Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:01 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 08:53 AM

New Britain
Yesterday at 08:17 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Comments on Hassan V debunker

 (Read 84243 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 9 ... 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #180 - January 29, 2010, 10:06 AM

    You do realise your reply fails to prove a contradiction, so please stop mentioning it.  You're the only one on Hol(e)y ground here.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #181 - January 29, 2010, 10:14 AM

    did you read Z10 comments?

    Did you read about the hard problem of conscienceness (the link)?

    Anyway, you accept that you are made of matter and matter is really energy, right?

    So we can say that matter is a form of energy, right?

    So why does energy, taking your form, have conscienceness? You shouldn't be conscious as you are simply matter/energy!

    Now z10 thinks that matter, any matter, has some form of mind or sentience... if you believe this then there should be no contradiction... but you just answered no, you don't believe it, so this raises the question, how can you be conscious when you're just matter/energy.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #182 - January 29, 2010, 10:20 AM

    I know I'm terribly behind the whole discussion. But I found something debunker said on the 1st page and just thought that if debunker really believes this, then it seems there is no hope on reaching an agreement with him:

    Quote
    An atheist who *honestly* doesn't know if the Creator truly exists (although I find that very, very hard to believe) then the answer is: No, they won't go to Hell.


    If I sit there in front of you and say I really honestly truly can't see any evidence for the existence of God are you really going to sit there saying "Now, come on! You can if you're honest!"?

    Now let me tell you what I think is going on in your mind, and I know you might find this part patronizing, so I have to apologize in advance, but I just have this inclination that I have to get off my chest. I think that in reality you realize that you have an incredibly lenient entry requirement for heaven compared to orthodox Islamic standards. This fact is eating away at your brain as you struggle to come up with an entry requirement that will satisfy your moral concerns and which will satisfy the angry demands laid out in the Qur'an. You know that, in fact, you will never succeed in this task. Therefore, you must resort to believing that atheists secretly know that God exists but has some dark plot against him. This is preposterous, and you know that yourself, but you cannot break from the angry demands laid out in the Qur'an. Naturally then, you must concede some utter nonsense, and then you believe that your belief is now consistent. But is it really consistent? Does your view of the atheists' plot really match up with your general psychological view of how human beings think?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #183 - January 29, 2010, 10:24 AM

    did you read Z10 comments?

    Did you read about the hard problem of conscienceness (the link)?

    Anyway, you accept that you are made of matter and matter is really energy, right?

    So we can say that matter is a form of energy, right?

    So why does energy, taking your form, have conscienceness? You shouldn't be conscious as you are simply matter/energy!

    Now z10 thinks that matter, any matter, has some form of mind or sentience... if you believe this then there should be no contradiction... but you just answered no, you don't believe it, so this raises the question, how can you be conscious when you're just matter/energy.


    When you add 2 gases together you can get 2 mixed gases, or under a certain set of conditions you can get a completely different compound called water H20.  It changes form and transforms into a liquid with completely different properties.

    Ever wondered how that is possible?  You're over/under analysing it, and missing the obvious.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #184 - January 29, 2010, 10:26 AM

    @ J4

    Please read all the posts I addressed to Hassan including the verses I listed.

    I don't know your heart, so I can never judge you. PLUS, I wasn't talking about paradise with Hassan, I was talking about Eternal Damnation.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #185 - January 29, 2010, 10:30 AM

    When you add 2 gases together you can get 2 mixed gases, or under a certain set of conditions you can get a completely different compound called water H20.  It changes form and transforms into a liquid with completely different properties.

    Ever wondered how that is possible?  You're over/under analysing it, and missing the obvious.



    So what? H + Cl --> HCl a potent acid, but acidity is a *physical* property, conscienceness is NOT a physical property.

    Z10 thinks since matter is sentient, then conscienceness IS a physical property, which would be true, except I don't believe that matter is sentient (neither do you).

