South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 12, 2020, 23:30:18 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Steve on 702

 (Read 24732 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2010, 12:34:11 PM »

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.
And there is exactly zero evidence to support any of these ex recto assertions. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Wishful thinking on a platter served with a dash of ignorance, spiced with gullible foolishness.

b'tayavon
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +64/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3786


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2010, 12:44:10 PM »

Nice evasion, but hey, who cares.
Right, so giving a clear list of specific references now counts as an “evasion” – and a “nice” one at that.  What a strange world you inhabit.



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.
Yes, that’s abundantly obvious – on all three counts – to anyone who’s looked through Teleological’s collection of god threads, including this one.  The point, though, is that our protagonist has once again clearly revealed himself as a most slippery customer when it comes to consistent and coherent defences of these asinine and, as cyghost has it, ex recto follies.  Anything that doesn’t fit is transparently excused into irrelevance with unimpressive semantic legerdemain.

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

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2010, 13:33:48 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.
You agree that thoughts are immaterial, why is that not incompatible with neurology. It simply isn't.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #78 on: September 14, 2010, 13:38:21 PM »

And there is exactly zero evidence to support any of these ex recto assertions. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Wishful thinking on a platter served with a dash of ignorance, spiced with gullible foolishness.

I see you have a body.
I see you have an intellect and will.
I see thoughts as not being material, you see them as not being composed of particles. 
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #79 on: September 14, 2010, 13:40:08 PM »

Nice evasion, but hey, who cares.
Right, so giving a clear list of specific references now counts as an “evasion” – and a “nice” one at that.  What a strange world you inhabit.
Not counting a single instance in that list (you did read it right) that explicitly states God as a physical being... yeah, nice evasion muffles. Next time actually read through your references.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2010, 13:49:38 PM »

I see thoughts as not being material, you see them as not being composed of particles.
And whichever way you want to cut it, all it is is the result of the physical workings of the brain. No snapping neurons, no thoughts.
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2010, 14:24:00 PM »

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.
(own emphasis)
And you actually believe this? You believe that people have "rational souls" that keep existing, as a soul, somewhere, after it has left the human body where it was parking with a dubie while I was alive dictating my personality, will, etc? And this soul, according to you will keep on 'living' or existing or whatever, forever? Why? For what purpose would anyone possibly want to have a soul?
Sorry, but my human 'properties of rationality and intellect' can't quite seem to make sense out of this. (although I can admit I'm not as smart and well-read as you Teleological)
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2010, 15:06:03 PM »

(own emphasis)
And you actually believe this? You believe that people have "rational souls" that keep existing, as a soul, somewhere, after it has left the human body where it was parking with a dubie while I was alive dictating my personality, will, etc?
Not quite. From an A-T perspective, you, as a complete, actual, real, physical person is a composite of matter and form, with a rational soul being your form.

And this soul, according to you will keep on 'living' or existing or whatever, forever?
I am merely arguing that according to an A-T view, it is possible to subsist on its own and not as a person, merely as an incomplete substance. Whether forever, or finitely or whatever for whatever purpose is not what I am arguing.

Why? For what purpose would anyone possibly want to have a soul?
It is not a question of whether any being wants or do not want one. Just like the roundness is the form a golden ball (as a simplified example), so too is a rational soul the form of beings with intellect and will. To ask why is the same to ask why the form of a round object is roundness. That is just the way it is from an A-T perspective.
 

Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2010, 15:12:44 PM »

Not quite. From an A-T perspective, you, as a complete, actual, real, physical person is a composite of matter and form, with a rational soul being your form.

I am merely arguing that according to an A-T view, it is possible to subsist on its own and not as a person, merely as an incomplete substance. Whether forever, or finitely or whatever for whatever purpose is not what I am arguing.

It is not a question of whether any being wants or do not want one. Just like the roundness is the form a golden ball (as a simplified example), so too is a rational soul the form of beings with intellect and will. To ask why is the same to ask why the form of a round object is roundness. That is just the way it is from an A-T perspective.
 
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2010, 15:17:07 PM »

Not quite. From an A-T perspective, you, as a complete, actual, real, physical person is a composite of matter and form, with a rational soul being your form.

