Mr Spinkles
Mr
Yes, there is great debate as to which physical mechanisms give rise to our experience. But there is not great debate within the field of neuroscience that the mechanisms are indeed physical.stephenw said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)...
- Thread starter s2a
- Start date
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
roli said:
The man who brutally beats his girlfriend is not willing that she should perish but that she should just obey him. He doesn't want to hurt her, but she is not obeying him.
You see, Love is not about fear or submission. "[L]ove is not bought with rewards or commanded with threats."
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
That is what true love is - not some sadistic, worship me and do not question my unconditional love or I will torture you for all eternity.
Justice is a system within a community that is in place for the well being of the other subjects and punishment for those who step over the lines of those laws.
Love ,emotion ,feelings of all sorts may well be present ,yet what kind of a system of justice would we have if the courts held that view.
There has to be order,consistency ,set laws and set punishments ,regardless of emotion.
"Well Judge Bob ,we know he is your son ,and although he killed 3 people ,we know him to be a good boy most of the time and ,you know we feel bad that your son did these serious crimes ,but we love you so much Judge Bob and your son and whole family , as the leaders of this community we are going to let him go because we just see the love you have for himand that we have for your whole family.
I'm sure you would want justice for someone who killed your family member ,regardless if you know them.
You tell me that a judge does not love his own son because he had to carry sentencing on him after he raped and murdered a girl.
He would be an unjust and bias judge who overlooked his position to uphold justice and withold punishment to his own son, regardless of the love he has for him
The son knew the consequences of his actions, but justice still had to be carried out dispite his love and affection for his son.
By the very nature of representing justice for all who live in a community
Listen, I don't set the rules ,all the explainations in the world will not convince you that you need a savior until man first see's his sin.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
(said to stephenw
You know, just because I am a theist and you are not doesn't mean you have to disagree with everything.
Special pleading. Get real.
Equivocation. Please explain your understanding/definition of a "'qualified' miracle" that defies any naturalistic explanation within it's own preponderance of presented evidence. Don't beg the question...lend your informed example instead.
Can you explain/categorize "blind faith"? If so, please do.
Such is the nature of skepticism and scientific methodology. NO "absolutes" are ever presented as being unassailable, or beyond modification upon introduction of newly discovered evidence/datum. The only claims of "absolute" knowledge/revelation/truth are retained/espoused by faith-based beliefs. Christian epistemology promotes the notion that every human conceived is eventually delivered as a "sinner". No exceptions. No appeal. Can this inflexible claim be limited, or otherwise mitigated?
"Science" (that megalithic, single-minded, and conspiratorial entity) does not seek to limit human understanding or discovery. Doubt is the foundation of curiosity and skeptical perspectives. Only religion seeks to "limit (the effects of)" doubt and skepticism...by proffering "ultimate/absolute" truths (by dogmatic "commandment" or divine decree). If you "doubt" the merit of any god's "Word" (as being an impenetrable "truth"), then you are readily branded as an impious heretic that rebels "against god".
Not a particularly reasoned perspective to support...
Oh my! Think of the utterly random outcomes that might arise from such efforts! Horrors! What might people learn from such devoted and focused acts of compassion and care? Why...it's terrifying to even contemplate!
I support your optimism in this...
I'd like to hear your answer to your own posed question here. If the universe isn't "all about humans", then what is the universe about...exactly, specifically?
Does the universe (or cosmos) serve any relevant function or estimable "purpose" regarding the human condition as a whole?
If the universe (cosmos) is NOT relevant to human existence, then why does any planet star, or gallaxy (besides our own)_even exist? Why do stars continue to be formed within the "Horsehead Nebulae", despite the fact that it is trillions of miles distant from us? What "purpose" is served in/by humans witnessing an ever-unfolding "creation" of the cosmos?
If the universe IS relevant to human existence, then why does it exhibit utterly random "behavior" (assuming a guiding/divining supernatural consciousness exists), and continue to manifest phenomena that seems utterly unconcerned with human consciousness? What do impact craters on our own Moon "say" about the human condition, or offer in explaining our "purpose/reason" of momentary individualized existence?
