Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Atheist CosmicSkeptic and William Lane Craig Discuss the Kalaam...I reviewed their discussion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

Hello Ayuoobi

I am convinced very few people will bother to watch the two videos  (nearly two hours)

The Cosmological argument is a very interesting one, why don't you just say what you think of it and why.. 
and maybe a discussion will follow.

wslm

+

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 6/22/2020 at 4:14 AM, Quisant said:

Hello Ayuoobi

I am convinced very few people will bother to watch the two videos  (nearly two hours)

The Cosmological argument is a very interesting one, why don't you just say what you think of it and why.. 
and maybe a discussion will follow.

wslm

+

I can't summarize my thoughts in writing if one has not at least watched the first video. I can summarize my review, although I think the video will be highly beneficial to those interested in these subjects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 6/22/2020 at 4:25 AM, Ayuoobi said:

I can't summarize my thoughts in writing if one has not at least watched the first video. I can summarize my review, although I think the video will be highly beneficial to those interested in these subjects.

Fair enough, perhaps I am wrong and someone will watch the video and discuss it with you....

wslm.

*

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
27 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Fair enough, perhaps I am wrong and someone will watch the video and discuss it with you....

wslm.

*

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I am just saying there are limitations to how much summary can be done. Either someone is interested in the topic, or they're not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ayuoobi said:

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, I am just saying there are limitations to how much summary can be done. Either someone is interested in the topic, or they're not.

I'll make some coffee with lots of creamer, and I'll watch (at least that makes 1 person).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

Should we watch their debate before watching your review or will everything make sense if we skip the debate and just watch your review? 

watch their discussion first, or you will be pretty confused

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 6/22/2020 at 3:18 AM, Ayuoobi said:

original discussion:

My review:

There are a few things to speak on and I'd imagine quisant has similar views.

I don't think materialists would say that the mind is the brain. Rather the mind is a collection of interactions of fundamental particles that just so happen to be "recorded" within the brain in the form of memory.

But "mind" exists beyond the brain and if you remove a brain, mind doesn't go away. A worm has a "mind", it's just not advanced. And so the fundamental particles precede the mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

To continue on the last post:

What we call "mind" would be more of an advanced emergent property that actually had already existed in the animal kingdom before us. A dog for example has a mind, but isn't as advanced as ours. As does a bird and a lizard, salamander, fish and even bugs. But it's just a matter of the gradation of how advanced the body is, in processing and recording information. The mind is dependent upon where in the process of molecular arrangement the species is.

 

On another topic:

One other thing to consider about the universe. Subatomic particles are known to enter into and to exit out-of existence. 

And this is happening everywhere at all times. Even now perhaps in our room and in our own bodies.

Why don't these particles form a horse? Or an elephant?

I believe that, if given billions of years of open space, perhaps they would. But if a universe already exists, perhaps they would simply become part of our universe that we already have. They wouldn't make a horse because a horse is a construct in part of an order of evolution through time. But perhaps they could interact with and become more fundamental particles that make up atoms as we know them. Much like how quarks might combine to form protons and neutrons. But such an experience would be so exceedingly microscopic, we would never really notice it happening. We only notice particles coming into and out of existence with super computers and sensors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I watched some random parts of the original video here and there.  

Why would people have to debate about God’s existence?  What’s the point of a God whose existence needs to be debated?  Shouldn’t God’s existence be more obvious than anything?  

So this is my solution to everything:  if one has the need to seriously ask whether or not God exists, the answer is, no, such a God that you have to ask about does NOT exist (except in your imagination).  

Edited by Hameedeh
Large empty space removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 6/22/2020 at 10:22 AM, iCenozoic said:

But "mind" exists beyond the brain and if you remove a brain, mind doesn't go away.

This is not the materialist view. Materialists say that if the brain goes, the mind goes and that the mind just is the brain.

On 6/22/2020 at 10:32 AM, iCenozoic said:

One other thing to consider about the universe. Subatomic particles are known to enter into and to exit out-of existence. 

It is not a proven counter example that this is happening without an effecient cause. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Ayuoobi said:

This is not the materialist view. Materialists say that if the brain goes, the mind goes and that the mind just is the brain.

It is not a proven counter example that this is happening without an effecient cause. 

Does cosmic skeptic say the above? Or are you referring to a different materialist? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

I'm referring to the dictionary definition of materialism. 

Let's see it, out of curiosity.

Some might say that the mind goes if the brain goes, in the sense that a being loses consciousness if they don't have a physical organ to process a higher state of information. 

