The nature of 'spirit'

[QED]

We often hear talk of 'spirit' as if it was some aether-like entity that permeates space. In another debate I mentioned to Joer that positive human spirits such as generosity and kindness could be seen as logical entities arising from Game Theory. Here rules are developed through the application of various cooperative strategies with Evolution, qua trial and error, selecting and fixing the most successful of these into the human genome. Joer appears to want to test this against some alternative explanation as he outlined here...

I was interested in seeing "Proofs" or demonstrable “tests” of the "tenets of Spirit" that QED and I posited in this thread. I did it in the interest of proving the existence of GOD. QED claimed that "spirit" is “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

If you review a few pages back you’ll see:

QED said:
At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source when, in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.

Then I said:
And as you so aptly describe instances in the concept of evolution in the physical realm. So to can you easily see the parallel to evolution of the concept of GOD in the Spiritual realm. From totems and spirits inhabiting water, stone, trees, to Gods of the sun moon planets etc. on to today where the concept of God is evolving to the initiator essence of all that is know and the unknown.

I mean I don’t really see a lot of difference in the processes of evolution. Only in the subject matter the evolutionary process in theory is being applied to. Do you see any difference other than that OED?
QED said:
Quote:
I'm just as much a sucker for a really good hunch as the next guy.

Good that keeps us game.
QED said:
Quote:
Just so long as it isn't contradicted by any simple observation.


And that remains too be seen. Perhaps we can soon get into what is getting contradicted, by what observation and how simple the observation really is. I wouldn’t mind that. The empirical data observed and gathered from the test we apply.

I’d like to see if we can agree on something to test. I’d liked to see what we could come up with for an experiment.

QED said:
This spirit has not being channeled down from above the clouds, it has lain in wait in logic for ever. Make of that what you will

Joer said:
This is interesting maybe we can develop some tests for "spirit". Maybe you can come up with a test of Spirit through game theory and I can come up with a test of Spirit through invocation via Prayer. Than we’d have to try to setup some blinds for each test and regulate the observation to the tightest controls we can muster without to much difficulty. Spirit in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving as being controlled by “the large neo-cortex (the part of the brain that does all the planning and reflecting).” To perhaps counter the effects of the amygdala, which you say, “ provides instinctive reactions like aggression, nurture, fear and desire”.

What do you say QED? Want to test your Game Theory of Spirit against the God Theory of Spirit to compare and contrast the results and compile data form those results?

All of this discussion on “Spirit” developed originally from what seems like an “a priori” acceptance by McCulloch and QED of the existence of Santa Claus…Maybe Hugh DP can say if this looks like an “a priori”

According to: Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. states:

Santa Claus does exist in this capacity: “most adults view Santa as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”

McCulluch said:

If believers in God believed in God like you believe in Santa Claus, then I would not have any difficulties with it.

QED said:

I absolutely agree with McCulloch

.

So the discussion of Spirit is a building block to step up to the existence of GOD. Which is necessary to validate any discussion this thread on whether or not The Bible is the Word of God. Even Cephus agreed with me on that as you can see in the previous pages so I don’t have to keep bringing everything forward to clarify. Any post by an atheist about the percentage of the Bible being the Word of God would be null because they don’t even believe in GOD. So we can work on the preliminary proofs here as we have been or move it somewhere else and make this a Believers Only thread since it would only be valid for them as believers in the existence in God to post. Isn’t that logical?

Personally if QED or others are willing to continue the establishment of whether:

“spirit” is, “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

OR
As I said:

“Spirit”, “in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving…”

OR

BOTH.

OR

Something all together different.

So QED or anyone else care to show me “proof” or demonstrate “spirit” “as quantified in game theory?” I’d like to try to see if there’s anything in your demonstration that I can relate the “Spirit” of God to. So I can attempt to make it relevant to atheists as well as believers. I might end up alienating both believers and atheists but that’s the risk for finding a common denominator. I’m willing to take it, if an atheist is willing to work with me backing up their point of view. That way I can have their part of the equation that needs to be resolved. And we can do something other than lip service to the complaint:

One thing everybody complains about is, "just because you say it doesn't it make it so."

Thank you for your participation.

I suggest we use this thread to debate the nature of spirit.