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #186 - January 29, 2010, 10:47 AM

    Also, another point about debunker's ethical view, as I believe this is concerned with ethics:

    Quote
    Again enternal soul means eternal abode... God does NOT care == Hell. Questions such as why not make Hell, easier, etc all imply that God should care.


    I think the point you are trying to make is that you are trying to distinguish between a morally evil, morally neutral and morally good ground. You are banking on your atheist reader to concede that for God to qualify as an omnibenevolent being, all he must not do is an action that falls under morally evil. Therefore, if God does morally neutral acts, then he may still be an omnibenevolent being. In other words, the only thing stopping God from being omnibenevolent is if he ever commits a morally evil action. So it is left up to the omnibenevolent God which actions he commits as long as they are either morally neutral or morally good. I'm willing to grant you this.

    Now, your next step is to classify the absense of caring for those who also do not care as being morally neutral. Another belief that you may hold but which you didn't explicitly mention is that God must be asked for help, and only then will God's refusal to help be classed as morally evil. That is a belief many people hold. You will have come accross this principle in the claim, "God can only forgive those who are repentant".

    The reason why you may hold such a belief is easy to see. A lot of the time we may tell people "well you should have asked for help if you needed it" and a lot of the time we have a valid point. However, this only applies to trivial matters, such as when someone needed a lift home from the supermarket. If we know that somebody is about to go for a walk into the woods and we know that on this occassion there are werewolves waiting in the woods, and you know for certain that if this somebody enters the woods, they are not going to come out alive again (at least not as a human) then even if that person does not call out for your help, you would still feel morally obliged to save that person, that is to intervene with your care for that person. But let's make this example more analogous to the God and Hell situation. You suspect that the person actually knows that there are werewolves in the woods and out of stupidity or as a result of some similarly undesirable behaviour, they are still walking into the woods. If one person went out to save that person, and another person sat at home looking out of their window thinking "serves them right for being so stupid", we would much rather praise the person who went out to help and pour scorn on the person who did not care, even accuse them of having a big ego and inconsiderate character. Now imagine that the person has already gone into the woods and is now crying for help. If you do not intervene, they will die. But you know of a quick and easy way to save them and get them out, and it will be of no risk or cost to yourself. If one person saved that person, and another person thought "well they should have seen all the evidence for the werewolves before they went in. They don't deserve a second chance" then we would more likely praise the first person for saving the person who was crying out for help and accuse the second person of having a disgusting and careless disposition. And what about the beautiful things that may result out of helping this person. After you help them, they realize that you are the person that they hated passionately for some reason or another. But now that you showed them mercy and you saved them, they realize you for what you really are, and a meaningful relationship ensues.

    In my mercy, I would save even my worst enemy. I don't think I am being stupid. To the best of my knowledge I am being merciful. How can I be stupid in doing this? Have I caused some great harm? No. In fact in all likeliness I have produced a lot of good. If I can see this, why can't God?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #187 - January 29, 2010, 10:55 AM

    @ J4

    Please read all the posts I addressed to Hassan including the verses I listed.

    I don't know your heart, so I can never judge you. PLUS, I wasn't talking about paradise with Hassan, I was talking about Eternal Damnation.


    I can't find any verses. And I read all the posts; the thread is only 1 page long.

    And when I quoted you, you mentioned hell, not paradise. Even so, Eternal Damnation is just the inverse of Paradise. And you don't believe in purgatory or that you can go to any other place which isn't Heaven or Hell, so doesn't my point still stand? If you like you can just substitute "lenient entry requirements for heaven" with "tough entry requirement for hell".

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #188 - January 29, 2010, 11:06 AM


    So what? H + Cl --> HCl a potent acid, but acidity is a *physical* property, conscienceness is NOT a physical property.

    Z10 thinks since matter is sentient, then conscienceness IS a physical property, which would be true, except I don't believe that matter is sentient (neither do you).

