Yes different factors affect the result. But you claimed that conciousnes is basicly ONLY atoms. I Belive that a "soluts" is what transforms "conciousness" into the experience we feel.
- An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
This is not necessarily the case.
Logical: The idea that every cause A has an effect BThat no cause stands without effect and vice versa.The only illogical event would be one that did not have a cause.
And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind. Or, if it exists, we can never know it, because it requires knowledge of counterfactual histories (e.g. that the effect wouldn't have happened but for the cause).
there are apparently acausal physical phenomena.
Faith is necessary anyways, as without faith in reason one cannot be sure about anything.
1. Science proves that humans are purely physical processes, which would render "I" nonexistent
2. My experience is that "I" is not the same as my body
3. In conclusion, my experience clearly points towards a soul, while science clearly points towards my body
It is not contradictory to believe in a soul, even if you trust science.
My point regarding this topic is that even if a soul exists, it most probably is logical. So the thing all people from all religions and world views should agree on is the idea that everything is logical, nothing happens without a cause.
And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind.
The view I hold can comprehend both a logical God and logical randomness.
seem to use an argument from ignorance to prove that illogical concepts could in fact exist.
3RU7AL, what do you think about "I". As far as science and philosophy have come, there is no explanation for why "I" exist. Without "I" existing, the experience of being alive, my human body and brain would not see any difference. What do you think this "I" is, a soul, atoms, nothing?
In conclusion, I can be more sure that "I" exist than the fact that my brain is physical.
I hope you realize that "unpredictability" does not automatically prove something is "acausal".
I call them apparently acausal because they have no apparent cause.
Computers can calculate random numbers and the logical laws of physics create free will, not as an illusion but a description of humans.
drafterman & co seem to use an argument from ignorance to prove that illogical concepts could in fact exist.
Also, I really disagree with statements like these:And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind.If we accept human logic as a necessary tool for debating,
I could easily prove how strange and stupid real illogical concepts would really be. :1. Illogical events or things require no cause2. Thus the lack of a cause would not stop an illogical event from happening3. Every illogical thing possible would exist and happen at the same time constantly. The only reason why there are no flying pink elephants is that logic requires a cause
When talking about logic I do not mean human reasoning, which is limited, but causality, which theoretically would only make sense if universal.
Rather, what I am saying is that it can be true (e.g. it hasn't been ruled out) ergo we cannot simply assume that it is false.
First of all,Saying that something "can" be "true" simply because it hasn't been "ruled out" is THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OF AN APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.
For example, "You can't proove that bigfoottedlochnessspacealieens "don't exist" so we should act "as if" they're really really realzies."
