Originally posted by PalynkaThen I think we are in agreement. You just stated it more clearly than I did.
Then I don't see what you're getting at. I'm out of my league here, but I believe there's both biological and relational development before we can have a concept of self. Is parental affection only effective after the child has a concept of self? I think not...
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not saying 'I think, therefore I am'. I'm saying 'I cannot say I am not'. The existence of the 'I' is, of course, a given. Of course it is known by experience. But unlike (say) my experience of having had a chocolate (which I can certainly doubt), I cannot doubt this. It's the difference between judging something is probably true and something is certainly true.
Obviously, in the context of the possibility I mentioned, that I conceive would be no more than a perception of conceiving.
If that possibility is true, even the perception I mention in my previous post would be essentially meaningless as we wouldn't be able to define what it 'means' outside of our 'perceptions'.
You're basically (metaphorically) sayin ...[text shortened]... ption does not fall out of the sky as it is based on evidence and Occam's Razor.
Originally posted by vistesdI'm not getting at some kind of immortal or supernatural soul, if that is what you're thinking.
What I’m getting at is that “self” is no more than a physical reference (using physical here to include what goes on in the brain as well). Our unique (so far as we know—though the same may be true of, say, elephants and chimpanzees and whales) way of being conscious is self-referential.
By transient, I mean not permanent: when I die, no more individua ...[text shortened]... head and concede the problem of language here, and hope you can sort out all these “selves.” 😉
All I'm trying to say is that even if "I" am just a complex of molecules and atoms, "I" really do (does?) exist. It's not a mirage or a chimera; and we're not kidding ourselves when, well, speaking of "ourselves".
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry, I misread you. 😳 I just now realized that I was conflating what you were saying with a question that twhitehead raised in another thread.
I'm not getting at some kind of immortal or supernatural soul, if that is what you're thinking.
All I'm trying to say is that even if "I" am just a complex of molecules and atoms, "I" really do (does?) exist. It's not a mirage or a chimera; and we're not kidding ourselves when, well, speaking of "ourselves".
My apologies for the confusion...
EDIT: If I understand you, even if I were a holographic projection programmed to believe that I was an actual human being, when that program says “I,” there is nevertheless an actual referent. And that it would be incoherent, and likely pathological, if I insisted on saying (and believing) “I” (in terms of self-idenity, ignoring the possibility of alternative language here) while consistently pointing at someone else.
Originally posted by whodeyThanks be to God and to the Lord Jesus Christ this guy finally comes along.
1 Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory"
John 20:28
"And Thomas answered, and said to him, My Lord and my God."
John 5:18
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him ...[text shortened]... om the Old Testament, from the very words of Jesus himself, and from Pauline letters.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, then we have to define the word "religion" a little bit better.
First of all, even assuming that Allah and the Christian God are the same God, how does it not matter? Islam and Christianity are clearly distinct religions, so views expressed by a person in one tradition are not readily applicable to the other.
Second, Islam and Christianity have extremely basic differences in their conception of God.
Third, A ...[text shortened]... he efforts of St. Thomas Aquinas) or so; most modern Protestant philosophers would also agree.
Can two different religions share the same God? Even if his name is different pronounced?
Is the Catholic God the same as the Lutheran God? There are great differences between their respective image of God and the worship is different, so why are these two branches considered the same religion?
Even more - are Baptists considered Christians? Same answer: Different conception how to interpret the image of God.
And ultimately – is there two conceptions of God that is alike?
As I see it – there are more than 6 billion religions in the entire world. We just draw boundaries between groups of them, nothing more, nothing less.
I think the Muslim and the Jewish and the Christian God are the same God but only viewed differently.
Originally posted by vistesdPretty much.
EDIT: If I understand you, even if I were a holographic projection programmed to believe that I was an actual human being, when that program says “I,” there is nevertheless an actual referent. And that it would be incoherent, and likely pathological, if I insisted on saying (and believing) “I” (in terms of self-idenity, ignoring the possibility of alternative language here) while consistently pointing at someone else.
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedNo they don't.
Yes they do.
take a look at Aquinas, Anselm, and others.
Ontological argument.
Cosmological argument.
Teleological argument.
Intelligent design.
Are we talking of the mathematical branch called Logic?
If so, then religion is certainly not Logic, not at all.
Let's take Intelligent design as an example:
If you can write this in logical terms in a way that a mathematician can understand, then I'm prepared to agree with you. But it is certainly not possible.
Give it a try if you are sure that it could be done.
Until then my thesis that “Religion can not be described in Logical terms” stands.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd of course they have every right to do so. And should be respected for their view.
Interestingly, in China they aren't; there are different Chinese symbols for the Catholic and Protestant God(s).
This would every one do that demand respect for their own view, how strange it can be.
Interesting note, lucifershammer, thank you for that! :-)
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat's a fallacious argument.
Are we talking of the mathematical branch called Logic?
If so, then religion is certainly not Logic, not at all. ... Until then my thesis that “Religion can not be described in Logical terms” stands.
Physics is not the mathematical branch called Logic either. By your argument, "Physics cannot be described in Logical terms" should also stand.
The simple truth is that any system of propositions (be it of mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, religion, science etc.) is subject to the laws of logic.
Originally posted by lucifershammerRight you are.
That's a fallacious argument.
Physics is not the mathematical branch called Logic either. By your argument, "Physics cannot be described in Logical terms" should also stand.
The simple truth is that any system of propositions (be it of mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, religion, science etc.) is subject to the laws of logic.
Therefore is religion not logic, as I've stated before.
Originally posted by lucifershammerExactly, "The laws of logic don't apply to religion" and "Religion cannot be stated in logical terms" is what I stated before and state again, and again if I need to. This is my view.
That's not what you stated before.
"The laws of logic don't apply to religion" and "Religion cannot be stated in logical terms" is what you stated before.
Both statements are false.
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd your view is just plain wrong.
Exactly, "The laws of logic don't apply to religion" and "Religion cannot be stated in logical terms" is what I stated before and state again, and again if I need to. This is my view.
Okay, answer this -- do you hold that the same applies to physics; i.e., "the laws of logic don't apply to physics" and "Physics cannot be stated in logical terms"?