Neuroscience Does NOT Disprove the Soul - Interview with JP Moreland

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 427

  • @raddave2911
    @raddave2911 3 ปีที่แล้ว +28

    Another Brilliant video, thank you for sharing

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanks Dave - glad you liked it!

    • @jeremiaspatrick7833
      @jeremiaspatrick7833 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dont know if you guys cares but if you are bored like me during the covid times you can stream all the new movies and series on instaflixxer. I've been binge watching with my brother during the lockdown =)

    • @elianroland7028
      @elianroland7028 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Jeremias Patrick Definitely, been watching on InstaFlixxer for years myself :D

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      brilliant in what way? moreland appears to be ever so slightly raving mad.

  • @MoonDogRadio
    @MoonDogRadio 3 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    Dr. Moreland is a genius and I used much of his material in my apologetics fiction "PSYCHONIX: Mind Over Matter."

    • @Xgy33
      @Xgy33 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Hey brother in Christ I got your book on kindle. Thanks for defending the faith through prose, just like C.S Lewis. God bless.

    • @martinecheverria5968
      @martinecheverria5968 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      What a name!

    • @richdandanell2911
      @richdandanell2911 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Genius ? Yeah he's a genius at displaying his ignorance about neuroscience and what the experts really have to say . Hey maybe next video they'll get a christian plumber on to misunderstand evolutionary science in a lame attempt to disprove evolution lol..... . This so dishonest and devious .

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      you have an odd definition of genius, if you mean "complete nutjob" maybe you're not far off. i thought deflate was daft enough, but these two pulling each others privates in mutual admiration is both hilarious and nauseating. i came here to point out that if you listen to morelands nonsense closely enough you can actually SMELL the BS coming out of his mouth, but lo, the very first comment on the page is by an idiot who is taken in by BS but cna't believe facts and actual science. amazing.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@richdandanell2911 yep, it's hard to believe these people have been taken in by this utter crap, the standards of education whereverr they are appear to be appalling, i'm an artist, i have a crappy art degree and even i know more about neuroscience than moreland.

  • @starfire451
    @starfire451 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Great discussion. One of the greatest mysteries isn't just consciousness, neurons or possesses, but the actual realisation of one's own first person experience amidst the entirety of the universe.
    We can talk about brains and consciousness all day, but that's a third person look around us. When we turn that observation onto our own first person experience, that entirely transcends the mystery of self and one's ability to choose to inflict change on the environment around them at that first person's will.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yes, great point - thanks man!

    • @gradystein5765
      @gradystein5765 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      What is the difference between consciousness and first person experience? Seems like the same thing mate.

    • @starfire451
      @starfire451 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@gradystein5765 consciousness is the subject for discussion. i.e. Consciousness is in humans and is exhibited in animals, etc.
      The first person experience is to elevate the singular talking point about you reflecting on your own first person experience. It falls under consciousness, but it's more specific and when we stop looking outward to the question of consciousness all around us and shift that perspective in on ourself (the me, the I, the self) as that's the point when the universe becomes less mechanical and something deeply more mysterious. (I'm sidestepping hippy dippy spirituality too as it needs more of a scientific focus.)
      So the comment was simply to point out that we should pay more attention to the first person experience, rather than discuss consciousness in a broader sense, if that makes sense lol.
      It creates a much deeper, impactful (probably not a word) and more dynamic perspective on one's place in the universe, rather than solely 'consciousness exists', etc.
      One of those areas is 'will' and 'responsibility' as it crosses into notions of right and wrong, and how our decisions can have a real world impact on the environment around us. So when I hear a chat about consciousness, I think it's greatest merit is promoting (or to raise awareness of) the user to acknowledge their mysterious first person experience in this world. In essence, it's a more specific and personal exploration of consciousness in what's either a theistic (evolutionary) universe, or something materialistic whereby that first person experience begins to make less sense.

    • @thenowchurch6419
      @thenowchurch6419 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@starfire451 In philosophy, what you are discussing is called Phenomenology.
      Theists such as Hegel and Swedenborg explained it, as well as Atheists like Schopenhauer and Heidegger. It is also called Idealism.
      It seems to tilt the evidence towards the existence of a non-embodied conscious source of consciousness.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Deflate2020 did moreland tell you his miracle / prayer story? how he prayed for a pool table and god not only supplied one, but the exact type his kids wanted? i wish he would spend more time in hospitals praying for the sick, ot maybe praying for world peace, or does god only deal in pool tables? anyway can you ask him? thanks. loath your channel.

  • @barry.anderberg
    @barry.anderberg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    Awesome interview! JP's book Scientism and Secularism is excellent.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Thanks, brother, glad you liked it. Yes, that's a fantastic book and I've been thinking about interviewing him about it, too.

  • @AP-Design
    @AP-Design 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Lucas is ace at summarizing JP's points. Excellent inteview.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanks 😊 Glad you liked it!

    • @LoveYourNeighbour.
      @LoveYourNeighbour. 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yes, and he keeps interruptions to an absolute bare minimum. I SO appreciate that!

    • @AP-Design
      @AP-Design 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @ANTI-ATHIESTS What do you mean by that? The soul is mentioned all over the Old Testament and is a well-established concept within those times. Where does the Bible teach soul sleep? If the Bible never taught about hell, then what was Jesus talking about in his numerous descriptions of and parable references to hell?

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Deflate2020 you are a master at sucking up to people you like, i havre to give you that. it's a pity you lack the ability to see moreland is talking BS though. oh well.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@AP-Design probably a bad translation, youneed an apologist, or not a real xian, or some lame excuse.

  • @aidan608
    @aidan608 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    The editing style, the time stamping, the philosophical and scientific knowledge, and the including of other sources for more learning in the description. Yes! Give this channel 2 years and it’ll be one of the biggest theological channels out there! Great work!

  • @GabrielaPfauPalominos
    @GabrielaPfauPalominos 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    This was so cool!! I honestly wasn’t expecting to be so engaged with this interview 😆 May God bring you increase with your channel and bring to fruition all of your hard work 🙏

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks, Gabriela! I'm glad you found it helpful. You might enjoy his book, "The Soul" as well.

    • @LoveYourNeighbour.
      @LoveYourNeighbour. 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I know what you mean Gabriela! I found this to be the most deep & nuanced talk I've heard in a while, from JP Moreland! I also really appreciated how Lukas allowed JP to communicate complicated ideas, without any interruption. (PS your Favorites playlist is AWESOME! I found lots of cool stuff in there :-)

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      you might want to read more than one book on neuroscience to get a balanced view, moreland isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

  • @philotheoapolobrendon3653
    @philotheoapolobrendon3653 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    A great video followed by comments from people who didn't watch all the video which is proven by their assertions which are answered in the video.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Yup. Thanks for noticing that. Glad you enjoyed it! I have a response to Cosmic Skeptic come out in a bit. Stay tuned!

    • @LoveYourNeighbour.
      @LoveYourNeighbour. 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      This was a deep and highly nuanced interview. I SO appreciate JP Moreland making the effort to explain these complicated issues, in ways we can grasp. It is SO disrespectful, when people don't even bother to watch the video, and then proceed to assume their assertions (which they don't realize were debunked in the video) are knock-down arguments against the video.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@LoveYourNeighbour. "This was a deep and highly nuanced interview" hahahaha.

