Support NeoGAF

[TheHeretic]

Which one do you? I'm the one asking you where you think your energy goes. I'm the student and you're the teacher. Break it down to me like I'm a 9 year old and please do provide some links to back up your statements. You claim that energy dissipates from the body when you die correct? That can't be interpreted as a soul?

So if your coffee is releasing thermal energy, and your corpse is releasing thermal energy, and that thermal energy is the soul, then does your morning coffee have a soul?

 

[Dahellisdat]

Which one of those forms of energy do you believe is potentially capable of carrying a persons conciousness.

that would be electromagnetic

 

[Dahellisdat]

So if your coffee is releasing thermal energy, and your corpse is releasing thermal energy, and that thermal energy is the soul, then does your morning coffee have a soul?

That's a pretty fallacious question. Are you arguing that the energy maintained within a body is significant of a soul?

 

[Mash]

So what is your basis for this belief? Any scientific data to back it up that the energy contained within this shell remains when the body is dead?

You have unwittingly adopted a very Christian view of self. To just get it out the way, I think when you die, you die, funnily enough, there isn't anything that I would call me that will persist other than my body. Here's my thinking:

There's two ways of thinking about the self. First, the common sense view, you have the subject that has free will and acts on this will. This can be referred to as a soul but it doesn't have to be something immortal, it's just the self, what we refer to when we say "I". Some people think this "I" perishes with the body and some people think it does not. It was important to Christianity becaue there is obviously a need for something to be judged and for salvation.

However, there is a second view of self that the ancient Greeks held, except perhaps Plato and a few others in the same vein. Their idea of the self did not construct the idea of a subject with various properties. So whereas nowadays we tend to say people want things, the Greek would not have separated the person from the desire. The same goes for the actions, beliefs and experiences. There is no need for a free will because the person isn't a subject that undergoes things but is the undergoing itself, identical with whatever it is that they do and identical with what they believe, remember and experience.

So when Descartes said "I think therefore I am" he is obviously using the Christian framework of self. He could have simply said, as Nietzsche put it, "It thinks". But even this is awkward because the "it" creates a subject.

So for me, the idea of a subject self is created through tradition and language. So, because everyone I know calls me Mash, as soon as I am unable to "Mash", I will no longer exist. I will be dead.

 

[TheHeretic]

That's a pretty fallacious question. Are you arguing that the energy maintained within a body is significant of a soul?

I'm not arguing anything, i've got nothing to prove.

You said by being natural we are limited. What are these limits that God must be above?

I've already gone over this but we are governed by the physical laws of our reality. The supposed powers of God are simply outside of the realm of these physical laws.

 

[Fatbot]

I'm not arguing anything, i've got nothing to prove.
I've already gone over this but we are governed by the physical laws of our reality. The supposed powers of God are simply outside of the realm of these physical laws.

And so what would constitute as evidence that in no way could be shown to be naturalistic? If god made everything disappear? If god spoke to you inside your head?

I'm asking you what limits do evolution and technology have that prevent God from being able to accomplish most of what traditional definitions claim of it.

 

[TheHeretic]

And so what would constitute as evidence that in no way could be shown to be naturalistic? If god made everything disappear? If god spoke to you inside your head?

Defy gravity, move stars to form a word, make something from nothing, turn something into something else, make a lamp disappear. There are endless things God could do that would by anyones definition be miraculous.

I'm asking you what limits do evolution and technology have that prevent God from being able to accomplish most of what traditional definitions claim of it.

Any of the things i've listed above would be well outside the natural laws as we understand them. God is claimed to have done an endless number of miracles, take your pick.

 

[Dahellisdat]

And so what would constitute as evidence that in no way could be shown to be naturalistic? If god made everything disappear? If god spoke to you inside your head?

I'm asking you what limits do evolution and technology have that prevent God from being able to accomplish most of what traditional definitions claim of it.

I think he's just talking about the laws of physics. I'm guessing he thinks that if there is a god, its governance would extend beyond the natural realm of physics that exist in our universe. Evolution and technology are still at the mercy of the laws of the universe.

Defy gravity, move stars to form a word, make something from nothing, turn something into something else, make a lamp disappear. There are endless things God could do that would by anyones definition be miraculous.



