Are we rational or irrational?

[tonyrey]

Ah… My post, I’m afraid that was me being ironic.

Q. How are they [atoms] conscious?

-Of course atoms do not have consciousness or else the snail who eats my brains will take over the world, unsuccessfully.

Q. How did atoms originate?

-I will say, to clear away that irony, that our creator made the atoms. Atoms are strange yokes insofar as they are made from eternity not matter. Their quarks are the result of separating eternity :hammering: and creating a ‘direction’ of sorts within eternity, direction creates ‘time’ because there is a distance to travel in ‘direction’, and ‘time’ and ‘direction’ create miniscule ‘loops’ of potential difference which is called energy or potential energy. Atoms therefore originated when God ‘stretched’ eternity.

How did consciousness originate?

Atoms are not conscious and do not cause our consciousness.They are ‘made’ from God insofar as God is eternal and eternity itself, but the matter he created is not gods nor has it any of his consciousness, it is simply power, creative power.
Consciousness is the human soul, a spiritual creation unique to every human individual. Its powers are the will and the intellect. It is created not evolved.
The only alternative view to created souls eventually contains within itself the hideous spectre of a soul created with atoms by man not after the image of God his creator.

A refreshing counterblast to materialism…

 

[You]

A refreshing counterblast to materialism…

:tiphat: We aim to please.

 

[inocente]

If minds are physical why don’t we just say “brains”?

Mind really equates to the entire nervous system rather than just brain, and one syllable is easier than five.

Do you understand* how*** and why matter exists? Please explain **how **you make a decision.

Configurations of energy within the universe. Why the universe exists in this form is, as you well know, speculative in that none of the proposed explanations can be proven to universal satisfaction. Do you provably understand how and why the immaterial exists?

Please explain how.

Explaining how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts would be repetition. A tree is more than a pile of atoms.

?

The books in the Bible were written by men, men have material minds, ergo matter achieves things deliberately.

 

[inocente]

A refreshing counterblast to materialism…

How so when it contains the materialistic? Any explanation predicated at some point on the independence of the physical is materialistic. A really refreshing counterblast might be idealism (thoughts dictate reality).

My post about how St Paul sees it was skipped but look again:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” – 1 Cor 15:51-54 NIV

One tradition in sola scriptura is to actually have the audacity to accept what Paul says. He admits it’s a mystery, he doesn’t really know, but he says “the dead will be raised imperishable” and we will join them in this new state when the trumpet sounds.

The implication is that when we die we cease to exist until the trumpet sounds and we are rescued from the moment before we died. There can be no ghosts of the dead, and children brought up in this tradition do not fear ghosts, to them ghosts are pure superstition. These kids must also, of course, accept the hard fact that the dead aren’t around to hear them unless they happen to be rescued before the trumpet sounds. Perhaps praying for the dead may help their rescue, don’t know. But there can be no ghosts at all under any circumstances whatsoever, and so no ghosts in machines for the living.

This tradition, started by Paul, has nothing to do with modern science or materialism, it just happens to be one that fits rather neatly with a modern explanation of mind.

 

[larkin31]

Explaining how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts would be repetition. A tree is more than a pile of atoms.

rose is a rose is a rose is a rose

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Ah… My post, I’m afraid that was me being ironic.

Q. How are they [atoms] conscious?

-Of course atoms do not have consciousness or else the snail who eats my brains will take over the world, unsuccessfully.

Q. How did atoms originate?

-I will say, to clear away that irony, that our creator made the atoms. Atoms are strange yokes insofar as they are made from eternity not matter. Their quarks are the result of separating eternity :hammering: and creating a ‘direction’ of sorts within eternity, direction creates ‘time’ because there is a distance to travel in ‘direction’, and ‘time’ and ‘direction’ create miniscule ‘loops’ of potential difference which is called energy or potential energy. Atoms therefore originated when God ‘stretched’ eternity.

How did consciousness originate?

