How can the immaterial (Soul) affect the material (brain)

[greylorn]

greylorn,
(Looks like my post to yppop has been tossed like a football).

4H,
Yes, tossed, but not kicked!

greylorn,
Note the bolded area. “I figure that God made critters. He does not need some mystical force to power them. The set of forces that he devised to make matter operate interactively do just fine to explain microbiology”

I agree that God made the rules that explain how the whole universe works, and they are there for us to discover. But miracles have no physical explanation. Would you agree with that? Consider Jesus’ miracles like walking on water (were the apostles hallucinating or was Jesus bending some law of physics like Uri Geller’s spoon?), Jesus healing the sick (they only thought they were sick), raising the dead (they only thought they were dead ), casting out demons (psychologists would find sociophysiological explanations), multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Oh yeah, everybody was hiding their lunches until Jesus’ sermon on love, so they all had a ‘love-in.’

Let’s be careful not to muddle your beliefs with my theories. I propose that God made all the laws of physics except the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

Ultimately, there is but one genuine Miracle.

A genuine Miracle, or what I call an Absolute Miracle, is an event which we do not understand and have no legitimate expectations of understanding. Not ever.

Some action which someone knows how to do is only a “miracle” from the perspective of someone who has no clue as to how that happened. The Zippo cigarette lighter was regarded as a miracle by the first aboriginal tribes who saw it. It might also have been regarded as a miracle by the explorer who flicked it, because it is fairly certain that he did not create it himself, and could not have done so, from scratch, in a dozen lifetimes.

We use the word miracle too loosely.

I’m inclined to accept the inherent basic truth of Christ’s “miracles.” I have no problem accepting that the sick he healed were desperately sick, the blind really could not see, and the dead were dead. However, his work was not miraculous. Christ clearly knew how to heal, cure, and resurrect. Therefore, what he did was not an absolute miracle.

Christ was psychic, telepathic, telekinetic, and who knows what else. So are some humans, although many humans who maintain their profound level of ignorance by refusing to read or experiment in challenging areas, refuse to accept that.

I can get into your computer and reprogram it, even at the core of its functions. You can’t do that. My ability is no miracle— just the consequence of education and practice.

Scientific studies have proven that pure, unadulterated prayer, from an anonymous source has a statistically significant healing effect. There are hospitals which have established formal relationships with Reiki healing practitioners. Reiki healing works. You can look up Biomagnetic Touch Healing on the internet and purchase an inexpensive book and DVD from which to learn it. It is especially effective when administered by children. I will personally vouch for the efficacy of this technique set, because it has allowed my hands to heal others. I’ve seen it, felt it. It will not cure coronary artery disease, but it will stop a heart attack faster than a spoonful of Dave’s Insanity Sauce, and will not leave the healed victim screaming for someone to take a fire extinguisher to his tongue.

Now, I do not know how Biotouch or Reiki actually work, but that does not make them miraculous. I do not know how I wiggle my finger either.

You speak of Christ “bending the laws of physics.” That is not how things are done. The laws of physics are not the kind of arbitrary bs human laws that get you sent to jail or not as a function of how much you can bribe the judge. The laws of physics should never have been called “laws.” (Any linguist out there have a better word?)

Modern technology does not not send exotic instruments to photograph Titan, create awesome computing machines, or replace human hips with aftermarket parts by bending the laws of physics. It does so by understanding the laws of physics.

For this, intelligence is required— not the data processing intelligence of the brain, which is only a created machine— but the deeper intelligence of what you guys call soul but refuse to understand as a conscious, independently intelligent entity. The existence of that entity is a Miracle.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Welcome to the forum FurtherSuntime. I don’t buy all that end of the world stuff either. It happens every once-in-awhile that times and dates are set, and nothing ever happens. Jesus warns us “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and shall deceive many.” (Matt. 24:4-5)

As for your “lucid dream”, think of it as a gift, especially since you said it was the best dream of your life and you believe you’ve seen God. It was probably very vivid and may have been a prophetic dream in which God is asking you to do something, maybe like spread the gospel in the best way you can. He may be calling you to serve Him by learning more about your faith and being a good example of a virtuous life.

I really don’t know what kind of question you are seeking which you can “put into a comprehensible idea of a needed answer.” I would say to just accept the dream as coming from the depths of your soul where only God can speak. And that is a mystery!

