Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Intellectually, we're significantly better in a number of important ways.And spiritually? i mean intellectually?. Evolutionists have the impossible task to figure how our intellect was made.
The brain isn't a simple computer, it's a general-purpose learning system, i.e. it can learn to perform new tasks and functions and modify existing ones.That a person can learn etc fine, and with more years we know more about lots of stuff, but the brain would need parts to make it function, so each one of people abilities, intelligence perception, feelings, had to have 'functions' in the brain that enables them, and so if the hardware does not allow it, it will not be possible to increase the intellect. Like in computer better hardware requires a better design, that just my opinion though and actually i don't believe the brain does all that, because i believe in spiritual soul mind spriit.
Evolutionists say man appeared from apes how long ago? but in that short time the most complicated and marvelous and the top thing of the creation was developed?: our minds and feelings?. There is nothing like it in nature and i say its more complicated to make than our bodies. But they would like to suggest that it developed in a lot shorter time. Scientists can't even comprehend it, smart people cannot figure out how the mind works, but an unguided simple proccess made it?
I think we can separate the question of a creator from the question of evolution by natural selection. A creator notion can survive the reality of evolution. Lots of honest Christians believe so.Yes i have a God that would like to say some things about evolution too, like how people on earth is thinking they were created by it while not giving credit to the real creator, you assume i have a belief and nothing else, no its not just that, God can manifest to us. And everyone should start seeking him fast.
If you followed the conversation it should have been easy to assume..
Also i don't like to see humans as apes, since we have nothing in common with them, at least the ones on earth.
OK thanks Ill try harder.In order to have a discussion you need to communicate clearly, make coherent statements or ask coherent questions that people can understand and respond to.
Some of those posts are unintelligible to me - you may know what you mean, but I can't make out what you're trying to say.
Maybe it's just me, but I can usually make sense of what people post here.
The forces of nature. Wind, rain, nutrients.... 'drawing' the organism into a habitat over the millenia. Not intentionally. Just on the merely physical plane.Ah. I thought you meant a measurable force pulling organisms with specific traits to a certain geographical location.
I never heard of anyone who said you cant go from is to ought a) giving their life savings away b) sawing their legs off c) stuff like that.I think it's best to read what deep thinkers have said and make up your own mind - or keep an open mind if you feel the arguments are not decisive. Hume was the seminal contributor to this field of thought, so his arguments are worth serious consideration.
My point is with Hume, if you say you ought to believe him then he is wrong - as you've gone from reading his Treatise (an 'is'), to a conclusion you believe you 'ought' to hold.You tell me - as I understand it, that's how moral positions are usually justified.
But why are the terms "good" and "health" so commonly conjoined when a person is not sufferening from gross illness. Is it a random coincidence we make an ontological state (health) something approved of (i.e. we call it good) or preferred?No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that "... (good) health being good for the person whose health it is" is tautological.
IMO these scenarios and disagreements occur because culture is soooo complicated. If you re a Catholic than that will influence your position on these things. If youre an atheist another view is more likely. And that difference was partially down to some guy named Paul having a vision of Christ 2000 years ago etc.What is 'better' is the question. But sure - we inevitably derive ought from is because we only have our predispositions and a lifetime of experience of what is (or at least what appears to be) from which to derive them.
The question is whether it can be justified without begging the question. I have sympathy for anyone in intolerable pain. My view is that in some circumstances assisted dying is a Good Thing. Some people disagree to the point that they would take a life to stop it... This is where ethics ought to come in
I'm kind of "neuro-Thomist" with regards to free will. When we act in accord with our nature or higher ideals, and do so with less social resistance, we feel free easy and self expressive. Probably this is accompanied by endorphins and oxytocin release.That's what we like to tell ourselves - but that may just be the way the lizard brain makes us feel we're in control. If we didn't have a conscious sense of agency, we'd feel like helpless passengers...
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice" Isaac Bashevis Singer
Reality doesnt care about what you ”like”.
The same can be said about you saying God doesn't exists.
No, it really cant.
Men are apes, thats a fact.
God(s) are based on faith.
So you are one of the under-informed that thinks ONLY humans have 'minds' and 'feelings.Evolutionists say man appeared from apes how long ago? but in that short time the most complicated and marvelous and the top thing of the creation was developed?: our minds and feelings?.
More argument from awe.There is nothing like it in nature and i say its more complicated to make than our bodies.
Strawman fallacies are so awesome for creationists to use - they simultaneously reveal the level of knowledge the creationist has AND their willingness to engage in simplistic/fallacious reasoning.But they would like to suggest that it developed in a lot shorter time. Scientists can't even comprehend it, smart people cannot figure out how the mind works, but an unguided simple proccess made it?
Are you a scientific realist? (scientific realism is a position in the philosophy of science, and posits an external reality for which there is no literal evidence. Such realists generally use abductive reasoning to support realism).
So, no actual evidence then.No its not based on faith only, God manifests to people, also there is evidence. Not like a scientific theory maybe but there is.
No its not based on faith only, God manifests to people, also there is evidence. Not like a scientific theory maybe but there is.
As I said, in practice we have little choice, but an issue arises when people think that the 'oughts' they come up with are (ought to be) universal. If you can get different oughts from the same is, there's clearly a problem; i.e. something else is involved.I never heard of anyone who said you cant go from is to ought a) giving their life savings away b) sawing their legs off c) stuff like that.
It seems whatever their mouths say, in general people do have a way of going from is to ought.
Yes, beliefs are often problematic, especially paradoxical ones. I recommend trying to avoid them.My point is with Hume, if you say you ought to believe him then he is wrong - as you've gone from reading his Treatise (an 'is'), to a conclusion you believe you 'ought' to hold.
So believing you ought to believe him undermines that belief. It seems like its an absurd thesis, of the kind: "I ought to believe oughts are underivable"...
I'm not sure what you're getting at - it's commonly understood that health can be good or bad, as in healthy or unhealthy, which implies that the common meaning of 'health' is 'general physical condition'.But why are the terms "good" and "health" so commonly conjoined when a person is not sufferening from gross illness. Is it a random coincidence we make an ontological state (health) something approved of (i.e. we call it good) or preferred?
I don't really know what is meant by 'grace' in the Thomist canon.I'm kind of "neuro-Thomist" with regards to free will. When we act in accord with our nature or higher ideals, and do so with less social resistance, we feel free easy and self expressive. Probably this is accompanied by endorphins and oxytocin release.
If we are forced against our ideals, we then have resistance to our 'nature' and it seems likely (I'm no PhD student) release stress horemones like cortisol.
I look to the etymology of "free" ("priya" which means beloved) for inspiration in this.
Imagine in primitive society how the term 'free' may have been used. Its original causes. Free marriage, not rape. Free trade where one is not robbed etc. Free life rather than slavery.
I think this approach might be related to "cognitive archaeology". The deeper history of our concepts.
Then, we can also look at the neurochemistry that is associated with these social facts. So freedom is not a 'a priori' state (ever there, or ever absent), its more of a contextual thing, with degrees of presence or absence in certain situations.
Only later did the metaphysical baggage of "Are we n the hands of the Gods....?" or "is it all predetermined, an atom cascade from the Big Bang?" etc. cloud the issue. But that's over 2000 years later than the onset of "freedom-talk", or even more.
I'm not sayin' its the only valid analysis, just a way.
If there was evidence faith wouldnt be necessary. So you are in error again.
Ah yes, in the bible the example for christianity, it talks about faith, also talks how those people received things from God because they had faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?