Any of the things i've listed above would be well outside the natural laws as we understand them. God is claimed to have done an endless number of miracles, take your pick.

Do you believe that anything can exist outside those boundaries? (aka god)

 

[LCGeek]

The idea that pure energy could maintain a conciousness is in itself supernatural. The human brain is very physical and very complex, what allows you to "think" simply can't get up and start flying around the room. To say we can't measure it could be true but then the burden is on the person claiming a soul exists to suggest a possible mechanism for how energy could maintain a conciousness.



The heat in your body dissipates into its surroundings, the electrical signals in your brain doing the same, both doing so gradually.



Do you even know what "energy" is?

Yes I know what energy is but there are many forms.

Why is the idea of energy containing information supernatural. Look at fiber optics and how they deliver information.

The human brain is both physical and meta physical, think of your imagination or one's gender identity. You are over playing the physical while ignoring the fact there are things that even with yourself that go beyond empirical fact or our understanding of impirical fact.

I have no way of empirically proving proving to you a soul (to me this is your unique and unending sense of conscious) does exist and can outside of a few extreme methods I know you're not inclined to doing. Outside of a out of body experience, which I know for your types is extremely rare to achieve no way the wonders of existence itself can be presented in mere words. My statements weren't necessarily meant to say my point in a factual manner rather my belief and understanding about the environment we all live in.

 

[ndiicm]

Not god per se, but reality, life and the universe we live in is such a complicated incomprehensible mind fuck that there must be some kind of plan or blueprint here, anyone who thinks this is all just an accident hasn't thought it through enough.

And if we can trace all life back to the amoeba, where the hell did the amoeba come from?

I agree where did the amoeba come from anyway?

 

[TheHeretic]

Yes I know what energy is but there are many forms.

Why is the idea of energy containing information supernatural. Look at fiber optics and how they deliver information.

The human brain is both physical and meta physical, think of your imagination or one's gender identity. You are over playing the physical while ignoring the fact there are things that even with yourself that go beyond empirical fact or our understanding of impirical fact.

I have no way of empirically proving proving to you a soul (to me this is your unique and unending sense of conscious) does exist and can outside of a few extreme methods I know you're not inclined to doing. Outside of a out of body experience, which I know for your types is extremely rare to achieve no way the wonders of existence itself can be presented in mere words. My statements weren't necessarily meant to say my point in a factual manner rather my belief and understanding about the environment we all live in.

I wasn't quoting you when I was asking what energy was. There is no element of the human brain that is metaphysical. All of the brains functions are done so via electrical signals: we can measure this using an MRI. As with many posters making a claim (God, the Soul) i'm always going to ask for that person to provice evidence for that claim. At least you are not wasting my time like that other poster by outright admitting a soul exists.

I will say the outer body experience has not been validated by experimentation. People have not been able to obtain new information (the experiment I read about was words on a card) from out of body experiences, which would be concrete proof a persons being can be outside the body itself.

I agree where did the amoeba come from anyway?

Life from non life is the study of abiogenesis, and has been replicated in labs.

 

[Mash]

I agree where did the amoeba come from anyway?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dL_1cnrRtek

It's old but it's a good start to understanding a natural explanation.

 

[Shaheed79]

So if your coffee is releasing thermal energy, and your corpse is releasing thermal energy, and that thermal energy is the soul, then does your morning coffee have a soul?

Lol what? You are comparing thermal energy from coffee to the electromagnetic energy our bodies put off?

 

[Dahellisdat]

I agree where did the amoeba come from anyway?

Theres a chapter with theories about how life originated in biology textbooks. I think the reigning theory is that the chemical components necessary to form the building blocks for simple forms of life such as an amoeba were present in earths atmosphere and the conditions on the surface were sufficient for those building blocks to form. And over the course of billions of years, the shit finally happened....then, evolution.

 

[Shaheed79]

Defy gravity, move stars to form a word, make something from nothing, turn something into something else, make a lamp disappear. There are endless things God could do that would by anyones definition be miraculous.

Like the existence of an infinite universe?

 

[TheHeretic]

Lol what? You are comparing thermal energy from coffee to the electromagnetic energy our bodies put off?

