P
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
So Jesus errored in Mt 16:15-19:shrug:
Matt.16: [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build** my church**, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.[Notably singular]
Are you prepared at the final judgment to tell GOD you’re opinion is more valid than His?
Which is exactly WHY your in the quandary that you are in today
. Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20 " {you!} Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
[20] teaching them to observe ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU; and lo, I am with YOU always, to the close of the age."
You can see friend that GOD NEVER intended any of us to do this "on our own."
K
KnowtheSilence
Guest
Hoyle is the one who first used the “747 assembling itself in a junkyard” analogy for evolution and abiogenesis (or at least he’s the one who made it famous). It fails as an analogy for the reasons described the link you shared. You brought up a similar analogy that suffers from the same issue, so you would need to address those problems if you wanted that argument to stick.
Okay, so using this definition, philosophies of mind that are reductively physicalist are our “non-spiritual” options, and non-reductively physicalist or “emergent” philosophies of mind would qualify as “spiritual.” Your task, then, is to argue first of all that reductive physicalism is false, since I consider that live option, one more likely than mental reality coming from a God.
If you succeed, you then need to deal with the fact that non-reductive physicalism is still on the table, and if it is true, “spiritual” realities can emerge from physical ones. To make the case that spiritual reality can only come from God, you have to also argue that non-reductive physicalism is false or at least less likely than your theory.
Right, and I’m not dismissing it. I’m saying that you have a bit more to do to show that your philosophy of mind is the right one. You don’t need to do that scientifically.
I’m sorry, but your post #16 falls short of your goal.
I do not agree that “humanity simply cannot exist by coincidence or unmanaged evolution.” I think that the evidence points much more solidly towards that than towards it being created by a God, and nothing in post #16 has given strong reasons to think otherwise.
K
KnowtheSilence
Guest
It doesn’t particularly matter if the “like comes from like” idea that you’re relying on is truly a “scientific law” or if it’s something like a logical inference or even an intuition. My two points remain: 1)if non-reductive physicalism is true, then it is not true that like always comes from like, and 2) if God is a nonphysical being that created physical reality, then is it not true that like always comes from like. You need to deal with these two potential conflicts is “like comes from like” is going to be your main way of showing that our “spiritual” mental capacities can only come from God
I admit that there probably is a first cause, but I disagree that it is a personal being with a mind.
I don’t agree that sight and hearing cannot evolve without guidance.
You are correct that the theory of evolution does not account for the origin of life; that’s a separate issue, and one that I think can have a natural explanation, even if we don’t know what it is yet.
I also disagree with you about whether or not minds are capable of evolving. You haven’t yet shown that a God is necessary for that. You’re trying, bless you, but not quite there.
A chain of causes extending infinitely into the past. This universe was cause by a universe that came before it, that one by another universe before it, and so on.
Again, to be clear, I do not think this is what happened. I just happen to think that it is a possibility, albeit an unlikely one.
K
KnowtheSilence
Guest
I agree that the sun an moon exist, that they exist in this universe, that they are essential for life on earth to exist (the sun, definitely; the moon has probably influenced the development of life with the tides and such and has possibly helped deflect debris that would have been harmful, but saying it is essential might be saying too much). But as far as [4] goes, the fact that it is unlikely for life to have devoted here doesn’t mean that it could not have happened by chance. And the universe is large enough, old enough, and has enough stuff in it that the odds of life happening somewhere are actually probably pretty good; many scientists think that it’s so good that it’s almost certainly happened in more than one place. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but I’m no expert.
The fact that we don’t have proof of life on other planets is untimely unsurprising given the size of the universe and that fact that we have explored such a very small amount of it I don’t think that it lends much of any credence to the idea that ours is the only planet with life.
I’m an ethical naturalist with a strong leaning towards virtue ethics.
And you didn’t clarify what you were trying to say in 4.
