How to understand and explain the soul?

[EndTimes]

So, if you have a person who doesn’t even believe in God, why might you suspect that an argument from Jesus (in whom he doesn’t believe) or from the Bible (in which he has no reason to believe) might work? That would be somewhat like a person asking you to believe in Islam based on quotations from the Koran. Would that approach be believable or convincing to you?

People can blithely say “Bible”, “Jesus”, “Koran” - as if they’re not in actual reality very ignorant…

TO ALL - Saint Jerome Says - And the Church backs him up… and preaches to Catholics on this as well

"Ignorance of Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ"

In other words… MANY folks Know little to Zero about Jesus - to begin with.

Sometimes in hearing a bit - they become surprisingly surprised…

I speak to Muslims… etc… . and have no problem…

Even an acknowledged “satanist” - who had no idea how some of his notions about the world - were echoed by Jesus…

Even to Catholics - who barely know Sacred Scriptures or Magisterium

 

[Gorgias]

TO ALL - Saint Jerome Says - And the Church backs him up… and preaches to Catholics on this as well

"Ignorance of Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ"

That’s not the point, though. To bring an atheist to Christ, do you simply hand him a book and say “believe this stuff”? Or do you demonstrate to him that God is real, and once he sees the truth of the proposition, demonstrate to him that the God of the OT is the God of the universe… and only then, that the God of the OT is the God we see incarnate in Jesus?

 

[EndTimes]

To bring an atheist to Christ, do you simply hand him a book and say “believe this stuff”?

Again… .That misrepresents me…

 

[Gorgias]

There is no knowledge except what we directly or indirectly experience through our senses and their extensions. This only applies to the actual, inductive reality, but not the axiomatic, deductive systems. Those are a different “ballgame”.

Ahh, but things supernatural “are a different ballgame”, too! Why are you willing to give a pass on the physical evidence requirement for the Pythagorean Theorem, but not for God?

Gorgias:

To bring an atheist to Christ, do you simply hand him a book and say “believe this stuff”?

Again… .That misrepresents me…

Are you sure about that? Let’s see what you wrote:

Read the NT. Period.

Yep. Sure looks like “here’s a book; read it.”

 

[Gorgias]

There is simply no evidence for this “supernatural”.

OK, so what kind of physical evidence is reasonable to expect for a reality that’s asserted to be completely non-physical?

Obvious. Because the Pythagorean Theorem is part of a deductive, axiomatic system. I hope you know what I am talking about.

That’s the point, brother. You’re willing to recognize that “physical evidence” isn’t appropriate standard for all systems. Why not allow that for God and the spiritual realm?

 

[Inquiry]

He didn’t actually say that. It is sometimes attributed to him, but it doesn’t look like he ever wrote it.

 

[Gorgias]

But allegedly there is a constant interaction between the two.

What’s your understanding of the nature / frequency / physical footprint of that interaction?

This alleged non-physical realm is supposed to be able to interact with our physical one, for example by using “miracles”, so it is possible to give a physical signal for us to evaluate it. But remember, that would be a PHYSICAL signal. Once again, we are not “equipped” to evaluate some non-physical signal… even if there would be any.

Agreed. Now, what mechanism do we have for predicting these interactions, such that it would be reasonable to expect that we might be able to measure them empirically?

Because the so-call spiritual realm is NOT axiomatic.

OK – so, the only place where empirical evidence doesn’t reign supreme is axiomatic systems?

 

[Gorgias]

It is not my “job” to provide a mechanism for it.

Fair enough. Yet, I’m trying to understand what you’re railing against. If you care not to substantiate your objection, then there’s not much to talk about.

But if you need a little help, go and study the bible. It says “whatever you ask in my name, it will be fulfilled…” and “knock and the door will be opened”, and a few more. Then you can try to ask for something that is NOT trivial, and create a “fulfillment matrix”. That might be a good start. I can make a prediction about the efficacy. It will be zero, zilch, nada, nichevo…

Ah, yes… that old chestnut! OK… here’s the truth: prayer isn’t a great big cosmic slot machine (you know – put in your prayer and wait for a big payout?).

I’d recommend that you read the catechism to learn what prayer is really about (in brief, to draw us closer to God’s will for us). In the context of the Bible quotes you reference, we see what Jesus is talking about – the gift of the Holy Spirit. Ask for it, and you receive.

