Is apologetics a science?

[McCulloch]

Christian apologetics have always been a form of cognitive science.

Question for debate: Can Christian apologetics be considered a discipline within the field of cognitive science?

[jcrawford]

The concepts of "survival of the fittest," "natural" and "selection" are metaphysical and supernatural in nature.

You are wrong natural selection is not metaphysical nor supernatural, it is testable and verifiable.

Now you are proving my thesis that that which is metaphysical and supernatural can be tested.

Natural selection is not a concept, nor an idea nor a belief it is a fact.

Facts don't exist in nature itself, and can neither be qualified or classified as natural or physical substances, having no physical properties themselves, but are metaphysical and supernatural creations of the human mind and only exist in the form of cognitive and conceptual supernatural knowledge.

[jcrawford]

There is no such thing as a soul,

False premise and presupposition.

all cognition is done in your brain, in your neuron,

Another mindless presumption on your part since there is no observable evidence of that.

kill a part of your brain and you will kill corresponding cognition,

That is the typical psychiatric approach.

i fail to see what the soul does.

At least you take responsibility for the failure of your soul to comprehend itself.

One thing that a soul "does" is believe in its experiences and knowledge, whether it believes in itself or not.

Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.

Who knows that, you or your brain?

Belief is a faculty and function of the soul, no matter what you believe about it, or what those beliefs consist of.

Again brain not soul.

How do you know? What is your cognitive theory? If you have none, then saying that your concept of soul is created by your brain is the religious equivalent of stating that both your brain and soul are creations of God.

Wake up. Think. Use your brain or mind or whatever else you choose to base your cognitive powers on, and at least inform us of the mental or physical processes involved which cause you to believe that you are nothing more than a product of your own brain.

[Cathar1950]

The concepts of "survival of the fittest," "natural" and "selection" are metaphysical and supernatural in nature.

You are wrong natural selection is not metaphysical nor supernatural, it is testable and verifiable.

Now you are proving my thesis that that which is metaphysical and supernatural can be tested.

Natural selection is not a concept, nor an idea nor a belief it is a fact.

Facts don't exist in nature itself, and can neither be qualified or classified as natural or physical substances, having no physical properties themselves, but are metaphysical and supernatural creations of the human mind and only exist in the form of cognitive and conceptual supernatural knowledge.

You make less sense as you explain. How in the world does he prove your quasi thesis? How do you test the supernatural or the metaphysical as both are beyond testing? You have not even made a connection to the physical. Facts have a symbolic relationship to nature thru propositions derived thru observations and experiences. There is nothing supernatural about it. You are overlooking just about all of reality, as we know it. You are confusing human constructs with our experience of the world and your belief in the supernatural. I don’t even know where to start with your disconnected abstractions.
I don’t even see a connection to science in your thesis. Your definitions are so abstruse that you are not even communicating. I am not even sure how to approach your misconceptions.

[Cogitoergosum]

There is no such thing as a soul,

False premise and presupposition.

There is no evidence for a soul then by default the reasonable person will assume it does not exist.

all cognition is done in your brain, in your neuron,

Another mindless presumption on your part since there is no observable evidence of that.

Again ignorance shows here, as there are plenty of observable evidence for that. Read up on PET scans and how they can map your brain, showing you which part is responsible for which perception.

kill a part of your brain and you will kill corresponding cognition,

That is the typical psychiatric approach.

What does that mean? There are volumes of evidence to this effect You just don't know much when it comes to the medical field or else you would not argue that.

i fail to see what the soul does.

At least you take responsibility for the failure of your soul to comprehend itself.

I have no soul.

One thing that a soul "does" is believe in its experiences and knowledge, whether it believes in itself or not.

Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.

Who knows that, you or your brain?

cognitive Me = my brain

Belief is a faculty and function of the soul, no matter what you believe about it, or what those beliefs consist of.

Again brain not soul.

How do you know? What is your cognitive theory? If you have none, then saying that your concept of soul is created by your brain is the religious equivalent of stating that both your brain and soul are creations of God.

I don't see how you linked these two together. Are you trying to confuse me by uttering nonsense? There is no evidence for god or four a soul. i'm comfortable with my brain and how human brains evolved.