[joer]

Thank You QED and Hugh for the answers. I think you're right QED about people attributing things to something mysteriously outside themselves and calling it Spirit. I can also see how that is something hat doesn't annoy you exactly but is somewhat disagreeable to you. Because they are being lazy in assertaining an adequate understanding of what is going on. Well maybe I'm projecting some of my own impressions onto you.

And your right about the complexity of the universe within and cosmas without ourselves. But I think our propensity to look beyond our current conceptual methods for understanding these things will lead us to discover even more exciting conceptual developments that give us an even more profound understanding of what goes on around us.

Hugh the thought of it raining Penguins in funny to me except the idea of being caught out in the rain and getting pounded with penguins. LOL

Hugh you play Stairway to Heaven and I'll keep looking for it. I'll be back with more in search of spirit.

[HughDP]

Hugh you play Stairway to Heaven

Have no fear joer, the 70's was my 'era' musically. Whilst 'Stairway To Heaven' was possibly a bit early in my musical era (I was 7 when it was released), I know the song well and like it. It's never a problem for me to listen to it, that's for certain. A classic.

I'll play it on my gramaphone and think 'spirit'!

The fact that I think spirit is, at root, just a bunch of perceptions doesn't detract from the fact that one can get an extraordinary feeling of spirit from some things.

[joer]

I'm at an impasse. I can work from the position of prayer as an invocation of the intelligent Spirit in Nature to guide us. But I don't think I can QED that way, as he seems quite opposed to anything associated with prayer even when expressed in the scientific psychological equivalent. But if I can do some research and find a physical science approach in the form of the energy expressed by the intelligent Spiritual energy's interaction with us, perhaps I can reach him (QED) that way.

But I'm not aware of any evidence of the physical energy footprint of the Spirit's guidance to us. I'm going to see if I can find something on that or see if something else comes to me while looking for it. So I just wanted to let you Hugh and QED what's I'm up too. If you happen to run into anything like that in your travels even if you're not into that idea can you pass the information on to me so I can take a look at it?

Thank You my friends. May the natural spirit of positive forces as you conceive of it be with you.

I figure it'll be a couple of days before I find something so rare as a hint of the energy footprint of Nature's intelligent spiritual interaction with Nature's Human kind. So if you have any idea as to what direction to point me to find that, even though it's not your side of the debate, feel free to point in that direction. Thanks friends.

[QED]

joer, just what is it that draws you to conclude that there is an "intelligence" in nature? Perhaps it's the appearance of design seen in living things or the "just right" values of the physical constants which ultimately furnish life with a suitable habitiat?

I don't draw the same conclusions in these cases. Working with the principles of natural selection in Genetic Programming shows me novel designs emerging from non-intelligent generators. Thus the principle of natural selection explains for me what most likely lies behind all the apparent design seen in nature -- the source of inspiration for GP in the first place.

The Anthropic Principle also renders the remarkable "coincidences" in the physical constants devoid of meaning; the coincidences are absolutely necessary for our ability to consider them. Adding one more ingredient -- the assumption that this is not the only universe to exist (an everyday proposition in cosmology) -- accounts for what could only otherwise be "divine tinkering".

Thus some of the certainties that many people hold as self-evident are not so certain after all. Assumptions about the nature of spirit and other things that are challenged by our inability to place them on a scientific footing consequently become vulnerable on two scores; not only are they unscientific -- they are also unnecessary.

[joer]

QED I understand what you are saying about Natural-Selection and how you believe it to sufficiently explained in

"the principles of natural selection in Genetic Programming shows me novel designs emerging from non-intelligent generators. Thus the principle of natural selection explains for me what most likely lies behind all the apparent design seen in nature -- the source of inspiration for GP in the first place. "

But from these "non-intelligent generators" comes the "Genetic Programming" for Human Intelligence and ALL intelligence know to man. It kind of interesting when you look at the juxtaposition of Intelligence coming from NON-INTELLIGENT generators. It would seem that intelligence would be more intelligent than non-intelligence but your saying that our intelligence in contained within and emerges from Non-intelligent generators that exist within the concepts of genetic Programming that exists within the Principles of Natural Selection.