    • @michaelbabbitt3837
      @michaelbabbitt3837 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@HarryNicNicholas Trolling, I see. You like throwing mud, don't you, smarty pants?

  • @miltonwetherbee5489
    @miltonwetherbee5489 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    You can't logically argue for determinism because if determinism is true, the statements we make have no reasoning behind them. They may be true statements, but we have no way of validating the truthfulness of those statements. Those statements would have been made by deterministicly caused factors in the same way that statements against determinism would be made if determinism is true. This means that statements that determinism is true would have the same validity as statements that determinism isn't true. So, if determinism is true, we can't know that it's true and nothing actually matters anyway. If determinism isn't true, then statements that it's true are just wrong. So, one must ask what is the point of making statements that determinism is true? The answer, there can't logically be a point. Trying to say determinism is true can't have any logical validity, period.

    • @Mark-cd2wf
      @Mark-cd2wf 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Well said. It’s like saying “I have come to the conclusion that we can’t come to any conclusions.”
      IOW, even if determinism is true, it can never be rationally affirmed.

    • @miltonwetherbee5489
      @miltonwetherbee5489 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Mark-cd2wf I'm glad you put that more succinctly. Hopefully people will see your comment first and then read mine if they need clarification😁

    • @Mark-cd2wf
      @Mark-cd2wf 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@miltonwetherbee5489 hey, yours was _great._ Very accessible.😁👍

    • @piotr.ziolo.
      @piotr.ziolo. 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You're wrong on the first point. "Those statements would have been made by deterministicly caused factors in the same way that statements against determinism would be made if determinism is true." - Deterministic doesn't mean random as you seem to imply. In a deterministic universe you can't have logical and sound arguments against determinism. But you can have such arguments for determinism. You can even say that in a deterministic universe with rational beings it is not possible to not have beings who find good arguments for determinism.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Mark-cd2wf how do ou work that out?
      either you do things for reasons, they are determined by your reasoning, or you do things randomly, which is like me determining things for you, if you can show me a third option i'll make you a cuppa.
      free will is an illusion, you can't see the future so you don't know what is the best choice, so you take a stab at a choice, but that's it, you only had that one choice, whatever else was on the table you didn't choose, you can only do the ONE ACTION, the same as no choice just that ONE ACTION. it looked like you had two things, but you can only have the one.
      choose to be atheist.
      try harder.
      you can't CHOOSE, you are COMPELLED, you have no free will to choose to be atheist, it's determined by your brain.
      statement:
      determinsim is true.

  • @kevinwells7080
    @kevinwells7080 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    “Under certain very specific laboratory conditions... “ as if to say, “do not try this at home, kids”

  • @aidan-ator7844
    @aidan-ator7844 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Thank you. I have been hearing too much about how neuroscience has debunked the concept of a soul and how
    The brain produces consciousness.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Glad it was helpful!

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      it has. we know all there is to know about particle physics that would affect the brain, the soul is undetectable, if the soul interacts with the brain the brain would react at least, nothing though. souls are IMPOSSIBBLE, the faterlife is IMPOSSIBLE, coming back from the dead is IMPOSSIBLE, there is no free will. chrisitianity is a lousy religion to begin with, and scientifically rubbish. and you can watch it fall apart years by year till it's faded out of existence.

    • @aidan-ator7844
      @aidan-ator7844 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@HarryNicNicholas you are ridiculous. You completely miss the idea of what a soul is or could be and then you make idiot claims like no afterlife or soul being possible when you can not find any reason why. You try to act so smart and correct but you are just making a stupid statement and claiming it as fact. We also have no way of knowing whether free will is possible or not. Gosh you are acting so stupid. Neuroscientists almost never say the things you say. It is just ridiculous.

  • @miltonwetherbee5489
    @miltonwetherbee5489 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Emergent properties is essentially a scientific version of "god of the gaps." *It's not actually scientific, but it's espoused by the scientific community as a way of not pointing to God. It's meant to sound plausible and intellectual, but it's as empty as "god of the gaps" argumentation.

    • @gradystein5765
      @gradystein5765 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      No it isn’t.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      100% Milton! 😃

    • @miltonwetherbee5489
      @miltonwetherbee5489 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@gradystein5765 if it isn't, how about an explanation of how it isn't rather than an unsupported assertion. My assertion was based on statements made in the video that explain what emergent properties are, and are simply another way of saying what was said in the video to make it more poignant with regards to theist vs atheist debates.

    • @adamheywood113
      @adamheywood113 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@miltonwetherbee5489
      "it's as empty as "god of the gaps" argumentation"
      No, it isn't, because emergent properties can be shown to exist. If you wanted to study the ocean's tides, you wouldn't get very far by analysing the covalent bonds in a single molecule of water.
      Similarly, if you wanted to understand consciousness, you wouldn't get very far by analysing a single brain cell.
      Saying "emergent properties are not scientific" is bizarre.
      Grady Stein does not owe you an explanation of how emergent properties are not a scientific version of God of the Gaps. You are the one who didn't show that they are. You merely asserted. Further, you're trying to level the playing field by asserting that scientists are actually just appealing to bad logic, logic which is just as bad as some theistic arguments, so therefore science and/or naturalism (and therefore atheism) doesn't beat theism, it's a draw; even further, you're accusing scientists of deliberately attempting to exclude or reject God from explanations of the phenomena we see.
      In other words, you backed the wrong horse, so you're trying to make it look like every horse is a losing horse; in reality, there very much is a horse that's winning, and wins consistently.

    • @miltonwetherbee5489
      @miltonwetherbee5489 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@adamheywood113 1) my statement wasn't a mere assertion, as I mentioned, I was restating an assertion made in the video. So, it's not assertion he should be attacking but that of the video, which he didn't. 2) your example of tides isn't an emergent property, in the sense being talked about here, of water, it's due to the gravitational pull of the moon. This is entirely different from something like consciousness.
      Consider AI. To start, you have to understand that computer processors are nothing more than logic gates. They take 1's and 0's and combine them, deterministically. Computer programs feed 1's and 0's into the processor, also deterministically. The program may pull from outside itself to get some of those 1's and 0's, such as the time or input from a mouse, keyboard, etc., so it's output may seem random, but it's not, it's completely calculable. No matter how you write a computer program, this will be the case, because the program can't overcome the hardware limitations.
      Now, if all the data flowing through the processors somehow were to break free of those limitations and become a true AI, that would be what is referred to as an emergent property, the type being discussed here, the type that could account for consciousness where we have actual choices.
      Now, choice is important. Either we have choice, and also the ability to actually think and reason, and these comments have actual value, or what we call our thoughts and choices are simple the result of responses to a vast myriad of variables that could be calculated if we knew what all the variables were, just like in my computer/program example. Only, if the later is true, these comments are simply the result of all that and we can't know anything. If determinism is true, it cannot be rationally affirmed.
      So, on the one hand, your argument seems to suggest you believe you are conscious and can actually think, which would mean what we call consciousness is something that is more than responses to the myriad variables around us (we could also call those stimuli), and it can't actually be calculated because there are variables that are impossible to know, variables that have nothing to do with the physical universe (because variables that do have to do with the physical universe can be discovered and known and can therefore be taken into account). Because emergent properties, as used in the video, by definition, are impossible to account for, as explained in this comment, using the term as an explanation of how we have consciousness when it is logically impossible for a purely physical universe to produce actual thought, does end up being like the "god of the gaps" argument: "we can't explain it, it must be an emergent property."
      Granted, if we have things like tides that we use the term, emergent property, for because the water does this thing that can't be explained at the molecular level (but it can, water is a polar molecule, which means the molecules will group together, as that is a property of water molecules, one which is evident strictly from observing the structure of the molecule, and this polarization which leads to grouping will lead to water acting as a whole under the influence of something lie the gravitational pull of the moon, such that the property is readily observed at a macro level). In the case of water, the so called emergent property of tides isn't immediately obvious at the molecular level, and it "emerges" as we observe it at the macro level. But, as the parenthetical bit above makes clear, this "emergent" property has always been there, and with enough critical thinking, the implication of tides could have been reasoned out from the molecule itself, without the observance of tides. This is not the case for consciousness. There is nothing at the atomic level to suggest that consciousness is some property that will eventually "emerge."