Not once did you mention EM. Electromagnetism is not capable of carrying of carrying your conciousness because that conciousness stems from a different type of energy in a physical system.

 

[Dahellisdat]

I wasn't quoting you when I was asking what energy was. There is no element of the human brain that is metaphysical. All of the brains functions are done so via electrical signals: we can measure this using an MRI. As with many posters making a claim (God, the Soul) i'm always going to ask for that person to provice evidence for that claim. At least you are not wasting my time like that other poster by outright admitting a soul exists.

I will say the outer body experience has not been validated by experimentation. People have not been able to obtain new information (the experiment I read about was words on a card) from out of body experiences, which would be concrete proof a persons being can be outside the body itself.



Life from non life is the study of abiogenesis, and has been replicated in labs.

Aside from how the brain functions (electromagnetic signal) that still doesn't explain the driving force that directs our thoughts/actions. Couldn't that arguably be metaphysical?

 

[TheHeretic]

Aside from how the brain functions (electromagnetic signal) that still doesn't explain the driving force that directs our thoughts/actions. Couldn't that arguably metaphysical?

Well its the idea that the mind is something different from the brain, which I don't believe. I suppose its possible, we don't know all that much about the brain.

 

[Shaheed79]

Not once did you mention EM. Electromagnetism is not capable of carrying of carrying your conciousness because that conciousness stems from a different type of energy in a physical system.

Give me ANYTHING to back up this claim.

 

[Dahellisdat]

Not once did you mention EM. Electromagnetism is not capable of carrying of carrying your conciousness because that conciousness stems from a different type of energy in a physical system.

Wait a minute....what kind of energy are you talking about then that "carries consciousness" if its not electromagnetic?

 

[Fatbot]

Defy gravity, move stars to form a word, make something from nothing, turn something into something else, make a lamp disappear. There are endless things God could do that would by anyones definition be miraculous.

So, you are saying technology will never allow any being to be capable of those things? And to be fair what the real difference behind your ability to dissern and the acutal truth of the matter?

There are tons of magic tricks that involve defying gravity but you assume them to be "tricks". If something defies gravity in a "real" way then why does it qualify as supernatural?

I mean, I have never seen a technology capable of moving stars or planets, but I can imagine one that works within the laws of physics.

Science Fiction, regardless of how far out it might be, has addressed every single thing you listed. I know its fiction but it is formed in a way that is usually at least logically possible even if it is scientifically inaccurate.

 

[Dahellisdat]

So, you are saying technology will never allow any being to be capable of those things? And to be fair what the real difference behind your ability to dissern and the acutal truth of the matter?

There are tons of magic tricks that involve defying gravity but you assume them to be "tricks". If something defies gravity in a "real" way then why does it qualify as supernatural?

I mean, I have never seen a technology capable of moving stars or planets, but I can imagine one that works within the laws of physics.

Science Fiction, regardless of how far out it might be, has addressed every single thing you listed. I know its fiction but it is formed in a way that is usually at least logically possible even if it is scientifically inaccurate.

Nothing has defied those laws to my knowledge.

 

[TheHeretic]

Wait a minute....what kind of energy are you talking about then that "carries consciousness" if its not electromagnetic?

The brain uses neurons and tiny electro-chemical charges to "think". The resulting EM radition is simply there because any electric source has an EM field.

So, you are saying technology will never allow any being to be capable of those things? And to be fair what the real difference behind your ability to dissern and the acutal truth of the matter?

There are tons of magic tricks that involve defying gravity but you assume them to be "tricks". If something defies gravity in a "real" way then why does it qualify as supernatural?

I mean, I have never seen a technology capable of moving stars or planets, but I can imagine one that works within the laws of physics.

Science Fiction, regardless of how far out it might be, has addressed every single thing you listed. I know its fiction but it is formed in a way that is usually at least logically possible even if it is scientifically inaccurate.

So God is a... giant machine? Just because we can create a machine that can move a star, that doesn't make God moving a star without effort any less impressive.

 

[LCGeek]

I wasn't quoting you when I was asking what energy was. There is no element of the human brain that is metaphysical. All of the brains functions are done so via electrical signals: we can measure this using an MRI. As with many posters making a claim (God, the Soul) i'm always going to ask for that person to provice evidence for that claim. At least you are not wasting my time like that other poster by outright admitting a soul exists.

