Nor does the philosophic conclusion necessarily imply the God of the Abrahamic religions. Each of them (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) claims that God has somehow spoken. The conclusion that one of them is correct is not a philosophic conclusion but a matter of something like faith/ trust/obedience/submission etc.
Of course almost everything we know (with the exception of things like "I am in pain") we know because we were told it by someone we trust. That's why I believe in Australia, the subprime crisis, Dick Cheney's perfidy, etc. --CGE
John Thornton wrote:
> Chris Doss wrote:
>> --- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A non-physical consciousness that transcends time and gravity
>>> violates most of what we know concerning physics.
>>>
>>> No physical form, no neurons. No neurons, no thoughts. No
>>> thoughts, no consciousness.
>>>
>>>
>> There are so many unexamined presuppositions, and such lack of
>> knowledge of the history of philosophy, evident in this statement I
>> don't even know where to begin. I'm not going to bother.
>
> Good because an argument based on a history of philosophy won't solve
> the problem. Did you forget your original question? I'm showing how
> god violates our understanding of science today. Not metaphysics or
> philosophy. You claimed god didn't violate it and I demonstrated how
> it did. Perhaps you believe metaphysics is science?
>