Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Great Pumpkin

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Great Pumpkin

31
Apologetics and Theology / Existence of God #13
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:39:12 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote:
Quote from: wonderer

Quote from: unluckynumber11
The way I think about it is that the mind and the body is like a pianist and a piano. If the piano is out of tune or damaged then the music created won't come out right, but the pianist is still playing it correctly, but it's not coming out correctly.

A major problem with this analogy is that a pianist is aware of the keys on the piano that he is interacting with to produce music, whereas your mind is not aware of interacting with neurons to produce behavior.

If your brain is simply an instrument which your mind uses to interact with the world, why isn't your mind conscious of the instrument your mind is interacting with most directly?
Oh wow you really got me there! I guess you got lost in the minute details to where you can't see the main idea, that the mind interacts with the brain. I mean, it seems you're making a non issue, it doesn't matter if you're consciousness isn't aware of the chemical processes, your mind is still interacting with it.

Be nice.

He has a point that if "you" are your mind and your mind (you) is interacting with something so intimately, why aren't you (your mind) aware of it?

It's a simple question.

32
Apologetics and Theology / "Christian worldview"
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:37:10 pm »
scepticalguy wrote: As there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations could you be more specific.

The denomination of the next theist who reads this adheres to... ;-D

33
Apologetics and Theology / dr. craig, falsifiability et cetera
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:35:22 pm »
billclute wrote: jbiemans-

If God is already infinitely good, nothing he creates could make it any better.


The infinitely good is a measurement on the being in question.  That being does not necessarily represent all of reality.  It may be the creator of all of reality but the creations are not part of the being.  I'm not considering a pantheistic being.  Therefore, the being could create good beings and increase the quantity of good in all of reality.


But God was already everything, and infinitely - or, at least - maximally Good.  Do you mean to say he made a maximal state of Goodness, gooder?

34
Apologetics and Theology / dr. craig, falsifiability et cetera
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:33:18 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote:
Quote from: jbiemans
So, it's impossible to know if God is Good, then.

I think its impossible to know if God is maximally good, yes.
Isn't the basic quality of God is that he is maximally good? So if something was not to be maximally good it wouldn't be God? Unless you're trying to say that it's impossible to know if the God of the Bible is maximally good.
Yes, and further, I think we can all agree that the empirical evidence is that the God of the Bible is not maximally good.

35
Apologetics and Theology / "Christian worldview"
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:31:57 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote: Ok, that's nice.
Thanks.  So you agree?

36
Apologetics and Theology / Existence of God #13
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:21:48 pm »
wonderer wrote:

Quote from: unluckynumber11
The way I think about it is that the mind and the body is like a pianist and a piano. If the piano is out of tune or damaged then the music created won't come out right, but the pianist is still playing it correctly, but it's not coming out correctly.

A major problem with this analogy is that a pianist is aware of the keys on the piano that he is interacting with to produce music, whereas your mind is not aware of interacting with neurons to produce behavior.

If your brain is simply an instrument which your mind uses to interact with the world, why isn't your mind conscious of the instrument your mind is interacting with most directly?
It forgot?

37
Apologetics and Theology / "Christian worldview"
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:20:38 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote: Is that the truth?
Yep, from my worldview. ;-)

38
Apologetics and Theology / Unembodied mind
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:19:40 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote: I mean a supernatural realm, part of this reality, not some other "universe". Like how we are in the physical realm right now, but the supernatural realm would be something all together different.
Supernatural is above the natural, I don't claim to know everything about the supernatural, other than it's what acts on the natural world. Again, this is only if you choose to understand.
No, facts are there whether I chose to understand them or not.  You are making a factual claim.

What do you mean "above" the natural?

You claim not to know everything about the supernatural, how about give me ONE thing you know about it?

I told you that I was referring to humans with the example of the brain. that God/an unembodied mind isn't bound by it, by as it pertains to humans that's how it is.
Then why call it a Mind if it is something other than what you understand a Mind to be?

Again, please define "Mind" that works for all the creatures you believe in.

Remember, it is YOUR belief. I am not responsible for defining the term for you.


