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

What a name!

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 .

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.

@@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.

Thanks Dave - glad you liked it!

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 =)

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

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

Yes, great point - thanks man!

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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.

@@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😁

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

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.

@@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.

hahahaha!

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

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

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 :-)

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.

Thanks 😊 Glad you liked it!

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

@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?

@@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.

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

how much do you want to bet?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

@@HarryNicNicholas you mean how stupid your arguements are?

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!

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

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

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 .

@@angelbrother1238 lol theists are so so clueless

Glad it was helpful!

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.

@@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.

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

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

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

One mind of larry dossey

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.

No it isn’t.

100% Milton! 😃

@@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.

@@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.

@@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."

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

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.

certainly remarkable, you theists are reknown for being gullible.

Glad you liked it!

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

Ed Feser’s book “philosophy of mind” is great.

not moreland.

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?

Do you have evidence for that claim ?

@@philipcoriolis6614 Summa Theologiae

@@AprendeMovimiento Why would a book prove anything ?

@@philipcoriolis6614 what??? ok, take care

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

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.

@@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.

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! 🤣

@@HarryNicNicholas take your meds granny

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.

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

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

@@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.

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

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

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.

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

@@_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.

That's what the video does.

@@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?

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

@@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.

@@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?

eyewash mate. learn some actual science. the ible just gives you god stuff, nor a lot of use to brain surgeons.

@@HarryNicNicholas We're always learning, whether it Science in which the terms root meaning is knowledge, or God stuff, as you so delicately put it. So not sure your implications, for I agree if a person decide they've learned all, they're already fooled.

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.

@@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.

@@_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.

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

@@barry.anderbergDualism is complete intellectual failure.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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....

@@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.

Please do not ask questions these theists can not answer.

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

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.

@@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.

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

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.

@@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.

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

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

@@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.

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.

​@@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.

You realize statements are not arguments right?

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

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

@@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?

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

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.

@@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.

How?

No it doesn’t.

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.

Yes it’s been completely proven by neuroscience.

@@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.

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

@@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.

@@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.

@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.

@@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?????

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.

"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?

@@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.

@@adamheywood113 commited some offense ? Like what ?

@@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.

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

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.

@@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.

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

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

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

Sure

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