I will say the outer body experience has not been validated by experimentation. People have not been able to obtain new information (the experiment I read about was words on a card) from out of body experiences, which would be concrete proof a persons being can be outside the body itself.



Life from non life is the study of abiogenesis, and has been replicated in labs.

I'm not talking about the brain in a strictly physical sense though I'm talking about things that our brains do that go beyond the physical realm like a dream or aspects of our imagination or consciousness as a whole.

oobe have had various scientific results, some they clearly don't want people knowing about. Though I will try to pm you later what I mean when I find this link I've been looking for that I found at oobe community site i belong to on the discussion as what you're referring to has been claimed to been done. Yet I will say when science for the most part does this experiments they are done in ways you could bring information back let alone control the experience aren't going to yield decent results ever. The problem with science in this area from what I learned is their logic is too rigid and the people they use have no clue about what they are doing in such a state of mind. Any links you got would be appreciated since I always love to learn more about the subject on both sides.

Also I find no use in claiming there is a soul to you, despite my belief of it or God/S. My intent was not to change your perception or challenge merely me to question it for my own reasons and see how it could change mine.

 

[Dahellisdat]

The brain uses neurons and tiny electro-chemical charges to "think". The resulting EM radition is simply there because any electric source has an EM field.

I'm not sure what your orignal point was regardless of what form of enrgy the brain uses to transmit signals.

 

[TheHeretic]

I'm not talking about the brain in a strictly physical sense though I'm talking about things that our brains do that go beyond the physical realm like a dream or aspects of our imagination or consciousness as a whole.

oobe have had various scientific results, some they clearly don't want people knowing about. Though I will try to pm you later what I mean when I find this link I've been looking for that I found at oobe community site i belong to on the discussion as what you're referring to has been claimed to been done. Yet I will say when science for the most part does this experiments they are done in ways you could bring information back let alone control the experience aren't going to yield decent results ever. The problem with science in this area from what I learned is their logic is too rigid and the people they use have no clue about what they are doing in such a state of mind. Any links you got would be appreciated since I always love to learn more about the subject on both sides.

Saying something cannot be tested is a pretty convinient way of making some infallible. We've got God, the Soul and OOBE none of which us poor skeptics can even test! I don't know all that much about OOBE, I know its related to NDE which is based on brain activity after a person is clinically dead.

 

[Fatbot]

Nothing has defied those laws to my knowledge.

Theoretically, the singularity of a black hole "defies" the Law of Gravity 24/7.

Many scientists think that some of the most important secrets of the Universe lie within them.

Regardless, my point is that a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic and would likely be capable of anything feat you can imagine. Considering the absolute vastness of space possibility of multiple Universes, it seems quite possible that a being would be able to become a god given enough time and resources. Finally, considering the very fundamental fabric of reality is quite mysterious to us still, I think it is quite dubious to claim what is and isn't possible within a natural framework.

 

[TheHeretic]

I'm not sure what your orignal point was regardless of what form of enrgy the brain uses to transmit signals.

EM energy is not the same energy the brain uses, even if its there. Even if it were, the mind still requires the physical element of the brain. Theres simply no way, at least that I know of, to take a persons conciousness out of the brain outside of something like OOBE and NDE neither of which are particuarly well recieved with scientists because they are generally regarded as psudoscience.

Theoretically, the singularity of a black hole "defies" the Law of Gravity 24/7.

Many scientists think that some of the most important secrets of the Universe lie within them.

Regardless, my point is that a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic and would likely be capable of anything feat you can imagine. Considering the absolute vastness of space possibility of multiple Universes, it seems quite possible that a being would be able to become a god given enough time and resources. Finally, considering the very fundamental fabric of reality is quite mysterious to us still, I think it is quite dubious to claim what is and isn't possible within a natural framework.

We don't even know what "gravity" is, nor have we ever tested a black hole. Theres a huge difference between something being unexplained and something being unexplainable.

 

[Dahellisdat]

Ehhh...I shouldn't have jumped into this discussion. It usually ends up being a big albeit interesting waste of time.

 

[Fatbot]

The brain uses neurons and tiny electro-chemical charges to "think". The resulting EM radition is simply there because any electric source has an EM field.



