"I think, therefore I am" - is an illusion if a soul does not exist
Assuming our minds are the same as the consciousness of ones own inner state:
1. Consciousness is the awareness of surroundings, which is just information stored in the organisation of atoms in our brain (scientifically)
2. Atoms only exist as a concept without our minds, which makes atoms (and our brain) a product of consciousness
3. In conclusion: The idea that our mind is purely scientifical leads to circular logic and self-contradictions regarding all knowledge, including science
Thus, while theoretically, such a thing as a physical mind could exist, but It would not be able to understand itself nor science without contradictions
As we work with the priority of consistency over evidence, there is no real reason to believe that our mind is purely scientifical
This makes for an interesting problem:
If a mind is supernatural in nature, it is independent of the material world
Thus the mind can be an outside observer, counciousness our connection to reality and our body our connection to others (Mind, Consciousness, Body)
Science would then be the conclusions the mind made based on the information our body collected and our consciousness interpreted
If this view is correct, then concepts and reality exist independently
Concepts exist only within the mind - all things, not being the primacy of existence are concepts
If "the mind" is physical in nature, it is a concept describing a physical process
If concepts exist only within the mind, and the mind is a concept, then neither concepts nor the mind exists.
Science, philosophy, physical world and reality are concepts and do thus not exist
Thus nothing can be known, everything is just atoms moving around. Oh! I forgot atoms do not exist, they are science, thus concepts thus mind.
This would render any truth outside of our control. Our words would have no meaning and tho virry meakeng ef reogmdosfi odjaoemajfoieacmda
Thus this approach makes no sense
Thus we are left with two choices:
1. Accept the existence of a mind/soul as supernatural with blind, almost religious faith
2. Ignore the question, pretending the first answer is correct
3. Admit nothing is true and nothing makes any sense
If both the observer and the object being observed is the same thing,
Yes, but if your statement is true, then computer AIs able to control a robot, are already conscious.
Consciousness in that sense would be just as nonexistent as the randomness of flappy bird.
According to that theory, consciousness is only the physical process, and because of that, "I" do not actually exist, only the atoms my body is composed of. But atoms cannot "feel" alive or have an identity, so nothing composed of atoms should theoretically "feel alive". Do you agree that you could be deceived by my actions to believe that "Benjamin" exists, while I actually am just a bunch of atoms? The difference is that a bunch of atoms would act in the exact same way that "I" would. I think it is necessary to distinguish between consciousness, a product of our brains, and soul, which makes us able to "experience" our consciousness on a metaphysical level but still cannot influence our brain.
If "I" do not exist independently, consciousness is purely physical, rendering philosophy meaningless as "Consciousness" is just as arbitrary as "fire"
We must start using the word "soul" for describing the experience of consciousness, as it and consciousness itself are not the same.
"Furthermore, this argument does nothing whatever to disprove a God that is not bound by the physical laws but able to do everything that is logically possible (i.e. omniscient)."
Easy win? Actually, this will not be easy nor necessarily a win. It is a new idea I want to test on others, because "one does not realize one's own flaws"
This will be fun.
I recently started debating online and got to know this site
Hopefully, no comments like this will occur here:
"Let me take a wild stab right to the genitalia of the very last organs in yeast infection resurrection that even before look that our hero Pro MUST be a teeny bopper with a fractured skull, Not educated in the slightest, Not intelligent in the slightest, Hasn't even been of a god damned date except with himself for a feel to only bother his flying uterus from beyond."
Entirely sarcastical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMnESsD5i-c
Ok then, but since it is a semantics issue, as you said, can you accept us having a unified definition?
If you don't, your victory will be based on which dictionary one uses.
Can you actually argue against my argument?
Can we agree that we both claim "we stop this debate - do not vote" as the answer for the last two rounds?
Also, here is a link to the forum, if you wish to debate chilly:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2706-atheism-and-theism-are-both-reliant-on-faith
Ok, we end this debate. But how?
(also, we could have a debate in the forums that is not too long, and not about the semantics but "essence" of faith)
Ok, we end this debate. But how?
(also, we could have a debate in the forums that is not too long, and not about the semantics but "essence" of faith)
Could we move this debate to the forums?
It seems hard to pull it off in this competition envoroment.