Also I am perplexed that you think the mind is some sort of nonphysical object, supernatural would you say?

No, it's clearly (to me) part of nature.  The Mind is what we call our thoughts, which are products of our brain.  That is what I believe. If you want evidence and support for that, ask for it.  But, either way, I am a Physicalist.

The term "supernatural" means nothing to me.  I have asked you to define it - more than simply translating the Latin "super" to the English.


It is the way we've seen it in humans, but that's doesn't mean that that's the only way it has to be. AGAIN WITH THE PHYSCIALISM.

Yes, strange... I'm a physicalist... Notice I am not countering your claims with "AGAIN WITH THE DUALISM!"

But, here you admit that there is something that we know of as a Mind, but you are claiming there is some other Mind - a super(natural)Mind.

evidence and argument, please.

It seems to come down to you just not wanting to understand, you keep strawmaning and red herring, proof positive you don't want anything to do with a real conversation.

No, I desperately want to understand. You are not capable of explaining it to me, so you are getting snarky.

39
Apologetics and Theology / "Christian worldview"
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:06:38 pm »
There isn't one.  First of all.  What there is is a Christian claim that Jesus was God, died and rose from the dead, and if you accept Jesus as your Savior, you can be forgiven your sins and be with God in Heaven.

That is not a "world view".  That is a religious position, and anything that follows is either incidental or ad hoc.

We atheists are continually mocked for having a "materialist presupposition" meanwhile, it seems fair game for the Christian to declare "well, under our world view, the resurrection is perfectly plausible..."  (Despite, for example, that nothing in their experience EVER! has included people being brought back to life after 3 days...)

I know Matt Slick and Don Johnson are famous for carving out this idea lately, but they are also imbecilic, IMO.

The issue is not whether you have the right world view or not, and then based on which one you pick, what the truth is, the truth is found by rejecting all world views and slowly building the blocks of truth that will never be complete.



40
Apologetics and Theology / Existence of God #13
« on: February 24, 2012, 01:57:37 pm »
dj wrote:


@Archsage

Thanks for your response. Let's go with the software/hardware analogy since that is something I am familiar with. Software is non-functional (useless), in part or in whole, without corresponding hardware. So... Without a brain wouldn't the mind be uesless?


Thanks for keeping on point.

Further, there is a logical, coherent structure of software in the form of logic (one could have a piece of software held in their memory, written down, etc., but the overall logic of the language is conceptual).

I make this distinction because the Dualist is going to insist that the Mind doesn't need any physical Brain, but more, that it doesn't need a floppy disk, hard drive, piece of paper, or any other formalized "thing" in order for it to exist.

We are to picture it as the concept of the pianist floating around in space, freely, without borders or restrictions, and then, suddenly, with nothing other than it's own Will, interact with - not anything - but a specific brain in a specific body....  And it is to do that consistently, with no laws governing it's consistency.

I say this is impossible and am waiting for them to explain how it is possible.

41
Apologetics and Theology / Existence of God #13
« on: February 24, 2012, 01:45:58 pm »
billclute wrote:
The way I think about it is that the  mind and the body is like a pianist and a piano. If the piano is out of  tune or damaged then the music created won't come out right, but the  pianist is still playing it correctly, but it's not coming out  correctly.


I've never heard that analogy before.  I like it.

And as we all know, analogy's prove things.... ;-)

42
Apologetics and Theology / Existence of God #13
« on: February 24, 2012, 01:45:05 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
Quote from: unluckynumber11
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
Quote from: unluckynumber11
The way I think about it is that the mind and the body is like a pianist and a piano. If the piano is out of tune or damaged then the music created won't come out right, but the pianist is still playing it correctly, but it's not coming out correctly.

What evidence do you have that this analogy is accurate when applied to Minds?

Well it'd be a way to reconcile damage to the brain and the effect on the mind if one believes in a soul and God. So if God exists then this would seem likely as to how the brain and mind work in connection.
no it wouldn't.
"Well my dad can beat up your dad!" Seriously this is what it's come to?

You made it very clear that declaring something possible or impossible was coherent.  I was following your rule.