  • @genesissage8509
    @genesissage8509 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Here before 10k subs

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Welcome on board and thanks for the support. Good to have you here!

  • @AprendeMovimiento
    @AprendeMovimiento 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Soul in Latin is simply "Anima" so it is the principle that animates (gives life, moves) something inanimate. We are hylomorphic beings (a composite of soul and body), thats explains the idea of the Hebrew/Greek (nephesh/psyche) idea of the Soul... Modern understandings of soul never get to the point and that's why it's easy to dismiss the idea of the soul.

    • @philipcoriolis6614
      @philipcoriolis6614 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Do you have evidence for that claim ?

    • @AprendeMovimiento
      @AprendeMovimiento 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@philipcoriolis6614 Summa Theologiae

    • @philipcoriolis6614
      @philipcoriolis6614 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@AprendeMovimiento Why would a book prove anything ?

    • @AprendeMovimiento
      @AprendeMovimiento 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@philipcoriolis6614 what??? ok, take care

    • @philipcoriolis6614
      @philipcoriolis6614 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@AprendeMovimiento Books are only printed claims if there is no evidence attached.

  • @Mark-cd2wf
    @Mark-cd2wf 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Great video, bro! Loved the part about NDEs.👍

    • @LoveYourNeighbour.
      @LoveYourNeighbour. 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Earlier in the interview, Lukas said he'd rather get into NDEs later on in the interview. I'm so glad he didn't then forget to do so! Really, really fascinating stuff!

    • @angelbrother1238
      @angelbrother1238 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Ndes are atheists greatest nightmare .
      The top NDE scientist in the world is dr Sam Parnia . Dr Parnia is an agnostic with no religious beliefs .
      He was also an NDE sceptic. Who was a guest presenter at the atheist science conference dr Chris French’s sceptic magazine’s science conference .
      This was dr parnias view on ndes 10 years ago in his interview on the skeptiko podcast .
      skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experience-probably-an-illusion/
      Like I said, if I was to base everything on the knowledge that I have currently of neuroscience, then the easiest explanation is that this is probably an illusion.”
      Fastforward to now and this is dr Parnias view on ndes , the soul and the afterlife .
      goop.com/wellness/spirituality/when-is-death-irreversible-a-resuscitation-m-d-explains-why-its-evolving/
      What the evidence suggests is that the soul, the self, the psyche, whatever you want to call it, does not become annihilated, even though the brain has shut down. This suggests that part of what makes us who we are-a part that is very real-is not produced by the brain. Instead, the brain is acting like a mediator. Like anything that has been undiscovered, because we can’t touch and feel it, we choose to ignore it. The reality, though, is that human thought exists, we communicate through thoughts-so it is a real phenomena. The source of consciousness is undiscovered in the same way that electromagnetic waves have been around for millions of years, but it’s only been recently that we created a device to record them and show them to other people.
      So in short, we haven’t got the tools yet, or a machine that’s accurate enough to pick up your thoughts and show them to me. In the next couple of decades, I believe it will be discovered that we continue to exist after death, and that consciousness is in fact an independent entity.
      Almost every NDE researcher these days holds to this position and that is why NDE science is a nightmare for atheists and most will not honestly dialogue about them

    • @angelbrother1238
      @angelbrother1238 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The ndes in people born blind is amazing .
      Here is a good paper on this
      www.nderf.org/NDERF/Articles/barbara_blind.htm

    • @angelbrother1238
      @angelbrother1238 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Now only do they see things but they experience 180 degree panoramic sight just like the ndes of sighted people .
      But Dr Moreland is incorrect about the lancet study on 25 people who didn’t have an NDE and people who had ndez and each group were asked to describe their hospital settings .
      This study was done by dr penny sartori not dr Pim Van lommel who is published in the lancet journal .

    • @anujagarwal7992
      @anujagarwal7992 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@angelbrother1238 lol theists are so so clueless

  • @kevinwells7080
    @kevinwells7080 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Very good, Lukas. I am coming to understand (or presume, more likely) that the will is identical with the ‘soul’. Iow free will is not a feature of a being, but what we call free will just is a situated being moving through its array of choices. I still need to shake the circularity out of this idea and do the related reading obvs.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      tell me how free will works os it's an illusion.

  • @DrStone-rd4ei
    @DrStone-rd4ei 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    I’ve been trying to Learn about this subject for so long thank you, and do u have any good book recommendations for this topic?

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Yeah, sure, I would highly recommend Moreland's "The Soul: How we know it's real and why it matters." Very accessible and treats all the key subjects. www.amazon.com/Soul-How-Know-Real-Matters/dp/0802411002/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+soul+moreland&qid=1610786404&sr=8-1

    • @mathew4181
      @mathew4181 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      One mind of larry dossey

    • @agsilverradio2225
      @agsilverradio2225 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I was going to say, "THE Good Book" (the Bible,) but then I realised your talking about imperial evidence that leads to the conclusion, not moral beliefs that do the same.

  • @SulaemanSantoso
    @SulaemanSantoso 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Hi man love your work, but can you ask dr moreland to give the NDE journal a link ? i would love to read them myself

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Thanks for the feedback. If you want, send him an email on jpmoreland.com. I think he usually responds to such requests.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      so you're on your deathbed and you start to drift off skyward, not knowing if you are
      about to meet your maker, or if you are bound for the hot place, but you stop to check
      out the colour of polythene bags, you drop by the nurses station to see what's on tv,
      you pop into the linen closet to read bar codes on bed sheets, yeah sure, thats your eternal soul.
      if it was me i would want some questions answered, can we travel faster than light, what is the cure for
      cancer? what do people bring back from their meeting with god? "granny says love each other"
      NDE's aren't any kind of evidence other than people take in information subconsciously, that aneasthesia is a fine art and keeping people in a CONSTANT state of unsciousness is tricky. there is information if you want to look for it, there is also BS if you prefer to look for that and carry on believing bollocks.
      moreland is an idiot.

  • @mjrabil2266
    @mjrabil2266 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Good content 👌

  • @piruloluke
    @piruloluke 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This video is very cool. I am very interested in this subject.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Glad you liked it. I highly recommend Moreland's book "The Soul"

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Deflate2020 i wouldn't, it's more preaching than neuroscience.