So God is a... giant machine? Just because we can create a machine that can move a star, that doesn't make God moving a star without effort any less impressive.

I would say willing something is still effort, regardless of "easy" or "hard" it would be for God.

Again though, even if we see controlling the Universe as miraculous I don't see how it could eventually become possible, and then even easy given a few million years time for any race.

 

[TheHeretic]

I would say willing something is still effort, regardless of "easy" or "hard" it would be for God.

Again though, even if we see controlling the Universe as miraculous I don't see how it could eventually become possible, and then even easy given a few million years time for any race.

I don't understand your point, if you have one. The parts that make God God are the parts we can't replicate, or in the very least replicate in a way that conforms to the laws of our universe.

 

[Dahellisdat]

Yet, I can't stop myself.

EM energy is not the same energy the brain uses, even if its there. Even if it were, the mind still requires the physical element of the brain. Theres simply no way, at least that I know of, to take a persons conciousness out of the brain outside of something like OOBE and NDE neither of which are particuarly well recieved with scientists because they are generally regarded as psudoscience.

Hallucinating. I don't believe OOBEs actually involve the mind leaving the body. I would think its moreso a sensation akin to dreaming.

 

[TheHeretic]

Yet, I can't stop myself.

Hallucinating. I don't believe OOBEs actually involve the mind leaving the body. I would think its moreso a sensation akin to dreaming.

Theres no way to prove OOBE is a hallucination, its just the most reasonable explanation.

 

[Shaheed79]

Saying something cannot be tested is a pretty convinient way of making some infallible. We've got God, the Soul and OOBE none of which us poor skeptics can even test! I don't know all that much about OOBE, I know its related to NDE which is based on brain activity after a person is clinically dead.

Here is something you can test. Start investigating paranormal or supernatural phenomenom in your town or city and try to bring proper evp equipment, EMH device, a regular and infra-red camera and a thermal video camera. Try to do your investigations at night and compare multiple night findings to check for consistencies and inconsistencies.

You guys are so quick to dismiss the existence of the paranormal without putting an ounce of effort into investigating it. I always find it funny that it is the skeptics who are the ones who like to sit on their asses and preach to everyone else about how right they are and how wrong everyone else is without any sort of formal study to make such arguments to the contrary. You have to study BOTH sides to dismiss a claim you just can't dismiss it without having even tried to investigate it.

 

[LCGeek]

Saying something cannot be tested is a pretty convinient way of making some infallible. We've got God, the Soul and OOBE none of which us poor skeptics can even test! I don't know all that much about OOBE, I know its related to NDE which is based on brain activity after a person is clinically dead.

I'm not saying it can't be tested as it clearly has been I'm saying the test science does will never yield good fruit because they conditions and there theories are off are to begin with. God is too much a discussion and has nothing to do with my point. Soul is another matter but our differing beliefs and the type of discussion we have is going to go as far as it already has.

OoBE is something you can test, but if you approach like a benchmark or an experiment it will always leave those involved in a pool of fail. By NDE you mean near death experience right? I fell in to OoBE when I got in to lucid dreaming and meditation which I need to know to make my style of hypnosis more effective. It wasn't until I got involved with NDE or OoBE that I could even make a use of hypnosis or lucid dreaming. One gigantic reason I go by the belief science currently can't make use of OoBE test is because triggering things necessary mentally to even achieve doesn't require effort in a traditional sense nor can it be rushed.

If anything NDE is that form of proof you were mentioning but supposedly doesn't have. How is it individuals who are clincal dead can comeback and tell DRs involved about what they saw like things happening in the OR room with details they couldn't have known if they were dead in a traditional sense?

 

[Fatbot]

We don't even know what "gravity" is, nor have we ever tested a black hole. Theres a huge difference between something being unexplained and something being unexplainable.

we understand gravity pretty well even if we haven't identified the carrier particle. Maybe the LHC will help thats not the point. You gave an example of a feat with gravity and now say the knowledge gravity is too limited to know whether it is defied or not.

If you can't explain it then how do you know it is explainable? Furthermore is the difference between something being natural and supernatural your ability to understand it?

 

[Dahellisdat]

Theres no way to prove OOBE is a hallucination, its just the most reasonable explanation.

