Philosophical challenge for all you atheists

[Johan]

*
1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
*
2 (god)(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon godthe Hindu god Vishnu
*
an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.
*
used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

That's from the Oxford dictionary, producers of the world's most trusted dictionaries... but they would say that See 1 and 2 for the type of God that atheists, to whom Brain was putting his ''challenge'' to, reject and deny.

Opinions, opinions. They're just like bungholes, everyone has one and I'm not interested in yours.

Likewise, you opinionated, mystical bunghole you

[stellarrenegade]

*
1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
*
2 (god)(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon godthe Hindu god Vishnu
*
an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.
*
used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

That's from the Oxford dictionary, producers of the world's most trusted dictionaries... but they would say that See 1 and 2 for the type of God that atheists, to whom Brain was putting his ''challenge'' to, reject and deny.

Yes, but you said:

Try a few dictionaries, you'd get a consensus definition rather quickly. This supposed language barrier can be avoided.

And anyway, this:

an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.

...would work fine for the universe, since it would then, for all intents and purposes, be divine (and you can't deny that upon common knowledge of this phenomena, it would then be worshipped ).

Opinions, opinions. They're just like bungholes, everyone has one and I'm not interested in yours.

Likewise, you opinionated, mystical bunghole you

[brian423]

Just for fun, I'll link to an article that everyone on every side of the debate might enjoy:

"The Book on Mormons: A brilliant new musical from the creators of South Park both mocks and admires religion," Ronald Bailey, Reason, June 2011.

Sample paragraph:

There’s much more to the story and much more to the music, which in addition to sending up The Lion King includes takeoffs of A Chorus Line, The Wizard of Oz, South Pacific, and Little Shop of Horrors. The show features some of the same surreal flourishes that Parker and Stone bring to South Park. The chorus number “Spooky Mormon Hell Dream,” for example, features Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Genghis Khan, and Johnnie Cochran as demons, accompanied by two dancing giant cups of Starbucks coffee and some glazed donuts. And as in South Park, the rude exterior masks a sweet core. The show may mercilessly mock Mormonism, but it ultimately takes a kind view of the religion. When villagers convert to the church’s views, or to the half-baked version of those views that Cunningham cooks up, the results are rather benign.

[stellarrenegade]

I haven't seen that one, but I love the other Mormon episode they made where they basically sing the story of Joseph Smith just as the Mormons tell it, only singing, "Dum dum dum dum DUMB!" after almost every line. It makes it look incredibly stupid.

No offense to any Mormons, as we've had one here, and I have some Mormon friends. I just can't understand how it makes sense to anyone.

[danny1987]

Just to offer some thoughts on the initial post, without having read any of the responses, I don't think an argument for or against God simply rests on the structure of our brains. Forgetting about any particular religion, God could be the deistic version who got things going, and then let nature take its course, which in that case we may or may not have souls. The argument brought up does have to do with whether or not there is a soul, and if there is, how do they interact? If we do have souls, they would seem to be limited to living through our physical bodies, and any damage done to the brain, while not necessarily impairing the soul, would at the very least limit the functionality of a soul. Souls being immaterial, you could not take away a part of the brain, and say that you've removed a part of the soul.
As for the "new" atheists, I'll just say I would not look forward to having dinner with the author of "The God Delusion". I don't think I can have a rational debate with someone who's starting premise is that I'm not rational.

[brian423]

Just to offer some thoughts on the initial post, without having read any of the responses, I don't think an argument for or against God simply rests on the structure of our brains. Forgetting about any particular religion, God could be the deistic version who got things going, and then let nature take its course, which in that case we may or may not have souls. The argument brought up does have to do with whether or not there is a soul, and if there is, how do they interact? If we do have souls, they would seem to be limited to living through our physical bodies, and any damage done to the brain, while not necessarily impairing the soul, would at the very least limit the functionality of a soul. Souls being immaterial, you could not take away a part of the brain, and say that you've removed a part of the soul.

If I understand you correctly, you're reinventing the square wheel of René Descartes. Whatever "soul" is (your term, not mine, let's remember), there can be no sound basis for locating it strictly within the human skull or the human body. Sentience (my term; I never meant to use "soul") must either be everywhere at once or nowhere at all. Anything other than these two possibilities will generate a wobbly, unstable, unworkable model of the universe. Think it through!

[danny1987]

Just to offer some thoughts on the initial post, without having read any of the responses, I don't think an argument for or against God simply rests on the structure of our brains. Forgetting about any particular religion, God could be the deistic version who got things going, and then let nature take its course, which in that case we may or may not have souls. The argument brought up does have to do with whether or not there is a soul, and if there is, how do they interact? If we do have souls, they would seem to be limited to living through our physical bodies, and any damage done to the brain, while not necessarily impairing the soul, would at the very least limit the functionality of a soul. Souls being immaterial, you could not take away a part of the brain, and say that you've removed a part of the soul.

If I understand you correctly, you're reinventing the square wheel of René Descartes. Whatever "soul" is (your term, not mine, let's remember), there can be no sound basis for locating it strictly within the human skull or the human body. Sentience (my term; I never meant to use "soul") must either be everywhere at once or nowhere at all. Anything other than these two possibilities will generate a wobbly, unstable, unworkable model of the universe. Think it through!

If sentience is an undeniably real phenomenon that can never be identified as the direct consequence of any particular event at one place and time—not even the workings of a human brain—mustn’t it necessarily follow that sentience somehow characterizes the entire universe all at once?

First off, I reject the the second premise of your statement, and, therefore, see your conclusion and a false dichotomy. I fail to see how anything other than sentience characterizing all or nothing generates an unworkable model of the universe. Please explain

[brian423]

First off, I reject the the second premise of your statement, and, therefore, see your conclusion and a false dichotomy. I fail to see how anything other than sentience characterizing all or nothing generates an unworkable model of the universe. Please explain

Any attempt to compromise between all or nothing muddies up your accounts of the causal chain of events, which must proceed from your assumptions about matter, mind, or both. If matter obeys the laws of physics while mind obeys its own free will—as Descartes posited and so, by necessary implication, do you—then matter and mind are on an unstoppable collision course. This means serious trouble for you. You'll have an extremely difficult time explaining how the human skull or the human skin serves as an effective barrier between the two. In other words, how can you describe living human bodies as "ensouled," and uniquely so among all phenomena in the universe, without appealing childishly to some kind of magic? Not to be glib, I don't claim all the answers to philosophy's enduring mind-body problem. I'm just trying to spread some intellectual humility around to anyone who's listening. Think it through!

[danny1987]

By extending sentience to all, do you mean that somehow sentience is some kind of essence permeating everything both living and nonliving? Or do you restrict sentience to living things only?

[brian423]

By extending sentience to all, do you mean that somehow sentience is some kind of essence permeating everything both living and nonliving? Or do you restrict sentience to living things only?

Out of consistency with my own premises, I'm compelled to allow no essential distinction between the living and the nonliving here. Although life is wondrous enough to justify biology as a distinct discipline within the physical sciences, everything biology observes can be explained in terms of the laws that govern galaxies, garbage heaps, and other lifeless things. I can't allow any magical line of demarcation between what lives and what does not.

At the time I write, you quote William F. Buckley, Jr., in your signature. If you're a conservative Christian intellectual like him, I suppose you might have a problem with the pantheism, panentheism, or animism suggested by my argument. Or, since your current avatar is South Park's Eric Cartman, would you call it New Age hippie crap? It's dangerous to predict a Rational's opinion on anything, but I admit I wonder if I've got you pegged.