Spirituality
08 Feb 15
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying you don't believe atoms are living?
Since nobody has been willing to explain what a 'soul' is, I am not certain what you mean by 'soulish activity'. But if you are referring to conciousness, then yes there is clearly a correlation.
[b]I don't think the evidence of correlation means exactly that the synapses ARE them. I don't think any material particle or chemical involved in the synaps ...[text shortened]... oherent."
I meant that you would be incoherent - and you have demonstrated my point nicely.[/b]
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYes.
Are you saying you don't believe atoms are living?
Sonship on the other hand, doesn't think life can possibly be a result of matter interacting until someone proves to him that an atom has the property of 'life'. He thinks a more reasonable explanation is an eternal 'life force'.
He presumably feels the same way about rivers. Although the water molecules clearly have a correlation with the river, and display some 'riverish' properties, until you prove that some atoms have the property 'river', then he has to believe that rivers are a result of an eternal 'river force'.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Mar 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsNo it isn't necessarily. I'm convinced the universe is older than 6,000 years back.
It is believing in a lie rather than in the truth.
This belief is not believing a certain interpretation of Bishop Usher's Chronology pinpointing the date of creation.
It is curious that for someone so caught up in something the New Testament never mentions or stresses, your Shroud of Turin, that you're bothered by some who say ALL years are not accounted for in the Bible.
Do you think you have more biblical ground to rant on about the Shroud of Turin than an old universe ? I don't think so.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Mar 15
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen I wrote this:
I don't think the evidence of correlation means exactly that the synapses ARE them. I don't think any material particle or chemical involved in the synapses has the property of self awareness or self consciousness.
I was referring to anything that has mass - like the atoms that are involves in the electrical synapses.
So I would include the matter of the membranes or nerve endings plus the chemical and atoms with mass involved in the synapses.
Neither of them and no part of them, I believe, possess self awareness or self consciousness.
When I wrote:
If someone could prove that any atom possesses self consciousness, then I might have to revise my belief, which I think is referred to in philosophical jargon as "substance dualism."
I think immaterial soul / material body is called substance dualism.
But it can get much more involved.
Typical sonship strawman. Why would anyone try to prove that an atom possesses self conciousness? Nobody has suggested that any atom does.
It would vindicate physicalism.
When I wrote:
I believe that the existence of a Eternal self aware Supreme Being is a better explanation of the existence of human consciousness. This is a more satisfactory answer to the problem of how consciousness could emerge from non-conscious matter.
Man created in the image and likeness of God, (though leaving something not exhaustively explained ) does account for the self awareness and consciousness of man.
However matter is combined I don't believe self consciousness will arise.
It might be more satisfactory if it was an actual answer. It isn't. Its just hand waving.
No need to wave hands. Only need to refer to the revelation of the God to man.
By the way, all your comments and critiques of what people do here with whom you disagree with I wouldn't trust at all.
I wrote above an explanation which I think better explains self consciousness.
No, I don't believe you did. Merely stating 'the existence of a Eternal self aware Supreme Being' hardly constitutes an explanation.
I did. It is an old, very old belief.
You may disagree.
There is an Uncreated Life who created us as living beings.
As I said below, you only consider atheism to be a coherent explanation of these matters.
For some others:
(You'll probably never make it through twhitehead)
"What is Consciouness ? And Evidence for the Existence of the Soul" J P Moreland
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipAnd what about rivers. Do water molecules possess 'riverishness'? What about a whole bunch of water molecules?
Neither of them and no part of them, I believe, possess self awareness or self consciousness.
What evidence would you require before you accept that a human brain does in fact have conciousness? To me it seems self evident, yet you deny it. So what sort of evidence are you looking for?
31 Mar 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't really believe water molecules possess conciousness or self-awareness do you?
And what about rivers. Do water molecules possess 'riverishness'? What about a whole bunch of water molecules?
What evidence would you require before you accept that a human brain does in fact have conciousness? To me it seems self evident, yet you deny it. So what sort of evidence are you looking for?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Apr 15
8 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Sonship on the other hand, doesn't think life can possibly be a result of matter interacting until someone proves to him that an atom has the property of 'life'.
I do believe the soul is something non-material.
I do believe the mind is something non-material.
And I don't believe that you are not just your material brain, and no more.
No, I don't believe that any atom or subatomic particle, let alone higher structure like molecule, has consciousness.
And I don't believe life arose apart from intelligent design.
And I don't believe that non-living material emerged one time to possess consciousness.
He thinks a more reasonable explanation is an eternal 'life force'.
I think what I said was that there is an Uncreated Life which is the Supreme Being - God.
