₦airaland Forum

Am sorry btt the UK high com will not issue you a Visa as long as you Malaysian student Visa is still due.unless,your course is a transfer course.but still,you can transfer only after a year or 2.
What i would advice you to do is,finish atleast 1 and half years in Malaysia,then apply for 2nd year in a UK university.if the UK university accepts you into 2nd year,then you can apply for a Visa.The uk embassy will only have a problem if it looks like you are abandoning your current studies in malaysia for a future in UK.that is why it is important that your education path looks continous and stuctured.i.e,if you are moving from Malaysia to UK,its from a lower year to a higher year,or undergrad to postgrad.but NOT from 1st year to 1st year.it will raise suspicions.
But if you can just finish your 3years in malaysia with a good degree and apply for Postgrad in UK,and have enough funds for UK visa,it is almost guaranteed.the good thing with the UK high com in malaysia is they do not receive as many fraudelent applications as in Lagos.therefore they have less reasons to doubt you are genuine,plus Malaysians outnumber africans by a very big margin in terms of applicants.

I would not advice your friend to go to fiji,from what i have researched on fiji.First,therd was a milititary coup in fiji in 2006,and now the country is run by a military dictator.the economy is doing bad,infact the economy shrank by 6.6% percent in 2006.it grew by only 1% last year,and since the coup,unemployment is very high.What makes things worse is the EU has cut aid to fiji,and Australia does not have any diplomatic relations with fiji.There is no Australian consulate in fiji,and even with a fiji passport you will still be required to apply for a visa in person at the nearest Aussie co nsulate.

Your friend should think twice,a country run by a military dictator might not be the best place to be an illegal immigrant,since such leaders are known to be very ruthless with little regard to sanctity of human life.

I have to agree with the most of the countries mentioned.though it would have been nice if the poster gave us reasons.I can think of a few from the top of my head.

1.North Korea
- this has to be the one of the worst places to live.its run by a complete dictator.Cellphones and internet are banned,and no citizen is allowed to leave the country.there are no private or foreign media tv or radio stations,and the only ones which exist are run by the government.
- anyone caught trying to escape from the country is either killed or put in detention camps.if he manages to escape,then his family is hunted down and made to pay for the sins of the escapee.millions of n.koreans are starving and majority of the kids are malnourished and underweight.the dictator who likes to be killed 'the dear leader',has brainwashed his people into believing that he's a god,and all of the problems of n.korea are caused by s.korea and US.
-in one of the secretly filmed documentary,many n.koreans were not aware that there existed other countries outside n.korea!if you were to visit n.korea,you will be assigned a 'minder',a government agent who will follow you wherever you go.you can be sure that you will not be permitted to freely move and talk with n.koreans.

2.Iraq
-though the security situation in iraq has improved,it still remains very volatile with suicide bombers killing people in markets,shopping malls and busy streets.Kidnappings of tourists and wealthy individuals for ransom is also common.
3.afghanistan- very dangerous,suicide bombings are almost a daily thing.also as a female tourist,you will be forced to wear hijab or the bukka,otherwise the society is very oppressive to women,and women who defy these laws are often punished severely.

4.Yemen-yemen is famous for its widespread kidnappings.tourists are kidnapped for ransom.the only good thing is,kidnappers ard known to treat their victims very well.
5.somalia-there is currently a war going on,and there has never been a function government for more than 12years,its a lawless country with little infrastructure and widespread poverty and insecurity.though the northern part of somalia is more stable than the south.

Malaysia has a work policy that demands,Malays first,then chinese and indian malaysians second,then foreigners last.therefore its highly unlikely u will get skilled employment in malaysia.

If your flight only involves one airline,then you don't need to use an agent.just go directly to the airlines ticketing office.
But an agent may be neccesary if you are going to a destination which will require 2 different unrelated airlines.

As i have said before,Malaysia is a great place to study.Most of the Universities grant British degrees.And its alot easier getting a UK student visa for your masters from malaysia than from Africa in general.

