Sorry, RL dragged me away for a few days.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
3) What I meant to say that something was caused by itself is for example, a property of one object makes it do something, such as an electron being atracted by a proton due to it's charge. It's parcially right I knowest because the proton also atracts the electron.
Okay, so what you mean is that an object's
behaviour is partially explained by
characteristics it has. That is different from saying that something causes its own
existence, which is the issue.
No, I said that if free will exists as you told before, then everything has free will.
Why would everything need to have free will for free will to exist? Rocks don't need to have free will. Hamburgers don't need to have free will. Free will only needs to be had be some entities, according to what I said.
4 - There is a problem with that, as the brain not only "controls" the body but also "gathers" a variety of information. There art cases whither people with a part of the brain damaged art unable to remember short term events. How dost the soul/body thing explains that?
When I was trying to write out the Hebrew understanding, I think I said it best right at the end, when I said that the brain is the means by which the mind is manifested in the world. Without the brain, the mind would be unable to interact with this world, neither knowing it nor affecting it. You could say that the brain gives flesh to the mind. But it would be better to say that there is really only one thing, and that this thing is simultaneously material and spiritual.
Often, when people suffer brain damage partway through life, they complain afterwards that their minds can't interact with the world the way they did before. They'll get really frustrated and say "Argh! I should be able to do this. I used to be able to." They'll sometimes complain that it feels like they can't bring back things they know they know, or that they can't learn things they know they should be able to learn. To the Hebrew understanding, what is happening here is this: the damage to the brain kills some of it, which causes the mind/soul/spirit/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to be torn apart from the physical world. When we die, this tearing apart becomes complete--what was meant to be one seamless entity is ripped apart, and our physical bodes die while our spirits (or rather, the shreds of our spirits) descend to what the Hebrew's called Sheol to await resurrection (when our bodies will be raised to life, and reunited with our spirits to make one whole being again).
5 - Read more carefully what I posted, I talked about that eventuality. See Bob. If his decision manifests itself even after his crime, than perfection is impossible after being imperfect. So, concluding, no one can become perfect.
What he did will never magically disappear, no. But remember what we said earlier, that whether something is perfect depends on what it is supposed to be. If the criteria of what the thing is supposed to be change, so does its status regarding perfection/imperfection. The Christian promise that we will be made perfect at the resurrection is the promise that God will make us to be what he
now wants us to be. The original objectives (e.g. that we should never sin, nor die) get replaced with new ones (e.g. that we never sin again, nor die again).
Am I being clear in my explanation?
History is a branch of science, philosophy is basicly logic, art and emotional relationships art now being "discovered" by science and physical experience is basicly what simple science is all about really.
History is not a branch of science at all. In higher education, fields of study are broadly classified into two categories: the sciences and the humanities. The first includes things like genetic biology, electrical enginneering, mathematics, and so on. The second includes literature, law, philosophy, and so on. History is always classified under the humanities category.
Logic is only one tool available to the philosopher. Philosophers use many other mental faculties than just their sense of logic. Creative intuition, for example, is indispensible to philosophy. Logic can analyse ideas, but it takes creativity to come up with new ideas and new ways of seeing things.
The sort of "discovery" of art and emotion by science that you mention is, to be specific, the recognition by scientists and philosophers of science that scientific knowledge is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. Simply said, people are starting to recognise that science can only tell you about some things, and that you need e.g. art to tell you about others.
With physical experience, I meant that knowing how to ride a bike is not the same as conducting many experiments about the physics of bicycle riding. I can run tests on a bicycle and its rider, and then I'll
know about riding a bicycle. But I won't
know how to ride a bicycle until I get on and learn to do it. Theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge are not the same thing.
Poll
