The Top 10 Objections To the Soul Answered in Rapid-Fire
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- In this video, Dr. Joshua Farris responds to the top 10 objections to dualism in rapid-fire style.
Make sure to check out Dr. Farris' blog post that goes in to way more detail on each objection: www.joshuarfarris.com/post/ch...
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/43Ty8BD
Lens (Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8): amzn.to/3YkeD4c
HDMI Adapter (Elgato HD60 X): amzn.to/3DFUKe4
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/44NJtUZ
Audio Interface (Apollo Twin): amzn.to/44SRF6w
Key Light (Aputure 300X): amzn.to/3Qs1WSZ
Color Back Lighting (Hue Floor Lamps): amzn.to/3DDkpnL
Recording/Interview Software: www.ecamm.com/mac/ecammlive/?...
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
I don't know why short videos like this aren't more popular, but I can tell you that as someone who hates wasting time, I really appreciate this quality over quantity approach. It's extremely informative for it's length and I know what to look up now if I want to go deeper.
I like these short videos Cam. Keep these up
You like them, but most of our subscribers don’t. It’s underperforming in basically every category.
@@CapturingChristianity oh dang that sucks. Nvm then! Don’t listen to me 😂
Neuroscience and neurodegenerative diseases provide a very strong critique of dualism- specifically for how immaterial “souls” interact with material brains. And the way that this problem is shrugged off in this video does a disservice to those who seriously grapple with this problem.
excellent video
I think Cam should mention that this was Chat GPTs top 10 objections to dualism
Lol, what evidence do you have for that statement? 🤣
@@brendynmiller239Check the link in the description of the video
Which says nothing about how well (or not) those objections were answered.
And chat Gpt likely got the list from another source it was trained on. Crazy how critics work so hard to find things to complain about, but aren't willing to put in the tiniest thought about if their complaint is actually valid
1. Mind-body interaction problem
2. Dualism is unnecessary - William's Razor (W. of Okham)
3. Out of body experiences
4. The brain explains the mind
5. Causal closure (but is it?)
6. Evolution
7. Identity (over time)
8. Other minds
9. Location (where is it?)
10. Dualism not coherent - memory, perception, etc
On 3, the alternative accounts by Braude and Sudduth are basically never engaged or even mentioned. I think we can offer criticisms of their alt accounts, but it's tougher than apologists acknowledge.
Excellent! Get Bruce Greyson on next! He has worked for over 50 years with people who have had verified Near Death Experiences and has done scientific experiments with them.
I technically am a monist, as I believe that only one substance exists, but I am not a materialist. I agree with substance dualism that the mind is irreducible to any nonconscious substance and believe in a mental substance; That being said, I do not see the need to posit the existence of a nonmental subdtance, as anything that is material can be derived from mind without the additional assumption of a material substance. This makes me an Idealist. A great idealist UA-camr is InspiringPhilosophy.
I am highly sympathetic to versions of idealism like Augustinian idealism or, maybe, Berkeley's idealism.
I agree
It might be interesting to have a neuroscientist on. It has been seen with the eye how neural pathways form. It can be either “bottom up” meaning from reactions to triggers from our conditioning/wiring. Or “top down” meaning the effect of our thoughts and actions that can override the conditioned neural pathways.
I think he did have a neuroscientist on in the past
Catholics do not affirm substance dualism. We affirm hylemorphism.
The Council of Vienna: "Furthermore, with the approval of the holy council We reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the Catholic faith any doctrine or opinion that rashly asserts that the substance of the rational and intellectual soul is not truly and of itself the form of the human body or that calls this into doubt. In order that the truth of the pure faith may be known to all and the path to error barred, We define that from now on whoever presumes to assert, defend, or obstinately hold that the rational and intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body is to be censured as heretic." Denzinger, 43rd ed, 902
When do identical twins get their individual souls if life begins at conception, but twins don’t form until a later time when a single zygote splits into two separate entities?
Do they start with one soul at conception that then splits into two? Or are they given their unique souls later on?
