View Single Post
Old 01-09-2019, 09:45 AM
Siemens Siemens is offline
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone
Hmm, even if I'd like to believe B or C there isn't any proof for them. As for A, many people (Like Richard Dawkins) would say that there is sort of a proof that people are their brains, including memories, thoughts, emotions, personality, feelings, intellect etc. How? Look at Dementia people, look at the Guy who got knocked out in a bar fight.
Dawkins is, like all atheists, an ignorant. Atheists use this: “I don’t believe in Atheism, I just refuse to not believe in souls or god. Therefore Atheism isn’t a believe but a form of knowing.”-argument. But this argument is faulty.

If you ask yourself the question: Is it more likely that what we perceive as matter is
A) a “substance-ish” ultimate reality or
B) a virtual visualization generated inside our souls just like a dream?
What would you answer?

I think, you would say A is more likely. But from an objective and mathematical view this isn’t the case! B is at least as likely as A. If you disagree try to find at least one argument that makes A more likely than B.

The empirical data you presented, the correlation between brain damage and loss of consciousness or memories, can appear in both theories. Of course, if the brain were just a virtual construct, it wouldn’t do anything. But it could be part of the game that you loose consciousness if someone hits you on your head. So this brain damages fit perfectly in both theories: A and B! (I myself understand the brain as a kind of a projection (a mock-up) that reconstructs what’s going on in our soul.)

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone
For someone like Dawkins , there is no need for a soul as the brain does everything.
You can reverse this argument 100%. -> There is no need to believe that matter in form of a substance exists. All we perceive as matter, the whole universe, can be explained in terms of an virtual visualization generated inside our soul. The only things that really exist are our souls. Isn’t this theory at least as frugal as Atheism?

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone
It is easier to say and explain A rather than B or C. (As the soul would be sort of a fairy tale).
Why is it easier? -> Reversion: The theory that matter exists (as real existing substance) is a fairy tale.
Reply With Quote