The Fall

Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The Fall

 

I would like to demonstrate thanks to this thread that the concept of the fall is actual and true, and that scientific findings reinforce the need to recognize this as a fact, that we are humans that have fallen from our divine nature and need the way of Christ in order to save ourselves.

First, lest start by brushing a picture of our origins. The first mammal appeared some 70 MYA, in the form of a small nervous rat looking creature. After the extinctions of the dinosaurs about 65 MYA these mammals saw an explosion of their numbers since they were now able to occupy niches vacated by the dinosaurs. 55 to 58 MYA ago the first descendant of what would become the human race appears in the form of the first primate Altiatlasisus Koulchi a small creature foraging in the woods with opposable fingers and a bigger brain. From this development 20 MYA the ancient great apes appear and then go extinct because of dramatic climate change. As we can see today only 5 species managed to survive: Orang-utan, gibbon, chimpanzee, gorilla, and yours truly: humans. It’s interesting to note that we were very lucky and could have never existed because of this climate change. The divergence that leads to humans happens 7 MYA, Toumai, Orrorin and all that.... We know the rest: our ancestors decided to leave the forest for the savannah, Australopithecus and the genre homo... It’s interesting to note that there was allot of trial and errors in ‘’making ‘’ the human race, and if small factors had been different humanity would surely have a way difference visage. Also interesting to note is the fact that our ancestors were not this romanticized picture of noble and fearsome hunters, but instead scavengers and hunters of sick and small animals. 


Once all these facts make their appearance one is bound to be brought back to earth with the ideas we entertain about our divine nature. Pressing questions make their appearance: what kind of fall could have caused us then to be visited by Christ? What form would of this fall taken? What makes human history different from that of any other animal? This is where I stand in. I attempt to give a reasonable answer to these questions so as to reconcile the findings of physical anthropology and the idea of the fall as described in the Bible. First of all we need to ask ourselves what kind of fall we are talking about in the Bible. If we try to reconcile the literal account of the fall with scientific findings then this is impossible, however if we attempt to reconcile the idea of the fall with reality then this is possible and moreover it’s supported by socio-cultural facts. The idea of the fall simply put is that we have want for divine supernatural nature, and that this want won’t go away until we return to God and to the supernatural.

 In almost every culture there is an account of a certain fall, all of these accounts share one thing in common, a want for the spiritual world, for God, to overcome our human nature. May it be in the form of a journey or in the case of Christianity in the form of a savior, the cosmology of every culture has a concept of the fall. Gathering from this similarity of all cultural cosmologies we find that humans have discovered indeed that they have fallen away from a sort of spiritual world in different degrees depending from the cosmology in question. So from facts from the real world we do see that humans believe they fell away from their divine nature. This is attested by cultural facts and also by the history of humanity that far from being this glorious history is this rather banal story way far removed from what we could have imagined. Yet, if we were living in the dark constantly, we should have never realized there was light, and yet as all the cultural cosmologies attest, we did realize that there is light, that is, that we have fallen from our divine nature. Some have alighted on this or that aspect, however I firmly believe that Christianity has gathered all of the relevant details concerning this actual fall. The superiority of the supernatural world over the physical word is then immediately apparent. For if the body , made out of matter had this far from glimmering history, the soul who enabled us to understand our divine quest is of God alone, and it is restless until it rests in him. So in conclusion, we can see that there was and is such a thing as the fall, that is, the fall from our divine nature into this dark and gray material world. The mere facts that humans dotted themselves with cosmologies, which all recognize this fall is a fact that points to the reality of the fall. Anyone has simply to read the myths of any belief system to realize that the fall is present, although in different shapes and sizes, and with different meanings ascribed to it, however the basic fact here is the reality of the fall.

The second point I would like to mention in support of the fall is that we as human are not mere material constructs like robots, or machines, rather we are beings who have a very powerful supernatural dimension to our beings, granted this dimension can negated or denied but it is fact that it exists as a fundamental part of ourselves and has been so throughout the ages. One only has to look at the number of believers in a religion or another versus the tiny number of atheists on our planet, not as an appeal to authority, but rather as an empiric fact of the existence of our spiritual nature. Let me give an example, if a thousand birds were in a huge cage, and 5 of these couldn’t fly, we would certainly

conclude that the 5 who can’t fly are deficient with regards to their nature, this is the same thing here if we compare believers and unbelievers. Spirituality then has been a part of every culture throughout the ages. So it’s only natural that spiritual beings such as us would have alighted upon the reality of our spiritual fall from the higher and most pure realm of spirits.


Thirdly, we can ask ourselves a simple question to find out if we indeed have souls, something to be  same must be identical in all things, so we can ask ourselves are we merely biological entities? Or do we also have a soul. Is the self different from the body? For instance, I can imagine myself having a totally different body, I can imagine myself in the body of a lion, of a sheep even having that of a bird. However I can’t imagine my Body having another body. This means that the self is not the body for then they would be identical and they are not. Let’s think of human cloning here, if it was possible to clone an adult human being in just over an hour, a human being that would be identical to the real subject, would these two be the same? Or would they be different beings. I believe they would be completely different in a way and thus would have different souls. If you would die and have yourself cloned right before the moment of your death, would that new identical to you person be you or would the ‘’self’’ the real you be dead and there stands a completely different and new person? Reflect about that.

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The soul is the immaterial

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Now were

Damasius wrote:

Now were cooking! atheists are starting to trot out their bad pseudo arguments against God, so far we have the incompatibility of free will with God's attributes, so if I may, does this mean you agree that free will exist? if so this falls a pic, because I have just the argument to prove the existence of the soul that rests on the existence of free will.

Let me bring this baby to the table right now:

  1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
  2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
  3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
  4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3).
  5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal)
  6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
  7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).

Conclusion: The soul exists because free will exists (from 1 and 7). You dont deny free will, so lets have a little fun, show me how my argument fails.

Wow... let me try your line of arguing... 

oh, blah blah, blah, giberish blah, I'm not going to read all that, answer me this, WHAT IS A SOUL?

but seriously this argument is laughable at best, good ole free will argument.  Satan was a fallen angel that CHOSE to rebel against god without having been given the free will.  Therefore your premise 3 is false.  

But your argument fails for a lot more then just that, I'll spend a bit of time on it, but not for your benefit.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Damasius

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Now were cooking! atheists are starting to trot out their bad pseudo arguments against God, so far we have the incompatibility of free will with God's attributes, so if I may, does this mean you agree that free will exist? if so this falls a pic, because I have just the argument to prove the existence of the soul that rests on the existence of free will.