Atoms are not conscious and do not cause our consciousness.They are ‘made’ from God insofar as God is eternal and eternity itself, but the matter he created is not gods nor has it any of his consciousness, it is simply power, creative power.
Consciousness is the human soul, a spiritual creation unique to every human individual. Its powers are the will and the intellect. It is created not evolved.
The only alternative view to created souls eventually contains within itself the hideous spectre of a soul created with atoms by man not after the image of God his creator.

The things you are saying about consciousness do not follow as you are making consciousness materialistic, which it is not. Similarly to the vast distinction between “I” and “you/me” and “matter” there are the distinctions between Consciousness as itself, awareness as the phenomenon of Consciousness looking at the world as if it was localized as a person, etc, and matter. As matter the particles which in their laws of combination allow the complexities of forms each including yet transcending the others can at a point have the potential of accommodating by accumulation the self reflexive awareness called “human” which then is capable of discerning through discipline their Source. And that is why science and religion can’t get along, because they each treat of a part of what is in fact a whole. The brain (matter) is the material exterior of an interior hierarchy that is mind (spirit individuated as person.)

So with all your near accuracies, you need to explain to me how it is that you can spend so much energy, given all the protestations of the Church about the Allness of God, not collapsing your perspective into non dualism, which your sub text seems to be advocating. Jonfawkes kind of gave the answer, and people on here were accused of re-inventing the wheel. Is it possible that your lapses are accounted for in the Great and misunderstood Saints of the Church and their non Catholic brothers and sisters in the East? Isn’t that worth a look? And what if Inocente’s quote from Paul (I’m thinking he did know, but had to say it that way) doesn’t require physical death, but being “born again of water and the Spirit,” i.e. a transformation in awareness which is what happened to all the great mystic Saints. What if theology is just the stage between psychology and mysticism? What if we just got over it and took a look, fulfilling all three “wings” of science?

 

[You]

The things you are saying about consciousness do not follow as you are making consciousness materialistic, which it is not. Similarly to the vast distinction between “I” and “you/me” and “matter” there are the distinctions between Consciousness as itself, awareness as the phenomenon of Consciousness looking at the world as if it was localized as a person, etc, and matter. As matter the particles which in their laws of combination allow the complexities of forms each including yet transcending the others can at a point have the potential of accommodating by accumulation the self reflexive awareness called “human” which then is capable of discerning through discipline their Source. And that is why science and religion can’t get along, because they each treat of a part of what is in fact a whole. The brain (matter) is the material exterior of an interior hierarchy that is mind (spirit individuated as person.)

So with all your near accuracies, you need to explain to me how it is that you can spend so much energy, given all the protestations of the Church about the Allness of God, not collapsing your perspective into non dualism, which your sub text seems to be advocating. Jonfawkes kind of gave the answer, and people on here were accused of re-inventing the wheel. Is it possible that your lapses are accounted for in the Great and misunderstood Saints of the Church and their non Catholic brothers and sisters in the East? Isn’t that worth a look? And what if Inocente’s quote from Paul (I’m thinking he did know, but had to say it that way) doesn’t require physical death, but being “born again of water and the Spirit,” i.e. a transformation in awareness which is what happened to all the great mystic Saints. What if theology is just the stage between psychology and mysticism? What if we just got over it and took a look, fulfilling all three “wings” of science?

Please translate this. I think what I say is very clear, for what its worth. Inocente thinks there is no soul, or it [his soul] is just a sort of interference pattern produced by vibrating atoms. I don’t understand people who think matter and God are separate and at odds. Matter exists in God, its made from God, but it is not a soul either.
My view is that the soul is a spiritual creation. The precedent for this idea is the reality of purely spiritual creatures called ‘angels’ and in the ultimate spiritual being, God. The human soul is thus another spiritual creation but created to join and work with a portion of eternity which has been knitted into a three dimensional existence.
The soul uses this new way of existing to build a radically new way of knowing its Creator in anticipation of a radically new way of living in its Creator.

 

[tonyrey]

How so when it contains the materialistic? Any explanation predicated at some point on the independence of the physical is materialistic. A really refreshing counterblast might be idealism (thoughts dictate reality).

