Creator does not imply afterlife.

[lightgigantic]

You are starting from the assumption that "god created the body and the soul" - whereas the thread starts from the assumption that god created the body:

Then is it
"Let's hypothesize there was a creator. If something designed people, or earth, or whatever, why would this mean there's life after death? I see no relationship between a creator and the existence of the soul."
You have jumped in with the assumption that god created the body and the soul - i.e. that the soul exists.



I think it is logical that, IF we were created by God, and IF the God created our body AND soul - then there would be an afterlife.

But the thread-starter is starting from the position that God only created our bodies. In this instance he is asking what the connection between the creator and existence of the soul - i.e. with no other assumptions, is it reasonable to assume that creator implies soul?

I see - I wasn't aware exactly how ridiculous this thread was but I think you are bringing it closer to my awareness.

If god created the body with no soul it would be a dead body.

To establish that this is not a scientific claim you will have to establish how life can come from matter.

In other words you might say that the idea of consciousness = the soul is a theory, but if we apply the same empirical requirements for evidence that a combination of matter also equals consciousness then it is also a theory.
In otherwords empiricism isn't sufficient in itself to establish anything either way.

I guess it might be more progressive therefore to distinguish what a soul is - so let me ask you this .....

When you say Hello to somebody, what are you addressing?

 

[Sarkus]

I guess it might be more progressive therefore to distinguish what a soul is - so let me ask you this .....

When you say Hello to somebody, what are you addressing?

The sum of the complex neuro-chemical actions/reactions that go on inside the person's brain (which we do not fully understand) that make up the person's personality.

 

[lightgigantic]

The sum of the complex neuro-chemical actions/reactions that go on inside the person's brain (which we do not fully understand) that make up the person's personality.

So what are people who are not neurological specialists saying "hello" to?

 

[TimeTraveler]

energy does not "die", so if there is a universal energy, and a universal creator, it does not die, it's energy simply transfers through matter in waves like everything else.

Now, look closely at the sun and burn your eyes.

 

[Sarkus]

So what are people who are not neurological specialists saying "hello" to?

They are saying hello to the same thing.

I am not a specialist car-mechanic - yet I happily drive a car.
I am not a computer specialist - yet use a computer.
I am not an astrophysicist - yet bask in the warmth of the sun.

 

[SnakeLord]

If god created the body with no soul it would be a dead body.

I don't get what you're trying to say exactly. It's worth asking if you think pubic lice have souls, and if you don't think they do, does that make them a 'dead body'?

When you say Hello to somebody, what are you addressing?

As Sarkus said. However, you are clearly convinced for some reason, undoubtedly with no evidence, that you'd be talking to the soul. So describe where it is in the body, what it does exactly and how someone can talk to it.

 

[lightgigantic]

They are saying hello to the same thing.

I am not a specialist car-mechanic - yet I happily drive a car.
I am not a computer specialist - yet use a computer.
I am not an astrophysicist - yet bask in the warmth of the sun.

I think I established earlier that it is not progressive to delve into theories of self that lack empirical evidence - if the neurologists don't "properly understand" as you indicated then what does that mean? At least its not very scientific because in science there are three things you cannot "be a little" of

1) You cannot be a little bit dead
2) You cannot be a little bit pregnant
3) You cannot be a little bit wrong

We know how a car works to enable mechanical performance
We know how a computer works to enable electrical performance
We don't understand the sun but we at least understand that it is hot

We don't however understand, as you freely admit, that complex neuro-chemical actions/reactions that go on inside the person's brain is actually the source of self.

My point is that some people are aware of the neurological complexities of the brain (and some of them think this is the cause of self) and other prominant neurologists also equally familiar with the said processes disagree (like Eccles for instance)

- are they saying hello to different things when they say hello to each other?

 

[audible]

if as you believe lightgigantic, that people who are not neurologist, are saying hello to the soul/self/conscience, then surely they would still get a response when the persons dead. or are you saying that the soul only exist with a living body, if so where is it situated and what does it look like. if it is a bunch of neurons switching on and of in the brain, well neurologist are saying hello to the same thing.

"We know how a car works, to enable mechanical performance," yes but we dont have to be a mechanic to driver one.
"We know how a computer works to enable electrical performance" yes but we dont have to be a science boffin to use one.
"We don't understand the sun but we at least understand that it is hot" yes we do, http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html and yes it is hot.

"We don't however understand, as you freely admit, that complex neuro-chemical actions/reactions that go on inside the person's brain is actually the source of self." no we dont fully understand, but perhaps you can help and show us where the soul/self/conscience actually is, so we can see if the neurons are hitting the spot, thanks.

 

[lightgigantic]

if as you believe lightgigantic, that people who are not neurologist, are saying hello to the soul/self/conscience, then surely they would still get a response when the persons dead.

A dead person has a soul? Intriguing ....

or are you saying that the soul only exist with a living body, if so where is it situated and what does it look like.