I'm just saying...if thats true, there's no way to acknowledge if the mind is ever capable of leaving the body either, alive or dead.

 

[Fatbot]

I don't understand your point, if you have one. The parts that make God God are the parts we can't replicate, or in the very least replicate in a way that conforms to the laws of our universe.

Whatever test you make for God I think it would be reasonably easy to make a case on how it is logically possible for technology to accomplish it within our natural framework. If God can operate outside of logic than no one can make a case on how they look for God.

While we are part of nature, the society we created is ours. In a very short time we have been able to drastically improve our lifespan and quality of life. I don't see where our "natural" limitations set in and in fact invoking a limitation within our Universe that we could not overcome would to be invoking a supernatural barrier in itself.

Anyway, I'm out. You make very good points and have been in general kind considering many internet atheists would rather take cheap shots at ancient tradition rather deal with the logical and philosophical underpinnings of God belief.

 

[TheHeretic]

we understand gravity pretty well even if we haven't identified the carrier particle. Maybe the LHC will help thats not the point. You gave an example of a feat with gravity and now say the knowledge gravity is too limited to know whether it is defied or not.

If you can't explain it then how do you know it is explainable? Furthermore is the difference between something being natural and supernatural your ability to understand it?

the leading theory on gravity was proposed by einstein and it has to do with the curviture of space itself. what you are talking about is particle based physics, which physicists still consider, its just not the leading theory

 

[Fatbot]

the leading theory on gravity was proposed by einstein and it has to do with the curviture of space itself. what you are talking about is particle based physics, which physicists still consider, its just not the leading theory

They are kinda trying to unify them.


Most physicists belief quantum theory to be correct. In order for it be correct gravity must have a carrier particle.

 

[Shaheed79]

Anyway I'm out of here. No one came close to proving to me that ghost and other paranormal entities do not exist and its repercussions if it does. I fully invite people to change my mind about this matter since I doubt I could be influenced by problematic confinements such as religion. Like the link I posted earlier about all the working scientist and Gnome mappers who are able to believe in God when one removes such silly notions as Adam and Eve and other such nonsense nothing is conclusive either way. Here it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

There are tons of unexplainable phenomenon out there yet to be studied and analyzed and some of it will remain that way for a while to come because conventional thinking won't let certain individuals even approach the data as there is no reference they are able to understand it with. This just proves how little we truly know about the world we immediately occupy. If someone can explain to me what this phenomenon is if it is not the paranormal and or supernatural through conventional science then that is the day I will explain God to them.

 

[Holepunch]

Well I'm jumping into this topic way too late, apparently we're dealing with the cause of gravity by now, and I really don't feel like reading all these pages to figure out what kind of logical jumps were made to get there.

I don't believe in the God of Abraham, but to outright deny any possible sentient force out there is fighting faith with...faith. Just doesn't make sense. That being said, the original post was so full of thinly veiled prods against people of faith in general...almost sickening to read. I really do not care nor should anyone care what anybody else chooses to believe in. The only time I go against this is when people try to force their ideals upon other people without proper scientific evidence(looking at you, Intelligent Design). Other than that, all personal opinions is up to them, no one should interfere.

And if we're still talking about gravity here...as far as I understand(probably butchering the concept) but the most widely-followed theory is Einstein's, in which mass of an object causes a indent on subspace, kind of like a funnel. Only its in 3 dimensions so its even more confusing to imagine. But if that was true, don't funnels need gravity to function? Now I'm just confusing myself more...


Edit: For the person above me, just because someone decoded the human genome doesn't mean they're an expert at philosophy, its like asking a musician what makes a painting beautiful. Because Science cannot or has yet to answer life's great questions, that does not equal proof positive of God.

 

[TheHeretic]

They are kinda trying to unify them.


Most physicists belief quantum theory to be correct. In order for it be correct gravity must have a carrier particle.

yeah, thats a bit cutting edge for me. i'd assumed new world = einstein old world = particple based but it makes sense they are trying to bring the two together.

 

[dasein]

You have unwittingly adopted a very Christian view of self.

