Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.

Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.

Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?

Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.

Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).

The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.

Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.

Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?

Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.

Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).

The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.

Well... You certainly keep me busy reading about different perspectives. Hard to follow all those alternatives and grasping what it really means.
However, to state that the material body and immaterial mind might be about the same substance means that it should be detectable. But are you now conjuring up some new substance, just to fill in the gap that presents itself? Shouldn't such a substance be allready (theoretically) known, amongst all fundamentall research?

Furthermore, what about the soul and spirit? If one dies, the spirit and/or soul should detach themself from the body (brain). With one substance, that detachment should be visible, or at least detectable. Billions have died and never has a detachment of the soul/spirit been witnessed, no proof or evidence or anything else that comes close to a even hint. And never has there been found anything that resembles anything close to what could be a (or the) mind, spirit or soul.

Isn't it all the mind?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.

Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.

Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?

Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.

Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).

The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.

Well... You certainly keep me busy reading about different perspectives. Hard to follow all those alternatives and grasping what it really means.
However, to state that the material body and immaterial mind might be about the same substance means that it should be detectable. But are you now conjuring up some new substance, just to fill in the gap that presents itself? Shouldn't such a substance be allready (theoretically) known, amongst all fundamentall research?

Furthermore, what about the soul and spirit? If one dies, the spirit and/or soul should detach themself from the body (brain). With one substance, that detachment should be visible, or at least detectable. Billions have died and never has a detachment of the soul/spirit been witnessed, no proof or evidence or anything else that comes close to a even hint. And never has there been found anything that resembles anything close to what could be a (or the) mind, spirit or soul.

Isn't it all the mind?

Science does not delve into the spiritual realm by choice though,so it is no wonder why they have no evidence or theories about spiritual matters so they should be the last people on earth that you rely on when it comes to spiritual matters.Instead look to experts in the spiritual realm and not science.Jesus Christ would be an expert by the way.But this means relying on people who have experience dealing with the spiritual realm or spiritual matters like soul/spirit,miracles,God,religions,etc.I must say though that when people who know about spiritual matters inform you about it and you disregard it or ignore it,etc it is no difference than somebody not understanding scientific theories and them just rejecting it out of a lack of understanding of the theories just because they don't trust scientists.

Selling The Dogma
https://youtu.be/uOYc3wDBe4M

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.

Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.

Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?

Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.

Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).

The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.

Well... You certainly keep me busy reading about different perspectives. Hard to follow all those alternatives and grasping what it really means.
However, to state that the material body and immaterial mind might be about the same substance means that it should be detectable. But are you now conjuring up some new substance, just to fill in the gap that presents itself? Shouldn't such a substance be allready (theoretically) known, amongst all fundamentall research?

Furthermore, what about the soul and spirit? If one dies, the spirit and/or soul should detach themself from the body (brain). With one substance, that detachment should be visible, or at least detectable. Billions have died and never has a detachment of the soul/spirit been witnessed, no proof or evidence or anything else that comes close to a even hint. And never has there been found anything that resembles anything close to what could be a (or the) mind, spirit or soul.

Isn't it all the mind?

Science does not delve into the spiritual realm by choice though,so it is no wonder why they have no evidence or theories about spiritual matters so they should be the last people on earth that you rely on when it comes to spiritual matters.

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Philip wrote:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Uh, Ken, what realm CAN the scientific method study? The PHYSICAL realm, correct? But the spiritual realm isn't physical - which is why they scientific method is inadequate as to the task. Now, the scientific method does reveal many astounding, immensely improbable things with unbelievably-thin margins, many mathematically improbable things coming into existence without an intelligent cause - things checking all the boxes for an origin of astounding intelligence - these science CAN measures. But they can't measure or prove the Source. It can't examine the soul, thoughts (other than electrical impulses), the conscience, feelings (other than their physical manifestation, they descriptions. Science can't measure before a specific point of the Big Bang's beginning - why, because there was a point in which there was no physical (yep, that's what physicists insist about the moments of the early universe).

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...

Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?

Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.

Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.

Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?

Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.

Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).

The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.

Well... You certainly keep me busy reading about different perspectives. Hard to follow all those alternatives and grasping what it really means.
However, to state that the material body and immaterial mind might be about the same substance means that it should be detectable. But are you now conjuring up some new substance, just to fill in the gap that presents itself? Shouldn't such a substance be allready (theoretically) known, amongst all fundamentall research?

Justhuman wrote:Furthermore, what about the soul and spirit? If one dies, the spirit and/or soul should detach themself from the body (brain). With one substance, that detachment should be visible, or at least detectable. Billions have died and never has a detachment of the soul/spirit been witnessed, no proof or evidence or anything else that comes close to a even hint. And never has there been found anything that resembles anything close to what could be a (or the) mind, spirit or soul.

Isn't it all the mind?

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Uh, Ken, what realm CAN the scientific method study? The PHYSICAL realm, correct? But the spiritual realm isn't physical - which is why they scientific method is inadequate as to the task. Now, the scientific method does reveal many astounding, immensely improbable things with unbelievably-thin margins, many mathematically improbable things coming into existence without an intelligent cause - things checking all the boxes for an origin of astounding intelligence - these science CAN measures. But they can't measure or prove the Source. It can't examine the soul, thoughts (other than electrical impulses), the conscience, feelings (other than their physical manifestation, they descriptions. Science can't measure before a specific point of the Big Bang's beginning - why, because there was a point in which there was no physical (yep, that's what physicists insist about the moments of the early universe).

The person I was responding to made the claim that science chooses not to look into the spiritual realm. I was pointing out that there are those who did choose to look, but they just didn't find anything.

Ken

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Uh, Ken, what realm CAN the scientific method study? The PHYSICAL realm, correct? But the spiritual realm isn't physical - which is why they scientific method is inadequate as to the task. Now, the scientific method does reveal many astounding, immensely improbable things with unbelievably-thin margins, many mathematically improbable things coming into existence without an intelligent cause - things checking all the boxes for an origin of astounding intelligence - these science CAN measures. But they can't measure or prove the Source. It can't examine the soul, thoughts (other than electrical impulses), the conscience, feelings (other than their physical manifestation, they descriptions. Science can't measure before a specific point of the Big Bang's beginning - why, because there was a point in which there was no physical (yep, that's what physicists insist about the moments of the early universe).

The person I was responding to made the claim that science chooses not to look into the spiritual realm. I was pointing out that there are those who did choose to look, but they just didn't find anything.

Ken

Nice try Ken. You actually said:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Kenny wrote:

If I hire engineers and designers to design a house for me, then take those designs to a construction company with crew and pay them to build the house on my property, did I build that house? I was in control of it all, but did I actually build anything? Did I actually create anything?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:That would only really be relevant is someone said that EVERYTHING that is material comes from/is controlled by the immaterial.

No; it would be revenant if SOMETHINGS material are created by immaterial; which is what you seem to be claiming.

PaulSacramento wrote:No one said that.
What was point out was that the immaterial ( like a thought) and control the material ( like a body).

Oh! So now you are adding the body into it? Before you only said; conscious thought and imagination can create physical things; now are you agreeing with me that the body is required as well?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Uh, Ken, what realm CAN the scientific method study? The PHYSICAL realm, correct? But the spiritual realm isn't physical - which is why they scientific method is inadequate as to the task. Now, the scientific method does reveal many astounding, immensely improbable things with unbelievably-thin margins, many mathematically improbable things coming into existence without an intelligent cause - things checking all the boxes for an origin of astounding intelligence - these science CAN measures. But they can't measure or prove the Source. It can't examine the soul, thoughts (other than electrical impulses), the conscience, feelings (other than their physical manifestation, they descriptions. Science can't measure before a specific point of the Big Bang's beginning - why, because there was a point in which there was no physical (yep, that's what physicists insist about the moments of the early universe).

The person I was responding to made the claim that science chooses not to look into the spiritual realm. I was pointing out that there are those who did choose to look, but they just didn't find anything.

Ken

Nice try Ken. You actually said:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Fair enough; allow me to rephrase.
Science has not found any evidence that the spiritual realm exists; if they did they would study it.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.

Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.

Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.

I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.

Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.

Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?

Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.

Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).

The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.

Well... You certainly keep me busy reading about different perspectives. Hard to follow all those alternatives and grasping what it really means.
However, to state that the material body and immaterial mind might be about the same substance means that it should be detectable. But are you now conjuring up some new substance, just to fill in the gap that presents itself? Shouldn't such a substance be allready (theoretically) known, amongst all fundamentall research?

What "gap" is presenting itself? It is actually well acknowledged by many rational thinkers in academia that the modern materialist approach doesn't simply have gaps, but fails to explain important mind-related features of our world -- consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value.

Thomas Nagel (Atheist) argues this failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind is a major problem. It threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture if not dealt with. His book, Mind and Cosmos, I believe represents an honest appraisal of where the mind-body issue is at today. His thinking will filter down, and I expect his call to deal with materialistic problems, will become more acknowledged in upcoming generations.

So to answer your question, I think you're barking up the wrong tree/s if you're tending towards thinking this is on par with some "God of the gaps" argument.

Further, I don't feel best to fill in any "gaps" in your knowledge on this issue, so would encourage you to investigate positions and the like further on your own -- keep an open mind (and heart) throughout your life as you discover and learn more. That's all I'd hope and recommend for you.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:
Uh, Ken, what realm CAN the scientific method study? The PHYSICAL realm, correct? But the spiritual realm isn't physical - which is why they scientific method is inadequate as to the task. Now, the scientific method does reveal many astounding, immensely improbable things with unbelievably-thin margins, many mathematically improbable things coming into existence without an intelligent cause - things checking all the boxes for an origin of astounding intelligence - these science CAN measures. But they can't measure or prove the Source. It can't examine the soul, thoughts (other than electrical impulses), the conscience, feelings (other than their physical manifestation, they descriptions. Science can't measure before a specific point of the Big Bang's beginning - why, because there was a point in which there was no physical (yep, that's what physicists insist about the moments of the early universe).

The person I was responding to made the claim that science chooses not to look into the spiritual realm. I was pointing out that there are those who did choose to look, but they just didn't find anything.

Ken

Nice try Ken. You actually said:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Fair enough; allow me to rephrase.
Science has not found any evidence that the spiritual realm exists; if they did they would study it.

Ken

Kenny,

Only an idiot would try to hammer a nail with a plastic spoon.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote: The person I was responding to made the claim that science chooses not to look into the spiritual realm. I was pointing out that there are those who did choose to look, but they just didn't find anything.

Ken

Nice try Ken. You actually said:

The fact is, there just isn’t any evidence the spiritual realm exists; if there were, people would use the scientific method to study it.

Fair enough; allow me to rephrase.
Science has not found any evidence that the spiritual realm exists; if they did they would study it.

Ken

Kenny,

Only an idiot would try to hammer a nail with a plastic spoon.

I agree! But what does that have to do with the conversation at hand?

K