Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[rational experiences]

Ancient memory origin earth life.

Memory itself recorded in science first causes as visionary Satan cloud angel. Visionary as clouds had to remass when scientist human man god status burnt all life forms back to carbon himself.

Theist man today lying mind says by AI causes to think theory.... life began from carbon. His life owned two living human parents who had sex and in memory not his life. I suppose he's holy immaculate baby man. In thoughts. Cloud Jesus. AI theist.

Yet he's adult man not baby Jesus themed. So says I'm not Jesus the theory.

Cloud man himself. False human idealism not being a man just a vision.

Father said the teaching one.
One word one equal meaning owned a mutual answer. Is the legal review.

One carbon mass is carbon as one carbon mass. The answer. Exact.

A lying human man mind says human life began from position end of man's known science history before as carbon.

As a theist Rich man does experiment on his use of all his memory used says if a human today becomes carbon he could care less. As long as it's not his life.

What AI thinking is as a theists possession.

By AI defect...recorded memory. Not actual life natural one self memory. The bio human feedback one life one self.

The one teaching legal stated one word one meaning one mutual equal answer.

A man is equals to a woman.

He argued...no she's not. She's got a vagina that bleeds and breasts.

Father says if you summarised both bodies the outcome is a typified human same life life body caused yet equal in variances only.

That's right said man theist satanic science I sacrificed my bio life cell made it bleed for claiming two types of one species human owned one body a man's only.

My cells acted like a vagina.

Why stigmata sacrificed man?

My life cell I theoried was a woman's ovary. It wasn't.

Okay lying theist are your bio cells only an ovary cell baby beginning. No. I non stop lie. It's human only biology.

Okay do you learn scientist man?

No I'm a fixed mind.

Why. I observe by machine to learn.

However my new use of lots of transmitting receiving machines normally is machine to machine. I used a program to contact...meaning attack bio life by machines. All bodies.

Why first I must coerce you to believe humans are part machines. AI.

Why I'm not learning. I'm observing the attack to get what I want. Old machine transmitters that sacrificed biology.

So I'm not learning I use a pre stated human motive. I lied. I even lie about just observing. No I claim I'm right first always thinking.

Reason why.

Father told me first man human god was in fact an eternal human who didn't die and didn't need to eat food either.

Atmosphere inlaw earth wasn't dense. Historic. Space separated creation from eternal..

All theories lying.

We were in the eternal. We aren't earths atmospheric mass.

After sun put density into mass the heavens it pushed physically onto the eternal body. As father's mother's memory told us.

| Heavens | eternal >>>>>>>
Heavens <<<<<<<| eternal released spirit. Was pushed on.

We were still attached to eternal body.

Nature spirit came out. Men. Women. All women were pulled back in most men also. God man was historic a higher eternal body. They were stuck with nature only.

Could not go back.

First human man science inventor. Tried to cause a no light atmosphere himself. Was proven wrong.

Gave biology death...it's in our memories.

Instead of man coming back out animals a changed eternal cause did first so he said he got cursed. Said by claim I became an animal man life.

Then father mother came out owned human death by cell DNA changed.

Man the first origin God earth scientists memory is higher by records than our own. We now are bio red celled and have to eat and die a human.

The argument no man is God reason.

The first theist man memory is superior actually by historic causes.

Hence men who meditated constantly proved little sustenance intake. Very thin yet survive by maintaining by cell constant. As proof yes once humans did not die by not eating.

As it's true human history.

Man theist now is his own problem.

Human life never an animal.

Human men now with machines claimed I caused all life to be present by machine conditions only lies.

No bio human preceded life of nature or animals as a red celled biology. Theists are using pre cloud advice not red celled blood life.

Attack is....animals die UFO phenomena witnessed as human men targeting biology by direct terms caused it.

Never had in any reality red celled human preceded animals.

Memory by vision is as real as a recording.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For me, I cannot accept that everything I see has no source.

Sure. But you aren't just saying things must have a source. I agree with that. Things have a source.
Things come about in one way or the other.

You are however positing a specific source. You decide on the answers before even asking the questions.

I don't.

All you are doing here is lumping together all the various "gods" that a person might believe in, and not differentiating one belief from another.

Errrr.... no, that's what YOU did, when you said that "...you condemn billions of believers in God to be irrational."

There aren't "billions" of muslims. So necessarily, you were referring to all/most people who aren't atheist.

