[psyang]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure this is quite right. Science would not exclude something beyond the physical if there was evidence that something beyond the physical exists. I'm not sure if this is a contradiction in terms... I think I'd have to consult a cosmologist. But I'm pretty sure it isn't. Empirical evidence can obviously suggest the presence of other things that can't presently (or in some cases ever) be empirically measured by us, which is how black holes were posited. There are more extreme examples.

Yes, the confusion is my fault. All I wanted to say was that, ultimately, if there is evidence that contradicts a theory, then either the theory is wrong, or the system in which the theory is developed is too closed (does not account for something). I guess my point is that science cannot include God in its systems - how can it? If God were to exist, what would God in a system accomplish? Is God testable with repeatable results?

Likewise, is the soul something that can be empirically tested?

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure this is true either. All evidence to date is that the answer to your question is now: in a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way, Bob will choose chocolate every time. However, this doesn't preclude the possibility of some as-yet undetermined factor that would change that conclusion. Maybe that's the same as what you're saying and I'm just misunderstanding.

I was just trying to clarify EnochRoot's idea that neurons can create free thought. I wanted to see what he actually meant by that. My guess is that he would agree with you, but that still makes me wonder what free thought means to him.