The only downside is that part-time work is very limited and it pays poorly.so better come prepared with enough cash.
You will need about 200 Usd per month.

Vicjustice:
I disagree with some of your claims, especially about the countries that are considered for asylum. Now, i'm not arguing from opinions, but rather from personal knowledge gained from personal involvements and experience.
   Though, it's under the UN resolution to accept and protect citizens from war torn countries, but that is not the same thing as granting them the Refugee status; the section of this resolution article has a B part which states that those fleeing for their lives should seek asylum in the nearest relatively safe country and definitely, that is not a country in the Schengen zone.
There's a big difference between seeking asylum and being granted the Refugee status. I was in Greece during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, before then, people from Afghanistan and other muslim countries used to find it easy to seek asylum in the Schengen countries (even though most of their applications were turned down). But after the attacks, most countries (especially Greece and France) do not even accept their applications how much more to grant them the Refugee status, they fear that these Afghans and Iraqi would propagate their deadly cultures and endanger the lives of European citizens.

Yeah i guess you are right.People from largely muslim countries will have a harder time being granted asylum,simply because of the perceived terrorist risk.

By the way FGM is grounds for asylum in UK,US and Australia.FGM is female g***** mutilation.If a female can prove his or her tribe practise forced fgm and she is directly in danger of being forcibly circumsised,she might be granted asylum.Though the burden is heavy for such a female.She will also have to prove that her countries justice and police system is unable to protect her from and arrest her aggressors.

MMh,Go to Somalia,learn abit of Amharic or Arabic,shave your hair,lose some pounds so that you can look as thin as possible,bribe the immigrations officials in Mogadishu or hargeisa in the North, for a Somali passport (if it exists),then get on a plane from djibouti and surrender yourself either in heathrow or the city of your choice in europe as an asylum seeker.

There are very few countries that Western countries will be willing to consider asylum, Nigeria is not one of them.Even if you are from the troubled Niger Delta.Unless ofcourse you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your life is danger.Unfortunately even if it is true,am afraid the reputation of Nigeria has suffered,and most shengen countries are aware of phony asylum requests by Nigerians.

There are a few countries though in the world where asylum is almost guaranteed:

1.North Korea - If you manage to escape the country,your guaranteed asylum in most European countries,though,most North Koreans prefer seeking asylum in S.Korea.
2. Eritrea - This country is run by a dictator who refuses any of his citizens to leave the country.Most UN missions grant asylum to Eritreans.
3.Somalia - Somalians also enjoy asylum privileges.The only problem for them is that they are too poor to afford a plane ticket to Europe.

other countries which might be easier for them to be granted asylum are:

1.Afghanistan
2.Iraq
3.Zimbabwe
4.South Sudan
5.Haiti
6.Burma (Myanmar)

Thanks deepsight for your response.I am happy that you are keeping it civil and hopefully we can get something out of this

My perception of God (and this I believe holds true for the generality of deistic thought) is this –

1. That it is obvious that all that exists must per force have a cause or source

We can derive this from maybe the cosmological argument or argument from contingency.So i agree with you.

2. That the uncaused cause or “un-sourced” source is the One Supreme Eternal God who created all that exists.

You see my contention with this statement is:

1.It does not follow that if something is uncaused then it is God,abstract objects such as numbers,logical are thought of being uncaused or neccesarily existing.no one believes that there was a time 1 or 2 did not exist.

2.The act of creating everything does not qualify one to be a God.The traditional philosophical definition of a God is a being whoseall attributes are maximised.
The act of creation might show a being whose very powerful,but power alone is just one of the 3 major attributes that are traditionally associated with a maximised being.Knowledge and morals are the other key essential attributes.

Just like christianity i agree that there are certain different types of Deism.I'm not sure to which you subscribe to,but just like in Christianity there are essential certain doctrines that are general in most mainstream Christianity.

1.God is triune
2.God is Omni-characteristic
3.The incarnation of god into man,death and resurrection.

