22 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYou're asking for speculation on my part, because I would have to step outside the bounds of the bible to answer these questions. Speculation is dangerous for the Christian--we speculate, then all the sudden find ourselves pinned against the wall, under fire for contradicting a certain verse in the bible we hadn't recalled at the time. These questions are--in my opinion and whether intended as such or not--nothing more than snares with the only final result being negative on some level.
I've asked you this before, months ago, but you never answered. This time I expect an answer: What is the relationship between souls and our psychological properties? Is our autonomy a function of having a soul? Is our consciousness a function of having a soul? Is our capacity to suffer a function of having a soul? If so, then you are just using 'soul' th ally bad to take a morning after pill if you are carrying a zygote with twin souls?
However--that being said--I will speculate about the soul, under the precondition that you agree to understand it as mere speculation by someone who would never claim to be an expert in these matters. I may even contradict myself as we go along, but, that's because I don't discuss these matters with anyone and I haven't taken the time to map it all out specifically. Because I don't care? No.. more like because I don't give my speculation on these matters a high priority... because it can never amount to any more than speculation and therefore on some level it is unproductive and wasteful. I can always find something better to do than speculate about something I couldn't possibly figure out in this lifetime. Maybe by now I'd have figured out my paradigm about the soul, down to the last, final detail, if I still smoked a lot of pot.
The soul? What is it? It's our spirit-selves. I believe our spirit was created at the time our physical body was conceived. I believe the spirit is separate entirely from the body, however, I believe our "mind" and our "heart" are what represent the motives and thoughts of the spirit. A brain can be damaged to the point where the spirit--through the mind and heart--cannot communicate properly... in that scenario it (the body and brain) is just a broken vehicle unable to understand or convey data properly.
Where does our autonomy come from? I don't believe autonomy is a thing that comes from anywhere. In fact, I don't believe in complete autonomy anyway. But our ability to think for ourselves, reason, and make rational and moral decisions is a direct reflection of our soul/spirit/mind and heart.
Suffering possible only because of the soul? I don't think so. I don't believe ANY of our suffering in this life has any effect on our soul. In other words, no matter how much pain or emotional trauma we suffer here, our (again, separate) soul is disconnected from it and unaffected by it. The soul still makes decisions, through the mind and heart, on what to do about the suffering, but no trauma here hurts our soul at all.. in my opinion.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidYou need to take an intro epistemology course. Bbarr never claimed that he "logically eliminated any possibility of God's existence". What he claimed is that he knows God doesn't exist and that he has the arguments to back it up. Do you know what this claim means? Apparently not....
bbarr:
Again, could you please start a new thread on how you have logically eliminated any possibility of God's existence, starting with the problem of evil... and lay out your case so we can get started on that fascinating subject.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidI never claimed, and in fact don't believe, that I have arguments sufficient to elimate the logical possibility of God's existence. All I claimed was that I know that God doesn't exist. I have a host of arguments that, taken together, show that it is extremely unlikely that God, as typically described by theists, exists. My claim to knowledge here is just like my claim to know my name, my address, and so on. It is logically possible (insert crazy hypothetical scenario here...) that I am mistaken about my name, address, and so on. Nonetheless, I know these things. It is a curious commonality among theists here to require epistemic certainty for knowledge. This requirement yields a particularly vicious skepticism, even for basic logic and mathematical truths (since deliberation can err, as can the memory from which deliberation proceeds). So, I really don't care to go to the trouble of presenting a full dress account of the irrationality of theism if you're just going to insist that I haven't absolutely proved my case. That standard cannot be met, and knowledge doesn't require it. If you indicate that you understand and accept this, I'll proceed.*
bbarr:
Again, could you please start a new thread on how you have logically eliminated any possibility of God's existence, starting with the problem of evil... and lay out your case so we can get started on that fascinating subject.
*But my time is really short this week. My grandmother died recently, and we have a big memorial with all my crazy family. Between that and Thanksgiving, I'm being stretched a bit thin.