Veridical NDEs and OBEs may be examples of refined remote viewing/clairvoyance (and other psi) mediated by a brain in altered states (some of which are conducive to psi)
The soul interpretation of NOBEs presupposes such refined clairvoyance (souls don't have eyes/ears, and their accurate "perceptions" would just BE clairvoyance and telepathy)
But if we grant refined ESP, we have to tackle the possibility of living people using ESP in these extreme conditions.
It's also interesting that Christian academics routinely ignore much stronger "empirical cases" suggesting postmortem survival.
Cardena (2018), Braude (2003), Hodgson (1898) etc
9:37 _"The problem of other Minds is not a metaphysical problem or objection the fact that I have access to my own mental States and you have access to your own mental States and you don't have direct access to my mental States it doesn't seem to be a problem"_
That's interesting, that's usually precisely what I point out when responding to arguments against physicalism...
Can he formulate an argument against physicalism given what he said here ? If I have _"access to my own mental states and you have access to yours"_ then we have our explanation for why we have different _"properties",_ and why they can indeed be _"reducible to physical properties"_ (1:04)
Get Edward Feser on to discuss hylemorphic dualism. It's not substance dualism, it's not panpsychism, it's a really fascinating Aristotelian solution to the mind body problem.
Yeah what he said
As a Catholic I find myself in a difficult middle position here, because Catholicism teaches that a human being is a body and a soul together, not a soul living in a body. Its not materialistic monism but not platonic dualism either. In fact, in our view, souls were never supposed to be separated from bodies - because death was not supposed to exist in the first place. Does this have practical consequences? Yes, very much so. For example, I found his answer about the empirical proofs of dualism to be very poor. No scientist accept that NDEs or out of body experiences are facts. The experience itself is a fact but to them it doesnt say anything about whether this experience tells us something about reality. So they can simply reject this response with no need of a good argument. Instead, as a Catholic Id argue that souls simply lie beyond the purview of empirical science. Because they are not a physical phenomenon. Same goes for God. These (empirical and metaphysical) are two different types of claim. We should rather reject the dogmatic premise that all existing things must be verifiable through the scientific method. We already know several things that cant - e.g. the laws of logic that underlie science itself for starters.
spirit/Spirit: This term is generally used in reference to the ESSENTIAL nature of a human being (and also of a non-human animal, or even of a plant or fungus, in some religious traditions and metaphysical systems). Although some Theologians use the terms “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably, those from the Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) usually consider “soul” to be a living being (a human person) whilst the term “spirit” is that part of the person which is non-temporal (the essential self). The lower case form of these words (“spirit” and “soul”) is approximately equivalent to the lower case form of the Sanskrit word “ātman”, and obviously, the upper-case form (“Soul”) refers to “Ātman” or “Paramātman” (“Supersoul” or “Over-soul”, in English). Cf. “ātman/Ātman”.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this author, the various terms denoting the realm of eternality, such as “The Ground of Being”, “The Unified Field”, “Ultimate Reality”, “Brahman”, and “The Tao”, are fundamentally SYNONYMOUS with those terms referring to the essence of the human being, such as “soul”, “spirit”, “self/Self”, and as mentioned already, “ātman/Ātman”, and “Paramātman”. In fact, one of the four so-called “Great Sayings” (“mahāvākya”, in Sanskrit) of the Upanishads, “ayam ātmā brahma”, very succinctly says as much: “this self is The Unlimited”, or “the soul is The Supersoul”, or “the person is The Totality of Existence”.