Some claim Divinity, whilst others do not.
That doesn't affect you. You treat them all equally as falsehood,

No. I treat them all as unsupported. Which they are.

with one being neither more likely than another, it would seem.

Which is the case. None of them have evidence.
We can't even begin to determine the likelihood of any of them.
So they are all equally unlikely, as per the equal lack of evidence.

However, and I noted this in my reply as well (in a part you didn't quote for some reason...)
I also said they (= the beliefs) aren't all equally irrational.

For example, the christian beliefs of Ken Miller are demonstrably less irrational then the christian beliefs of Ray Comfort. For the simple reason that Ken Miller's beliefs doesn't require him to deny the evidence of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Demonstrated?

Yes.

Through unguided, mindless processes?

Yes. Although it can be said to be guided by natural selection / the environment.

Not with any empirical evidence they haven’t.

Fossil record, genetic record, geographic distribution of species, observed speciation,...

All pretty empirical.

Many in the scientific community acknowledge that there are “explanatory deficits” of the MS.

‘The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Philosophical and Historical Dimensions’ Workshop Report – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

But you’d have us believe it’s already been explained.
That is inaccurate, according to the above links.

Nobody claims that there aren't more things to be discovered or questions to be answered.
That doesn't take away that evolution as a process is extremely established, supported and demonstrated.

Probably the best established and best supported theory in all of science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It just *looks* too complex? Discoveries reveal it is complex.

Yes, life is complex. So is a hurricane. So what?

Evolution well explains species’ survival, but it doesn’t explain their arrival.

Yes it does.

Not concerning the higher taxa of families, with their distinct phenotypes.

They aren't as distinct as you imagine them to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Errrr.... no, that's what YOU did, when you said that "...you condemn billions of believers in God to be irrational."

There aren't "billions" of muslims. So necessarily, you were referring to all/most people who aren't atheist.

This will probably be false some time next year. There were an estimated 1.90 billion in 2020. And it is estimated right now that there are 1.97 billion. It won't be long when there will be "billions of Muslims".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Science has an objective ethod and it shows its work. This is the best method we have to determine what is true about the universe..

Yes, but it isn't foolproof.

Religions certainly have no objectivity, and will make claims that are not factual. Science has a minimum statistical standard of 99.95% and the social science have a standard of 95%.

That's not true. Each conclusion made has its own confidence interval .. a statistical probability .. which can still turn out to be incorrect for a variety of reasons

Right, and the best way to assure we are being truthful versus self-deceptive is to be brutally honest with ourselves. Many theists admit they mighjt be wrong about their religious beliefs, but are they committed to truth? No, they are committed to what they already believe, and can't demonstrate that they have arrived at is a sound conclusion via evidence.

You are too black and white, while making sweeping generalisations.

I'm not wrong. What is defined as consciousness is a product of working brains. That's it. What observations have you made to the contrary?

..so everything that does not have a brain cannot be intelligent or aware. Is that your opinion based on scientific observation?

Personally, I think it is reasonable to make conclusions regards "what brains do" from experimentation, but making conclusions about the whole cosmos assumes that we can know all.
That's not sound conclusion making at all.

So you need there to be a basis for meaning, even if it isn't true?

While you claim to know the truth of everything to a 99% confidence, I do not.
I believe the Qur'an is true. You do not.

Then nothing. Do you really think your life will change if you no longer believe a God exists?

If there is no change in my life due to my belief, it is because of my failings.
Islam requires mandatory action.

To my thinking if a God existed it would NOT have created evil..

Almighty God should not have created us capable of evil, you mean?
Almighty God should not have created us mortal, capable of feeling pain, and a world where accidents can happen etc. ?

I bring up the 9-11 hijackers because we all know these people were a product of religious extremism..

Terrorism is usually carried out by minority groups with political grievance. Islam does not allow the killing of innocent civilians.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but it isn't foolproof.

He didn't say it is. He just said that it's currently the best method at our disposal.
ie, it yields the most reliable results.

..so everything that does not have a brain cannot be intelligent or aware.

FYI: he didn't use the word "aware", which is ambiguous in this context. he said "consciousness"
And that is certainly what the evidence suggests.

Is that your opinion based on scientific observation?

Observation.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to make conclusions regards "what brains do" from experimentation, but making conclusions about the whole cosmos assumes that we can know all.
That's not sound conclusion making at all.