If you won’t take my word for it (or can’t see the problem yourself), Knut Tranoy brought up what I’m talking about in his chapter on Aquinas in A Critical History of Western Philosophy, edited by D.J. O’Connor. I doubt he’s the only one. I can also point you to a series of blog posts on the Secular Outpost written by Bradley Bowen, but that maybe shouldn’t be your only source since his writing tends to be polemical (although it is starting to seem that perhaps people treating their philosophical opponents harshly isn’t the sort of thing to keep you up nights).
And if you say “if you except eve ONE, there is your evidence,” you’ve failed to grasp my point.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
I’ll bite. I don’t deny, but I do doubt. Sure, I could come up with a number of reasons, but it mainly boils down to this. It just isn’t believable. I attended a SDA church as a child and used to believe but at some point it just stopped being something I could believe. I recognize that over 90% of the population believes in some type of god(s), but I think I just lack the ability and more importantly the slightest desire to believe.Would you be so kind as to educate me
On what basis do you either doubt the existence of God [gods] or deny the existence of GOD [gods]?
Thank you,
Patrick
And for the most part this is simply an opinion of mine and not a big defining attribute. Its not something I lose sleep over.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Sir, with all due respect to the Catholic Church, your assumption that, because I disagree with certain Catechisms, I must therefore be in disagreement with Holy Scripture is not correct. (For instance Catechism 696 about the nature of the “fire” of Luke 12:49 is in error, as humanity will soon find out.)
Why would you think that? What quandary? I am a practicing member of St. Anskars Episcopal Church. I also attend Catholic Mass (without communion, of course.)
You can see friend that GOD NEVER intended any of us to do this "on our own."
Whether YHWH intended it or not is a moot point. The fact is that YHWH’s fire of judgment comes rushing at the world in this century and neither my Church nor your Church sounds any warning.
Once again, sir you are posting assumptions about my life which you know little about.
I am not “searching” or “looking” anymore. I am posting a “Fire of Divine Judgment” advisory. See Isaiah 66:15-15 and Jeremiah 25:32-33.
Thanks for the Scripture, buts this passage is often misused by those who would attempt to foster their particular brand of faith on the rest of the world. YHWH is not that shallow, and His Divine Sun is a conscious entity who is fully capable of making the decisions as to who He will allow to come to the Father.
R
rossum
Guest
That is not a fact, that is a prediction, and moreover a prediction which has been made, and has been shown to be wrong, in every century since the life of Jesus.
Do some research on Harold Camping for just one recent example. There are many others:
"Truly I say unto you, do not listen to Hilary of Poitiers, who argued that the world would end in the year 365, or to Martin of Tours, who said that destiny would come before the year 400. Dismiss the words of Pope Sylvester the Second, who vowed that the year 1000 would bring glory, and turn your face away from the Christians who argued that it would be 1033, to match the date of the Saviour’s demise.
Forget Pope Innocent the Third, who declared that doomsday would come 666 years after the rise of Islam, or Martin Luther who decided that it would come no later than the year 1600. Ignore Christopher Columbus and his prediction of 1658, and John Mason with 1694, or John Napier who guessed both 1688 and 1700 after the first failed to come to pass.
Pass by the Shakers, who foresaw the end in 1792 or 1794, and the Great Disappointment of the Millerites in 1844, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses who waited patiently for 1914.
Shun Jim Jones with 1967, or Charles Manson with 1969, or the JW’s again in 1975, or Pat Robertson in 1982. And let us not forget Harold Camping in 1995 - we will see him again - and James Ussher in 1997, or Nostradamus in 1999, or a thousand people in 2000, or Pat Robertson again in 2002, and Harold Camping again in 2011. Twice."
You will forgive me if I treat your prediction sceptically.
rossum
U
undead_rat
Guest
What we have here is the classic case of many analysts crying “wolf” and also mistakenly attempting to predict the “day and the hour,” which no one can do.
On the other hand we are permitted to know that our judgment is knocking on the door.
Consider this by Pope St. Pius X in 1914:
"Respect for God has disappeared from human hearts. They wish to efface even God’s memory. This perversity is nothing less than the beginning of the last days of the world."
