Vidqun
Look at the death numbers for both countries especially in comparison to pre-vaccine periods. The numbers show the effectiveness where it counts the most. Vaccines have been saving lives. If a third jab is warranted in particular for the elderly, why discourage it?
how could he be, regardless of how god impregnated mary, as she was a sinful human just like the rest of us according to the bible.. mary was subjected to the adamic sin like all other humans, so jesus had to at least be part sinner himself.. to believe otherwise is just deluding oneself imho .. the only way jesus could have been really without sin is if god created him the same way he created adam.. what do you think ?
.
If you talk about Zombie movies and ask, "Why would dead people be hungry? Why don't Zombies poop? Why wouldn't all of them rot and fall to pieces?" etc. etc. You would be demanding Real World logic to apply to a very unreal premise.
We can't mix the real with the unreal and make it logical.
Hi Terry,
There is more to zombies than meets the eye. Or is there?
https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-philosophers-use-zombies-to-understand-consciousness
Why do philosophers need zombies?
The concept is kind of a mind trick. Imagine a being that looks and even talks like a human. It goes through all the normal motions of a human and yet has no consciousness. And you would have no idea that it is not like you.
According to philosophers like David Chalmers, p-zombies are an argument against physicalism - the school of thought that everything that makes us human is ultimately derived from our physical characteristics.
Physicalism is based on the success of science in exploring the physical world. According to physicalists, we are essentially intricate arrangements of atoms. Behaviorists, a subset of physicalists, maintain that even all mental processes - thoughts, desires, etc - are just responses to the behaviors of others.
If a p-zombie that is exactly like us, except for the sense of self and consciousness, is logically conceivable, then this possibility could support dualism, an alternative view that sees the world consisting of not just the physical but also the mental.
hi folks,.
this interesting article on abc australia covers views of people ex-communicated or shunned by a couple of institutions.
it also includes paul grundy's experience.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-25/the-australians-who-were-cast-out-of-their-religions/100306930.
Atheist and theistic philosophers are broadly in agreement than some entity must have existence as a fundamental part of its nature. This means that it can't fail to exist. We can all fail to exist and so have a weak grip on existence. As we are all dependent upon something for our existence, it follows that some entity must have a stronger grip on existence. It must exist necessarily.
This entity is either limited in its nature or it may be unlimited? Either way, eternal existence must be part of its makeup. If it turns out that it has certain limits, the question becomes why these limits in particular? This road tends to lead to an infinite regress of explanations with no ultimate explanation ever reached.
The question is, could an unlimited God choose to cease to exist? As logic is part of God's nature, it would need to be logically possible for God to cease to exist for him to be able to choose it. If it is logically impossible for God not to exist, then he can't choose to cease to exist, in the same way he can't choose to make a squared circle.
suppose we were naïve observers, given the following data, and asked to draw a conclusion.
we see people gather at a busy bus stop several times a day.
at first one person, then another, and another, until they form a group.
What we experience as a thought is well understood in the neurosciences and you can indeed observe
that people have brain activity before they become aware of the thought.
Just on this point, metaphysical idealism proposes that the reason there is brain activity before we become conscious of our thoughts, is because the subconscious mind may be activated first. The operation of the subconscious mind is then seen via brain activity.
Just because we could be wrong does not mean something metaphysical is happening, we know Newtons laws are wrong, but they are still useful enough to fly to the moon, there is a lot to learn about thoughts and consciousness but that doesn’t mean it is not something that exists outside the physical processes we know off or somewhere outside our brain as some would like it to be.
The mystery about the intrinsic nature of physical stuff which produces consciousness (if true?) is like the question Stephen Hawking’s asked about the nature of the mathematical equations which describe the universe. What breathes fire into these equations in order to produce a universe for them to describe? What breathes fire into physical reality in order to produce consciousness?
The physical processes producing brain activity could be likened to a roller coaster car guided by the tracks it sits on. Something about the nature of reality caused the car to experience the ride.
suppose we were naïve observers, given the following data, and asked to draw a conclusion.
we see people gather at a busy bus stop several times a day.
at first one person, then another, and another, until they form a group.
How: The causal event caused your senses to perceive something and neurons to fire, causing a chain of neurons to fire and when that waveform has been generated (and it is this becoming aware of and interacting with your thoughts is what we describe as intelligence or consciousness, this has been well established and has indeed been explored in ancient texts such as the Bible and other stories for as long as we have had stories), you have generated a thought.
This is what is being challenged by metaphysical idealism. Materialism claims brain activity causes thoughts, whereas metaphysical idealism claims mental processes are reflected in brain activity but not caused by it. Brain activity may be simply a physical representation or image of our subjective mental experience.
If materialism's account is correct, then our personal subjective experiences are no more than the result of objective physical processes in our brain. Brain activity would precede the development of a thought. So in other words you didn't produce the thought, you just became aware of it, after material processes generated both the thought and your awareness of it.
If thoughts are always the pure product of physical activity in the brain, then "you" can never be truly held accountable for your actions, as they were dictated to you by your brain. In fact the “you" part is just an illusion, a trick of your brain which leads you to believe there is more to "you" than there actually is in reality. You are a figment of your brains imagination. This doesn't mean materialism’s view is wrong, it's just interesting to follow this path to its logical conclusion.
suppose we were naïve observers, given the following data, and asked to draw a conclusion.
we see people gather at a busy bus stop several times a day.
at first one person, then another, and another, until they form a group.
But whatever that deeper process is it will be related to the physical, biological and chemical components of the brain because if you take away the brain there is no thought or consciousness.But if the brain itself is the product of a mind? If mind is fundamental, taking away the brain, which is 80% water, still leaves this creating conscious mind in place.
did you ever give a talk and made that point?.
growing up i had the opportunity to live for a while in a farm like place with all kinds of animals.. mom and dad always taught us kids early, what to watch for because there were dangerous animals and insects roaming around.. snakes, black widows, brown recluse spiders, and so on.. there were times when i would just sit by this huge tree and wonder why jah would make all these animals that were dangerous, and hard to see, until it was too late.
like the black widow spider.
What are some principles you envision that would be universally beneficial.
As courage is an attribute every civilisation has admired and viewed as a positive characteristic, I think it is a safe one to start with. And with this in mind, always speaking the truth is something which requires a great deal of courage.
Winston Churchill once said, "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." The challenge is getting universal agreement.
And what would we do with "Evil"' people?
lock them in a cage with a Diamond. It may take a while but good will always conquer evil.
did you ever give a talk and made that point?.
growing up i had the opportunity to live for a while in a farm like place with all kinds of animals.. mom and dad always taught us kids early, what to watch for because there were dangerous animals and insects roaming around.. snakes, black widows, brown recluse spiders, and so on.. there were times when i would just sit by this huge tree and wonder why jah would make all these animals that were dangerous, and hard to see, until it was too late.
like the black widow spider.
PDB; Why has there even to be a moral code? The universe is the way it is, a success. Hope for more of the same. be thankful, work for the best, and enJoy.
Personally, I think working for the best requires some universally beneficial guiding principles, without which, we regress towards predominantly selfish behaviours.
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
suppose we were naïve observers, given the following data, and asked to draw a conclusion.
we see people gather at a busy bus stop several times a day.
at first one person, then another, and another, until they form a group.
Another possible way to look at the relationship between brain and consciousness may be to examine the way radios and radio waves interact. If someone from 1000 years ago discovered a radio he would be excused if he thought the voice was coming solely from inside the radio. If consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, then we may just possess the biological equipment necessary to receive and transmit it to our being.
One of the arguments for assuming that the brain produces consciousness is that, if the brain is damaged, consciousness is impaired or altered. However, this doesn't invalidate the idea that the brain may be a receiver and transmitter of consciousness. A radio doesn't produce the music that comes through it, but if it is damaged, its ability to transmit the music will be impaired.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-spiritual-science-perspective-consciousness.html
did you ever give a talk and made that point?.
growing up i had the opportunity to live for a while in a farm like place with all kinds of animals.. mom and dad always taught us kids early, what to watch for because there were dangerous animals and insects roaming around.. snakes, black widows, brown recluse spiders, and so on.. there were times when i would just sit by this huge tree and wonder why jah would make all these animals that were dangerous, and hard to see, until it was too late.
like the black widow spider.
You can use the existence of evil in the world as a means to question why an all loving, all powerful God would permit it? But it doesn't have any bearing on whether God actually exists or not. The guy in the video understands this.
Even a very level headed physicist such as Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it at 50-50 that we might be living in a simulation created by a superior intelligence. If true? We better hope this intelligent being is guided by a superior moral code than ours.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/
The show’s host Neil deGrasse Tyson had just explained the simulation argument—the idea that we could be virtual beings living in a computer simulation. If so, the simulation would most likely create perceptions of reality on demand rather than simulate all of reality all the time—much like a video game optimized to render only the parts of a scene visible to a player.
