Are we rational or irrational?

[GreggAlvarez]

The assumption, that those laws can be broken by their stipulated “creator” is without merit. Can the creator make a temperature lower than zero Kelvin? Or make a solid non-zero mass travel faster than the speed of light? Pretty much all believers agree that not even God can violate the logical axiom of non-contradiction (though I have seen a few dissenters, too). “Breaking” the laws of nature would violate the first law of logic, the law of identity. Could God create “water” with (say) 13 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? Apart from the fact that it would not be “water” it is physically impossible since the atoms do not have the necessary atomic bonds.

All of this is like a Catholic saying, “God has ordained that the Church is infallible. Even the Holy Spirit cannot ‘violate’ infallibility. If it did, it would ‘violate’ the law of non-contradiction because something infallible is fallible.”

It is a useless proposition to downplay omnipotence by saying that omnipotence cannot “violate” what it itself created, especially when the universe itself is bound by the laws it created.

In any case, the stipulate “creator” is not going to break the laws of logic he created. Perhaps some other laws. Breaking the laws of logic is a logical impossibitity. Clearly, this stipulated “creator” created these laws for a reason. He will not “violate” his own logic.

The point of this post is that there is no point in either of our posts.

 

[Spock]

All of this is like a Catholic saying, “God has ordained that the Church is infallible. Even the Holy Spirit cannot ‘violate’ infallibility. If it did, it would ‘violate’ the law of non-contradiction because something infallible is fallible.”

It sure would be nice to see some proof or evidence for that.

It is a useless proposition to downplay omnipotence by saying that omnipotence cannot “violate” what it itself created, especially when the universe itself is bound by the laws it created.

All you proved here that omnipotence is just another ill-defined and thus a pretty much useless concept.

In any case, the stipulate “creator” is not going to break the laws of logic he created. Perhaps some other laws. Breaking the laws of logic is a logical impossibitity. Clearly, this stipulated “creator” created these laws for a reason. He will not “violate” his own logic.

The laws of logic are not “created”. To assert that they are “created” assumes that they could have been something else. But if the first law of logic: “the law of identity” cannot be violated, then there are no such things as miracles. Can God create a temperature lower than zero Kelvin? Just think about that.

 

[tonyrey]

It has still not been explained how sets of atomic particles are capable of thought!

 

[tonyrey]

If we are rational just because of an overwhelming accident of formation would this mean rationality irrationally accidentally sprung from irrationality.

You’ve hit the nail on the head!

Shouldn’t rationality be irrationality, as that was its source. Or maybe as the source is rational so is the product rational.

That is the only adequate explanation…

 

[tonyrey]

Again you are making a straw-man of Tony’s argument, since he was not arguing for the existence of God. Also, you refuse to recognise consequences of the fact that the whole is essentially more that its parts; not just in its appearance but also in its essential nature.

Thank you, MOM. No wonder materialists believe they exist for no reason. Their concept of knowledge is obsolete. As medicine and other sciences have demonstrated,** holism **has revealed the inadequacy of atomism for once and for all.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey’s first premise implies that he knows fully what atomic particles are in every last detail from the Divine perspective.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[tonyrey]

Are you rational or irrational?

Well, I wouldn’t know; can you be expressed as a fraction???

“you” is the keyword. Persons don’t come into the materialist’s scheme of things.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Depends what thought is suggested thus being processed and how its interpreted at a feeling level at that precise moment, at any given time.

“We” suggests “ALL”. I can’t speak for you, but I live in the rational for the majority of time though being of the human species am subjected to the irrational given the circumstances which confront me. I suppose we all act of our feelings in some way and at some time. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be a human being.

How about you?

How about, Are you living in state of memory or a state of forgetting? I suppose both require a degree of “Self Honesty” to answer truthfully:shrug:

 

[larkin31]

1. Atomic particles are not rational.
2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
5. Therefore materialism must be false.

Is this serious?

 

[david_friol_1]

1. Atomic particles are not rational.
2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
5. Therefore materialism must be false.

Is this bathroom theology?
I found this on a bathroom wall at college when I was young:
God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is Blind
Ray Charles is not God
However he might be, so you had better be nice to him! lol

 

[tonyrey]

  			[

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7504808#post7504808)

The question is whether you (or anyone else) are capable of being serious if you consist solely of atomic particles…

 

[tonyrey]

Is this bathroom theology?
I found this on a bathroom wall at college when I was young:
God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is Blind
Ray Charles is not God
However he might be, so you had better be nice to him! lol

1. Blindness is an affliction
2. Love is a blessing
3. Love can hardly be an affliction!

 

[tonyrey]

Depends what thought is suggested thus being processed and how its interpreted at a feeling level at that precise moment, at any given time.

“We” suggests “ALL”. I can’t speak for you, but I live in the rational for the majority of time though being of the human species am subjected to the irrational given the circumstances which confront me. I suppose we all act of our feelings in some way and at some time. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be a human being.

How about you?

How about, Are you living in state of memory or a state of forgetting? I suppose both require a degree of “Self Honesty” to answer truthfully:shrug:

The issue is whether we are ever capable of being rational.

If so how can we consist of nothing more than atomic particles?

Does it even make sense to talk of “we” in the world of atomic particles? Where are persons to be found?

 

[larkin31]

The question is whether you (or anyone else) are capable of being serious if you consist solely of atomic particles…

Is this a line from Jabberwocky?
“…are capable of being serious if you consist solely of atomic particles…”

Tony, just state your claim rather than erecting strawmen to tilt against in shoddy syllogisms posed as philosophical questions.