However, it seems that the overwhelming majority of religionists who use the words “spirit” and/or “soul”, do so in reference to a separate OBJECT (e.g. “The spirit of man”, “The human spirit”, “We are spirits in the material world”, “I am not a body, but a spirit/soul”). According to my research, most religionists believe that this OBJECT (call it what you will) joins with the human body at the time of conception (or sometimes at birth) and that, upon the demise of the body, this OBJECT travels to another location (either heaven, hell, or purgatory) or else enters into the body of another living being (either a human, non-human animal, or a plant). Some Theologies postulate that the soul and/or the spirit may be mortal and, depending on the moral disposition of the particular person in question, can perish at the time of death (or even during one’s lifetime, known as a spiritual death, or sometime after death, known as “death by hellfire”). Depending on their unique theologies, religionists assume that this OBJECT is located in various places in the human body, even though at conception, there are no developed body parts in which this fictitious OBJECT could possibly be positioned! Some believe that the entire body is pervaded by the soul/spirit, some that it is located in the pituitary gland, or situated in the heart. The word “spirit”, along with the terms "soul”, “truth”, “ego”, and “love” (among others), is undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the English language. In at least ninety percent of the instances in which the word “spirit” (and especially the term “spiritual”) is used in common discourse, a more apposite word could be (and should be) used in its stead.
Objectively-speaking (no pun intended), the words “soul/Soul” and “spirit/Spirit” simply refers to the SUBJECT (as opposed to objective reality) and more specifically, the Subject of all subjects (and objects), and generally, this is how they are used in this book.
If soul real how come i cant get soul surgery
Chekcmate fundies
You can. You just need spiritual thread and a spiritual scalpel.
What about conjoined twins with one brain? How many souls there?
The interaction problem is not a "problem to all", because it is not a problem to idealism.
Wouldn't it imply instead that idealism isn't viable a priori?
Im an Advaita Vedantin (nondualist) and nonduality explains EVERYTHING so much cleaner and more smoothly---far more paparsimoniously than Abrahamic relogions or even science can.
Not a problem on substance dualism either
@@Insane_ForJesus substance dualism is a big problem in itself. Not a viable take on reality.
@@monkkeygawd I don't think it is and I am very well informed on philosophy of mind. I don't think there are any successful objections to substance dualism even from panpsychists and idealists.
Substance dualism is cool.
While my physical body is sleeping, why is my soul also less alert?
You never had a lucid dream, apparently.
Your soul can be 100% alert while your body is sleeping.
Is it?
Are you sure
Apostle Paul warns Christians to avoid wrangling words, 2nd Tim. 2:14. It is literally impossible to have a profitable debate between monist atheist and dualist Christian without wrangling words.
7:28 _"I think uh basically we have no good reason no a prior reason or empirical reason for rejecting something like psychophysical laws that there are actually laws that govern the interaction of Minds with bodies and if we don't have any good reasons to reject that interaction then it doesn't seem like there's any good reason to reject dualism as incompatible with an evolutionary perspective"_
The _"a priori reason"_ is Occam's razor, which goes back to question number 2
But like he said if we have Data unaccounted for we have to expand our explanation. Occam's razor wouldn't apply here unless dualism is unnecessary to account for the data.
@@mitslev4043 Sure, I don't think there is any *"unaccounted for data",* at least in principle. And I guess neither is any monist.... Otherwise they wouldn't be monists...
@@MrGustavier there is. For one qualia. A second is the fact that consciousness doesn't appear to have any location in the physical brain. Things like will experience and the compliment of information doesn't have a place in the brain. It like watching videos on UA-cam but believeing the information is originating in the computer. Yet you can't find hardware that accounts for it. And even if we did use Occam's razor it would be the metaphysical that is taken priority not the physical. Our mental facility and experience are self apparent but the certainly of our experience is not.
@@mitslev4043Well this could just be because consciousness isn't located at any fixed point in the brain, but is a result of those interactions within the brain as a whole, which would explain why it is an emergent property and why the level of consciousness appears to correlate with the number of neurones in the brain across species.
@@_the__void_ I get your point but that's why I also mentioned the compliment of information. If it was an emergent phenomenon you would see a place that information is put together. Though I have some typos that made it hard to read. But also things like will that seem to have no point of origin. We can affect every aspect of the brain with electricity except things like consciousness ( aside from knocking someone out) and will. But again that still won't explain qualia and their primacy in logic. Also everyone who responded has had cool pics.
An Atheist is like a fish in a deep wide ocean looking EVERYWHERE for evidence of water..