"I think, therefore I am" - is an illusion if a soul does not exist
Assuming our minds are the same as the consciousness of ones own inner state:
1. Consciousness is the awareness of surroundings, which is just information stored in the organisation of atoms in our brain (scientifically)
2. Atoms only exist as a concept without our minds, which makes atoms (and our brain) a product of consciousness
3. In conclusion: The idea that our mind is purely scientifical leads to circular logic and self-contradictions regarding all knowledge, including science
Thus, while theoretically, such a thing as a physical mind could exist, but It would not be able to understand itself nor science without contradictions
As we work with the priority of consistency over evidence, there is no real reason to believe that our mind is purely scientifical
This makes for an interesting problem:
If a mind is supernatural in nature, it is independent of the material world
Thus the mind can be an outside observer, counciousness our connection to reality and our body our connection to others (Mind, Consciousness, Body)
Science would then be the conclusions the mind made based on the information our body collected and our consciousness interpreted
If this view is correct, then concepts and reality exist independently
Concepts exist only within the mind - all things, not being the primacy of existence are concepts
If "the mind" is physical in nature, it is a concept describing a physical process
If concepts exist only within the mind, and the mind is a concept, then neither concepts nor the mind exists.
Science, philosophy, physical world and reality are concepts and do thus not exist
Thus nothing can be known, everything is just atoms moving around. Oh! I forgot atoms do not exist, they are science, thus concepts thus mind.
This would render any truth outside of our control. Our words would have no meaning and tho virry meakeng ef reogmdosfi odjaoemajfoieacmda
Thus this approach makes no sense
Thus we are left with two choices:
1. Accept the existence of a mind/soul as supernatural with blind, almost religious faith
2. Ignore the question, pretending the first answer is correct
3. Admit nothing is true and nothing makes any sense
If both the observer and the object being observed is the same thing,
Yes, but if your statement is true, then computer AIs able to control a robot, are already conscious.
Consciousness in that sense would be just as nonexistent as the randomness of flappy bird.
According to that theory, consciousness is only the physical process, and because of that, "I" do not actually exist, only the atoms my body is composed of. But atoms cannot "feel" alive or have an identity, so nothing composed of atoms should theoretically "feel alive". Do you agree that you could be deceived by my actions to believe that "Benjamin" exists, while I actually am just a bunch of atoms? The difference is that a bunch of atoms would act in the exact same way that "I" would. I think it is necessary to distinguish between consciousness, a product of our brains, and soul, which makes us able to "experience" our consciousness on a metaphysical level but still cannot influence our brain.
If "I" do not exist independently, consciousness is purely physical, rendering philosophy meaningless as "Consciousness" is just as arbitrary as "fire"
We must start using the word "soul" for describing the experience of consciousness, as it and consciousness itself are not the same.
I also agree with Pro that:
An omnipotent being that both is independent on the laws of logic but also dependent on them, is logically contradictory.
My argument is that an omnipotent being is not logically contradictory. It is Wagyu's argument that is logically contradictory.
I want to use a quote from PsychometricBrain
"Furthermore, this argument does nothing whatever to disprove a God that is not bound by the physical laws but able to do everything that is logically possible (i.e. omniscient)."
The real question is whether or not consciousness is a metaphysical thing or not.
And also, if the thinking computer would have a "soul".
But we would never be able to see the difference between a computer with a soul and a soulless thinking computer.
The question boils down to whether or no we believe that "I" exists, or if only the brain exists.
Con clearly misses my point.
No attempt at disproving my claims was made by Con.
I am not explaining my world view, I explained why I believe that everything that is true, can be described by truths.
Sorry for being late, I thought it was posted
If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing
totally laugh every time I read that sentence.
I am very interested.
But I cannot say I disagree, and the word count seems a bit scary X D
People on this debate platform seem to actually care about debating in a good manner, cool.
I will only focus on showing that they are both faiths
Both are claims about the ultimate reality
Both cannot be proven scientifically
Both have been the starting point for religion
Both grow mostly by convincing others and not through reproduction
Both are based on blind faith until they are incorporated into a broader world view
etc
Think of it as a challenge.
We will not debate too broadly, but rather specifically.
I will increase the word limit to 8 thousand, ok?
Truth and logic is not my conclusion, but my premise
I propose the idea that anything possible must be explainable by truth and logic
Obviously if truth or logic is not objective, then my theory will fall not alone, but along with all other theories
I think the challenge is trying to understand what this thinking would do to our understanding of reality
Atheism is the opposite of theism, the faith that God does not exist
Agnosticism is the position where one has not taken a conclusion, due to lack of evidence
Easy win? Actually, this will not be easy nor necessarily a win. It is a new idea I want to test on others, because "one does not realize one's own flaws"
"a vehicle of evidence"
Hillarious joke Mall, you get that one
ok doki
What makes "this" special? Its not tooo long i guess
Relieving to know I am not alone.
This site is so much more pleasant
Wait, will mods take me now?
This will be fun.
I recently started debating online and got to know this site
Hopefully, no comments like this will occur here:
"Let me take a wild stab right to the genitalia of the very last organs in yeast infection resurrection that even before look that our hero Pro MUST be a teeny bopper with a fractured skull, Not educated in the slightest, Not intelligent in the slightest, Hasn't even been of a god damned date except with himself for a feel to only bother his flying uterus from beyond."
-Debate.org