Wow!..thanks for the welcome, turned the computer off and thought , may as well say something so much appreciated…on a side note for us pop corn folks…this chatting about God is amazing, heres what Ive got and Im just in the gallery so it isn’t important

1. If God can resist the second law of thermo(looked it up) then god must have substance in which to enact the resistence, there must be a substance which Mr Greylorn has in mind,otherwise the resistence to the law would not be required in application or administration
   .
2. We have heard that the God at one time was not all knowing, omni something I think,but we have yet to find out if the God always was and how that would fit in…especially if the anti 2nd law is in effect, wouldn’t that suggest that the entity God always was…an anti entropy including a substance to be anti entropy about… would be without origin relative to the substance.
   So, the substance of God is self energizing…is there motion? I’m guessing yes, and also guessing the substance is NOT like a hunk of jellow but zillions of pulsating , erupting , chyrstal like self enegizing stars all contained in a circular like …transparent like…with the substance continuously erupting from the inner center…the thing is we think santa claus and a wise ole man…my guess is no…we think consciousness…i think no. not like ours , different
   3)this is an amazing talk. , now its public so i’m allowed my perspective just like everybody.
   there seems to be a notion that our soul is made of the same composition of the God we are exploring… Faith will do it, we cannot bend the spoon because we think we cannot.I am thinking a corner stone existence for Jesus and all abilities in this .Makes sense i think, theres a focus referencing an origin. Based on the expansion the evolving timeless god makes sense i think
   The substance, of god, resistant to the law, but caused the gravity and other , I forget,strong and weak thats it, yet seemingly timeless or impervious to time due to ability… must be a constant
   so, what have we got ourselves, easy, tommorows another day but I think time is going to be tricky but maybe not… please no cut ups , the back is pretty sore

 

[Curious_Seed]

How can the soul and brain work together? If the soul is neither energy nor matter, how can it work with matter?

Facinating question.

No one knows what soul means, so they attribute to it whatever is comforting to their ideology.

Given that truth, knowing how the two work together reduces to speculation.

I’ll be among those asking God though, if permitted, after this life.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

1. I’m convinced there no such thing as genuine random because I personally invented a
   highly complex system out of lottery numbers in order to get some extra cash. The carefully schemed plan involves using identifiable constants such as the reliability of a final bonus number…
   Then I re-seed the system creating a relative expansion of differentials. Its not easy but there is simply no guess work.(much more complicated but thats the general idea)

For example…the #5 does not know its the #5 so theres no identifying process. But the bonus is the “last” number to come in ,so there something to identify relative results to…Theres lots to it…but when you know it looks good, you know the number is on its way.

Now…to get 6 numbers is tough.(only due to time re a few factors which would take to long to explain but are logical) But…no roulette table can defeat myself and tried system. Its not easy with all the noise in there and a few things have to be done…as well I needed a partner to do the wagering because I was to immersed in the calculations including charts and so forth.(i used the lottery slips to create the expanded differentials)…results: after about 15 roles staggered over 3 sessions, the casino decided they had enough. each table I went to was shut down in order to send a message.
From what I can see in my study on this…nothing is random but, i think we have to use the word genuinely random. It is a fascinating study . The behavior of a seeded system when done properly

I think the ideas here are fantastic and only wish we could do this properly with a couple of months with the book to study. Its almost impossible to relate with constructively because we are in a kind of Field trip curiosity to find out more info about the idea, rather than discussing the idea itself…no?
anyway…to be honest I can’t see anything lacking and its refreshing to see what could be coined a holistic approach . A diamond I suppose which man will be always intent on uncovering, or at least recognizing.

 

[4Horsemen]

4H,
Yes, tossed, but not kicked!

Let’s be careful not to muddle your beliefs with my theories. I propose that God made all the laws of physics except the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

I’ll try to respond although I hate to display my ignorance on this topic (and a bunch of others ) Having re-read about the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, I can’t understand why you think that God didn’t set these laws in motion. Is the problem with the Second Law concerning entropy? I don’t expect you to give me a lesson in science. All I can say is that according to my beliefs, God is transcendent and immanent–outside of His creation and within every atom and its parts. So if God, Himself, didn’t create the Three Laws, then where did they come from? You’d probably say they always existed. However, to my knowledge, the singularity has proven the origin of the universe as the Big Bang. You’d probably say I’m dependent on doctrine.

Ultimately, there is but one genuine Miracle.

A genuine Miracle, or what I call an Absolute Miracle, is an event which we do not understand and have no legitimate expectations of understanding. Not ever.

I can agree with that.

Some action which someone knows how to do is only a “miracle” from the perspective of someone who has no clue as to how that happened. The Zippo cigarette lighter was regarded as a miracle by the first aboriginal tribes who saw it.
We use the word miracle too loosely.