If that's true, then what is the point of this channel? If evidence for God is so readily apparent then everyone is either a Christian or a willingly resistant atheist. In either case, arguments for God and against atheist aren't changing minds or reinforcing faith.
Bad analogy tbh
@@jgone4856you can say that about lots of things. We are surrounded by atoms yet it took us a long time to discover them. Would you also say that information on atom need not exist if we are truly everywhere.
What does atheism have to do with it? You could be an atheist dualist or a theist non-dualist (like Peter van Inwagen, Tim O'Connor, myself...).
@@macmac1022 he didn't say it was obvious only that is was everywhere. So I believe the analogy works. But I'll admit no analogy is perfect.
deboosted?
Whether to forgive the soul, I consider only that the enemy has a son.
Never heard of the Interactive Problem, but I see this only as a problem if you're narrow minded. Sure, physical things can affect the mind, but the mind is also capable of overcoming physical hardships. The slogan, "Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% what you make of it" is invalid by this objection to dualism. Yes, you have the power (through Christ at least) to overcome your chemicals.
As a musician, the physical state of my body can affect my performance, -cold hands, dry skin, unpracticed, muscle soreness, ect.. The physical affect my body has on my music doesn't mean there is no music, discipline, or intentionality. If physical things can affect our bodies' performance in various skills, why can't physical matter affect our brainstate also? Yes, even mental illnesses like dymensia.
In fact, my grandmother had very terrible late stage alzeimers to where she was a near vegetated state and couldn't talk. Lights were completely off, so they say. But once when my mom was visiting her, she made a subtle gesture with her finger that my mom recognized. My mom took it as her letting her know that she was still in there.
Yeah, I recently just came to the conclusion that we have a soul. Defining a soul as consciousness with the ability to act and make decisions. Which we can observe on a daily basis since we have thoughts that we act on consciously. The conscious mind, subconscious mind, and unconscious mind all clearly connect to what we perceive as the physical, specifically the body. Regardless of how you model how these "minds" connect to the physical, either the conscious mind is directly connected to the physical or goes through some chain of responses going from conscious mind to subconscious mind to unconscious mind, or some other order. It is clear that our conscious mind is connected to what we perceive as the physical. It is also clear that consciousness cannot be reduced to the physical since what we perceive as the physical is incompatible with what we perceive as mental. The mental cannot be explained by only physical things. Hence, we have a soul.
Been trying to get to a conclusion to whether God exists with this, and so far it's been going well. Although, I have one more consideration to make which might lead to this being inconclusive.
@@macmac1022 Similar to a disease of the nervous system that causes hands to tremble unwillingly, the reliable expression of one's will can be affected by a split brain resulting in (unwilling) false reports of one's own favorite color.
Or in other words, your conclusion that the soul of split brain patients have 2 different favorite colors at the same time (based on their given reports) is wrong.
@@macmac1022 As I've said, what we perceive as the physical and what we perceive as the mental are connected somehow in such a way that they are causally connected in certain way(s). The body acts on its own, the mental can act on its own too. They can influence one another. And the body can act on its own when the mind isn't in control of the body or some part of the body.
@@macmac1022 I didn’t avoid the questions. A two split patient has only one mind, but sometimes the physical execution is different leading to these questions you ask. There’s nothing wrong with what was said.
Plus, maybe there are two souls in one body. We do have people with DID which could be having multiple souls. I’m not sure about that though.
Theism, at a minimum, is the best explanation which I argue in The Creation of Self. However, I don't think naturalism can satisfy the principle of sufficient reason concerning the designation of personhood.
@@joshuafarris8555 Yeah, I’d think that too however, there are many possibilities to consider. Plus, one question that makes me skeptical when it comes to God giving us our soul, is where would he get it? How would create the soul?
It’s impossible to create or get something from nothing. There’s no connection between the thing that exists and thing that does not exist. For this reason, something cannot be created or come from nothing.
