Skip to main content

For CFI UK info - email me


If you would like to be kept informed of CFI UK events by email, email me and I will add you to our database. I won't pass them on, obviously.

For upcoming event info, see: www.cfiuk.org.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi Stephen
Think I've signed up already. Not sure. When we were at Kings the other night giving a talk I saw a CFI event for the 25th April, Science and Religion, going to try and make it. May see you then
Emma
March 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Tim Stephenson said…
Have you thought about a CFI UK event for the North of England. York would be a great location for a day conference.
March 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM
khalid masood said…
STEPHEN LAW

Dear Law,

I am cosmologist by passion. I often think about thinking that how we think?

Cosmology is science of the universe.
Cosmologists study the universe as a whole: its birth, growth,shape,size and eventual fate.

We try to read the 'Mind of God', but we are not “authentic” of our mind. We are not also authentic that how and why we think. My daughter Laila Khalid is co-researcher with me in this field "how we think?"
In our Theory of Mind, heart plays central role in thinking. Brain is only “memory machine” in all livings. We think with heart!
It's realy “heart blowing” and not “mind blowing” idea!
Animals without having their brain also think and are more smart than human in some cases. Our mind is in our heart, not in brain.

The human brain is not designed to be creative. The heart performs an incredible number of tasks. It lets you think, dream and experience emotions. It controls body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate and breathing. It also controls a flood of information about the world around you from your various senses- seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, etc.
All of these tasks are controlled and regulated by heart and coordinated with brain. Our new theory of mind is a "unified theory of mind-body", a Holy Grail of Philosophy, which will also settle the mind over body problem.
Heart gives us the power to think, plan, speak,imagine......It is truly an amazing organ.
I would love any researcher to comment, share/co-author our theory in his/her research paper.
Khalid Masood
email khalidcustoms@gmail.com
Street:36 B, Block A, Faisal Town, Lahore,
Pakistan.
Phone:00923334642637
February 19, 2011 at 2:58 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o...
151 comments
Read more