Therefore,when i speak of deism,i speak of the most common form of Deism.The form of deism that sets it apart from other monotheistic religions.

Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

And

[b]* God is identified through nature and reason, not revelation. Deists who believe in God, or at least a divine principle, follow few if any of the other tenets and practices of Christianity, Judaism, or any religion believing in a personal God. Any deist god is an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will.
* Some deists believe in Jesus Christ, while others do not. Most deists give regard to the moral teachings of Jesus.
* The Bible is not accepted as the infallible Word of God. Deists refute evidence of Jesus’ incarnation of God on earth. They deny the credibility of any writings from the Apostles or any “Spirit-inspired” writings.
* Deism has no creed, articles of faith, or holy book. Neither Satan nor hell exists, only symbols of evil which can be overcome by man’s own reasoning.
* Man is qualified to decide what reasonable path to follow regarding morals. Deists refer to themselves as “freethinkers.”
* Deists reject revelations and visions. There is no place for the nonsense of miracles and prophecies in an enlightened deist’s life.
* Deism has no need for ministers, priests, or rabbis. All an individual requires is their own common sense and the ability to contemplate their human condition.[/b]

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm


It is very clear that the deist god is a non interventionist type of God.And this is exactly what sets apart Deism from traditional forms of Theism.I have never heard of a form of deism which includes revelations and intervention.

Now since God created all that exists, the following also necessarily holds true –

1. Nothing exists that God is not responsible for; God spawns all existence – there therefore cannot be anything unknown to God. God is thus omniscient.
2. The same principle holds true in rendering God omnipotent – namely that everything that exists derives from God. God thus has complete control over the entirety of existence.

we can't really know if this is true,since the deist god does not reveal his character to humans,we will be guessing whether he has control of this universe.
It could be said that infact,he has lost control of the universe,
a) there is untold moral evil and natural evil in the world.

- I am aware some deist would say that the presence of natural evil is just "gods" way of bringing about natural process.While i agree that this point is indeed valid,this does not explain moral evil. Infact there is a paradox here

- If a deist says that moral evil should not be viewed as being something bad,it is just a natural process encompassing natural selection and the fittest survive adage of evolution,then we can ask why are there behaviors that seem to go against this principle.Eg Why aren't human beings getting rid of beggars,lepers old people who are burdens to the society.If Africa was to follow "the fittest survive" policy, we should be killing off people who are burdens to society.Acts of altruism should be nonexistent.
- But if a deist says indeed god does interfere or he set everything in the beginning in such a way that good will win over evil in the end,then we are obliged to ask,"How do you know that?" The deist god has not revealed his intentions in any book,video tape or written message.Secondly, according to the tenets of deism,god uses natural means to bring about his will,the only natural means we know as pertains morality,is through natural selection.so we are back at square one.

b) Current science and observations tell us Everything is tending towards disorder,the universe is headed for a heat death.Infact our own sun will obliterate us in 5 billion years,that is if an asteroid or comet will not have destroyed it by then.This does not show a God who is in control.A God whose creation will destroy itself,shows a god who either is unwilling to do anything or is unable.Again,a deist cannot say,that "God's plan is this and that, ", a deist has no way of knowing that.

While i agree that it is indeed plausible that a Deist God is very powerful,very knowledgeable about creating universes,but it does not follow that he's in control,and thus omnipotent.

again we cannot deduce Omniscience from the act of creating everything.Let me use an analogy:

1) We cannot know if this Deist god possesses foreknowledge,i.e he can tell what i will have for lunch tomorrow.He can know everything about me,everything about foods,everything about kfc and mcds,but he might not know whether i will have kfc or mcds tomorrow.He can have a pretty good guess based on my lifestyle,but he cannot know for certain.Any Deist who claims that the deist god indeed possesses foreknowledge,then he needs to illustrate to us how he knows this information.Or how it follows since he created everything,then he possesses foreknowledge.