  • @revelationtrain7518
    @revelationtrain7518 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Remarkable and very interesting

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      certainly remarkable, you theists are reknown for being gullible.

  • @immanuel829
    @immanuel829 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great video, great channel 😊 thank you so much Lukas and Prof Moreland. God bless and much love from Germany 😍

  • @philipcoriolis6614
    @philipcoriolis6614 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    We should concur to a clear definition for what a "soul" is in the first place before trying to prove or disprove anything. Shouldn't we ?

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      yes, as the soul is an imaginary container invented for purposes of strengthening the afterlife myth, you ought to question everything about the christian mythology.

    • @dog_curry
      @dog_curry 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@HarryNicNicholas how do you know that for sure? How absurd if we are all just a bunch of pre programmed chemicals debating whether or not we are.

    • @drumrnva
      @drumrnva 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You weren't paying attention. Moreland makes this really clear around 1:25. " a soul is an immaterial substance, and by substance, I mean a thing, that has consciousness. " Then he goes on to explain the thing's various compartments and their contents. Couldn't be clearer! 🤣

    • @Hhjhfu247
      @Hhjhfu247 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@HarryNicNicholas take your meds granny

  • @NelsonAerial
    @NelsonAerial 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Lucas, Great interview!!!!🙏🏼❤️🙏🏼
    I worked, at a distance, with JP, Craig Hazen and many other apologists early in their careers, way back in 1989 as director of media and radio for CRI, originally founded by Dr Walter Martin, Who I actually first worked with in radio all the way back in 1974! Keep up your Amazing Work! I Love your approach!🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼(my wife grew up in Germany… I can’t tell if your accent is German, Dutch or one of the Nordic countries..??) Hahaha!!! God Bless Your Work Brother!

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanks for the encouragement, brother. I was taught by JP, Hazen and others at Biola. The accent is Swiss, which is where I'm originally from, though I've lived in Beirut, Lebanon for the past 10 years.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      you mean he's been peddling this nonsense for that long? christ, i've lived five lifetimes since those days.

    • @Tzimiskes3506
      @Tzimiskes3506 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@HarryNicNicholas you mean how stupid your arguements are?

  • @NotScotus
    @NotScotus 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Anyone have any book recommendations regarding philosophy of mind? Thanks

  • @williammcenaney1331
    @williammcenaney1331 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Prof. Moreland seems to believe that he is his soul. If believes that he is his soul, Descartes agrees with him. But I need Prof. Moreland to explain how the body relates to the soul because here on earth, we think partly with our brains. Descartes agrees with St. Paul, in my opinion. when St. Paul says that he would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. That's because Descartes believes that his body is like a home where he lives. Your home isn't a part of you. You live in your home. So I want to ask Dr. Moreland why we have bodies if we can survive without them.
    I wonder about that partly because Catholics believe that God his human body from the Blessed Virgin Mary. He has a human soul, too. It seems to me that each human person is com[osed of a human body and a human soul because a human soul makes a body human. Although Our Lord is a human being and a divine person, he's not his human soul, since he existed before he incarnated. Christ is one divine person with two natures. So Catholics reject Nestorianism, the heresy that two persons, a divine one and a human one, living together in the same body. For a Nestorian, Christ would be two persons rather than one person with two natures. Christ is not his human soul. His human soul is part of him because it's part of his human nature.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      we thinktotally with our brains, take away your brain you'll fall over.

    • @williammcenaney1331
      @williammcenaney1331 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@HarryNicNicholas Sure, I would. So would anyone else if you removed his brain. But Dr. Moreland's NDE evidence suggests that mental events can take place without a body. So I or part of me might watch my body collapse when Dr. Frankenstrin steals my brain.
      Remember what Dr. Moreland said about people born blind who saw color during their NDE. Since they were blind from birth, their eyes weren't sending color messages to their brains then. After those people returned(?) to their bodies, those people went blind again. Brain death wouldn't explain why those people or parts of them saw things that hadn't seen. If each mental event is a brain event, and braindead people can't see with their eyes, the people didn't look at anything with their eyes when those people or parts of them, saw color.

  • @truthseekers1620
    @truthseekers1620 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    we are a soul

  • @MyContext
    @MyContext 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The dismissal of the idea soul (and theology more broadly) is based on the idea being displaced by what is understood by biology in general. This displacement seems to be mistaken as being scientism and is broadly ascribed in an errant fashion. I wouldn't say that there isn't scientism nor would I claim that such beliefs are wholly unwarranted. However, science presents a definition of what is being claimed as well as the details as to how a given whatever works in a fashion wherein such can be checked without one simply trusting what one is told. This is in stark contrast to the declaration of a soul being ascribed to what we observe with no details as to how such linkages to what we observe or even how such works.
    Consider... I could define tween as an immaterial creature that affects luck which links to the soul of an individual to affect the quality of their life. Those that tend to have good lives have tweens attached to them. Those that tend to have poor lives don't have tweens. Further, it is the case that tween sometimes decide to leave for others and thus there is a sea change of fortunes for many as byproduct of such changes of linkage.
    Understand that I am not claiming that tweens exist, I am simply pointing out that tweens have explanatory power even as such is not demonstrated. Thus, if an idea is presented which explains our state with demonstrable cause/effect linkages, then the idea of a tween will be displaced in favor of that idea with better explanatory power.
    I suspect this point is something that many apologists understand and as a consequence work to undermine science, since science by its nature displaces many of the notions that were once the province of theology (and superstition for that matter).

  • @RAFAEL27769
    @RAFAEL27769 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Body + spirit ( breath of life) = living soul.
    You do not have a soul, if you're reading this, then you are a soul .

    • @justchilling704
      @justchilling704 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      True the biblical and this Christian meaning of Soul is a living being. So the topic is about our spirit and body’s relationship to each other.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      gosh, how profound, god must be looking forward to your advice when you arrive.

  • @ClintonRivas
    @ClintonRivas 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    For the algorithm

  • @kevinwells7080
    @kevinwells7080 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    One of the interesting things about embodiment is that it limits the capacity for and effects of sin. Mt 10:28/Lk 12:5

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      oddly od doesn't seem to have any power to stop sin, god has never enforced any of his rules, and despite nearly 5 BILLION people being religious we still have crime, murder and all the things that god made rules about, god is pretty useless don't you think?

  • @_a.z
    @_a.z 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    34:00 Moreland ultimately just asserts that consciousness has always existed in the form of a god, which in itself is not explained or demonstrated, or is more likely than an eternal or simple background to the universe with quantum instability being the prime mover.
    From that point, phenomenal complexity, and in particular our brains can be reasonably well explained by natural means. Darwinian evolution being a large part of that.
    The exact phenomena of consciousness can't be described at the moment, but I would be prepared to wait for a better explanation than "Oh it's always been there!"

    • @barry.anderberg
      @barry.anderberg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Your brain evolved by a blind, purposeless, directionless, natural process, right?

    • @_a.z
      @_a.z 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@barry.anderberg
      Yep! The mechanisms are well understood.
      How did your god come about?

    • @barry.anderberg
      @barry.anderberg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@_a.z Does that natural process care about what you believe?

    • @_a.z
      @_a.z 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@barry.anderberg
      Natural selection only cares about fitness in relation to the environment.