Agreed. Sometimes in seeing an old movie how civilization was brought to nativist tribes, it’s humorous to see them look startled at a mirror and wonder about a comb.

I’m inclined to accept the inherent basic truth of Christ’s “miracles.” I have no problem accepting that the sick he healed were desperately sick, the blind really could not see, and the dead were dead. However, his work was not miraculous. Christ clearly knew how to heal, cure, and resurrect. Therefore, what he did was not an absolute miracle.

Christ was psychic, telepathic, telekinetic, and who knows what else.

Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature. (Dogma, yes). How they worked together is a fascinating topic, but it’s beyond comprehension as a true miracle is. Your description of Christ’s miracles are attributable only to his human nature in that He had special powers everyone can tap into. I disagree. The miraculous belongs to the spiritual realm. Think of it as a 5th dimension, or 10th or whatever God has created that we know nothing about. Like, perhaps, other universes with different stars. Yet, maybe, nowhere but earth is there human life.

I can get into your computer and reprogram it, even at the core of its functions. You can’t do that. My ability is no miracle— just the consequence of education and practice.

I wish you could use your power to get into it and find my lost bookmarks. I tried all kinds of things but, alas, I’ve given up. However, maybe I can tap into my unknown powers and heal it.

Scientific studies have proven that pure, unadulterated prayer, from an anonymous source has a statistically significant healing effect. There are hospitals which have established formal relationships with Reiki healing practitioners. Reiki healing works. You can look up Biomagnetic Touch Healing on the internet. . . but it will stop a heart attack faster than a spoonful of Dave’s Insanity Sauce, and will not leave the healed victim screaming for someone to take a fire extinguisher to his tongue.

Now, I do not know how Biotouch or Reiki actually work, but that does not make them miraculous. I do not know how I wiggle my finger either.

I looked up Reiki:

The word Reiki is made of two Japanese words - Rei which means “God’s Wisdom or the Higher Power” and Ki which is “life force energy”. So Reiki is actually “spiritually guided life force energy.”

So Reike depends on God as well. (I will look up Biomagnetic Touch Healing and Dave’s Insanity Sauce! )

You speak of Christ “bending the laws of physics.” That is not how things are done. The laws of physics are not the kind of arbitrary bs human laws that get you sent to jail or not as a function of how much you can bribe the judge. The laws of physics should never have been called “laws.” (Any linguist out there have a better word?)

Modern technology does not not send exotic instruments to photograph Titan, create awesome computing machines, or replace human hips with aftermarket parts by bending the laws of physics. It does so by understanding the laws of physics.

For this, intelligence is required— not the data processing intelligence of the brain, which is only a created machine— but the deeper intelligence of what you guys call soul but refuse to understand as a conscious, independently intelligent entity. The existence of that entity is a Miracle.

I spoke facetiously about Christ “bending the laws of physics” regarding His miracles like walking on water. Can physics explain that? Someone might talk about an interface between the water and Jesus’ feet. I wonder if they’d describe it as material or immaterial.

Somehow we have a spiritual soul that when we die departs from the lifeless body. Descartes’ thinking makes it a ghostly entity. The Church disagrees that it is a separate entity, yet it is spiritual and separates from the body. Quite mysterious if you ask me.

 

[4Horsemen]

Wow!..thanks for the welcome, turned the computer off and thought , may as well say something so much appreciated…on a side note for us pop corn folks…this chatting about God is amazing, heres what Ive got and Im just in the gallery so it isn’t important

1. If God can resist the second law of thermo(looked it up) then god must have substance in which to enact the resistence, there must be a substance which Mr Greylorn has in mind,otherwise the resistence to the law would not be required in application or administration
   .
2. We have heard that the God at one time was not all knowing, omni something I think,but we have yet to find out if the God always was and how that would fit in…especially if the anti 2nd law is in effect, wouldn’t that suggest that the entity God always was…an anti entropy including a substance to be anti entropy about… would be without origin relative to the substance.
   So, the substance of God is self energizing…is there motion? I’m guessing yes, and also guessing the substance is NOT like a hunk of jellow but zillions of pulsating , erupting , chyrstal like self enegizing stars all contained in a circular like …transparent like…with the substance continuously erupting from the inner center…the thing is we think santa claus and a wise ole man…my guess is no…we think consciousness…i think no. not like ours , different
   3)this is an amazing talk. , now its public so i’m allowed my perspective just like everybody.
   there seems to be a notion that our soul is made of the same composition of the God we are exploring… Faith will do it, we cannot bend the spoon because we think we cannot.I am thinking a corner stone existence for Jesus and all abilities in this .Makes sense i think, theres a focus referencing an origin. Based on the expansion the evolving timeless god makes sense i think
   The substance, of god, resistant to the law, but caused the gravity and other , I forget,strong and weak thats it, yet seemingly timeless or impervious to time due to ability… must be a constant
   so, what have we got ourselves, easy, tommorows another day but I think time is going to be tricky but maybe not… please no cut ups , the back is pretty sore

All I can say is that God is a mystery. Think of the Blessed Trinity. Can we explain that? Some great saints had visions of the Trinity and said that for a few moments, it became clear but didn’t last. That was a gift of God.

I’m rather challenged about the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, but I do know that the Godhead is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite and all the attributes that define God. I would suggest reading Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed.

Here is a quote which I find pertinent:
“Religion is man reaching out to God. Christianity is God reaching out to man through His Divine Son – Christ (2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity) . . . joining Himself to human nature.”

 

[4Horsemen]

Yup!

yppop,

Just to let you know, I was trying to be funny when I answered “Yup” as a play on words, you might say. I know your moniker is written backwards, but I call you “Yop”. I hope you didn’t think I was being tarty. I really am interested in your explanation/theories. I had read your theory regarding the creation of the universe a while back. I still have a copy of what you wrote on the thread “Definition of Joy” concerning God’s grace. Elegant description.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Paranormal stuff is largely dismissed by everyone whose mental scope is limited by the opinions of authority figures, but is nonetheless real. I advise you to read Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe. Radin has a Ph.D in physics, which should satisfy your need for credentials. He writes well and will stuff your brain with a diverse range of data, and explanations of fascinating experiments. The book is well-indexed, and its 28 pages of references should fulfill anyone’s demand for supporting material.

That book seems a bit dated for such an up-and-coming subject (1997) and the author has a more recent book “Entangled Minds”. Do you know if it covers the same subject? I’ll try to find time to read them, they sound interesting.

 

[yppop]

yppop,

Just to let you know, I was trying to be funny when I answered “Yup” as a play on words, you might say. I know your moniker is written backwards, but I call you “Yop”. I hope you didn’t think I was being tarty. I really am interested in your explanation/theories. I had read your theory regarding the creation of the universe a while back. I still have a copy of what you wrote on the thread “Definition of Joy” concerning God’s grace. Elegant description.

Sorry for the delay in responding, but spring with its First Holy Communions, Confirmations, proms, baseball, soccer, and track keeps me busy chasing after the grandchildren and the yard and gardens are growing rapidly with their demand for some tender love. You know that God created grass, but the devil created the lawn.

I was so glad to hear from you that I completely missed that clever play on words. I am a person that believes one cannot fully enjoy life unless they have a finely honed sense of humor along with a serious and intense involvement in God’s graces.

Over a period of many years I have developed a philosophical model that explains, at least to my own satisfaction, how God might exist within our reality. It is based on a premise that duality (the concurrent existence of the material and the spiritual) originates at the ground of reality as the result of there being two kinds of space: discrete and continuous. Discrete space is the basis for the material; continuous space is the basis for the spiritual. With this foundation of space and matter, I build a model of the dynamics of objective reality that we experience as energy and time. This cosmic model then is duplicated in each living organism on an individual basis and provides the explanation of the mind/body problem.

I went back and read our discussion on the thread “Christian Cosmology” that occurred two years ago in the spring of 2009 and was reminded of what a intelligent discussion is all about. Unfortunately I decided at that time at the urging of GL to present my thesis on my own thread, “God Exists, But How” and unlike the discussion we and a few others were engaged in for about 80 posts, after which turned into a verbal food fight when a couple of the more illustrious members of this forum did a good job of sabotage of what had up until then been a reasonable discussion in which several of the respondents came close to understanding what I was presenting. Since then I have had a few thoughts about how to present my thesis differently and may be able to explain it in a more understandable way, especially to those respondents in this forum that are willing to act philosophically and make a deliberate attempt to extract the meaning of another’s thoughts, however they may disagree, instead of turning every disagreement into a debate.

So if you are interested in what I have to say, let me know; I would be willing to make an attempt to explain this model in a way that you might be able to understand.

Thank you for your interest.

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

I’ll try to respond although I hate to display my ignorance on this topic (and a bunch of others ) Having re-read about the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, I can’t understand why you think that God didn’t set these laws in motion. Is the problem with the Second Law concerning entropy? I don’t expect you to give me a lesson in science. All I can say is that according to my beliefs, God is transcendent and immanent–outside of His creation and within every atom and its parts. So if God, Himself, didn’t create the Three Laws, then where did they come from? You’d probably say they always existed. However, to my knowledge, the singularity has proven the origin of the universe as the Big Bang. You’d probably say I’m dependent on doctrine.