Let me bring this baby to the table right now:

  1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
  2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
  3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
  4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3).
  5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal)
  6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
  7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).

Conclusion: The soul exists because free will exists (from 1 and 7). You dont deny free will, so lets have a little fun, show me how my argument fails.

Wow... let me try your line of arguing... 

oh, blah blah, blah, giberish blah, I'm not going to read all that, answer me this, WHAT IS A SOUL?

but seriously this argument is laughable at best, good ole free will argument.  Satan was a fallen angel that CHOSE to rebel against god without having been given the free will.  Therefore your premise 3 is false.  

But your argument fails for a lot more then just that, I'll spend a bit of time on it, but not for your benefit.

 

LOL. I am excited.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:latincanuck

Damasius wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? I cited that we as humans are spiritual beings, that is, that we are drawn to the spiritual, that a part of ourselvesis spiritual, look at the number of spiritual experiences in the world and you will see that this is soé ow do you know no soul or ''self'' survives after death? Do you consider yourself rational?  this is what I want from you, GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO CONCLUDE THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST. Do you think the mere fact you dont have any scientific evidence for the soul is enough evidence? by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist.

You only ,make assertions, you are no different than us religious folks. The truth is you dont know. But you see we have a weapon you do not, we have faith and spirituality, trough spiritual experiences things are made clear, I know so, I experienced such an experience, that changed my life, stopped me from drinking, aftook me off the pills, stopped my panic attacks, gave me new life. I have evidence for the spiritual world, what do you have for its non existence? : a bunch of facile arguments, bloind assertions and misconceptions.

Mine is the fact that you have not presented any evidence nor shown any proof that we have a soul, I merely deny you claim because you have failed to prove your claim. As I have already told you that is all due to the brain, more specifically how the brain evolved. With that said there have been experiments that have induced the so called god or spiritual experience, and science continues to look at the brain and religious/spiritual experience and will continue to find answers to those questions, as such if like you said your god was the only true god, all religious experiences would have the same outcome and god, yet it does not come even close, as the wide range of religions and religious/spiritual experiences. It is due to the fact that it is due to evolution and not your god or the spirit that was seeded by your god that we have different religious experiences and different interpretations. You are more than welcome to do research on the latest scientific research on the subject, but from what I see you will probably dismiss it as it differs from your own point of view.

  The reason I say the soul does not exist is simply because you have not at all in any way or form shown me nor has there ever been any evidence that the spiritual/soul that is immaterial/immortal (depending on your definition of a soul or spirit) can exist without the material. In other words if it has an immaterial existance (such as thoughts, ideas or consciousness) it has to have a material existence as well (thoughts, ideas and consciousness all existing in the brain) If you like to give us the evidence (and by evidence I mean testable/falsifiable) evidence then please present it, because as it stands right now you have not at all. So far I can say is that you have presented nothing more that falicious arguments and very much blind assertion (which makes me believe you are more or less just projecting) and many misconceptions yourself. Science has shown in many ways that the brain is the cause of all these religious/spiritual experiences. Not god, gods, spirits or souls.

None of the dead come back to tell us what happens afterwards, I go with the evidence and the evidence points to the fact that once we die our consciousness ends, that is all, you have presented no evidence what so ever that one exists beyond human desire to live and cheat death.

 

Thats weak piss mate, and even so its irrational and even intellectualy lazy.

Look, we have no proof tjhat aliens exist, but will that lead you to conclude that they dont?? How can you be so narrow minded? I know the soul exists from spiritual experiences I have had, as do most othe rpeople who believe in the soul, do you think your lack of evidence is enough to change anyone who had this kind of experience's mind?  I was asking for your proof that the soul does not exist, since you have failed in this regard heres a new quwestion: COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT THE SOUL EXISTS? this is a yes or no question. incidentaly: COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT A GOD EXISTS? How bout that , yes or no?

 

I have not presented the kind of scientific evidence for the soul or for God you wanted, fair enough. But does that allow you to conclude that therefore the soul does not exist??? or that God does not exist?? Do you think it would be more intellectually honest of you to say I dont know?  

 

Once again: could it be that the soul exists, could it be that God exists, hell, could it be that aliens exist?

 

What is weak piss is that you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim beyond conjecture and speculation. As for alien life there is more evidence for the possibility of alien life on other planets so it may or may have existed. Now it doesn't mean there is or has though.

Your claim of soul, god etc, is not backed up by any evidence at all, and all your claims falls upon you making that claim and wanting us to simply believe it without any evidence what so ever beyond conjecture and speculation (ignoring any scientific claim to the contrary.) I can entertain the idea and the possibility that life on another planet may exist or may have existed because evidence shows that there is a possibility it may(findings of other planets in the so called godilocks zone, the amount of galaxies and solar systems in the universe also give arise a far more possibility than your claims about god or a soul). But i have seen no evidence that a soul exists or god exists. Period, nothing to back up that claim at all. It is not weak, it is actually the most logical stance to take upon a claim that has no ground to stand on like yours. I have concluded that with what you have presented no soul exists as per your claim. Could the soul exist? If you can prove the immaterial can exist without the material I might be able to give you that possibility. As for god? Define god first then present your evidence and we shall see, show that it is YOUR specific god would be better as well.

My claim that the soul doesn't exist? Simply nothing immaterial can exist without the material. You have not shown that it can exist, as such my position is that you are wrong and it doesn't exist because your definitions do not align with reality nor does you so called evidence. It really is that simple, I have shown you why the soul as you describe it doesn't exist, it is now up to you to prove that it can exist and how it can exist without any material existence. Since the soul as per definition is immaterial.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Damasius wrote:The soul is

Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

Ok, now define immaterial.

I apologise if I'm seeming overly aggressive in this conversation, its a symptom of my frustration. That doesn't excuse it necessarily, but hopefully it'll be enough for you to know I don't think you're a hopeless moron with daily delusions.

I do think you've been brainwashed and taught how to not think, but that's hardly your fault.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5090
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Que?

 

Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

 

That's not a coherent definition. There's no extant thing that can be defined as 'immaterial' that is not a concept of human imaginings. The basis of myself is my brain, its connections, and my considered and instinctive responses to inputs from the environment. You seem to have moved the goal posts from 'soul' to 'immaterial'. What is immaterial? How does it have memory and feelings without neural connections?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5090
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh, dear...you are quite wrong.