    • @barry.anderberg
      @barry.anderberg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@_a.z So then why do you trust your beliefs? Evolution does not care about beliefs. To hold a belief in evolution as well as in naturalism is incoherent and self refuting.

  • @kevinwells7080
    @kevinwells7080 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Given that NDEs are veridical, we still are left with the quandary that, by necessity, they are recounted by embodied persons dependent upon whatever brain function facilitates storage and recall of memory. It may be (and almost certainly is) the case that unembodied experiences are simply inexpressible and incomprehensible to embodied persons (including the person who had the experience) without having been recast into a recognizable symbology by the brain. This may be similar to how we can incorporate sensory input into our dreams if it is intense enough to intrude on our dream state, and yet recast the sensation to ‘fit’ within our dream.

  • @Stifle9
    @Stifle9 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Emergent property is a buzz word used when you cannot argue the causal link or connection but have enough biased folks on your side to not question your argument. Not science, this is religious talk.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      100%! It's a description of the problem, not a solution for it.

  • @quatroblazer1579
    @quatroblazer1579 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    What does he think about Sam Harris ? As he too is a neuroscientist

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I mention Sam Harris at some point in the video actually, in the part about emergent properties.

    • @quatroblazer1579
      @quatroblazer1579 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Deflate2020 ohh will check it out but what do you think makes Sam Harris a powerful opponent to the faith ?

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      No, I don't think he is powerful. I mean, he is a very good communicator, but he is absolutely weak in his philosophical reasoning. Once you can look past his rhetoric, his arguments are extremely weak.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Deflate2020 actually you are weak in every aspect of your argumentation, and you aren't a neuroscientist so it's a bit rich critcising harris, sam's reasoning is way better than yours, your reasoning leads to an immoral, contradictory despotic god, and assertions of the impossible - souls, afterlife, resurrection - once you look past YOUR rhetoric there is nothing at all, unsubstantiated claims. you ask for evidence and citations, how about you demonstrate god? you say god is real, show him to me.

  • @polliwobble
    @polliwobble 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Me: I'd like to read that article he mentions in the Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism
    Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism: $157.52 minimum
    Me: 😳

  • @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456
    @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    50:30 "everything you do is either determined or its probability is fixed by matter"
    You don't say...
    Matter can determin an if-elseif-otherwiseif "gate" and thus allow us to make choices based on whatever we deemed to be suitable "if" and even lookup a database for more options or variations of it.
    In other words, static matter ordered up to run a flexible program, like any computer does, can do better as alleged.
    Someone surely can explain this more elegantly.

  • @wessexexplorer
    @wessexexplorer 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Early comment, but how can something be said about what the soul does if neuroscience can’t say anything about what the soul can do? Is there some cross over?
    Conscious seems to map directly into brains whether human or from another part of the animal kingdom. Also the sophistication of the animal’s mental capabilities seems to correlate to the size of the animal’s brains.

  • @_a.z
    @_a.z 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I hear a lot of assertions!
    How does this prove that a conscious person is not just a phenomenem of a complex brain?
    Sure, it's not well understood but neither was mobile phones 100 years ago!
    This is like someone from 1000 years ago trying to understand electricity, and there could even be another such natural phenomena that is still to be discovered! That doesn't make consciousness supernatural.
    Lobotomies show that a consciousness can be divided in two, with separate beliefs associated with each part.

    • @barry.anderberg
      @barry.anderberg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      It sounds like you're merely asserting that dualism is false without engaging with the scholarly work on the subject and showing why those arguments fail.

    • @_a.z
      @_a.z 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@barry.anderberg
      I don't see a key point that proves dualism.
      The mind is still a product of the brain, take away any part of it and corresponding parts of the mind fail. It is emergent, like hydrogen and oxygen can be wet.

    • @barry.anderberg
      @barry.anderberg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@_a.z Yeah, that's simply not true. The literature is full of cases that have people with parts of their brains missing, or the brain cut in half (corpus callosotomy), or even cases where the brain was almost entirely missing. Then there are veridical NDE experiences, of which there exist at least 300 in the literature. These are cases where the patient reported facts later verified that they could not have known while they had no brain activity at all. For you to say "the mind is still a product of the brain" is just an assertion.

    • @_a.z
      @_a.z 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@barry.anderberg
      We beg to differ. The brain is highly malleable and often able to compensate for damage though.

    • @gradystein5765
      @gradystein5765 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@barry.anderbergDualism is complete intellectual failure.

  • @williammcenaney1331
    @williammcenaney1331 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I last watched this video about two years when Dr. Moreland seemed to define the soul clearly. It's not clear. First, he says a soul is a substance, a thing. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would tell you that a substance is an object with properties, though it's not a property.
    Dr. Moreland seems to believe a soul is an immaterial, nonphysical object with compartments. But what does he mean by "compartment?" Why make that word mean faculty? A compartment can't me physical in a nonphysical object partly because objects have no physical parts.

  • @eklektikTubb
    @eklektikTubb ปีที่แล้ว

    I dont see how can anyone disprove the soul. And even if they would disprove it, word "soul" would still have an irreplaceable place in the common dialect.

  • @DeadEndFrog
    @DeadEndFrog 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Nothing «disproves» the Soul, inorder for something to be disproved it needs to be a coherent concept in the first place. With strict definitions. As of now, its not Even wrong. Not Even the theologians share the same definition, and its their «science»

  • @somerandom3247
    @somerandom3247 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Does anything prove the soul?
    Nope...
    Does anything even come close to suggesting that a soul actually exists?
    Nope....

    • @philotheoapolobrendon3653
      @philotheoapolobrendon3653 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      You realize statements are not arguments right?

    • @somerandom3247
      @somerandom3247 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@philotheoapolobrendon3653
      Yes.
      You realised that it is foolish to believe things that you have no good reason to believe don't you?

    • @FIRE0KING
      @FIRE0KING 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Why dont you look deeper into the NDE research? Even if you choose to maintain your position, they are really cool and fascinating stories.

    • @somerandom3247
      @somerandom3247 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@FIRE0KING
      I do look into nde cases. Lots of claims, most accompanied by little to no evidence. And nothing I have seen comes anywhere close to proving a soul exists.
      Why not wait untill we have good reasons to believe things before we believe them?

    • @plzenjoygameosu2349
      @plzenjoygameosu2349 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Is some random remotely close to being right?
      Nope...

  • @AlDunbar
    @AlDunbar 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Not surprising at all since science is not in the business of proving things.

  • @LockMacFly
    @LockMacFly 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    There is no reason for a Christian to believe in an immaterial soul.

    • @ChristAliveForevermore
      @ChristAliveForevermore 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Sure there is. It just requires us to properly define what a soul is. It's not just an immaterial substance which compartmentalizes aspects of a conscious being. It is also the vessel within which God's breath of life resides. Jesus promises eternal life, which necessarily means a non-decomposable soul. We shall retain our individual consciousnesses, yet be part of a continuous whole which is God's eternity. Thus we shall have an immortal soul existing within the confines of God's eternal heaven.

    • @LockMacFly
      @LockMacFly 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ChristAliveForevermore you are saying stuff you learned outside of the bible. If you believe God created everything then he can recreate you. There is no mention of an immaterial soul in the bible. God blew into the nostrils and it became a living soul. The body is the temple of God not the soul. These things are in the bible.

