Theist zone

[tackattack]

1- I never said that ignoring evidence is good thing. If you actually read my post (which you did by quoting out of context) I was saying the exact opposite. However you're implying supposing or hypothesizing (going beyond what's right and proper) ignores evidence by default (and by false analogy). In fact it is an integral part of the scientific process. I did not say it is OK to ever ignore evidence, merely that your analogy was false that "going above what's right and proper" is a good thing at times (hypothesizing). As far as my stance on ignoring evidence, I don't feel it's ever proper to ignore evidence. Hope that's clearer and can get over your need to argue and read we're in agreement on this.

I disagree...but what is the point of arguing anymore?

So you disagree with my opinion that it's never proper to ignore evidence... ok...

2a- Sense of time requires no physical or external input. It merely requires the brain to be "on". This informs me that some aspects of the mind are independent of input. While sense of time is stored in the brain there it is clearly not a need for external input

Perhaps vaguely what you are saying fits the medula oblongata. Please give affirmative proof of a soul before you try to act like it exists again.

I did cite indicative proof.. now you're moving the goal posts... ok strike 2

3- The example I showed in a previous post are fairly straightforward. There was no breath, no blood flow, no blood in the brain, no brain electric activity in the brain. I wasn't citing it for any angle on the miraculous or the special, it's not unique. However it does show that identity doesn't cease at death (no matter how complicated your criteria DBP). Then what would hold identity? Monist materialists or any physicalists feel free to answer that question.

And that proves what? that the Christian concept of the soul is correct? Must I remind you again that the soul has not been proven beyond a concept (i.e. "imaginary"). Try again. And stop beating around the bush this time. I want components, dimensions, weights, etc for a soul or otherwise you are full of shit.

We were talking about indicative proof not emperical proof.. so you're looking for emperical evidence of the intangible... ok I'll give you a foul ball on this one..

5- The idea of an IMMORTAL soul is platonic. I never stated that a souls wasn't Biblical, it of course is. As the verse you so aptly quoted shows it isn't immortal if it can be destroyed.

and yet all it is is an idea. And you did state a soul wasn't biblical. You need to be better with your words.

Coming from some who says

You never was clear about your imaginary soul

I don't need grammar advice. Perhaps you're referring to my point 1 in post #100 where I said

1- The idea of an immortal soul is a Platonic influence on Christianity, and not supported by Biblical standards.

So not only are you intellectually dishonest, can't admit when you're wrong , misquote and intentionally throw out ad hominems. You're a hypocritical grammar nazi ... that's way beyond strike 3
I'm not feeding this troll anymore

If anyone else would like to have an intelligent discussion feel free to chime in.