YHWH is predicted by Isaiah 66:15-16 to use fire to effect His judgment of humanity. What your sources failed to take into account is that this “fire” cannot be from an act of God.
That is because of His pronouncement in Genesis 8:21:
"Never again will I curse the earth because of man, because his heart contrives evil from his infancy. Never again will I strike down every living thing as I have done."
Now mankind has gained the ability to enable the fire of Isaiah and the worldwide disaster of Jeremiah 25:32-33. In fact we would have already experienced this nuclear conflagration were it not for the hand of YHWH intervening.
It has come that close more than once.
The infamous and much maligned Prophecy of the Popes predicts just one more Pontiff after Pope Francis and that : ". . .the terrible Judge will judge his people. The End."
So be skeptical if you wish. But I would suggest being aware of the possibility that the fire of YHWH’s divine judgment is staring us in the face…
P
PJM
Guest
I have read the Catechsims multiple times and never picked up on CCC #696 [maybe I need to read it again]
Here is Haydock’s Bible commentary on Luke 12:49
“Ver. 49. I am come to send fire on the earth. By this fire, some understand the light of the gospel, and the fire of charity and divine love. Others, the fire of trials and persecutions. (Witham) — What is the fire, which Christ comes to send upon the earth? Some understand it of the Holy Ghost, of the doctrine of the gospel, and the preaching of the apostles, which has filled the world with fervour and light, and which was signified by the flames of fire which appeared at the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles. My words, says the Lord, in Jeremias, (Chap. xxiii. 29.) are as a fire, and as a hammer, that breaketh the rock in pieces. Others understand it of the fire of charity, which Christ came to enkindle upon the earth, and which the apostles carried throughout the whole world. But the most simple and literal opinion seems to be, the fire of persecution and war. Fire is often used in Scripture for war: and our Saviour declares in St. Matthew that he is come to bring the sword, and not peace; that is, the doctrine of the gospel shall cause divisions, and bring persecutions, and almost an infinity of other evils, upon those who shall embrace and maintain it. But it is by these means that heaven must be acquired, it is thus that Jesus Christ destroys the reign of Satan, and overturns idolatry, superstition, and error, in the world. So great a change could not be made without noise, tumult, fire, and war. (Calmet)”
Personally, I;m inclined to take the latter thought of persecution and division; as the RCC is a Church is crisis at the present time.
Thank you for your post.
So permit me to ask a question here:
Can God hold more tnan just one set of faith beliefs on defined issues?
Continued Blessings
Partick
You can see friend that GOD NEVER intended any of us to do this "on our own."
Whether YHWH intended it or not is a moot point. The fact is that YHWH’s fire of judgment comes rushing at the world in this century and neither my Church nor your Church sounds any warning.
Once again, sir you are posting assumptions about my life which you know little about.
I am not “searching” or “looking” anymore. I am posting a “Fire of Divine Judgment” advisory. See Isaiah 66:15-15 and Jeremiah 25:32-33.
Thanks for the Scripture, buts this passage is often misused by those who would attempt to foster their particular brand of faith on the rest of the world. YHWH is not that shallow, and His Divine Sun is a conscious entity who is fully capable of making the decisions as to who He will allow to come to the Father.
P
PJM
Guest
So WHY my FRIEND do you suppose that historically the practice of one’s religion has been termed “FAITH”?
Isa.55 Verses 6 to 9 "[6]** "Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near;** [7] let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon**.[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.**
Heb.11: [1] Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
God Bless you
Patrick
U
undead_rat
Guest
Thanks for the Haydock commentary on 12:49. Although he defines the fire in question as “noise, tumult, fire, and war,” I don’t think that he is referring to YHWH’s final judgment of mankind through the fire of global nuclear war.
In this commentary the “fire” seems to be an ongoing process.
As for YHWH’s “faith beliefs,” I would never presume to comment on those. The many Christian Churches seem to have different beliefs.
For instance, when I asked my priest about the fire of 12:49, he told me that the Episcopal Church also held the “fire” of 12:49 to be the same as that of Isaiah 66.
P
PJM
Guest
My FRIEND you’re attempting to blame me, when you’d be better served to look into the mirror to find fault.