2)We cannot know whether the deist god possesses middle-knowledge.Middle Knowledge is the view that holds that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what would happen if He acted differently than He does.Why is this type of knowledge very important?
- imagine god is about to create a Peter,god would wish Peter to marry jane. Jane is miami, peter is Boston.God has looked at his foreknowledge and "seen" that peter would meet jane in Florida when he's 12 years old,and hate her.God's hands are tied in this case.If he wants to preserve Peter's free will,he can't force peter to marry jane.


You see if god possessed middle knowledge he would look and see,under which circumstances that he would need to create and put peter so that he ends up willingly marrying jane.Eg, If peter meets jane at 25 when she has blossomed,he would fall for her.etc

Now imagine a god trying to create the whole universe without foreknowledge or middle knowledge.No matter how bright he was,he would never really know what the outcome of his creation will be,and what would have happened if he did things differently.

A deist would claim that by virtue that our universe works,shows that god knew what he was doing.But this does nothing to address the main contention.Nobody is disputing the fact that a deist god is very smart,very very smart.But if he doesn't know the future,or the outcome of events if he had done stuff differently,then he's not all-knowing.

[QUOTE]2. Even if held, the belief in non-interference does not in any way connote an amoral God

This is the second leg of my response to you.

What makes you assume that a belief in non-interference must necessarily invoke an amoral God?[/quote]It does! A couple brings forth a child.In his teenage days

1.he starts smoking bhang
- The father says nothing to him.
2. he starts sleeping with prostitutes.
- the father says nothing
3. He drops out of school and threatens to kill his sister.
-the father says nothing
4.he actually goes ahead and kills his sister
-the father says nothing.

The father is neither pleased nor annoyed with his sons actions.No person in his right mind would not question the moral integrity of this father.
imagine a court of law the father is called to the witness stand and asked;

Judge: Are you dismayed at your sons actions?
father: No am not.
Judge: What? are you saying that you are pleased with your sons actions?
father: Nope,none of that either.

The only conclusion we can derive from this type of parent is that, he is either amoral,or he's truly evil.Inaction to acts of evil or goodness shows a god who has no sense of justice.An attribute even his own creations seem to have!

[QUOTE]Non-interference simply means that the created worlds bear the active laws of God and accordingly require no further input from the Creator, [/QUOTE]

Where are this laws? the natural laws?again if we to follow the evolutionary model of natural selection where the fittest survive,the world would be a very bad place,where weaker people in society would be terminated,universal health care would be a dream,basically it would be every man for himself,every society for itself.

So actually,human beings have fashioned a better moral system than a deist god! by us ignoring the natural laws as pertaining to morality,we have been able to create societies which cater for old people,terminally ill people and basically most people who are of little value to the society.If we were to let nature run its cause,then ,as i have said before,the world would be a bad place to live.


[QUOTE] If you reflect on it: you may realize that only an imperfect God would actually create a world in which he has to return to tinker with things constantly[/QUOTE]

MMh not really,but this is out of the discussion,though i'm willing to take it up in a different thread.

In Conclusion

While the question of who's version of god is the right version is inconsequential to whether a God exists,i believe that any version of a god or any worldview, must fulfill two basic criteria

1. The concept of God must be internally consistent.
2. The concept of god must be consistent with what is observable in nature and life.

I believe that Deism in its original form,i.e God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a non-interventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.
This basic version of deism is internally consistent,and thus fulfills criteria 1.But as i have outlined it does not fulfill criteria 2.
because

a) Human moral nature is totally in contradiction with a deist god who has created everything to follow natural order.As creations of a deist God,one is at pains to explain why a Deist god would create humans who have characteristics such as altruism when it is clearly in contradiction to evolutionary ethics.
b) Deism is itself ultimately self refuting!

p1. If Deism is true,then God created everything to follow natural order and set everything in place so that it would all unravel itself in time,
p2. Therefore if deism is true, then determinism is true.If everything has already been perfectly laid out,then our future and fate is already determined.
p3.it also follows that the idea that, deism is true,was also predetermined and cannot be thought of to be a rational position which came about from free non-determined rational beings.
conclusion: therefore Deism is not a rational idea.

