[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2013, 09:39 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2013 01:20 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-01-2013, 08:26 PM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2013 08:30 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  @ Lion

1) In my experience when people describe souls they usually refer to some sort of spiritual entity within you that lives on after death. Something that is responsible for all your feelings and thoughts, for which the body is only a vessel. This is why I wanted you to define what you mean when you say soul, because I do not accept this definition as having any basis in reality.

What definition of soul do you accept as having a basis in reality?

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...If someone wants to call the sum of their feelings their soul I don't mind, because it's a reasonable definition in my view.

So you agree it's a matter of personal semantics.

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...But those emotions are a result of electrochemical reactions in the brain,

Appeal to jargon. Nice. Thumbsup

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...without the brain they don't exist.

Yes they do. Special pleading is easy. Thumbsup

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...And the brain also plays the role of memory storage and thought processor

Oversimplification. Youre just substituting words. Admit it. Your rejection of the concept of discarnate consciousness is personal opinion.


(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  - no brain means no thoughts and no memories.

Your materialistic bias towards the deterministic certainty and centrality of ''matter'' is out-dated. Quantum physics enlightens us to the possibilities that thought (free will energy) is not dependent on formal Newtonian particles. Our bodies are not ''just molecules''.


(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...2) I am aware that the molecules in humans are replaced continuously. That doesn't mean there is something other than normal matter storing those memories.

Do you admit that our ongoing, sentient, autonomous thought (arising from our sensory perception of external evidence) does not depend on continuity of the same identical molecules throughout life? As a conscious, thinking being, I can convert my thought into energy (sound) and transmit those thoughts to the ear of another human whose body is made of different molecules all together.

Thus you have a non-physical product of mind eg. a unique thought such as a brand new music symphony, arising in the heart/soul/mind of person "A" being transmitted to the heart/soul/mind of person "B" via a form of energy called noise or a form of inanimate matter called paper and ink (sheet music). Doesnt this mean that molecules of paper/ink are simply a medium by which free will (volition) manifests itself. The original idea (intellectual property) of a music symphony can exist even when there is no violin and oboe molecules on which to play.

And the closer we look at matter/energy, with all its quantum weirdness, the more plausible religious ideas like discarnate/invisible consciousness or holographic universes or matter being created out of nothing, become.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2013, 08:30 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(28-01-2013 08:26 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  @ Lion

1) In my experience when people describe souls they usually refer to some sort of spiritual entity within you that lives on after death. Something that is responsible for all your feelings and thoughts, for which the body is only a vessel. This is why I wanted you to define what you mean when you say soul, because I do not accept this definition as having any basis in reality.

What definition of soul do you accept as having a basis in reality?

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...If someone wants to call the sum of their feelings their soul I don't mind, because it's a reasonable definition in my view.

So you agree it's a matter of personal semantics.

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...But those emotions are a result of electrochemical reactions in the brain,

Appeal to jargon. Nice. Thumbsup

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...without the brain they don't exist.

Yes they do. Special pleading is easy. Thumbsup

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...And the brain also plays the role of memory storage and thought processor

Oversimplification. Youre just substituting words. Admit it. Your rejection of the concept of discarnate consciousness is personal opinion.


(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  - no brain means no thoughts and no memories.

Your materialistic bias towards the deterministic certainty and centrality of ''matter'' is out-dated. Quantum physics enlightens us to the possibilities that thought (free will energy) is not dependent on formal Newtonian particles. Our bodies are not ''just molecules''.


(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ...2) I am aware that the molecules in humans are replaced continuously. That doesn't mean there is something other than normal matter storing those memories.

Do you admit that our ongoing, sentient, autonomous thought (arising from our sensory perception of external evidence) does not depend on continuity of the same identical molecules throughout life? As a conscious, thinking being, I can convert my thought into energy (sound) and transmit those thoughts to the ear of another human whose body is made of different molecules all together.

Thus you have a non-physical product of mind eg. a unique thought such as a brand new music symphony, arising in the heart/soul/mind of person "A" being transmitted to the heart/soul/mind of person "B" via a form of energy called noise or a form of inanimate matter called paper and ink (sheet music). Doesnt this mean that molecules of paper/ink are simply a medium by which free will (volition) manifests itself. The original idea (intellectual property) of a music symphony can exist even when there is no violin and oboe molecules on which to play.

