234 replies to this topic

[The Brain]

You've bored them to death !

[shadowhawk]

I've bored them to death !

 

[Dakman]

ZZZZZZZZZ

[shadowhawk]

Typical Atheist arguments. 

[shadowhawk]

Try this on which I posted elsewhere.

 

Atheist, Thomas Nagel wrote a fascinating book which I have mentioned before
“Mind and Cosmos.”
http://www.amazon.co...tag=wintknig-20

http://opinionator.b...nd-cosmos/?_r=1

There are a number of points he makes that are of interest to what we have been talking about, namely the spirit and the physical.  Using the human body he makes a case for dualism body/spirit.  Wallace summarizes His argument in the attached podcast.

The case:

*    The law of identity says that if A = B' if A and B have the exact same properties
    If A = the mind and B = the brain, then is A identical to B?
 
*   Wallace , in the podcast I attached, will present 6 arguments to show that A is not identical to B because they have different properties

Not everyone of the arguments below might make sense to you, but you will probably find one or two that strike you as correct. Some of the points are more illustrative than persuasive, like #2. However, I do find #3, #5 and #6 persuasive.

1) First-person access to mental properties

*    Thought experiment: Imagine your dream car, and picture it clearly in your mind
*    If we invited an artist to come and sketch out your dream car, then we could see your dream car's shape on paper
*    This concept of your dream car is not something that people can see by looking at your brain structure
*    Physical properties can be physically accessed, but the properties of your dream are privately accessed only.

2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies

*    Common sense notion of personhood is that we own our bodies, but we are not our bodies

3) Persistent self-identity through time

*    Thought experiment: replacing a new car with an old car one piece at a time
*    When you change even the smallest part of a physical object, it changes the identity of that object
*    Similarly, your body is undergoing changes constantly over time
*    Every cell in your body is different from the body you had 10 years ago
*    Even your brain cells undergo changes (see this from New Scientist - WK)
*    If you are the same person you were 10 years ago, then you are not your physical body

4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects

*    Physical objects can be measured (e.g. - use physical measurements to measure weight, size, etc.)
*    Mental properties cannot be measured

5) Intentionality or About-ness

*    Mental entities can refer to realities that are physical, something outside of themselves
*    A tree is not about anything, it just is a physical object
*    But you can have thoughts about the tree out there in the garden that needs water

6) Free will and personal responsibility

*    If humans are purely physical, then all our actions are determined by sensory inputs and genetic programming
*    Biological determinism is not compatible with free will, and free will is required for personal responsibility
*    Our experience of moral choices and moral responsibility requires free will, and free will requires minds/souls

He spends the last 10 minutes of the podcast responding to naturalistic objections to the mind/soul hypothesis.  You can listen to it yourself at the end.

*Now in the podcast below, Wallace does say that scientific evidence is not the best kind of evidence to use when discussing this issue of body/soul and mind/brain. But I did blog before about two pieces of evidence that I think are relevant to this discussion: corroborated near-death experiences and mental effort.  The mockers went right on by this!

Dr. William Lane Craig brought up the issue of substance dualism, and the argument from intentionality ("aboutness"), in his debate with the naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg, so this argument about dualism is battle-ready.

We are both spirit and body, spirit and material.  We are both body and soul.  This is dualism.







 

[N.T.M.]

This should be pleasantly provocative: 

 

[shadowhawk]

Of course he isn't talking about nothing. 

[N.T.M.]

Of course he isn't talking about nothing. 

 

Fair enough. Quantum fluctuations aren't truly nothing, but they're much closer than an infinitely complex deity. *cough cough* Occam's razor *cough*  

[shadowhawk]

But this is a huge mistake.  In most Theistic views God is a "simple" unity not complex.  Occam's razor. 

[N.T.M.]

But this is a huge mistake.  In most Theistic views God is a "simple" unity not complex.  Occam's razor. 

 

No. Just no. You're not going to say God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and then also, in the same breath, claim that he's simpler than anything seen in the physical world--the closest thing to nothing that's been observed. You're equating the infinitely complex with the simplicity of absolutely nothing. I'd say you've missed the mark pretty far here.

[shadowhawk]

again we are not talking about a simple nothing with the video you presented.  Then you made the claim it is a simple nothing.  Are we looking at the same video?   God is a simple unity, one.  You have not listed His parts but the attributes of His one simple unity of being.

