Ambrose of Milan

Do I have to respond to a post like this?

Is there really a difference between a man and machine, supposing the machine was built with technology beyond our comprehension, except that the man is made of organic material and the machine is made of silicon? If we make something that can walk like a man, reason like a man, and display emotion like a man, does that person have an inner consciousness like we do or is it just responding to outward stimuli? If it does have this inner consciousness, which I will call a soul, shouldnt we give it equal rights, as we would to a living, breathing man?

Right, so are you saying that man is incapable of producing a machine that can reason by itself?

We all know that we are conscious. Objectively, yes, but subjectively, too. I can sit here in my little mind, in my little body, observing all the things that happen. I am a subjectively conscious person. I think I can call this subjective consciousness my soul. Now, if man designed artificial computers with a higher and higher intelligence, modifying it so that it displayed all human reactions and emotions, to the point where it appeared identical as a human, would it have a subjective consciousness, just like you do? If so, where, along that process of building the machine, would this consciousness, or soul, enter the hardware? May peace rest with all, Charlie

I am still here lucein...its just that Ive lost any motivation to post in this forum considering the stupid strawman arguments that have been popping up recently

What proof is there that the lady who founded your philosophy is correct, for that matter? You cant prove an abstract concept.

Then we might as well ditch the theory that the Earth revloves around the Sun...guess what...its just a theory! That means it involves "faith" to some extent. Almost everything requires a leap of faith, including God. As I said, when I look at all the events which have happened in Jewish and Christian history, I cannot provide a forensic proof for God's existance, but I can say that he probably does exist.

Thats ok..I dont think you are a jerk

Oh please. Do you KNOW that God doesnt exist?

Objectively speaking, your life is worthless. It may matter to you, but even then it wont matter at death. It can be said that you have meaning now, but if there was no point to your existance in the future then what good is the meaning of your life now? I agree, we are going in circles. Best to stop debating this

This is a very obscure topic Because we know that nothing in this world lasts forever

Yes, it might be said that your life has meaning right now, but time passes infinitely onward. Therefore, we can deduct that, in the grand scheme of things, without God your life is worthless. Comforting isnt it?

Thanks for the welcome, Oakes!

As Ive said, something that does not exist does not have any meaning because it isnt there

Maybe I should have clarified. The Greeks philosophers were wrong about many things. Plato, being one of the better philisophers (IMO), used reason to come to the inevitable conclusions of existance, which is truth and is therefore a part of Christianity. He even scratched the surface of monotheism, but he could never have gotten all the way. This just goes to show that man's reasoning is in vain without divine revelation. Yes, I agree completely. I believe that Christianity is an objective truth. Thus I agree...but with the exception of divine help. God is omnipotent. He made the laws of existance, he can do ANYTHING imaginable. Even the universe itself is just a product of the thought of God. That is how immense, how powerful he is. If you are trying to find a forensic proof for God's existance, you might as well stop here. However, when I look at the Ressurection, the documentational evidence is undeniable. And, when I look at the miracles of the saints, it is hard to think that it was all faked. Or when I look at the image of Mary at Guadalupe. Every fiber is colored, the image cannot be replicated by modern technology. OR when I look at the miracles of Lourdes or Fatima. Of course I will never be able to proove that God exists based on those occurences. But, it is hard for me to imagine someone could fake an apparition which prophecised about the coming Cold War and World War 2, and was attended by thousands of witnesses. As Ive said, Christianity requires a leap of faith, although it itself is within the bounds of reason God bless

Think about it. This is not reffering to objectivism in particular but atheism in general. Once you are dead, there is no point to your life at all, because you are not. So, if you knew you were going to die at 7:00 AM tomorrow, then at 7:01 your life would have no meaning at all because it doesnt exist.

Sorry, I missed that part. Reason: Man trying to understand the universe on his own. Usually this goes smoothly as long as we are taking about concrete sciences, like chemistry and biology, but when we run into other things which involve the supernatural, we encounter problems, as we cannot understand it on our own without divine help. Faith: Trusting in the truth contained in God's revelation to man. This does not mean taking a pure leap of faith, of course revelation must be examined, but no matter how much you break it down there is always some leap of faith, which is why it is called faith. Yes. While it is fine to reason it out by yourself, lets face it, this kind of thinking produces chaos, as already exemplefied in the many denominations of Protestantism because of Luther's Sola Scriptura. You are not your own island, and by yourself you almost surely will be led astray. The Church takes everyone, from all sorts of opposing convictions, and unites them into one.

I do not believe I am trolling. Why is there such hostility when I try to defend MY beliefs? Are you objective, or are you book-burners? I have not attacked objectivism on this thread once.