With that, it’s unclear how God could create our soul. And if it were from himself, then would that mean the soul is made of parts? Or would that mean the soul itself is somehow infinite in its capacity exist and separate? Both seem problematic, but the second seems like it could be justifiable.
The consideration I’m currently considering, is maybe the whole universe contains what makes us conscious and have soul, but that through concentrating the energy or thing that makes us conscious and soul-like with the physical, maybe that’s what gives us our individuality and awareness. Which would explain why our mind seems so dependent on our body. Maybe the mind is dependent on the body as maybe it needs something to channel that information through.
The question here of course is, can we rule this possibility out or conclude that it reduces to theism? It needing the physical to be channeled through would make it impossible for God to exist since there’s nothing for God’s mind to be channeled through. At least unless the whole universe is more physical than we realize. So it doesn’t seem like it can be reduced to theism. Seems like we need to rule it out somehow. If that’s not possible, then God’s existence cannot be concluded from the existence of our soul.
I don't think humans need to have souls separate from their brains in the first place. It depends on if you believe in going to Heaven or awakening upon Jesus' return. Our bodies will be restored.
"Today we brought in an expert to go against scientific objections to the notion of a soul!"
The expert:
Dr. Joshua Farris, Professor of Theology of Science
Yeah, powerful....
Exactly!!!! Ugh!!!!
🎉 W Christianity
@@itsnevertoolatetodotherigh3271 what does the "W" stand for?? "why"?
all 10 objections to dualism 'dismissed' without evidence.
I suppose that's how you roll when your epistemology is nothing but - belief looking for justification.
intellectually dishonest 101
@@haydenwalton2766 Valid arguments constitute evidence - maybe not of the type of evidence, that you would accept as evidence (but that would be your fault).
Yes. Though dualism is wrong.
Everything is mind. Our souls exists as focal points in a field of mind.
Through consciousness matter comes to be. Matter is the part of mind space through which we have the most concrete and regular communication with other souls. Heaven is the part of mental space where love, joy, beauty enters our soul.
It's a dualism in the sense that when our consciousness gazes in one direction it sees matter, and in the other it sees the immaterial. But these two are not fixed, and what is where is a floating thing.
It is the assumption that this is fixed and a sort of objective difference separation exists between then, which is wrong. This is the assumption of the dulists and materialists both, materialists just think the one thing is an illusion in addition. Dualism is the thing that drives materialism and atheism.
I'm highly sympathetic to idealism!
The Occam’s razor objection is weak. The explanatory power would only be comparable is determinism is true. If compatibilism or libertarian free will is true we lose the ability to compete with explanatory power.
determinism is true, as it is the only theory that can properly account for why individual human beings display habit-patterns. Libertarian freewill cannot explain why teen boys display a pattern of more aggression and risk-taking than do males who are older. Patterns suggest physical causation, not convenient coincidences.
@@user-ov8iz9vz4n Your position is self refuting. How can you take risks on determinism? You have no control over your thoughts, desires or actions. The very response you typed would be uncontrollably typed due to physical processes not critically thinking and reasoning to a response.
@@truthovertea Tom Your position is self refuting. How can you take risks on determinism?"
--------The risk is how I perceive the situation. The fact that determinism is true doesn't necessarily require that I perceive my risk-taking choices to be determined beforehand. Just like a Calvinist would say the fact that God infallibly predestined you to sin doesn't logically require that you also perceive that you are incapable of doing otherwise.
"You have no control over your thoughts, desires or actions."
-----------Neither do bugs, but they still often correctly perceive their environment. Thus naturalist determinism does not do what Plantinga thought it should.
"The very response you typed would be uncontrollably typed due to physical processes not critically thinking and reasoning to a response."
---------you are fallaciously presuming that control and critical thinking cannot occur unless the agent is free from predetermination. That doesn't follow. Chess programs are capable of beating the world's best players, despite the fact that the program's evaluation of play, or the critical thinking, is determined. So the chess program is one example of a thing that lacks true freedom,yet still engages in critical evaluation.