 

Damasius wrote:

i REPEAT: IF ITS ONLY THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. as was stated the absence of evidence for something is not enough for the belief that the thing does not exist.

 

"An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

 

As you can see, you have no basis for claiming a supernatural god exists outside the universe because there's no evidence one does not exist there. And we have no basis for claiming one does not exist there. That is why we are agnostic atheists. We cannot be certain what exists outside the universe. We don't see any evidence of a god in this reality but in the interests of rationality we cannot confirm one does not exist outside this reality.

The correct position for the rational creature to take in these circumstances is fallibilism. An acceptance that we lack the context and comprehension to know what is entirely true. All that remains is for you to agree that you do not certainly know that a god exists outside the universe. Then you will be rational, too. Join us Damasius...join us...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Damasius

double post.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Damasius

Vastet wrote:
Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

Ok, now define immaterial. I apologise if I'm seeming overly aggressive in this conversation, its a symptom of my frustration. That doesn't excuse it necessarily, but hopefully it'll be enough for you to know I don't think you're a hopeless moron with daily delusions. I do think you've been brainwashed and taught how to not think, but that's hardly your fault.

 

I see your being agressive as a symptom of being butthurt more than anything else.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

 

That's not a coherent definition. There's no extant thing that can be defined as 'immaterial' that is not a concept of human imaginings. The basis of myself is my brain, its connections, and my considered and instinctive responses to inputs from the environment. You seem to have moved the goal posts from 'soul' to 'immaterial'. What is immaterial? How does it have memory and feelings without neural connections?

 

 

 

So, the basis of yourself is your brain, so, whenever you are unconscious, wheber your brain does not have full command of the rest of your body you cease being yourself. Got it.  Also, do you think a will is a valid document?


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

 

That's not a coherent definition. There's no extant thing that can be defined as 'immaterial' that is not a concept of human imaginings. The basis of myself is my brain, its connections, and my considered and instinctive responses to inputs from the environment. You seem to have moved the goal posts from 'soul' to 'immaterial'. What is immaterial? How does it have memory and feelings without neural connections?

 

 

 

 

Setting aside your self proclaimed ''incoherence'' and philosophival illiteracy lets look at my argument for the existence of the soul more closely, the version I am using is available on the web il reproduce it here.

 

Does the soul exist? Is there any evidence to support this? In this article I'll show you one argument that I think supports the existence of a soul. Before going on, I’d like to establish the law of cause-and-effect. There is a metaphysical precept called ex nihilo nihil fit (which is Latin for “from nothing, nothing is produced&rdquoEye-wink. This reasoning demands that, for any event that begins to exist, something must have caused it. This is because the idea of nothing producing such an event is ontologically impossible (from nothing, nothing is produced). Both scientists and laymen have observed the phenomenon of cause-and-effect. It rains because the clouds above are saturated with water, waves are formed because of the wind, cars move because the engine causes it to move, and so forth.

Suppose a dark, gray cloud shoots out lightning that strikes down a heavy tree, which in turn falls down on Bob’s favorite car. Can Bob rightfully blame the tree for the destruction of his car? No, the tree didn’t have a choice in the matter. Its fall was simply caused by the lightning, which was caused static electricity, which resulted from the clouds, which came about by weather patterns etc. Unlike the tree, we humans have a special ability that can cause us to be responsible for our actions. Rather than being pipelines for chains of natural causation that go back before our birth, we can initiate our own causal chains. This ability is commonly called free will.

 

Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions, and thus the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (For if our actions were forced on us by prior causes outside our control, we would not have free will.)

 

But do we really possess free will? Are we really capable of choosing our own actions? Experiment for yourself. To see if you have free will, intentionally do something, anything at all. For instance, try to move your arm. Can you do it? I think I can. And the evidence (direct perceptions) would seem to indicate that we do indeed have free will.

Before continuing, let's look at some terminology.

 

  • materialism: the belief that the physical world is the only reality. Thus, things if incorporeal substance (such as the soul) do not exist.
  • physicalism: the belief that we have physical bodies but no nonphysical minds or souls.
    • Technically, one can believe in physicalism but not materialism. For instance, it is logically possible for one to believe in an incorporeal God, but purely physical humans. Nonetheless, many physicalists are also materialists.
  • determinism: the belief that all effects (including our actions) are determined by prior causes.
  • metaphysical freedom: the belief that we can choose among genuine alternatives (what many think of when they read the term “free will&rdquoEye-wink.
  • libertarianism: belief that we have metaphysical freedom, and thus rejects determinism. Libertarianism comes in two forms: agency theory and indeterminism.
  • indeterminism: sometimes called simple indeterminism, this theory defines free will as “an effect without a cause” and that we have such free will.
    • One criticism of this belief is that it seems to violate ex nihilo nihil fit.
  • agency theory: the belief that free will is an act of agent-causation, whereby an agent (person, self) causes an event to happen.

 

Agency theory should not be confused with simple indeterminism. In agency theory, an act of free will is not a random, uncaused event. Rather, we (agents) cause things and create new causal chains. As you might have guessed, the type of metaphysical view of free will being discussed here is agency theory. But is the essence of an agent nonphysical (as the soul) or purely physical? Read on.

 

In the following argument, free will the foundational piece of evidence that supports the existence of the soul (the immaterial basis of oneself). Recall that free will involves the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality. So if free will is to exist, its basis must be incorporeal (once the corporeal is excluded, the incorporeal is the only remaining logical possibility). Since it is the self that causes the actions (i.e. is the basis of the free will), and if the basis of free will is necessarily incorporeal, then the basis of the self is incorporeal. Since the incorporeal essence of the self is called the soul, then if free will exists the soul must exist also. Free will obviously exists, therefore the soul does also.

 

Confused? Okay, let’s take it one step at a time:

  1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
  2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
  3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
  4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3, see also further justification below).
  5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal; see also further justification below.)
  6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
  7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).

Conclusion: The soul exists because free will exists (from 1 and 7).
 

Some quick terminology: an argument being valid just means that, if premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. A sound argument is both valid and has all true premises. There are two ways the above argument can be unsound. One is that the argument is invalid (not valid), i.e. the conclusion does not logically follow somewhere along the way. In that case, the question would be, “which line of the argument does not logically follow from the statement(s) it’s based upon?” The second way the argument can fail to be sound is if one of the premises is wrong. In that case, “which premise fails and why?”