Ignorance is okay, a perfectly normal human affliction. The cure for it is to acknowledge its reality. The only people who are incurably ignorant are those who have incurable opinions. I find that admitting ignorance also admits fresh thoughts into mind.

Physics lesson: Thermodynamics 101a — The First Law, generalized and applied to hard core metaphysics.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Like other laws of physics, this one means exactly what it says. There are no exculpatory clauses, such as, Except by God. Therein lies the conflict.

There is no conflict with the Second Law (which kind of defines the entropy concept) because it is about what energy forms do when left to their own devices in a closed thermodynamic system. Unlike the first law, which excludes interference from an outside force, the second law provides the mathematical basis for understanding the nature of an outside counterforce, such as God, or the soul.

That’s enough physics. Next, let’s take a look at your belief: “God is transcendent and immanent–outside of His creation and within every atom and its parts.”

• This is not “your” belief. It is something that some nitwit invented and that you bought into because it appealed to your poetic side.
• The statement is internally contradictory. If God is inside his universe, how can he be outside it?
• Do these arcane words about God enhance your understanding of how things work, or do they simply paint slogans over your ignorance, keeping it safe?

I’d simply say that the stuff we know as “energy” has always existed, and that the three laws of thermodynamics completely define its properties.

Yes, you are too dependent upon doctrine. Remarkably, you are honest enough to explore that possibility. More carefully said, you are dependent upon authority figures, as are 97% of all human beings.

Your chosen authority figures are contradicting one another. You might want to choose one set or the other, or, even better become the authority over your own beliefs.

Consider, “*…the singularity has proven the origin of the universe as the Big Bang. *”

This is the most egregious hrsoesiht perpetrated by physics on human intelligence since phlogiston theory. The concept of a singularity is strictly mathematical. Examples: 1/0 or the tangent of 90%. When singularities appear in a physics exam answer, they are rewarded with a big fat “F.”

That is because there is no such thing as a physical singularity. “Singularity” is just a garbage word which the TV huckster-scientists use to buffalo the people who let cartoon lizards and “Progressive” communists sell them crummy insurance.

The word “singularity” used in any physics context means, “Our equations have just blown up into infinities, we have no idea what’s going on, but keep paying us to buffalo you with lots of nonsense and arcane jargon, authoritatively spoken.”

Even Dr. Caca on the Science channel has admitted that there is no such thing as a physical singularity. He now declares that the cosmic micropea which fired up the universe came from “nothing.” Now that’s good physics! And, where have you heard that before?

Ignore the TV pseudo-scientists and their bobble-headed cronies. Please. They are spokesman-shmoos who passed some courses but cannot actually do astronomy. You are much better off with conventional Catholicism than with modern cosmology. Those clowns will say anything to defend their mindless atheism.

 

[greylorn]

Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature. (Dogma, yes). How they worked together is a fascinating topic, but it’s beyond comprehension as a true miracle is. Your description of Christ’s miracles are attributable only to his human nature in that He had special powers everyone can tap into. I disagree. The miraculous belongs to the spiritual realm. Think of it as a 5th dimension, or 10th or whatever God has created that we know nothing about. Like, perhaps, other universes with different stars. Yet, maybe, nowhere but earth is there human life.

(Reply 2 of 2 to post 65

You missed my point. I wrapped too much garbage around it. It is this: Because Christ knew how to perform the acts which normal humans regard as miracles, they were not miracles. They were applications of advanced knowledge. (Christ flicked his Zippo, the natives went ooh! aahh!)

I wish you could use your power to get into it and find my lost bookmarks. I tried all kinds of things but, alas, I’ve given up. However, maybe I can tap into my unknown powers and heal it.

I like that plan. In the meantime, switch from IE to Firefox. Firefox is supported by volunteer programmers, not Bill Gates’ overpaid jackasses.

I looked up Reiki:
So Reike depends on God as well. (I will look up Biomagnetic Touch Healing and Dave’s Insanity Sauce! )

Yep! However, when I provide Reiki I first make formal contact with “Reiki spirits,” whom I call, Reiki spooks. They usually show up. I do not invoke God, Who has better things to do. Prior to Biotouch work I simply get into some mental contact with the recipient, my style. The formal Biotouch training has no such suggestions and claims that anything like that would be contrary to their non-beliefs. I get better results than they do.

Dave’s wonderful sauce comes under the heading of an intense and purely physiological experience, although some people pray before using.

