The Soul and Spirit Does exist!!

by JamesG 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  2SYN

  The things I say in this thread are entirely based on things I've read, and may or may not be true, or even possible, but they are interesting!

  Gumby says:

  If a man was dead for 3 days and FROZEN upon death....then he is thawed out and he is brought back to life by medical science somehow.........would he still have a memory? A personality? You cannot freeze a living person and expect to revive them. Most of the cells in the body will explode rather violently as the water crystallizes inside them. Current research suggests that the body can be lowered until it's temperature is only a very tiny amount ABOVE freezing point, and the metabolism is slowed down tremendously. But then, the person wouldn't exactly be dead, would they?

  What about.....spirituality? A mother wakes up at night at 4 in the morning because she feels something happened to her son who lives 1000 miles away. She calls to find out he was killed in an automobile accident. She KNEW something was wrong......how? What in her brain cells would KNOW that. This thing you are talking about is very hard to prove and reprove in a laboratory, so I'm leaving it alone

  Heres another. Two twins seperated at birth that grew up apart from one another not knowing the other existed until they are grown. See above!
• 

  JanH

  Frank,

  Thanks for sharing your sentiments. I think I have covered most of the ground in this thread and its sister thread

  I also said what I mean about faith here.

  I think your grossly underestimate the importance of Turning's work, btw. Or perhaps I just misunderstand you.

  However, that being said, we seem to have no problem with faith in science. And many people seem to think that the role of science is to discover truth. I'm sure you're aware that science does no such thing.

  It is true that science sets much less ambitious goals than finding "the truth." That is why it has been successfull, IMO. "Truth" is too large a word for humans to handle sometimes. Science is a methodology in explaining the known world that has proven immensely successful. And in so doring, it has gotten us as close to "the truth" as we can possibly get. It is my strong opinions that every other methodology is somewhere between speculative and nonsensical. Many forms of philosophy belongs to the former category; religion tends to be in the latter.

  - Jan.
• 

  Francois

  Jan:

  I'll certainly agree that each time religion has mixed it up with science, religion has lost and spectacularly at that.

  Only time will answer most of the questions about ultimates in science or spirituality I think. We've just about fulfilled all the potentials available currently in both areas. Are you aware of the "Law of Dissipative Structures" which says that when any system realized all its potentials (potentials are converted to actuals) the system collapes in confusion and reappears in a different form with a new set of potentials? I believe ennunciating this "law" won the Nobel Prize quite a few years ago.

  I'd be interested in your view of the application of this law to science given your apparent agreement with Horgan.

  Frank
• 

  JanH

  Frank,

  Are you aware of the "Law of Dissipative Structures" which says that when any system realized all its potentials (potentials are converted to actuals) the system collapes in confusion and reappears in a different form with a new set of potentials? I believe ennunciating this "law" won the Nobel Prize quite a few years ago.

  I'd be interested in your view of the application of this law to science given your apparent agreement with Horgan.

  I am vaguely aware of something like that, yes. Is it universal, or does it apply to social systems only?

  It is true that a project requires a goal to keep going forward. When the goals are reached, the structure set up to work on the project has fulfilled its mission.

  However, I don't think this is the case with science. Even though no major breakthroughs -- revolutions -- are on the horizon, there is no end of work to do. Small, steady progress can be made almost indefinately, in my opinion. We are for example in a never-ending fight with diseases. Microbes keep mutating, and something even more dangerous than AIDS can pop up any second. We have seen some of the promises of genetics. I think true progress this area will not be exhausted in many decades, yet. And, of course, technology can keep improving in many areas. Especially, new applications of technology are almost limitless.

  I think it would be a good thing that scientists reach for high goals. I think Horgan, and certainly myself, would be thrilled if a new revoltion in science came along. I don't mind being proved wrong. But those who wait for some particular revolution towards utopia will be disappointed, IMO.

  - Jan
• 

  Francois

  Getting back to the original subject, I'm afraid that the existence of the soul, spirit, and the immaterial world in general cannot be neither proved nor disproved with logic. The only proof for these things exists in personal experience in and with the immaterial realm. For another person who has had a similiar experience no words of proof are necessary; for another person who has not had such an experience, no amount of words would be sufficient to prove the experience.

  Perhaps we've reached the current limits of epistemology and need to re-examine many, if not all, of our assumptions. For instance, the Big Bang has pretty much been accepted for decades as the starting point for the universe. Recently, however, some have begun to question the accuracy of that theory. I personally have never supported the Big Bang theory and I cannot tell you why. I can only state that I always had an intuitive suspicion there was something amiss about it.

  I wish there were a way to either prove or disprove the existence of the immaterial world. But then I suspect such proof might be overwhelming and perhaps destructive (remember the Mount of Transfiguration?). Perhaps humans are just not ready for glimpses into the immaterial realm, assuming for the moment it does exist. Until such proof is made available, I fear both sides must engage in what amounts to sentiment.

  Frank