22 Apr 14
Originally posted by josephwYou're clearly not qualified to muse on what "[my] science" says, and you only succeed in making yourself look dim when you attempt to do so. Like I already said, your argument that one needs "faith" in order to make contact with the plausibility of eternal life or God's existence or whatever-else-have-you is self-defeating, since the whole point of plausibility is that tracks verisimilitude in relation to our body of evidence.
So you're going to go with science. Science that sees no God, only matter. Matter that your science says came from nothing.
Do you need faith to believe there is no God, or is science providing the evidence required for you to know there is no God?
In regards to the belief that God does not exist, I am a strong atheist with respect to only some conceptions of 'God', such as yours. No, my belief that your God does not exist is not based on "faith". It is based predominantly on my study of the rational arguments for and against the proposition that such an entity exists.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhitehead
Well too bad. I don't have the technology for storing the consciousness of a real horse so you will just have to live with the shrug. But my inability to do something does not prove it can't be done. Its not even a good argument that it can't be done.
[b]Rather you do some work and tell us how.
Once again, I do not know how - but this doesn't mea ...[text shortened]... er and over that I do not know how, nor have I claimed to know how. This is not stalling.[/b]
sonship:
But YOU are going to bear some burden here to do some explaining about the storage of consciousness.
No, actually, I am not.
Then you are only masquerading as an active participant in the discussion.
If all you want to do is sit back and point out strawmen and say you didn't say this and you didn't say that, then there's not much discussion going on.
Why should I assume that there is this great reservoir of truth just waiting for other people see as the obvious ?
This kind of "discussion" is like the interactive repetition of the question
"But how do you know that?
But how do you know that?
But how do you know that?"
You can go one forever claiming you didn't say such and such.
At the end of the day everybody is so up to their ears in what you didn't say that nobody knows what you say.
I'm going to look at one more paragraph of yours below.
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloQualifications are not a requirement to debate or offer opinions here.
You're clearly not qualified to muse on what "[my] science" says, and you only succeed in making yourself look dim when you attempt to do so. Like I already said, your argument that one needs "faith" in order to make contact with the plausibility of eternal life or God's existence or whatever-else-have-you is self-defeating, since the whole point of plau ...[text shortened]... n my study of the rational arguments for and against the proposition that such an entity exists.
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI did not mean 'qualified' as in having a certain relevant degree or certificate. I meant it in the sense of having the first frickin' clue what one is talking about. And yes such qualifications are required, if one is to have a clue what one is talking about.
Qualifications are not a requirement to debate or offer opinions here.
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by LemonJello"My belief"
You're clearly not qualified to muse on what "[my] science" says, and you only succeed in making yourself look dim when you attempt to do so. Like I already said, your argument that one needs "faith" in order to make contact with the plausibility of eternal life or God's existence or whatever-else-have-you is self-defeating, since the whole point of plau ...[text shortened]... n my study of the rational arguments for and against the proposition that such an entity exists.
What is that, exactly?
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have my own.
It's a propositional attitude that belongs to me. Try looking some of this stuff up on your own....
Very open, honest about it.
Find it curious that you would use the word 'belief' with respect to the <harrumph-harrumph> propositional attitude you hold.
To my way of thinking--- and to most folks, for that matter--- that sounds a shiite-ton like faith.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, I guess you learn something new everyday: belief is a type of propositional attitude, Freaky.
I have my own.
Very open, honest about it.
Find it curious that you would use the word 'belief' with respect to the <harrumph-harrumph> propositional attitude you hold.
To my way of thinking--- and to most folks, for that matter--- that sounds a shiite-ton like faith.
And that you sloppily conflate faith and belief -- especially within the context of how josephw was employing the term 'faith' in his self-defeating plausibility argument -- is your problem, not mine.
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonshipYou have something like "faith" that man will do it sometime.
This sounds like an interesting switch in roles. You're the person of "faith" and I am the "skeptic."
Why are you so desperate to attribute faith to me? In what way am I a person of faith? It certainly cannot be deduced from what I said. Or are you under the mistaken impression that faith is the opposite of skepticism?
And to be perfectly correct, I am also a skeptic, I just know better where to place my skepticism than you do.
Why do you keep making this claim even after I tell you time and again that it is not true? Listen to me well this time, because you clearly did not pay attention the last few times I said this: I have not claimed that man will do it some time, nor do I believe that man will do it some time. I believe that it is possible that man might be able to do it some time and that there is no reason to think it impossible.
People of faith can recognize other people of faith.
As I said last time, clearly not. It seems that instead this particular person of faith (you) sees faith in others where there is none.
LOL. You never get tired of crying two things:
"I never said that."