Over the years I have heard, and even at times responded to your “canned” responses. Now I simply do not see the need, nor do I have the time to do so.
You can seek the truth or deny it. That my FRIEND is up to you.
May GOD guide your path,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
My friend in your sincere effort to pontificate the End Times, you would be well served to keep the following in mind.
Matt.24: [36] "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
Mark.13: [32] "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father
Thank you and continued Blessings,
Patrick
K
KnowtheSilence
Guest
Blaming the end of a conversation on the person bowing out of the conversation seems wholly appropriate to me, but maybe this is just another area where we’ll have to agree to disagree.
“Canned” responses seem fitting for canned arguements, don’t you think? Or were you expecting (hoping?) that your arguements would be new to me? And could really expect that?
If you’ve been at this as long as you say you have, surely by now you’ve realized that conversations over these arguments for or against God’s existence have been done to death on a superficial level and don’t really get interesting until round 2 or 3. That’s where you can really start to see where you each hold different intuitions, what axioms you take for granted that the other person doesn’t, what lines of evidence they think are compelling or not, and so on.
If you don’t see the need or have the time to go on, what on earth was this all for? Why start the thread, why put forward those arguments, why invite me to respond to them, and why try pressure Rhubarb into responding after they declined, if all you intended to do was call it quits so soon? It makes no sense at all. I suppose I have to take you at your word that you can respond to my responses, but with the way you’re acting I can’t help but suspect therwise.
Indeed. I’ll continue to seek it seeing as I’ve made progress so far. I recommend you do the same.
And may reason guide yours.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Thank you, but I said exactly that in post # 69. “No one knows the day or the hour . . .”
Mark 13:29-30
So with you when you see these things happening: know that He is near, at the very gates.
Therefore I believe that it is possible to understand that the world has entered into its last days.
This idea is supported by the 1914 vision of Pope St. Pius X:
**“Respect for God has disappeared from human hearts. They wish to efface even God’s memory. This perversity is nothing less than the beginning of the last days of the world.”
**
Isaiah 3:16-24 perfectly describes conditions for Jewish women in a 1940s slave labor camp and also mentions the phrase: “That day,” which is a known referral to the earth’s end times.
I have mentioned the infamous and derided Prophecy of the Popes which foretells only one more Pope after Francis and that “. . .the terrible Judge will judge his people.”
Another fact is never before these times has is been possible for the judgment of mankind by fire of Isaiah 66:15-16 or the disaster of Jeremiah 25:32-33 to be fulfilled.
And the reason for that, as I have mentioned, is in Genesis 8:21 where YHWH said that He would never again curse the earth and destroy all life.
Therefore the fulfillment of these ominous passages must by through man’s own inventions and cannot be by an act of God. This idea is supported by Psalm 9:15-16
The nations have sunk into a pit of their own making,
they are caught by the feet in the snare they set themselves.
YHWH has made himself known, has given judgment;
He has trapped the wicked in the work of their own hands.
I’ve noticed that conservative Catholics seem very resistant to the ideas of “just one more Pope” and “global nuclear war.” I truly feel that this resistance is misplaced.
The fire of our judgment is starring us in the face, and we are not doing humanity any service by continuing to deny this reality.
R
rossum
Guest
Then you are wrong. You claim that it will happen some time this century. Suppose we are at the last day of the century, and it hasn’t happened yet. Then you would in effect be claiming to know the day, which you cannot. Hence we know it cannot happen on the last day of the century.
Now suppose we are at the second last day of the century. We have already determined that it is not the last day, so once again we have only a single day to work with. Again not allowed.
Step back to the third last day and repeat the process. You cannot set any timescale on when it will happen because you can always rule out the last 24 hours of whatever period you set, and then repeat the process 36,525 times to rule out every day in the century.
You are making an error, not that I expect my logic to persuade you.
rossum
U
undead_rat
Guest
Would you say the same about St. Pius X when he reported:
** “This perversity is nothing less than the beginning of the last days of the world.”?**
- Status