  • @tombrown7936
    @tombrown7936 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    ANSWER - NO 🙏🤗🙏

  • @cygnusustus
    @cygnusustus 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Neuroscience has no obligation to debunk that for which you have no evidence for in the first place.
    Silly people.......

    • @aidan-ator7844
      @aidan-ator7844 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Then why the fuck do atheists keep on saying that neuroscience has debunked the soul. It also depends on what you define as evidence. Also, if you were to die but keep on living and living and living, would you then still assert that there is no evidence of the soul because this could just be part of some kind of simulation or that your consciousness got transferred by some unseeable force? How stupid. I have never seen one atheist give a standard of the acceptable evidence for God, the supernatural or Christianity. Because if I don't want something to be the case, I can always come up with some kind of objection to any point. This is the same for Christianity.

    • @cygnusustus
      @cygnusustus 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@aidan-ator7844
      "Then why the fuck do atheists keep on saying that neuroscience has debunked the soul."
      They don't.
      Why the fuck to theists keep saying that atheists keep saying the neuroscience has debunked the soul?
      Oh yeah....gotta have your straw men.
      Listen closely kid. Until you provide EVIDENCE for a soul, there is nothing to debunk.
      "I have never seen one atheist give a standard of the acceptable evidence for God, the supernatural or Christianity."
      Liar. Standards of evidence are readily available and have been presented many times. Empirical evidence is observable facts more likely to be true under a hypothesis than not. The problem is that you are demanding we supply the evidence we don't believe exists, and whining when we point out that you are dodging your burden of proof.
      But how about this:
      A photograph or recording of God.
      God, himself, actually appearing and communicating with us.
      Failing that, how about showing that prayer actually works?
      There. Now you can never again complain about atheists not suggesting things that would be evidence for God.

    • @cygnusustus
      @cygnusustus 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@aidan-ator7844
      In fact, you cannot even DEFINE a "soul".
      We have no obligation to debunk something you cannot even define.

    • @davidjanbaz7728
      @davidjanbaz7728 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@cygnusustus photograph of a invisible supernatural being: laughing my butt off 😆

    • @Prime_Legend
      @Prime_Legend 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@cygnusustus So you wanna see god for proof that he's real? I guess your evolution theory and big bang is fake as well since you have not seen any photographs or videos of the process unfolding.

  • @LasseJ789
    @LasseJ789 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Yes it does, completely, goodbye.

  • @Beencouraged777
    @Beencouraged777 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Grace is running out for the naysayers. God has proven himself in many ways, and they still refuse to humble themselves. God knows that they know, he doesn’t have to prove to us that they know because it’s not about us, mankind has to stand before God individually.

  • @Culexus1
    @Culexus1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    51 minutes and 49 seconds of special pleading and baseless assertions.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Can you give a valid example or is your comment just a baseless assertion?

    • @Culexus1
      @Culexus1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Deflate2020 Sure:
      1) 1:27 - Moreland asserts, without evidence, that a soul is an immaterial substance. He then clarifies (?) that "substance" here means "thing" which explains exactly nothing. Using the word substance with immaterial appears meaningless based on the definitions of these two words, and as he uses it here is special pleading - I'm not aware of any "substances" which are immaterial - how did Moreland learn about this and what are this "substances" properties? How does he know it exists but people like me don't?
      2) 1:51 - Moreland asserts, without evidence, that a soul has "compartments" in it. How does he know this? What evidence can he offer? He asserts it as a fact without any basis. These "compartments" conveniently align with various activities which correlate with brain states, like visual input and appear to be ad hoc categorizations to address objections like "why can't a blind person's soul see or a deaf persons soul hear" rather than based on anything that is actually able to be evidenced.
      3) 3:55 - Moreland explains that persons are a soul of a certain kind with a range of abilities. He then goes on to claim that even people with none of these abilities (presumably like newborn babes or people in a persistent vegetative state) still count as people. This is bald special pleading as clearly these people don't possess any of the abilities Moreland attributes to signs of having a soul. And he hand waves it away by stating "I don't want to get into that." Convenient.
      4) 4:17 - He claims, without basis, that embodiment is not essential to personhood. He claims that he will continue to exist after he dies. How did he come by the knowledge that this is the case? Where is his evidence?
      I could go on, but I think that's enough. I get that he brings a load of religious presuppositions to the table, but to just assert these things as if they are self evidently true and logically coherent outside of his faith construct is very bizarre. Any way, have a super duper day.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@Culexus1
      1) Substance and immaterial go perfectly well together in discussions about metaphysics. To think that they don't is to assume materialism without actually making a case for it. Since the phenomenon of consciousness is a key decider in the materialism vs. supernaturalism debate, it's a circular argument to suggest that substance must always be material.
      2) He conceptualizes the soul, yes. Scientists conceptualize things all the time without any evidence. Atoms were conceptualized before anyone ever saw them.
      3) "... with a range of abilities like a well developed person," is what he says, yes. He's giving an ostensive definition of personhood and so it's perfectly normal for him to say that he doesn't want to get into cases that deviate from the ostensive definition, as this is the clearest starting point for the discussion.
      4) So you think the cases documented by medical doctors and scientists which he cites starting from 35:25 are "without basis"? Or did you not bother to check out the whole interview.

    • @CJ-lr4uq
      @CJ-lr4uq 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @Love all I can't imagine how shallow a person's intellect and personal character must be that they honestly think the metaphysical, spiritual and soul are just "shyt made up". People like you seem to be blissfully unaware of how dumb you actually sound.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Deflate2020 why should anyone give you any more of their time than they want. if you got an actual neuroscientist on you'd get less flak about content, morelnad is two steps from the booby hatch, he's just making stuff up, he even opens with nonsense "the soul is an immaterial substance" immaterial ? substance? how can something IMMATERIAL be a SUBSTANCE - let's just call it a THING jesus h fkn christ man, you missed this twaddle?????

  • @SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals
    @SpatialAndTemporalEvangelicals 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Neuroscience PROVES The Souls Exists And It PROVES That Prayer Works.

    • @somerandom3247
      @somerandom3247 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      How?

    • @gradystein5765
      @gradystein5765 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      No it doesn’t.

    • @axellukkien
      @axellukkien 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Prayer works. And so do sugarpills and homeopathy. It's called the Placebo-effect. Neuroscience has not found a soul yet, although the evidence against an immortal soul is mounting.

    • @plzenjoygameosu2349
      @plzenjoygameosu2349 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yes it’s been completely proven by neuroscience.

    • @aidan-ator7844
      @aidan-ator7844 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@axellukkien what kind of bullshit are you on. It is literally impossible to find evidence against an immortal soul so when you say it is mounting, I know you just pulled a fake point right out your a#s.

  • @cameron339
    @cameron339 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Please demonstrate how something "immaterial" can exist?

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      That's what the video does.

    • @cameron339
      @cameron339 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@Deflate2020 But it doesnt though. You're just asserting that it does. Please demonstrate for me how you can distinguish the difference between that which is immaterial and that which is in your imagination?

    • @jackplumbridge2704
      @jackplumbridge2704 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@cameron339 that's like asking "can you demonstrate that the external world is real, and not just your imagination".