c)I have illustrated that the act of creating a universe and everything does not in itself show that the being is omniscient or omnipotent.On the contrary, the state of the universe and its ultimate fate shows a god who seems to have lost control of the universe.

d) any further claims made of a deist god such as his intentions,plans etc are all speculations since deism says that we cannot know this god.

e) the christian conception of God and Deist God are radically different and mutually exclusive.If one version of God exists,then necessarily the other one does not exist.Christians believe in a Tri-une,Omni and personal God who regularly intervenes and is knowable,whose plans he has revealed in scripture and who plans on revealing himself in his full nature sometime in the future. Whether this is true or not is not the question.But as we can see this concept of God is radically different from a non-interfering,non-interventionist,unknowable God who is not interested in the affairs of the world.Christians and deists cannot be speaking of the same God,it is not a matter of perception as Deepsight put it,this is a fundamental conceptual difference of Deity.

Sorry for the long post deepsight.

3 leading cosmologists Guth,borde and vilenking in 2003 showed that any universe which has been expanding must have a past finite boundary.this rules any theories on cyclic universes.besides,the current expansion of the universe is irreversible due to the composition of the universe with mostly dark matter.if the expansion is irrervisible now,why should we suppose that it was reversible in an earlier expansion.Was our universe composed of other stuff?
The burden clearly lies on the person in support of cyclic theories.

Lastly,even if we dismiss the widely accepted finite universe, and we embrace the a beginless universe,how does this answer the question,'why something rather than nothing exists.'
The universe is contigent,so its existence is not neccesary.but it exists.Why?

Deepsight,thank you for your response.Its the lack of intresting threads that keep me away.I am not Nigerian,so i keep wondering why some people here are obsessed with pastors,especially TB Joshua.

Anyway,back to this thread.my objection wasn't simply about definitions.it was about the properties of what would constitute the greatest being.

Think of it this way,lets say we are looking for the greatest laptop ever built.
Our parameters would be:

1.Processing speed.
2.RAM Size.
3.hardisk size.

These would be the basic factors.so assume a Toshiba 3.0 quad core,4gb Ram,1 terabyte laptop would b a truly great laptop,assumin that most laptops are way below the above specs.

The toshiba would be the laptop god.simply bcoz of all the amazing specs it
Has.

Therefore,when we are looking for the greatest bein,that is a god,we try to think of basic properties in their superlatives whch would entitle this being to be called the greatest being,i.e God.

1.how powerful is he?
- for him to be considerf truly the greatest,he has to be all powerful.
2.how smart or knowledgeable is he?
- for him to be considered great,he has to know alot,infact if there is stuff he doesnt know,then he's not that great afterall
3.how is his moral character.
- he also has to be morally perfect,otherwise if his behavior falls short,then he has failed and he can't be considered great.

The most common type of deist god that is advocated by most deists,only fulfils one of the criteria above,powerful.
Deists say that,god created the universe and let it be,he's not concerned wit human affairs or revealing himself through any religion.
Therefore we can draw the following conclusions about a deist god.
a)he created the universe,so he must be very powerful.we cannot say whether he's all powerful or not.
b)he's amoral.since he does not care or get involved with humans,its reasonable to conclude that his moral character is absent,i.e he doesnt care about evil or good.
3.we really can't say if he,'s all knowing,that is he knows everything,we can only conclude that he knows enough to create the universe.he might not possess foreknowledge or middle knowledge.e.g he might know how to create a planet,but might not know what you will have for breakfast tomorow.

The question now becomes,does a deist 'god' deserve the honours of the greatest being?i.e a God?in my opinion he fails miserably.ofcourse this doesn't tell us whether he exists or not.but woe unto us if it turns out he does!

Maybe in another post i will illustrate why a deist god is highly unlikely,even impossible,when we consider a rule that encompasses sufficient cause and effect.

