Evidence for the Soul: A Conversation with J.P. Moreland

[@anthonyrowden]

Took J.P.'s Phil of Mind last semester! Was a blast! Thanks J.P. for being an awesome teacher! :)

[@mac8179]

Took it 15 years ago. Still foggy 🤣

[@EricHernandez]

J.P. Moreland is my man! I drove him around in my SOUL (Kia Soul) the other day. True story. It was a blast.

[@rocio8851]

Oh, how I appreciate this man. But actually, you raised my interest in the soul. Thanks!

[@EricHernandez]

@@rocio8851 Oh wow! I am incredible honored and humbled. Thank you for sharing that with me. It means a lot.

[@fabienneb8641]

I like the pun 🤗

[@EricHernandez]

@@fabienneb8641 I bought the car just to make the joke! Thank you!

[@realtalkwithjordan8026]

He’s a SOUL man!

[@Happy-Kafir]

This is the smartest man I've ever heard. It hurts my brain to keep up I'm going to have to listen to this a few more times. Thank you

[@AdventuresinCritterland]

Very powerful! So grateful for the hard work of JP Moreland and many others who research and provide intelligent answers to these most existential questions. By faith *and reason* we come to believe!

[@introvertedchristian5219]

This is a good interview. J.P. had a lot to do with me becoming a substance dualist.

[@hwd7]

52:20. N.D.E.'s. The fact that they're possible means that a soul exists. Great point.

[@ArmorofTruth]

Thanks for the conversation, men! And thank you both for your years of work and dedication to the truth of God's Word. You've inspired many of us (I am one) to hear and heed the call to evangelism and apologetics. God bless!

[@Lillaloppan]

Thank you😊

[@patticarey9016]

Always love listening to JP. I've read some of this stuff in the book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview by JP and William Lane Craig. Gotta admit, reading it is more difficult than hearing JP explain it

[@rocio8851]

JPM is fantastic. Or, I should say God works greatly through him. Love him!

[@MoonDogRadio]

My novel PSYCHONIX touches on this a lot. Thanks for your endorsement J.P.!

[@bongoboy11]

This video really challenges me. I want to know more. My soul just absorbed everything in this video. Thanks for having this conversation. Buying the book!

[@ArmorofTruth]

looking forward to your convo with your father! McDowells in stereo.

[@theHentySkeptic]

This is great stuff. Thanks.

[@michelleenglehardt4106]

Gutted JP & Craig Hazen weren't able to speak at our conferences this year in NZ 😥 Thank you for these Conversations Sean McDowell.

[@hwd7]

I can relate to the car not turning right analogy, that actually happened to me when a friend left a screwdriver on the steering knuckle once. Luckily, I kept turning left to make it home before he removed the offending screwdriver.

[@nathanalex6880]

I’m from KC, MO, too! 😂 great conversation, Sean.

[@tgrogan6049]

Starting at transcript 12:37 Moreland seems to imply that individuals blinded as infants could see things in an NDE like a sighted person. Like their "soul" without eyes or a brain could see like normal folks do. If you actually look up the study it doesn't seem to make this claim. "Explores evidence that even those blind from birth can "see" during near-death (NDE) and out-of-body (OBE) experiences. The authors' evidence reveals a unique type of perception, which involved a deep awareness and profound ability to know that the authors have called "mindsight." The authors present their findings in detail, investigating case histories of blind persons who have actually reported visual experiences under NDEs or OBEs.𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 "𝙨𝙚𝙚" 𝙖𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩. 𝙄𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 "𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨" 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚, 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 "𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜" 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙡𝙚𝙙𝙜𝙚.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) Emphasis Added. www.researchgate.net/publication/232548481_Near-Death_and_Out-of-Body_Experiences_in_the_Blind So I believe that Dr. Moreland is being misleading in his statements by overstating what the study authors claims are. This could be just plain old confirmation bias and not deliberate deception. All claims of apologists need to be tested very strictly given the nature of their claims.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Same 4 anti Apologists

[@berasautu3478]

I think the idea of spirits in our body starting somewhere else before the here and now might be a better way to explain consciousness.