[Please don't say that "there are things that mankind is not supposed/meant to know/understand". That's a "limitation" placed by an adherently faith-based perspective that "believes" that some undefined and abstract knowledge is "purposefully designed" to be confounding or "unknowable" to humans...in service of some ulterior/motivated, "secret" divine "plan" for mankind.
If you reject this sort of religious rationale, but would [yet] care to insist that the universe (or cosmos) suggests/validates an "intelligent" benefactor/designer/"creator" as an initial and/or sustaining "cause" of it's veritable existence and observed phenomena, I'd like to read (albeit subject to prospective critique) your "reasoned" arguments in support of such a perspective/belief.
If that's not too much to ask...
Super Universe
Defender of God
Special pleading? Sigh, mind your own. No really...
Equivocation? No.
Explain blind faith? No.
You'd like to hear my answer to the question "What makes you think the universe is all about humans?" Maybe you would but I'm tired of giving you so many things and you never working/thinking and you never figuring/learning anything on your own. But I will give you this:
If light speed truly is the speed limit of the universe and the universe is expanding and at least 13.5 billion light years across already then a majority of the universe is unreachable in any human lifetime. Isn't that evidence that it's not all meant for you?
Also, why did you not know this? Why aren't you giving these things due thought? Why is it that you must be given everything?
You really think God is, or should be, in a hurry. He's not. Maybe try to relax and put your feet up and just appreciate what you have? All the really hard work is done for you.
There are things that mankind is not meant to know? Not really but there is a process that you must go through. Think of a pyramid, in order for Einstein to be given the top piece, E=MC^2, then all the previous supporting blocks must have been found.
Also, once more blocks are revealed by the same process you should begin to see that the top block given to Einstein was not the pinnacle but just another block in a much, much, larger pyramid.
Some knowledge is designed to be confounding and lead humans astray? This information comes from disreputable sources, what you call "demons" even though they are not truly agents of the devil but simply ascended beings in service to themselves who do not obey the rule of non-interference.
There is a divine plan for mankind. It is the same plan for all beings. Ascension, but take your time, it's not a race.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello SuperUniverse,
You said:
Hello, Straw Man.
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
Source--The Nizkor Project
. Why would you then attempt to project your beliefs upon my own perspective? I "relax" just fine, with no concerns or thoughts whatsoever of your god. Watch me...zzzzzzzzzzz...
God sells timeshares in a pyramid scheme!
Einstein was but a middleman salesman.
Wow. I feel so...enlightened.
I'm an atheist/skeptic. I retain no "beliefs" in any claimed "demons", "spirits", "god", or other claimed supernatural "entities". I neither project nor ascribe any assigned "rules" of conduct or behavior to alleged nefarious netherworld numens. None.
Can I see the blueprint?
Where does the fireplace go?
Do thrice-married men/women have to share the same bedroom with their ex-wives/husbands in the afterlife? If so...is that a kind of "Heaven", or "Hell"?
If I "ascend", where do I eventually stop ascending? Is that place in Google Maps yet?
If "time" is not a factor...then is "belief" [in a god] a measure of any change, or effort, or interest within the human condition? Maybe I require 4 million years to "see the light". Ya think "god" will grant me that measure/span of a mortal existence? After all...what's the hurry?
You said:
Evasion. Unresponsive reply.
Evasion. Unresponsive reply.
Evasion. Unresponsive reply.
Evasion. Unresponsive reply...
Oh boy! An actual reply! Woo-hoo!
Um, hello? Please illustrate any instance wherein I even remotely suggested/inferred that the cosmos was "meant" for me? ANY? Your (asinine) assumption (crafted by you alone) is utterly antithetical to any skeptic's perspective, even (most especially) my own.
Why do you assume conclusions that have yet to be presented?
Hello, Straw Man.