And the closer we look at matter/energy, with all its quantum weirdness, the more plausible religious ideas like discarnate/invisible consciousness or holographic universes or matter being created out of nothing, become.


There is no evidence of "discarnate consciousness", and there is ample evidence for thought and personality being completely brain-dependent. There is no special pleading involved.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-01-2013, 08:35 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  …Incidentally, do you really think the Cosmological Argument has any validity?

Yes.

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ..It's been shown to be a fallacy many times over.

What fallacy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2013, 08:51 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
@ hedgehog648 @Bucky Ball

Jesus Resurrection ---> cosmology
Derail to a new thread if you like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2013, 10:36 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(28-01-2013 08:35 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  …Incidentally, do you really think the Cosmological Argument has any validity?

Yes.

(26-01-2013 04:36 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  ..It's been shown to be a fallacy many times over.

What fallacy?



Cosmological Argument

P1: Anything that begins to exists has a cause.

P2: The Universe began to exist.

C: The Universe has a cause.



Even IF I grant you that this is a valid argument (and I don't, both premises are flawed), how do you get from the conclusion to a god? And once there, how to you get to YOUR god and not any other god?

We have zero empirical evidence to prove that things can't begin to exists without a cause, and so the first premised is flawed. We also don't know if the universe ever 'began', or what that even really means. The universe as we know it does appear to be the result of the Big Bang, but what came before it? Was it nothing, or something else? We don't know, and thus the second premise is flawed.

Two flawed premises necessarily lead to a flawed conclusion. A conclusion which, as I stated earlier, you would be unable to move away from to get to your god anyways...


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/t...gical.html

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
28-01-2013, 10:40 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(28-01-2013 08:53 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  @ hedgehog648 @Bucky Ball

Jesus Resurrection ---> cosmology
Derail to a new thread if you like.

Hahahahaha. YOU brought up Cosmology, idioto. Yet you blame others for derailing, oh pathetic one. Have you have a "forgetfullness" eval lately. I think there's something wrong with your memory. YOU have yet to offer any evidence for the resurrection. So, by all means, keep it on subject. It's YOUR move to give any evidence. Do you plan to offer any ? Be sure and tell us how it's any different from all the other dying and rising miracle working gods of the day.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-01-2013, 12:13 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(28-01-2013 10:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-01-2013 08:53 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  @ hedgehog648 @Bucky Ball

Jesus Resurrection ---> cosmology
Derail to a new thread if you like.

Hahahahaha. YOU brought up Cosmology, idioto. Yet you blame others for derailing, oh pathetic one. Have you have a "forgetfullness" eval lately. I think there's something wrong with your memory. YOU have yet to offer any evidence for the resurrection. So, by all means, keep it on subject. It's YOUR move to give any evidence. Do you plan to offer any ? Be sure and tell us how it's any different from all the other dying and rising miracle working gods of the day.

Did I say anything in terms of blame? I didnt bring it up, but I'd ABSOLUTELY LOVE to talk about cosmology.
I wonder about your increasing personal hostility though. Emotional reactions seem out of place. Shocking
Here's some evidence for the Resurrection;
[Image: papyrus.JPG]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 12:20 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 12:13 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(28-01-2013 10:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Hahahahaha. YOU brought up Cosmology, idioto. Yet you blame others for derailing, oh pathetic one. Have you have a "forgetfullness" eval lately. I think there's something wrong with your memory. YOU have yet to offer any evidence for the resurrection. So, by all means, keep it on subject. It's YOUR move to give any evidence. Do you plan to offer any ? Be sure and tell us how it's any different from all the other dying and rising miracle working gods of the day.

Did I say anything in terms of blame? I didnt bring it up, but I'd ABSOLUTELY LOVE to talk about cosmology.
I wonder about your increasing personal hostility though. Emotional reactions seem out of place. Shocking
Here's some evidence for the Resurrection;
[Image: papyrus.JPG]


And here's some evidence your god doesn't exist...

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRTevrDBszl5SQebVDKqN...QTSWnnEJTw]


Wow, see how easy that was? I didn't even have to think or present an argument!

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: