South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 07, 2019, 20:42:32 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Steve on 702

 (Read 23126 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2010, 08:54:29 AM »

1) We had a discussion the other day about thoughts (you being a Type-D dualist IIRC). In that same sense, I don't see any logical inconsistency in viewing God as a real, actual and a non-physical or an immaterial or a non-particulate being.
2) Exegesis
3) If you have no proper understanding of the different views and arguments for the soul, how can you have any judgement or proper view about them in the first place?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2010, 08:58:58 AM »

1. So the Christian view is not Biblical then?
2. The Bible clearly gives the 7-day creation story followed by the generations from Adam to Noah, from Noah to David, and from David to Jesus. Roughly 4000 years. Or are you saying the Bible is not to be taken as truth? Well I am - I say the Biblical account is inconsistent with current knowledge and is a badly fabricated myth.
3. I did not set out to disprove various arguments for the soul Tele. That would be for intellectuals like yourself. I merely point out that believing in an afterlife is inconsistent with current medical knowledge of the brain. My book is not a philosophical rebuttal of other philosophical mumbo-jumbo - it's a practical guide to atheism for the average person. You wanna do the philosophical stuff? Be my guest - but it's not for me nor is it the norm for most people.
1) You are not giving the Christian or Biblical view. Again, read up on theophany. Also, there are several verses in the Bible that specifically states that God is a spiritual being (not a physical being)
2) You are taking a fundamentalist view of the Bible and building and burning straw men.
3) Yet, you make no argument for why current medical knowledge of the brain is incompatible with believing in a soul and/or the after life.
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2010, 09:31:21 AM »

3) Yet, you make no argument for why current medical knowledge of the brain is incompatible with believing in a soul and/or the after life.
Current medical knowledge of the brain is incompatible with believing in a soul and/or the after life because no evidence of the soul has been detected in the human brain and no knowledge exists to indicate the existence of the soul or the afterlife. Simple enough I think.
Please stop labelling people according to (fun, sure) but totally useless little questionnaires.
Your links  do not help me, I am interested in your opinion, explanation, thoughts on the matter etc. If you have any, feel free to please share. I can Wiki things on my own.
3) If you have no proper understanding of the different views and arguments for the soul, how can you have any judgement or proper view about them in the first place?
I am not judging other people's views, I was simply asking you to explain your views to me. I do not need a proper understanding of other people's views on this particular matter in order for me to form my own opinion on this matter. If you think I do, please elaborate.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2010, 09:43:59 AM »

3) Yet, you make no argument for why current medical knowledge of the brain is incompatible with believing in a soul and/or the after life.
Current medical knowledge of the brain is incompatible with believing in a soul and/or the after life because no evidence of the soul has been detected in the human brain and no knowledge exists to indicate the existence of the soul or the afterlife. Simple enough I think.
Lilli, the point being, if you have no proper understanding of what people refer to when they talk about "soul", there is no way you can make such a statement.

My view is that neither the Cartesian nor the peripatetic views are logically, philosophically or metaphysically incompatible with our current understanding of the brain. That is it.

Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2010, 10:21:25 AM »

1) You are not giving the Christian or Biblical view. … Also, there are several verses in the Bible that specifically states that God is a spiritual being (not a physical being)
Oh dearie me!  How odd it is then that there are bible verses that strongly suggest or clearly state the exact opposite, i.e. that god is a physical being:

  • On the question whether god can be seen, compare
    Gen 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 32:30, 35:9, 48:3
    Exo 3:16, 4:5, 6:3, 24:9-11, 33:11, 33:23
    Num 14:14
    Deut 5:4, 34:10
    Jdg 13:22
    1Ki 22:19
    Job 42:5
    Ps 63:2
    Isa 6:1, 6:5
    Ezk 1:27, 20:35
    Amos 7:7, 9:1
    Hab 3:3-5
    Mat 18:9
    with
    Exo 33:20
    Jn 1:18, 6:46
    1Tim 1:17, 6:16
    1Jn 4:12

  • On the question whether god has a body, compare
    Gen 3:8
    Exo 33:11, 33:20, 33:22, 33:23, 34:5
    Deut 23:12-13
    Ezk 1:27, 8:2
    Hab 3:3-4
    with
    Lk 24:39
    Jn 4:24

  • On the question where god lives, compare
    Ps 9:11, 76:2
    Joel 3:17, 21
    with
    Ps 123:1
    Ecc 5:2

  • On the question whether god can be found, compare
    Prov 8:17
    Mat 7:8
    Lk 11:9-10
    with
    Ps 18:41
    Prov 1:28
    Lam 3:8, 3:44
    Amos 8:12
    Lk 13:24

Ironically, to “resolve” these contradictions, fleet-footed and liberal resort to postmodern deconstructionism is indispensable.  It facilitates the extraction of any meaning from any text – a deliciously revealing irony on those touting exegesis as one source of Eternal Truth™.

It’s no wonder really that believers are so confused when they can pick and choose even about the very fundamentals of their beliefs.  Like Mintaka said:  “Isn’t theology fun!?”

'Luthon64
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2010, 10:26:22 AM »

3) Yet, you make no argument for why current medical knowledge of the brain is incompatible with believing in a soul and/or the after life.
Current medical knowledge of the brain is incompatible with believing in a soul and/or the after life because no evidence of the soul has been detected in the human brain and no knowledge exists to indicate the existence of the soul or the afterlife. Simple enough I think.
Lilli, the point being, if you have no proper understanding of what people refer to when they talk about "soul", there is no way you can make such a statement.
OK, fine, I'll bite. If I understand correctly, the principle difference between the peripatetic and Cartesian views as regards the existence of a soul relates to the nature of 'the soul'. The reason I say this is because the peripatetic school, in accordance with the teachings of Aristotle, hold that the soul is a part of the body and inseparable from it, while Cartesian dualism prefers to think of the soul as incorporeal (ie that the mind, personality, thoughts etc are not in fact physical) Did I get the gist of it?
I cannot see my soul, I cannot smell it or taste it or touch it or hear it. It has no effect that I can see or hear or taste or touch on anything in the world around me that I perceive through my senses to be reality. Therefore, I have no reason to believe I have a soul.
In light of the above statement, while I think you are entirely entitled to your opinion on the matter, I disagree with you when you say:
...neither the Cartesian nor the peripatetic views are logically, philosophically or metaphysically incompatible with our current understanding of the brain. That is it.
Our current understanding of the brain does not indicate any reason to believe that anything resembling a 'soul' as described by either of these views, or others, exists. Therefore neurology is incompatible with any view that holds true that there exists something as a 'soul'. Thats how my logic works anyways...
It’s no wonder really that believers are so confused when they can pick and choose even about the very fundamentals of their beliefs. 

Once again, you manage to come up with the essence of the problem in just one sentence, and say what I often struggle to find the words to say.  Smiley
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2010, 10:37:39 AM »

1) You are not giving the Christian or Biblical view. … Also, there are several verses in the Bible that specifically states that God is a spiritual being (not a physical being)
Oh dearie me!  How odd it is then that there are bible verses that strongly suggest or clearly state the exact opposite, i.e. that god is a physical being:

  • On the question whether god can be seen, compare
    Gen 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 32:30, 35:9, 48:3
    Exo 3:16, 4:5, 6:3, 24:9-11, 33:11, 33:23
    Num 14:14
    Deut 5:4, 34:10
    Jdg 13:22
    1Ki 22:19
    Job 42:5
    Ps 63:2
    Isa 6:1, 6:5
    Ezk 1:27, 20:35
    Amos 7:7, 9:1
    Hab 3:3-5
    Mat 18:9
    with
    Exo 33:20
    Jn 1:18, 6:46
    1Tim 1:17, 6:16
    1Jn 4:12

  • On the question whether god has a body, compare
    Gen 3:8
    Exo 33:11, 33:20, 33:22, 33:23, 34:5
    Deut 23:12-13
    Ezk 1:27, 8:2
    Hab 3:3-4
    with
    Lk 24:39
    Jn 4:24

  • On the question where god lives, compare
    Ps 9:11, 76:2
    Joel 3:17, 21
    with
    Ps 123:1
    Ecc 5:2

  • On the question whether god can be found, compare
    Prov 8:17
    Mat 7:8
    Lk 11:9-10
    with
    Ps 18:41
    Prov 1:28
    Lam 3:8, 3:44
    Amos 8:12
    Lk 13:24

Ironically, to “resolve” these contradictions, fleet-footed and liberal resort to postmodern deconstructionism is indispensable.  It facilitates the extraction of any meaning from any text – a deliciously revealing irony on those touting exegesis as one source of Eternal Truth™.

It’s no wonder really that believers are so confused when they can pick and choose even about the very fundamentals of their beliefs.  Like Mintaka said:  “Isn’t theology fun!?”

'Luthon64
Theophany muffles, the Bible clearly states God as a spiritual being.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2010, 10:53:02 AM »

Theophany muffles, the Bible clearly states God as a spiritual being.
This, no doubt, is more of your “constructive and positive input.”  I mean, never mind the carefully catalogued contradictory evidence from the very source you yourself hold in such high esteem, we’ll just gloss over and dismiss it with a bit of hand-waving towards a convenient little flavour-of-the-week invention.