I am merely arguing that according to an A-T view, it is possible to subsist on its own and not as a person, merely as an incomplete substance. Whether forever, or finitely or whatever for whatever purpose is not what I am arguing.

It is not a question of whether any being wants or do not want one. Just like the roundness is the form a golden ball (as a simplified example), so too is a rational soul the form of beings with intellect and will. To ask why is the same to ask why the form of a round object is roundness. That is just the way it is from an A-T perspective.
 


Sorry finger problems...Tele tell us what is YOUR perspective...don't hide behind your own quote mining...it's way too easy to use these as smoke screens...a very high skill level in your case. The way I read Steve's book in any case has very little to do with whether God is physical or not...his epiphany was that God didn't exist...period
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3245



« Reply #85 on: September 14, 2010, 15:33:34 PM »

Teleo doesn't know what he believes. He only knows what other philosophers believe, but doesn't subscribe to any of it with any vigor.

I think Tele is agnostic.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2010, 15:42:04 PM »

Sorry finger problems...Tele tell us what is YOUR perspective...don't hide behind your own quote mining...it's way too easy to use these as smoke screens...a very high skill level in your case. The way I read Steve's book in any case has very little to do with whether God is physical or not...his epiphany was that God didn't exist...period
My views are not set in stone. At present I think an A-T perspective of the world and reality is the most rational view as opposed to a mechanistic view.

Steve seems to have had doubt about a conception of God that no person (well believer anyway) takes seriously. The book about this particular doubt seems irrelevant (straw man), at least to a believer that does not share Steve's conception of God (which is just about every person that actually took the time to read and understand a little of theology and philosophy).
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +20/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2528


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2010, 19:04:29 PM »

I see thoughts as not being material, you see them as not being composed of particles.  
And Mintaka, as you know, doesn't see them at all.  Tongue

Quote
... at least to a believer that does not share Steve's conception of God (which is just about every person that actually took the time to read and understand a little of theology and philosophy).

Teleological, even if I reconfigure my idea of God to the most ethereal, wispy, and non-material shadow of a snowflake imaginable, it still does not improve his chances of existing by one iota. All it does is to move the God in my mind outside the observable universe, where he will merely sit sulking in the company of unicorns, garage dragons, teapots and that Flying Spaghetti Jobby.

Mintaka
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 19:24:57 PM by Mintaka, Reason: crappy grammar » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +64/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3786


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2010, 20:52:42 PM »

Yeah, it’s simply astounding how that article just oozes great unstoppable gobs of harmonious agreement on the “standard philosophical concept” of your god… Roll Eyes



Not counting a single instance in that list (you did read it right) that explicitly states God as a physical being... yeah, nice evasion muffles. Next time actually read through your references.
You’re right, of course.  It’s true that none of those passages goes anything along the lines of, “And knoweth ye that the LORD thy god be unto reality as substantial as the excrement that thou shovelleth.”

Still, when a clear description is given of, or someone speaks in no uncertain terms of:—
  • Hearing;
  • Seeing;
  • Speaking to;
  • Interacting with;
  • Being sheltered or protected by;
  • Being appeared to;
  • Being commanded by;
  • Being witness to; or
  • Otherwise having direct sensory experience of entity X;
or
  • That entity X lives in physical place Y,
as for example here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here
and here, then there’s a clear, direct and unmistakeable implication that X really is a palpable thing – unless, that is, X is completely hallucinatory, in which case it still retains a certain minimal physicality in the form of the brain signals and neural states that represent X.  It takes an exceptionally contrived act of intellectual subversion to sneak past those objections, not that we haven’t seen many lukewarm attempts at same, notwithstanding the pathetically feeble allegations of “quote mining.”

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

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #89 on: September 15, 2010, 06:39:47 AM »

And still, not a single verse that explicitly states that God is a physical being? Try a bit harder muffles. If you don't understand the classical conception of God, the terms incorporeal/immaterial/non-physical, spiritual or theophany, then quote-mining 50 more verses about theophanies of God and several more straw men caricatures of God won't do you any good.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 07:33:37 AM by Teleological » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.057 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 04, 2019, 06:40:04 AM
Privacy Policy