I spoke facetiously about Christ “bending the laws of physics” regarding His miracles like walking on water. Can physics explain that? Someone might talk about an interface between the water and Jesus’ feet. I wonder if they’d describe it as material or immaterial.

Physics cannot explain any violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, including walking on water, Uri’s spoon-bending, precognition, telepathy, or telekinesis. No surprise, since its practitioners refuse to admit the reality of such events.

Somehow we have a spiritual soul that when we die departs from the lifeless body. Descartes’ thinking makes it a ghostly entity. The Church disagrees that it is a separate entity, yet it is spiritual and separates from the body. Quite mysterious if you ask me.

The only mystery here is that you persist in adhering to beliefs which create a mystery. Go with Descartes’ thinking instead of Aquinas and the mysteries disappear. Just like when science deep-sixed Aristotle’s nutty physics and got with Newton’s program.

For a variation in the direction of useful understanding, try this idea on:

You do not have a soul. You are a soul and you have a body.

 

[greylorn]

That book seems a bit dated for such an up-and-coming subject (1997) and the author has a more recent book “Entangled Minds”. Do you know if it covers the same subject? I’ll try to find time to read them, they sound interesting.

Dated? That remark seems a tad arrogant coming from someone who seems to be totally ignorant about the subject. I offered it as a suitable starting point for a beginner. When you’ve finished it you might move on to a classic, F.W.H. Myers Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death. That’s really dated.

Why worry about dating of books in a study field which has never proposed a theory capable of explaining its data?

I won’t read Entangled Minds until I finish my own book. It did not seem to me from Radin’s first book that he’d know more about the theoretical possibilities in that area than I do. If that book follows the style of C.U., it will be full of helpful data and devoid of theory, providing me with plenty of good, unencumbered information with which to work.

I’m delighted that you are willing to research this material. Most posters are all-output, zero-(name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[greylorn]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but spring with its First Holy Communions, Confirmations, proms, baseball, soccer, and track keeps me busy chasing after the grandchildren and the yard and gardens are growing rapidly with their demand for some tender love. You know that God created grass, but the devil created the lawn.

I was so glad to hear from you that I completely missed that clever play on words. I am a person that believes one cannot fully enjoy life unless they have a finely honed sense of humor along with a serious and intense involvement in God’s graces.

Over a period of many years I have developed a philosophical model that explains, at least to my own satisfaction, how God might exist within our reality. It is based on a premise that duality (the concurrent existence of the material and the spiritual) originates at the ground of reality as the result of there being two kinds of space: discrete and continuous. Discrete space is the basis for the material; continuous space is the basis for the spiritual. With this foundation of space and matter, I build a model of the dynamics of objective reality that we experience as energy and time. This cosmic model then is duplicated in each living organism on an individual basis and provides the explanation of the mind/body problem.

I went back and read our discussion on the thread “Christian Cosmology” that occurred two years ago in the spring of 2009 and was reminded of what a intelligent discussion is all about. Unfortunately I decided at that time at the urging of GL to present my thesis on my own thread, “God Exists, But How” and unlike the discussion we and a few others were engaged in for about 80 posts, after which turned into a verbal food fight when a couple of the more illustrious members of this forum did a good job of sabotage of what had up until then been a reasonable discussion in which several of the respondents came close to understanding what I was presenting. Since then I have had a few thoughts about how to present my thesis differently and may be able to explain it in a more understandable way, especially to those respondents in this forum that are willing to act philosophically and make a deliberate attempt to extract the meaning of another’s thoughts, however they may disagree, instead of turning every disagreement into a debate.

So if you are interested in what I have to say, let me know; I would be willing to make an attempt to explain this model in a way that you might be able to understand.
Thank you for your interest.

Yppop

YP,
Yes, I know that you did not address this to me, but you did drop my name.

I take full responsibility for advising you to initiate your own thread and defend your ideas. It was something you needed to do, and you are wiser and tougher as a result of your efforts.

I trust that you do not count me among the saboteurs, who’ve killed off more of my threads than I care to count.

I recall asking you to defend certain physics/geometrical questions arising from your theories. You never did that, choosing instead to engage the nitpickers, perhaps because they labeled themselves as Catholics, where I did not.

The diversion of attention was your choice, and made it impossible for me to be your ally on that thread, as I was predisposed to be. And, still am.

I did not agree with your ideas then, and probably will not agree now unless you’ve resolved the issues I addressed. I have my own ideas, my own axe to grind, but did not do that on your thread, as you know. Nonetheless, I’ll support anyone who is making an honest attempt to transcend dogma and figure things out on his own.