🎉 W Christianity
9:22 _"This isn't really a problem"_
When we split the brain in two, we have two identities emerging... So what ? A new "soul" was placed in the body ?
Split-brain patients do not have two identities, they have two streams of attention, they still have a shared consciousness.
@@macmac1022
I can't explain things that only happened in the wonderland of your imagination. Favorite colors can definitely change based on influences thay may differ to the two attention streams, but two attention streams would never result in differing fundamental values.
You are VERY likely mistaking split-brain patients for people with dissociative-personality disorder. People with DPD indeed have multiple people living inside a single brain, and this is evidence FOR souls, not against it. The brain is like a radio tunning to a specific station, and people with DPD have their dial stuck between two stations.
There are documented cases of people with DPD where one personality has an allergy that the other does not. This is not reasonable under materialism.
Cases of split brain patients, where the connections between the right and the left hemisphere of the brain have been severed for medical reasons, do not prove that the brain creates consciousness, or that your consciousness can be devided.
Numerous studies have found evidence of a unified conscious agent in split brain patients, not two conscious agents divided between hemispheres.
In a study, Dr Michael Gazzaniga said "The data indicate that even though both simple and complex perceptual information associated with the cognitive activities of each disconnected half brain show virtually no no interactions the attention all system remains largely integrated in the split-brain patient. "
Also, neuroscientist D.W zaidel writes, "each patient behaves as one with a single personality and unified consciousness. Thus, we must look at what is amiss in order to distinguish between the apparent and the real. "
A better explanation of split-brained patients is Tim Bayne's switch model, there's not two distinct conscious agents divided between hemispheres, but one conscious agent that switches between his different hemispheres. When the agent using the left hemisphere, he doesn't have all the information or memories in the right hemisphere. And when he switches to the right, he's disconnected from memories he made on the left side. So it only appears as if there's two conscious agents, when really is just one agent who's just switching between different hemispheres. And the different hemispheres have different information and memories.
@@dirtydevil Michael Jones has hours of video material explaining these and other objections to the existence of souls.
no, the individual does NOT split into two when the brain is split. All neurosurgeons verify this. Eg. Michael Egnor, pediatric neurosurgeon
- Spirit: Any source of energy or influence designed to act upon or filter through a specific toroidal system (a soul).
- Soul: Any toroidal system designed to receive, interpret, transmit, and/or transform spirits.
- Body: Any structure designed to protect and host a soul.
These are interesting definitions! I'll have to look up "toroidal" a bit later. 😂
I would wonder if you'd be willing to remove "designed" from the definitions, since it might commit you to defending intelligent design, which seems tangential to the key points of the definitions.
@@yowza9638 No, I wouldn’t be willing to remove “designed,” because design is integral to any system. We will have to agree to disagree.
I wouldn't agree to this, you _are_ your body as well
@@yowza9638
spirit/Spirit: This term is generally used in reference to the ESSENTIAL nature of a human being (and also of a non-human animal, or even of a plant or fungus, in some religious traditions and metaphysical systems). Although some Theologians use the terms “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably, those from the Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) usually consider “soul” to be a living being (a human person) whilst the term “spirit” is that part of the person which is non-temporal (the essential self). The lower case form of these words (“spirit” and “soul”) is approximately equivalent to the lower case form of the Sanskrit word “ātman”, and obviously, the upper-case form (“Soul”) refers to “Ātman” or “Paramātman” (“Supersoul” or “Over-soul”, in English). Cf. “ātman/Ātman”.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this author, the various terms denoting the realm of eternality, such as “The Ground of Being”, “The Unified Field”, “Ultimate Reality”, “Brahman”, and “The Tao”, are fundamentally SYNONYMOUS with those terms referring to the essence of the human being, such as “soul”, “spirit”, “self/Self”, and as mentioned already, “ātman/Ātman”, and “Paramātman”. In fact, one of the four so-called “Great Sayings” (“mahāvākya”, in Sanskrit) of the Upanishads, “ayam ātmā brahma”, very succinctly says as much: “this self is The Unlimited”, or “the soul is The Supersoul”, or “the person is The Totality of Existence”.
