Carrying on from a conversation Here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: And to be a materialist is to be incorrect, to put it bluntly. Allow me to guide you away from that right now.
Please do. I do hate to be caught holding an incorrect position :-)
Kevin: Firstly, if you beieve that your choices are made of your own free will, then you are not a materialist. For to be a materialist is to be a determinist.
I think I'm more of a compatibalist when it comes to free will, rather than a libertarian. I don't have a problem with complex behaviours arising, even to the point of "free will".
Libertarian free will (which it seems you're advocating) relies upon being able to have done something different given the exact same circumstances. I don't believe it can be shown that this can occur.
How does the soul give rise to free will, by the way?
If your decisions are based upon your experiences etc, then I don't see this requiring the immaterial. If your choices are not based upon your experiences etc, then your behaviour would essentially be random, no?
Kevin: Secondly, the existence of the soul is obvious, and the soul is immaterial.
Not to me it isn't :-)
Kevin: You see, the word soul comes from the Greek word anemos, which means "wind" or "breath".
No problems so far.
Kevin: Breath, of course, is what gives life to humans, much as the wind animates a tree's branches.
Food also gives life to humans, as water and nutrients give life to trees (as well as their respiration etc). You're presenting a very simplistic picture here :-)
Kevin: Now, to speak of the soul, we must give it three names: soul (self-explainatory); idea (it has an idea or plan for the life it creates); and form (that idea set into motion).
If you change "soul" to "mind" I have fewer problems with this.
I see no reason this must involve something immaterial (given the change from "soul" to "mind").
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've cut out much of the context, so please visit the original for further reading.
11 comments:
Secondly, the existence of the soul is obvious, and the soul is immaterial.
And all unicorns have horns... makes perfect sense.
So is this where you have been hiding?
You lead, I follow....
'You see, the word soul comes from the Greek word anemos, which means "wind" or "breath".'
So the Jews stole the idea of 'soul' from the Greeks?
And what is immaterial about somebody's breath?
Let me pause the conversation and ask a question if you don't mind. What do you believe happens to you when you die?
Kevin,
How does "I don't know and neither do you" sound? :-)
How does "I don't know and neither do you" sound? :-)
Like some fundamentalist agnostic :-)
You crazy, crazy man
Lee
Lee, you're so right. I'm so set on actual stuff! I should relaxa little.
Kevin, lets rewind a little.
I don't know what happens when we die, but I can make an inference that, because our minds seem to be a product of our brains, and out brains die with the rest of our body, that nothing happens after we die (oblivion)?
I think it is the best supported hypothesis, but I welcome criticism and further evidence.
What do you think happens, and why?
Lee: So is this where you have been hiding?
I do wander a round a little, though I try not to get lost :-)
I'm much better at responding than making my own posts, so I'm possibly harder to track :-)
Lee: You lead, I follow..,
I find it tends to be the other way around, but lets not quibble :-)
Carr: So the Jews stole the idea of 'soul' from the Greeks?
Yeah, I think that is the current position on things - early Judaism seems to have had no confept of soul, and the borrowed it from another civilisation. Perhaps not the greeks - maybe the persians, but definitely someone else :-)
Carr: And what is immaterial about somebody's breath?
Isn't it obvious - you can't "see" it, so, therefore...
Yeah, this guy seems to want to define notions of soul and give it properties that need not follow. His whole position seems to be totally unargued for.
Kevin, I believe you just stop existing - just like you have no experience of anything before you came into consciousness in the physical world, that's what the evidence leads me to think happens when you die.
Mind and brain are not seperate. All the evidence from injury, disease, pharmacology etc all show it is entierly physical. You need to demonstrate a soul exists. If you claim it is immaterial, then you are going to have a hard time demonstrating that it exists. Then your position becomes one of unsupported faith.
Billy, and, anyone who want's to follow along, feel free to bother Kevin here:
http://thesquarecircle-thesquarecircle.blogspot.com/2009/03/existence-of-christian-god.html
:-)
Hi Havok
Billy, and, anyone who want's to follow along, feel free to bother Kevin here:
That thread was a car wreck... I just had to keep looking.
Kevin is changing the subject too many times without conceding the previous point/argument.
His argument fails at the first cause, why move on from that? If your premise is false, all that follows is also.
Well done for keep it going... I've not got the time as I once had.
I would still like to know from the theist who supports the first cause argument - why haven't they got a Noble prize in physics explaining Black Holes? They claim to know all about them after all, they 'know' the physics that happen past the event horizon. This is why they 'know' all about the Big Bang...
I've not got a clue, but they do...
Funny how they cannot demostrate this knowledge when asked :-)
Lee
Post a Comment