There is no reason to think that intelligence or consciousness can exist absent a brain.
Every intelligence or consciousness ever observed, came from / with a living functioning brain.
If you wish to suggest either can exist absent a brain or the equivalent thereof, please provide evidence for that.

If you can't provide evidence of such, why would we assume it can?

While you claim to know the truth of everything to a 99% confidence, I do not.

I didn't see him make such a claim.

I believe the Qur'an is true.

So in %, how confident are you that the quran is true?

Terrorism is usually carried out by minority groups with political grievance. Islam does not allow the killing of innocent civilians.

Tell it to the people who yell "allahu akbar" after which they detonate themselves and / or execute people.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Another question is why animals would be dying and allegedly humans were supposed to never die.

Apparently never dying is another Biblical "mistranslation" we're no longer supposed to believe.

Not going to argue that, but if it turns out that the paradisiacal "Garden of Eden" was in fact more like a wild kingdom, with predators and prey doing what they do best, then God's decision to leave his favorite creations naked and unsupervised in it becomes even more irresponsible -- even without the serpent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They too ate from the tree of knowledge and were sinners in the way Adam and Eve were.
They were more blatant about that. They did not even cover themselves with fig leaves in the way Adam and Eve did.

I must have missed the verse where A&E ground up the fruit and put it in the herbivores' feed.

The carnivores would've gotten the effect when they ate the herbivores, of course... but should they really be punished for that?

Trees also die. Original sin pervades the universe. Only ameba are not sinners. They are asexual.

What does being asexual have to do with Original Sin?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, but it isn't foolproof.

Nothing is foolproof; the fools always find a way.

Terrorism is usually carried out by minority groups with political grievance. Islam does not allow the killing of innocent civilians.

Agreed 100% -- unfortunately, Islam isn't foolproof.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, but it isn't foolproof.

Science doesn't claim to be foolproof. There is no better system to learn about what is true about the universe. Science is vastly superior to religious beliefs, as you rely on for many assumptions about the universe.

That's not true. Each conclusion made has its own confidence interval .. a statistical probability .. which can still turn out to be incorrect for a variety of reasons

What isn't true, that religion has no objectivity or that science has high statistical standards? You keep knocking science as if it claims to be perfect. It is a process, and in science a stheory that meets the standard of 99.95% or 95% needs to be peer reviewed. Sometimes there are errors in the testing process and peer review exposes it. Often times this is an error in how data is collected and variables accounted for, so the hypothesis and test is redesigned. I'm getting a sense you aren't familiar with how science works, and for highly religious folks this may explain why they are biased towards religious claims and not reliable explanations in science.

You are too black and white, while making sweeping generalisations.

Are you sure? You made this accusation but ddn't explain how you are correct. So I reject your claim.

..so everything that does not have a brain cannot be intelligent or aware. Is that your opinion based on scientific observation?

Intelligence and awareness are characteristics of brains. Feel free to offer examples where this isn't the case. Use facts and cite science, not your subjective opinion.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to make conclusions regards "what brains do" from experimentation, but making conclusions about the whole cosmos assumes that we can know all.
That's not sound conclusion making at all.

Then you should stop assuming the cosmos has consciousness, or intelligence, yes? Or does this not apply to theists who get to make up whatever "truth" they want, and no facts are needed?

Are you going to apply this rule to your own beliefs and claims?

While you claim to know the truth of everything to a 99% confidence, I do not.

I never claimed any such thing. Why do you keep misrepresenting my positions?

I believe the Qur'an is true. You do not.

I don't believe it because of the supernatural elelments that have no evidence, nor are consistent with what we observe is true about how things are.

Exlpain the facts and the coherent explanation as to why a rational mind would conclude the Quran is true? You failed to argue this thus far. Until you offer an argument no one cares what you believe.

If there is no change in my life due to my belief, it is because of my failings.
Islam requires mandatory action.

Some folks need structure from outside influences and rules. I suspect this is learned depence for many believers, and once they are habituated to this behavior they can't see a way passed religious belief.

Almighty God should not have created us capable of evil, you mean?

I don't see the purpose in creating humans naturally caable of evil while not having the natural ability for wisdom. Certainly religions and their texts don't keep believers from evil, quite the contrary. So if humans and religions are all created by God then it is an incompeteent God. I could do better. I certainly wouldn't create humans who would be so easily duped as the 9-11 hijackers, or ISIS. I would not create humans with birth defects or mental illnesses. Nothing in what we observe in human genes and behavior suggests we are a special creation that can do the right thing if we just follow some rules.