You don’t need a prediction for realizing that a meteor shower occurred.

Only if you already observed it. If you didn’t, then you have nothing to say about the “meteor shower”. So, unless you can predict it – or have a way to guarantee that you will observe it – then you don’t have the ability to claim that the meteor shower did (or did not) exist.

Even ONE instance of a huge meteor gently drifting down to the St. Peter square and having the books of the bible engraved onto its mirror-smooth surface would be sufficient to consider it to be a miracle.

Pretty classic assertion: “if God does something completely outrageous, then (and only then) will He be believable.”

 

[EndTimes]

looks like “here’s a book; read it.”

Read it … is not - “Believe this stuff”

 

[rom]

Because the so-call spiritual realm is NOT axiomatic. It is not deductive, rather inductive. There are only two systems, one is axiomatic, deductive, the other one is open, inductive. That is all. Each works on its own principles.

You are right. Our knowledge of the spiritual realm is not axiomatic. It is inductive. As a matter of fact, the philosophical proofs that we have for the existence of God are inductive rather than axiomatic arguments.

The difference between a purely deductive system and an inductive system is not the fact that one employs deductive reasoning and the other does not. Actually, both systems employ deductive reasoning. The true difference between a purely deductive system and an inductive system is in the starting point. A purely deductive system begins with definitions, axioms, postulates or hypotheses. Then it applies deductive reasoning to derive conclusions, theorems, and corollaries. An inductive system does not start with definitions, axioms, postulates or hypothesis. Rather, it starts with an experimental fact, an observation, or some data from our world of experience. From there it applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion or principle that is often not immediately evident from the observed facts. In both cases deductive reasoning is employed.

Based on the above clarification, I think that all proofs for the existence of God (except the invalid proof of St. Anselm) are inductive. For example, St. Thomas’ proof based on contingency begins with the observation that things in this world exist for a while, but cease to exist later. From that observation he argues (by deductive reasoning) for the existence of a Being whose existence is ceaseless or permanent, and which is responsible for the existence of all other things in the world. Likewise, his other proof, based on motion, begins with the observation that things in this world are in motion. From that observation he argues for the existence of an Unmoved Mover which is responsible for the motion observed in the world. These are philosophical arguments, to be sure, but they are inductive rather than axiomatic, as we do in math.

I took the time to make the above clarification to remove the impression that our classic arguments for the existence of God are not inductive just because they also use deductive reasoning. Far from it. All our proofs for God’s existence start from sense observation. Hence, they are all inductive.

 

[rom]

During my considerable long life I have never seen, read or heard any real, actual, physical evidence for the existence of anything “supernatural”. Of course it does not mean that such evidence does not or cannot exist, it only means that I have never seen or heard such evidence.

I suppose the “supernatural” here means God. There are philosophical or rational inductive evidences for God’s existence, which have been presented already in numerous threads in this forum. However, if you are looking for a physical evidence or verification, all I would suggest is that you look for it in the world of nature. When you see footprints on the sand, don’t you know that someone walked on it? Well, if you only look around, God’s “footprints” are everywhere. See, for instance, how a larva metamorphoses into a butterfly complete with six jointed legs, antennae, compound eyes, beautifully decorated wings, etc. Talking about an “outrageous” event, then this is one of them. If you think there is a natural explanation for it, please let me hear it. All I know is that scientists have not synthesized even a single living cell from scratch. A butterfly requires billions of living cells, each with different functions, and yet they are all properly coordinated to serve the biological needs of the butterfly. Go figure.

Pretty classic assertion: “if God does something completely outrageous, then (and only then) will He be believable.”

I agree with you, Gorgias. Unfortunately, some people think that God would only be credible if He would perform a miracle, completely forgetting that Christ performed many miracles during His public ministry, but still not all believed.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

looks like “here’s a book; read it.”

Read it … is not - “Believe this stuff”

The goal isn’t to bring a person to belief?

And yet, the billions of believers issue trillions of prayers every day, all of which ASK for something positive treat it as if it were.

I agree that many think that prayer is a slot machine. Then again, there are those who believe that Bigfoot exists, and that the moon landings are a farce. Are you going to argue for those mistaken opinions, too?