It's a funny feeling I get trying to conceive of that limitation on our intelligence. Our intelligence in that scenario seems to be such a small part of Nature and nothing more than a naturally generated mechanical product that exists within the limits of the natural changes extant in our small part of a much larger Natural World. And yet without our intelligence, Nature as far as we are concerned would not exist. For without our intelligence we could not even conceive of any of these things or concepts that define Nature as we know and project it.

Doesn't that seem strange to you QED, to conceive of ourselves of being an existence contained within the confines of a concept that we projected?

And then you bring up what seems to be a favorite argument disabler of yours, the Anthropic Principle. We've already shown that AP not only renders any argument I can make devoid of meaning but also any argument you can make like "the principles of natural selection in Genetic Programming shows me novel designs emerging from non-intelligent generators." devoid of meaning.

So what's the point of continuing to invoke the Anthropic Principle? I thought we were through with that?

Since we can project such an anal introverted concept of ourselves like being an existence contained within the confines of a concept of Genetic Programming designs emerging from non-intelligent generators, why can't we project ourselves as being Genetic Programming designs emerging from an intelligent generator. And why can't we call that Intelligent Natural generator God or something guided by God?

Is it because we've developed better ambiguous proofs according to Anthropic Principle to support our projected theory of our self-containment within the projected concept of Natural Selection?

If we have been able to do exactly that so convincingly that you QED and maybe Hugh and others believe so profoundly in those ambiguous concepts projected from of non-intelligent generated Intelligence;

why can't you accept someone striving to find some other convincing ambiguous proofs that we haven't conceived of yet to support what many believe to be a higher projected theory of our self existence emerging from an Intelligent Natural generator called God or something guided by God?

The difference between your projected concept of our existence and mine is that you have more a convincing Anthropically ambiguous proof than I do. So I'm trying to find more convincing Anthropically ambiguous proof to support my projected concept of our human existence so that you might at least find some merit to my Anthropically ambiguous concept as you find in your Anthropically ambiguous concept.

I'm being very redundant hoping that you grasp what I'm trying to say. I don't know if it will work. You may try to acknowledge what I'm saying or you may just say you have no idea what I'm talking about. But there may be others that can follow the logic.

Basically the both our concepts begin on an equal footing when viewed within the light of the Anthropic Principle. But your concept has a proof that is more scientifically acceptable, even though Anthropically that is ambiguous at best. While my concept is currently acceptable by faith BUT has the potential to garner at least as viable a scientific proof that yours now has when both are viewed through the concepts of the Anthropic Principle.

Wouldn't you agree QED?

[HughDP]

If we have been able to do exactly that so convincingly that you QED and maybe Hugh and others believe so profoundly in those ambiguous concepts projected from of non-intelligent generated Intelligence;

why can't you accept someone striving to find some other convincing ambiguous proofs that we haven't conceived of yet to support what many believe to be a higher projected theory of our self existence emerging from an Intelligent Natural generator called God or something guided by God?

Joer, the way I look at is that it's way too easy to fall back on the idea of God when we meet ambiguity or find it difficult to explain something.

Why even bother to introduce God into the equation? What is so wrong with stating that we don't know fully yet or there are ambiguities in the science, but we'll work towards explaining it with science?

It just seems that sometimes the desire to include God in the equation is the only reason He's there. He doesn't necessarily need to be. God is being taken as a prerequisite to studies on spirit and being made to fit in, rather than as a logical conclusion of investigations into spirit.

I've always found that arguing God from a point of science is very unconvincing. Scientists often say they don't know, but they push on and explanations often eventually emerge. If science reached a 'final' conclusion (if one could imagine such a thing) that something is impossible, yet is happening, then maybe there's a reason to consider the supernatural.

You see, I think you're trying to introduce God into the spirit by countering the science that says otherwise or adding to that science in some way. If God has anything to do with spirit then it surely must be in some supernatural way beyond the scientific explanations of how spirit manifests itself. His involvement in spirit is, in fact, nothing to do with science. Perhaps science can explain all there is to do with spirit, yet - for the believer - it can still have the hand of God in it.

Isn't that what the supernatural's all about?

[QED]

Doesn't that seem strange to you QED, to conceive of ourselves of being an existence contained within the confines of a concept that we projected?