 

A quick way to attack the argument is to deny the existence of free will. Thus, a person who disbelieves in the existence of free will could reject line 1. Though rational support for the first premise was given, one could still claim (rationally or irrationally?) that that those perceptions are illusory. But if free will does exist, does it logically follow that the soul must exist also? After all, if free will exists and if the argument is valid, then the soul would have to exist. So is the argument valid? To better answer this question, let’s more closely examine lines 4 and 5 of the argument.

Further Justification for Lines 4 and 5

 

Here’s the problem in a nutshell: in a purely physical world, our actions are solely the product of forces completely beyond our control, and thus we would not have free will. To better illustrate lines 4 and 5 of the argument, let’s look at the materialist’s view. The causal chain would be something like this:



 

Natural Processes

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Inner Brain States

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Mental and Physical Actions



 

Because of cause-and-effect however, this corporeal chain of causation would extend back well before we were born. Yet conditions before our birth are clearly outside of our control, so the chain of causation would look something like this:



 

Natural Processes Outside Our Control

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Inner Brain States

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Mental and Physical Actions



 

But if this is accurate, we would not be originating the cause of anything. We would be just like the tree that fell on Bob's car, being a conduit of natural forces outside our control. In this case, our actions would be determined by prior causes. We would not have free will. This is why free will by definition cannot be an effect in corporeality (hence line 4). To have free will we must exist outside this corporeal tapestry (hence line 5). If free will exists and its basis cannot be corporeal, the only logical alternative is the incorporeal realm. Since its basis must be incorporeal, we must logically have souls if we possess free will.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Damasius wrote:Vastet

Damasius wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

Ok, now define immaterial. I apologise if I'm seeming overly aggressive in this conversation, its a symptom of my frustration. That doesn't excuse it necessarily, but hopefully it'll be enough for you to know I don't think you're a hopeless moron with daily delusions. I do think you've been brainwashed and taught how to not think, but that's hardly your fault.

 

I see your being agressive as a symptom of being butthurt more than anything else.

Well I tried to be nice. But as usual, the theist can't even follow his own belief system, let alone defend it. How thoroughly typical.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
where you got this -

where you got this - http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/soul.html

Is this you or are you claiming another's work as your own?

If the latter, plagiarism is not a good way to get people to trust you.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Damasius

Vastet wrote:
Damasius wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

Ok, now define immaterial. I apologise if I'm seeming overly aggressive in this conversation, its a symptom of my frustration. That doesn't excuse it necessarily, but hopefully it'll be enough for you to know I don't think you're a hopeless moron with daily delusions. I do think you've been brainwashed and taught how to not think, but that's hardly your fault.

 

I see your being agressive as a symptom of being butthurt more than anything else.

Well I tried to be nice. But as usual, the theist can't even follow his own belief system, let alone defend it. How thoroughly typical.

 

 

Oh you think calling me brainwashed and taught how to not think is nice?? LOL


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:where you got

jcgadfly wrote:

where you got this - http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/soul.html

Is this you or are you claiming another's work as your own?

If the latter, plagiarism is not a good way to get people to trust you.

 

 

This is a widely made argument about the existence of the soul in philosophy, as i stated In a previous post i reproduced the version you can find online, namely the link you gave.

 

 

Now, you did agree that free will exists, will you also agree that the soul does also exist? thanks to the argument? If so goody Smiling if not, why not? it seems that if free will exists its basis cannot be from a purely physical world.

 

as was said:  ''in a purely physical world, our actions are solely the product of forces completely beyond our control, and thus we would not have free will.'' yet you agree we have free will! How do you explain that?

 

I look forward to reading your posts about this!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
"Oh you think calling me

"Oh you think calling me brainwashed and taught how to not think is nice?? LOL"

These are not insults, they are observations.
Regardless, was it not jesus who said to turn the other cheek?
What kind of christian doesn't practice christianity?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5090
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Please

Damasius wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

 

That's not a coherent definition. There's no extant thing that can be defined as 'immaterial' that is not a concept of human imaginings. The basis of myself is my brain, its connections, and my considered and instinctive responses to inputs from the environment. You seem to have moved the goal posts from 'soul' to 'immaterial'. What is immaterial? How does it have memory and feelings without neural connections?

 

 

 

 

Setting aside your self proclaimed ''incoherence'' and philosophival illiteracy lets look at my argument for the existence of the soul more closely, the version I am using is available on the web il reproduce it here.

 

Does the soul exist? Is there any evidence to support this? In this article I'll show you one argument that I think supports the existence of a soul. Before going on, I’d like to establish the law of cause-and-effect. There is a metaphysical precept called ex nihilo nihil fit (which is Latin for “from nothing, nothing is produced&rdquoEye-wink. This reasoning demands that, for any event that begins to exist, something must have caused it. This is because the idea of nothing producing such an event is ontologically impossible (from nothing, nothing is produced). Both scientists and laymen have observed the phenomenon of cause-and-effect. It rains because the clouds above are saturated with water, waves are formed because of the wind, cars move because the engine causes it to move, and so forth.

Suppose a dark, gray cloud shoots out lightning that strikes down a heavy tree, which in turn falls down on Bob’s favorite car. Can Bob rightfully blame the tree for the destruction of his car? No, the tree didn’t have a choice in the matter. Its fall was simply caused by the lightning, which was caused static electricity, which resulted from the clouds, which came about by weather patterns etc. Unlike the tree, we humans have a special ability that can cause us to be responsible for our actions. Rather than being pipelines for chains of natural causation that go back before our birth, we can initiate our own causal chains. This ability is commonly called free will.

 

Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions, and thus the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (For if our actions were forced on us by prior causes outside our control, we would not have free will.)

 

But do we really possess free will? Are we really capable of choosing our own actions? Experiment for yourself. To see if you have free will, intentionally do something, anything at all. For instance, try to move your arm. Can you do it? I think I can. And the evidence (direct perceptions) would seem to indicate that we do indeed have free will.

Before continuing, let's look at some terminology.