[@joshuaroiland1571]

The problem for me here is the complexity of computers will exponentially increase as quantum computing comes to the forefront. Combine that with sensors and intelligence programs modeled after the human mind and we have the base complexity for consciousness. If the soul is in existence from zygote (which I do believe) why would consciousness not exist within a similarly complex system with even more parts? These computers will have more interactions within them than the human mind. We may be creating a tower of babbel situation here where we attempt to create in our own image. Scared to find out what our image is.

[@pamwinn316]

love the whole discussion! and am thrilled that Dr. Moreland is my hometown bro! One significant heads-up, Dr. McDowell: the Closed Captioning is dreadful! I'm sure it comes from bot software with a very limited database, but perhaps you may want to consider adding your own subtitle track to these videos so that Truth will always be available. I'd even be willing to offer my transcription services in exchange for a deeper discount to a course or two - as a senior with very limited income, I will never be able to afford studying at Biola any other way. Keep up your anointed call to enlightening others.

[@richhazeltine1413]

the cc worked perfectly for me.

[@jeffh4836]

Great show bought the book thanks

[@SeanMcDowell]

Awesome!

[@alandmoore4306]

Great discussion. I'm no philosopher, but I've come to a lot of these same conclusions through my own pondering, so it's exciting to hear someone more educated talk about them. It was on my mind for so long I ended up writing a prog-rock song about it. Especially the points about morality requiring freewill, freewill being impossible without a super-natural component.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Wow, I feel the same way! So it was great to come across your comment! I've listened to J.P. Moreland off & on for a few years now, and have appreciated him greatly.

[@jimmyjennings4089]

What shocks me is that there are still people walking around that don't believe we have a soul and a spirit, ive always known we have both for some reason i can't explain and my concern is have i been good enough to make it to the good place in the spiritual realm which is our real home and is the real reality, i cant imagine not believing this.

[@richhazeltine1413]

some confusion could stem from the literal reading God breathed into Adams's nostrils "and the man became a living soul"? ASV

[@wishlist011]

So I'm a driver locked in a car and damage to the car can stop me from driving it to the local store. Take off the wheels, fill the tank with water, remove the timing belt and it limits where I can go. I've had an injury to my back and to a tendon that severely impaired my mobility. Sounds like a reasonable analogy ... So, what sort of damage might be done to the car to stop the driver working out how to get to the store or forgetting where it was or even losing any notion of what a store is? And perhaps even more importantly, what damage to the car alone might lead to the driver no longer desiring or choosing to go to the store? Why should physical damage to the brain (part of the car) potentially lead to any and all of the above when these are supposedly the purview of the driver (the soul)?

[@careywaldie6735]

The two are so interconnected that changing one affects the other. If I have to only drive in reverse, I may decide not to make the trip.

[@wishlist011]

@@careywaldie6735 True. But you can suffer a brain injury that robs you of the desire to purchase the thing that you wanted to go to the store for in the first place ... what is that analogous to in terms of damage to the "car" rather than the "driver"? Seemingly not a problem akin to selecting a gear.

[@tanyawagener101]

It is really hard for me to understand how anyone does not believe in a soul my body has had more than 27 surgeries and through my life my soul has always been authoritative over my body I am so thankful for that I can physically distinguish between body, soul and spirit I pray I could have a better understanding of people who don’t “believe” it as I don’t know how to speak or connect with them I have often wondered if it’s part of the veil of deception spoken about in the Bible

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Sadly, many people have uncritically bought into the worldview belief of Naturalism, because in the culture they were raised in, it's simply presupposed as being true.

[@hhstark8663]

​@@LoveYourNeighbour. You are correct. How ironic when they accuse Christians of having blind faith.

[@glennshrom5801]

CT Magazine has a good article on the topic of consciousness/mind not being the same as the brain, and not entirely dependent on brain. It is something different. I thought it was interesting. "More than Material Minds" by Michael Egnor, Sept. 2018. There seems to be another in my search results, but I haven't read it yet: "How it All Began" by Bill Durbin, Jr., August, 1988, quoting Sir John Eccles.

[@richhazeltine1413]

The Mysterious matter of mind. Arthur C. Custance. c1980

[@glennshrom5801]

@@richhazeltine1413 Thank you. I jotted it down on paper to look up later on.

[@richhazeltine1413]

@@glennshrom5801 Google it. He died I think in 1990.

[@glennshrom5801]

@@richhazeltine1413 Got it. Thanks again.