    The analogy was meant to show how things can change by putting 2 things together, its not always a straightforward 'mixing' of the constituent elements as your oversimplistic arguments were trying to show.  

    I dont want to talk on z10's behalf, but I believe matter is not sentient. Neither is the brain, the wiring isnt either, but its thoughts are.  Using your line of argument, do you believe thoughts are from spirits too (yes/no)?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #189 - January 29, 2010, 11:16 AM

    Sorry, I don't mean to hi-jack this thread because it's going well and I want to remain completely neutral. IMHO, science is doing the best it can and it's nature is that it is tentative and subject to change, providing the right testing and data are brought forward. I agree that the inner nature of reality can't be comprehended as such and for that science has remained humble.

    Agreed, but it is the closest and best understanding we can get without invoking anything supernatural etc.

    Yes, philosophy is a brilliant tool. Can it answer the big questions though or are those questions even relevant? For the record, I'm and atheist. But am interested in both sides of the coin. Now, when it comes to these big questions, religion (whether we agree with it or not) steps in to attempt to answer those "why" questions. Such as why we exist and any other eschatological questions. The questions remains though, are those legitimate questions to ask within the domain of science and philosophy, or is this the domain of religion and does their claim have any type of grounding, or is it simply a matter of faith?


    I agree with you on the whole omaar but I think you'll find we weren't discussing religion, but rather the mind-body problem.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #190 - January 29, 2010, 11:20 AM

    The analogy was meant to show how things can change by putting 2 things together, its not always a straightforward 'mixing' of the constituent elements as your oversimplistic arguments were trying to show.   

    I dont want to talk on z10's behalf, but I believe matter is not sentient. Neither is the brain, the wiring isnt either, but its thoughts are.  Using your line of argument, do you believe thoughts are from spirits too (yes/no)?


    hey islame, I think you'll find that unfortunately consciousness does not follow the same rules as other well established laws of science. To see this is to ask a simple question of experience: it is true that we know how the mind receives its images and sounds and converts the sound waves and em waves to such a representation, but why does it experience image as image and sound as sound? why is it that all the processes in the brain don't go on in the dark but rather that we have experience of these processes?

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #191 - January 29, 2010, 11:30 AM

    hey islame, I think you'll find that unfortunately consciousness does not follow the same rules as other well established laws of science. To see this is to ask a simple question of experience: it is true that we know how the mind receives its images and sounds and converts the sound waves and em waves to such a representation, but why does it experience image as image and sound as sound? why is it that all the processes in the brain don't go on in the dark but rather that we have experience of these processes?

    because the brain interprets sound differently, and it interprets images differently. This interpretation is perhaps what debunker loosely terms as consciousness - what people like debunker like to plug with spirits. 

    These interpretations are defined by our past experiences and our abilities.  We all dont see it the same way, as these arguments go a long way to prove.

    But as soon as you switch the power off, consciousness dies along with the human body but perhaps thats just coincidence.  But then arent spirits supposed to live forever? 

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #192 - January 29, 2010, 12:08 PM

    @ Islame

    Quote
    The analogy was meant to show how things can change by putting 2 things together, its not always a straightforward 'mixing' of the constituent elements as your oversimplistic arguments were trying to show.  

     

    A DNA molecule is made of billions of atoms, a human body/brain is made of billions upon billions of extremely sophisticated arragnements of atoms. STILL, conscienceness is NOT a physical property.

    Quote
    I dont want to talk on z10's behalf, but I believe matter is not sentient. Neither is the brain, the wiring isnt either, but its thoughts are.  Using your line of argument, do you believe thoughts are from spirits too (yes/no)?


    No. I have repeatedly explained to tara that as far as this world is concerned, body/brain IS *necessary* but not sufficient... a non-physical element is obviously missing simply because conscienceness is NOT physical.