We are conscious because God bestowed upon us that ability. And this has been communicated to us to a large degree by the revelation of Genesis 1:26,27 -
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing which creeps upon the earth. (v.26)
And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. (v.27)
And God blessed them ... (v.28a)
And this simple arrangement of humans words explains something about WHY we are alive and have consciousness, self -awareness, and even uniqueness among other created living things.
With these simple yet profound words God has communicated down through many changing eras and varied cultures of civilization the most essential truth about how our created being somehow reflects that of the Uncreated Life of the Eternal Creator and Person. In short - "He made us LIKE Himself."
He presumably feels the same way about rivers. Although the water molecules clearly have a correlation with the river, and display some 'riverish' properties, until you prove that some atoms have the property 'river', then he has to believe that rivers are a result of an eternal 'river force'.
I think this is the language of what is called "Property Dualism." He is saying that life supervenes upon material in the same way wetness supervenes upon Hydrogen atoms and an Oxygen atom.
I think some thinkers say "wetness" supervenes upon H2O the way consciousness supervenes upon matter.
If what is meant is Mind - Equals - The Brain in all of this (whatever you mean TW) I don't believe that equation. IE. The Mind = The Brain. But some philosophers qualify the opinion by saying the mind supervenes upon the brain.
The view I think you are teaching is that wetness supervenes upon the H2O molecules, or water has "riverish" properties which supervene upon it can be used to explain how mind/mental activity emerged upon a complex of a highly evolved brain and nervous system so that psychological properties and events are identical with physical properties and events. I reject that view.
If you put up a fuss about that not being what you meant, it appears to me that you are arguing what some philosophers would call Property Dualism, from considering your analogy.
IE. "The mental or psychological is just another property of the physical body (the Mind-Depends-on-the-Brain View - or Non-Reductive Materialism) ".
What I think your analogy may be espousing is a concept popular among some philosophers that the mental is anchored in the physical and biological world, yet soft peddling that one is the other exactly. The term Supervenience is used, (if not by you in this discussion, by those with analogies like you proposed).
The idea seems to be to avoid having mental property being the exact same thing as physical property. It is explained to me to be a view of Property Dualism - "the view that the mental and the physical are two distinct properties, but the physical serves as the basis for the mental, and the mental can't be reduced to it."
Theorists of this school teach that mental properties are grounded in physical ones but are no identical to them.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Apr 15
9 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
And what about rivers. Do water molecules possess 'riverishness'? What about a whole bunch of water molecules?
Here you propose that I think -
Riverishness is to Water
As soul is to phyisical body matter and parts.
So let's see:
You put enough water together on the land and you WILL get a river.
You put enough flesh and blood and bones together (preferably from a grave yard) and you eventual will get a living person (or persons?).
Doesn't seem too intuitive.
Lots of water collected makes a river, therefore lots of physical human body parts collected make a living soul.
I mean Dr. Frankenstein might have been beside himself with "Its Alive!! Its Alive !!" But somehow the "water makes river = body parts makes living soul" thought experiment doesn't generate that kind of enthusiasm in me.
What I would rather believe is something the Bible expresseses, albeit mysteriously.
Something OUT of God entered into man and the dust of man, his bones, flesh, blood, etc. became the vessel of "a living soul" .
Genesis 2:7 - "And Jehovah God formed man with the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
Something very close to God Himself - something possessed BY God was imparted into this collection of physical matter. And the result of the two being joined in some way together, was that man became a living soul.
Does this leave some questions? Surely it does.
Is this a scientifically exhaustive explanation of what human life is?
No.
What about "religiously" or "spiritually" ? Is Genesis 2:7 and exhaustive explanation of what the human body and soul are? Does it leave nothing else to be contemplated or sought out to understand?
No. I would not say it leaves nothing else to be contemplated or understood or searched out. But it is mighty useful. And it is very communicative for peoples in many generations down through the ages.
The maximum number of human beings can grasp the picture in any age of human history.
IE. Because something OUT of God our Creator was imparted into, onto, through or somehow upon or involving our physical being, the joining together of the two things caused us to become a living soul.
If or anyone else here attempts to tell me the same thing Atheist style, you too will hardly be able to avoid some poetic picture making.
Give it a try. Explain how mankind became living souls in your terms apart from Theism. See if you can completely avoid some expression of a poetic nature to visualize your belief.
What evidence would you require before you accept that a human brain does in fact have consciousness?
I am not sure I want to allow you to paint me into that corner of [edited] saying that MY BRAIN does not have CONSCIOUSNESS.
My BRAIN is not ME. But I don't object to saying my BRAIN has consciousness.
