Souls?
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
ellion said:
It is interesting, just goes to show that there is no truth and that it is relevant to perception.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47902
It is interesting how a large part of this thread [which is actually about the existence of the soul] deals with general problems of cognition.
Why is it you theists have those problems? You didn't understand anything boris wrote.
i think it is interesting too, that there is no sense of a consensus about pretty much anything.
You should clarify that there is no consensus amongst theists.
It is interesting, just goes to show that there is no truth and that it is relevant to perception.
There is truth, but it is only relevant to the individual who holds it. That's why good ole' hard evidence is so important, it's relevant to everyone.
Why is it you theists have those problems? You didn't understand anything boris wrote.
i think it is interesting too, that there is no sense of a consensus about pretty much anything.
You should clarify that there is no consensus amongst theists.
It is interesting, just goes to show that there is no truth and that it is relevant to perception.
There is truth, but it is only relevant to the individual who holds it. That's why good ole' hard evidence is so important, it's relevant to everyone.
theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the worldCris said:
at what point does one factor in the "souls"?
of course, if your quote was reworded ...essential consideration for christianity,.. thusly, it would begin to make sense
It was mostly the atheists who were discussing those general problems of cognition here.
It was the theists who portrayed those cognitive problems in spades, and refused to discuss them.
Did you attempt to tackle boris' post? Did any of you?
No, of course not. When faced with the reality of your beliefs, you turn into deer in headlights. It's hilarious.
It was the theists who portrayed those cognitive problems in spades, and refused to discuss them.
Did you attempt to tackle boris' post? Did any of you?
No, of course not. When faced with the reality of your beliefs, you turn into deer in headlights. It's hilarious.
Hmmm. Yeah, well she should get a hat or something at least for showing up and swinging the bat. 
I've written some stuff in another thread about my objection to my objectors here, but it's pretty messy. I'm going to mull it over and try to create the simplest possible example of what I mean along with a cleaner version of the stuff I've already written. I want to say that "awareness" is the key difference, but that term is weak without a pretty specific definition of its use. I'd really like to take this argument to the next level, but have some work to do before I can. All that said, of course I'm not sure I'm right - I get a little mixed up when considering dimensional crap and such, especially in that as I've said a few times, it could be just a trick. I think my ideas regarding mind are on a keen path which considers the possiblity that classical physics cannot explain mind.. but ultimately I have no idea if I'm onto anything remotely useful to anyone but me. Hehe. I'll be back, hopefully with some substance.
I've written some stuff in another thread about my objection to my objectors here, but it's pretty messy. I'm going to mull it over and try to create the simplest possible example of what I mean along with a cleaner version of the stuff I've already written. I want to say that "awareness" is the key difference, but that term is weak without a pretty specific definition of its use. I'd really like to take this argument to the next level, but have some work to do before I can. All that said, of course I'm not sure I'm right - I get a little mixed up when considering dimensional crap and such, especially in that as I've said a few times, it could be just a trick. I think my ideas regarding mind are on a keen path which considers the possiblity that classical physics cannot explain mind.. but ultimately I have no idea if I'm onto anything remotely useful to anyone but me. Hehe. I'll be back, hopefully with some substance.
People, animals, plants... all life, all that is in the universe must necessarily be an expression of first principles.
So are proteins just a gestalt of first principles? Why to they spell "words" in DNA? There is an abstract principle of order working here IMO, (part of first principles). Hmm. Pardon, just meandering on topic.
I should say though that I agree that "souls" is basically a term expressing ignorance. In argument of Boris's point though and as I've said, it seems to me that there IS a "non-material" (in the classical sense) aspect of mind (perhaps just "organization" (which itself is a concept with no physicality)) that doesn't exist "separate" from it, but as part of it.
Yeah okay I'm still meandering. Sorry.
So are proteins just a gestalt of first principles? Why to they spell "words" in DNA? There is an abstract principle of order working here IMO, (part of first principles). Hmm. Pardon, just meandering on topic.
I should say though that I agree that "souls" is basically a term expressing ignorance. In argument of Boris's point though and as I've said, it seems to me that there IS a "non-material" (in the classical sense) aspect of mind (perhaps just "organization" (which itself is a concept with no physicality)) that doesn't exist "separate" from it, but as part of it.
Yeah okay I'm still meandering. Sorry.
Not to her I'm sure, but I'm not sure if I remember ONE decent, reasonable argument from her as I see it.
What's interesting as I see it, is that her abstract bat probably only re-enforces hre existing ideas, where as from our perspectives it looks like it should be knocking some stuff loose.
What's interesting as I see it, is that her abstract bat probably only re-enforces hre existing ideas, where as from our perspectives it looks like it should be knocking some stuff loose.
By saying that, you assume authority.
My only pont is that the term would seem to have been concieved to explain the unexplainable, like the term "god'.
If for instance, there was a scientific explanation for all of consciousness, would the term "soul" still apply? Perhaps so, but hard to say as that situation has yet to occur.
It's ALL semantics down here darling.
My only pont is that the term would seem to have been concieved to explain the unexplainable, like the term "god'.
If for instance, there was a scientific explanation for all of consciousness, would the term "soul" still apply? Perhaps so, but hard to say as that situation has yet to occur.
It's ALL semantics down here darling.
wesmorris said:
No. You are assuming that I am assuming autohrity.
Then why are some arguments and some people discarded as unreasonable?
Or that they can't make any decent arguments?
If it is all semantics, then then anything goes, any argument -- and nothing can be discarded.