    Along came Z10, explaining that we should view conscienceness as a physical property since matter is sentient. Of course, I disagree with Z10 on the sentience of matter. To me it's as arbitrary an *assumption* as assuming the soul exists. But he disagrees because he thinks that we can start with the premise that *everything* about humans/animals is part of nature, this leads us to the *fact* that all matter is sentient somehow.

    But the way I see it, he's using the problem as part of the solution. (Whether *everything* about humans, including conscienceness, is part of nature is already under question, so we can't start with such a premise to solve the problem).

    Of course, as far as you and tara (and the vast majority of people, either theists or atheists) are concerned, you don't even see a problem, which is very puzzling to me.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #193 - January 29, 2010, 12:13 PM

    I can't find any verses. And I read all the posts; the thread is only 1 page long.

    And when I quoted you, you mentioned hell, not paradise. Even so, Eternal Damnation is just the inverse of Paradise. And you don't believe in purgatory or that you can go to any other place which isn't Heaven or Hell, so doesn't my point still stand? If you like you can just substitute "lenient entry requirements for heaven" with "tough entry requirement for hell".


    The highlighted part just shows you didn't read the entire conversation between me and Hassan.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #194 - January 29, 2010, 12:33 PM

    Quote
    Of course, as far as you and tara (and the vast majority of people, either theists or atheists) are concerned, you don't even see a problem, which is very puzzling to me.

    Its as equally puzzling to me that you see a problem with this.  As many people here & scientists do also.  If you are still puzzled by this quandry, I am prepared to allow you to discover a flaw with open-minded, constructive & objective debate.  However if this is what you want, then please answer my question about thoughts in my previous post.  Otherwise it might as well end here.
    A DNA molecule is made of billions of atoms, a human body/brain is made of billions upon billions of extremely sophisticated arragnements of atoms. STILL, conscienceness is NOT a physical property.

    Quote
    No. I have repeatedly explained to tara that as far as this world is concerned, body/brain IS *necessary* but not sufficient... a non-physical element is obviously missing simply because conscienceness is NOT physical.

    Yes the things that produce consciousness have physical properties, the things they produce may not.  I cant think of a great example but think of a radio aerial producing invisible radio waves.

    Quote
    Along came Z10, explaining that we should view conscienceness as a physical property since matter is sentient. Of course, I disagree with Z10 on the sentience of matter. To me it's as arbitrary an *assumption* as assuming the soul exists. But he disagrees because he thinks that we can start with the premise that *everything* about humans/animals is part of nature, this leads us to the *fact* that all matter is sentient somehow.

    But the way I see it, he's using the problem as part of the solution. (Whether *everything* about humans, including conscienceness, is part of nature is already under question, so we can't start with such a premise to solve the problem).


    Not sure why you are bringing z10 into this, i'll let you take that up with him

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #195 - January 29, 2010, 01:37 PM

    @ Islame

    Quote
    Its as equally puzzling to me that you see a problem with this.  As many people here & scientists do also.  If you are still puzzled by this quandry, I am prepared to allow you to discover a flaw with open-minded, constructive & objective debate.  However if this is what you want, then please answer my question about thoughts in my previous post.  Otherwise it might as well end here.


    I already answered your yes/no question with a no, then I elaborated...

    Quote
    Yes the things that produce consciousness have physical properties, the things they produce may not.  I cant think of a great example but think of a radio aerial producing invisible radio waves.


    Invisible or not, radio waves are physical.

    Quote
    Not sure why you are bringing z10 into this, i'll let you take that up with him


    To give you an example of someone who clearly understands the problem and who thinks he found a solution for it.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #196 - January 29, 2010, 02:47 PM

    If thoughts do not require a soul, then why does consciousness require one?  I think they are both interlinked, in fact I could argue conciousnessness is merely a thought if I wanted to close the argument down. 

    However that would be pointless as I am still intigued as to why you find this so hard to understand.  Its important as I believe a significant part of your faith hinges around such questions, and understandably so.  Put it this way, if I believed in spirits I would be more prepared to believe in God (although Islam is still a long way off).