 

  • materialism: the belief that the physical world is the only reality. Thus, things if incorporeal substance (such as the soul) do not exist.
  • physicalism: the belief that we have physical bodies but no nonphysical minds or souls.
    • Technically, one can believe in physicalism but not materialism. For instance, it is logically possible for one to believe in an incorporeal God, but purely physical humans. Nonetheless, many physicalists are also materialists.
  • determinism: the belief that all effects (including our actions) are determined by prior causes.
  • metaphysical freedom: the belief that we can choose among genuine alternatives (what many think of when they read the term “free will&rdquoEye-wink.
  • libertarianism: belief that we have metaphysical freedom, and thus rejects determinism. Libertarianism comes in two forms: agency theory and indeterminism.
  • indeterminism: sometimes called simple indeterminism, this theory defines free will as “an effect without a cause” and that we have such free will.
    • One criticism of this belief is that it seems to violate ex nihilo nihil fit.
  • agency theory: the belief that free will is an act of agent-causation, whereby an agent (person, self) causes an event to happen.

 

Agency theory should not be confused with simple indeterminism. In agency theory, an act of free will is not a random, uncaused event. Rather, we (agents) cause things and create new causal chains. As you might have guessed, the type of metaphysical view of free will being discussed here is agency theory. But is the essence of an agent nonphysical (as the soul) or purely physical? Read on.

 

In the following argument, free will the foundational piece of evidence that supports the existence of the soul (the immaterial basis of oneself). Recall that free will involves the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality. So if free will is to exist, its basis must be incorporeal (once the corporeal is excluded, the incorporeal is the only remaining logical possibility). Since it is the self that causes the actions (i.e. is the basis of the free will), and if the basis of free will is necessarily incorporeal, then the basis of the self is incorporeal. Since the incorporeal essence of the self is called the soul, then if free will exists the soul must exist also. Free will obviously exists, therefore the soul does also.

 

Confused? Okay, let’s take it one step at a time:

  1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
  2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
  3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
  4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3, see also further justification below).
  5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal; see also further justification below.)
  6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
  7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).

Conclusion: The soul exists because free will exists (from 1 and 7).
 

Some quick terminology: an argument being valid just means that, if premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. A sound argument is both valid and has all true premises. There are two ways the above argument can be unsound. One is that the argument is invalid (not valid), i.e. the conclusion does not logically follow somewhere along the way. In that case, the question would be, “which line of the argument does not logically follow from the statement(s) it’s based upon?” The second way the argument can fail to be sound is if one of the premises is wrong. In that case, “which premise fails and why?”

 

A quick way to attack the argument is to deny the existence of free will. Thus, a person who disbelieves in the existence of free will could reject line 1. Though rational support for the first premise was given, one could still claim (rationally or irrationally?) that that those perceptions are illusory. But if free will does exist, does it logically follow that the soul must exist also? After all, if free will exists and if the argument is valid, then the soul would have to exist. So is the argument valid? To better answer this question, let’s more closely examine lines 4 and 5 of the argument.

Further Justification for Lines 4 and 5

 

Here’s the problem in a nutshell: in a purely physical world, our actions are solely the product of forces completely beyond our control, and thus we would not have free will. To better illustrate lines 4 and 5 of the argument, let’s look at the materialist’s view. The causal chain would be something like this:



 

Natural Processes

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Inner Brain States

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Mental and Physical Actions



 

Because of cause-and-effect however, this corporeal chain of causation would extend back well before we were born. Yet conditions before our birth are clearly outside of our control, so the chain of causation would look something like this:



 

Natural Processes Outside Our Control

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Inner Brain States

 

|

 

CAUSE

 

|

 

Mental and Physical Actions



 

But if this is accurate, we would not be originating the cause of anything. We would be just like the tree that fell on Bob's car, being a conduit of natural forces outside our control. In this case, our actions would be determined by prior causes. We would not have free will. This is why free will by definition cannot be an effect in corporeality (hence line 4). To have free will we must exist outside this corporeal tapestry (hence line 5). If free will exists and its basis cannot be corporeal, the only logical alternative is the incorporeal realm. Since its basis must be incorporeal, we must logically have souls if we possess free will.

 

define 'immaterial'. At the moment all you are offering me is a fallacious appeal to complexity. To wit, I don't understand how the human brain works, and I will ignore observable human social behaviour, so my opinion that free will exists and is 'outside this corporeal tapestry' is as valid as scientific explanations for the nature of consciousness that I don't understand. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Oh you think

Vastet wrote:
"Oh you think calling me brainwashed and taught how to not think is nice?? LOL" These are not insults, they are observations. Regardless, was it not jesus who said to turn the other cheek? What kind of christian doesn't practice christianity?

 

I repeat: do you think your pseudo observations are nice?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Youre making eminent sense in one thing . . . .

 

 

Vastet wrote:
Damasius wrote:

The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

Ok, now define immaterial. I apologise if I'm seeming overly aggressive in this conversation, its a symptom of my frustration.


   Vastet is making eminent sense is asking for definitions. It normally has to be done. Damasius is showing early signs of willing to define terms. I'd think a term 'the Fall' should be included, guys. Remember the title. The OP's initial preliminary remark included this :

Opening statement wrote:
I would like to demonstrate thanks to this thread that the concept of the fall is actual and true, and that scientific findings reinforce the need to recognize this as a fact, that we are humans that have fallen
.

 {Tom-Baker wrote}  This board's own, now late, TGBaker suggested a contrasting view, Tom once stated, "Since the Fall is mythological and not a literal account there is no basis to assume there is Original Sin. Christology ,in part, is based upon Original Sin. The death of Jesus upon the cross is a sacrifice (propitiation) for that sin. Paul argues it, “As in Adam all have sinned and died so in Christ all are made alive.”etc .." He often touched on Original Sin before he so brutally died. The phrase 'the Fall' could be included. Assuming  the same view or definition for the term ? I-I don't know. 

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
As for immaterial I will

As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web, do you really nor know what immaterial means? or are you just trying to seem smart, as for the argument what premise do you not understand?? mabe I can help you.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
 ''I don't understand how

 ''I don't understand how the human brain works, and I will ignore observable human social behaviour, so my opinion that free will exists and is 'outside this corporeal tapestry' is as valid as scientific explanations for the nature of consciousness that I don't understand.''

 

AE, do you agree that if free will exists then it cannot be dependant on the physical universe, because if so , in a purely physical world it could not exist since all of our actions would be determined by prior causes ( and we would not have any free will). Therefore it cannot originate in the physical world, free will must originate somewhere else. Hence the argument I brought forth.

 

 

''in a purely physical world, our actions are solely the product of forces completely beyond our control, and thus we would not have free will.''  Yet we DO have free will, tell me, did you become atheist from a free conscious choice? dont you guys consider yourselves freethinkers?

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, yes. It will be alright . . .

