Jan Ardena,
Whether or no not "souls exist" have no bearing on the question at hand. The point is how does "my brain" differ from "my car" in the context of ownership.
The only real difference is that you could sell your car to somebody else, and then it would be their car, whereas you're stuck with your brain. The same goes for your arm. You could cut it off, I suppose, and give it away, and then it wouldn't be your arm any more, but in the meantime, it's attached to you.
What is the "I" that owns your arm, for the time being? It's the body that the arm is attached to, and the brain that controls that body. When I look at you, the boundary of what is you and what is not stops at your body. All your body parts are attached to you, so they are "yours", rather than, say, mine or somebody else's. Moreover, recognising your autonomy as a human being, I do not believe that somebody else can own you like they own a car.
There's also the matter of who or what is in control. Your brain controls your body, and it self-regulates. Nobody else controls your arm except your brain, under ordinary circumstances. So, that, too, gives us good reason to say it's your arm and not somebody else's.
Your assertion is that your consciousness is not ultimately a function of your biological brain, but rather a product of an immaterial, undetectable, soul. You say that because you can refer to "my brain", it means that the "I" that owns or controls the brain must necessarily be separate from the brain itself. But the situation you find yourself in is no different from that which my mobile phone finds itself in,
vis a vis its central processing unit. We refer to "the phone's CPU" without a problem. We could program the phone to refer to the CPU as "my CPU", and there would be no strain in the language to do so. Everybody would understand what was meant.
There's one further layer, of course. The brain itself is not "you", just as the operating system of my mobile phone is not the CPU. It is more accurate to say that the "I" you perceive is the "software" that the brain runs, just like the operating system of the phone is run by the hardware of the CPU. This "software picture" is what is meant when we say that the "I" is an emergent property of the brain. Extending the CPU metaphor a bit, the "I" in your brain is a little like the operating system stored in the memory of the phone. The storage method is a different, of course, but the principle is the same.
There's no need to assert that my phone must have a soul, or else it would be wrong to refer to "my CPU" or "my operating system".
In short, this diversion of yours into language is, as I said, a waste of time. You can't draw any conclusions about the existence of souls from the way we use words.
I don't really mind. It's a straightforward question.
It's not straightforward, or else I would not have asked for clarification.
Did human beings at any time have no self-awareness?
Okay, let me try briefly to answer that. If the assumption is that "self-awareness" means only sentience - the ability to feel sensations - then there was no time that human beings had no self-awareness. Human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors, who were already sentient before the designation "Homo sapiens" became relevant.
If, on the other hand, "self-awareness" means a conscious awareness of the self as a being in space and time, then again the most likely answer is that there was no time that humans had no self-awareness, for the same reason.
If you want to go back further in the evolutionary chain, to the ancestors of human beings, then at some point you'll hit an ancestor species of human beings that had no self-awareness in one or other (or both) of the two senses discussed above.
Does that answer your question?
What objective evidence James?
That's the point. The only thing you have to offer is your subjective belief, whereas what is needed is objective evidence.
I don't recall having a discussion about essentialism.
Previously, you said, in effect, that we're all destined to be either atheists or theists. It's in our nature. But seeing as you don't think this is relevant, there's no need to go over that ground again.
From whose perspective? Yours?
From an objective perspective. See what I mean? You think it's all about opinions and beliefs. It isn't. I know what your beliefs are. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in what is true.
As an atheist, one for whom there is no God, you aren't likely to accept the existence of God, let alone God.
I don't know if there is a God or not, but despite your protestations you don't know either. The difference between us is that you choose to believe without objective evidence, whereas I do not. If God existed and considered it important that I believe in him, it would be easy for him to convince me, I would have thought.
You will only accept God, on your terms, which will be never, as long as your an atheist. You have voluntarily locked yourself outside of that position. "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God".
If I'm wrong, and God exists, I'm sure he will understand why I doubt him. He's done a lousy job of making himself known. I haven't locked myself out of anything. It's irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Is Mickey Mouse a real, live mouse, as opposed to just a cartoon character in movies? Would it be too much to ask that Mickey be available for a photo opportunity (or equivalent) before I accept that he is real, especially given that all indications to this point are that he is a fantasy figure? Maybe I should accept that Mickey is real on the terms that Mickey just Is, rather than "locking myself out" of the perques of Mickey belief, whatever they might be.
You're an atheist. You can only see it from that perspective. Why would you think otherwise?
It's a strange argument you're trying to make. Essentially, you're saying "If you were like me, instead of like yourself, then you'd believe in my God like I do." Well, yes, obviously. If I shared your perspective, then I would believe as you do. So what? You've done nothing to convince me that your perspective is intrinsically superior to mine. You've given me no reason why I should change my opinion. Nor have you refuted any of the points I've made in support of my view. I don't even think you understand why it is that you believe what you believe.
Jan Ardena said:
James R said:
Be that as it may, what I, personally, believe or do not believe does not influence whether or not there is any evidence for your God.
How would you know?
I don't think you realise the depth of your fundamental designation.
Think about what you just wrote.
Is it your assertion that what I believe
does influence whether or not there is
objective evidence for God? Do you even understand what they would mean, if it were true? I am not kidding when I say that you actually can't distinguish your personal belief from reality. Everything you posts only further highlights that deficiency.
Let's say I turn that around.
Your belief does not eliminate God. Or, more accurately, it only eliminates God in your head. For some reason, you confuse that with God not being the basis of reality, period
Your turned-around version doesn't apply to me. I agree with you that my non-belief does not eliminate God. I understand that God either exists or does not exist, regardless of what I believe or do not believe. I said that, just above.
In contrast, your consistent claim is that God exists ("for you") because you believe in him, and God does not exist ("for me") because I do not believe in him. That kind of statement only highlights the fact that you think that people create their own reality, rather than sharing one objective reality. You're saying more that merely that people have different ideas and opinions. You're saying that there's essentially a separate reality for each individual, and that there's no such thing as a common, shared reality, other than what might, by chance, result from opinions that happen to be in agreement between individuals.
You might like to read one of the quotes in my signature: reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. Your own belief, as far as I can tell from your posts, is very different: reality is whatever you believe in, and if your belief changes, so does reality. Given this, does it really surprise you that our respective positions are at odds with one another?
You assert that God is the "basis of reality". But at the same time, you say "There is no God, for you". So I take it you would agree that the basis of your reality is not the same as the basis of my reality, and that we literally do not share the same reality.
The problem is that, having no real insight into your own philosophical foundations, you tend to flip-flop between expressing that kind of view and working on the implicit assumption that your reality is the only real one after all, which means that atheists are in denial of that reality.
Your lack of consistency makes interactions with you frustrating. Really, I don't think that any meaningful progress is possible until you can bring yourself to accept that beliefs and facts are not the same thing. If we can bring you to the point of recognising that there's such a thing as objectivity, for starters, then we can perhaps progress from there.