Not to mention that Jesus himself encourages us to keep on praying.

Of course He does! He wants us to grow in our relationship with God, too!

You asked me what kind of empirical verification could be accepted as evidence for the supernatural. I presented this, but you don’t like it. And the reason for your dislike is simple… the experiment always brings back a negative result.

No. I dislike it because it’s a malformed experiment – it measures the wrong stuff, and (as you demonstrate so effectively), you end up with invalid conclusions.
Csakimavan:

Sorry, the words “whatever you ask in my name” are very specific, and they encourage the believers to keep on praying and ASKING for specific results.

So… if you’re going to quote Scripture, please quote it in context and not prooftext. Here’s what you’re quoting:
“And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” – John 14:13

Now, let’s show the absurdity of your assertion: you claim that Jesus is telling us that we can ask for anything, and He’ll grant it, right? OK – let’s suppose that you pray that I get struck with coronavirus and die. By your assertion, Jesus will answer that prayer, since He promised to do whatever you ask, right? And yet, does that make any sense? Does granting the death of a person “glorify the Father”?

Of course not! So, in one fell swoop, we’ve identified that not every prayer is granted. (Nice try, though. )
Csakimavan:

The problem is that there is no way to ascertain that we got closer to God’s will.

You’re so hung up on empirical evidence that you even ask for it in the context of God’s will?

Csakimavan:

Then you can try to ask for something that God very likely does NOT prefer… more suffering, more cruelty, more torture, etc… and somehow they seem to get fulfilled.

As an empiricist, I’m shocked that you’re not aware of the aphorism “correlation does not imply causation”…
Csakimavan:

That is the point. We observe empirically and then look for explanation.

Awesome! So, then: please tell me how you will predict this interaction, such that you can observe and measure it?
Csakimavan:

Of course. That is what miracles are supposed to be

That there are miracles doesn’t imply that everything outrageous should happen.

 

[o_mlly]

There are ONLY two kinds of systems , the axiomatic / deductive systems and the open / empirical / inductive ones.

There is a third system: abduction, inferential logic. Evolution theory is more an abductive system, seeks to find a coherent explanation for the cause of a diversity of observations, than either inductive or deductive systems. Abduction is arguably the weakest form of logic,

 

[EndTimes]

The goal isn’t to bring a person to belief?

Guiding one toward Faith in Jesus…

No twisting of Arms…

Scriptures are the WORD - in Written Form…

Why not Suggest ALL to read…

_

 

[Gorgias]

Why not Suggest ALL to read…

If someone handed you the Koran and asked you to read it, would it be effective – just as a “reading assignment” – to bring you to belief in Islam?

If not, then why would handing an atheist a Bible and asking him to read be expected to be effective?

 

[EndTimes]

If someone handed you the Koran and asked you to read it, would it be effective – just as a “reading assignment” – to bring you to belief in Islam?

No.

And Getting to Know Jesus via His Gospel - was/is never a given…

It may lead to Faith → Salvation …

Or? Murder → IN need of Repentance (His death Sentence)

Or whatever…

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If someone handed you the Koran and asked you to read it, would it be effective – just as a “reading assignment” – to bring you to belief in Islam?

No.

So then, why is it reasonable to suggest that handing a Bible to an atheist and asking them to read it will lead them to Christ?

 

[EndTimes]

So then, why is it reasonable to suggest that handing a Bible to an atheist and asking them to read it will lead them to Christ?

BECAUSE - That’s a par excellence manner by which to actually get to know Jesus -

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

So then, why is it reasonable to suggest that handing a Bible to an atheist and asking them to read it will lead them to Christ?

BECAUSE - That’s a par excellence manner by which to actually get to know Jesus -

OK, but the Bible isn’t “magic”. Just picking it up isn’t going to do anything.

And, besides which, if you were handed a Koran, would you actually even open it and attempt to make an honest attempt to read it with an open mind?

Same thing here: hand a Bible to an atheist and he’ll likely use it as a doorstop.

 

[EndTimes]

OK, but the Bible isn’t “magic”. Just picking it up isn’t going to do anything.

It’s not “magic” - yet it is Spiritual… in a manner of which those w/o FAITH can not come to Know