[@tgrogan6049]

For a response to Dr. Moreland see: Do Souls Exist? David Kyle Johnson Think 12 (35):61-75 (2013)

[@pvdguitars2951]

Fascinating and very convincing. Couple of questions : assuming body and soul come as a couple, is it possible that multiple souls inhabit the same body (eg schizophrenia )? Can a demonic entity take possession of the body?

[@osks]

A very interesting discussion… thank you I’m intrigued by people who seek immortality by having their bodies cryogenically frozen (‘vitrification’) - assuming that it’s even possible for their bodies to be revivified at some stage in the future, would they even be ‘alive’? And then… while it’s only happened in the movies, what would happen if brain transplants were to become medically possible - if A’s brain had to be transplanted into B’s body, will B now be A or will A be B? The only critique I have, is the fact that you never once appealed to Scripture for an answer to your question… the fact that God (Spirit) created man in His image (Gen 1:27) before He gave FORM to man (Gen 2:7)…

[@Atomic419]

I wonder how JP would respond to the advaita vedanta view of the soul.

[@jimratter5561]

Is the modern definition of "soul" different from biblical definition? The Bible says "man became a living soul", as if the soul was the combination of body and spirit.

[@casualgamer542]

The Hebrew word "nephesh," which is often translated as "soul," can refer to both humans and animals alike, it can refer to a person, it can be kidnapped, it can refer to a pronoun, it can refer to a life or an individual, it can eat, it can live, it can die, would not function without the blood, can refer to a dead body, could be touched, has feelings and desires, is related to breathing, and can be associated with the throat or neck. Despite our opinions, a comprehensive examination of the Old Testament's usage of "nephesh" indicates a primarily physical nature. I think that J.P. Moreland is overcomplicating this topic. I believe the biblical understanding of "soul" is as simple as Genesis 2:7 lays it out - we are living beings. A soul isn't a ghost in the machine, but a physical, organic, creature.

[@richhazeltine1413]

Three things: does thinking about thinking set us apart from other animals? Second; if I get Alzheimer's and seem not to be myself, how does that play in? Third; Is it possible that the creator actually invested "himself" in the creation vi a vis the "god particle"? He literally is everywhere and the rocks could cry out and the trees clap their hands?

[@ladillalegos]

What about JP Moreland’s book “Body and Soul” is that more complete or complicated or similar to “The Soul”? ( I ask because I’m just going to buy only one and I want to choose wisely)

[@KC-fb8ql]

I’ve owned two Souls. No complaints.

[@wulfosaurus1835]

To sum this up quickly, because life is short, this happens when you think "but it can't be _that_ way!" Thinking thoughts, "gaining insight" (which is really simple intelligence, amassing information from the world around us so that we can conserve resources, can be, for lack of a more specific term, *represented* in the trillions of positions and interactions of your molecules at any given time. You aren't the EXACT same individual as you were yesterday. The change is barely recognizable. You see this more over a period of time. You're not the same person as your child self. Mental medications, documented head injuries, and studies (one showed about how 80% of your mood is dependent on your gut Flora because they're interacting with "you" on a chemical level) have shown the personality is intertwined with our bodies. Our creeds and convictions become innate due to something as simple as having hands. It's not socially acceptable to bite things and others, even though it wouldn't be a second thought in an animal without arms, hands, and thumbs. And the uncomfortable thing is, we're never heard from again when our bodies die. That is _why_ death is sad and scary. It's the end. No do overs. That's why we need intelligence.

[@ItsMisterWilliams]

So...does any of JP's resources point to whether or not angels and demons have souls? Or are souls?

[@lineinthesandministries7873]

I have looked everywhere to see J.P. Moreland position on trichotomy-spirit, soul, and body. Anyone know of any material that addresses this on a philosophical level? Why it is incoherent or not? Does Dr. Moreland address this anywhere? I have heard biblical reasoning why it would false; however, they were very unconvincing. I was wondering if there is good philosophical reasoning not to believe in it?

[@SeanMcDowell]

I think he views the spirit as a capacity of the soul, not a separate substance. Check out his book the Soul.