 

https://en.wikipedia...vine_simplicity

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 July 2015 - 02:45 AM.

[The Brain]

Well when you're making up the rules you can say whatever you like I suppose...

[shadowhawk]

I love how you can say absolutely nothing. 

[The Brain]

Did I say god

[Duchykins]

 

God has an atheist explanation (product/projection of the human brain). 

 

Everything can be explained in one sentence, but that does not make the explanation true.
 

If it is more logical for you to believe that there is no god, i respect it; but this is your personal opinion and there is no evidence supporting your point.

 

 

Dismantling someone's argument, pointing out errors in its premises, pointing out flaws in its structure, fallacies, etc is not the same as making your own argument for a different position. Believing otherwise is bad logic.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

God has an atheist explanation (product/projection of the human brain). 

 

Everything can be explained in one sentence, but that does not make the explanation true.
 

If it is more logical for you to believe that there is no god, i respect it; but this is your personal opinion and there is no evidence supporting your point.

 

 

Dismantling someone's argument, pointing out errors in its premises, pointing out flaws in its structure, fallacies, etc is not the same as making your own argument for a different position. Believing otherwise is bad logic.

 

 

Nonsense.  Do you believe what you just said?  If so, that is bad logic.
 

[N.T.M.]

again we are not talking about a simple nothing with the video you presented.  Then you made the claim it is a simple nothing.  Are we looking at the same video?   God is a simple unity, one.  You have not listed His parts but the attributes of His one simple unity of being.

 

https://en.wikipedia...vine_simplicity

 

Repeating yourself won't make your argument--assertion, rather--any more persuasive. To contend that God is simple is just ridiculous.

[shadowhawk]

Using Occam's razor here is nonsense and that is mu point.  Repeating your same argument will not make it any less wrong.

 

[Duchykins]

I know about DDS, but I've always wondered - how do Christians know this about their god?

 

However, Divine Simplicity, hmm.  

 

Nothing is simpler than not existing.  

[N.T.M.]

Using Occam's razor here is nonsense and that is mu point.  Repeating your same argument will not make it any less wrong.

 

As usual you assert things without evidence or reasoning, and then when called out you simply repeat the assertion. You do this ad nauseam in all your threads. You clearly place no value on logic, whether you realize it or not, so what logical argument could I possibly produce to change your mind? None. So I'm leaving.

[Dakman]

Wait, wait, wait, don't leave yet……that's just his bullshit tactic for not being able to interact properly, just call him names and mock him and his stupid beliefs. It's what everyone ends up doing with him and it feels great and it makes him cry like a baby 

[shadowhawk]

 

Using Occam's razor here is nonsense and that is mu point.  Repeating your same argument will not make it any less wrong.

 

As usual you assert things without evidence or reasoning, and then when called out you simply repeat the assertion. You do this ad nauseam in all your threads. You clearly place no value on logic, whether you realize it or not, so what logical argument could I possibly produce to change your mind? None. So I'm leaving.

 

 

If you want to use Occam's razor then that is up to you even if it is wrong.  It seams to me that you entirely lack sound reasoning when you apply it the way you did.  I gave you evidence why God is simple not complex as you claimed.  You could change my mind with truth and real logic.
 

[shadowhawk]

Wait, wait, wait, don't leave yet……that's just his bullshit tactic for not being able to interact properly, just call him names and mock him and his stupid beliefs. It's what everyone ends up doing with him and it feels great and it makes him cry like a baby 

Rave on mocker.  That is all you have. 

[EyeKicker]

I would like to see an atheist explain the Fibonacci sequence and golden mean being present in living and no living phenomenon, hundreds of places on our body! It's even in the DNA of every living thing in phi, phi squared and phi cubed. The perfect symmetry and geometry in life isn't necessary for survival so how could it be a result of natural selection?

Also please check out my page Evidence for Jesus Christ www.favebook.com/truthsofChrist , if you are a genuine truth seeker, there is lots of great stuff on there! Scientific and supernatural!

[shadowhawk]

Again typical mark down.  Dont expect anything else because that is all they have.  Soon they will be calling you names.  I suggest you also find a way to relate this to Life.