But nobody actually says that mind is the brain. Nor does a "mind" necessarily come into existence or leave existence if a person is born or dies.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Ayuoobi said:

This is not the materialist view. Materialists say that if the brain goes, the mind goes and that the mind just is the brain.

It is not a proven counter example that this is happening without an effecient cause. 

Indeed, we have seen that all things require 'efficient causes', but it has never been established that the causes must be intelligent.
ws

*

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Indeed, we have seen that all things require 'efficient causes', but it has never been established that the causes must be intelligent.
ws

*

the argument does not require that all effecient causes must be intelligent, only that there be an efficient cause. Subsequent arguments are used to show that the effecient cause must be intelligent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

the argument does not require that all effecient causes must be intelligent, only that there be an efficient cause. Subsequent arguments are used to show that the effecient cause must be intelligent.

It has never been shown or demonstrated that there is a unique necessary existent or intelligent first cause.

*

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, Quisant said:

It has never been shown or demonstrated that there is a unique necessary existent or intelligent first cause.

*

Of course it has. You are free to dispute the correctness of those demonstrations, but to claim that there are no demonstrations is just silly. I suggest you take a look at Edward Feser's 5 proofs of the existence of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
11 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

Of course it has. You are free to dispute the correctness of those demonstrations, but to claim that there are no demonstrations is just silly. I suggest you take a look at Edward Feser's 5 proofs of the existence of God.

The 'Quinque viæ' or five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarised by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica, Edward Fesers just modernises them....they are not  proofs.   Proof implies certainty. 

In any case I don't really want to have a dispute with an impersonal website.This is a discussion board, If you have proof I would be interested in reading your reasoning.

*

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
56 minutes ago, Quisant said:

St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica, Edward Fesers just modernises them

Except, if you had read the first page of his book, you'd know that even though the book is titled 5 proofs, it is not the same as Aquinas' 5 proofs. 

I know what a proof is, and Feser offers 5 proofs *which you can attempt to find fault with* but they are proofs none the less. A failed proof is not "not a proof." Rather, it is a failed proof or a failed demonstration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

 

notice that the above also notes "the nervous system. Which is found in worms which have no brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
 
 

Materialism

PHILOSOPHY
 ARTICLE CONTENTS
 

Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

 
 
00:0402:45
 
1_th.jpg?crop=372:210,smart&width=372&height=210&fit=crop
 

The word materialism has been used in modern times to refer to a family of metaphysical theories (i.e., theories of the nature of reality) that can best be defined by saying that a theory tends to be called materialist if it is felt sufficiently to resemble a paradigmatic theory that will here be called mechanical materialism. This article covers the various types of materialism and the ways by which they are distinguished and traces the history of materialism from the Greeks and Romans to modern forms of materialism.

 

Types Of Materialist Theory

Mechanical materialism is the theory that the world consists entirely of hard, massy material objects, which, though perhaps imperceptibly small, are otherwise like such things as stones. (A slight modification is to allow the void—or empty space—to exist also in its own right.) These objects interact in the sort of way that stones do: by impact and possibly also by gravitational attraction. The theory denies that immaterial or apparently immaterial things (such as minds) exist or else explains them away as being material things or motions of material things.

Types distinguished by departures from the paradigm

In modern physics (if interpreted realistically), however, matter is conceived as made up of such things as electrons, protons, and mesons, which are very unlike the hard, massy, stonelike particles of mechanical materialism. In it the distinction between matter and energy has also broken down. It is therefore natural to extend the word materialist beyond the above paradigm case (of mechanical materialism) to cover anyone who bases his theory on whatever it is that physics asserts ultimately to exist. This sort may be called physicalistic materialism. Such a materialist allows the concept of material thing to be extended so as to include all of the elementary particles and other things that are postulated in fundamental physical theory—perhaps even continuous fields and points of space-time. Inasmuch as some cosmologists even try to define the elementary particles themselves in terms of the curvature of space-time, there is no reason why a philosophy based on such a geometricized cosmology should not be counted as materialist, provided that it does not give an independent existence to nonphysical things such as minds.

Such a theory, which could be called “emergent materialism,” can shade off, however, into theories that one would not wish to call materialist, such as hylozoism, which ascribes vital characteristics to all matter, and panpsychism, which attributes a mindlike character to all constituents of material things.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy

 

i think the point of the above is that, mind isn't the brain. Mind is a collection of experiences that are processed by the brain, as mentioned earlier. It's something that comes into being, or "emerges" if it even truly exists (much like time), as a product of parts of a whole. And so even a worm has "mind". It's just primitive as it's experiences are limited by it's lack of brain. It's consciousness isn't as advanced, in a sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
14 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

This was the point of contention, right? I think it says pretty clearly materialism means that no brain = no mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

This was the point of contention, right? I think it says pretty clearly materialism means that no brain = no mind.