That isn't exactly accurate. There is no "Christian" view of self. Sure, many Christians have adopted a soul/body dualist conception, but, to be sure, this is primarily due to the Hellenized culture from which St. Paul was part, thus, due to Platonic metaphysical views around the time which influenced St. Paul to write things about the soul separating from the body. Early Jewish Christians had no such dualist views. To them, the soul was not some discrete substance, separated from the body. "Soul," more often than not meant one's entire being, thus, it was a fully embodied conception of the person. It is not until Greek metaphysical frameworks entered into the understanding of religious questions and concerns that Christians began, more than ever, speaking of one's soul being separate from the body--that the body is bad, evil, finite while the soul is good and infinite, hence, Gnosticism. Then, through the theological work of St. Augustine (who was significantly influenced by Neo-Platonic thought according to which Plato's Forms became equated with an eternal and all-powerful God) dualist views on persons gained a solid footing in Christian theology, which, in turn, shaped Descartes' own philosophical investigations.

You have to be careful.

Western Christianity has been shaped by dualist, Platonic conceptions of persons--the very same culture from which you are part and have been influenced, even to the point where you can have a retrospective vantage point from which you can reject dualist views of persons at all. Eastern Christianity, for the most part, has not gone such a route. A quick glance at various views of the Eastern Orthodox Church will show you their commitment to fully embodied conceptions of human persons, though they would be quick to point out that the material world is, in some sense, in itself, that is, in its very own essence, imbued with spiritual or divine value/worth/meaning.

Personally, I hold a constitutionist-materialist view of persons. I hold the belief that, although I am constituted by my body (which is fully material), I am not identical to it. As an analogy, although the statue of David if constituted by a mass of bronze, the statue of David is not identical to the mass of bronze. They are not identical to each other, yet one is constituted by the other entirely. Here's another example: a dollar bill is constituted by paper, but it is not the case that the dollar bill is identical to the paper.

 

[Mash]

There are tons of unexplainable phenomenon out there yet to be studied and analyzed and some of it will remain that way for a while to come because conventional thinking won't let certain individuals even approach the data as there is no reference they are able to understand it with. This just proves how little we truly know about the world we immediately occupy. If someone can explain to me what this phenomenon is if it is not the paranormal and or supernatural through conventional science then that is the day I will explain God to them.

If you spent half as long looking for sites that challenge your beliefs than you seem to for ones that vindicate them then I think you'd find an abundant supply of naturalistic explanations for things you consider supernatural and paranormal. To be blunt though, I think you want reality to be a certain way, and for that way to involve ghosts and spooky things, so you're going to interpret everything with an incredible bias. I don't pretend t be 100% objective by any means that doesn't exist, but I try to let reality impress upon me rather than the other way round.

 

[Prime crotch]

Personally, I hold a constitutionist-materialist view of persons. I hold the belief that, although I am constituted by my body (which is fully material), I am not identical to it. As an analogy, although the statue of David if constituted by a mass of bronze, the statue of David is not identical to the mass of bronze. They are not identical to each other, yet one is constituted by the other entirely. Here's another example: a dollar bill is constituted by paper, but it is not the case that the dollar bill is identical to the paper.

Isn't that Gestaltism?

 

[Souther]

if there is a god(And i very much doubt there is) If we are going by what he said in the bible, book of Genesis, whatever..Well..He's a liar.

Let me say that i am not religious but i do like the mythology aspect of religion(Odin, Shiva, Satan, Wars, angels, demons etc etc) But i thought this was interesting since nobody ever mentions this.

Anyways watch this video since he explains it alot better than i could

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coKCNNAEHFc

Conclusion: God is a liar and Satan was the one really telling the truth.

 

[Mash]

That isn't exactly accurate. There is no "Christian" view of self. Sure, many Christians have adopted a soul/body dualist conception, but, to be sure, this is primarily due to the Hellenized culture from which St. Paul was part, thus, due to Platonic metaphysical views around the time which influenced St. Paul to write things about the soul separating from the body. Early Jewish Christians had no such dualist views. To them, the soul was not some discrete substance, separated from the body. "Soul," more often than not meant one's entire being, thus, it was a fully embodied conception of the person. It is not until Greek metaphysical frameworks entered into the understanding of religious questions and concerns that Christians began, more than ever, speaking of one's soul being separate from the body--that the body is bad, evil, finite while the soul is good and infinite, hence, Gnosticism. Then, through the theological work of St. Augustine (who was significantly influenced by Neo-Platonic thought according to which Plato's Forms became equated with an eternal and all-powerful God) dualist views on persons gained a solid footing in Christian theology, which, in turn, shaped Descartes' own philosophical investigations.