Also, happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrMy parents were divorced when I was a child and my grandparents raised me. I did not really appreciate her until after she died. But it was too late to thank her or try to show that appreciation for her sacrifices then. I like to beleive that one day there will be a reunion where we can show our love for one another. To the atheist that is just a fairy tale, but I am hoping they are wrong and Jesus is right. I wish us all many thanksgivings to come.
I never claimed, and in fact don't believe, that I have arguments sufficient to elimate the logical possibility of God's existence. All I claimed was that I know that God doesn't exist. I have a host of arguments that, taken together, show that it is extremely unlikely that God, as typically described by theists, exists. My claim to knowledge here is just l ...[text shortened]... ksgiving, I'm being stretched a bit thin.
Also, happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidI have always found it interesting how theists frequently do speculate, but state it as fact. Why is it so hard for theists to simply say 'I don't know'?
You're asking for speculation on my part, because I would have to step outside the bounds of the bible to answer these questions. Speculation is dangerous for the Christian--we speculate, then all the sudden find ourselves pinned against the wall, under fire for contradicting a certain verse in the bible we hadn't recalled at the time.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen we state things as fact we have faith that what we believe is true. It is no different from the atheist, who states there is no God or that evolution is a proven fact.
I have always found it interesting how theists frequently do speculate, but state it as fact. Why is it so hard for theists to simply say 'I don't know'?
22 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's hard for Christians to simply say "I don't know" when so many seemingly demand so many answers. I think I pretty much said, "I don't know, but I have an opinion on it." Is that satisfactory?
I have always found it interesting how theists frequently do speculate, but state it as fact. Why is it so hard for theists to simply say 'I don't know'?
I understood one thing, very early in life: None of us can be 100% certain about anything other than, "I AM."
"I think, therefore I am...." and the rest is speculation across the full spectrum of likelihood.
22 Nov 12
10 edits
Originally posted by bbarrOriginally posted by bbarr
I never claimed, and in fact don't believe, that I have arguments sufficient to elimate the logical possibility of God's existence. All I claimed was that I know that God doesn't exist. I have a host of arguments that, taken together, show that it is extremely unlikely that God, as typically described by theists, exists.
Also, happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
I never claimed, and in fact don't believe, that I have arguments sufficient to elimate the logical possibility of God's existence. All I claimed was that I know that God doesn't exist. I have a host of arguments that, taken together, show that it is extremely unlikely that God, as typically described by theists, exists.
I find this series of statements self-contradictory. What you originally said was, you know God does not exist, and (paraphrasing from memory) you have the arguments to prove it. (if you recall, I replied, "No you don't, and no you don't." ) NOW, you are saying, in a kind of wishy-washy way, that you know God doesn't exist, but you can't say for sure.
Ok, so I think I feel better about your initial statement, which was slightly misleading. It seems your revised position is, you are convinced that God does not exist, but you admit you cannot be certain. And likewise, for strikingly similar reasons I suspect, I'm convinced, but not certain, God exists. I can't be certain, just like I can't be certain that I'm not actually just a brain in a jar, dreaming all of this. (passes joint over to RJHinds)
Also, happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
Happy Thanksgiving to you too! Lots to be thankful for, though several times a day I seem to forget. Take care and have a great holiday.
22 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI absolutely do know what the claim meant... at least at face value, which is how I took it. You don't have to be so smug about it. When someone says they "know" God does not exist, I will cry foul everytime because it is a false statement. Pure and simple. And bbarr just got through admitting it. So back off and get your facts straight.
You need to take an intro epistemology course. Bbarr never claimed that he "logically eliminated any possibility of God's existence". What he claimed is that he knows God doesn't exist and that he has the arguments to back it up. Do you know what this claim means? Apparently not....
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidI thought your answer was perfectly reasonable. But I noticed that you seemed to feel pressured into giving an answer even when you didn't really have an answer. My comment was that most theists seem to cave into the pressure and simply wildly speculate whenever a question they do not know the answer to is put to them. This makes it practically impossible to know when a theist is talking about something they passionately believe, and when they are wildly speculating (and may change their speculations at any time).
