How Can Molecules Think?

[AV1611VET]

That makes cats the most superior of all us mammals. I'm OK with that.

Cats rule!

(No offense, Corgi.)

 

[doubtingmerle]

We're more than animals.

We have not just a body and spirit, but a body, soul, and spirit.

That depends who you ask. Yaaton says we have a body, soul, and mind. Others just say body and soul. Why can't you guys agree how many things you have, and what they are?

 

[AV1611VET]

That depends who you ask. Yaaton says we have a body, soul, and mind. Others just say body and soul. Why can't you guys agree how many things you have, and what they are?

So let me get this straight.

We aren't tripartite, therefore we're animals?

 

[SelfSim]

That makes cats the most superior of all us mammals. I'm OK with that.

Sorta: 'Cleanliness is next to godliness', y'know(?)

('Cleanness of body was ever esteemed to proceed from a due reverence to God, to society, and to ourselves'. - Sir Francis Bacon. In Advancement of Learning, (1605), here).

So God, (or the holy sprit), must be the cat inside all of us then, eh!
Interesting!
(Which is ok .. seeing as we share in parts of cat DNA).

 

[Yaaten]

Regarding free will, see Free Will | Christian Forums.

Regarding the rest of your list, yes, humans are qualitatively different from other species in brain power. But other animals have many of these attributes at a smaller scale.

Just because a peacock amplifies its courting display far beyond other animals, or a human uses its brainpower far beyond other animals, or a skunk uses its ability to stink far above other animals, does not mean they are not animals.

I haven't clicked on your link yet, but I'm guessing that within it you say that we don't have free will, which is just patently absurd and obviously untrue.

 

[Yaaten]

It would be courteous for that latter group
decamp for an apologrtics group and ceaseplaguing intellectually honest people with
their made- up "wisdom".

"Intellectually honest", you say, which of course could only be a reference to those of us who don't accept the fairytale that, "In the beginning there was nothing - which exploded". Atheists critcise Christians for believing in miracles, and yet they seem to believe in the biggest miracle of all time, the emergence of an entire physical reality from literally nothing, for no reason, without cause, and which has no purpose whatsoever.

 

[Bradskii]

"Intellectually honest", you say, which of course could only be a reference to those of us who don't accept the fairytale that, "In the beginning there was nothing - which exploded". Atheists critcise Christians for believing in miracles, and yet they seem to believe in the biggest miracle of all time, the emergence of an entire physical reality from literally nothing, for no reason, without cause, and which has no purpose whatsoever.

You need to come to terms with this statement: 'We don't know'.

 

[Yaaten]

You need to come to terms with this statement: 'We don't know'.

Yes, there is a lot that we don't know, and I've always been happy to acknowledge that fact. However, it is also true that 'The Big Bang Theory' has become a part of accepted cosmology, although I've been hearing rumours that some of the latest discoveries from the Webb telescope are causing quite a few people serious concern (apparently it's uncovered evidence that the 'Big Bang' can't possibly be what happened in the remote past).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, there is a lot that we don't know, and I've always been happy to acknowledge that fact. However, it is also true that 'The Big Bang Theory' has become a part of accepted cosmology, although I've been hearing rumours that some of the latest discoveries from the Webb telescope are causing quite a few people serious concern (apparently it's uncovered evidence that the 'Big Bang' can't possibly be what happened in the remote past).

Two "Big Bang" posts in a row. Why not take your claims to a different thread? (you could start one.) This thread is about material thinking organs and related things. The BB is not related.

 

[Astrid]

"Intellectually honest", you say, which of course could only be a reference to those of us who don't accept the fairytale that, "In the beginning there was nothing - which exploded". Atheists critcise Christians for believing in miracles, and yet they seem to believe in the biggest miracle of all time, the emergence of an entire physical reality from literally nothing, for no reason, without cause, and which has no purpose whatsoever.

Attempt, why don't you, to address what I said instead
of what you make up?

Demonstrate, oh he who knows more science than
anyone else here, how an informed yec has anything
other than falsehoods and misrepresentations* to offer
contrary to ToE.
Start a thread.

*See your post for defining examples of falsehoods
and misrepresentations.

 

[Astrid]

You need to come to terms with this statement: 'We don't know'.

And understand that making things up isn't
the way to what's true and real.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So let me get this straight.

We aren't tripartite, therefore we're animals?

That's backwards. We are animals. Therefore we aren't tripartite.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's backwards. We are animals. Therefore we aren't tripartite.

