Quote:
Originally posted by chavos Beating and torturing the same man, could brainwash him in to murder, and breaking all his bones would make him a vegetable...it's long been known that a person can be forced or tricked in to bad behavior, etc. A physcially alterable brain does not disprove
the existance of a metaphysical mind or a soul.
|
What good is a metaphysical mind if it is powerless over the actions of the physical brain? Again, the metaphysical mind is another made up idea used to explain that which we didn't understand. Now, although we don't know in any kind of detail how the mind/brain works, we have certainly made a lot of progress.
People who get a severe knock on the head can turn into completely different people. Their friends and family can no longer recognise the personality of this "new" person..."what happened our old Jimmy?".
In this type of situation what do you believe happened? That the knock on the head actually influenced the metaphysical mind?...not much of a
metaphysical mind if you ask me!
The "original" personality is the metaphysical mind, which is has had its "communication link" damaged, and so cannot completely control the brain? What
is controlling the rest of the brain? Is it working on its own? In that case what is the need for a metaphysical mind at all, if the brain is perfectly capable of operation in "automatic"? After all it
is working perfectly well...just different than before.
What mechanism are you proposing for how this metaphysical soul operates? How can it interact with the physical world of the brain? The brain works on electrical impulses and chemical signals, all of which follow known physical laws. Are you suggesting that the brain defies such laws? That like charges attract? A believe you will find few who agree with you on that one!
The only possible apparent mechanism for a metaphysical mind appears to me to be one the opperates ona quantum level. But such a suggestion, to me feels very cheeky! But I'll continue with it for now.
Quantum level actions are random. They have come up positive in every test for randomness that we have at our disposal. On the large scale we can make very accurate predicitions of the outcome of such randomness, but a single event behaves in acompletely random manner. (In a similar way that we cannot predict the outsome of a single spin of a roulette wheel, but we can make a prediction on the large scale: ultimately the house will win!) So this leaves, ultiamtely no room for the intervention of a metaphysical mind, unless, once again you are to accept the it can defy the laws of physics as above.
Quote:
Further, i brought up abraham to prove that faith is not dependant on an afterlife, or a permanent soul. Personally, i do not know what will happen to me or anyone else when death parts us from the world. My faith is that in the story of life, love and grace had the first word, and it will have the last. Apart from that, i make no claim... And this is why Abe is important-faith is not predicated on the bribe or promise of eternal life. God is not rendered unimportant if there is no life after death. There is still this life...and it is from this life that i have faith in God. It is for this life that i have faith in God. I just don't understand how you think you can "prove" athiesm by taking shots on the idea of heaven.
|
For the most people the afterlife plays a vital role in their faith. Almost all faiths have the promise of an afterlife. Atheism takes upon itself to take shots at everything religious. But what
point is there in worshiping God, if there is nothing after life? Is kind of the exact opposite of Pascals Wager.
Quote:
[b]Paper: Perhaps. But it would be quite difficult to prove so. My faith that credits God with creating the moral law that we humans "discover" is not a logically provable or disprovable item. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but the trite and condensending phrase of "concession accepted" is not only rude, but it's also wrong. It is hardly a credit to your arguments to speak in that manner.
|
[b]
How do YOU decide what it moral? How do you understand what is right and wrong? I explained my take on this earlier on in this thread. Most religious people would claim that they take their sinse of morality from their holy scriptures. You have already claimed that you do no such thing. So where do you get YOUR sense of absolute objective morality from? How does it differ form my subjective personal morality?
What religion are you? If you feel you don't want to categorise yourself, at least give a brief explaination of what you do believe. Its hard to argue against your beliefs when without knowing what they are!
Quote:
CS-if it is true, we're in deep shit. If God changes God's mind, and is in to genocide, there is a whole lot more at stake than philosphical abstractions. I think we'd all have to prepare to be smited for what we've said here.... I say it's a false story because the continuing experience of God points away from that primative idea.
Religious ideas, just like rational or scientfic laws, evolve with continued input. Why expect the science of the ancients to be perfect? Why expect the religion of the ancients to be perfect?
|
How do you decide what is true and what is not out of the bible? You just take it upon yourself to decide? Doesn't sound like a very good system to me.