Reality is more complex than that. If you believe in God you believe the fundamental Reality is not material but spiritual - unless you believe God has a body! He created mind and matter - and both are real but He transcends both.

My post about how St Paul sees it was skipped but look again:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” – 1 Cor 15:51-54 NIV

One tradition in sola scriptura is to actually have the audacity to accept what Paul says. He admits it’s a mystery, he doesn’t really know, but he says “the dead will be raised imperishable” and we will join them in this new state when the trumpet sounds.

The implication is that when we die we cease to exist until the trumpet sounds and we are rescued from the moment before we died.

There can be no ghosts of the dead, and children brought up in this tradition do not fear ghosts, to them ghosts are pure superstition. These kids must also, of course, accept the hard fact that the dead aren’t around to hear them unless they happen to be rescued before the trumpet sounds. Perhaps praying for the dead may help their rescue, don’t know. But there can be no ghosts at all under any circumstances whatsoever, and so no ghosts in machines for the living.

The fact that we are made in God’s image implies that we cannot cease to exist! It is the body that perishes, not the soul. The whole point of Christ’s Resurrection is that our bodies will be glorified and be reunited with our souls in heaven. That is a privilege we could not have expected but He has liberated us from evil while we are alive on this earth and after we die by His love expressed on the Cross. Even the Jews in the Old Testament prayed for the dead because they believed we have a soul as well as a body. They wouldn’t have done so if they thought the dead no longer existed!

This tradition, started by Paul, has nothing to do with modern science or materialism, it just happens to be one that fits rather neatly with a modern explanation of mind.

In the secular West the “modern” explanation dispenses with God as well as the soul!

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Please translate this. I think what I say is very clear, for what its worth. Inocente thinks there is no soul, or it [his soul] is just a sort of interference pattern produced by vibrating atoms. I don’t understand people who think matter and God are separate and at odds. Matter exists in God, its made from God, but it is not a soul either.
My view is that the soul is a spiritual creation. The precedent for this idea is the reality of purely spiritual creatures called ‘angels’ and in the ultimate spiritual being, God. The human soul is thus another spiritual creation but created to join and work with a portion of eternity which has been knitted into a three dimensional existence.
The soul uses this new way of existing to build a radically new way of knowing its Creator in anticipation of a radically new way of living in its Creator.

So close, but for one step. Oh well. You will take it or not. At least the above is a concise statement, though your argument about the nature of Consciousness in not quite on. Inevitably you will see that and will be unable to intellectualize it. Your asking for a “translation” is the evidence that you proceeding from intellect, not experience.

 

[You]

So close, but for one step. Oh well. You will take it or not. At least the above is a concise statement, though your argument about the nature of Consciousness in not quite on. Inevitably you will see that and will be unable to intellectualize it. Your asking for a “translation” is the evidence that you proceeding from intellect, not experience.

O well, that tells me nothing at all, I think. Nice talking to you Rankly, take care.

 

[inocente]

Inocente thinks there is no soul, or it [his soul] is just a sort of interference pattern produced by vibrating atoms.

Never said that once. Where did I deny the existence of the soul? Where did I say anything as ridiculous as “a sort of interference pattern produced by vibrating atoms”?

Either cite the post or stop misrepresenting me.

 

[larkin31]

In the secular West the “modern” explanation dispenses with God as well as the soul!

That’s not true. This is an oversimplification. Many many modernists in the secular West believe in God and believe in a soul.

 

[You]

Never said that once. Where did I deny the existence of the soul? Where did I say anything as ridiculous as “a sort of interference pattern produced by vibrating atoms”?

Either cite the post or stop misrepresenting me.

Ah… I thought you believe the soul is a result of jiggling atoms and not a created spiritual thing.

 

[inocente]

Ah… I thought you believe the soul is a result of jiggling atoms and not a created spiritual thing.

No, jiggling atoms is neither here nor there. Body and soul are one, thoughts are neurons firing, atoms are way too tiny to bother about.