I have read some expalanations by various theists why evil exists, and none really go into the facts and data, but try to blame some failure of humans as if it is such an easy thing to fix. As I noted 1 in 24 peolpe are born sociopaths and they do not have empathy. There is nothing they can do to fix this brain defect. If you believe a God exists and created humans, then the blame is on your God.

Almighty God should not have created us mortal, capable of feeling pain, and a world where accidents can happen etc. ?

We can feel pain and die and still be decent people. The question is why so many humans are cruel, mean, are born with brain defects, or are easily duped to believe in irrational social, political, or religious dogmas and end up using this belief to harm others. If you believe your God exists then this is the world it created. Don't you think it should have known how things will evolve over time, or is your God blind to the future?

Terrorism is usually carried out by minority groups with political grievance. Islam does not allow the killing of innocent civilians.

And these groups are effective at attracting members and influencing evil actions. Where is your God when these groups form? Standing by and watching? Is that a moral act by God, letting atrocities happen?

Do you ever get the feeling that this God you believe in might not exist as you imagine it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science doesn't claim to be foolproof. There is no better system to learn about what is true about the universe. Science is vastly superior to religious beliefs, as you rely on for many assumptions about the universe.
...

That depends on what you consider science, better system, true and the universe are.
And I can still do that differently than you because of limited cognitive, cultural and moral relativism.
So the falsification of your claim is that it can be done differently even for better.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What does being asexual have to do with Original Sin?

Only asexuals escape being sinners. Others have eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Covering by fig leaves shows what kind of sin Adam and Eve must have committed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, life is complex. So is a hurricane.

Good example. An excerpt from a previous post making an argument for the inevitability of life arising wherever conditions that can support it exist:

Likewise with dissipative structures like tornadoes, hurricanes, the red spot on Jupiter, and the hexagon at Saturn's poles. They are all far from equilibrium structures that would have nearly zero chance of occurring without there being a pressure to have the ingredients come together and function cooperatively. This occurs when a system is channeling energy, and is frequently associated with energy (heat) sources like atmospheres and oceans that function as thermal reservoirs:

• "A Dissipative Structure is a thermodynamically open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium, that exchanges energy, matter, and information with. the external environment. In this kind of systems, organization can emerge through a spontaneous self-organization process"

But the Messiah was not God -- not by Jewish beliefs. As I said, he is either a military leader or a harbinger of the end times (depending on who you ask).

Just wanted to say I've enjoyed your posting rebutting scriptural claims. We have a few posters here on RF that give theists a run for their money theologically. One is expert in Islam, another in Baha'ism. Without them, a lot of the problems of these religions would be invisible to outsiders. Here are a couple of things I've saved from a non-Muslim Quranic scholar contradicting the claims of Muslims that their religion is a loving and peaceful religion:

• Your god hates atheism. Literally hundreds of verses make that extremely clear. One of my "favorites" is 2:98 - "Allah Ado al kafarina" (God is the enemy of unbelievers").

• It sounds as though you are prepared to obey verse 9:111 (Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill and are killed).

• Just because a person is born into (and therefore forced into) Islam does not mean he wants to "fight in the cause of God". In fact, verse 2:216 recognizes as much, but still urges such people to fight anyway - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and ye know not."

I've already begun curating some of your comments about Christianity. Thanks.

Please explain thru logic and reason how anything can exist just have been here forever

That there is something rather than nothing means that that something came into being uncaused from nothing or always existed. Nobody can explain how either of those counterintuitive propositions could be the case, yet it seems that one must be. Unless there is a mistake in this formulation already, one must accept that whatever is the case seems impossible to us, and that that cannot be a reason to reject either option, since that just leaves one with a different "impossible" option.

I don't believe that God would lie so that means that if it was God's Word, it is not literal. The other possibility is that the Bible is not actually the Word of God. After all, it was written by men, not by God, and not even by a Prophet of God.

This is a good example of what I discussing with a Christian on another thread. I wrote there, "Any outsider can give you a more open-minded, objective account of what the words mean. He has no agenda to make it seem like the words of a god, so he has no need to try to explain why failed prophecies aren't really failed prophecies, and internal contradictions aren't really contradictions, and errors in history and science aren't really errors at all once you look at them just right."