DeepSight,over to you.

I know this thread has been long abandoned but i just discovered it.My contention with a deistic kind of God is that actually he really does not qualify for deityship!allow me to explain deepsight.

using Anselms ontological argument and various philosophical definitions of a God,we end up with," a neccesarily existing being who's properties are maximised.". I know this is a strange definition,different from the traditional," being who is sovereign and the cause of the all that exists."

While both are true,the first one,is more philosophically relevant.A god is a being of whom no greater being can be conceived.

1. A being who can create the milky way is great,but we can easily think of a being who can create the whole universe,and this being will be greater than the former,since (as far as we know),the universe is the greatest physical thing in terms of size.
2.but a universe making being or agent,hardly qualifies for deitiship.he's powerful yes,but why should he be a god,rather than a spontaneous creature who popped into existence a universe with absolutely no reason.
3.A Morally perfect universe making being is much greater than an amoral creator.

using Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument.

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Therefore any being who lacks any of the three properties is not worthy to be called a God.Deitiship includes maximal properties,a being who lacks maximal properties is hardly a God at all.

we would not start calling a person who is able to create the biggest spaceship on earth a god,infact we would still not call him a god if he was soo strong that he could tear the moon apart with a single punch.In short,a universe making "thing" does not merit being called a God simply because it can create universes.

More of a Theistic evolutionist or progressive creationist.

I don't know about yms travel,but here are a few tips to help you.

1.If a travel agent or any other company uses a gmail,yahoo,hotmail or any commercial mail server instead of its own mail server,then its probably a fake or not a serious company.For example if yms email is, yms@yahoo.com,Yms@hotmail.com etc,then dont risk your cash.
You should also be aware that some scammers are wise enough to have their own mail servers,eg contact@yms.com.If they do,then go to step 2 below.

2.Most scammers do not own landlines.this is because getting a landline is more difficult,and one needs to register his real name and contact details with the telkom company.Therefore if a company or tours and travel agent only gives you mobile contacts,then know something is fishy.A proper company should have a landline and fax number.

3.If a tour company has a website,and sends you emails,its easy to trace who owns that website,and the IP address,unlike chinese and russian scammers who are very good at stayin totally anonymous,Nigerian scammers are more clumsy.Incase u get any email from an agent,just google,'how to track email from yahoo or google'.

There are websites which wil show you how to do it,its pretty simple.If it indicates the IP is from a cyber cafe,then its probably a scam,if it ir anonymous,then its probably a scammer.These are just a few tips to easily identify a scammer.

Justwise,i don't know where he's going to find that money.i did not tell him that its going to be easy or achievable.I gave him options,then he can choose the ones which are attainable,or work towards them.

@justwise
I forgot to add that he needs some money to get him off his feet.

I really sympathise with the poster.Sometimes life can b frustrating in Africa.here are a few suggestions:

1.Approach an NGO in nigeria and present your academic papers,if your papers are good enough,they might be willing to sponsor you,but i highly doubt they will sponsor you outside Nigeria.

2.Buy a ticket and visit any of the Visa free countries and look for opportunities for business or work.Eg try Dubai,get a visitors Visa,then look for job adverts in the local paper.ofcourse you will need to get a work permit if you do land a job.

3.Look for help from relatives to sponsor you.

4.look for a job in naija,and hopefuly you will b able to start your own business.

Goodluck.

The intellectual dishonesty of some unbelievers amazes me.No biblical Scholar theist or nontheist, would take those verses literally especially when read in the whole context.

'fly like a butterfly Sting like a bee.' Mohamed ali.

Was Ali instructing people to attempt to fly and sting people like bees!

Any world which has Natural laws will have natural disasters.
It is like asking,why are bachelors umarried males?

Plate tektonics are the causes of earthquakes which are created by fault lines in the Earth's crust.

For there to be no Earthquakes,we will have to have no oceans and preferably very cool core.Under this circumstances,life would not exist on earth.

