Spirituality
18 Jun 06
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have failed to make even a coherent argument that thought is anything but the result of various electrical activity in the brain of various creatures.
This is question begging. You are simply dodging my points regarding invisible electricity deliverers and the existence of a dog's soul (which is a logical corollary of your claim that thought proves the existence of a "soul"😉. Do you ever intend to actually address these issues or do you intend to remain in "holding yer breath until you turn blue" mode?
How would you know?
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarrmanNope, my point is simply because you cannot see something it does
Argument 314:
You cannot see the wind with your eyes.
You cannot see a soul with your eyes.
Therefore God exists.
not mean it isn't real. So asking to see the soul doesn't prove that
the soul isn't real because you cannot see it.
Kelly
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou're wasting all our time; you obviously have no argument, just an assertion based on your superstition.
[b]You have failed to make even a coherent argument that thought is anything but the result of various electrical activity in the brain of various creatures.
How would you know?[/b]
10 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd saying the soul exists is not evidence of its existence.
Nope, my point is simply because you cannot see something it does
not mean it isn't real. So asking to see the soul doesn't prove that
the soul isn't real because you cannot see it.
Kelly
See how that works?
EDIT: In short, anyone can claim anything; that don't make it so.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd you are talking in circles, a moment ago you claimed science would confirm the soul, no you claim using science to locate an origin is a mistake.
You are reducing the cause to what is measured. First mistake.
Clearly this is a pointless debate. On the one hand you suggest that the soul cannot be measured on the other you claim it is a matter of time before it can be, but when challenged on the implications, you resort to saying it cannot be measured again. You have no more support for your view than Kelly does.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd claiming the existence of something for which you have no supporting evidence is like claiming to see the wind.
Nope, my point is simply because you cannot see something it does
not mean it isn't real. So asking to see the soul doesn't prove that
the soul isn't real because you cannot see it.
Kelly
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayHow is denying the existence of something faith?
I admit faith is used for those types of things, denying them is a
matter of faith too.
Kelly
I deny the existence of the soul - Since there's nothing to suggest it exists, that seems pretty sensible. Where's the faith here? If I don't deny the existence of certain things I open the floodgate of possibility until I can no longer hold onto anything at all. I must accept the existence of unicorns, dragons, tiny little bugs that hide my keys, the sock-eating shadow monster, the tooth fairy, god, santa claus, that my skin is a seperate being, that I never wrote this, that the world is all a big dream created by my imagination etc. etc.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's not about right or wrong, it's about the most plausible situation. In any case in which the supernatural is weighed against the natural, then the use of occam's razor MUST always lend more plausibility to the natural choice, since the very idea of knowing anything of the supernatural through natural means is ridiculous.
Do you believe following Occam's Razor is always going to give you
the right answer or result as far as reality goes?
Kelly
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarrmanIt is telling me about reality! We can say pink flying dogs, you don't
How is denying the existence of something faith?
I deny the existence of the soul - Since there's nothing to suggest it exists, that seems pretty sensible. Where's the faith here? If I don't deny the existence of certain things I open the floodgate of possibility until I can no longer hold onto anything at all. I must accept the existence of unicorns, ...[text shortened]... hat I never wrote this, that the world is all a big dream created by my imagination etc. etc.
believe in them, I don't believe in them, so the number of pink flying
dogs are zero within reality. In the make believe world they can
abound, but not in reality. Reality doesn't need you or I to fill it with
what is in it by our thoughts, it is what it is. God is 1, and is real, now
you may not believe that and I do. You think God isn't real so the
number for God is just zero, except according to you in the make
believe world of people's minds there God can be whatever, it does not
matter. You have a value assigned to God in your thinking, it is what
you believe to be true, that is your faith.
Kelly
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile I appreciate the idea that you are paid in billable hours, given your penchant for death marches in pursuing what the definition of is is, you can hardly call this a waste of time. Give it a few more pages, at least.
You're wasting all our time; you obviously have no argument, just an assertion based on your superstition.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayNonsense, you clearly have a very poor grasp of logic. I hold god in exactly the same regard as I do pink flying dogs. I assign a mu value to them both, they don't get a 1 or a 0, there is no faith used here, none. There's no reason to consider them even a possibility.
It is telling me about reality! We can say pink flying dogs, you don't
believe in them, I don't believe in them, so the number of pink flying
dogs are zero within reality. In the make believe world they can
abound, but not in reality. Reality doesn't need you or I to fill it with
what is in it by our thoughts, it is what it is. God is 1, and is real, no ...[text shortened]... ned to God in your thinking, it is what
you believe to be true, that is your faith.
Kelly