Wake up. Think. Use your brain or mind or whatever else you choose to base your cognitive powers on, and at least inform us of the mental or physical processes involved which cause you to believe that you are nothing more than a product of your own brain.

I would explain to you how the brain works, but it will take way too long if you don't have a medical background which you obviously don't, so i'll have to start from the beginning, from GENESIS (lol). Read up for starters on neurons, action potentials, synapses, neurotransmitters and chemicals that alters them. and we'll go on from there.

[jcrawford]

How do you test the supernatural or the metaphysical as both are beyond testing?

You test that which is supernaturally determined to be only natural and physical to see whether there is anything supernatural or metaphysical in it. Since observing and examining the physical processes within the human brain will reveal nothing metaphysical or supernatural about it, then it stands to reason that the only thing metaphysical or supernatural about human beings is their self-conscious assessment of all that which may be said to comprise the experiences of their own minds and their souls.

You have not even made a connection to the physical.

That which is physical exists in and of itself and is the subject of objective observations by the mind and soul. Matter does not consist of mind or soul, but of atomic mass and physical energy. Mental energy and power, not being material in substance or nature, consists only of thoughts, ideas, emotions and willpower, which upon scientific analysis have no physical mass or structure, and may thusly be categorized as being supernatural in terms of their characteristic properties and supernatural nature.

Facts have a symbolic relationship to nature thru propositions derived thru observations and experiences.

A symbolic relationship to nature cannot be said to be part of the natural or physical world but only comes into existence through the supernatural mental functions of our self-conscious souls.

There is nothing supernatural about it.

Nature itself must first be perceived and cognized by the supernatural powers of the human mind in order to be classified and catagorized as "nature" to begin with, since their is nothing natural about nature other than what human beings distinguish it from mental perceptions, metaphysical thoughts, and supernatural ideas about the ontological being and state of nature itself, since nature itself can make no distinctions between what is natural or supernatural.

You are overlooking just about all of reality, as we know it.

Hardly, since I am deconstructing your naive belief and faith in "reality," as you know it, and exposing the metaphysical and supernatural mental constructs upon which your particular sense of reality utterly depends on in order to be taken seriously as a product of rational thought or as a conceivable idea at all.

You are confusing human constructs with our experience of the world and your belief in the supernatural.

No, I am trying to separate them into knowledgable categories in order to defuse your anxiety over the difference between abstract concepts, physical experiences, mental delusions and mere beliefs based on faith in the cognitive powers of our own souls and intellects.

I don’t even know where to start with your disconnected abstractions.

Start with yourself by describing your intellectual powers to us. Then tell us how you distinguish between true knowledge and figments of your imagination.

I don’t even see a connection to science in your thesis.

Since science is based on knowledge, it must be able to explain what kind of knowledge scientists believe in as opposed to the form of knowledge which scientists say one can only believe if one has faith in the object of one's knowledge.

Your definitions are so abstruse that you are not even communicating.

I hope you do not blame that on my brain since my soul takes full responsibility for all which my mind is in control of.

I am not even sure how to approach your misconceptions.

Nobody ever said that a short introduction to cognitive science would be easy.

[jcrawford]

There is no evidence for a soul then by default the reasonable person will assume it does not exist.

What reasonable person might presume to have no soul when they are the embodiment of a living soul?

Read up on PET scans and how they can map your brain, showing you which part is responsible for which perception.

Good thing PET scans are incapable of reading our minds or knowing our thoughts, because if they could we would have no defense against government sanctioned brain scientists then.

There are volumes of evidence to this effect You just don't know much when it comes to the medical field or else you would not argue that.

I know enough about brain science to know that your brain is incapable of generating any thoughts, beliefs or ideas in your mind, and that without being in full possession of a good mind and all of their mental faculties, brain scientists may be a dangerous threat not only to us but to each other.

I have no soul.

You suppress it. Hope you don't do the same with your true personality.

Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.

No evidence of any intelligence in your brain.

cognitive Me = my brain

Spoken like a mindless brain or mindless cognitive scientist.

Again brain not soul.

Have Brain - Will Travel, huh?

There is no evidence for god or four a soul. i'm comfortable with my brain and how human brains evolved.

Besides Dawkin's selfish gene, we now have the comfortable brain.