Objectivism, by its very nature, implies atheism, by saying that man is his own end. For all practical purposes, it is a brand of atheism Why do you insist on asking me this? I am here now, and thats all that is relevant now. It may because I like sharing my convictions, or maybe its just to kill time. Man, get over it. I am posting on this public forum right now, and you dont have the power to shove me off. It would take something quite providencial for me to convert one of you. But if I did I would be happy. The least I can do is share my beliefs with you, so that you may understand them better, and you can truly call youself 'objective'. Objectivism says that man is his own end. Man lives for himself, since there is no God or life after death. Man can achieve complete happiness by himself Individually, human lives are worthless because they will all cease to exist (this is not explicitly stated but is an implication). Humanity can accomplish great things on its own- and can "tame the universe" if it wishes to do so. It is a very loose philosophy which is atheistic in character. Bro, I think your posts are getting a little too venomous. Simmer down, if nothing else for the sake of courtesy. Calling my faith a "collection of fairy tales" isnt very becoming. God bless

Am I a fideist? I guess, partly. People have wasted their lives in the pursuit of knowledge that only ends at death. Part of my faith is a mystery that I cannot know in this life. What good is the knowledge of man without that of God? Nothing, because everything in this world will one day pass away. Christianity, like other ideas, requires a leap of faith. However, I acknowledge that it is good to use reason to investigate things. Fideist: Someone who refuses to use reason outside of the bible. He does not even question where his bible came from. Fideism is taking too large of a leap of faith. Biblicist: Someone who interprets the bible super-literally, without studying where it came from or the people who wrote it. Almost the same as a fideist. I do not believe that translations are inspired

Burgess, I am a christian. I believe in God. I believe that the bible is true and inspired by God, as defined by the Council of Hippo (AD 397).

...whatever you say, is true... It is by virtue of the fact that Jesus Christ established the Church, and the gift of the Holy Spirit which she recieved at Pentecost, which means that the Church will always be adequate. To talk to you. What does anyone care why I want to post here? I am here, and that is all that matters now. The idea that the earth was round was at first "nonsense" too, my good sir. How can this be an "objective" forum if a person calls something else nonsense right off the bat?

Yes, but take this into consideration. Moses was chosen by God to lead his people out of Egypt because they were enslaved. He was the son of a Levite, so he was a Hebrew, a descendant of Abraham. The entire history of divine revelation is tied to these people. When Christ came about, he set up the Church, and no longer made distinction among either Jew or Gentile. The Old Testament was written by Jews; the New Testament by Christians. Christianity is the fullfillment of Judaism. With his sacrifice, he did away with the necessity for all of those animal sacrifices. As I have said, Christ is of the seed of Jesse and of David. He was greeted when he entered Jerusalem by people waving palm leaves and saying "Hosana to the Son of David." If a man tgo claimed divine revelation seperate from the Jews or the Church, and then to make a theology opposed to the Judeo-Christian one, that person was faking it.

I am probably not becoming an "Objectivist" anytime soon, or any other brand of atheist. Mind you, I was an atheist for a little while, so I understand your arguments (thanks alot Carl Sagan!). Also, for an "Objectivist", you clearly show very little understanding of Christian history or apologetics. In fact, this is the kind of garbage Id expect to hear from a fundamentalist evangelical. If you want to discuss certain bible passages, we can. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church which traces its lineage back to the apostles. Reading the Bible is not enough, we must study other things from around that time to get a good grasp of what route we should take. Jesus said "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." The See of Peter has always held a place of prominency among Christian Churches. St. Augustine wrote: "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed." St. Ambrose said that Peter was "set over the Church". Ignatius of Antioch, who was educated by the apostles themselves, wrote this near the end of the 1st century: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue. And Irenaeus of Lyons, pupil of St. Polycarp, who was himself pupil of John the Apostle, wrote this: "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180). God bless

Ummm....the fact that the world was round was not a well-known fact at all. In fact, even in classical times the predominant consensus that the world was flat. Although the ideas were there, they were often mocked by classical authors, and later medieval authors. Saint Augustine compared belief in the antipodae (the notion that at the other side of the world people walk with feet wacing us) to the heretical sect of the Manichaeans. Although this theory was advanced by Aristarchus of Samos, Eratosthes, and Ptolemy, Plato's flat-earth theory was far more accepted because his opinions were valued so much more. You are insisting that the Catholic Church didnt promote education, when in fact all of Europe's old universities are Catholic in origin. We preserved writing, believe it or not, and we promoted scholasticism.