Damasius wrote:

As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web, do you really nor know what immaterial means? or are you just trying to seem smart, as for the argument what premise do you not understand?? mabe I can help you.

 T0 : Damasius Still not able to keep an entire thread in your head. Intimated by giving a definition from an over-arcing opening remark. Oh, ho ho. Yes, yes.  It will be alright.

 

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:As for

Damasius wrote:

As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web, do you really nor know what immaterial means? or are you just trying to seem smart, as for the argument what premise do you not understand?? mabe I can help you.

Good now that you have defined it, show with evidence that the immaterial can exist without the material, period. Free will and all that jazz that some how you added the soul for no reason other than to make it fit your worldview, again discarding everything that science has shown us to date. Your whole free will is just pure speculation with an added fantasy about the soul. There is so much research in regards to to free will with neuroscience, genetics and biology studies pretty much disproving dualistic views of free will. But of course that would contradict your view if you were to actually do some research. However back your soul issue, you have yet to prove the immaterial can exist without the material in anyway or form. This is one of a few problems with your argument.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Damasius wrote:Vastet

Damasius wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Oh you think calling me brainwashed and taught how to not think is nice?? LOL" These are not insults, they are observations. Regardless, was it not jesus who said to turn the other cheek? What kind of christian doesn't practice christianity?

 

I repeat: do you think your pseudo observations are nice?

I don't think they were nice or unnice. They certainly weren't suggesting you've to blame or are responsible for it. If it directly insults anyone, it would be those who subjected you to it.
Is it an insult to say someone was raped when they were raped? Or assaulted when they were assaulted? Or murdered when they were murdered?

If I'd wanted to insult you, I'd have said you're a fucking idiot. If you look through my posting history you'll find I don't shy away from blunt insults, I deliver them with emphatic and unsubtle directness.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Damasius wrote:As for

Damasius wrote:

As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web

And none of them are describing anything! When I define a bannana, I refer to it as a fruit which is generally yellow when ripe. I'm telling you what it IS, so if you see one you'll know.
If, however, I define a bannana as NOT an apple, you could ascribe any number of possible definitions to it and never know a bannana when you see one.

I don't want to know what immaterial ISN'T, I want to know what it IS.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:As for

Damasius wrote:

As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web, do you really nor know what immaterial means? or are you just trying to seem smart, as for the argument what premise do you not understand?? mabe I can help you.

Good to know you're all over the tautologies. The immaterial is not material - never would have guessed.

Seriously though - what you're doing here is providing a negative definition when a positive one is needed. When someone asks you "what is X?" telling them what X isn't doesn't answer the question.

If your definition leads to more questions than answers something needs to be re-evaluated.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dam,

jcgadfly wrote:

Damasius wrote:

As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web, do you really nor know what immaterial means? or are you just trying to seem smart, as for the argument what premise do you not understand?? mabe I can help you.

Good to know you're all over the tautologies. The immaterial is not material - never would have guessed.

 Here is providing a negative definition when a positive one is needed. When someone asks you "what is X?" telling them what X isn't doesn't answer the question.

 

 And Set on what that unreliableness and this compulsion  manage for you ? From jcgadfly's remarks, I-I don't know.  The Fall,  should I even be asking you for a definition ?

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5090
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Look Dama

Damasius wrote:

As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web, do you really nor know what immaterial means? or are you just trying to seem smart, as for the argument what premise do you not understand?? mabe I can help you.

 

the issue I have with this is that I have 5 senses to consider environmental inputs and a pre frontal cortex to handle rational imaginings, planning and so forth. There is no 'immaterial' sensor in my arsenal. So when you describe something as being not formed of matter, or the result of the vibration of matter, or some chemical reaction of matter, then I am at a loss to comprehend what you are talking about.

Immaterial could be anything that's not material but what would that 'not material' be? No quarks, no gluons? No strong nuclear force pushing the atomic constituents that comprise matter apart? What is the alternative map of unreality that describes the immaterial?

Simply, when you say immaterial I think imaginary. And not actually conceived of by you as entirely imaginary. I bet your mental projection of the spirit world is functionally material, with thoughts, feelings, actions, decisions, matter, time and place. Could you name me a single quality of the supernatural that is not demonstrably a reflection of what is apparently real, or a reallocation of a human feeling, like love?

And no, none of us are trying to appear clever. We just don't like being bullied by threats of eternal torment into believing things that don't make sense to us and that cannot be proven by claimants to be more or less true.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Clearly the view here is in the eye of the beholder.
Too bad you're the only 'beholder' who thinks he hasn't failed miserably. "But if you have fed a vegan diet to an infant why are you not in prison for murder? There is a point where silly is not worth the time of response." Actually I'm referring to your claim that B12 comes from animals, where the terrorist rightfully pointed out that it comes from bacteria. Yes he's too silly to bother with, but you couldn't even beat him on simple science and logic, so how are you any better? We both agree Israel shouldn't have ever existed, so there's no point bringing the jews into this.

I am a physicist not a biologist. I forgot bacteria are not animals for one thing. If your "decider" in that exchange was the origin of B12 I admit I do not thoroughly research my posts and that you are a tough audience.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But the last time was in 1972 before you were born. How could you know?

I've talked with you, and I've read your posts in various threads. Are you saying you haven't been wrong since 1972? If so, you've only given me more evidence to prove my point.

 

If it was earlier than 1972 then you have witnessed an error in 2012. You can tell your grandchildren about it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5090
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No

Damasius wrote:

 ''I don't understand how the human brain works, and I will ignore observable human social behaviour, so my opinion that free will exists and is 'outside this corporeal tapestry' is as valid as scientific explanations for the nature of consciousness that I don't understand.''

 

AE, do you agree that if free will exists then it cannot be dependant on the physical universe, because if so , in a purely physical world it could not exist since all of our actions would be determined by prior causes ( and we would not have any free will). Therefore it cannot originate in the physical world, free will must originate somewhere else. Hence the argument I brought forth.

 

 

''in a purely physical world, our actions are solely the product of forces completely beyond our control, and thus we would not have free will.''  Yet we DO have free will, tell me, did you become atheist from a free conscious choice? dont you guys consider yourselves freethinkers?

 

 

I don't believe there is such a thing as free will. We have the ability to make particular decisions that conform to our circumstances but we cannot choose to do things we have no capacity to do, not do we act outside of our intrinsic natures. We cannot fly, undertake magic, live for ever, be somebody else, freeze time. We can make certain sorts of decisions that put others first, however. But even these are cloudy as to motivation. 