I'm trying to grasp your objection here joer. It's as though you're sure that human intelligence is special in some way but I don't think you can pin it down. Given that NASA makes use of non-intelligent design generators to deliver them with designs for spacecraft radio antennas that are better than the ones their smartest engineers can produce, I think it throws a spanner in the usual works of defining exactly what intelligence is and where it can reside. Before you, or anyone else goes chasing tails around, the "intellect" leading to design propositions within the generator is ultimately random choice shaped and selected by specific criteria. None of the engineers intellect or knowledge is leaking into the design product. In general, an engineer who sets up a design generator need know nothing at all about the historical technological methods employed to produce such a design.

I think when we look at all the various forms of life on this planet we are presented with a definite gradient of intelligence. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to see this gradient as a reflection of a confinement within some system -- but that's not to say that the system isn't open-ended.

And then you bring up what seems to be a favorite argument disabler of yours, the Anthropic Principle.

Just a mo, I'm not sure you've got this straight. For example we could say that it's very fortuitous that the Earth's atmosphere has just the right ratio of gasses for our respiration (we might think some kindly God made it that way especially for us) OR we could conclude that we adapted to the atmosphere that was there. Both views could be right, but I think there's more than just philosophy to guide us to the correct interpretation.

We've already shown that AP not only renders any argument I can make devoid of meaning but also any argument you can make like "the principles of natural selection in Genetic Programming shows me novel designs emerging from non-intelligent generators." devoid of meaning.

The argument rendered devoid of meaning by the AP was that there could only be one interpretation of the "just right" conditions for life found within our universe. The extraordinary "coincidences" of the physical constants cannot lead us to a specific conclusion while we lack the bigger picture that would allow us to see if this was truly remarkable or not. If we could see many other universes with different constants around us, we would find ourselves in a similar position as we are when considering the "fortuitous" composition of the Earth's atmosphere.

[joer]

Hugh how are you doing? It’s 2:43 am here. I was just getting ready for bed and I received your email notification of your post. That was quick.

You wrote:

Joer, the way I look at is that it's way too easy to fall back on the idea of God when we meet ambiguity or find it difficult to explain something.

Actually Hugh your are exactly right. That’s why I’ve chosen the difficult path of trying to discover something that as far as I know doesn’t exist yet. A scientific proof of the concept of "Spirit" or "spirit of God" that as I said in my last post that is at least as strong or close to the strength of the scientific evidence supporting Natural Selection. In order to do that using the Anthropic Principle and logic I showed how tenuous natural Selection really is. Even though it doesn’t appear that way to us today.
Because today it’s the best explanation we have.

But if you look at it in the perspective of historical longevity of ideas that come and go as scientific discoveries that support newer concepts occur. And they more adeptly explain the natural phenomena that we encounter daily in our lives, then it’s more plausible to project the possibility of a future scientific explanation of phenomena that would be more apropos.

It most certainly doesn’t make it easier to find that scientific discovery. You have to do the work. I don’t expect to find a proof right away. But I don’t want to reject the hypothesis either. I don’t mind you saying that it’s not true (the existence of Natural intelligent spirit in nature that is not derived from our being but influences it), but at least don’t tell me it’s not possible. You can say it’s not probable but not that it’s not possible.

I don’t even see evidence that you understand what I’m saying. I’m not falling back on the idea of God to explain anything. I want to attempt to prove the existence of natural intelligent spirit or find scientific evidence indicating it as a possibility. I’m repeated surprised that you can’t see my intent and purpose and understand how challenging it really is and how different it is from the archaic concepts of Spirit and God you keep trying to pin on me. I spend more time trying to shake those old perceptions off of me than I do trying to find new territory to explore.

You continue:

Why even bother to introduce God into the equation? What is so wrong with stating that we don't know fully yet or there are ambiguities in the science, but we'll work towards explaining it with science?

As stated previously I believe it is a higher concept to aspire to. To find a better model of the explanation of our existence. Even if it just tweaks the existing model if it’s better, why not look for it? I mean what is research all about? Finding better ways to explain and understand things right? There gets to be a point where accepted knowledge reaches a limit and soemthing more is needed to reach new levels of understanding (ie GR theory, Quatun theory, "M" theory) Why don’t we just stick with GR and Quantum? Why do we have to delve into “M”? GR and Quatum are complex enough. Right? We don’t need “M”. We can function without it. Sure we can but we can also dream of the possibilities “M” theory promises. It’s our Nature to explore it.