    Secondly I know radio waves are physical, I was just giving you a quick example of how physical objects can produce invisible things.  As you want something more exacting, a better example would be time.  A physical object, namely a watch can produce time. Similar to watch clockwork, the brain produces thoughts an abstract unquantifiable concept much like thoughts.

    Now do you get it?  I still dont get where you see the dichotomy, please try & close me in so I can try to figure out your confusion. Perhaps you should define conciousness as a starting point, I dont know  Huh?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #197 - January 29, 2010, 03:18 PM

    @ Islame

    Quote
    If thoughts do not require a soul, then why does consciousness require one?  I think they are both interlinked, in fact I could argue conciousnessness is merely a thought if I wanted to close the argument down. 

     

    Let me repeat your previous yes/no question.

    Quote
    Using your line of argument, do you believe thoughts are from spirits too (yes/no)?

     

    I answered no because thoughts/conscienceness/feelings/emotions (or as Z10 put it, experiences) are the product of both mind and body... notice that I said mind, not brain.

    Quote
    However that would be pointless as I am still intigued as to why you find this so hard to understand.  Its important as I believe a significant part of your faith hinges around such questions, and understandably so.  Put it this way, if I believed in spirits I would be more prepared to believe in God (although Islam is still a long way off).


    This is issue is only one of the reasons of why I believe God exists. There's plenty more.

    Quote
    Secondly I know radio waves are physical, I was just giving you a quick example of how physical objects can produce invisible things.  As you want something more exacting, a better example would be time.  A physical object, namely a watch can produce time. Similar to watch clockwork, the brain produces thoughts an abstract unquantifiable concept much like thoughts.

     

    A watch doesn't *produce* time.. A watch *monitors* time.

    Quote
    Now do you get it?  I still dont get where you see the dichotomy, please try & close me in so I can try to figure out your confusion. Perhaps you should define conciousness as a starting point, I dont know.


    I pointed to Z10's comments, I also gave you a link to read, but you still don't see the problem... I tried to explain myself, still you can't see it. I really don't know what else I can do... the link again:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness 

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #198 - January 29, 2010, 03:23 PM

    We're getting nowhere - oh well, I dont see the problem and you havent convinved me of it either.  Shame as it is apparently so obvious, your debating skills must be very poor (or your argument has no base). 

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #199 - January 29, 2010, 03:47 PM

    Quote
    We're getting nowhere - oh well, I dont see the problem and you havent convinved me of it either.  Shame as it is apparently so obvious, your debating skills must be very poor (or your argument has no base). 

     

    I think it's my language skills... probably Z10 could explain to you if he's interested.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #200 - January 29, 2010, 03:52 PM

    anyway, maybe this quote by T.H. Huxley might explain (it's in the link you keep ignoring commenting on)

    Quote
    how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp


    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #201 - January 29, 2010, 04:36 PM

    I already answered your groundbreaking wiki link with my posts.

    Part of your problem with consciousness is that you see it as separate & unique concept.

    Lets look at one definition of consciousness (if you have a better one, then let me have it do we can discuss) : "A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consciousness

    Firstly as you can see from this defintion it is a collection individual thoughts (attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities)  And as you said at the beginning, thoughts are not part of your spirit. QED
    Secondly to prove it is just a sum of its constitutuents elements, remove the brain,  the oxygen, food and your level of conciousness diminishes. 
     
    Quote
    how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp


    again does not affect my thoughts, in much the same way as the creationist argument against evolution "how could we have evolved from monkey" or "if its true then when dont we see crocoducks in existence".  These and the "irritating nervous tissue" points are all simplistic arguments based on limited understanding in order to ridicule complex subjects.