[@lineinthesandministries7873]

@@SeanMcDowell a capacity, being something the soul has the ability to walk within? Is that what you mean? However, not a distinct entity? Correct? Romans 8:16 differentiates Gods spirit from mans spirit; thus, demonstrating a difference. However, a substance dualist would say that the spirit is the soul, and vice versa? Or at least a function of the soul? To walk within? However, is God a soul that has the capacity for spirit as well?John 4:24. We know He is spirit. So, I guess I am confused why trichotomy would be inconsistent Philosophically? Hebrews 12:9 says God is Father of the spirit. Not soul. Hebrews 4:12 divides between spirit and soul. Why divide the 2 if It is a capacity? 1 Thess 5:23 makes distinction between all three. I guess why is it philosophically untenable to believe in trichotomy? Thanks for your response I will read the book.

[@richhazeltine1413]

I, being a nobody, postulate that the Creator invested "himself" in all of creation. Ecc. 3:11. It's in our DNA.

[@MarcDonis]

“Immaterial substance” is an oxymoron. All of this is, quite clearly, coming from the perspective of a rather particular religious tradition. Bias much? None of this discussion addresses the question of what is the distinction between consciousness, which is undeniably a thing, and “soul”. I'll take the liberty of doing so here: Unlike consciousness, the soul is immortal. Unlike consciousness, the soul is indivisible. Unlike consciousness, the soul is uniquely human. Unlike consciousness, the soul is created at the “moment” of conception (not really a moment, but whatever). All of these properties are either unfalsifiable or conflict with actual reality-based observation. We must conclude that, by this definition at least, souls are a fiction invented by people who literally had no idea what their brains were for. Moreland talks about “correlations between mental states and brain states”, the so-called neural correlates of consciousness. If he were discussing any other physical system, he would not hesitate to discern causality, not mere correlation. I remind you that mental states, including unconsciousness, can be caused by various forms of physical interventions in the brain. He got no pushback from neuroscientists, I presume, because they are, by and large, not philosophers. Regarding NDEs, Moreland seems to be citing Dr. Ring's study, which I already addressed. It's interesting, but not terribly convincing. I am, however, quite curious to know more. He presumes that consciousness is an all-or-nothing sort of thing. This corresponds to the Christian notion of the indivisible soul (one of the properties that I've enumerated to distinguish it from the infinite varieties of consciousness), but it doesn't actually correspond to reality. The discussion of pain is tantamount to the “Mary's room” thought experiment. Sure, conscious brains have subjective experiences. I still don't understand why this should imply the existence of anything resembling a “soul”. His discussion of continuity of self is likewise a non-issue. The person you were 20 years ago is not who are you today. When you were two, you were a different person entirely. Moments after your conception, there was no “you” to speak of. To say you these versions of you share the same “soul” is meaningless. He ascribes to this “soul” the characteristics of personality, memory, and cognition. One must be willfully ignorant of a century of neuroscience to believe that these are not rooted in the brain. Like Dr. Egnor, this just makes me question his credentials. The whole discussion of morality seems more like a description of what Moreland wishes were true than what actually is. Let's remember that science describes what is, not what should be. The free will issue is a good one, and one that has been discussed at great length. It seems to me that every decision we can make comes from one of two places: Either it is a result of a deliberate, rational process, or it comes from a mysterious, subconscious place. In the former case, the result was predetermined, since a computer would have arrived at the same conclusion given the same inputs. In the latter, no free will can be invoked either, since the source is unconscious, and so beyond any deliberate control. We must conclude that free will is an illusion, much like the illusion a child has of directing a car when she steers a toy steering wheel in the direction of the vehicle while sitting in the back seat. Lastly, “The idea [of a thinking machine] is absolutely ridiculous.” Well, that certainly dates this video. Two years old now! My how the world has changed.

[@simplicityinthecomplexity6988]

I just believed Genesis 2:7 and 1 Thessalonians 4:23 out of the bible KJV by the way.

[@BookOfMorman]

39:57 what are you talking about. Name one person who says DNA is not physical... "It's information" You realize that the information is stored in a physical object right? Do you think that computers just store things by magic? No, they use electrons to store information. Just like with DNA, it's entirely material. What are you on about? Please don't use straw men to defend your point. You only hurt your cause.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😆

[@LindeeLove]

Can anyone summarize just a single piece of evidence that Moreland talked about that provides evidence of a soul?

[@elreyhats]

It would have been nice if you guys would have use the actual Bible to explain this too. Explain this verse with the Bible. Psalm 146:4 KJV 4His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

[@truthbebold4009]

The dead know nothing. They won't know anything until they are resurrected. You agree?

[@elreyhats]

@@truthbebold4009 I don't believe in soul sleep. I think there is enough evidence in the Bible for an afterlife after we have died.

[@richhazeltine1413]

@@truthbebold4009 Sheol or hades is the place of the dead, where we all go. "Saved or unsaved". No one is resurrected until that day of judgment. Thank you!

[@dodgyphilisopher9905]

@@richhazeltine1413 Exactly too many people think we go to heaven when we die. They dont realize that it defeats the purpose of resurrection. You have a good mind for spotting that, or a good teacher.

[@solonkazos1379]

The mind is not the brain. The body is not the Spirit. Consciousness has no weight or mass.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

I see you're using "similar standards of evidence" as Low Bar Bill...

[@markjosemanders9778]

soul does not exist

[@davidjanbaz7728]

You're proof !

[@richardwhetstone1008]

This provides absolutely nothing different or new about the existence of the soul. One of his arguments for the existence the soul is the fact of continuity of a person. Understanding the nature of memory more than account for this phenomena. If a person loses all of their memories it can reasonably claimed that they are no longer the person which they were prior to this total loss. You don't need to invite the fiction of a soul.

[@MyContext]

*This was a failure of a presentation on many levels for me.* I would suggest that a presentation be made simply SHOWING what JP is claiming with regard to a soul and HOW such works. His attempts to undermine a materialistic / deterministic model was absurd and quite frankly pointless to me since it is clear to me that he either doesn't understand it or was deliberately misrepresenting it. It should be noted that my reason for watching this was an attempt to understand idealism; and there was a net zero with regard to any advancement of understanding. However, there is now a suspicion that the whole of it is garbage.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😆

[@IosifStalin2]

Let the Scientists decide on this. You are out of your depth here

[@Polarbeardueck]

Sorry but your mistaken, science is not capable of determining if the soul exists, it is a question of philosophy. The question is outside the realm of science.

[@IosifStalin2]

@@Polarbeardueck Philosophy, in these matters, is mere navel gazing.

[@Polarbeardueck]

How so?

[@jonde-cent4897]

@@taripar4967 i’d love for you to explain the difference between this type of philosophy (metaphysics) that you describe and imagination.. conjecture… make belief. Spoiler: You can’t

[@jonde-cent4897]

@@taripar4967 For your own personal value, you can believe in whatever imaginary story you’d like, I don’t disagree. If you want to claim science to be another form of imagination simply because it presupposes the laws of thought like noncontradiction, then you are oblivious to its value. You wouldn’t be able to drive around in cars if science was just another form of “pure nonsensical imagination”. Science, as an imagination, is still centred on two principles that theology and fiction don’t care about: 1) Falsification 2) Reliability/Noncontradiction Whenever a claim of necessity is made, science ensure that it’s claim can be falsified so that others can test it and possibly improve it. This is not true of theism/imaginary ideas. Tests are encouraged to ensure the claims identity is reliable. Stated differently, it ensures that whatever is claimed cannot be or is not easily contradicted. If the identity of a claim cannot be tested/falsified, and/or it is constantly shifting, changing, or downright contradictory; then we can’t share it as a form of meaningful knowledge Ultimately, that’s what matters here. What “knowledge” or “truth” can be legitimately shared with others. If it’s not falsifiable or reliable, then it is utterly USELESS in public discourse. It might be a kind of “personal knowledge”, but it cannot be considered “public knowledge”. Theists have no grounds to share their beliefs with others under the title of “knowledge or truth”. If they were only capable of understanding this point, the world would be much better off while they stayed out of politics and stopped knocking on doors claiming to possess “knowledge” that could benefit others. It’s faith, make belief. And while many adults have grown out of their belief in Santa, I’m not here to tell anyone that they cannot privately believe in magical pixies if it brings them comfort. Just please, for the love of your “god”, stop talking as if you “know” something. Admit it’s faith and move along.