It's hard for Christians to simply say "I don't know" when so many seemingly demand so many answers. I think I pretty much said, "I don't know, but I have an opinion on it." Is that satisfactory?
I think it has to do with the fact that people more readily lie, or pretend to be knowledgeable when it is not easy to verify the accuracy of the claims. So for example I notice that a lot of adults lie constantly to children. Very few people when asked a question by a child will say 'I don't know'.
Thus for us atheists, talking to a theist is like a child talking to an adult. We have to spend much of our time trying to figure out what is true (as in the theist/adult actually believes) and what is bluff (as in made up on the spur of the moment to avoid admitting ignorance.)
22 Nov 12
4 edits
Originally posted by sumydidI know that God does not exist. So does bbarr. (And bbarr did not in any way retract this claim, so you're also very confused about what you mistakenly think he "just got through admitting". )
I absolutely do know what the claim meant... at least at face value, which is how I took it. You don't have to be so smug about it. When someone says they "know" God does not exist, I will cry foul everytime because it is a false statement. Pure and simple. And bbarr just got through admitting it. So back off and get your facts straight.
You "cry foul" about this claim because you are mistaken about what knowledge requires. (Well, you also cry foul because you think "one cannot verifiably prove a negative" but you are also mistaken on that, as I already commented.) For some reason, you think that the claim that S knows P means that S is absolutely certain that P and that S has "logically eliminated" every possibility that not-P. But that's not what it means at all. That would be absurd, since it would basically entail that we know nothing at all (since it is virtually impossible to eliminate every possibility that not-P, for virtually any P). Do you employ this notion of 'know' consistently in all areas of your life (such that you can claim to "know" nothing at all); or do you just trot this nonsense out whenever the claim goes against your cherished religious beliefs???
To first order here, that S knows P just means (1) P is true & (2) S believes P & (3) S is justified in believing P & (4) another condition here, the Gettier condition, the exact details of which are not important here. There is absolutely nothing in there that says S has to be absolutely certain and eliminate all possibility that not-P. That S is justified in believing P just means to first order that S needs to have some set of reasons that are sufficiently truth-indicating for P. This set of reasons needs to make P probably true, but it does not need to absolutely conclusively show that P is true and eliminate all possibility of not-P (again, otherwise we would know virtually nothing).
So, no you clearly didn't know what bbarr's claim means (and interesting that you say you "know" this when you clearly cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that you were mistaken about what he meant; so, yeah, you do fail to apply your requirements on knowledge consistently; shame, shame). He means he thinks all the above conditions are satisfied, and he thinks the supporting arguments he mentions are what lend the justificatory weight.
For future reference, when someone claims they know that God doesn't exist and that they have arguments to back it up, you do not get to simply "cry foul" that this is a false statement "pure and simple". As already discussed, you have absolutely no basis for that reaction. (Your statement that one cannot prove a negative is false; and your contention that knowledge requires absolute certainly is also false). So, you can either stick your head in the sand and ignore this person; or you can be responsible and consider their arguments on their actual merits. Choice is up to you....
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrSorry to hear about your grandmother. I lost two grandmothers in the course of just ~9 months this year. Both great ladies. Happy holidays!
I never claimed, and in fact don't believe, that I have arguments sufficient to elimate the logical possibility of God's existence. All I claimed was that I know that God doesn't exist. I have a host of arguments that, taken together, show that it is extremely unlikely that God, as typically described by theists, exists. My claim to knowledge here is just l ...[text shortened]... ksgiving, I'm being stretched a bit thin.
Also, happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloPitiful. Your premise is absolutely wrong, so the whole post collapses on itself just a few words in. The only thing I'm confused about is why I even bothered to engage you in the first place. You say you know God doesn't exist. No you don't. Period.
I know that God does not exist. So does bbarr. (And bbarr did not in any way retract this claim, so you're also very confused about what you mistakenly think he "just got through admitting". )
You "cry foul" about this claim because you are mistaken about what knowledge requires. (Well, you also cry foul because you think "one cannot verifiably pro ...[text shortened]... consider their arguments on their actual merits. Choice is up to you....