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
Source--The Nizkor Project
I have no espoused faith or belief in your god, or any other claimed god
Oh, I see...Einstein was "given" the "top piece".
I understand, now.
God sells timeshares in a pyramid scheme!
Einstein was but a middleman salesman.
Wow. I feel so...enlightened.
Um...um...have I ever, even once, referred to "demons" as causal agents of anything? Are you sure you're replying to the correct post/person here?
I'm an atheist/skeptic. I retain no "beliefs" in any claimed "demons", "spirits", "god
Cool.
Can I see the blueprint?
Where does the fireplace go?
Do thrice-married men/women have to share the same bedroom with their ex-wives/husbands in the afterlife? If so...is that a kind of "Heaven", or "Hell"?
If I "ascend", where do I eventually stop ascending? Is that place in Google Maps yet?
If "time" is not a factor...then is "belief" [in a god] a measure of any change, or effort, or interest within the human condition? Maybe I require 4 million years to "see the light". Ya think "god" will grant me that measure/span of a mortal existence? After all...what's the hurry?
rocketman
Out there...
/jumps in, unsure of what's happened to this thread or what this is all about....
The sarcasm around here is really quite funny, really, keep it up guys.
Ok, here's one interpretation:
1) Gen 2:22, we get cut off from eternal life (it does not mention an afterlife)
2) John 3:16, Jesus rocks up and offers it again
3) Rev 20:15, Anyone not interested gets switched off for good (see Matt 10:28)
That's it.
Notes: Once given, eternal life is eternal, otherwise it would be called something else. The stakes are therefore mammoth. To avoid eternal heartache, no one gets it until they accept the big boss's approach is best, even if that means the whole suffering thing to see what the alternatives are, even if that means catalysts to speed it all up and make it really bad. Is it justified? Yep. The stakes are really that high.
Ok, someone smatter me with sarcasm. I try to be useful for something. :drool:
The sarcasm around here is really quite funny, really, keep it up guys.
Ok, here's one interpretation:
1) Gen 2:22, we get cut off from eternal life (it does not mention an afterlife)
2) John 3:16, Jesus rocks up and offers it again
3) Rev 20:15, Anyone not interested gets switched off for good (see Matt 10:28)
That's it.
Notes: Once given, eternal life is eternal, otherwise it would be called something else. The stakes are therefore mammoth. To avoid eternal heartache, no one gets it until they accept the big boss's approach is best, even if that means the whole suffering thing to see what the alternatives are, even if that means catalysts to speed it all up and make it really bad. Is it justified? Yep. The stakes are really that high.
It's around here somewhere. Bad dudes like lucifer who already have eternal life and knew better get to suffer in it, while the rest who are only temps will never wake from it. Eternity in the fireplace? No, not for us.
Based on Luke 20:34-36 I'd say it's pretty clear the answer is no.
Yeah, it's on google-sky. There, just to the left. And the right. And down there. And up over there. Actually it looks like it doesn't end. Cool.
Let's end the suffering and get the important things out of the way first. Besides, you can rock up in a bod again if you like (Luke 24:29) but I think you'll have better things to do. I hope we all get a chance to come back and reminisce about how we got angry with each other on RF at times but how it all worked out in the end.
Ok, someone smatter me with sarcasm. I try to be useful for something. :drool:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
OK so, where do you stand on the statement that ascription of psychological attributes to the brain is (conceptually) incoherent, that it is a 'degenerate form of Cartesianism'?
Emergence is 'emerging' as a powerful paradigm that, in my opinion, may prove as rich as that of evolution.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
At first blush it impresses me as a question pregnant with an appeal to ignorance.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Stephen, I gave an honest answer to what I presumed to be an honest (if labored) question.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
aha, I see I took you up wrong, my apologies.
Perhaps I misunderstand the question, but ...
Whenever one "follows a line" from nature to that which transcends nature "questions exceed the grasp of discussable answers". Therefore? There is no epistemic or ontological principle that guarantees all questions to be answerable or, for that matter, cognitively meaningful. But, yet again, I am reminded of Darwin ...