    There is no point in getting other people or links to make your arguments for you.  If they are SO obvious, then it should be easy to counter the logic of your opponent.  This is made even easier when you are arguing against a logical or scientific thinker, as they dont have the infallible crux of an "invisible sky god" or "we cant question the will of god" to fall back onto.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but when it comes to the universe, we humans are not that special.  Also do you believe all life has consciousness including plants, or do spirits only belongs to animals with a brain?  What about spiders?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #202 - January 29, 2010, 04:48 PM

    like I said it must be my poor language skills... btw, I never said the soul has nothing to do with thoughts... again, it seems I have a severe communication problem.

    PS. I'm not sure if you were implying that Huxley was a creationist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #203 - January 29, 2010, 04:50 PM

    focus on your argument (that is if you have one) rather than the trivialities, otherwise we'll get nowhere

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #204 - January 29, 2010, 04:57 PM

    I already told you, I'm seriously beginning to think that my language is as good as this little fella's  parrot

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #205 - January 29, 2010, 05:00 PM

    nice way of avoidance - keep it up, and you might remain in cognitive dissonance for the rest of your life  Afro

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #206 - January 29, 2010, 05:31 PM

    Quote
    No. I have repeatedly explained to tara that as far as this world is concerned, body/brain IS *necessary* but not sufficient... a non-physical element is obviously missing simply because conscienceness is NOT physical.


    You keep saying its necessary but not sufficient but you have absolitely no evidence to support that. Give me some other requirements to have councisousness other than the brain then. what else is responsbile for consiousness since brain is not sufficient according to you?

    Quote
    Of course, as far as you and tara (and the vast majority of people, either theists or atheists) are concerned, you don't even see a problem, which is very puzzling to me.


    Whats really puzzling is the idea of eternal soul!  Can you even define soul? what is the attribute of a soul? does the soul make me who I am and when I die, will the soul remember what I was?  is the soul responsible for memory and conciousnessnes?

    If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #207 - January 29, 2010, 05:53 PM

    @ Tara

    This time I'm going to caps, maybe it will make a difference?

    Quote
    You keep saying its necessary but not sufficient but you have absolitely no evidence to support that. Give me some other requirements to have councisousness other than the brain then. what else is responsbile for consiousness since brain is not sufficient according to you?


    CONSCIENCENESS IS NON-PHYSICAL AND THUS IT CANNOT BE *SOLELY* DEPENDENT ON THE PHYSICAL (BRAIN/BODY).

    Quote
    Whats really puzzling is the idea of eternal soul! 

     

    Oh please don't mix up things, ok? The *eternity* of soul is a totally different subject and has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been discussing with you before Z10 joined in.

    Quote
    Can you even define soul?

     

    No.

    Quote
    what is the attribute of a soul?

     

    I know nothing about the soul except that it's the non-physical element which completes the picture.

    Quote
    does the soul make me who I am and when I die, will the soul remember what I was?  is the soul responsible for memory and conciousnessnes?


    In this life, soul AND body are responsible for consciencness.

    What will happen after you die? Nothing, you will be forever dead. (I don't want to get into particular religious beliefs here, but as far as this world is concerned a non-physical element is needed to explain conscienceness -- religionists refer to this missing non-physical element as soul, people like Huxley likens it to magic, etc, but the point again is: the existence of body/brain, on its own, cannot explain conscienceness).


    This will be the last time I discuss this with you.

    regards.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #208 - January 29, 2010, 05:58 PM

    CONSCIENCENESS IS NON-PHYSICAL AND THUS IT CANNOT BE *SOLELY* DEPENDENT ON THE PHYSICAL (BRAIN/BODY).


    On what basis do you claim this? You do realise that repeating an unbacked claim doesn't make it any truer?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA


    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #209 - January 29, 2010, 05:58 PM

    Quote
    CONSCIENCENESS IS NON-PHYSICAL AND THUS IT CANNOT BE *SOLELY* DEPENDENT ON THE PHYSICAL (BRAIN/BODY).


    You were asked for evidence, and you respond by breaking out the caps lock and shouting your baseless assertion even louder.  A singularly unconvincing response.  wacko

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 9 ... 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »