God exists.I need an argument against my argument.
You have never met my mother. I can guarantee you she exists. But it would take a seed of faith to trust me on it.I put everything that we can experience inside material category.
Where did you locate “respect” or “human dignity” or “spiritual journey?” These are non-locatable in space and take up no room. Therefore, according to your logic, you have no grounds for concluding anything about any of them.Accepting the fact that teaching of church you are at most a follower. This means that you don’t have any respect for human dignity to make your own way in your spiritual journey. This means that you don’t respect God and his creation either.
Are your experiences, themselves, also material or “inside material category?”I put everything that we can experience inside material category.
These are a set of claims which does not work against an argument.God exists.
He can do anything he pleases.
He creates humans, body and soul (ex-nihilo by the way).
It pleases him to resurrect us body and soul.
Anybody who tells you where their soul is in that mysterious time between death and the resurrection is speculating.
Mystery.
All powerful God.
Love
Awesome mysteries.
Why? Your argument depends on this claim. Do you have any proof for it?I put everything that we can experience inside material category.
Catholic believe that man is made of mater and soul. Soul however is an immaterial thing and it is form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. Soul however cannot occupy any room since it is immaterial. This means that soul cannot be located by God. Hence the concept of resurrection is false.
I find that ironic, given the claim you make in your OP.These are a set of claims which does not work against an argument.
Bahman simply said the argument was not circular; no other explanation was forthcoming.(1) The soul is immaterial.
(2) Whatever is immaterial does not occupy physical space.
(3) Whatever does not occupy physical space cannot be located.
(4) The soul cannot be located because it is immaterial.It is not circular argument.
Where would you locate squareness?Catholic believe that man is made of mater and soul. Soul however is an immaterial thing and it is form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. Soul however cannot occupy any room since it is immaterial. This means that soul cannot be located by God. Hence the concept of resurrection is false.
As you sort of mention here, the human soul is an immaterial spirit. Yet, when it is united to the human body which forms a human person, the immaterial soul is in the body and in the place wherever the body is. For wherever the body goes, obviously our soul goes with it. Accordingly, an immaterial soul or spirit can be in a place. But, our soul is in the body not as being contained by the body, but as containing the body. Consequently, a spirit, such as the angels or separated human souls are in a place not as being contained by it such as bodies are, but as containing the place by contact of power. Separated human souls and the angels are in place as far as the “reach”, so to say, of their power can extend which is limited. Only God is everywhere while creatures are somewhere.Catholic believe that man is made of mater and soul. Soul however is an immaterial thing and it is form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. Soul however cannot occupy any room since it is immaterial. This means that soul cannot be located by God. Hence the concept of resurrection is false.
I don’t understand how your comment is related to my argument about resurrection. Could you please elaborate?You have never met my mother. I can guarantee you she exists. But it would take a seed of faith to trust me on it.
You have never seen the darkside of the moon. Is it there?
No one really believes that only the experienced constitutes reality. Some may say it, but they don’t really believe it.
Everyone, without exception, has faith in something outside themselves, whether they will admit it or not. (funny how human beings are wired that way)
Any concept has a form upon experience hence they occupy some room inside your mind which of course is not physical room.Where did you locate “respect” or “human dignity” or “spiritual journey?” These are non-locatable in space and take up no room. Therefore, according to your logic, you have no grounds for concluding anything about any of them.
Ideas and soul have nothing in common since ideas are experienced with soul and they resides inside your mind. Mind on the other hand is utility of soul allowing that experience happen.Seems a little inconsistent of you to say what God can and cannot do based upon what is or is not locatable in space and doesn’t take up room and then you relax those regulations completely by taking liberties and making all kinds of conclusions with regard to what is clearly just as “not locatable” by you because your ideas don’t “take up room” anywhere, either.
Please read previous comment.You want to deny to God a capability you readily presume to yourself. Clearly arbitrary and self-refuting of you to do so, my good fellow.
How that is related to this topic?You do understand the logical law of non-contradiction, yes?
Ideas are experienced and stored inside your mind and they occupy room.Now, unless you think your mental ideas are safely held in storage in some little room inside your skull where they are located and take up space, any meaningful conclusions you think you can draw after claiming it is impossible for God to locate immaterial things that don’t take up space are self-refuted by that very same “impossibility.”
Let me be more precise on this subject. Whatever we experience can be divided into two category depending on where they are: 1) object and 2) ideas. Objects reside inside physical space but they can be delivered inside our conscious mind for experience. It is the duty of sensory system to convert object to a form which can be experienced by conscious mind. Ideas however reside inside subconsciousness and can be delivered into conscious mind for experience.Are your experiences, themselves, also material or “inside material category?”
Anything that we experience occupy a room in conscious mind.Where are your experiences located and how much room do they take up?
No, my argument doesn’t depend on this claim. Please read post #76 for further explanation.Why? Your argument depends on this claim. Do you have any proof for it?
I have an idea in my conscious mind, it is taking up space here. I can locate it. But now I’m going to shout out idea to you across physical space. Idea now is not physical, is a thought in space. Not material thing. Idea cannot be located. Therefore it cannot exist. You need argument why my shouted idea is real and cannot be located in room.Let me be more precise on this subject. Whatever we experience can be divided into two category depending on where they are: 1) object and 2) ideas. Objects reside inside physical space but they can be delivered inside our conscious mind for experience. It is the duty of sensory system to convert object to a form which can be experienced by conscious mind. Ideas however reside inside subconsciousness and can be delivered into conscious mind for experience.
Anything that we experience occupy a room in conscious mind.
Could you please read OP again to see if there is anything wrong there or if you can find a counter-argument?I find that ironic, given the claim you make in your OP.
What kind of argument hinges on a baseless claim?
Is that a part of Catholic teaching to call people as a computer when you fail against a clear argument?After careful consideration of this and other examples of Bahman’s “reasoning”, I have come to the conclusion that Bahman is actually a computer program designed to posit silly arguments to get a rise out of CAF denizens, and then to simply dispute any and all counter arguments.
That is him who should show that my argument is circular. Can you show that?Here’s my proof:
A When jonathan_hili pointed out the circular nature of his argument, to whit
Bahman simply said the argument was not circular; no other explanation was forthcoming.
Please read post #76 for further explanation.B He stated that he puts “everything that we can experience inside material category” including the ideas that are contained in a book. This is just contrariness since material things are made of matter and ideas are clearly not.
Where is your argument?C He constantly makes unsubstantiated assertions but demands hard proof from everyone else.
All this points to
(a) a mindless computer program, or
(b) someone who gets their kicks out of being the wall everyone bangs their heads against.
Either way, I’m not playing any more.