    • @cameron339
      @cameron339 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@jackplumbridge2704 Sure I can. If the external world wasn't real but just a product of my imagination, then I should be able to manipulate it solely with my mind. Obviously this isnt the case. The external world doesnt care about my mind, feelings, opinions, preferences, etc. Reality is that which continues to exist when you stop believing in it.

    • @jackplumbridge2704
      @jackplumbridge2704 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@cameron339 "Sure I can. If the external world wasn't real but just a product of my imagination, then I should be able to manipulate it solely with my mind." - umm, no. this is ridiculous. something being a construct of your mind doesn't mean you have control over it.
      people who hallucinate can't control their hallucinations, they are out of their control, even though they are the product of their mind.
      on top of this, something else could be manipulating you and making you think the external world is real, like a powerful alien who has you stuck in a test tube.
      or the external world around you is nothing more than an advanced simulation.
      so again i ask, how can you prove that the external world is real?

  • @reasonforge9997
    @reasonforge9997 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    30:00 How does panpsychism view the effects of the body changing its units of matter over time? Supposing two people were captured by some super advanced space alien abductors who put them both to sleep and operated on them such that all the atoms in their brains and bodies were exchanged. Would they wake up in a different body with different memories?

    • @thenowchurch6419
      @thenowchurch6419 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      That is a complex issue.
      I suspect that it would depend on the degree of self-knowledge of the individuals operated on.
      If they cultivated their spiritual awareness enough, they may well experience waking up in a different body with some different memories but also have memories of their original life in the first body.
      This is similar to the teachings of spiritualists such as Gurdjieff and
      Blavatsky that not all souls will remember who they were after dying and waking up on the other side.

    • @reasonforge9997
      @reasonforge9997 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thenowchurch6419 Hmmm. Not sure what cultivating an individual's spiritual awareness means here...but it seems like the normal non-disputed case is to "wake up" in the same body throughout an individual's life even as it changes what matter is in it over the year and the mental and physical abilities and characteristics of the body change. Would the advanced someone who cultivated this spiritual awareness identify more as the atoms that are no longer in the body than as the body? That does not seem to me what I usually would call a "spiritual" thing. If I was forced somehow to try to make materialism plausible, I would think my best bet would be to explain it by the mechanical processes of the brain...although I don't really find that plausible...just really its the closest it seems one can get if one was forced to try to defend Materialsm.

    • @thenowchurch6419
      @thenowchurch6419 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@reasonforge9997 Cultivation of spiritual awareness as I understand it is the process of sublimating the ego self into the super ego or higher Self, which is directly in touch with the universal divine Spirit.
      That process would enable such a person to access all the memories of the ego that inhabited the body they grew up and developed in.
      They would not identify as the atoms of the body but as the super-ego that used that body as its vehicle.
      As for the hypothetical switching of atoms and bodies, the uncultivated individual may indeed wake up and identify with the new brain they have been given and the memories stored there, whereas the spiritually advanced individual would not.
      I agree that explaining the emergence of self awareness by the mechanical processes of the brain alone is not very plausible.
      Peace.

    • @reasonforge9997
      @reasonforge9997 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thenowchurch6419 My question was aimed at the panpsychism view that was mentioned around 30:00 in the video. Although I am not familiar with panpsychism, and indeed had not heard of it before it was mentioned---so I should remain cautious about assuming I understand its entire scope, Still I am not sure that your explanation fits within that view...so maybe there is a misunderstanding about the context of my question here...or maybe what you are describing with a higher spirit and all fits into panpsychism in some way I had not anticipated....

    • @thenowchurch6419
      @thenowchurch6419 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@reasonforge9997 panpsychism is basically the view that consciousness is the essence of everything in the universe.
      It would include both pantheism( everything is God) and panentheism( God is an individual but permeates all things).
      What I described falls under panentheism.

  • @professorneturman2249
    @professorneturman2249 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Cited Neuroscience yet doesn't bring an expert on the subject. The ignorance is astounding!

  • @gradystein5765
    @gradystein5765 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Cool, so what evidence do you have that a soul exists?

    • @johnhammond6423
      @johnhammond6423 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Please do not ask questions these theists can not answer.

    • @thenowchurch6419
      @thenowchurch6419 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You can answer that yourself. You are a soul.
      Unless you are simply a programed bot automatically following orders, you are that evidence.

    • @UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana
      @UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Well not full evidence, but it makes it plausible: the proteins able to form prions behave exactly like how you would expect the physical object directly controlled by the soul to act.
      They are extremely important for a lot of functions in the body like intelligence and the immune system, but show no indication of what it is they mechanically do. This can be seen when one protein able to form prions was removed from mice's genome and they had severe intelligence problems. Especially telling was the mice started activating the production of another protein able to form prions more spontaneously showing they are very important for the body to have an emergency system for a lack of prions. They also show no indication of what they mechanically do, which is weird, but makes sense if you compare them to the handles of weapons, which also seem to do nothing, as they are for control and not useful for any other function.
      These proteins also give a way for intelligence to evolve as RNA can behave like a protein, so simple life could use RNA to control its body, while animals, angiosperms and fungi, have proteins dedicated to the task. Thus, you don't have the issue of a living thing without a soul getting a soul and not completely changing its internal mechanics to maximise the usefulness of its new controller, as all life (and a bunch of things scientists tend not to call life) have souls.
      Although this method (the only method I know that makes any sense) has the side effect that cancer should count as human, because it has abnormal prion proteins and can live indefinitely after the first host dies, which Christians don't seem to like.
      Cancer still can't feel physical pain due to a lack of pain sensors and each cancer doesn't have a family to miss after it is gone, so the only reason why this would be a problem is because of Christian ethics where killing is wrong, just cause.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thenowchurch6419 humans are soulful creatures, i'll grant that, we behave like we have a soul sometimes to certain people, but souls in the religious sense is absurd, what makes you think you have this - no one can even tell you what it is - thos jam jar that takes you to heaven? it;s twaddle. just more crap to bolster a stupid story to get you in the god gang.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana what mde what plausible how? you wrote a ton of stuff, didn't supply any evidence i could discern.

  • @killermoon635
    @killermoon635 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    There is no evidence for any soul or any supernatural thing. You just making up things

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Sure

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Deflate2020 glad you agree, at last i can stop pointing out what a piece of work you are.

  • @grayman7208
    @grayman7208 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    j p moreland is distracting with all the "ants in his pants" bouncing around.

  • @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456
    @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Repent. There's no soul. The Hebrew word nephesh means creature, everything else beyond this is zoroastrian or Egyptian influence with their Ka and Ba fitting the narrative here pretty perfectly.

    • @CJ-lr4uq
      @CJ-lr4uq 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      If there's no soul then why does anybody need to "repent"? We cease to exist when we die anyway. Don't be ridiculous. Both the Old and New Testament acknowledge the existence of a soul.

    • @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456
      @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@CJ-lr4uq because as both the ot and NT say, you can inherit eternal life after the resurrection or eternal death. Don't you want to live?
      Only the translations acknowledge souls. Correct would be person/self/being or even lungs or throat.
      Give me one passage in the Bible where these don't fit.
      Also, there are many places where nephesh never ends up translated as it would look weird in English to you anything but pronouns.
      There's NO souls.
      God breath into his nostrils and Adam became of active LUNGS.