Is this your point?----> “Humans must be composed of more than atoms.”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

It sure would be nice to see some proof or evidence for that.

You are asking for something that, by definition, is not a something. I thought this was your point. This was my point too.

Unless you are asking for proof of infallibility… Now that I think about it, you were a little unclear. Are you asking for proof of infallibility or the something that is not a something? Sorry if I misunderstood…

All you proved here that omnipotence is just another ill-defined and thus a pretty much useless concept.

So, if Spock does not understand something, then it is useless. What I proved and you have shown is that you have no clue what omnipotence means nor what it does not mean.

I was just showing you that it is pointless to say that omnipotence cannot “violate” something it created. You are looking too much into what I did not mean and trying to configure it to my post. It was ALMOST a straw-man, but not quite. (It was a completely legitimate critique. I was just saying.)

The laws of logic are not “created”. To assert that they are “created” assumes that they could have been something else.

YOU assume that. The laws of logic ARE created. To assert that they are NOT “created” assumes that they could have been something else. We can argue with assumptions all day long, but it will get us nowhere.

In any case, I was using the stipulated “creator” YOU used in your own post/argument. You were the one who used the terms. I was just objecting what you gave as it stood.

(Notice I did not say “God”, “He” or “Creator” [except in my example] in my previous post. The “creator” you used is a caricature of what I believe anyway.)

But if the first law of logic: “the law of identity” cannot be violated, then there are no such things as miracles.

You should just admit that you do not understand most of theology. The cases so far are misconstrued ideas of omnipotence and miracles. Does a miraculous healing violate the first principle? If you say yes, you further enhance my main point of this post.

Can God create a temperature lower than zero Kelvin? Just think about that.

No need to. Needless to say, you misunderstand omnipotence… Again.

P.S. Perhaps we should PM… This is an interesting conversation, eh?

 

[tonyrey]

The question is whether you (or anyone else) are capable of being serious if you consist solely of atomic particles…

When somebody resorts to sarcasm you can be sure he cannot answer simple questions …

Tony, just state your claim rather than erecting strawmen to tilt against in shoddy syllogisms posed as philosophical questions.

When somebody resorts to unsubstantiated allegations rather than justify them you can be sure he cannot defend his assumptions…

Is this your point?----> “Humans must be composed of more than atoms.”

“composed of” implies that a person is a** material thing** which consists of parts. It is more accurate to state that a person is an** entity **that cannot be adequately explained as a set of atomic particles.

 

[GEddie]

“composed of” implies that a person is a** material thing** which consists of parts. It is more accurate to state that a person is an** entity **that cannot be adequately explained as a set of atomic particles.

“Thing” is a loaded word in this context, given that we human beings do not want to considered to be things. Yet, it is nonsensical to deny that human personhood is inescapably material.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

“Thing” is a loaded word in this context, given that we human beings do not want to considered to be things. Yet, it is nonsensical to deny that human personhood is inescapably material.

There are very good reasons why human beings do not want to be regarded as things. They would have no rights, purpose, value or reason for being alive.

 

[Spock]

Unless you are asking for proof of infallibility…

Of course I was. The church “claims” that the church is infallible in the matter of faith and morals. Is that an infallible claim? According to the dogma it is. See here… Section VI.13 “In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible”. So we have that poor little dog chasing its poor little tail.

So, if Spock does not understand something, then it is useless. What I proved and you have shown is that you have no clue what omnipotence means nor what it does not mean.

Omnipotence is not defined in a rigorous manner. Once upon a time it was defined as “omnipotence can do literally anything” - even logically contradictory things (and some people still cling to that definition). When people realized how nonsensical that definition was, they changed it and now it says: “omnipotence can do anything that can be done”. Which is an empty definition, unless you can find out what are those things that “can be done”. Now to find out what are the things that “can be done”, you need omniscience, which is another ill-defined concept. (Omniscience is to “know everything that can be known” - so the next questions is: “what can be known” - which leads to a circular problem.)

I wish you had spent some time on the problem of creating a temperature of minus one Kelvin. It is a physical constraint, so presumably God can violate it. But it is nonsense. Temperature is the Brownian motion of molecules (physics here again). At zero Kelvin the motion stops. So what happens at minus one Kelvin? What you don’t realize is that every logical contradiction expresses a physically impossible state of affairs.

Therefore to say that God can violate the laws of physics also says that God can violate of laws of logic, too - which brings us back to the original problem.

 

[You]

I wish you had spent some time on the problem of creating a temperature of minus one Kelvin. It is a physical constraint, so presumably God can violate it. But it is nonsense. Temperature is the Brownian motion of molecules (physics here again). At zero Kelvin the motion stops. So what happens at minus one Kelvin? What you don’t realize is that every logical contradiction expresses a physically impossible state of affairs.

Therefore to say that God can violate the laws of physics also says that God can violate of laws of logic, too - which brings us back to the original problem.

I think this is a human constraint, moreso. After all there is no such thing in nature as boxes for temperature, pressure etc.
When these values start to jump outside of the human boxes designed for their classification then humans begin to speak about alternate universes, quantum mechanics, anomalies etc. A temperature which could freeze atoms does not just stop when it has just frozen the atoms, it is free to continue descending forever if it wishes, it is just that our human instruments will no longer be able to measure it beyond a certain point.