The following verses support tripartitism:

Genesis 2:7 = dust, breath, soul
Mark 12:30 heart, soul, mind, strength
1 Thessalonians 5:23 = spirit, soul, body
Hebrews 4:12 = soul, spirit, joints and marrow, heart
1 John 5:8 = Spirit, water, blood

 

[doubtingmerle]

The following verses support tripartitism:

Genesis 2:7 = dust, breath, soul
Mark 12:30 heart, soul, mind, strength
1 Thessalonians 5:23 = spirit, soul, body
Hebrews 4:12 = soul, spirit, joints and marrow, heart
1 John 5:8 = Spirit, water, blood

Actually, three of those verses support tripartitism, and two support quadpartitism. How many parts do you have? And none of them give the same list! What is the correct list?

And none of these have Yaaten's list: body, soul, and mind. Is that list wrong?

Here is my dilemma: In the second paragraph of Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free I tried to represent the Christian position. Obviously I didn't do a good job of it. I find two major objections were raised to it here.

First, some Christians don't like that I just mention that they think it is the soul that survives death. They think there are multiple other parts that survive death, such as spirit, heart, and mind. So how many parts are there? If you don't describe the part that survives death as the "soul", what do you call it? The combination-of-soul-and-spirit-and-heart-and-mind-and-strength? If so, is there a name for it? Or should I just refer to it as the combination-of-soul-and-spirit-and-heart-and-mind-and-strength?

The other objection really surprised me. There was a concern that I thought Christians thought that the soul ran the show, while the brain directed the details of the muscle movements as commanded by the soul. I found this idea strongly condemned by a Christian here, who saw the brain as nothing more than a mass between the ears that feels our feeling. Seriously? Our intestines sometimes feel our feeling also when we get very upset. One would think the brain does a little more than that. So what do you think the brain does?

At any rate, I want to honestly express what Christians are saying about whatever it is that they think survives death, and how that something shares duties with the brain here on earth. Got any suggestions?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You need to come to terms with this statement: 'We don't know'.

Except you do not stop there.

Atheists take the next step, we do not know because there is no empirical evidence. Anything we do not now know cannot possibly be true.

 

[Bradskii]

Except you do not stop there.

Atheists take the next step, we do not know because there is no empirical evidence. Anything we do not now know cannot possibly be true.

Something may be true or false. If there is no evidence for it being true then I won't accept it as being true. If there is no evidence that it is false, I won't accept it as being false. Quite often I will reserve judgement.

And in some cases, I will consider the evidence to be so strong that I will accept it as being true until such time as evidence to the contrary is presented. And if the evidence is extremely weak then I will accept it as being false until such time as evidence to tbe contrary is presented.

Belief in a proposition is like a flywheel. The more evidence you accept for it being true (or false), the faster the flywheel spins. And it takes a lot of evidence to the contrary to slow that wheel and to perhaps reverse its spin.

That seems to me to be the best course of action to take. You base your belief on the evidence presented and the strength of your belief is dependent on the quality and quantity of the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something may be true or false. If there is no evidence for it being true then I won't accept it as being true.

In the year 2000, wasn't it true (according to what you just said here) that Pluto was our ninth planet?

If not, and you were sitting in on an astronomy test, and the question was asked as to what our ninth planet was, what would you have answered, other than "Pluto"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Except you do not stop there.

Atheists take the next step, we do not know because there is no empirical evidence. Anything we do not now know cannot possibly be true.

This is patently false. There are plenty of things that we don't know if they exist, or happened, but might. In those cases it is perfectly fine to state that you do not know and a better choice than claiming to know with false confidence.

Since "atheism" is just about a single question concerning the existence of gods. Does a god exist? I don't know. Probably not, but I can't exclude *all* possible god notions. The Universe works fine if there is no god of any kind, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that their is one. More importantly, I have no evidence that I should alter my life to accomidate any hypothetical god. It seems a rather unimportant question given what we do know, so I have no need to go beyond "I don't know", because I also don't care.

 

[AV1611VET]

More importantly, I have no evidence that I should alter my life to accomidate any hypothetical god. It seems a rather unimportant question given what we do know, so I have no need to go beyond "I don't know", because I also don't care.

Says an atheist who talks like an agnostic, and "doesn't alter his life," yet has over 7600 hundred posts.

 

[Astrid]

Except you do not stop there.

Atheists take the next step, we do not know because there is no empirical evidence. Anything we do not now know cannot possibly be true.

I wish you guys would quit this particular bit of cut n paste
belittling nonsense. .. "Cannot possibly be true".

It makes no sense whatever, and while there may be a
dimbulb somewhere who thinks that, it's not remotely
correct to say it of all atheists.

It's fine to criticize, but, not so much if
it's nothing but falsehood and calumny.

And, speaking of evidence, I do not
believe you can quote one example or find
and atheist here who would agree with your claim.