"That's a strawman."
Because you never get tired of attributing things to me that I never said, then demanding that I back them up (a strawman).
While you're passively waiting to point out strawmen, I am getting the information I want from other sources which are not afraid to set forth some ideas.
I am not afraid to set forth ideas, just not the ideas you wrongly attribute to me. I think that possibly you are reading other sources then forgetting where you read it and thinking I said it. Or you are assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must have exactly the same ideas and that I must therefore agree with your sources.
Below there was no changing of storage criteria. That's paranoia sounding.
There was a change of criteria.
1. You specifically asked me if you could store memories in something other than the brain.
2. You started talking about storing memories in the brain.
Grey matter of the brain or other medium was all included.
So in your earlier challenge for me to store a memory, you would be perfectly happy with my stating that my memories are stored in my brain? If so, challenge answered.
Originally posted by sonshipNo, I am not.
Then you are only masquerading as an active participant in the discussion.
I am just not going to bear burdens that I choose not to take on. I can be an active participant without necessarily following the line you choose, and certainly without trying to prove things I haven't claimed (your various strawmen).
If all you want to do is sit back and point out strawmen and say you didn't say this and you didn't say that, then there's not much discussion going on.
Well we could start by discussing things I have claimed instead of all your strawmen where you demand I explain things I haven't claimed.
My next post will be about the video by JP Moreland that you posted earlier, but I haven't finished watching it yet. (I should finish this morning).
Why should I assume that there is this great reservoir of truth just waiting for other people see as the obvious ?
I don't know. Has anyone asked you to assume that?
You can go one forever claiming you didn't say such and such.
At the end of the day everybody is so up to their ears in what you didn't say that nobody knows what you say.
How about reading my posts? The only reason everybody is 'up to their ears' in what I didn't say is because you keep on attributing to me things I didn't say. I really don't see how the discussion can proceed of you think I said something I didn't - so I feel the need to correct you.
Now prove to me that J.P. Moreland knows everything!
23 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadJames Porter Moreland (born March 9, 1948), better known as J. P. Moreland, is an American philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He currently serves as a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, Califonia.
No, I am not.
I am just not going to bear burdens that I choose not to take on. I can be an active participant without necessarily following the line you choose, and certainly without trying to prove things I haven't claimed (your various strawmen).
[b]If all you want to do is sit back and point out strawmen and say you didn't say this and you didn't ...[text shortened]... n't - so I feel the need to correct you.
Now prove to me that J.P. Moreland knows everything!
Moreland specializes in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, chemistry, and Christian Philosophy having had his work published in journals such as Metaphilosophy and the American Philosophical Quarterly. He has also had his work published by presses such as Intervarsity Press, NavPress, Zondervan, Oxford University Press, Routledge, Rutgers University Press, and Prometheus.
Moreland earned a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry with honors from the University of Missouri and a Master of Arts in Philosophy with highest honors from the University of California at Riverside. He received his Th.M. in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. In 1985, he received a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Moreland
There is a good chance he knows more than you and maybe even more than ...
The Near Genius
23 Apr 14
J.P. Morelands video.
OK, I have watched the video, and I see that you (sonship) have been following it almost exactly.
Here are my comments:
1. He has successfully given evidence that Huricane Katrina has a soul.
If you disagree, then please explain to me which of his arguments could not be applied to Huricane Katrina.
2. He has demonstrated adequately that information is not the same thing as the atoms that record that information.
But I don't think anyone would dispute this. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom make a water molecule. The 'water molecule' configuration, is not solely the three atoms. You can have a water molecule on earth, or one in a gas cloud in another galaxy half way across the universe. Clearly the 'water molecules' is not the specific atoms in question but something about their configuration. Most of his talk is on this basic fact.
3. He claims without substantiation that he has free will, but doesn't go into any detail as to what free will actually is.
4. He admits that brain damage can result in problems with memory access. He fails to go into any details as to what this implies. Does this mean the memories are lost, or does he think the memories still exist but simply cannot be accessed at this time?
So, in summary, my key questions for you sonship are:
a) Did Huricane Katrina have a soul?
b) Do you disagree that most of his talk was about the difference between information in general and matter. ie the difference between matter and its specific configuration in time and space.
c) How do you define free will?
d) Do you believe that all memories of our lives are retained somewhere regardless of whether or not we can recall them?
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't recall a claim by sonship that J. P. Moreland knows everything. I certainly was not claiming he knows everything. That is nothing more than a strawman argument. The claim I make is that he is highly educated in his field of study.
But you have failed to prove he knows everything! You are therefore wrong.
QED.
I now await sonships failure to give proof, so I can declare him wrong too.