It says that the mind is a byproduct of the brain. And it notes more than the brain, it notes the nervous system.

The mind isn't a one or done kind of thing. It's an emergent experience of a compilation of independent reactions, senses, taste, touch, hearing etc.

And when you remove a brain, you don't remove a mind. You merely degrade consciousness to something less expansive (for the individual).

There is no point in which a mind simply exists. It gradually emerges and much like say...an elephant evolving, matter transitions as does the mind. 

After review of your video again, honestly I'm not sure I could even make sense of what you were trying to say. I only noted that you simply called the mind the brain, which isn't the case. The brain is just a physical organ, like an eyeball. A jellyfish has sensors but no eyeball for example, but can still see and has vision. But vision doesn't depend on an eyeball, no more does the mind depend on a brain. These physical organs are just mediums that allow for experiences. And they come in many shapes and forms. And they don't have definite "forms". There are no true "boundaries" for them.

As some might say, conscious is eternal, it is boundless. 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
13 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

. I only noted that you simply called the mind the brain, which isn't the case.

What I said is that on materialism the mind is just the brain. That is not my view, that is the materialist's view. I was arguing against materialist mereological nihilism by showing that it is incoherent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
35 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

What I said is that on materialism the mind is just the brain. That is not my view, that is the materialist's view. I was arguing against materialist mereological nihilism by showing that it is incoherent. 

But the mind isn't just the brain in materialism. No more is vision just an eyeball in materialism.

When you reconstruct or clarify your argument, feel free to let me know. Right now it's just kind of floating around and isn't the most clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

But the mind isn't just the brain in materialism.

Quote

According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.

Not sure what is unclear here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Ayuoobi said:

Not sure what is unclear here.

Did you see the words "nervous system"?  Did you see the word "by-product"?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, iCenozoic said:

Did you see the words "nervous system"?  Did you see the word "by-product"?

Yeah, it's completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. Whether it's the brain or the brain + nervous system, the point is that on mereological nihilism none of those exist. All that exists are fundamental particles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I have nothing to prove here. Is up to you if you want to re-work the language in the video, or of you want to clarify on what your argument even is.

But you don't have to if you don't want.

In your video, multiple times, you note that "the mind is just the brain" "the mind is reducible to the brain". "The mind just is the brain", "This person's mind is just the brain"

But the above statements don't actually reflect materialist views. 

Rather the mind would be a byproduct of a network of organs. At least as per the above language. 

That's all I'm saying.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

Yeah, it's completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. Whether it's the brain or the brain + nervous system, the point is that on mereological nihilism none of those exist. All that exists are fundamental particles.

Ok that's fine. I was just pointing out that your words aren't something that I would hear a materialist say, and it just didn't make sense.

If you would like to re-word and structure your argument in a logical way, it would help with understanding what you're trying to say. 

Even in your video, it sounded like you weren't even sure if you were phrasing the argument in a sensible way. Much less would the world of viewers necessarily understand it.

I've listened to it multiple times now and, I really don't know what is attempting to be stated. 

But it all starts with using the right words that adequately reflect what the materialists believe.

That's all.

And it's nothing personal, I think it's a great topic and it's interesting and I look forward to hearing more. It just has to be articulated in an understandable way.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1. If materialism is true then the mind is a by-product of the processes of brain activity (and nervous system etc.)

2. If mereological nihilism is true, then there are no brains.

3. If there are no brains then there are no brain activities.

4. If there no brain activities, then there are no by-products of brain activities.

5. If there are no by products of brain activities and materialism is true, then there are no minds.

6. Therefore, if both materialism and mereological nihilism are true, there are no minds.

7. There are minds.

8. Therefore, it is not the case that both materialism and mereological nihilism are true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Ayuoobi said:

I know what a proof is, and Feser offers 5 proofs *which you can attempt to find fault with* but they are proofs none the less. A failed proof is not "not a proof." Rather, it is a failed proof or a failed demonstration.

Do you think Feser's proofs are successful proofs? 

I prefer to use Feser's five than the Kalam cosmological argument. It's just so much easier to prove that the being which is proven to exist in stage 1 of the proofs, is God. The main reason for that is because all the 5 proofs necessarily lead you to divine simplicity, and from there you can easily derive the divine attributes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...