Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[Mountain Man]

I don't believe I said it would prove anything, except that you actually believe the mind is of a different source than the brain.


Actually - I was specific about NOT committing suicide. It is a simple experiment. A sort of "put your money where your mouth is experiment." As I noted before - this entire discussion is of the "walls don't actually exist" but then "exit via the door" ilk.

I don't actually expect you to act on your beliefs, MM. It was a kind of thought experiment.

I'm not afraid of death because I genuinely believe that my consciousness is eternal and that I will be in paradise with my Creator, if that's what your "thought experiment from a disingenuous jackass" is getting at. I suppose next you'll be telling me that I should be in favor of abortion if I sincerely believe that the innocent souls of murdered babies are immediately ushered into heaven.

Instead of an idiotic "thought experiment" that is clearly designed to mock instead of enlighten, how about a real-world experiment that can support your hypothesis that the brain is the source of the mind.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not afraid of death because I genuinely believe that my consciousness is eternal and that I will be in paradise with my Creator, if that's what your "thought experiment from a disingenuous jackass" is getting at. I suppose next you'll be telling me that I should be in favor of abortion if I sincerely believe that the innocent souls of murdered babies are immediately ushered into heaven.

Instead of an idiotic "thought experiment" that is clearly designed to mock instead of enlighten, how about a real-world experiment that can support your hypothesis that the brain is the source of the mind.

Oh I think the thought experiment was adequate, MM, your objections not withstanding. As for historical experimentation about the mind/brain link, you need only turn to the sciences. The resources are vast.

I'll leave you to it.

[Mountain Man]

Oh I think the thought experiment was adequate...

Yes, adequate for the purposes of mockery and denigration.

As for historical experimentation about the mind/brain link, you need only turn to the sciences. The resources are vast.

I'll leave you to it.

I see, so you're unwilling to shoulder the burden of proof for your own claims. If the resources are indeed vast then you should have no problem providing one or two to support your assertion.

[JimL]

Yes, adequate for the purposes of mockery and denigration.


I see, so you're unwilling to shoulder the burden of proof for your own claims. If the resources are indeed vast then you should have no problem providing one or two to support your assertion.

Actually the burden of proof is on you since there is no actual evidence for the existence of your asserted mind/soul.

[carpedm9587]

I see, so you're unwilling to shoulder the burden of proof for your own claims. If the resources are indeed vast then you should have no problem providing one or two to support your assertion.

Actually - I'm mostly unwilling to waste the time. The conclusion, in my experience, is foregone. The information is there is you are actually interested. If not...

They're your beliefs, after all. I've already done the exploration and reached what I believe to be a reasonable conclusion. I have no need or desire to convince you.



Oh...and I really wasn't looking to ridicule or troll with that "thought experiment." I was actually making a point. However, given that you seem to find it reasonably offensive, I'll let it drop. It was not my intention to troll - and continuing the theme would move in that direction.

[JonathanL]

Actually the burden of proof is on you since there is no actual evidence for the existence of your asserted mind/soul.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, regardless of whether you're asserting that something exists, or doesn't exist. Carpe is making the claim that there is good reasons to believe the brain is the source of the mind, so the burden of proof is on him to provide those reasons. Unless of course he thinks just slinging claims around without supporting them is ok. For someone like you and Tassman that might be ok, but I hope Carpe doesn't think the same way.

[carpedm9587]

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, regardless of whether you're asserting that something exists, or doesn't exist. Carpe is making the claim that there is good reasons to believe the brain is the source of the mind, so the burden of proof is on him to provide those reasons. Unless of course he thinks just slinging claims around without supporting them is ok. For someone like you and Tassman that might be ok, but I hope Carpe doesn't think the same way.

No - the "burden of proof" is on the one seeking to convince. If you believe X and I believe Y and I want you to agree with me, then the burden of proof is on me - I have to overcome your existing evidence with countering evidence that will convince, or your position will not change.

If I'm merely expressing an opinion on a topic, or stating what I believe, if I have no desire/intention of "convincing," then I have no burden of proof.

So if you want me to agree with you - the burden of proof is on you.
If I want you to agree with me - the burden of proof is on me.

