Spirituality
08 Feb 15
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonhouse
Because I can actually think for myself. If there is this omniscient god around, one would assume it would also be intelligent and therefore capable of also thinking things through for ITSELF also.
So you tell me why, given verses like this:
Jeremiah 1:5 ESV / 51
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
that you would not come to the conclusion this deity knows EVERYTHING that happens on Earth and every other planet and star and cloud in the universe and therefore knew well in advance A&E would fail their so-called and unneeded test and Abraham would pass his test.
So you tell ME why an intelligent god like you think you worship, would set up things like that KNOWING in advance that most folk would fail?
While I think on that good question let me put one to you in the mean time too. You write above here in somewhat a proud way -
Because I can actually think for myself
But do you really?
According to most naturalistic Atheism I know since the Big Bang chemicals have been bouncing around and combining even to this day determining how the synapses in your material brain are firing off. No thanks to you.
You haven't then "decided" to think for yourself what is true. You're just fissing in your material grey matter. What is there for you to brag on ?
Why are you taking credit for this bubbling and fissing of atoms deterministically injecting what thoughts you will have?
25 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThis is the way you put it:
If you look really carefully you'll see I included that in possibility 1.
If the Genesis story is literally true then it wouldn't be surprising they had the same myth. Although my opinion of that possibility is that if the story is literally true then I am the Queen of Sheba.
It seems to me that you were discarding josephw's possibility four with that.
26 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsFour with that?
This is the way you put it:If the Genesis story is literally true then it wouldn't be surprising they had the same myth. Although my opinion of that possibility is that if the story is literally true then I am the Queen of Sheba.
It seems to me that you were discarding josephw's possibility four with that.
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipPember's idea of a gap was probably imagined to allow for billions of years as the commentator alludes to in Episode 1 because there is no need for it that is derived from the text itself.
Except for the art work of the new cover, I think the review here of G H Pember's book on Genesis is petty good.
The Alberno Anaysis - [b] " Earth's Earliest Ages "
A book review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnI0S8Xf7pw Episode 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkihBJJRsnc Episode 2[/b]
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWell then possibility 4 is possibility 1 without me being the Queen of Sheba.
This is the way you put it:If the Genesis story is literally true then it wouldn't be surprising they had the same myth. Although my opinion of that possibility is that if the story is literally true then I am the Queen of Sheba.
It seems to me that you were discarding josephw's possibility four with that.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Mar 15
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is no mandatory requirement to derive from the text agreement with Bishop Usher's chronology.
Pember's idea of a gap was probably imagined to allow for billions of years as the commentator alludes to in Episode 1 because there is no need for it that is derived from the text itself.
A billion years or a billion light years doesn't horrify me.
I know that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
" ... Not height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:39)
Believing in a possible "billion years" may be the unforgivable sin in your theology. It isn't in mine.
Originally posted by sonshipActually most naturalists I would think would consider the synapses firing in their brains to be them, and thus it most definitely is thanks to them.
According to most naturalistic Atheism I know since the Big Bang chemicals have been bouncing around and combining even to this day determining how the synapses in your material brain are firing off. No thanks to you.
I don't know if I would fit your definition of 'naturalistic Atheist' but I certainly consider myself to be the end result of synapses firing, and take full credit for the results.
Theists on the other hand don't seem to have an alternative concept (they just pretend they do, but refuse to go into any detail). Whenever a thread is started on the subject it is largely devoid of theists, and those that do participate are remarkably vague on the subject.
In fact, I am willing to bet you can't give a coherent post with regards to how synapses fit into your theistic view.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Mar 15
4 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually most naturalists I would think would consider the synapses firing in their brains to be them, and thus it most definitely is thanks to them.
The synapses firing in their brains certainly has a correlation to their soulish activity. 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 would not say that YOU are identical to the synapses firing off in the brain. But that there is a strong correlation between the two, I would agree.
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." But I would have to carefully review that.
... I certainly consider myself to be the end result of synapses firing, and take full credit for the results.
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.
While a correlation of the movement of atoms and the existence of self and soulish existence is evident, I don't believe the YOU is only the physical or the physical synapses of your material brain.
I don't think matter can think.
Naturalist philosopher Colin McGinn asked:
"How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness?"
His own answer:
" ... we know of no comparable force [as with the force of gravity's accounting for the Big Bang's leading to the creation of galaxies] that might explain how ever-expanding lumps of matter might have developed an inner conscious life."
Theists on the other hand don't seem to have an alternative concept (they just pretend they do, but refuse to go into any detail).
I wrote above an explanation which I think better explains self consciousness. That is man's Creator is an eternal self aware Supreme Being that bestowed this property on His creation.
While it may not explain everything I think it is a better explanation than matter evolving into possessing the property of self consciousness. However, there is a correlation of electrical charge activity in the synapses of the material brain and the psychological activity.
In fact, I am willing to bet you can't give a coherent post with regards to how synapses fit into your theistic view.
I take this to mean mostly that "coherent" to you, is a view that agrees with Atheism. IE. "Only Atheism is coherent."
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipSince 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.
The synapses firing in their brains certainly has a correlation to their soulish activity.
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 would agree, and never claimed otherwise. It is the sum of the materials involved and their activity that gives rise to conciousness. Note also that your original post refereed to synapses firing (a highly complex activity) and not the materials involved. I don't think you can point to an atom or even chemical compound that posses the property of 'synapse firing'.
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."
Typical sonship strawman. Why would anyone try to prove that an atom possesses self conciousness? Nobody has suggested that any atom does.
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.
It might be more satisfactory if it was an actual answer. It isn't. Its just hand waving.
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.
However, there is a correlation of electrical charge activity in the synapses of the material brain and the psychological activity.
So, tell me this: if a synapse fires in your brain as a result of some prior event in the universe, and this correlates you you doing something, are you, or are you not responsible for the resulting action?
I take this to mean mostly that "coherent" to you, is a view that agrees with Atheism. IE. "Only Atheism is coherent."
I meant that you would be incoherent - and you have demonstrated my point nicely.
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipIt is believing in a lie rather than in the truth.
There is no mandatory requirement to derive from the text agreement with Bishop Usher's chronology.
A billion years or a billion light years doesn't horrify me.
I know that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
[b]" ... Not height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jes ...[text shortened]... ng in a possible "billion years" may be the unforgivable sin in your theology. It isn't in mine.