When I was developing my ideas I subjected them to physicists, astronomers, and engineers with whom I worked. They never agreed with me, but asked the kind of tough questions for which I subsequently found answers. Who do you think I now regard as my allies in idea-development, the honest skeptics or the mindless wife who agreed with everything I said and wrote back then?

Go for it again, friend!

 

[FurtherSuntime]

All I can say is that God is a mystery. Think of the Blessed Trinity. Can we explain that? Some great saints had visions of the Trinity and said that for a few moments, it became clear but didn’t last. That was a gift of God.

I’m rather challenged about the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, but I do know that the Godhead is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite and all the attributes that define God. I would suggest reading Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed.

Here is a quote which I find pertinent:
“Religion is man reaching out to God. Christianity is God reaching out to man through His Divine Son – Christ (2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity) . . . joining Himself to human nature.”

I find this highly critical & presumptive.

Therefore please feel welcome to go through all of my dozen or so posts and point me in the direction of need with a full explanation of… required introduction for beginners in theology.

Please be clear& concise in suggested deficiency. I need to know what your talking about to take your suggestion seriously. Over to you

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Ignorance is okay, a perfectly normal human affliction. The cure for it is to acknowledge its reality. The only people who are incurably ignorant are those who have incurable opinions. I find that admitting ignorance also admits fresh thoughts into mind.

Physics lesson: Thermodynamics 101a — The First Law, generalized and applied to hard core metaphysics.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Like other laws of physics, this one means exactly what it says. There are no exculpatory clauses, such as, Except by God. Therein lies the conflict.

There is no conflict with the Second Law (which kind of defines the entropy concept) because it is about what energy forms do when left to their own devices in a closed thermodynamic system. Unlike the first law, which excludes interference from an outside force, the second law provides the mathematical basis for understanding the nature of an outside counterforce, such as God, or the soul.

That’s enough physics. Next, let’s take a look at your belief: “God is transcendent and immanent–outside of His creation and within every atom and its parts.”

• This is not “your” belief. It is something that some nitwit invented and that you bought into because it appealed to your poetic side.
• The statement is internally contradictory. If God is inside his universe, how can he be outside it?
• Do these arcane words about God enhance your understanding of how things work, or do they simply paint slogans over your ignorance, keeping it safe?

I’d simply say that the stuff we know as “energy” has always existed, and that the three laws of thermodynamics completely define its properties.

Yes, you are too dependent upon doctrine. Remarkably, you are honest enough to explore that possibility. More carefully said, you are dependent upon authority figures, as are 97% of all human beings.

Your chosen authority figures are contradicting one another. You might want to choose one set or the other, or, even better become the authority over your own beliefs.

Consider, “*…the singularity has proven the origin of the universe as the Big Bang. *”

This is the most egregious hrsoesiht perpetrated by physics on human intelligence since phlogiston theory. The concept of a singularity is strictly mathematical. Examples: 1/0 or the tangent of 90%. When singularities appear in a physics exam answer, they are rewarded with a big fat “F.”

That is because there is no such thing as a physical singularity. “Singularity” is just a garbage word which the TV huckster-scientists use to buffalo the people who let cartoon lizards and “Progressive” communists sell them crummy insurance.

The word “singularity” used in any physics context means, “Our equations have just blown up into infinities, we have no idea what’s going on, but keep paying us to buffalo you with lots of nonsense and arcane jargon, authoritatively spoken.”

Even Dr. Caca on the Science channel has admitted that there is no such thing as a physical singularity. He now declares that the cosmic micropea which fired up the universe came from “nothing.” Now that’s good physics! And, where have you heard that before?

Ignore the TV pseudo-scientists and their bobble-headed cronies. Please. They are spokesman-shmoos who passed some courses but cannot actually do astronomy. You are much better off with conventional Catholicism than with modern cosmology. Those clowns will say anything to defend their mindless atheism.

Laws are a fundamental principal of…communication.A binding rule. Its what a law is.
To assert an entirety on the abstract premise of…“simply saying” is awkward. We must contradict a reality in the irreducible nature of law.

Thats ok, but I think we may have matter(energy) replacing the known or perceived idea of who God is. The God you are referring to is now energy.I’m sure theres a very good
sorting out involved and much to consider.

. Although I think its a fine line where the understood notion of God…is God in dominion of all, rather than a crafty entity which simply has the power to adjust to his environment through exemption of an already set material stage. We have more or less a cause of our Universe
Not a God in any sense . Sounds interesting though. I will most definately read the study when its available. Theres quite a bit of framework which is always, invaluable.