Therefore any planet with oceans and land masses,will have earthquakes.

My point being, the only way we can avert natural disasters,is by suspending natural laws.

MyJoe:

I did not ignore your question I answered it in my previous post.

[QUOTE]At what point does he acquire the soul?[/QUOTE]

As i said earlier, the Soul in Theism or Dualism is what we refer as to the person.Therefore are you asking," At what point does a baby become a person?"

[QUOTE]can it not be argued that it is superfluous since the brain does consciousness and thinking according to science?[/QUOTE]

As i said in my earlier post, Dualist believe the same thing too!

For example, The act of running. Running is triggered by Brain activity,a series of nuerons with information goes to the spinal chord and legs and the relevant muscles which start the processs of running.

But we do not say that Brains run,we say People,or persons run.Without a conscious thinking individual to make that choice of running,running would be impossible.Brains do not decide to run,Persons,decide to run.This conscious and thinking entity which has made the decision to run,is what dualists call the Soul/Person.

I would like to a that there is a Big difference between eg

A)0.5,0.25,0.125 , infinity

and

B)1,2,3,4,5,6,7, infinity

and

C)1,3,5,7,9, infinity


Cantor the real whiz of Mathematics of infnites showed that for example A and B have different magnitude or as he called it Cardinality.

Although They both will tend towards infinity, one of them will have more elements than the other.

For example a Set of all Real numbers will have more elements than a Set of all positive ODD numbers.

Maven,such a marvelous write up!

Yeah Alaeth you are right.Deepsight seems to be treating Infinity as though it is a number which can be arrived at or started at.

We can only tend towards infinity,but never arrive at it.We can't arrive at infinity through succesive addition or subtraction.

Maybe its me,but i still don't see how all this counts as an argument for God's existence.

Numbers and mathematics are abstract objects,and abstract objects do not have causal powers,that is they do not stand in Causal Relations or simply put,numbers don't cause anything.

Therefore if God is Infinity or any other number abstraction,then he would not have been able to create or do anything for that matter.

I just don't see how we can equate God,who is a not simply an abstraction,to numbers which are abstractions.

I'm not sure how Deepsight is going to formulate his argument. I'm thinking maybe by using the 'impossibility of an actual infinite regress' as an argument for the contigency (or finite beginning) of the universe,but i may be way off!

DeepSight enlighten us.

Thanks all for the lively contributions.

Going back to my OP, i had asked What happened to Tom after the split-brain surgery.

As expected,no one has been able to answer this question,and i beleive if materialism is true,then we can't answer this question.

Some asked then what do souls do.And pointed out that if the brain is damaged then we lose consciouness etc. This shows a misunderstanding of what dualists believe.

Dualists agree that Brain activity does cause consciouness.Consciousness gives rise to a soul/being/person.

Therefore we are not saying that consciousness is caused by the Soul,we are saying the state of being conscious and thinking is what is the soul.
Therefore asking what is the function of the soul is like asking what is the function of a person!

Where Dualists defer with non-dualists is the assertation that Consciousness is JUST brain activity.

Therefore a dualist will agree with you 100 percent that,if the brain is damaged we will lack consciousness.But he will disagree with you when you say that Persons/souls are nothing more than Brain activity.

And my argument and scenario illustrates this.If persons or consciousness is simply physical,i.e no need of postulating a non-material entity,then in the split brain scenario we should be able to tell know all the facts about Tom.

1.If materialism is true,then it should be possible to know all the material facts of a given thing

2.In my scenario,we can't know what happend to tom.

3.therefore materialism is false.

DeepSight, awesome post! You have raised quite pertinent issues.

We need more threads like these,if more people had curious minds,then we would not have as many ''pastor-so and so did this or that'' type of threads.
 Where is Viaro by the way?

Kunle,sorry i must have missed your post.

The part that controls consciousness is called the Cerebulum,specieficaly the Cortex and the center.Both Right and Left hemisphere havd a cortex.Therefore,this does not solve our problem.