As for the existence of the idea of free somehow undermining the hegemony of material reality, this does not signify. Free will is a feeling that is the result of the ability of human minds to plan and recall. To consider the outcomes of their behaviour, to make a judgment based on those considerations. But the fact optional decisions pose a momentary dichotomy does not mean we have completely free will at every turn or any turn. We are simply able to consider our small number of imposed options in advance and weigh up value vs personal cost. For a social animal like a human, this is a good quality. 

I was born an atheist and re-identified with this position after spending decades unstitching the loathsome doctrine of christianity from my psyche after having it forced upon me by threat when I was a child. But the elevation of whatever level of rational thinking of which I am capable does not mean I have free will. In fact, I'd consider myself a hard determinist. I believe my ability to consider anything at all is governed by events in the past, by a biochemistry over which I have no control. I may have an illusion of freedom of decision but I believe that 'sense' of freedom does not reflect knowable reality. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Maybe I'm just being a dick

Maybe I'm just being a dick and giving the terrorist too much credit.
That was the only thing that really stood out to me in your conversation. Most of what the terrorist was saying was jibberish, and most of what you were saying had been said.
Still, it was a pretty critical part of the debate, and I'm sure any ref would've deducted points. It's not like the terrorist could have sunk any lower, so more attention was on you when you made that claim.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
This is what the spiritual is in human beings, it is the smallest mustard seed,gives rise to construcs that truly do toutch the heavens if only we water it and care for our spiritual nature, if not the seed  dies. And in its place a bush full of spikes and venomous fruit grows in its place, a bush bound to wither and die.  Atheists are being choked by this bush, I simply read their comments here to see this, I only look at their blogs to realize this, they are sick to the core.  I wish I could cure all of them, this is why me and other christians come here to these boards, not to prozelytize, or to mock artheists, but because we really feel sorry for them, it is my noble intention that if someone can turn back to his spiritual nature and beleive, in a kind loving God, and in hope of life over death and of a betterworld, then my posts will not have been in vain. Atheism is not a new thing, in every culture troughout the ages men and women have fought it, if you was me it is the gravest disease humans are facing in our postmodern world.

You are a very strange person. Imagine that said by John Cleese.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
And you an extremist, extremists do not discuss, so your presence on this forum is an anomaly and you are best ignored.

Perhaps but you are a gibbering looney.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
These are your mere claims, Its a fact that humans are spiritual beings, from our earliest origins we have always had belief in the spiritual, in souls, in spirits, in higher power, atheist are broken humans. ...

HSS origin is currently estimated to be someplace between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago. How could you possibly know? Why do you make claims you cannot possibly know?

That is what gibbering loonies do.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:How is it

Damasius wrote:

How is it that the existence of extra terrestials is far more probable?? where is your math? where is your proof?

Well, given the size of the universe, and the fact life arose on this planet, it is likely there is at least one other Earth-like planet out there upon which life arose by processes very similar to those that gave rise to life on Earth.

 

As for souls, you said "by definition the soul is not of the physical realm , it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist".

Are souls made of nothing? How can souls affect material reality if they aren't made of matter or energy? How can you detect them if they don't affect material reality in any way?

 

In hindsight, however, I really should have used the word "explainable", instead of "probable".

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
There are three parts to a human being - body, spirit and soul.  See  1st Thessalonians 5:23.  The soul is your mind, will and emotions.  So are you telling me that these components do not exist?

I thought I explained to you where the Trinity comes from. The Greek philosophers held a person consistend of body, mind, soul and spirit. No body then mind, soul and holy spirit. As to Thessalonians, "May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord." Where does it say only? And as it is refering to the imminent return of his lord, why would you believe anything from a clown who got that wrong?

Quote:
That our distinct personalities are a result of only the physical body?  If that is the case, why don't we all act the same like other animal species?  Where does talent come from?[ /quote]

Talent agencies of course.

Quote:
Why is it that a movie or song can have an emotional impact on one person ,but not on another?  Furthermore, why is man inheritly selfish and mean to others?   One example of this is generation after generation of adolescent bullying.  

In the atheist world, love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain.  But no atheist would tell their spouse, I love you only because of these wonderful chemicals.

The natural variations in a species was identified by Darwin as the mechanism for producing variations to be ruthlessly "selected" out in the face of better adaptations. I have heard it technically called variation in allele frequency. It is the reason why all children of the same parents are not identical. It doesn't need any greater explanation than that.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:

Here is what I would like to know: since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist? Or would it be better and more intellectually honest to conclude '' I don't know'' I have failed presenting you with satisfying evidence have said the members here, mea culpa, but does that allow the thinkers to conclude that a soul does not exist?? Its seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid.

Same with God, the evidence was not found compelling enoufgh for the atheists here, but would it not be better to just say '' I don'T know'' and that their could be a God, its possible after all, no arguments disproving of a Gos have ever been brought forth.

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P

It means you are an idiot if you believe everything that anyone can imagine exists absent physical evidence. If means soul and The Force are in the same category of imaginings without physical evidence.

It is absolutely correct to say there is no EVIDENCE that a soul exists as the term is used by Christians. That means it is correct to ridicule Christians gibbering on and on as though it did exist because they are gibbering idiots to do so. BTW: What the Greeks meant by soul has little to do with the nonsense inventino of Christians.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Of course,

Damasius wrote:

Of course, but in your case the absence of evidence FOR YOU  what do you think? does God exist? does he not exist? or do you just plain admitt that you dont know?

I'm glad we both realize we could be wrong. I don't know whether your God exists or not; however, if He is anything like the God most Christians describe, I don't think He does.

 

Damasius wrote:

I have spiritual evidence for God, leading me to conclude he exists, however I understand this evidence is not present for everyone, so in the absence of any evidence what is the best way to go?

In the absence of any evidence, the best thing to do is say "I need more evidence before I can honestly believe this".

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
Lets forget about the references to the problem of evil and to probabilities, I think this is an important admission on your part. Now tell me , in the real world, whats the difference between an ''agnostic atheist'' and an agnostic?  Do you think this is a meaningfull distinction? Now you say that im correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing. What about the other poster, he did just that, do you think he is wrong? Also, what do you mean by practical pruposes being an atheist??

An agnostic is a person like you who has no physical evidence of the existence of any god or gods. An atheist is a person like you who rejects all but the gods of Eden and Babel except rejects those gods also.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
blacklight915 wrote:
Damasius wrote:

Once again: could it be that the soul exists, could it be that God exists, hell, could it be that aliens exist?