Why can’t some people see it’s no difference to be in our Nature to explore God theory or Spirit theory?

You wrote:

It just seems that sometimes the desire to include God in the equation is the only reason He's there. He doesn't necessarily need to be. God is being taken as a prerequisite to studies on spirit and being made to fit in, rather than as a logical conclusion of investigations into spirit.

Not in this case. In this case "spirit of God" and "spirit" are on one side of the equation and natural selection and other concepts are on the other. But just as you move values from one side of the equation to the other in order to resolve the equation, so to in this case values begin to be reduced and moved around in the equation in the attempt to find a resolution.

You continue:

I've always found that arguing God from a point of science is very unconvincing. Scientists often say they don't know, but they push on and explanations often eventually emerge. If science reached a 'final' conclusion (if one could imagine such a thing) that something is impossible, yet is happening, then maybe there's a reason to consider the supernatural.

I understand. But that’s the same historically of any new explanation of something. It’s rejected by the foremost scientists until the maverick scientist on his own finds the evidence that proves his rebellious theory. Then the science changes when The wildcat scientists’ evidence is to compelling to continue to reject. So it is here. The onus is on me as having the weakest position scientifically to prove it.

You conclude with:

You see, I think you're trying to introduce God into the spirit by countering the science that says otherwise or adding to that science in some way. If God has anything to do with spirit then it surely must be in some supernatural way beyond the scientific explanations of how spirit manifests itself. His involvement in spirit is, in fact, nothing to do with science. Perhaps science can explain all there is to do with spirit, yet - for the believer - it can still have the hand of God in it.

Isn't that what the supernatural's all about?

Actually that’s not it. As I tried to show before in this thread, I’m trying to analyze the scientific concepts and principles that QED and others use and couch the theories of "Spirit" and /or "God as it relates to spirit" in those terms to at least begin my tremendous task at an acceptable scientific level in principle.

But I can’t even get you guys to maintain a consistent conceptual view of the terms I’m trying to couch my hypothesis in. You keep reverting to old archaic concepts of GOD and ignoring the redefinitions of the concepts of God and Spirit that I’m trying to establish so I can proceed. I leave the thread for a while looking for something new to bring to you and you start throwing the old concepts of God and Spirit back at me. Than I have to look back through pages and pages of thread to find where I explained it before or restate the same concept in new terms. Here’s what I mean:

A few pages back I dealt with this same "supernatural" argument that you are repeating here. Here’s what I said:

Now to clarify what I was saying: I was NOT saying “that some human behaviours are directed (motivated?) by a supernatural entity that exists outside our scientific detection range.”

I’m saying, that some human behaviours are motivated by a natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range. The reason we call it supernatural is because we haven’t detected it scientifically yet. And as such it has no scientific proof of existence.

But what ever logic you use to account for the life saving, self-sacrificing behaviour I described will probably also account for the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range, or what I call the behaviour guided by the "spirit of God".

And I continue with the task of trying to couch "Spirit" or "Spirit of God" in terms acceptable to You and QED.

So I get “the spirit of God” is congruous with but not equal to “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”. That’s a bit different than what you said it seemed like I was saying. What do you think about that?

I mean Hugh honestly have you ever heard of the Concept of “spirit” or “spirit of God” being expressed as “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 0419#60419

Maybe I should copy this into the beginning of each post.

For the purposes of this discussion I am defining Spirit or “the spirit of God” as congruous with but not equal to “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”.

Would that work to keep from getting repeated arguments about the same things? MAYBE WE CAN MAKE A LIST OF A PRIORI’S for the purposes of this discussion to avoid confusion when we are pages and days ahead of where we were.

What do you think Hugh and QED

Now it's 4:11am here. I'll see you guys tonight. I hope your week end was enjoyable. It was Mother's day here Sunday. I visited seven Mothers in my family. It was great. Be Well gentlemen.

[QED]

That’s why I’ve chosen the difficult path of trying to discover something that as far as I know doesn’t exist yet...

