Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Do you believe in zombies?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    What is a boy? Work on that one for a while, then graduate to souls and spirits.
    A “boy” is a male child, from birth to full growth, especially one less than 18 years of age. Boys can be shown to exist; there is no substantive evidence of ‘souls’ and spirits” existing other than colloquially.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Never said it was. But it's in the body, Jim? Where in the body?
    You are straying very close to the discredited hypothesis of “vitalism”, which posits a “vital spark” as the essence of the life force. Biologists now consider vitalism to have been refuted by empirical evidence, and hence as belonging to the realm of religion rather than that of science...like ‘souls’.
    Last edited by Tassman; 01-25-2018, 11:18 PM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Then why is not a corpse alive?
      For the same reason ALL living creatures die...without exception. Death is the the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        A “boy” is a male child, from birth to full growth,...
        Why weren't you there to help Jim with this when he was aggressively defending NAMBLA?
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • If you have a cell that just died, it is materially exactly the same as it was 1 femto-second before it died. Physically it is exactly the same. So "life" is not a material thing. But it is an immaterial thing. Just like an idea is an immaterial thing. It has existence but no material substance.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            If you have a cell that just died, it is materially exactly the same as it was 1 femto-second before it died. Physically it is exactly the same. So "life" is not a material thing. But it is an immaterial thing. Just like an idea is an immaterial thing. It has existence but no material substance.
            Um, Sparky, the chemical processes are different. Now, that's a conditional difference but remember Jim isn't a formal materialist - it's his worldview, yes, but not his philosophy per se. I don't think you can get there from here.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Um, Sparky, the chemical processes are different. Now, that's a conditional difference but remember Jim isn't a formal materialist - it's his worldview, yes, but not his philosophy per se. I don't think you can get there from here.
              The chemical reactions might stop but the very same molecules and atoms are there. The "animation" stops. Life is the animating force.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                The chemical reactions might stop but the very same molecules and atoms are there. The "animation" stops. Life is the animating force.
                I know - it's a conditional difference but only a formal materialist would have the issue - Jim won't since he accepts conditional reality. The analogy won't work for him.

                It's a blind spot - yes, Jim is definitely a materialist but no, not a formal one - so he can't get past material reality but can accept conditional reality (which a formal materialist wouldn't). He's not just digging in - he really cannot see how the immaterial differs from the material. At least, not yet.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  I know - it's a conditional difference but only a formal materialist would have the issue - Jim won't since he accepts conditional reality. The analogy won't work for him.

                  It's a blind spot - yes, Jim is definitely a materialist but no, not a formal one - so he can't get past material reality but can accept conditional reality (which a formal materialist wouldn't). He's not just digging in - he really cannot see how the immaterial differs from the material. At least, not yet.
                  I have no idea what you just said.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I have no idea what you just said.
                    Conditions aren't material - formal materialists don't consider them real in and of themselves.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      It does make sense, Jim. This isn't where the analogy fails. Three dimensional beings occupy two additional dimensions - space and time. Space is not violated by the occupation - X amount of material occupying Y amount of space does NOT eliminate the space (removes it from use by other three dimensional objects yes, eliminate, no). Space is still within the material, yet it occupies no location.
                      I don't think so Tea. Space does not occupy the material, space is material. Space warps do to the material bodies moving within it, bodies don't eliminate space, but the stretch it. At any rate, space is material, ergo it does occupy location, its just that it is located everywhere. I think you are making the assumption in this analogy that space, like the idea of spirit, is immaterial. Its not.
                      If you prefer to think of it as occupying a location, then stick it between atoms - plenty of room, no perceptible difference since the soul is immaterial and doesn't interact as an atom would. Think Shadowcat - it doesn't obey the 'two material objects cannot occupy the same space' rule by cheating and slipping between the atomic space.
                      Its not about a preference, its about what is, or what makes sense. Its a contradiction to say that a body has a soul/spirit but that said spirit isn't localized within the body it occupies.
                      That's NOT a correct view of the immaterial but your other choices are an a priori assumption of materialism that will not work or a fallacious assumption of the conclusion.
                      Well, I do appreciate the attemp Tea, but what I'm really looking for is a correct view.
                      FYI: 'Immaterialist' isn't really a thing - I can't think of any other school of thought that can't deal with the immaterial at all - so 'immaterialist' would basically be 'anyone who isn't a materialist'.
                      I can deal with anything Tea, so long as it makes sense.
                      Last edited by JimL; 01-26-2018, 07:43 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        I know - it's a conditional difference but only a formal materialist would have the issue - Jim won't since he accepts conditional reality. The analogy won't work for him.

                        It's a blind spot - yes, Jim is definitely a materialist but no, not a formal one - so he can't get past material reality but can accept conditional reality (which a formal materialist wouldn't). He's not just digging in - he really cannot see how the immaterial differs from the material. At least, not yet.
                        What substantive evidence do you have that there is a logically coherent alternative to materialism. There isn't to my knowledge.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          I don't think so Tea. Space does not occupy the material, space is material. Space warps do to the material bodies moving within it, bodies don't eliminate space, but the stretch it. At any rate, space is material, ergo it does occupy location, its just that it is located everywhere. I think you are making the assumption in this analogy that space, like the idea of spirit, is immaterial. Its not.
                          Think about it - do your lungs occupy space? How, they are inside something (you) occupying space? Mass affects space but doesn't displace it (if it did, space would be like air and it isn't).
                          Its not about a preference, its about what is, or what makes sense. Its a contradiction to say that a body has a soul/spirit but that said spirit isn't localized within the body it occupies.
                          It makes perfect sense - unless you (general) make invalid a priori assumptions - which is what you do when you insist that a soul, which is not material, must behave as if it were.

                          That's assuming a worldview (materialism) and probably the conclusion (that souls don't exist because they aren't material). It's actually illogical when discussing souls/spirits - they cannot be discussed from materialism. To discuss them you (general) MUST allow that the immaterial exists - the instant you do, the idea of a physical connection or location of the soul to the body becomes esoteric if not irrelevant.

                          Well, I do appreciate the attemp Tea, but what I'm really looking for is a correct view.
                          You've already been given that, Jim, but you haven't understood it because you aren't allowing the immaterial. The soul and body go together - the mechanism is unknown - and probably spiritual. Your 'where does the soul go' question is nonsensical to every school of thought but materialism - the soul isn't physical and doesn't need a physical or material connection to the body - it doesn't need a location.

                          I can deal with anything Tea, so long as it makes sense.
                          The school of materialism rejects the idea that anything is truly immaterial - you personally might be able to grasp that but you're not gonna while working from a materialist framework - it's like trying to see treponemes with a light field - yes, it's a microscope but no, treponemes aren't going to be visible at any magnification. For that, you need a dark field. You're looking at the thing through the 'microscope' of materialism - which is why you can't see it. The soul being immaterial yet able to interact with the body isn't a contradiction or a logical difficulty - unless you are convinced the immaterial doesn't exist.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Think about it - do your lungs occupy space? How, they are inside something (you) occupying space? Mass affects space but doesn't displace it (if it did, space would be like air and it isn't).
                            There is a biological explanation for lungs and why they are located where they are. There is no explanation for ‘souls’, just an unsubstantiated assertion that they exist.

                            It makes perfect sense - unless you (general) make invalid a priori assumptions - which is what you do when you insist that a soul, which is not material, must behave as if it were.

                            That's assuming a worldview (materialism) and probably the conclusion (that souls don't exist because they aren't material).
                            It’s quite reasonably “assuming a worldview (materialism)” in the absence of a substantiated immaterial worldview.

                            It's actually illogical when discussing souls/spirits - they cannot be discussed from materialism. To discuss them you (general) MUST allow that the immaterial exists - the instant you do, the idea of a physical connection or location of the soul to the body becomes esoteric if not irrelevant.
                            There is no valid reason to “allow that the immaterial exists” in the first place.

                            You've already been given that, Jim, but you haven't understood it because you aren't allowing the immaterial. The soul and body go together - the mechanism is unknown - and probably spiritual. Your 'where does the soul go' question is nonsensical to every school of thought but materialism - the soul isn't physical and doesn't need a physical or material connection to the body - it doesn't need a location.
                            Really! there is no evidence of this. And there's no possible "mechanism" for what cannot be shown to exist.

                            The school of materialism rejects the idea that anything is truly immaterial - you personally might be able to grasp that but you're not gonna while working from a materialist framework - it's like trying to see treponemes with a light field - yes, it's a microscope but no, treponemes aren't going to be visible at any magnification. For that, you need a dark field. You're looking at the thing through the 'microscope' of materialism - which is why you can't see it. The soul being immaterial yet able to interact with the body isn't a contradiction or a logical difficulty - unless you are convinced the immaterial doesn't exist.
                            There is no logically coherent alternative to materialism. To argue that there is, is wishful thinking.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              There is no logically coherent alternative to materialism. To argue that there is, is wishful thinking.
                              Your entry for the most absurd and self-evidently false claim of the year has been submitted and received. Thank you for your submission.
                              My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                What substantive evidence do you have that there is a logically coherent alternative to materialism.
                                Literally every substantive work on philosophy ever written.

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                There isn't to my knowledge.
                                Presumably because your total knowledge combined is lower than the ankle-socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country.
                                My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X