I would explain to you how the brain works, but it will take way too long if you don't have a medical background which you obviously don't, so i'll have to start from the beginning, from GENESIS (lol). Read up for starters on neurons, action potentials, synapses, neurotransmitters and chemicals that alters them. and we'll go on from there.

I once bought a book titled Mapping the Mind and when I got home and opened it, there were nothing but brain diagrams and schematics in it, since the poor fellows who complied the book obviously had no more explanation for their mind than to fancy it the cognitive creation of some fleshy grey matter wedged between their two ears.

[jcrawford]

There is no evidence for a soul then by default the reasonable person will assume it does not exist.

What reasonable person might presume to have no soul when they are the embodiment of a living soul?

Read up on PET scans and how they can map your brain, showing you which part is responsible for which perception.

Good thing PET scans are incapable of reading our minds or knowing our thoughts, because if they could we would have no defense against government sanctioned brain scientists then.

There are volumes of evidence to this effect You just don't know much when it comes to the medical field or else you would not argue that.

I know enough about brain science to know that your brain is incapable of generating any thoughts, beliefs or ideas in your mind, and that without being in full possession of a good mind and all of their mental faculties, brain scientists may be a dangerous threat not only to us but to each other.

I have no soul.

You suppress it. Hope you don't do the same with your true personality.

Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.

No evidence of any intelligence in your brain.

cognitive Me = my brain

Spoken like a mindless brain or mindless cognitive scientist.

Again brain not soul.

Have Brain - Will Travel, huh?

There is no evidence for god or four a soul. i'm comfortable with my brain and how human brains evolved.

Besides Dawkin's selfish gene, we now have the comfortable brain.

I would explain to you how the brain works, but it will take way too long if you don't have a medical background which you obviously don't, so i'll have to start from the beginning, from GENESIS (lol). Read up for starters on neurons, action potentials, synapses, neurotransmitters and chemicals that alters them. and we'll go on from there.

I once bought a book titled Mapping the Mind and when I got home and opened it, there were nothing but brain diagrams and schematics in it, since the poor fellows who complied the book obviously had no more explanation for their mind than to fancy it a cognitive product of the grey matter wedged between their two ears.

[jcrawford]

There is no evidence for a soul then by default the reasonable person will assume it does not exist.

What reasonable person might presume to have no soul when they are the embodiment of a living soul?

Read up on PET scans and how they can map your brain, showing you which part is responsible for which perception.

Good thing PET scans are incapable of reading our minds or knowing our thoughts, because if they could we would have no defense against government sanctioned brain scientists then.

There are volumes of evidence to this effect You just don't know much when it comes to the medical field or else you would not argue that.

I know enough about brain science to know that your brain is incapable of generating any thoughts, beliefs or ideas in your mind, and that without being in full possession of a good mind and all of their mental faculties, brain scientists may be a dangerous threat not only to us but to each other.

I have no soul.

You suppress it. Hope you don't do the same with your true personality.

Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.

No evidence of any intelligence in your brain.

cognitive Me = my brain

Spoken like a mindless brain or mindless cognitive scientist.

Again brain not soul.

Have Brain - Will Travel, huh?

There is no evidence for god or four a soul. i'm comfortable with my brain and how human brains evolved.

Besides Dawkin's selfish gene, we now have the comfortable brain.

I would explain to you how the brain works, but it will take way too long if you don't have a medical background which you obviously don't, so i'll have to start from the beginning, from GENESIS (lol). Read up for starters on neurons, action potentials, synapses, neurotransmitters and chemicals that alters them. and we'll go on from there.

I once bought a book titled Mapping the Mind and when I got home and opened it, there were nothing but brain diagrams and schematics in it, since the poor fellows who complied the book obviously had no more explanation for their mind than to fancy it a cognitive product of the grey matter wedged between their two ears.

[micatala]

Moderator Note

Still mistaken all these are done in your brain.

No evidence of any intelligence in your brain.

As per the rules, please refrain from personal attacks.

[McCulloch]

What reasonable person might presume to have no soul when they are the embodiment of a living soul?

This statement is either begging the question or equivocation.

cognitive Me = my brain

Spoken like a mindless brain or mindless cognitive scientist.

I would think that the burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. In this case, the positive claim is that there is an entity called soul that is separate from brain. I have seen no evidence of it's existence.