Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 7:20am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

I severely doubt that an elephant could paint that unless it had been trained to do it which still doesn't prove the existance of a soul.

We aren't arguing existence or non existence. just the one claim that abstract thinking requires a soul.
Now yes the elephants are trained to paint, they are given hand signals to form basic shapes on the canvas. However to follow such hand signals would still require abstract thinking skills in order to relate the two.
Also the language used by elephants and dolphins shows similar patterns to human speech. These patterns indicate that specific sounds have very specific meanings to them. This is again something only accomplished through abstract thinking. (I'll see if I can find something on it online, this was something shown on tv)

This is based on an assumption that if something exists, it can be measured. This is not true in case of immaterial substances.

If it interacts with the world we can measure that interaction. Since we have no examples of metaphysical things existing we have no reason to believe they do. Further more the things you attribute to being the result of the immaterial we either have material explanations for which leave you denying facts, or we actually don't know which meas your claiming to know something that you don't.

Torino's shroud, huh? So far I don't recall any of you objecting this.

You say that like it's suppose to mean something.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 12:09pm

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

Yes indeed.

Suppose I built a machine that had the properties of a human - it was comparable in abstract thought as well.  Where is its soul?

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 12:19pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Just so it's said abstract thought is nothing more then processes occurring in the brain. Hook someone up to a machine that monitors brain activity and we can even see the processes at work.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 12:49pm

qwerty1011

qwerty1011

569 posts

Suppose I built a machine that had the properties of a human - it was comparable in abstract thought as well.  Where is its soul?

It's soul is either non existent or in the part of the robot that controlled it

The same as humans

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 1:11pm

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

It's soul is either non existent or in the part of the robot that controlled it

The same as humans

Well, if the soul exists in the robot, then when am I building it do I suddenly create its soul?

And if it doesn't exist in the robot, does that mean that morality does not apply to it?

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 1:30pm

vesperbot

vesperbot

986 posts

    Torino's shroud, huh? So far I don't recall any of you objecting this.

You say that like it's suppose to mean something.

Source
Some scientific data

Suppose I built a machine that had the properties of a human - it was comparable in abstract thought as well.  Where is its soul?

Weird supposition, given Turing's test that no machine can pass. If you would build such a machine, however, it will have your soul as its own.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 2:05pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Source
Some scientific data

Yeah I've heard of the Shroud of Turin before, what are you trying to get at? Testing on it indicates it to be a forgery and even if it was authentic I don't see how it can be claimed with any certainty to be the one used on Jesus.

Weird supposition, given Turing's test that no machine can pass. If you would build such a machine, however, it will have your soul as its own.

Seriously your arguments just seem to get more and more ridiculous.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 2:52pm

Darkroot

Darkroot

2,549 posts

Some scientific data

To view this article you will need to login or make a payment.
It doesn't seem to be peer reviewed either.

it will have your soul as its own.

What, do you even know anything about programming? Also the turning test is not even a good test to test AI.

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 3:17pm

vesperbot

vesperbot

986 posts

Seriously your arguments just seem to get more and more ridiculous.

Well, a ridiculous statement requires ridiculous arguments.

Testing on it indicates it to be a forgery

Sources!

 

Posted Apr 9, '11 at 3:38pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Well, a ridiculous statement requires ridiculous arguments.

Statements based on facts and logic are hardly ridiculous.

Sources!

How about the source you cited for one.

"The Photographic negatives of the cloth in 1898 revealed the image of a man bearing the marks of crucifixion. Carbon dating tests carried out in 1988 showed that the cloth was dated from 13th or 14th centuries."

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!