crocodile deathroll

I think likewise, it is just a "constellation of perceptions". It is the perceived reality oriented around the observer and not an objective entity that can detach itself from the body and become dammed in Hell or Purgatory or Eternal darkness.

yguy

As I said before, it perceives, and inclines towards good and evil.

Why would you think that, when it is possible to be conscious OF one's own thinking in real time?

Goober

Three questions, yguy...

1) Since only your immortal soul goes to heaven, not your body, if the soul cannot think without a brain, then you cannot think in heaven. You could only do what your soul does. If you think all you do in heaven is percieve good, then thats okay, but I don't think many christians would agree with that. Do you?

2) What makes you think brains can't perceive evil & incline us to good?

3) How does a soul percieve good and evil? Do you think you can come up with a mechanism that is more plausible than neuroscience?

Goober

Wounded King,

Hmmm, I've never heard of that one before, that might be a complication. But I have to agree it sounds very doubtful, though. I don't think quantum effects would be anywhere near large enough to affect neuron firing.

PS, I noticed your just playing the devils advocate.... Thanks, I appreciate your comments on this.

Wounded King

This review covers Penroses Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory in respect to microtubules.

Hameroff S, Nip A, Porter M, Tuszynski J.
Conduction pathways in microtubules, biological quantum computation, and consciousness.
Biosystems. 2002 Jan;64(1-3):149-68.

yguy

You assume that because the soul wouldn't have the brain in Heaven that it has on Earth, that it would necessarily be without a substitute, possibly a better one.

I have no idea, and I'm not much concerned with what happens in Heaven anyway. I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.

I see the brain as analogous to a computer, no better than its programming. In a sense, computers perceive evil all the time, in the sense that they deny access to invalid passwords and the like. Likewise, malleable humans can be reprogrammed by other humans to see this or that as evil, but that is a symptom of human depravity.

Not one that you would find satisfactory.

Wounded King

So the Ten Commandments were an example of human depravity, that is a novel viewpoint.

yguy

No, the fact that they were needed, and that humans can be induced to obey them robotically - as the pharisees did - is evidence of human depravity.

Hawkingfan

I've been gone awhile, and didn't get a chance to respond. Here is what it says on the same Atheist Web Logic & Fallacies page concerning Argumentum ad ignoratium:
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)"
This one is called Shifting the Burden of Proof. This one is used by theists like a broken record. The burden of proof is only on the one making the positive assertion (especially one that contradicts everyday reality). End of story.

Aradia

No problem.

Law has nothing to do with logics. Also, there's no need to post the definition. I know the definition. Perhaps, however, you should learn logics yourself instead of relying on your atheist website so much.

No, I wasn't talking about shifting burden. Learn a little more about logics, reread what I wrote, then get back to me. Thanks.