S
STT
Guest
If we agree that the laws of nature is just an approximation of reality then we can fit supernatural within, deviation from laws of nature we is hard to measure in most of the time.I agree with you here however I tend to disagree with some of your other posts that involve dismissing various viewpoints involving the supernatural just because they do not square perfectly with physical laws.
I think that the consciousness in human is the result of natural process. There are other system of thought that claims that consciousness is primary, perhaps God.Isn’t it fair to first know if that something (consciousness, angels, God) is completely physical before presuming or concluding that physical laws must apply?
I agree.Personally, I rarely dismiss things right-off-the-bat unless they violate the laws of logic, and the only exception to not dismissing even things on that level is if a claim is backed by empirical evidence.
I agree.I appreciate your view since it does not conflict with our scientific understanding. However, I tend to venture beyond science when I feel that my experience and that of others necessitates that I do so. Based on evidence from science and my experience, I believe that consciousness or mind is derived from the brain while still being more than just the brain.
Thank you for the link.This position is called ‘emergent dualism’ and you’ll find it held by philosophers such as William Hasker, David Chalmers, John Searle, etc. Sure it takes ‘emergence’ to a whole nother level but I consider it a middle ground position between materialism and the religious worldview.
That is hard and complicated topic on its own. Perhaps I open a new thread on this topic later.If this also means that there is no afterlife, then I disagree. I’m sorta in the middle leaning in favor of there being an afterlife.