The existence of extraterrestrial life is far more probable than the existence of the soul or God.

Is it also possible that the soul and God do not exist?

How is it that the existence of extra terrestials is far more probable?? where is your math? where is your proof?

You have rejected the tens of thousands of gods of humans and settled for just the gods of the Hebrews, the Elohim. So the evidence need not be greater than your arbitrary and capricious rejection of so many gods.

As for the aliens why do you reject all the thousands of reports of direct physical contact with space aliens? It is much better evidence than for your christian god thingy. Your god probes the soul and aliens probe your anus. Not much difference really.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
I have spiritual evidence for God, leading me to conclude he exists, however I understand this evidence is not present for everyone, so in the absence of any evidence what is the best way to go?

Can you give a working definition of spiritual evidence as distinct from physical evidence? If not, what are you talking about? Why does it not apply to all the other thousands of gods?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
But the problem is that the stance : I dont have any evidence for X therefore X does not exist is not practical, its intelelctually lazy and indolent. The right approach is '' i dont know'' and then striving to find the truth!

It means without physical evidence it is mental masturbation to consider existence without physical evidence anything more than idle speculation and perhaps entertaining fiction like The Force.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist."

This is the big problem, its ridiculous and intellectually lazy, the correct approach is: I can't honestly say that I KNOW anything about the turht or untruth of the claim. AND I MUST CONTINUE MY SEARCH FOR TRUTH. You simply have the withhold judgment.

Besides , we believe things without certainty all the time, our entire existence is based on these , yet we do so honestly and theirs nothing wrong with that.

Truth is an abstract noun. It has no more independent existence than "evil" or "good." You may discover the truth about something but never the abstraction itself.

If you are searching for the truth regarding things which exist then you have to limit yourself to things for which there is physical evidence because all you have are your senses to gain knowledge of the physical world.

This is particularly important in that the use of physical evidence only has resulted in the only human progress worth having. You can pray for healing or see an exorcist like a backwater savage or you can see a doctor. Your choice.

As we know all ancient explanations for natural events have turned out to be misguided at best and most of them total bullshit. Among those ideas are those of gods including the gods you have chosen to believe in to continue the ancient backwater savage belief system.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
''I am an atheist because I do not believe any gods exist.''

What leads you to this belief? i REPEAT: IF ITS ONLY THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. as was stated the absence of evidence for something is not enough for the belief that the thing does not exist.

Which god are you talking about? You talk about the gods of Eden yet you refer to in the singular and then you refer to it as he. How strange is that? Does you god have physical genitalia? Have youi seen them? If you plan to gibber on about your fantasies here at least adopt a consistent and meaningful terminology.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
You mean you spent all this time arguing with me all the time ignoring what the christian perspective of God and of the soul is???? go educate yourself we can always talk at a later date.

Why will you not explain why you want only the Christian god. As to aliens thousands of people have reported meeting them. In the 1950s they gave people rides around the solar system. Later they started the whole probing thing. How many people have reported physical contact with your christian god? Certainly there is more evidence for aliens than for your god.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
The soul is the immaterial basis of oneself. Im surprised you didn't know this.

What is your evidence of it and what does it explain that normal genetic variation does not explain?

You started this thread with a title referring to the Eden myth. You screwed up evolution completely and don't seem to be able to recognize you did. There is no "fall" in the Eden myth if you ever read it in its entirety. The fall slant is from the whacko Augustine who was very demented likely from syphilus.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
define 'immaterial'. At the moment all you are offering me is a fallacious appeal to complexity. To wit, I don't understand how the human brain works, and I will ignore observable human social behaviour, so my opinion that free will exists and is 'outside this corporeal tapestry' is as valid as scientific explanations for the nature of consciousness that I don't understand. 

The fundamental error (which is making it sound better than it is) is the introduction of "metaphysics." It is perhaps the only "intellectual" subject which invariably leads to BS conclusions. It is difficult to explain how such an infallibly wrong idea was invented.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
As for immaterial I will give the following definition: 2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual, you can find definitions like these everywhere on the web, do you really nor know what immaterial means? or are you just trying to seem smart, as for the argument what premise do you not understand?? mabe I can help you.

Next demonstrate it exists and explain how you KNOW its properties without sensory input. I can find references to the Empire all over the web. That does not mean Luke, the Jedi, Skywalker exists. Repeated nonsense remains nonsense.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
This post will likely be in

This post will likely be in vain, I don't believe Damasius is here to discuss, or read posts.  Or it could be that mine are particularly incomprehensible, I hope for his sake it is due to incoherence on my part, and not a severe discrepancy in epistemic paradigms Smiling

Anyways, enough of levity... let's see what you have to offer there Damasius.  

You've raised about 5 to 6 baseless points that I'm not sure you can follow through.  Firstly, you seem to confuse Epistemology with Metaphysics.  Secondly you use the most dated arguments as though they were unheard of.  

Let's start at the end, because I've just had this discussion recently, Good Ole Free Will.  First of all, let me tell you why the argument of free will is fallacious.  

The argument goes as follows. (I'm paraphrasing).  God Is Omni-X where X is benevolent, present, and potent.  God gave man free will so that he may have the choice to follow, or not worship god.  God, therefore does have the ability to stop a rapist from assaulting a child, but that would infringe on freewill, and god cannot do that... 

Well, there are a FUCK LOAD of issues with that argument, the obvious ones are that if god was omnipotent he would find a way to intervene without infringing on freewill.

There is the issue of Satan, he was an angel, that has no soul or freewill, and he CHOSE to rebel against god, therefore freewill is not a necessity to choice of worship.

Also, if you go the "Matt Slick" way and claim that not interfering with free will is part of god nature, and god cannot go against its nature... I can chew that argument out in a lengthier post at your discretion, but I wouldn't recommend that stance either.

All of this is of no importance, however, because there is no such thing as the Christian idea of "free will".  It is an idiotic notion that presupposes dualism as its basis.  The question begging and logic gymnastics are amusing.  You can note here that I do not hold a deterministic worldview either.  But that's another discussion for another time when I'm more sober (I'm not very sober now)

There is no such thing as immaterial, it is an nonsensical term show me one single thing that is not made of energy or matter and I will concede that I'm wrong.  You would have shown me the error of my ways.

Amuse us with some definitions that you haven't pasted from the internet for a change.  How about an example or two?

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc