What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Undeceived]

Brian said:
I was pointing out that we should not expect the scientific field to detect the nonmaterial. You and him both implied that the "feeling" mentioned above is material and therefore should have scientific evidence. It is not material, and Brian seemed to acknowledge that here (which admittedly has me confused about his stance). You, on the other hand, are maintaining that the nonmaterial has nothing to do with this "feeling" at all-- that it is a result of chemicals in the brain. Am I correct?

If you think you "feel" God, are you sure that feeling is from God (external) or just your wishful thinking (internal)?

I believe I answered this above, but to reiterate: We know the feelings come from God because they are not natural to the human psyche-- love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. We don’t create them, the Spirit of God living within us does.

[genkaus]

This is completely irrelevant. You're only moving the goal posts to cover for your own inadequacy to answer the question.

No, really. I want to know how the scientific method tests nonmaterial entities. Could you offer an explanation?

By testing their effect on material things. D'uh.

---

I believe I answered this above, but to reiterate: We know the feelings come from God because they are not natural to the human psyche-- love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. We don’t create them, the Spirit of God living within us does.

Except, we do know that they are natural to human psyche because we have a pretty good idea regarding their sources withing the human mind and we have the ability to artificially manipulate them to some extent. If the source was anything external , then that would not be possible.

[Undeceived]

No, really. I want to know how the scientific method tests nonmaterial entities. Could you offer an explanation?

By testing their effect on material things. D'uh.

Then they would no longer be nonmaterial. If some "miracle" force healed people every time you did a certain procedure, we would call that force natural. The scientific method measures repeatable phenomena. If an event is repeatable, it must be natural.

I believe I answered this above, but to reiterate: We know the feelings come from God because they are not natural to the human psyche-- love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. We don’t create them, the Spirit of God living within us does.

Except, we do know that they are natural to human psyche because we have a pretty good idea regarding their sources withing the human mind and we have the ability to artificially manipulate them to some extent. If the source was anything external , then that would not be possible.

The source is internal, either by God living in us or by our being made in the image of God. And we gain the fruits as we age. Does a person become more natural as they age, or less natural?

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe I answered this above, but to reiterate: We know the feelings come from God because they are not natural to the human psyche-- love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. We don’t create them, the Spirit of God living within us does.

All seems pretty natural to me, I certainly hope no one ever accuses me of having the spirit of god living within me.......and what a strange god to have me as an effigy, eh? What portion your gods image do you like to imagine has any representation in me? I don't know if I should be flattered or insulted.

What do you do to get that handled anyway, I'm guessing penicillen won't cut it?

[genkaus]

Then they would no longer be nonmaterial. If some "miracle" force healed people every time you did a certain procedure, we would call that force natural. The scientific method measures repeatable phenomena. If an event is repeatable, it must be natural.

If you assume that something non-material, by definition, cannot affect the material, then you should no longer classify the myths of Christianity (your god, angels, human souls etc) as non-material.

[quote='Undeceived' pid='378387' dateline='1356583510']The source is internal, either by God living in us or by our being made in the image of God. And we gain the fruits as we age. Does a person become more natural as they age, or less natural?

He remains as natural as before. If the source was something non-material, then, by your own logic, it would not be able to affect our material existence.

[pocaracas]

If there's such a thing as "nonmaterial consciousness", and knowing that people have been believing in gods and souls for over 10.000 years, how did those people from 10 thousand years ago discover it?

I’ll give you two ways nonmaterial consciousness may have occurred to ancient humans. First, some probably did not discover it, but believed in it because the idea seemed logical to them. This is a logicality that Christians attribute to the Creator, but basically the idea says that humans are able to grasp reality because their perspective of reality is outside of reality. They would know it not with a physical feeling, but by observing the fact they were able to reason at all. Science today still does not know how humans have consciousness. One issue: how do we make choices as opposed to reacting in ways predetermined by our DNA? Another: how does one "think" in the moment? People thousands of years ago understood these conundrums on a basic level, which is all they needed. They understood the uniqueness of consciousness. Today, many people are so blinded by their belief that science has all the answers that they don't even question the logistics of consciousness (I have been in that camp myself). Those thousands of years ago did not have to think very hard to come up with the concept of nonmaterial consciousness, nor did they even have to name it. They merely assumed. And when people naturally assume something, we need to look at their origins to find out why. I think we can agree that Biblical creation explains their behavior better than evolution.

But there is still one other group of people! These are the followers of Yahweh, who learned of their spirit through divine revelation. You may argue they know it through external means, but that is not the case. Their physical experience wakes the spiritual inside, and the faith resulting from the experience is evidence. As Hebrews 11:1 explains, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." To put it another way, consciousness itself cannot be observed by our consciousness. Instead, we see the fruit of a nonmaterial spirit--the fruits of the spirit love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. That is how we can tell when someone has "discovered" their nonmaterial self. When they change from the inside out. The emergence of these virtues can give us certain physical “feelings” but the nonmaterial consciousness is the cause, not the feeling itself. Feelings do not cause other feelings. They arise from the depths of our unknown mind. Can you tell me where they come from, Pocaracas? We observe what happens in our brain when we have feelings, but what is the ultimate source of any given feeling? If you say everything is a reaction to our surroundings, why can we train ourselves to react with different feelings? I may feel anger the first time I prick my finger, but enough concentration and determination and I can feel anything I want. How is that mere chemical reaction?

Disclaimer to readers: Please don’t reply “That’s not true” or “Show me evidence” for any of the above. By the very definition of nonmaterial, all evidence is personal. This is a Biblical-based explanation for how people most likely discovered nonmaterial consciousness. Reply with logic, as this is a logic-only discussion.

I appreciate this explanation. It was nice. I liked it.
But it seems to me to boil down to "they made it up".

You classify all feelings as nonmaterial and ask where they come from. I go one level further up and tell you that all abstract thought is nonmaterial... well, no it doesn't seem to be.
Thoughts come from the brain, sometimes influenced by certain hormones.
And the brain is a wonderfully complex machine that works in, as yet, mysterious ways....

Such complexity can bring about all the thoughts, emotions, memories, etc. that some people attribute to a nonmaterial consciousness, but we are not yet qualified to provide the exact mechanism which generates these thought processes.

[Undeceived]

Then they would no longer be nonmaterial. If some "miracle" force healed people every time you did a certain procedure, we would call that force natural. The scientific method measures repeatable phenomena. If an event is repeatable, it must be natural.

If you assume that something non-material, by definition, cannot affect the material, then you should no longer classify the myths of Christianity (your god, angels, human souls etc) as non-material.

The key here is the nonmaterial does not, by scientific standards, affect the material in a repeatable way. The moment we see it is repeatable (as are all things tested by the scientific method), we call it 'natural' whether it is or not-- we call them "natural laws": we observe them but do not understand why they are what they are. The cause may be nonmaterial at its origins, but science would never pronounce it so. For example, scientists are still looking for the smallest particle that determines attraction, weight, and every other law applied to matter. If naturalists ever got to that point, they would stop looking for a smaller particle and just assume that one as their premise going forward. Never mind why the particle is a law in itself, and how it came to be a law in itself, science is concerned only with natural phenomena. When it comes to the brink of the supernatural, when a nonmaterial cause is even hinted at, science stops and simply accepts what is before it. You know this is true. Is it fair?

[Whitewolf]

If I was Christian...Keeping things the way they are, a universe explained without a creation myth.

[genkaus]

The key here is the nonmaterial does not, by scientific standards, affect the material in a repeatable way. The moment we see it is repeatable (as are all things tested by the scientific method), we call it 'natural' whether it is or not-- we call them "natural laws": we observe them but do not understand why they are what they are. The cause may be nonmaterial at its origins, but science would never pronounce it so. For example, scientists are still looking for the smallest particle that determines attraction, weight, and every other law applied to matter. If naturalists ever got to that point, they would stop looking for a smaller particle and just assume that one as their premise going forward. Never mind why the particle is a law in itself, and how it came to be a law in itself, science is concerned only with natural phenomena. When it comes to the brink of the supernatural, when a nonmaterial cause is even hinted at, science stops and simply accepts what is before it. You know this is true. Is it fair?

So, basically, your god is not able to repeat his miracles?

As for your understanding of the scientific method - you are way off base. Something doesn't necessarily have to be repeatable to be within the purview of science. On the contrary, we've found that once we understand it, it becomes repeatable. As for natural laws, the entire field of science is devoted not just to figuring out what they are but why they are as they are. And finally, science doesn't stop at the first hint of supernatural - it plows on to discover it is, in fact part of the natural.

[Undeceived]

The key here is the nonmaterial does not, by scientific standards, affect the material in a repeatable way. The moment we see it is repeatable (as are all things tested by the scientific method), we call it 'natural' whether it is or not-- we call them "natural laws": we observe them but do not understand why they are what they are. The cause may be nonmaterial at its origins, but science would never pronounce it so. For example, scientists are still looking for the smallest particle that determines attraction, weight, and every other law applied to matter. If naturalists ever got to that point, they would stop looking for a smaller particle and just assume that one as their premise going forward. Never mind why the particle is a law in itself, and how it came to be a law in itself, science is concerned only with natural phenomena. When it comes to the brink of the supernatural, when a nonmaterial cause is even hinted at, science stops and simply accepts what is before it. You know this is true. Is it fair?

As for your understanding of the scientific method - you are way off base. Something doesn't necessarily have to be repeatable to be within the purview of science.

If the results of an experiment are unable to be replicated, science throws them out. We're not talking about their purview-- every experiment has to be in the "interest range" of scientists to be conducted in the first place! When did this argument shift from discussing objective measurement to speculating about subjective anticipation?

On the contrary, we've found that once we understand it, it becomes repeatable.

Could you explain, please? In my experience, I don't understand something unless it happens more than once or changes with the manipulation of a single variable.

As for natural laws, the entire field of science is devoted not just to figuring out what they are but why they are as they are. And finally, science doesn't stop at the first hint of supernatural - it plows on to discover it is, in fact part of the natural.

Exactly. The bias is to withhold judgment until a natural solution is found. That might be a fine practice in discovering how things work but science has never discovered a solution natural or supernatural why things work. Scientific laws are in the "why" category. Not only has a "why" never been found, but hundreds of philosophers have argued why it can never be found (it requires ending the chain of efficient causes as we know it--a logical fallacy). So why don't we move into the realm of philosophy for answers rather than holding out for the improbable?