I am just trying to work out what people are saying "hello" to

if it is a bunch of neurons switching on and of in the brain, well neurologist are saying hello to the same thing.

Since most people, even neurologists, don't stand by and directly admire the circuitry of each others brains when they greet each other, then it seems like they must be addresing something else
(or perhaps the art of saying "hello" has undergone drastic reformation with the recent advancements in neurology over the past 40 years???)

"We know how a car works, to enable mechanical performance," yes but we dont have to be a mechanic to driver one.
"We know how a computer works to enable electrical performance" yes but we dont have to be a science boffin to use one.
"We don't understand the sun but we at least understand that it is hot" yes we do, http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html and yes it is hot.

"We don't however understand, as you freely admit, that complex neuro-chemical actions/reactions that go on inside the person's brain is actually the source of self." no we dont fully understand, but perhaps you can help and show us where the soul/self/conscience actually is, so we can see if the neurons are hitting the spot, thanks.

I was just pointing out the inebrieties of his metaphor, namely that three were known phenomena and the fourth was not

 

[SnakeLord]

Since most people, even neurologists, don't stand by and directly admire the circuitry of each others brains when they greet each other, then it seems like they must be addresing something else

What a naive statement.

I would go into greater explanation but it seems, like my last two posts to you, that they'll just be ignored anyway.

 

[Roman]

So in otherwords if a father gives their son a car to drive, there is no reason to assume that the son will leave the car once he sits in the drivers seat.

In other words because god created the body and the soul, there is no reason to consider that the soul can leave the body once it has finished "driving" it for a while

Wait, what?

Car, boy, father?

Let's use a more apt analogy.

Ford designs and builds a car. The car is built. The car is scrapped.

Does the car live on in eternal paradise with Ford?

 

[lightgigantic]

Wait, what?

Car, boy, father?

Let's use a more apt analogy.

Ford designs and builds a car. The car is built. The car is scrapped.

Does the car live on in eternal paradise with Ford?

Obviously not because the car is not intrinsically conscious (just like the body is not intrinsically conscious - ie it has th e option to be dead) - the car is activated by a driver (the body is activated by consciousness)

This is the difference between a car in a scrap heap and a car on the highway (ie this is the difference between a dead body and and a living one) - one has a driver (soul) and the other does not.

 

[KennyJC]

The brain is a living organ just any other organ in the body, when it stops recieving adequate amounts of blood and oxygen, it eventually dies meaning that thing we call conciousness becomes impossible, as does all brain activities. The brain then decomposes into relative nothingness.

 

[lightgigantic]

The brain is a living organ just any other organ in the body, when it stops recieving adequate amounts of blood and oxygen, it eventually dies meaning that thing we call conciousness becomes impossible, as does all brain activities. The brain then decomposes into relative nothingness.

The engine in a car can also blow up - doesn't say anything about the driver, except that he can no longer drive the car any more

 

[KennyJC]

The brain is both the driver and the engine - there is no other factor in the equation unless you can show otherwise. The brain dies and the "driver" and the "engine" are dead.

What else are you trying to say there is that escapes and lives on? This seems like a guess that is only based on wishful thinking. Are you that emotionally shallow that you think your fantasies are true?

 

[Roman]

There exists no evidence for your dualistic argument, lightgigantic.

Besides that, there is no causal link between the act of creation and that of a soul. None.

There are some books about it, but no logical connection, and certainly no evidence for one.

 

[lightgigantic]

The brain is both the driver and the engine - there is no other factor in the equation unless you can show otherwise. The brain dies and the "driver" and the "engine" are dead.

Obviously you are not familiar with the controversies surrounding neurology - perhaps you can say that I don't know what I am talking about when I say the brain is not the driver, but when fully credible and nobel prize winning laureattes like John Eccles make such claims I don't think your credibility bears much weight.

At the very least the fact that there IS contraversy at least indicates that your claims that the brain is the driver (the source of one's concept of "I") has not been scientifically proven, and quite frankly nor is it likely to be proven in the immediate future

What else are you trying to say there is that escapes and lives on?

Thats another thing - first you have to establish that the sense of self is solely designated by the brain - something neurologists can not empirically establish - perhaps you should help them out since you appear to know it all already

This seems like a guess that is only based on wishful thinking. Are you that emotionally shallow that you think your fantasies are true?

On the contrary - your view that the brain is the be all and end of all of "self" is a guess - I wouldn't call it a wild guess, perhas a "lethargic guess" would be more suggestive of those guesses that arise from a poor fund of knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Self_Controls_Its_Brain

 

[lightgigantic]

There exists no evidence for your dualistic argument, lightgigantic.

really?

Besides that, there is no causal link between the act of creation and that of a soul. None.

Not sure what platform you want to accept as "hypothetical" for the sake of a discussion on the nature of creation.

If you want to accept the notion of intelligent design its quite logical to say that consciousness owes its cause to consciousness

If you don't want to accept the notion of intelligent design, then you would be guilty of violating the general principles you advocate in your opening to this response.

There are some books about it, but no logical connection, and certainly no evidence for one.

So you are saying that Eccles book is not logical?
You can say however that issue is contraversial, which just means that the exact nature of the phenomena is not aparent to us - in other words you may say there is no evidence to suggest that the brain is not the cause of self but then I can say theer is no evidence to suggest that the brain is - the reason we can both say these statements is because the actual cause of self has not been scientifically established

 

[KennyJC]

Obviously you are not familiar with the controversies surrounding neurology - perhaps you can say that I don't know what I am talking about when I say the brain is not the driver, but when fully credible and nobel prize winning laureattes like John Eccles make such claims I don't think your credibility bears much weight.

At the very least the fact that there IS contraversy at least indicates that your claims that the brain is the driver (the source of one's concept of "I") has not been scientifically proven, and quite frankly nor is it likely to be proven in the immediate future

I am not familiar with the controversies in neuroscience about wether or not the brain is the be all and end all of the 'self'. Perhaps you could do a better job at conveying this apparent controversy other than quoting a person who was "a devout theist and a sometime Catholic, and is regarded by many Christians as an examplar of the successful melding of a life of science with one of faith.

Hardly melding science with faith is it? More like distorting science to fit your childish notions about your invisible daddy in the sky. If there is any controversy, it is because of religious reasons just as with evolution. It is something that dimishishes the role of God if true.

Thats another thing - first you have to establish that the sense of self is solely designated by the brain - something neurologists can not empirically establish - perhaps you should help them out since you appear to know it all already

I don't have to establish anything. I am not the one making the impossibly far-fetched claim here. By all rational observation, the brain is the be all and end all. No evidence shows otherwise, therefor rather uncontroversial. The onus is on you to prove your childish fantasy is something that actually takes place in what we call "the real world". Although since theists don't have a good history of demonstrating proof of their idiot fantasies, I won't hold my breath. I expect some hot air though.

On the contrary - your view that the brain is the be all and end of all of "self" is a guess - I wouldn't call it a wild guess, perhas a "lethargic guess" would be more suggestive of those guesses that arise from a poor fund of knowledge

You're calling it a lethargic guess because that's where the evidence leads? Is the lethargic guess not the one with no evidence that wishes one option is true because it gives life meaning, lets you go windsurfing with God and dead loved ones and lets you live forever?

 

[lightgigantic]

I am not familiar with the controversies in neuroscience about wether or not the brain is the be all and end all of the 'self'.

Then why do you state your poorly established opinions are true by trying to hijack the prestige of science?

Perhaps you could do a better job at conveying this apparent controversy other than quoting a person who was "a devout theist and a sometime Catholic, and is regarded by many Christians as an examplar of the successful melding of a life of science with one of faith.

Its just a co-incidence that he got a nobel laurettes in neurology huh?

Hardly melding science with faith is it?

So in other words you are saying anyone who has a theistic conviction is obviously wrong - another wonderful scientific conclusion by kenny - I bet you can hardly way for the nobel laurettes to come rolling your direction

More like distorting science to fit your childish notions about your invisible daddy in the sky.

On the contrary you are undermining scietific thought by trying to push through your ideas that the brain is the sole cause of self in the absence of empirical evidence

If there is any controversy, it is because of religious reasons just as with evolution. It is something that dimishishes the role of God if true.

And isn't it ironic that you cannot establish evolution by the same empirical processes that you deem necessary to prove the existence of god? In other words you also have a sky daddy


“ Thats another thing - first you have to establish that the sense of self is solely designated by the brain - something neurologists can not empirically establish - perhaps you should help them out since you appear to know it all already ”

I don't have to establish anything. I am not the one making the impossibly far-fetched claim here.

Well you are establishing that the brain is the sole cause of the self - maybe you should give a helping hand to the neurologists out there who cannot prove it.

By all rational observation, the brain is the be all and end all. No evidence shows otherwise,

Then - oh mighty neurologically knowable and empowered kenny - reveal your rational insights to the scientific world

therefor rather uncontroversial.

yes - for those ignorant of the nature of a subject of knowledge it certainly appears quite straight forward

The onus is on you to prove your childish fantasy is something that actually takes place in what we call "the real world".

I have a funny feeling that you mean the "Kenny world" - apart from kenny I am not sure who else participates in it - at the very least it doesn't innvolve neurologists

Although since theists don't have a good history of demonstrating proof of their idiot fantasies, I won't hold my breath. I expect some hot air though.

I am amazed that you are still standing after having shot yourself in the foot so many times

You're calling it a lethargic guess because that's where the evidence leads?

No - I am calling it lethargic because you have no evidence

Is the lethargic guess not the one with no evidence that wishes one option is true because it gives life meaning,

Thats you with your theory that the brain is the sole cause of self


[