...I’m not falling back on the idea of God to explain anything. I want to attempt to prove the existence of natural intelligent spirit or find scientific evidence indicating it as a possibility.

I think we have to be concerned about the approach you seem to be taking here. If one wishes to prove something one can always go out looking for evidence and find something that fits. This characterises the approach taken by many religious fundamentalists who neglect those things that do not fit in order to construct a picture that they started out with in the first place.

[HughDP]

Hugh how are you doing? It’s 2:43 am here. I was just getting ready for bed and I received your email notification of your post. That was quick.

Apologies for keeping you up so late joer. If I was you I'd have ignored my post until the morning!

You wrote:

Joer, the way I look at is that it's way too easy to fall back on the idea of God when we meet ambiguity or find it difficult to explain something.

Actually Hugh your are exactly right. That’s why I’ve chosen the difficult path of trying to discover something that as far as I know doesn’t exist yet. A scientific proof of the concept of "Spirit" or "spirit of God" that as I said in my last post that is at least as strong or close to the strength of the scientific evidence supporting Natural Selection. In order to do that using the Anthropic Principle and logic I showed how tenuous natural Selection really is. Even though it doesn’t appear that way to us today.
Because today it’s the best explanation we have.

But if you look at it in the perspective of historical longevity of ideas that come and go as scientific discoveries that support newer concepts occur. And they more adeptly explain the natural phenomena that we encounter daily in our lives, then it’s more plausible to project the possibility of a future scientific explanation of phenomena that would be more apropos.

It most certainly doesn’t make it easier to find that scientific discovery. You have to do the work. I don’t expect to find a proof right away. But I don’t want to reject the hypothesis either. I don’t mind you saying that it’s not true (the existence of Natural intelligent spirit in nature that is not derived from our being but influences it), but at least don’t tell me it’s not possible. You can say it’s not probable but not that it’s not possible.

Okay. If you are looking for a scientific theory to describe spirit above and beyond what science already presents us, that's very distinct from introducing anything which at the outset is defined as supernatural (in the true sense ... i.e. not just 'unknown' and therefore called supernatural).

I don’t even see evidence that you understand what I’m saying. I’m not falling back on the idea of God to explain anything. I want to attempt to prove the existence of natural intelligent spirit or find scientific evidence indicating it as a possibility.

Okay, so we're sticking purely to science - albeit proposing new directions in which it might go - and shall not touch anything supernatural at all. That's fine with me.

I’m repeated surprised that you can’t see my intent and purpose and understand how challenging it really is and how different it is from the archaic concepts of Spirit and God you keep trying to pin on me. I spend more time trying to shake those old perceptions off of me than I do trying to find new territory to explore.

Apologies. I understand what you're saying. I would caution, however, that if we touch the supernatural in any way, we are drifting into God territory regardless of the label one puts on it.

You continue:

Why even bother to introduce God into the equation? What is so wrong with stating that we don't know fully yet or there are ambiguities in the science, but we'll work towards explaining it with science?

As stated previously I believe it is a higher concept to aspire to. To find a better model of the explanation of our existence. Even if it just tweaks the existing model if it’s better, why not look for it?

Granted.

I mean what is research all about? Finding better ways to explain and understand things right? There gets to be a point where accepted knowledge reaches a limit and soemthing more is needed to reach new levels of understanding (ie GR theory, Quatun theory, "M" theory) Why don’t we just stick with GR and Quantum? Why do we have to delve into “M”? GR and Quatum are complex enough. Right? We don’t need “M”. We can function without it. Sure we can but we can also dream of the possibilities “M” theory promises. It’s our Nature to explore it.

Point taken.

Why can’t some people see it’s no difference to be in our Nature to explore God theory or Spirit theory?

Because it is different. God is supernatural a priori to anything else so if we are to explore God we need to accept that science will never be a tool we can use to do so. 'Spirit theory' is different entirely if the concept is taken from a scientific viewpoint.

You wrote:

It just seems that sometimes the desire to include God in the equation is the only reason He's there. He doesn't necessarily need to be. God is being taken as a prerequisite to studies on spirit and being made to fit in, rather than as a logical conclusion of investigations into spirit.

Not in this case. In this case "spirit of God" and "spirit" are on one side of the equation and natural selection and other concepts are on the other.