However, it seems that the overwhelming majority of religionists who use the words “spirit” and/or “soul”, do so in reference to a separate OBJECT (e.g. “The spirit of man”, “The human spirit”, “We are spirits in the material world”, “I am not a body, but a spirit/soul”). According to my research, most religionists believe that this OBJECT (call it what you will) joins with the human body at the time of conception (or sometimes at birth) and that, upon the demise of the body, this OBJECT travels to another location (either heaven, hell, or purgatory) or else enters into the body of another living being (either a human, non-human animal, or a plant). Some Theologies postulate that the soul and/or the spirit may be mortal and, depending on the moral disposition of the particular person in question, can perish at the time of death (or even during one’s lifetime, known as a spiritual death, or sometime after death, known as “death by hellfire”). Depending on their unique theologies, religionists assume that this OBJECT is located in various places in the human body, even though at conception, there are no developed body parts in which this fictitious OBJECT could possibly be positioned! Some believe that the entire body is pervaded by the soul/spirit, some that it is located in the pituitary gland, or situated in the heart. The word “spirit”, along with the terms "soul”, “truth”, “ego”, and “love” (among others), is undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the English language. In at least ninety percent of the instances in which the word “spirit” (and especially the term “spiritual”) is used in common discourse, a more apposite word could be (and should be) used in its stead.
Objectively-speaking (no pun intended), the words “soul/Soul” and “spirit/Spirit” simply refers to the SUBJECT (as opposed to objective reality) and more specifically, the Subject of all subjects (and objects), and generally, this is how they are used in this book.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Is the radio also the radio wave? You are objectively wrong, friend, and the nature of the Universe proves it. You just have to listen and observe it.
This channel is hilarious.
4:10 what a lie
Hi, please explain more, what is the lie he said there
Did this guy seriously just cite reports of NDEs to answer a question about lack of empirical evidence? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 3:46
I mean he had 60 second for each
Hey Cam! When are you going to release your financial records demonstrating why this channel is costing you upwards of $3k per month to operate?
E-begging in the name of Jesus is just absolutely deplorable and I hope you can find it in your heart to show us why you’re doing it.
A hen.
He has bills and has to eat like everyone else, give this seeker of truth a break,
@@flolou8496no, I won’t be giving a grifter a break. He’s using religion to hide finances while begging for money, which did be criminal.
Enstein believe ghost exist.
God is clear in scripture that all atheists will be without excuse.
Romans 1:20
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
What is a term for a person who believes anything and everything that they read?
@@TheVeganVicar I dunno.
But I do know what God calls atheists in the Bible. Reprobates.
Romans 1:28
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”
@@garrettstrong9606, in your own words, define "REPROBATE".
@@TheVeganVicar It’s in the book of Exodus. Pharoah hardened his heart to God consecutive times. After it was clear Pharoah wanted nothing to do with the truth, God blinded him from the truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
On NDEs: all they are best are subjective and incompatible accounts. If Capturing Christianity are prepared to accept some NDEs, what criteria do they have to reject any NDE. If there's NOTHING to accept or reject them, then it's not objective or consistent evidence worth a single consideration. I highly suggest anyone spend five minutes looking and sincere NDE Christian UA-cam channels. They're mostly ridiculous, but no one here can reject them when there's no discrimination criteria.
By what criteria do you say they're "incompatible"?
1) Contradictory claims of the appearances of the afterlife for Christians.
2) The states of "death" people self-report.
3) Visions that contradict doctrines in scripture.
At no point does CC ever points out which are legitimate and which are not. Anecdotal cherry-picks by apologists are given. Examples are arbitrarily picked to create the least doubt.
I'd like one single video addressing these criteria at the least. I highly doubt one will ever get made. It opens the door for this to be deemed nonsense evidence.
How hard is this?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
Have you spent any reasonable time going through the hundreds of thousands of hours of NDEs on YT? @@Qwerty-jy9mj