    • @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456
      @bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@CJ-lr4uq God doesn't need an active copy of you or reincarnate you as yourself to get you back up.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@CJ-lr4uq you need to repent cos thats' part of the scam that's religion. i thought that was obvious.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456 souls and eternal life and resurrections and three people that are one person and talking snakes - you take this drivel in. unbelieveable.

  • @ANAcollectif
    @ANAcollectif 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    disprove something is absurde.

  • @TalentMthiyane
    @TalentMthiyane 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    that split brain explanation was just horrible

  • @adamheywood113
    @adamheywood113 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    There has never been, in any of recorded history, any instance of a natural explanation being superseded by a supernatural explanation.
    This does not speak to whether a soul exists; I'm only pointing to the track records, as it were, of the methods we use to determine what is likely true and what likely is.
    In other words, it isn't the responsibility of the neuroscientist to debunk the soul; the concept of the soul needs to be shown to be accurate to reality on its own merits. I daresay that while neuroscientists might be able to explain Cotard's Syndrome, they cannot debunk zombies or other undead creatures.
    If you don't know the answer to a question, plugging in more hypotheticals and unknowns does nothing to get anyone closer to an answer.
    We don't have a full explanation of how the brain produces consciousness but there's nothing to suggest consciousness can survive the death of the brain.
    P.S. Regarding the note in the description, Christian philosophy violates basic human rights and is an affront to dignity.
    And lastly, if you had a deity, you wouldn't try to find holes in current valid or accepted science and fill it with theistic claims; you'd just present it.

    • @Deflate2020
      @Deflate2020  3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      "In other words, it isn't the responsibility of the neuroscientist to debunk the soul" Never said that it was. Nevertheless, a whole lot of people think that it can.
      "there's nothing to suggest consciousness can survive the death of the brain."
      NDE's do suggest that consciousness survives the death of the brain.
      How does Christian philosophy violate basic human rights?

    • @adamheywood113
      @adamheywood113 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Deflate2020
      "Never said that it was [the responsibility of the neuroscientist to debunk the soul]. Nevertheless, a whole lot of people think that it can."
      I did go on to say that the concept of the soul needs to be shown to be accurate to reality on its own merits.
      If you, personally, believe in the soul, that is your business; but if your goal were to be to convince other people that souls exist, then you would be the one who has to show your belief to be true.
      "NDE's do suggest that consciousness survives the death of the brain."
      No, most emphatically, they do not. Anybody who had an NDE wasn't dead; they were _nearly_ dead and nearly dead isn't dead.
      It isn't surprising that a person perceives odd things while their brain is experiencing oxygen starvation and shutting down.
      It's fairly common, as I understand it, for people to come back from the brink of brain death explaining that they felt very peaceful, they saw a white light, things of that nature; maybe they are convinced that they experienced that but there are two problems with taking their word for it:
      1) They are reporting their experience after the fact, after the brain has had time to contextualise or rationalise the experience
      2) You are taking the word of someone whose brain was literally not functioning (at least, not normally or correctly) and you therefore _cannot_ rely on their perceptions to be accurate, any more than you can trust a schizophrenic's paranoid delusions or a drunkard's assurances that he can sing
      Christian philosophy is undignified and inhumane for multiple reasons.
      Other people - our ancestors - committed some offence and so the rest of us have to pay the heavy, heavy price.
      We are all born broken and have to apologise for it.
      The ultimate arbiter of morality is constantly watching, constantly listening to your thoughts, and even thinking about doing something Against The Rules warrants condemnation.
      Punishing people for their thoughts is tyrannical. You wouldn't elect a government who wanted to do that.
      If we don't apologise for these offences, we get to suffer forever for a finite lifetime of not apologising for inheriting someone else's penalty. Infinite punishment for finite offences is gross.
      Also I'd like to politely say that on your video on Biblical slavery, you asked me if I thought Mosaic law was objectively appalling or subjectively appalling and I replied to that. I know you're busy, so I hope this doesn't sound prickly because I don't mean it to.

    • @samueldani4283
      @samueldani4283 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@adamheywood113 commited some offense ? Like what ?

    • @adamheywood113
      @adamheywood113 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@samueldani4283
      As I understand it, God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil but they disobeyed that order.
      The actual offence is irrelevant. The point is that punishing one's descendants for one's own crimes is unjust.

    • @samueldani4283
      @samueldani4283 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@adamheywood113 how do u know that unjust ? So the story is true ?

  • @williammcenaney1331
    @williammcenaney1331 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Would someone please tell me whether Dr. Moreland's theory about the soul is a variation of St. Thomas Aquinas's belief that a human person is composed of a body and an immortal soul? If I understand St. Thomas, then he believes that my soul is a part of me, not that I'm my soul.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      it's not that important mate, go out in the sun and play for a while, eternity is waiting for people who want to waste a lot ot time on god stuff.

    • @williammcenaney1331
      @williammcenaney1331 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@HarryNicNicholas I"d rather stay indoors.
      I don't expect to convince you of anything, friend. But let's see what you think of this true story. You may think the events are merely coincidental. So if you do, maybe you'll tell me how to know for sure.
      After a dear friend of mine died on January 1, 2013, I cried when an email said that his wake, graveside ceremony, and luncheon were for relatives only. While I cried, I told my friend's or his soul, "Buddy boy, if you want me there, you'll need to arrange it because we're not relatives." At 1:00 the next morning, an acquaintance of mine offered to drive me to the funeral home, the cemetery, and the restaurant. So we went together.
      At the restaurant, I thanked my friend's healthcare proxy for making an exception to let me attend all three, though I'm not my friend's relative. The proxy looked at me, pointed to our table, and said, "This is his family>"
      Even if there's no afterlife, most scientists believe that physicalism is true. The trouble is that physicalism defeats itself and implies that rational thinking is impossible. Here's why.
      Let's say that physicalism, also called "materialism," and causal determinism is true. Then on our supposition, each mental event is a causally determined brain event. For your mind to be trustworthy, needs to produce true beliefs most of the time. But let's also suppose that in your brain, natural selection always chooses beliefs to help you survive, even if they're false. Deterministic events will force you to believe what you do believe.
      So they'll even make you believe that most of your beliefs are true and that causal determinism is false. You'll be fooled when no one can expose the deception. After all, you'll always reason deterministically. like everyone else. You'll have no way to know whether your senses are giving you accurate information. In fact, what you think you perceive may be nothing like what's in the external world. But many scientists still believe in physicalism and causal determinism. When someone asked Christopher Hitchens whether he, Hitchens, had free will, Hitchens replied that he had no choice. The question is whether he choose freely to deny that he had a choice. If physicalism and causal determinism is true, and if you're doing science, maybe you're wasting your time.

  • @yahwehorthehighway1683
    @yahwehorthehighway1683 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    For someone critical of how neuroscientists don't understand philosophy, Moreland sure gets a lot wrong about neuroscience.

    • @HarryNicNicholas
      @HarryNicNicholas 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      moreland was probably dropped on his head during an NDE. apparently god performed the miracle of providing moreland with a pool table, and his proof that it was god is that his kids specified "a real one like the pros use" and presto, god did it!!
      i'm praying for the lottery.

  • @zr7699
    @zr7699 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Scientific absurdities!

  • @Dialogos1989
    @Dialogos1989 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It doesn’t, but there is no reason to think there IS a soul in addition to neural activity