 

[inocente]

And what if Inocente’s quote from Paul (I’m thinking he did know, but had to say it that way) doesn’t require physical death, but being “born again of water and the Spirit,” i.e. a transformation in awareness which is what happened to all the great mystic Saints.

I’m already born again, only twas the Spirit first, then confirmed by water. There’s loads born again in that sense, we don’t have to be saints. It can happen quickly or over months, but you see the world and yourself in a completely new way, you’re brand new, there’s an inexplicable oneness (real or subjective), so born again is an apt description.

(Secretly, but let’s keep this between ourselves, I’ve also seen non-Christians who through thought or meditating or a near-death experience such as walking away from a bad accident are in the same sense reborn by seeing a new meaning for their life. Probably get drummed out of the boy scouts for even suggesting it though ).

Paul can here be read various ways, but the interpretation of once dead always dead until rescued is a tradition, or at least my pastors taught/teach it as such.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

(Secretly, but let’s keep this between ourselves, I’ve also seen non-Christians who through thought or meditating or a near-death experience such as walking away from a bad accident are in the same sense reborn by seeing a new meaning for their life. Probably get drummed out of the boy scouts for even suggesting it though ).

Paul can here be read various ways, but the interpretation of once dead always dead until rescued is a tradition, or at least my pastors taught/teach it as such.

(Secretly, something akin to the accident thing happened to me. And I ain’t talkin’ about it on here. So I agree, but had a somewhat different “take” then straight teaching of your or my former Church. Of course, when it happened, I was accused of being completely irrational. )

 

[tonyrey]

In the secular West the “modern” explanation dispenses with God as well as the soul!
That’s not true. This is an oversimplification. Many many modernists in the secular West believe in God and believe in a soul.

My statement is taken out of context. It was in reply to:

This tradition, started by Paul, has nothing to do with modern science or materialism, it just happens to be one that fits rather neatly with a modern explanation of mind.

The tradition being that there is no soul!

 

[jonfawkes]

Ok how about this

God being omnipresent is everywhere, being everywhere at all times He is everything. The individual soul is the spark of God in each human. (to keep in line with Catholicism) We each are a spark of God observing God.(Created in his image) The brain and the neurons are the filtering hardware, so the part (spark) can observe the whole. The appearance of division is a consequence of the hardware. Moments of transcendence are moments where we turn off the hardware and return to being rather than observing. The material makes the spiritual able to be experienced.

I don’t think I stepped outside Catholicism there - stretched perhaps - but not outside the lines.

 

[davidv]

Ok how about this

God being omnipresent is everywhere, being everywhere at all times He is everything.

This is not a logical conclusion. If your are in your bedroom, are you the bedroom?

The individual soul is the spark of God in each human. (to keep in line with Catholicism) We each are a spark of God observing God.(Created in his image) The brain and the neurons are the filtering hardware, so the part (spark) can observe the whole. The appearance of division is a consequence of the hardware. Moments of transcendence are moments where we turn off the hardware and return to being rather than observing. The material makes the spiritual able to be experienced.

I don’t think I stepped outside Catholicism there - stretched perhaps - but not outside the lines.

If you think God is His creation as you seem to state in your first sentence, you have step way outside the lines.

 

[jonfawkes]

This is not a logical conclusion. If your are in your bedroom, are you the bedroom?

If you think God is His creation as you seem to state in your first sentence, you have step way outside the lines.

No, I’m not omnipresent. I’m not everywhere in the bedroom. I am finite with limited boundaries.

How can God not be His creation - He’s omnipresent. Present everywhere, how can something be present everywhere if they aren’t that thing. You’d have to have a part that wasn’t God to show where God was, ( i.e. God is “here” but not “there” ) if that was the case He wouldn’t be omnipresent, He’s be finite and not “everywhere” Any question "Is God “here”? The answer is yes. In an Atom “yes”, In a quark “yes” In a person “yes” in a cell “yes” etc etc ad infinitum.