Then , he told me that he used to be an outsider:

"I'm saying that you [a former non-Christian] could read scripture more objectively as an unbeliever than once you decided that it was the word of a perfect god. At that time, your manner of reading it changed. How do I know? I went from outsider to insider to outsider, and the way we all read scripture from the inside was different from before and after. The difference is that in one case, one asks what do the words say, and in the other, what truth am I reading now, and what needs to be the case for this to be true - what must the words mean given that they are correct. The way you read every other book is how I read the Bible. I'll bet we'd agree on the errors that we find in those other books, and recognize any contradictions and both of us call them that, because that's what a "literalist" does. We could do that for Harry Potter, the Hobbit, and Game of Thrones as well, and be in agreement, but as soon as we pulled out the Bible, only one of us would remain a "literalist."

I consider myself to be fortunate to be free of atheism.

That's interesting. Anybody capable of believing by faith can be a theist, which is every child and most adults. Anybody that benefits from such a belief psychologically is prone to accept it uncritically, and anybody who has no needs met by such a belief will walk away from it. You seem to feel that the believer is better off. I left theism (Christianity) decades ago, and the benefits have been substantial. I was a very generous tither, and the hours devoted to church attendance, prayer, and Bible study were in the double digits every week. How many thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars have I saved because I don't have a god need? Much of that time was spent reading science, philosophy, history. Much of that time was spent studying guitar and performing in public venues with my wife on bass. Much of that time and money was spent traveling, collecting art, and going to concerts. The savings allowed me to retire early to a better place and life, and are a buffer against inflation now. I've become a critical thinker once I abandoned belief by faith - an extremely valuable skill, one that allowed me to make an intelligent decision about Covid vaccination when faith-based thinkers unable to evaluate evidence had to guess who to trust, many guessing wrong and dying and leaving their families broke and missing caretakers, or disabled by long Covid and with damaged lungs, kidneys, nervous systems, etc..

Where would I be today if I were still a Christian?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many people think that plants are conscious in some way.

There is no evidence of that, so no reason to believe it. And unless they have telepathic powers, meaningless, since they can't act beyond reflexes that require no consciousness. Also, how cruel to be a conscious tree. If either of us were magically made that, it would be torture. Imagine being our universe, and being conscious. You might as well be a conscious tree.

I cannot accept that everything I see has no source.

You've made that clear. Only something you don't see can exist uncreated to you, and it needs to be conscious. Many others can accept the possibility that the universe has no cause, as you might have noticed in my post above this one in the comment to @allright. That's not due to you increased percipience, but to the opposite. Also, even for you, there is a naturalistic possibility - a multiverse source for our universe. I imagine you can't accept that, either, meaning that it's not an uncaused universe that gives you pause, but a godless one.

If I could accept that a world without a source was credible, I wouldn't have a need to seek for reasons why we are all here. Having sought for reasons, I am satisfied that my religion has more answers than any other I have come across. Does that make it true? No.

Isn't this a statement that your beliefs are based in psychological need rather than pure reason? You don't seem to require that your beliefs be correct.

whenever I start having doubts due to the cruel nature of the world, or so many people being in hell after death and so forth, so far I go round a full circle, and think "if there is no God", then what?

Have you seen this one? : "Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences."

Science doesn't describe anything.

That's a bizarre comment. Now I have to go into "what could those words mean to him" mode if he believes them. Surely he knows that science describes much of how the world behaves. He sees that a space launch is presently orbiting the moon based in scientific descriptions of how the moon and the probe were expected to behave described in mathematics. I'll need your help to find meaning of those words that make your comment sensible to you. Maybe you don't consider scientific laws descriptions.

everything that does not have a brain cannot be intelligent or aware. Is that your opinion based on scientific observation?

My answer would be that we are unaware of disembodied consciousness existing, and yes, it is based in observation. We have no way to experience consciousness other than our own directly, and the presumed consciousness recognized indirectly through the behavior of others behaving as we do because of our consciousness.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Only asexuals escape being sinners. Others have eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Covering by fig leaves shows what kind of sin Adam and Eve must have committed.

Or... being naked is a literary metaphor for having "nothing to hide" from God. Once they ate of the fruit, they now realized they had secrets that needed "covering up."

I think I'll stick with my theory...

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no reason to think that intelligence or consciousness can exist absent a brain.
Every intelligence or consciousness ever observed, came from / with a living functioning brain.

