 years ago....it sounded like rocket science then....but we seem to take it in a stride now.
You need to experiment to prove conclusively that what you know is right and until then...everything you know now is based on faith in what u read & not what you've seen
N/B - everyone believed the world was round once & it was with good reasons.
BOTTOMLINE- Whenever science is at par with religion....choose religion. That's the only one that will not change

I believe only the ignorant would accept the line in bold. Everything changes, that is a 100% fact!