1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think time is an illusion and at best highly variable, relative time changes with speed , gravity etc. As such it is an emerging feature of a developing Universe. We are also an emerging feature and as such are temporal beings whose perceptual capabilities are time based. This however does not preclude the existence of eternity, merely our ability to perceive it. If you accept the possibility of eternity, this could be applied to both the multiverse or a god ( I prefere the multiverse as the god approach requires increased complexity and humanisation).
"... because I might be h." Yes, OdBod, my own going in perspective many years ago. Your rational focus, objective response [rather than an emotional reaction] and candor are commendable. Your view on the temporal vs. the eternal?
Originally posted by googlefudgeNoted, I'd also say to you that we view the world completely different.
Fine.
But for future reference, I almost never joke [here], and usually make it very
clear when I do.
Assuming I am 'being funny' or joking is thus almost certainly wrong.
Bear that in mind if you ever choose to respond to my posts again.
Also, I believe all faith based religious beliefs are not just wrong but stupid.
If you find that offensive, then don't talk to me, because I will always be offending
you.
So don't be surprised if I say things that as far as I'm concern are answering
your questions very clearly and to the point and you could miss my meaning
mainly because you actually don't look at things the way I do.
Originally posted by KellyJayI am willing to bet that you cannot find a single person that has a world view close enough to yours that he can understand you sufficiently well as to think you answer questions clearly. You are far and away the vaguest poster on these forums, practically never giving a direct answer and I honestly do not believe a difference of world view explains that.
Noted, I'd also say to you that we view the world completely different.
So don't be surprised if I say things that as far as I'm concern are answering
your questions very clearly and to the point and you could miss my meaning
mainly because you actually don't look at things the way I do.
Originally posted by OdBodThank you. May I ask your views on the nature of the material vs. the immaterial components of a human being?
I think time is an illusion and at best highly variable, relative time changes with speed , gravity etc. As such it is an emerging feature of a developing Universe. We are also an emerging feature and as such are temporal beings whose perceptual capabilities are time based. This however does not preclude the existence of eternity, merely our ability to perceiv ...[text shortened]... ( I prefere the multiverse as the god approach requires increased complexity and humanisation).
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou still don't get it, do you?
And thus you prove me completely correct.
Everything you assume is wrong as ever.
I wasn't comparing your beliefs to Star Trek.
And the fact that you can't understand that highlights how lacking your
comprehension skills are.
And the fact that you think you can lecture me on how you interact with
co-workers shows how pathetically wrong your ...[text shortened]... is a forum specifically for discussing this topic, it is not equivalent to an office
or home.
YES, calling my beliefs 'stupid' and 'harmful' (without evidence, btw) IS insulting and disrespectful. You are making a value judgement without any evidence at all. So not only are you insulting and disrespecting MY beliefs, you further go on to state reasons why I should then insult and disrespect YOUR beliefs for the very same reasons, because after all, if you believe something you cannot prove, then it, too, is merely a belief, c'est pas? Furthermore, it IS merely a value judgement, for calling it 'stupid' and 'harmful' does not make it so. Without proof, you only believe it is so. So you are actually advocating that people should be as insulting and disrespectful to you as you are to them. But THIS actually MAKES your belief more *harmful* than mine, because we have proof that this doesn't work, we see it every day on the news.
And then to weasel out of this by saying that "Insulting your beliefs for being stupid is not insulting you, and it's not disrespecting you" is nonsense. You ASSUME that my beliefs mean nothing to me and obviously, yours mean nothing to you, right? I'm just gonna guess that's not true, either.
We've been around this horn so many times and now, to see you regurgitating this same pablum to someone else is just too much.
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyArgument from consciousness (Page 14)
Christological argument (Page 12)
"The Christological argument for the existence of God is based on certain claims about Jesus. The argument, which exists in several forms, holds that if these claims are valid, one should accept God exists. There are three main threads; the Argument from the wisdom of Jesus, the Argument from the claims of Jesus t for the existence of God to be continued) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christological_argument
"The argument from consciousness is an argument for the existence of God based on consciousness.
Philosophical summary of the argument: The argument may be stated in inductive or deductive form[1]
Inductive form
Given theism and naturalism as live options fixed by our background beliefs, theism provides a better explanation of consciousness than naturalism, and thus receives some confirmation from the existence of consciousness.
Deductive form
1.Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist.
2.There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.
3.Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE).
4.The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE.
5.The explanation is not an NSE.
6.Therefore the explanation is a PE.
7.If the explanation is PE, it is theistic.
8.Therefore, the explanation is theistic.
Theists such as Robert Adams[2] and Richard Swinburne[3] have advanced slightly a different version of this argument which focuses on mental/physical correlations and not merely the existence of mental states.
Criticism
The first premise, assertion that non-physical mental states exist, implies a dualist view of mind. Therefore, one serious line of attack is to argue the case for physicalism about the human mind.[4] Moreland takes the arguments for the first premise and refers to classic defenses of dualism. However, the first premise is rejected by many philosophers of mind. Frank Jackson, known for the knowledge argument in support of dualism about the mind, comments on the debate between physicalist and dualist conceptions of mind:
Much of the contemporary debate in the philosophy of mind is concerned with the clash between certain strongly held intuitions and what science tells us about the mind and its relation to the world. What science tells us about the mind points strongly towards some version or other of physicalism. The intuitions, in one way or another, suggest that there is something seriously incomplete about any purely physical story about the mind ... Most contemporary philosophers given a choice between going with science and going with intuitions, go with science. Although I once dissented from the majority, I have capitulated and now see the interesting issue as being where the arguments from the intuitions against physicalism—the arguments that seem so compelling—go wrong.[5]
If one is willing to accept the first premise that reductive forms of physicalism are false, then the argument takes off. Thus, one could think of Moreland as making an argument that tries to move a person from "rejecting physicalism" to "accepting theism". The crucial step in this move is the fifth premise, which asserts that naturalism can not account for non-physical mental states. A simple critique of this premise is offered by Andrew Melnyk:
Naturalism can easily explain how the universe came to contain physically irreducible conscious occurrences. It can do so by supposing that, among the fundamental laws governing the universe, there are some according to which, whenever such-and-such complex nonconscious occurrences occur, so-and-so conscious occurrences occur; perhaps such a law says that, whenever a human brain attains a certain kind and degree of complexity, a pain is experienced. Given such laws, the capacity for consciousness that some creatures enjoy, like the capacity for breathing, can be explained as having arisen through natural selection. Through mutation, some creature was born with a brain of the requisite kind and degree of complexity to generate conscious experiences; and then, because these experiences increased the creature's fitness, such creatures were selected for.[6]
However Moreland charges that such attempts to accomade consciousness within an atheistic worldview are ad hoc and contrived and fail to take into account many features of conscious experience.[7] Moreland spends much of the book defending this premise against philosophers, such as Michael Martin, who accept pluralist naturalism. He also critiques contemporary philosophers of mind such as John Searle, Timothy O' Connor, Colin McGinn, David Skriba, Philip Clayton and Jaegwon Kim, who attempt to account for consciousness.
Finally, one can also question premise seven: why does a personal explanation have to lead to monotheistic (as opposed to deistic or polytheistic) accounts of intention?[8] However, Moreland maintains that questioning these minor premises are of little consolation to the naturalist as they essentially constitute intramural theist debates, and that for most westerners theism is the only viable candidate to accommodate personal explanations. Similarly Occam's razor can be applied so only one personal agent is required." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_consciousness
Note: Next "Arguments for Cosmological ["kalām· contingency"].
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCertainly, if I understand the thrust of your question correctly," Immaterial"components are in fact the highly complex interactions of material components giving rise to emerging qualities, an analogy might be a flock of birds seeming to fly as one . I have now answered many of your questions, perhaps you could now answer one of mine? How do you reconcile prophecy with freewill?
Thank you. May I ask your views on the nature of the material vs. the immaterial components of a human being?H
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneThe fact that you keep asserting that I have no evidence for my position doesn't make it so.
You still don't get it, do you?
YES, calling my beliefs 'stupid' and 'harmful' (without evidence, btw) IS insulting and disrespectful. You are making a value judgement without any evidence at all. So not only are you insulting and disrespecting MY beliefs, you further go on to state reasons why I should then insult and disrespect YOUR beliefs for the v ...[text shortened]... many times and now, to see you regurgitating this same pablum to someone else is just too much.
There is lots of evidence that your beliefs [and religious and faith based beliefs in general]
are harmful, to you and others.
If you pay attention you can see examples demonstrating this all over these forums from
many different posters including me.
In fact to not see these posts requires doing the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers
in your ears and shouting "lalalala I can' hear you" in the manner of children in a playground.
I have in fact written detailed posts explaining why your beliefs are harmful to you in the
past.
And those were arguments with evidence, not assertions without evidence.
The latter is what you do, and are doing.
And if you can't stand me insulting peoples faith based beliefs, don't read my posts.
EDIT: Here is why I don't give a damn about whether you, or anyone else, finds my posts
insulting/offensive to their religion.
Because as an atheist and anti-theist who believes that religions are both wrong and harmful
basically ANYTHING I say [that I actually believe to be true] on the topic will insult someone.
I know this, as I have said to you before, because I KNOW that you hold these beliefs dear
and that you have made them part of your identity and that to you, attacking these beliefs
is attacking you. To call these beliefs stupid is to call you stupid.
That's not true, but I know you, and many others will think that way.
So the only way for me to not insult or offend you is to not speak.
That's not happening.
So if you're insulted.... tough.
Originally posted by OdBodBy design in eternity past, God's Sovereignty and man's free will co-exist in time to resolve the prehistoric angelic conflict.
Certainly, if I understand the thrust of your question correctly," Immaterial"components are in fact the highly complex interactions of material components giving rise to emerging qualities, an analogy might be a flock of birds seeming to fly as one . I have now answered many of your questions, perhaps you could now answer one of mine? How do you reconcile prophecy with freewill?
Please clarify "prophecy" within your own frame of reference. Thanks.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBiblical prophecy, one in particular comes to mind, the cock crowing three times. This is so specific it cannot be attributed to clever social prediction,hardly the stuff of free will. As a more general view I think I am correct in assuming that god's knowledge is absolute and he/ she / it knows exactly what is going to happen, this must be so, or one must concede god has limitations. Again this contradicts the concept of freewill, he/she/it knows exactly what man will do.
By design in eternity past, God's Sovereignty and man's free will co-exist in time to resolve the prehistoric angelic conflict.
Please clarify "prophecy" within your own frame of reference. Thanks.
Originally posted by OdBodGod's Omniscience knows all the knowable as well as all that could have happened had the free will of any man chosen differently in time. Yet God does not coerce the free will volitional choices you or I or any other human being make. His Attributes of Justice [He's fair] and His Righteousness [His perfect standard] together equal His Divine Integrity. He did not create robots or automatons which would function mechanically on command. He did create rational beings with free will.
Biblical prophecy, one in particular comes to mind, the cock crowing three times. This is so specific it cannot be attributed to clever social prediction,hardly the stuff of free will. As a more general view I think I am correct in assuming that god's knowledge is absolute and he/ she / it knows exactly what is going to happen, this must be so, or one must co ...[text shortened]... tions. Again this contradicts the concept of freewill, he/she/it knows exactly what man will do.