An Open Question

[Quantum Obscurity]

However, the material and the immaterial do have something in common - they both exist; they both have being. The fact that the immaterial and the material relate should not be a surprise to anyone who believes that they both exist! And as we have shown, above, namely by the very nature of God Himself, that matter is not all that there is. There is a Mind who made it, and there are minds that know it. If we both have mind and matter soul and body, then the material and the immaterial can and do relate. To deny this is self-defeating, since materialism itself is an idea that a mind has about matter. Further, my mind is commanding my body (arms and fingers) to write these words. Anyone who denies this has to use his hand or mouth to express these ideas of his mind - which again is self-defeating!

The problem we have here, is that I do not believe that immateriality is a possiblity. I do not believe the Mind to be immaterial (ref. my post on substance dualism) To me the mind is simply the brain, which operates in much the same way, yet millions of times more complex than the computer i am typing at right now. Your argument only holds water if Immaterial things exist, the only possible examples of which are either god or the mind. I have just stated my view on the mind/brain problem, thus nullifying the only way you suggested that immateriality can impact the material. Therefore, if God is immaterial, he cannot influence the material world, therefore, we reach the same problem as i stated previously.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

You have a mind or else you wouldn't be able to for formulate thoughts and opinions as you are now.

Materialism. Mind = Brain.
Emotions and opinions explained.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Take a look at your argument through the eyes of Love. How does the vista look from that perspective? Does anything change? Does the immaterial (Love) effect the material when Love is applied?

.

The problem here is that as a materialist, i see "Love" as nothing more than an entirely material process that occurs within the brain. Hence the immaterial is not actually immaterial. "Love" is material and therefore can influence my actions.

 

[Going Merry]

If the earth were 6000 years old, dinosaurs and any life from the time periods before 6000 years old have no explantion giving pretty conclusive proof that the earth is older than 6000

Not very conclusive at all.
In fact I see no reason to believe that way with the evidence you have shown me. I am someone who has to prove it all for myself

 

[Elioenai26]

Materialism. Mind = Brain.
Emotions and opinions explained.

Well I wish you well on your journey. Ive tried to answer all of your questions thoroughly and thoughtfully. I hope you have been helped.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Not very conclusive at all.
In fact I see no reason to believe that way with the evidence you have shown me. I am someone who has to prove it all for myself

If this is the case, where would you suggest these fossils came from?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Well I wish you well on your journey. Ive tried to answer all of your questions thoroughly and thoughtfully. I hope you have been helped.

I appreciate your time and input. Thanks for the debate If I caused any offense at any point I apologise as it was never my intention to.

 

[Going Merry]

If this is the case, where would you suggest these fossils came from?

"Carbon dating for much older samples has a greater margin of error, since we have have no way of knowing the variation in rate of C-14 absorption prior to the tree-ring era."

It is all assumption passed a point.

And fossils came from dinosaurs obviously lol

 

[dlamberth]

The problem here is that as a materialist, i see "Love" as nothing more than an entirely material process that occurs within the brain. Hence the immaterial is not actually immaterial. "Love" is material and therefore can influence my actions.

The Mystics would disagree with you, as do I. When I watch a mothers bonding love for her new born child it's clear to me that Love comes from something deeper than the thinking brain. Compassion is the same. And when I watch the pull of Love that I experience with my Grandchildren, it's clear that doesn't originate in the thinking brain either. When I open my soul to life itself, the inner "experience" of the Unity and Wholeness of Life originates from somewhere else besides my thinking brain...that's real clear to me. I'm pointing towards spiritual awareness. Even if you deny it, I'd like to see you try it out in your argument to see how it looks from that perspective.

.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

"Carbon dating for much older samples has a greater margin of error, since we have have no way of knowing the variation in rate of C-14 absorption prior to the tree-ring era."

It is all assumption passed a point.

And fossils came from dinosaurs obviously lol

If you are suggesting the earth to be 6000 years old and follow creation, Dinosaurs are nowhere in the bible, and if they were, they would have co-existed with humans, which lets face it, didn't happen.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

. Even if you deny it, I'd like to see you try it out in your argument to see how it looks from that perspective.

.

I can't "try it out" in my argument, because my argument is that immateriality is none existant. To "try it out" would be to refute my argument.

 

[dlamberth]

"Carbon dating for much older samples has a greater margin of error, since we have have no way of knowing the variation in rate of C-14 absorption prior to the tree-ring era."

I know it's big in the Christian community, but if one were to look deeper they would see that what you have said has been totally debunked long ago. Science uses a lot of dating methods now days.

.

 

[dlamberth]

I can't "try it out" in my argument, because my argument is that immateriality is none existant. To "try it out" would be to refute my argument.

Than your argument, by your own admission has serious issues.

.

 

[Going Merry]

If you are suggesting the earth to be 6000 years old and follow creation, Dinosaurs are nowhere in the bible, and if they were, they would have co-existed with humans, which lets face it, didn't happen.

I don't see why it would matter if there was or was not dinosaurs.
I also don't see how it affects the bibles accuracy

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Than your argument, by your own admission has serious issues.

.

This is not the case. What I described to you is my conclusion, not my argument. My argument was described at great length in earlier posts. What you have suggested is that I change the conclusion from my argument to the conclusion for yours, which wouldn't work, not because my argument is flawed, but because the conclusion simply doesn't work with my primary points.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I don't see why it would matter if there was or was not dinosaurs.
I also don't see how it affects the bibles accuracy

If biblical creation is accurate, dinosaurs didn't exist. Dinosaurs existed. Therefore creation as the bible dictates is either inaccurate, or wrong.

 

[Going Merry]

If biblical creation is accurate, dinosaurs didn't exist. Dinosaurs existed. Therefore creation as the bible dictates is either inaccurate, or wrong.

Your assumption is just an assumption.

I believe in dinosaurs and biblical creation
I just don't believe in how we measure things.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

In that case, what do you believe? 6000 year old earth with dinosaurs living but not coexisting with humans? Where does the time go!

 

[Going Merry]

Um I believe they co-existed. :>

I know you all doubt God and all that, for me it's a non issue.
Like your inability to believe in a god, I have the inability to not believe in God

 

[dlamberth]

This is not the case. What I described to you is my conclusion, not my argument. My argument was described at great length in earlier posts. What you have suggested is that I change the conclusion from my argument to the conclusion for yours, which wouldn't work, not because my argument is flawed, but because the conclusion simply doesn't work with my primary points.

No...I'm not suggesting that you change the conclusion at all. Your conclusion is what you come up with. I'm not wanting to change that. What I'm suggesting is that you shake up your own argument and further test it with other parameters and see what conclusions you come up than. Maybe read what the Mystics say, test your argument with their wisdom on the subject, things like that.


.