Indeed a ham-fisted piece of fraudulent intellectual wriggling, so here’s my response:  Theofunny Teleological, your so-called “holy” book also clearly states your god as a physical being, as shown with supporting passages.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2010, 11:03:56 AM »

How many passages can you quote mine that says God is a physical being?
How many passages can you quote mine that says God is a spiritual being?

And what is the standard philosophical concept of God? Incorporeal, non-physical, immaterial, spiritual, actual etc. not physical.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 14, 2010, 11:14:58 AM »

How many passages can you quote mine that says God is a physical being?
How many passages can you quote mine that says God is a spiritual being?
Why, you can count ’em right here.  You can count, I presume?



And what is the standard philosophical concept of God?
Exactly whose “standard philosophical concept” of your god would that be?

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #70 on: September 14, 2010, 11:20:34 AM »

How many passages can you quote mine that says God is a physical being?
How many passages can you quote mine that says God is a spiritual being?
Why, you can count ’em right here.

Nice evasion, but hey, who cares.
1) 0, there is not a single verse that explicitly states that God is a physical being, only several verses that can be described as theophanies.
2) Several verses that explicitly state that God is a spiritual incorporeal being.

And what is the standard philosophical concept of God?
Exactly whose “standard philosophical concept” of your god would that be?

'Luthon64

http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/#SH3a

Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #71 on: September 14, 2010, 11:27:46 AM »

Tele loves straw man arguments...whether his so-called God is physical or spiritual (whatever that means) is irrelevant...it's just Tele's way to try to discredit Stevo. God isn't, has never been, will never be....period!
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #72 on: September 14, 2010, 12:02:52 PM »

Tele loves straw man arguments...whether his so-called God is physical or spiritual (whatever that means) is irrelevant...it's just Tele's way to try to discredit Stevo. God isn't, has never been, will never be....period!
Agreed. And Tele seems to read our posts through the mist of his own understanding, only seeing the bits he relates to or is able to "argue" against - pretty much the way he seems to read his Bible. Anyway, I would have tried answering again but Lilli and Mefi have said it better than I could (thanks girls).
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #73 on: September 14, 2010, 12:11:43 PM »

It is actually quite relevant Brian. If Steve wants to disprove the concept of God, one thing he actually has to do is to grasp the correct understanding of God and what people traditionally believe God to be. otherwise he is the one tearing down straw men.

It is a bit (analogically speaking) like an alien telling me that cats aren't, has never been and never will be. But he himself does not fully grasp the correct concept of cats in the first place.

@ Lilly.
Quote
OK, fine, I'll bite. If I understand correctly, the principle difference between the peripatetic and Cartesian views as regards the existence of a soul relates to the nature of 'the soul'. The reason I say this is because the peripatetic school, in accordance with the teachings of Aristotle, hold that the soul is a part of the body and inseparable from it, while Cartesian dualism prefers to think of the soul as incorporeal (ie that the mind, personality, thoughts etc are not in fact physical) Did I get the gist of it?

A lot of it. Let me add a few things.

The Cartesian view of the soul is as a direct result of a mechanistic conception of matter and reality. (as described here)

The Aristotelian view (as well as A-T view) of course has a different conception of matter, substance and form. Material substances are composites of matter and form. To give a simplified example:
A golden ball would be referred to as a material substance. The form of this particular substance is round with roundness as one of its properties while the matter is gold.
In the case of humans, a particular person is seen as a particular material/corporeal substance. The matter of the person (the substance) would be the body while the form is the rational soul that have properties of intellect and will. When the person ceases to exist (i.e. dies), one substance (the person in this case) changes into another (a corpse) still consisting of matter (flesh) and form (corpse) and described as substantial change. On this conception, your intellect and will are part of you as a person and you as a human person cannot persist without your body and rational soul. Your soul is not a person (as in Cartesian dualism). You as a fully functioning live person is a composite of matter and form according to A-T. It is however argued that the intellect and will (or thoughts as discussed are properties of the soul from an A-T view) are immaterial and are able to subsist as incomplete substances.

Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #74 on: September 14, 2010, 12:27:00 PM »

It is however argued that the intellect and will (or thoughts as discussed are properties of the soul from an A-T view) are immaterial and are able to subsist as incomplete substances.
And that is the source of all the woo, which is incompatible with neurology, as Stevo has been pointing out all along.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.034 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 04, 2019, 06:46:06 AM
Privacy Policy