If no one is seeking to convince - there is no burden of proof. That seems to be an irritant to some here. There seems to be a predisposition to "fight to a compelling conclusion." Once I have put my information on the table, and looked at what the other person is offering - I come to my own conclusion and articulate it. What the other person concludes is largely not my concern.

[JimL]

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, regardless of whether you're asserting that something exists, or doesn't exist. Carpe is making the claim that there is good reasons to believe the brain is the source of the mind, so the burden of proof is on him to provide those reasons. Unless of course he thinks just slinging claims around without supporting them is ok. For someone like you and Tassman that might be ok, but I hope Carpe doesn't think the same way.

The fact that there is no actual evidence for a mind/soul seperate from the brain is good reason to believe that the brain is the source of the, what you call the mind/soul. Nobody has to prove otherwise, because there is no evidence to give reason to believe otherwise. I believfe what carpe was saying is that there is evidence that they are one and the same thing, the physical entity itself and its function.

[JonathanL]

Once I have put my information on the table

In this particular case you haven't even done that. You've simply asserted that the information is there.

But if the information you're talking about is the usual that people tend to provide when they claim that the brain is the source of the mind, then color me unimpressed. Like everyone else that has claimed that there is good evidence that the brain is the source of the mind it's probably going to be a yet another case of trying to make the evidence say far more than what is warranted.

[carpedm9587]

In this particular case you haven't even done that. You've simply asserted that the information is there.

But if the information you're talking about is the usual that people tend to provide when they claim that the brain is the source of the mind, then color me unimpressed. Like everyone else that has claimed that there is good evidence that the brain is the source of the mind it's probably going to be a yet another case of trying to make the evidence say far more than what is warranted.

Your opinion is noted. I'd invite you to the same experiment I suggested for MM, but that got such a reaction, I think I'll not.

[JonathanL]

Your opinion is noted. I'd invite you to the same experiment I suggested for MM, but that got such a reaction, I think I'll not.

Suppose for a moment that I actually went through with your moronic experiment. Regardless of what the outcome would be it wouldn't come even close to demonstrating one way or the other whether or not the brain is the source of the mind. It would tell us that there is a link, a relationship, between the mind and the brain, but not that the existence of one depends on the existence of the other.

You don't have any evidence that the mind is dependent upon the brain for it's existence. What you have is a belief that the mind is dependent on the brain for it's existence, evidence that there is some kind of relationship between the brain and the mind, and a willingness to stretch that evidence to make it say far more than what is justified.

[Mountain Man]

Actually - I'm mostly unwilling to waste the time. The conclusion, in my experience, is foregone. The information is there is you are actually interested. If not...

They're your beliefs, after all. I've already done the exploration and reached what I believe to be a reasonable conclusion. I have no need or desire to convince you.



Oh...and I really wasn't looking to ridicule or troll with that "thought experiment." I was actually making a point. However, given that you seem to find it reasonably offensive, I'll let it drop. It was not my intention to troll - and continuing the theme would move in that direction.

Right. And now we've come to the part of program where carpe finds himself with his back to the wall and desperately looks for an escape hatch.

Your refusal to even attempt to support your claims beyond begging the question is probably as close to a concession as you're willing to give, so I'll take it.

[Mountain Man]

Actually the burden of proof is on you since there is no actual evidence for the existence of your asserted mind/soul.

He claimed there was sufficient scientific evidence to support his belief that the brain is the source of the mind. You'll notice that when I called him on it, he did everything but present the evidence in question.

[Mountain Man]

Your opinion is noted. I'd invite you to the same experiment I suggested for MM, but that got such a reaction, I think I'll not.

Out of curiosity, would you ask a Hindu to commit suicide to prove his belief in reincarnation, or do you reserve that sort of idiocy only for debates with Christians?

[Tassman]

Full divinity is an attribute of the God-man Jesus.

The very ascription of one entity being a god/man is a logical contradiction in and of itself.

But the hypostatic union doesn't say that one single entity is simultaneously two `fully complete´ different entities. It's saying that one entity simultaneously has two different natures.

Yes, it does: “Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, "sediment, foundation, substance, subsistence") is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence”. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. 1947 – cited Wiki

The most basic explanation for the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ being both God and man is both perfectly divine and perfectly human at one and the same time.