Spirit and then there is brain damage

[Godscreated]

Ace I'm also sorry for your loss. I know you do not believe in God and because He is spirit you do not believe in the soul (spirit). I would like to tell you what I believe and it starts at creation. When God created plant life He created them with only physical (chemical) reactions for life and to the enviroment around them. Then God created the animals with the same but more complicated physical reactions that requires a brain to help control them. With the more complicated life comes self awareness, instincts, survival skills and ect. Then with the creation of man God gave man the same attributes as the animals but added the soul (spirit) for the purpose of moral awareness and the value of life, not just survival, understanding there is more to life than surviving each day. This is what I believe when it was said that man was created in the image of God. As God is a triune being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit we are triune beings the physical, mental and spirit.
I have a question for you why is it when we lose someone be it through death, a lost love and ect. it's called broken hearted why is that feeling of despair,remorse and ect. in our chest? If it were just a function of the brain why wouldn't those things be manifested in our heads?

[Autumnlicious]

Godschild:

Why does God stop at creating only a few forms of life? How do you know God is a he?

I question the sanity of your statement on plants and animals. Since when are plants less complicated than animals? I can think of quite a few plants, some with even primitive nervous systems. Just because you can't see it or have proof it exists right now doesn't make the probability less likely that it could exist. Of course, take note of the word probability.

Your crediting of God with animals and plants, then humans is based upon the flawed assumption that there is at least one god and this god fits your description of 'God', something that is fundamentally unknowable. Hence any god should not even enter into the consideration of the system as a whole.

Put simply, the virtual cells of memory represented to my computer have no way to know anything about our physical world any more than you may know about a being outside of the natural universe (denoted as God/god(s)/etc)

[Edwardo Piet]

Which is different from fate?

Determinism is belief in fate. But fatalism is the belief that you have to resign to it as if you can do "nothing about it". Fatalism is the belief that the future is inevitable. Determinism doesn't make the future inevitable - that's a common mistake. The future is inevitable, unavoidable, with or without determinism. The future is...whatever's going to happen! So it's always unavoidable by definition! Deterministic or indeterministic, THE future is unavoidable. But a future is not in practical terms - in the sense we don't know what THE future will be... so when we speak of possibilities we are talking about possible futures in this sense, in the sense that we can't know THE future so we talk of 'possibilities' even if it is determined.

If a brick is thrown at you and you are a determinist, you will understand that the brick either is or is not determined to his you - you are determined to either successfully devoid it or not. You will understand that in practice, we still talk about 'possibilities' and things such as bricks are still avoidable with or without determinism, they are not inevitable - this is supported merely by the fact that, for example, people are capable of avoiding things! - duh - such as bricks.

If you are a fatalist however, you will believe that there's no point in even bothering to dodge the brick because the future is determined and you can't do anything about it therefore (which is a fallacious non-sequitur). Fatalism is determinism with YOU - or any other physical agent - taken out of it

Fate doesn't presume to know what is in store for us,

Exactly my point. So it still makes sense to speak of 'possibilities' as a determinist since you don't know what the future is... that's why you speak of the unknown, of possibilities. If you were a fatalist you'd believe that there's no point in even speaking of 'possibilites' since the future is "inevitable" blah blah blah.

It is only futile to consider possibilities if you already know what's going to happen

And you don't as an agnostic right?

But yes, exactly. We still speak of possibilities - the term 'possibility' still has a useful meaning and definition with determinism - to the fatalist on the other hand - it's pointless

To give a quote to demonstrate the both illogical and despairing attitude of the fatalist, here's a quote I love on the matter:

"I'm not a fatalist, but even if I were, what could I do about it?" - Emo Philips

Possibility under the sense that it is difficult to know the future (though arguably less so the more sophisticated science we achieve) applies equally to both fate and determinism (really... they are synonyms so it is weird sounding to say it as if it is different).

Fatalism and determism are different indeed! Just check Wikipedia out. I don't believe I ever mentioned 'fate' itself, that was only you. I am talking about the differences between determinism and fatalism and there is, indeed, a clear difference. Fatalism is the view that because the future is determined we are therefore hopeless in the sense that we somehow lose capabilities and competences simply because the future is determined... fatalism is the view that determinism makes you less free and have less control. When in fact, if anything, it's the other way around - because randomness doesn't give you freedom.... it just makes predictions a lot less harder and therefore harder to control, not easier.

You have all the avoidability you have with determinism that you have with indeterminism in the practical, real, sense (the only sense that we practice our actual lives in, that we actually 'live in' anyway). THE future itself is unavoidable, inevitable with or without determinism - deterministic or indeterministic, by definition... because THE future is definited as "What will happen". With both determinism and indeterminism we can talk of possibilities since we don't know the future... at least with determinism things are a little more predictable and under our control lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

It is the 3rd point, point 3, at the very least, that certainly makes it different from determinism:

That acceptance is appropriate, rather than resistance against inevitability. This belief is very similar to defeatism.

This is of course nonsensical since it is behaving as if you know what will and won't be avoided... and since you don't, it makes no sense to believe that just because the future is fated that therefore there's no point in even avoiding things when you do indeed have the capability of avoiding things with or without fate applying.

Because unknown future events aren't actually inevitable, aren't actually unavoidable, in practice - in the sense that yes we are capable of avoiding things. And we don't know what the future will be.

Fatalism = "There's no point dodging the brick since the future and all things are inevitable ... Ow! That hurt.".

Determinism= "THE future itself is inevitable, unavoidable, with or without determinism by definition so that's irrelevant. There IS a point in trying to dodge the brick since it may be determined for me to do so and I don't want to get hit by it!" *dodges or fails to dodge brick*

EvF