Philo, thank you for your reason but I was hoping you could reason by enlightening everyone on your understanding of "spirit" with an examination of its essence, uniqueness, fundamental preciousness, physicality and connectedness. I guess reasoning is impossible here because all we get is a response that is as shallow as dishwater. Just how do people get so intellectually blunted?

My thoughts are that a unique spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of each living organism, is a physical process, not a miracle nor some break in the fabric of causation. But, when you refer to "the principle of grace applies", does this process understand how this UNIQUE living spirit functions in its lifetime for each organism? ............ Obviously not when you need to grovel to what you imagine is "the true spirit" which cannot exist, and "ask forgiveness". This just seems like spirit confiscation which is dis-grace-ful.

One of the most dishonest concepts ever perpetrated by people is this belief in the existence of the one and only "true spirit" and the morally perfect shaper and ruler of everything. Like how could it be possible for some morally perfect teddy to seek this sacharrine adoration, seek and be persuaded by prayers (five times plus a day), but become petulant and a displeased teddy if "he" does not receive this flattery? I feel this true living teddy is a serious dud and could benefit by learning some self evaluation skills. "He" may actually find like everyone else that you can never actually find perfection.

Philo perhaps it would help if you gave the facts about what a spirit is, how you confirmed the 'spirit' and discounted all other possibilities to what the 'spirit' and confirm your knowledge of what the 'spirit' does and precsribes and thinks by the 'spirits'actual side of the story. That is of course if the 'spirit' is a 'spirit'.

THE APPRENTICE - SCIENCE OR RELIGION?

"The problem with Newton and Whiston’s approach was that they brought scientific methodology to the task and this restricted their view of the matter. There is something in the scientific mind that creates either atheists or fundamentalists, rationality is just not enough. Rather, Christians believe in order to know, a recipe for disaster in science but a necessity in the matters of faith. Perhaps this explains the frailty of theological writing done by scientists turned theologians." - Sellick

Fid quaerens intellectum: faith in search of understanding. This a centuries old concept, predating both Newton and Whiston. As a writer, Sellick,annoys me. He takes the course between discloser and plagiarism. Herein, I note, leverages an article/book [achnolwledged] and implicits posits it as contemporary relevation of his thougght process for the article.

The difference between a science and religion in knowledge discovery often is that student of science submits to the discipline of the community of practise, when learning. The student submits to teachers. As the student matures in understand the discipline in challenged or extented [usually post-doctoral and doctoral research]. While the core of the displine is dedended [Lakatos] the developer or challenger acts as a change agent. In matters of religion the Faithful indwell in worship under the control of a Preisthood. Challenging that authority is discouraged. It is a matter of a process of proactive knowledge discovery [Science] or knowledge retentiveness [Christian religion.]. Dare I say it? Religion is doctrinaire.

Moreover, Sellick [sells] Science short in presents nineteenth century science [closed to mechanical system]. Modern science, DOES look at the periphery of understanding/existence: e.g., QM and Singularities.

Notice also how Sellick [Sells] wont engage critique. With some [cultural] research I was conducting I found the same attitude at a Vatican college who would answer emails [First paragraph was in Italian]. Whereas, say, UCLA, ets, etc, etc, responded within days.
The correspondence was about knowledge discovery envoronment, when the Jesuit West met Eastern astronomers. Nothing directly to do with religion.

Religionism? Open and Closed. Open to worship. Closed to investigation

Oliver,
You quote - "Demon" in Ancient Greek means, "evil spirit" [of which one can be possessed], not a Greek god.”

WRONG!
To the Greeks and Romans they believed spirits influenced and controlled the world – not one single spirit as in monotheism. For instance: Where did we get the dames of our days? Hence the gods of thunder, war etc. To the early Christians all these are evil. Christians were put to death for not accepting a plurality of gods.

However the influence of Zoasterian beliefs that the spirits of the evil dead roamed the earth and lurked in graveyards and unclean places held by citizens during the New Testament period later influenced the adoption of the ideas by the Roman Church – hence ideas of purgatory. The people believed the spirits of their deceased evil ancestors could inhabit their bodies. Jesus who taught that the spirit of the deceased had no communication with the living denounces such a view.

This is slightly different from a belief that there is a world of non-material powerful spirits controlling the behaviour of man and events. The concept of gods (spirits) means a powerful being influencing or controlling behaviour or events is anathema to monotheism. Christians believe the Earth was created complete in the beginning with all its systems in place. There are changes and they are natural or made by man. The fact is the spirit of man himself is the primary influence on human behaviour and the natural world is inanimate and was designed originally with natural chemistry and physics

West,
Define yourself apart from the organic chemistry of your body and you will discover who you really are. Your body is temporarily borrowed from the earth so the real West could find his mark and expression among the living. You are a spirit that defines you. We know nothing of or see nothing of your body but we perceive your spirit in your expressions here. God is the perfect expression of spirit to whom we bow in adoration, sometimes expressed in men who walk in his presence.

Philo I have no evidence to suggest my consciousness is a product of magic so I am not saying my consciousness is a product of magic. You are saying so , why dont you give the facts about what a spirit is, how you confirmed the 'spirit' and discounted all other possibilities to what the 'spirit'is and confirm your knowledge of what the 'spirit' does and precsribes and thinks by the 'spirits'actual side of the story.

If you have no facts or proof concerning this so called spirit or god then the only explanation is that you are making it up. Why would you make it up?

So why not answer my question? You are talking about god or spirit so what are really talking about? Its all mumbo Jumbo to me if you have no god or spirit before you talk about god or spirit. It would be like me telling you the blob wants you to burn hair clippings so that you can live in a castle in the clouds because the blob likes the smell of burnt hair. Obviously if I have never met the Blob and he has never told me about his fondness of burnt hair and proved he will house hair burners in castles then I have made it up and it is meaningless.