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)
Neuroscience is very young. Let's give it some time ...-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Good answer,thanks. Frubals to you.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Evasion? You should know...
You never suggested the cosmo's was meant for you? You're human. Everything is about you or should be about you.
You asked a question about why the universe is not all about humans and I provided guidance to finding that answer. If you don't like it, tough. Maybe start finding answers on your own for once? But... you can't do it, can you? That's why you ask questions and reply with anger when someone explains something to you. You've never been able to figure out any of this stuff on your own.
Can you see the blueprint? Yeah right. You couldn't comprehend the legend but I will offer you this, come up with a theory for the source of gravity, if you are close I'll give you more information.
Do thrice married women have to share the same bedroom with their ex-husbands? As beings ascend they develop great confidence in themselves and do not depend on relationships with others for comfort. This does not mean they do not have relationships but no one owns another as in human marriage.
They might end a relationship by simply saying "I have been very satisfied with you but now I would like my independance" and that would be it. No divorce, no arguing, and no lawyers. In the very high dimensions individuals have learned an advanced understanding of God and essentially seek to further their relationship with Him.
"If" you ascend? That's the most truthful question you've ever asked, emphasis on "if".
Four million years to ascend from the earth? What's four million years to the universe?
You're slowing down traffic so try to stay out of the fast lane but you'll still get there eventually.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
roli said:
God lets you cause as much harm as you want to until after you die and once the righteous are already in heaven they cannot be harmed so.... It is not an analogous comparison.
roli said:
Ah, but what is that justice? Does the judge sentence his son to eternal punishment?
The son either has to pay with his (finite) life in jail or be executed. That is justice.
roli said:
God should not punish us for the way he created us. God knew what would happen. God knew that being human means making mistakes. This is not me trying to get out of punishment. I will accept all punishments upon me I have caused to people over the course of my life, but anything over the pain I have caused is against justice.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think that anyone who would make such a statement suffers from a lack of imagination and from an ignorance of the facts. It is an empirical fact that psychological attributes depend upon the brain (unless I have misunderstood what you mean by "psychological attributes").stephenw said:
Here's a clear example: when a person's prefrontal cortex is damaged, they lose their ability to feel emotions, including (in some cases) the ability to feel guilt, and they lose their ability to weigh the future consequences of their behavior. Such people often lie, steal, and cheat, even though they may have been the most upstanding, moral, foresighted citizens before they suffered the injury.
Here's another example: physiological changes in your involuntary nervous system and in your voluntary muscles are critical for the experience and recognition of emotion (fear, anger, etc.) Studies have shown that your involuntary nervous system exhibits changes before you are aware of an accompanying emotion. People with autonomic (involuntary) nervous system damage do not feel emotions as intensely as before they suffered the damage. One study found that people who are holding a pen with their teeth find the same comics funnier than people who are holding a pen in their lips. The reason is because holding a pen with your teeth causes you to smile, and holding a pen with your lips causes you to frown. Contrary to what we might have assumed, your physiology can induce an emotion, rather than the other way around. (Although I should point out that telling a clinically depressed person to smile will not help.)
My source: Kalat's Biological Psychology.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Thanks for that. My purpose in talking this through is to try and gain an understanding and to see where I'm at myself regarding the mind/brain issue. I'm stuck at the gap which science cannot (yet??) explain arising from Descartes 'method of doubt'. Your points are good and I am in agreement with them, however I still have the same problem. Namely- the evidence you put forward is empirically sound, I think where I'm stuck is in the area of conceptualisation. Perhaps I need to say to myself 'ok the evidence is that mind is in the brain and putting forward Descartes is a pointless conceptual dead end'?
Another thing on my mind is that I greatly admire the writings of Frankl and find his appeals against reductionist thought very seductive. Perhaps I've been sucked in?
Thanks again for your input Mr.Sprinkles. I'll get it eventually!!