[@hollyshippy7417]

Intellectual assertions are not evidence, and all we are getting here is a convoluted opinion with absolutely no evidence. Philosophy is intellectual guess work. One can trace Western thought for thousands of years. However, as science became more and more dominant in its ability to produce evidence, philosophical guess work and opinion became less and less reliable regarding material reality. Studies in consciousness will make this guy's rather flimsy book a nostalgia piece for the sentimentalists among us. Theology itself is nothing more than an abstract intellectual construct, enhanced with emotional feelings of certitude, that needs to be propped up and kept viable through Church, Bible Study and hymn singing. Walk away from those and the intellectual construct disappears, leaving a residue of emotional and sentimental angst, that over time can be assuaged with far less harmful remedies other than the noxious theology found in Christianity.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

That was pure b.s : you're going to bottles of J D to assuage your emotional anxiety!

[@hollyshippy7417]

@@davidjanbaz7728 The Gospels are pure myth. As science advances, Christianity sits there with its 2,000 year-old myth, trying its mightiest to remain relevant, what with its "word" magic, its "water" magic" and its macabre "blood" magic. It takes energetic side-trips to "The Power of Positive Thinking," "Dominion" theology, "white Christian nationalism," and "health and Wealth." These work relatively well, as so many Christians are so Biblically illiterate and ignorant, most wouldn't know a Biblical assertion from a historical or scientific fact. And what really put the nail in the coffin is "Trumpism," or to put it more bluntly ... the "cult" of Trumpism. Add to that the scandals within the Southern Baptist Convention, the TV evangelist grifters and sleazebags, the fake healers, the end-time-apocalypse scammers, who grab ancient prophecies out of context and match them to whatever cherry-picked headline they can pull out of their rear-ends, and what we have is a cottage industry of "the end justifies the means." The majority of the American people are onto all of this. One's so-called personal relationship with Jesus does not translate to speaking on God's behalf. Not even close. A personal relationship with Jesus, in today's world, means a personal relationship with the Republican Party, Trumpism, and the kind of hypocrisy that comes disguised in toothy grins, cult-like-jargon, cliche Bible verses and a penchant for not thinking logically or rationally ... example: your accusing me of "gong to bottles of J.D.," as if that was even an argument or actually made any sense. The sad thing about you, David, is that, without even trying ... you made my argument for me. And proves once again, that the leaven of Christian certitude invariably rises to new levels of arrogance, ignorance, pride and hubris. Western religion is failing of its own accord, intellectual dishonesty, irrelevance and increasing divisions. It's what happens when an ancient religion is 2,000 years old and is out of touch with everything, save its increasing desperation to remain relevant. Church goers are heading to the exits. We left 30 years ago. Don't miss it. Don't want it. One can only live in an alternate reality for so long. You sound like you're drowning in it.

[@gerbil581]

Moreland's explanation of functionalism is the worst I've ever heard; I have to wonder if he's ever talked to an actual functionalist, because it sounds more like he has some garbled version of behaviorism in his head (and has probably strawmanned even that). His discussion of the view that consciousness emerges from brain activity (which he incorrectly summarizes as saying that "consciousness squirts out" but cannot affect brain activity) conflates multiple interpretations of the word emergence and takes the least sensible version for no particular reason. Many more unexamined assumptions and questionable summaries of his opponents' positions here, but these two are particularly egregious. If you want to hear from a dualist who understands his opponents' positions and can look at the arguments clearheadedly, read David Chalmers.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Total bullshit, there isn't any.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😆

[@BookOfMorman]

What a goofy video. No use of evidence but simply a string of strawmen, faulty logic, and arbitrary anecdotes... I personally believe in the soul but definitely not because of this video.

[@midgarden]

Not very compelling arguments…. Sorryz

[@StephaniePeeleIAm]

Since the Salem witch trials, religious folk don't hold much credibility with me. This shhiit sounds made up to me.

[@truthbebold4009]

How can you judge religious folk based on that one example?

[@mac8179]

Instead of just stating a fallacy, what are the reasons you don’t buy this and what do you propose?

[@LindeeLove]

@@mac8179 What fallacy?

[@charles4208]

@@LindeeLove argument from incredulity

[@LindeeLove]

@@charles4208 What if the person both thinks the religion sounds made up AND the person has not been convinced by the evidence presented? I'm curious, for believers, what is your most compelling piece of evidence for Chrisitanity?