Woah ... hang on. I thought we were saying that 'spirit of God' is on the one, supernatural side of the equation and everything else - including 'spirit' - is on the other side, the scientific side. We have to bring our theories onto the scientific side.

But just as you move values from one side of the equation to the other in order to resolve the equation, so to in this case values begin to be reduced and moved around in the equation in the attempt to find a resolution.

You continue:

I've always found that arguing God from a point of science is very unconvincing. Scientists often say they don't know, but they push on and explanations often eventually emerge. If science reached a 'final' conclusion (if one could imagine such a thing) that something is impossible, yet is happening, then maybe there's a reason to consider the supernatural.

I understand. But that’s the same historically of any new explanation of something. It’s rejected by the foremost scientists until the maverick scientist on his own finds the evidence that proves his rebellious theory. Then the science changes when The wildcat scientists’ evidence is to compelling to continue to reject. So it is here. The onus is on me as having the weakest position scientifically to prove it.

Quite so, but scientific theories that arrive at the conclusion that something is "because of God", "because of supernatural things we can't measure" or similar do not fit into thie 'maverick' category.

I fully agree that one needs to think outside of the box in science - some of the greatest discoveries have come about because of that - but if we either start with the supernatural or finish with it, then we've moved away from science and into the realms of philosophy.

You conclude with:

You see, I think you're trying to introduce God into the spirit by countering the science that says otherwise or adding to that science in some way. If God has anything to do with spirit then it surely must be in some supernatural way beyond the scientific explanations of how spirit manifests itself. His involvement in spirit is, in fact, nothing to do with science. Perhaps science can explain all there is to do with spirit, yet - for the believer - it can still have the hand of God in it.

Isn't that what the supernatural's all about?

Actually that’s not it. As I tried to show before in this thread, I’m trying to analyze the scientific concepts and principles that QED and others use and couch the theories of "Spirit" and /or "God as it relates to spirit" in those terms to at least begin my tremendous task at an acceptable scientific level in principle.

But I can’t even get you guys to maintain a consistent conceptual view of the terms I’m trying to couch my hypothesis in. You keep reverting to old archaic concepts of GOD and ignoring the redefinitions of the concepts of God and Spirit that I’m trying to establish so I can proceed. I leave the thread for a while looking for something new to bring to you and you start throwing the old concepts of God and Spirit back at me. Than I have to look back through pages and pages of thread to find where I explained it before or restate the same concept in new terms. Here’s what I mean:

A few pages back I dealt with this same "supernatural" argument that you are repeating here. Here’s what I said:

Now to clarify what I was saying: I was NOT saying “that some human behaviours are directed (motivated?) by a supernatural entity that exists outside our scientific detection range.”

I’m saying, that some human behaviours are motivated by a natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range. The reason we call it supernatural is because we haven’t detected it scientifically yet. And as such it has no scientific proof of existence.

But what ever logic you use to account for the life saving, self-sacrificing behaviour I described will probably also account for the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range, or what I call the behaviour guided by the "spirit of God".

And I continue with the task of trying to couch "Spirit" or "Spirit of God" in terms acceptable to You and QED.

So I get “the spirit of God” is congruous with but not equal to “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”. That’s a bit different than what you said it seemed like I was saying. What do you think about that?

I mean Hugh honestly have you ever heard of the Concept of “spirit” or “spirit of God” being expressed as “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 0419#60419

Maybe I should copy this into the beginning of each post.

For the purposes of this discussion I am defining Spirit or “the spirit of God” as congruous with but not equal to “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”.

Would that work to keep from getting repeated arguments about the same things? MAYBE WE CAN MAKE A LIST OF A PRIORI’S for the purposes of this discussion to avoid confusion when we are pages and days ahead of where we were.

What do you think Hugh and QED

Okay, I understand now.

When you say:

For the purposes of this discussion I am defining Spirit or “the spirit of God” as congruous with but not equal to “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”.

Then presumably the proof of your theory would be the subsequent detection of this energy or intelligence?

Now it's 4:11am here. I'll see you guys tonight. I hope your week end was enjoyable. It was Mother's day here Sunday. I visited seven Mothers in my family. It was great. Be Well gentlemen.

Sleep well joer.