(February 1, 2014 at 10:35 am)whateverist Wrote: Of course our being able to assemble these bodies of ours does not depend on science. But science more and more is revealing how we do it. If anything can be called miraculous -as in jaw-droppingly amazing- this is it.

And isn't it interesting how the continuity of our state of being and enduring sense of self seem to be entirely contingent upon the normative function of the precise replacement of these cells? To suggest that the mind is something that can endure continuity apart from the mind is faced with the problems caused on the mind by the impact of discontinuity of the material cells ability to seamlessly replace themselves. If the mind is something separate, then why is it that when physical cells fail to replace themselves, or replace themselves with bad cells, the result is degenerative brain diseases or other debilitative trauma? Such diseases have drastic negative impact on the mind's cognitive functions and the senses of consciousness which correspond to them. If the whole brain is damaged, what reason is there to think that the mind will be magically restored and maintain separate continuity apart from its physical vessel? Dualism is constructed of layer upon layer of impossibilities and irreconcilable problems such as these. Until a single substance explanation can be completely ruled out, I see no need in entertaining the absurdities of adding nonphysical "stuff", ectoplasm, pixie dust or any other magical substance to the equation. Let's figure out Infinity before we start entertaining the product of Infinity x Infinity...

(February 1, 2014 at 11:34 pm)rasetsu Wrote: It's Plato's fault.

Yeah - let's blame the cartoon dog.

@The Reality Salesman

Exactly. I've heard it summarized roughly like this: if we have an immaterial soul in addition to our brain, it doesn't seem to *do* anything worth speaking of!

(February 1, 2014 at 2:23 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Nah, I've given lots of long thoughtful posts and am starting to get bored. As for your question, I advocate panentheist, process theology. And I really don't have time to explain all that. You can do your own research.

You have offered many thoughtful posts, Chad. I didn't know that you were an advocate of Panentheism. You've always struck me as an advocate of Christianity. I guess from your view, Christianity is not necessarily incompatible with what you hold to be true, but I think that Christianity is not compatible with your views. While your views allow afford Christians the right to be wrong, theirs don't seem to be quite as forgiving. When thinking about how power is made manifest, any theist position that is a proponent of Creatio ex Nihilo seems to be reduced to either Pantheism, Panentheism or some other absurd movement of the goal posts. I think I tend to be a little more accepting of pantheism, but instead of God, universe suits me just fine. To use "God" in a pantheistic context seems intentionally ambiguous. To me, Panentheism is an unnecessary complication to the whole thing, and while I disagree with you, I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss it. I hope we can come back to it another time.

---

(February 2, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Alex K Wrote: @The Reality Salesman

Exactly. I've heard it summarized roughly like this: if we have an immaterial soul in addition to our brain, it doesn't seem to *do* anything worth speaking of!

And anything that is indistinguishable from nothing, might just as well be nothing as far as I'm concerned. Coincidentally, this is a great argument against God and His nothing-like properties.

(February 2, 2014 at 5:48 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Let's figure out Infinity before we start entertaining the product of Infinity x Infinity...

That's fucking impressive! My son has that toy and it's pretty damn big. I don't know how that wizard crammed that thing into the southern orifice of their choosing, and I don't want to know. When a magician reveals their secret, they remove the luster. Bravo!

Reality_salesman, do you consider pantheism as nature elevated or God demystified or are those one in the same?

That all depends on the pantheist that's peddling the position, I guess. I think I'd be more accepting of a demystifying God approach, but only because I don't care for the mystifying attributes I normally hear being prescribed to God(s). But if in the end, we're just talking about the universe, I prefer to just call it that. God seems to complicate discussions about nature. Good question. I guess those are two distinct ways of looking at it. I don't really know too many pantheists, and I'm not sure how many versions are out there. I think my opinion would probably vary, just like they do with the more common Monotheist propositions.

Poor Buzz...

I always thought woody would end up there one day.....guess I was wrong