If I imagine the color RED I would be impressed if you could isolate that thought and SHOW me the physical color RED in the molecules. That would impress me of the closeness of my consciousness and the grey material of my brain.
Conversely, if you were to take some RED dye and inject it into the grey matter of my brain, then ask me what color I am thinking about. If I did not know what color dye you used, but I blurted out "RED! I am thinking RED" then I might have to go beyond believing that my brain possessing consciousness to what you are aiming at - my physical brain IS that consciousness.
To me it seems self evident, yet you deny it. So what sort of evidence are you looking for?
You could start with the experiment above. But you'll have to be the subject willing to have brain exposed and colored with dye.
But to say in some sense my human brain HAS consciousness is not too bad. its probably better to say I have consciousness. And I am more than just my physical brain.
Its not a major point.
Whatever is true of ME is not necessarily true of my physical brain.
So they are not identical.
And above I dealt with the Property Dualsim of claiming that my soul supervenes upon my physical brain so that one ends up saying that NO MIND can exist apart from being grounded in a physical brain.
If NO MIND could exist apart from being grounded in some physical brain then I could not be a Theist. I think MIND "preceded" the physical reality of the universe and not the other way around.
I don't believe that apart from intelligence there was MATTER first and that MIND emerged out of matter to contemplate its existence.
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God ... all things came into being through Him."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou can be a smart ass, can't you?
You should save yourself a lot of time and effort and just take my word that "The Gap Theory" is full of holes and is pure boloney. 😏
This morning I had a chance to go to hear a heavily advertize lecture by one Robert Gentry. I spent over an hour reviewing what I might expect him to say. He had advertized in the local paper that he was going to debunk the Big Bang Theory. As if I cared that much.
I decided not to take the time to hear him speak about where the great white throne was located in what constellation. This kind of hyper literalism is not helpful to the spread of the Gospel.
Is there something you think you said in this discussion to me that you have not received a reply yet ? If not, as I recall, I am satisfied that the Interval and Destruction / Reconstruction is a better interpretation than fighting against millions and billions of years.
If you think you have an unresponded to objection still, what is it?
15 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonshipI may appear to be a smart ass to you because I am not one that is eloquent in speech.
You can be a smart ass, can't you?
This morning I had a chance to go to hear a heavily advertize lecture by one Robert Gentry. I spent over an hour reviewing what I might expect him to say. He had advertized in the local paper that he was going to debunk the Big Bang Theory. As if I cared that much.
I decided not to take the time to hear him speak ...[text shortened]... d billions of years.
If you think you have an unresponded to objection still, what is it?
Although hyper literalism is not helpful to the spread of the Gospel, neither is false translations and changing the meaning and adding to the words of scripture. I am not satisfied to accept adding millions and billions of years to scripture to conform to the changing views of men, even if those views are science so-called.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I may appear to be a smart ass to you because I am not one that is eloquent in speech.
Although hyper literalism is not helpful to the spread of the Gospel, neither is false translations and changing the meaning and adding to the words of scripture. I am not satisfied to accept adding millions and billions of years to scripture to conform to the changing views of men, even if those views are science so-called.
Although hyper literalism is not helpful to the spread of the Gospel, neither is false translations and changing the meaning and adding to the words of scripture. I am not satisfied to accept adding millions and billions of years to scripture to conform to the changing views of men, even if those views are science so-called.
There is no "false translation" going on. There are opinions on the best rendering of words in one language in their presentation in another language.
1.) I can make the cause for unspecified interval without adopting the word "became" in Genesis 1:2. The word "was" is not detrimental to the understanding of Destruction / Reconstruction.
2.) The interpretation is not limited to reading only the second verse of Genesis.
As YOU and your Young Earth teachers go into other portions of the Bible to make your case - like Romans 5:12 and Exodus 20:11 so also some teacher go to other portions. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:1-17 we consult to get a wider panorama of the history of the universe.
We are not doing anything that you are not also doing.
We consider what the Scripture says and what else the Scripture says.
By the way, you express yourself rather well around here.
I would not say that you have no eloquence in writing speech.
In fact I probably make way more sloppy typos than you do.
Sorry to use the term "smart ass."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Apr 15
Although hyper literalism is not helpful to the spread of the Gospel, neither is false translations and changing the meaning and adding to the words of scripture. I am not satisfied to accept adding millions and billions of years to scripture to conform to the changing views of men, even if those views are science so-called.
It was long enough for a being who was perfect in wisdom from the moment he was created, to sour, degenerate, degrade, rebel, amass hordes of other creatures behind him and actually think to challenge God Himself.