 

[greylorn]

…

The God you are referring to is now energy…

That is an incorrect assumption.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Dated? That remark seems a tad arrogant coming from someone who seems to be totally ignorant about the subject. I offered it as a suitable starting point for a beginner. When you’ve finished it you might move on to a classic, F.W.H. Myers Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death. That’s really dated.

Why worry about dating of books in a study field which has never proposed a theory capable of explaining its data?

I won’t read Entangled Minds until I finish my own book. It did not seem to me from Radin’s first book that he’d know more about the theoretical possibilities in that area than I do. If that book follows the style of C.U., it will be full of helpful data and devoid of theory, providing me with plenty of good, unencumbered information with which to work.

I’m delighted that you are willing to research this material. Most posters are all-output, zero-(name removed by moderator)ut.

I read the first chapter online and I thought it was really interesting. But he talked about how psi was on the verge of being accepted by the mainstream scientific community (in 1997) and referred to recent journal articles from the 1990’s, and my first thought was “whats happened since then? Is psi mainstream now?”

I think you may be on to something, that a theory that explains psi phenomenon might also explain other spiritual phenomenon like the soul. Thanks for pointing out these books.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

That is an incorrect assumption.

Yes I know , the idea holds energy in a manner of “simply is” . A sovereignty is implied to energy itself , by way of a qualitative . A qualitative in the “allowance” for a God to exist.

If I follow the theory , the composed God would then be obliged to seek out the origin or God of energy, which allows for its existence. As we seek out our God.

We would have a conflict in posit.by way of order in consideration. God IS & Energy IS. My observation cannot fall on a distinguishable destination of God.

If the given assembly, in the nature or sublimity of God is further enlightened which in compliment would be clear and obvious, I don’t see clearly how it is obligatory to allocate
or deduce a non-gestalt God. The God of perception within the idea is being held prisoner within the properties of perceived thought…

Continuing…

The discussion regarding healing is very interesting. The Reich method is in view , and we learn that children are wonderfully able in administration. This of course is very easy to grasp in the non-obstructive within a child’s mental freedom. However, we also learn that the ability in Jesus ect can be attributed to knowledge, within the short presentation.

My query would then be…
Which is it that is granting a unique healing or gift, knowledge or the simplicity of innocence?
I think this is more important Greylorn and believe were on the same page in priority here.
God of course comprising the Trinity, would be all loving and thus All Innocent. Become as children to enter the kingdom and so on. Do you see my wonder ?

Finally a curiosity. You have chosen to introduce God as to be, impervious to molecular disorder through an ability or power. I’m referring to the notes regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics.A molecule as we know is a particle of which material substance consist…
Therefore the idea of God is suggested to be material within text…

Above all, and I’m sure theres quite a bit to take into consideration, a most honored and
copious application with an abundance of learning in our good and expected
capacity to unveil mystery… to be most sure.

 

[greylorn]

I read the first chapter online and I thought it was really interesting. But he talked about how psi was on the verge of being accepted by the mainstream scientific community (in 1997) and referred to recent journal articles from the 1990’s, and my first thought was “whats happened since then? Is psi mainstream now?”

I think you may be on to something, that a theory that explains psi phenomenon might also explain other spiritual phenomenon like the soul. Thanks for pointing out these books.

Thanks for the clarification. I don’t recall Radin’s notion that psi was “on the verge” of anything, and I probably dismissed it. In order to get into “mainstream” science it is necessary to have a theory, or even better, a complete paradigm into which the observations fit. Psi does not have that, so all its researchers can do is amass data in hopes of finding a clue that solves the problem.

To Radin’s considerable credit, he competently presents lots of coherent data but, unlike most other writers on the subject, does not present theories of his own. Much like Michael Behe, who does not even propose his own Catholic beliefs as suitable explanations for his microbiological affronts to Darwinism.

That’s really the job of people like you and me, so long as you don’t have a PhD and a university position to lose. You seem to have a good appreciation of the value of theory. Let me know— actually, why not let all of us on CAF know your thoughts about the Radin material?

 

[shaky]

Facinating question.

No one knows what soul means, so they attribute to it whatever is comforting to their ideology.

Given that truth, knowing how the two work together reduces to speculation.

I’ll be among those asking God though, if permitted, after this life.

What gets me is the Soul needs the brain and memory cells to remember things while it is in the body.
But while the soul is out of the body it does not need the brain and memory cells to remember things because memory is retained in the spirit.

What about a person who has Alzheimers brain disease with severe memory problems Commits a mortal Sin. but does not remember the mortal Sin he has committed?