43
Apologetics and Theology / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 24, 2012, 01:43:57 pm »
To further my argument, that has so far not been rebutted, I will add:

To be "unembodied" means, by definition, to not be embodied.  To be embodied means to have some logical structure that makes it coherent.  Whether it is based on any law, natural or supernatural.

To be unembodied means to have no law governing it.

It's like taking the water from Lake Erie, evaporating it, sending it into the Sun, blowing up the Sun... and still calling it Lake Erie.


If the Unembodiest wishes to suggest there is some embodiment to the unembodied mind, then they only need to bring forth an argument or evidence that there is some embodiment (in the form of logical law, physical laws, civil laws, Stephan Laws, etc.) of an Unembodied Mind that gives it form in some ontological or metaphysical way that makes sense.

I am waiting.

44
Apologetics and Theology / Existence of God #13
« on: February 24, 2012, 01:34:48 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
Quote from: unluckynumber11
The way I think about it is that the mind and the body is like a pianist and a piano. If the piano is out of tune or damaged then the music created won't come out right, but the pianist is still playing it correctly, but it's not coming out correctly.

What evidence do you have that this analogy is accurate when applied to Minds?

Well it'd be a way to reconcile damage to the brain and the effect on the mind if one believes in a soul and God. So if God exists then this would seem likely as to how the brain and mind work in connection.
no it wouldn't.

45
Apologetics and Theology / Unembodied mind
« on: February 24, 2012, 01:33:22 pm »
unluckynumber11 wrote: I mean a supernatural realm, part of this reality, not some other "universe". Like how we are in the physical realm right now, but the supernatural realm would be something all together different.
Again, calling something "quite different" is not an argument.

It's just saying, "I can define "ball" - it's not that..." (pointing to a cat)

What IS the Supernatural?  Metaphysically, what properties does it have?

Again, simply claiming it is coherent without an explanation isn't enough for me.
Then we are done. I disagree and need no further explanation that your view is incoherent. Right?

3. Mind is what a "person" is, it's what interacts with the brain.
OK, so what brain does God's mind interact with?
It doesn't, ergo the "unembodied" part of the thread, you might have skipped that part. In human terms it's what interacts with out brains. But of course yet again you'll just decide to not understand that. I was using the example of a human mind, that's how it's defined in human terms, but not necessarily restricted to that mode when it comes to the overall idea of a mind.
OK, here you have disproved a God, and now we need to address the blanket assertion that minds can exist.

How?
haha, and people say I am the one putting mouths in others. I don't see how I have disproved God, all I have said is that when it comes to humans the mind is what works in conjunction with the brain when it comes to us. But that isn't to say that that's the only way it works. But again you don't seem to want to understand that. As well, it seems you don't believe in any mind existing, since you seem to be saying that me saying "any mind exists" is an assertion. So I guess we would have to start a new topic where we discuss if minds exists, you're free to do so if you'd like.
You disproved God.

If God is a unembodied mind, you said "Mind is what a "person" is, it's what interacts with the brain."
Then you said God doesn't interact with a brain. Hence, he doesn't fulfill the definition THAT YOU GAVE for a Mind.

Worse, you then try to redefine God as something different from a Mind that you have defined, but still call him a Mind?

It's incoherent.

Do you see why?

3. Mind is what a "person" is, it's what interacts with the brain.
OK, so what brain does God's mind interact with?
It doesn't

Do you see how your own definition of Mind doesn't even apply to God?  If a Mind is something that interacts with a brain, if you take away the brain interaction, you have no mind. That was your definition.

Now, of course, I'll be generous and assume you mean that a Mind is a person, and doesn't need any interaction with anything.  It can just be a Mind. (It just so happens, that all our experience of Minds is that they interact with brains...)

That, to me, is incoherent.  It just is? Is what? A mind that is a person; that interacts with the brain.... but without the brain part, and when he says "person" he doesn't mean what we mean on Earth... something else....?

So, a Mind is, well, something else.... kinda like our mind here, but different.

And I'm supposed to think this is a coherent explanation?!?!?!?

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 73