You have to be careful.

Western Christianity has been shaped by dualist, Platonic conceptions of persons--the very same culture from which you are part and have been influenced, even to the point where you can have a retrospective vantage point from which you can reject dualist views of persons at all. Eastern Christianity, for the most part, has not gone such a route. A quick glance at various views of the Eastern Orthodox Church will show you their commitment to fully embodied conceptions of human persons, though they would be quick to point out that the material world is, in some sense, in itself, that is, in its very own essence, imbued with spiritual or divine value/worth/meaning.

Personally, I hold a constitutionist-materialist view of persons. I hold the belief that, although I am constituted by my body (which is fully material), I am not identical to it. As an analogy, although the statue of David if constituted by a mass of bronze, the statue of David is not identical to the mass of bronze. They are not identical to each other, yet one is constituted by the other entirely. Here's another example: a dollar bill is constituted by paper, but it is not the case that the dollar bill is identical to the paper.

Good read. Sorry to give such a short response to such a great post but when I said "Christian view of self" I was speaking very generally, I by no means think there has ever been absolute agreement amongst the doctors of the Church regarding such things, I was speaking more of the Christian tradition as a whole.

I also agree with your description of self and don't really see my description at odds with yours fundamentally. It's worth me quickly saying though that I don't think the statue of David has value above and beyond its constitution unless we hold it to, the same for the dollar. If we say "The statue of David, statue of David's" then this is because we see it as such, it's possible that we could come across a lump of bronze that is constituted exactly the same as the statue of David, but formed naturally, completely by accident, and we'd describe the very same thing as "the bronze, bronze's". They are not identical because of the way we come to interpret them. So when we apply this to the self, what I'm saying is remove the subject of experience and leave the experience or action, or whatever it is that the "self" is. If that stops "being", then you're dead.

I'd have had another crack at clarifying this mess if I had time.

 

[hellclerk]

ok, i'm not going to wade through this "thread." instead, i'll propose my reasons for belief in easy, bite-size portions:

1. because my parents taught me to. it's something that my parents instilled in me at an early age and have taught me to trust that there are powers greater than i. sure it may sound wack, but what is taught in early childhood has an effect on behavior later in life.

2. because humanity is beautiful. i know many out there will quickly point out flaws in humanity such as greed or hate, but those things don't really effect the beauty of the world and the people residing in it. the fact that love exists in the hearts of even a few men is enough to show a beauty so high and powerful that no mere mortal could hope to recreate it.

3. there are more and greater forces in the Universe than we could ever hope to comprehend. if you can explain all of it, then i will turn atheist in a heartbeat, but the thing is, you can't, no one can. God makes just about as much sense as any of it. and finally...

4. why not? can you give me a good reason why God can't exist? it's just another idea in a long list. because we are absent any real answer, we must come up with one that makes the most sense.

to wrap up, remember that you cannot view God in the context of man. you must first understand that you cannot comprehend the full existence of God. God is an entity beyond our scope of perception and could very well be defined as existence itself.

 

[Undubbed]

Why does god have to be sentient? Or human-like for that matter?

Ya know what I think? A Plant. Why not? Plants, as far as I know, are the very basis of the life cycle(not exactly counting the sun).

Or how about god being the very planet that we live on? Makes perfect sense when you think about it. I mean the earth created us, feeds us, and protects us from the harmful Sun and even takes advantage of the sun! Only thing is that it's not sentient and definitely does not want to be worshiped nor did it create morals or laws(that's all just human hullabaloo) .


Or how about TIME!? Makes sense when ya think about it.... Time encompasses EVERYTHING and everything takes 'time'(even if mere milliseconds). Our whole human lives are dictated by time. Time is the alpha and omega if ya think about it. Everything will be destroyed....IN TIME and everything thing will be created...but it takes TIME. Even the Earth and Sun. And when was time born? It was always there! TAKE THAT, Christian god!