Right .. you conclude that a brain is necessary for the phenomena of awareness. It's a conclusion based on what you can observe. You presume that a tree is not aware of its existence, because it has not got a brain.
You might consider it to be "fact", but I do not.

If you wish to suggest either can exist absent a brain or the equivalent thereof, please provide evidence for that.

If you can't provide evidence of such, why would we assume it can?

You do not have to assume .. you just cannot be certain .. unless you consider that humans are able to know all, and they have nothing left to learn.

So in %, how confident are you that the quran is true?

That can vary, depending on how I might be feeling.
So far, it has not got as low as 0%, and can be 100% on occasions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In Revelation 21:3-4, where it states “death will be no more” I believe that refers to spiritual death, not physical death. The promise was that after Christ returns, there will be no more spiritual death because everyone will be alive spiritually.

There are physical bodies and spiritual bodies, as Paul said. The physical body is the source of all corruption as the Bible says, it is the source of dishonor, it is weak, and that is because the physical body is subject to sin.

The spiritual body is incorruptible because spirit cannot ever die. The soul (spirit) is glorified and has power because it was created by God.

Jesus said that spirit and flesh are not equivalent. The spirit quickens, the flesh profits nothing. The flesh profits nothing because it is subject to sin and it is mortal, not everlasting. Why would God want humans to have a physical body and live in it forever?

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Baha’is believe that souls go to heaven and take on a spiritual body, which is the same thing as what Paul says in 1st Cor:

we are raised in a spiritual body and only spiritual bodies can enter heaven.

(1st Corinthians 15:35) "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Well, since Genesis 2:7 says Adam “became” a soul, I believe we ourselves *are* souls , not that we have one, or that we are given one. Tthe Bible does say we are given breath / life (spirit), but that is not soul. The term for soul, nephesh (Hebrew) & psyche (Greek) are different than spirit, ruach (Hebrew) & pneuma (Greek); they are not the same.

“Look up the following cited texts in your own copy of the Bible, for the Hebrew word neʹphesh is found in each of them. They clearly show that the soul can face risk, danger, and even be kidnapped (Deuteronomy 24:7; Judges 9:17;1 Samuel 19:11); touch things (Job 6:7); be locked up in irons (Psalm 105:18); crave to eat, be afflicted by fasting, and faint from hunger and thirst; and suffer from a wasting disease or even insomnia as a result of grief. (Deuteronomy 12:20; Psalm 35:13; 69:10; 106:15; 107:9; 119:28) In other words, because your soul is you, your very self, your soul can experience anything you can experience.“
—Excerpt from:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1996560#h=1:0-10:458

And the Bible does say the soul dies. Ezekiel 18 4,20
And by using a Hebrew expository/interlinear, you’ll see the Bible mentions ‘dead souls’. Numbers 5:2; Numbers 6:6.

Have a good day.

 

[F1fan]

Right .. you conclude that a brain is necessary for the phenomena of awareness. It's a conclusion based on what you can observe.

False, we observe awareness and intelligence only from organisms with working brains. We see none anywhere else, so why would anyone assume, or preseume, that it exists anywhere else?

We understand some theists have a motive to assume there is a consciousnes in the universe, but this is not an observation nor is there any evidence that this is true.

You presume that a tree is not aware of its existence, because it has not got a brain.

This is not a presumption. Trees don't have brains. We don't observe any awareness exhinbited by trees. There is no reason to presume trees might have awareness or consciousness. This isn't any sort of rational consideration.

You might consider it to be "fact", but I do not.

And your motive is likely due to your religious beliefs? Would accepting the fact that trrees don't have brains or consciousness harm the assumptions you rely on for your religious belief and meaning? If so, this illustrates the trap that believers can find themslevs in when they have adopted religious beliefs from social influence and experience.

You do not have to assume .. you just cannot be certain .. unless you consider that humans are able to know all, and they have nothing left to learn.

But you are assuming your position without justification. Sure, Jim proposes that tress have consciousness, and we ask him why he thinks this could be the case, and he has no justification. We can't be certain, but trees don't have brains, nor exhibit consciousness, so we dismiss Jim's proposal. It's not bias. The idea is improbable. We need evidence for propositions to be taken seriously.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's not being honest, it's being arrogant. Kindly refrain from telling me what I see in my eyes.

I’m sorry, no offense intended.
So you don’t consider that the Bible is nonsense?
It seemed you did. My apologies.