Morals -- relative or absolute.

Morals -- relative or absolute.

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

d

Joined
12 Jun 05
Moves
14671
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by dottewell
If anything, it's an argument against absurdly reductive physicalism.

(Incidentally, Lewis is not taken particularly seriously as a philosopher.)
...or as a children's novelist, come to think of it...

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by dottewell
If anything, it's an argument against absurdly reductive physicalism.

(Incidentally, Lewis is not taken particularly seriously as a philosopher.)
(Incidentally, Lewis is not taken particularly seriously as a philosopher.)

Given his position on the supernatural and rejection of a purely materialist reality, I'm not surprised.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by dottewell
...or as a children's novelist, come to think of it...
Ah yes. That good ol' ad hominem was sure to surface some time. 😠

I enjoyed his novels as a child - so there. 😳

d

Joined
12 Jun 05
Moves
14671
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by Halitose
Ah yes. [b]That good ol' ad hominem was sure to surface some time. 😠

I enjoyed his novels as a child - so there. 😳[/b]
What do you mean by "ad hominem"?

d

Joined
12 Jun 05
Moves
14671
11 Jul 06
1 edit

Originally posted by Halitose
Given his position on the supernatural and rejection of a purely materialist reality, I'm not surprised.
I don't think that's the problem.

Really, if you are going to take an interest in a subject you should read more widely. Give the other side a run for its money, as it were.

(That's not an "ad hominem" either, just a piece of advice.)

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by dottewell
What do you mean by "ad hominem"?
1) Lewis wrote bad children's books.
2) Lewis formulated the AFR
3) Follows from 1) and 2) that his ideas on the AFR sucked.

QED
😏

d

Joined
12 Jun 05
Moves
14671
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by Halitose
1) Lewis wrote bad children's books.
2) Lewis formulated the AFR
3) Follows from 1) and 2) that his ideas on the AFR sucked.

QED
😏
An argument I did not make.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by dottewell
An argument I did not make.
Which was the only on-topic insinuation I could make of your quip. My bad.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
11 Jul 06

Originally posted by dottewell
I don't think that's the problem.

Really, if you are going to take an interest in a subject you should read more widely. Give the other side a run for its money, as it were.

(That's not an "ad hominem" either, just a piece of advice.)
Really, if you are going to take an interest in a subject you should read more widely.

Recommended reading?

d

Joined
12 Jun 05
Moves
14671
11 Jul 06
1 edit

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Really, if you are going to take an interest in a subject you should read more widely.

Recommended reading?[/b]
Any primer on the philosophy of mind that gives a good account of different physicalist theories.

Donald Davidson's paper Mental Events, if you want to dip into one interesting theory of the relationship between the physical and the mental.

Specifically on the "argument from reason"? I'm not sure; it's as old as Socrates and held in approximately the same regard. Maybe ask bbarr if there's anything up to date.

Sorry about the ad hominem thing; it's just that it's a phrase that appears here far too often. I studied philosophy for some time, and don't think I ever used it.

Krackpot Kibitzer

Right behind you...

Joined
27 Apr 02
Moves
16879
11 Jul 06

John R. Searle's recent book "Mind: An introduction" is a vigorously written and pleasantly opinionated survey of the main philosophical theories about the mind-body link.

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
11 Jul 06
2 edits

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Really? How so? Matter simply created itself, then? Is not all of creation of supernatural origin?

No, there's no such thing as the supernatural. Unless of course you can prove me wrong...

The soul exists, we simply have not been able to gauge it with scientific tools, save the movements of it.

Not only that, you have been unable to give a single reason why I should believe that it exists at all.

Exactly. Ergo, sciencedunnit.

Now who's misquoting?

With such a logically impossible threshold to cover, it is highly unlikely you will concede any supernatural entity until you are face-to-face with Him.

At last! Something of mine you seem to have understood.

I'm out of this nonsense.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
12 Jul 06
1 edit

Originally posted by dottewell
Why stop there? Why not just throw in the entire physical world?
Just because brains think, it does not follow that nothing exists outside of thought.
It's the thinking part that we're discussing. According to No1, the brain cannot think; it streams along reacting to chemical and electrical impulses, themselves caused by, well, themselves. Independent thought does not exist! Tee-hee, silly, ain't it?

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
12 Jul 06

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Really? How so? Matter simply created itself, then? Is not all of creation of supernatural origin?


No, there's no such thing as the supernatural. Unless of course you can prove me wrong...

The soul exists, we simply have not been able to gauge it with scientific tools, save the movements of it. ...[text shortened]... [/b]

At last! Something of mine you seem to have understood.

I'm out of this nonsense.[/b]
No, there's no such thing as the supernatural.
Then, just as with the 'thought thread,' you are left with matter producing itself. That takes a lot more faith than I would be capable of offering.

Not only that, you have been unable to give a single reason why I should believe that it exists at all.
And here we are back at the wind analogy. Funny how you antagonists constantly run in circles, ain't it? Something is producing the effects, something makes a human a human... science just doesn't know what that something is yet, ergo, it does not exist. BRILLIANT!

At last! Something of mine you seem to have understood.
I had you from hello.

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
12 Jul 06

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Just because brains think, it does not follow that nothing exists outside of thought.
It's the thinking part that we're discussing. According to No1, the brain cannot think; it streams along reacting to chemical and electrical impulses, themselves caused by, well, themselves. Independent thought does not exist! Tee-hee, silly, ain't it?[/b]
Yep, and some magic supernatural force makes an automobile move and its internal combustion engine is a mere conduit for its God given "soul". See how that works?