Jan Ardena:
As usual, you're pretending to know a lot of things that you don't actually know, but just want to believe.
I know you have faith that the "problem of consciousness" won't ever be explained without introducing a supernatural soul, but that's just a belief you have, nothing more. You're guessing at what might happen (or not happen). You're hoping you're right. But you know nothing.
There is evidence for this. We can perceive gradations of sentience and consciousness in different kinds of animals, for instance. A fly or a worm, for example, appears to have a low level of consciousness and sentience. A rabbit or a dog has a higher level of consciousness. An octopus has a very high level of consciousness. In general, we observe that higher levels of consciousness correlate with larger brains and more complex nervous systems. This makes sense if consciousness is a result of a complex nervous system.
On the other hand, there's zero evidence for immortal souls driving the consciousness of worms, octopuses or human beings.
Similarly, when we say "I think that ..." or "I want ...", it's just an obvious shorthand to communicate what my conscious brain and/or my body are doing.
God exists as far as you're aware. Boring. I already know all about that. What I'm interested in is whether God actually exists, in reality, not in your "awareness". But you have nothing to offer in terms of enlightenment on that question. You admit it yourself.
As an aside, it's interesting how religion is so often tied to ideas of purity and cleanliness and health, don't you think? There's a hint right there about the origins of theism.
As usual, you're pretending to know a lot of things that you don't actually know, but just want to believe.
I don't want to repeat what Sarkus said too much, but I think it's worth emphasising that the whole "soul" concept is manufactured in such a way to make souls unfalsifiable. Sure, we might all have souls, in theory, but it seems to make no practical difference to anything observable whether they exist or not.
I know you have faith that the "problem of consciousness" won't ever be explained without introducing a supernatural soul, but that's just a belief you have, nothing more. You're guessing at what might happen (or not happen). You're hoping you're right. But you know nothing.
That's not quite true. For example, I have discussed the theory that consciousness arises from brains or, more fundamentally, from complex-enough nervous systems. It's an emergent property.
There is evidence for this. We can perceive gradations of sentience and consciousness in different kinds of animals, for instance. A fly or a worm, for example, appears to have a low level of consciousness and sentience. A rabbit or a dog has a higher level of consciousness. An octopus has a very high level of consciousness. In general, we observe that higher levels of consciousness correlate with larger brains and more complex nervous systems. This makes sense if consciousness is a result of a complex nervous system.
On the other hand, there's zero evidence for immortal souls driving the consciousness of worms, octopuses or human beings.
No. That's a lousy explanation. It's a non-explanation. You're just inserting a place holder term and pretending you've solved the problem. "Well, you see kids, we all have these magical things called souls, and - hey presto! - we're conscious. Thank the Lord!"
See, there's you pretending again. It is clear that you know next to nothing about neuroscience, for example, but you still imagine that you're qualified to dismiss what scientists have to offer as "nonsense". If you had any real expertise, you'd be able to suggest why it is "nonsense", but you can't and won't do that. Will you?
It's almost endearing that you think that science is ideologically driven by an anti-religious bias. The truth is, good scientists go where the evidence leads. The soul is a dead end idea.
You keep talking about language, as if it proves something about souls when people talk about "my body" or "my brain". How else would we distinguish your arm from my arm, using language, other than by using possessive pronouns? We could do it, but it would be clumsy and circuitous. There's no difference when we talk about "my mind". It doesn't imply that the mind is separate from the body; it's just a device to specify which mind we're talking about.
Similarly, when we say "I think that ..." or "I want ...", it's just an obvious shorthand to communicate what my conscious brain and/or my body are doing.
How do you know any of this? You're just making it all up as you go along, aren't you? Or else you're parroting something you read in one of your "scriptures", that somebody else made up as he went along. Don't you realise that you don't know anything about these souls that you think exist? Doesn't it ever worry you, just a bit, that the foundations of your worldview are built on such shifting sand?
Why did your God create an alien atmosphere and force souls to live in it?
No? It sure seems like you choose it to be undetectable by science, for starters. Why does it have to be that way?
Silly question. Why are you in this discussion, Jan? Why did you start it? Is your worldview that important to you?
Regardless of any of the soul nonsense, atheism is indisputably real. There are real atheists right here, talking to you. And here you are insisting that we don't actually exist. Don't you feel embarrassed?
As usual, you have the causation backwards. You're a theist because you believe in gods and spirits. The belief comes first, not the label. Nothing follows from putting an arbitrary label on yourself or on another person.
You keep concentrating on the "awareness" all the time. Step back and consider the bigger picture. That is not about what we're aware of, but what actually exists.
God exists as far as you're aware. Boring. I already know all about that. What I'm interested in is whether God actually exists, in reality, not in your "awareness". But you have nothing to offer in terms of enlightenment on that question. You admit it yourself.
What do you mean by "pure"? In what sense is God "pure"?
As an aside, it's interesting how religion is so often tied to ideas of purity and cleanliness and health, don't you think? There's a hint right there about the origins of theism.
It's illogical to pretend you know stuff you don't know, then treat it as if it is indisputable fact, for starters.
Like everything in science, it's a hypothesis that might turn out to be wrong. You never know. But I can't think of any strong competing scientific hypotheses. Can you? It is turns out to be true, then it will certainly be an explanation. I can't comment on whether it is equal to that of a spirit-soul, because I don't know on what basis you want to judge this vague "equality". I'm guessing that, for you, no naturalistic explanation will ever be "equal" to your God explanation.
