T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank you, Granny, for that superb source of information. Even though you’ve specialized in Adam and Eve for a long time you keep right up to date!
- Status
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Yes it is! Probably a good time to forget about these silly debates and concentrate on the birth of our Savior!!
T
tonyrey
Guest
:clapping: You must have anticipated this discussion about carnivorous philosophers. I’m glad I became a vegetarian twenty years ago but GBS beat me by another forty years. Anyway it still lets me off Brad’s hook! I still don’t know what he enjoys eating…Ah Tony, you will appreciate these closing paragraphs from a short story I once wrote with Chesterton as the leading character.
*Famished, the enormous poet availed himself of the varied and spicy Italian cuisine he preferred to the British. For antipasti he took spinach with bacon vinaigrette, fried shallots and shaved goat cheese along with focaccia bread. For the main course he chose pan-roasted baby chicken almandine with sweet onions and braised red peppers. The meal was topped off with a slice each of creamy black-and- white cheesecake and walnut fudge pie with maple ice cream. All of this he washed down with an absurdly expensive bottle of 1925 Marques de Riscal. During an after-dinner glass of Butterscotch Schnapps, he penned a brief verse on his linen napkin:
Dining Gilbert Chesterton
spilled sauce and ale his big vest on.
He carved his Kant,
mashed his Marx
and buttered his Bertrand Russell.
Then he shouted down the corridor
for some oyster and some mussel.
But last of all, with sweating brow
he opened wide his jaw,
and for dessert he gulped a slice
of good old Bernard Shaw.*
G
grannymh
Guest
From Post One
Both views avoid the serious questions regarding the reality of human origin as taught by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, both groups can claim that they believe in some kind of a generic God; however, they can, at times, omit the fact that God has an unique relationship with the human species as taught by the Catholic Church.
Both groups are equally deficient when it comes to major issues such as the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. In other words, both groups technically avoid the Catholic Church. On the other hand, both groups have the support of a variety of Catholics and that is o.k. However, neither group officially supports the tough Catholic doctrines because it is only the existence of a God which drives them.
Both views invite discussion, both friendly and not friendly.
Maybe there are a few brave souls who can tell the difference between evolution in the material/physical realm and evolution which challenges basic truths in the spiritual world as taught by the Catholic Church. Understanding this difference is basic when one leans toward either theistic evolution or Intelligent Design. Personally, I would not suggest depending on either theistic evolution or Intelligent Design.
In my humble opinion, both views fail when it comes to the depth of Catholic teachings.
Both views avoid the serious questions regarding the reality of human origin as taught by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, both groups can claim that they believe in some kind of a generic God; however, they can, at times, omit the fact that God has an unique relationship with the human species as taught by the Catholic Church.
Both groups are equally deficient when it comes to major issues such as the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. In other words, both groups technically avoid the Catholic Church. On the other hand, both groups have the support of a variety of Catholics and that is o.k. However, neither group officially supports the tough Catholic doctrines because it is only the existence of a God which drives them.
Both views invite discussion, both friendly and not friendly.
Maybe there are a few brave souls who can tell the difference between evolution in the material/physical realm and evolution which challenges basic truths in the spiritual world as taught by the Catholic Church. Understanding this difference is basic when one leans toward either theistic evolution or Intelligent Design. Personally, I would not suggest depending on either theistic evolution or Intelligent Design.
B
Bahman
Guest
Reading and following some of the responses, I think I can add the following facts (I have a valid argument for each of them) and argument:
A) There exists an awareness in consciousness for any change.
B) There exist changes that we do not intervene in them.
C) What we call laws of nature is outcome of ordered awareness and not vice versa.
D) An agent is defined as a conscious being with awareness.
From these four facts we can deduce that there agents in charge of changes which we do not intervene.
A) There exists an awareness in consciousness for any change.
B) There exist changes that we do not intervene in them.
C) What we call laws of nature is outcome of ordered awareness and not vice versa.
D) An agent is defined as a conscious being with awareness.
From these four facts we can deduce that there agents in charge of changes which we do not intervene.
G
grannymh
Guest
A) Humans have a rational intellective spiritual soul.
B) Humans did not create the material/physical aspects of the universe.
C) The laws of nature are simply intelligible explanations of particular elements/actions in the material/physical universe.
D) The term agent can be applied to almost anything existing in both the material and spiritual worlds.
From these four facts, we can deduce that a human person’s nature is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds and therefore natural science in itself cannot completely and totally account for the existence of the human species.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
:yup:
B
Bahman
Guest
False, unless you clearly define soul and spiritual.
True. But what this has to do with the conclusion?
False. The laws of nature are intelligible hence there exist at least one agent with full ordered awareness who is in charge of manifesting them.
What is spiritual? And what this has to do with your conclusion?
Your conclusion does not follow.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Actually it does follow, and many scientists who are religious agree that it follows.
You needn’t assume all scientists are atheists. Some of them are good philosophers as well.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Spiritual would be the rational and intellective aspect of human beings; soul would simply refer to the entirety of what it is that makes a human being “human” - physical and spiritual. The “whatness” of a human being.
This need not be controversial, provided we don’t arbitrarily place undue or uncalled for restrictions or qualifications on what that means as a matter of materialistic presumption.
B
Bahman
Guest
Lets put facts and definitions together:
A) What makes human is a pair of sperm and egg. Please watch this
B) Irreducible is the quality of a being which the being cannot be reduced into other beings
C) No change is possible without awareness in consciousness
D) Fetus is conscious being and it is very aware of its functioning
Proof of A) That is what we observe so we cannot doubt about it.
B) is a definition.
Proof of C) Lets consider a system being in a state, S, which can cause another state S’. These two state cannot coexist hence S must exist (to cause) and exist not (to give room to S’) which is problematic unless the awareness of S exist in consciousness.
Proof of D) Fetus changes and it is aware of its function considering (C).
Hence, we don’t need soul to make fetus a function being since otherwise we have to assign a soul to any thing which changes.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is an opinion. I wonder why you think Catholics should accept it. Science is not the only source of real knowledge.
We are not just mobile bags of chemicals that respond to outside stimuli, reproduce, or not, and die.
Best,
Ed
B
Bahman
Guest
I don’t fully support scientific method, namely materialism. But science helps us to see what we couldn’t see. And I was not using scientific method for my argument. In fact my argument is based on (C) which can be subject of discussion, if it is true the rest follows.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I am completely lost. Your logic is either incomprehensibly baffling or incoherent.
Sorry to be blatant, but if you are trying to prove a fetus is conscious I will dispute that on grounds of personal experience. I was a fetus and I was not conscious at the time, ergo, fetuses are not necessarily conscious.
Now, perhaps, you may have been in your days as a fetus, but you may have been special.
If we took a vote on this thread, I would be surprised if anyone else remembers being conscious as a fetus so I am not sure that*** D) Fetus is aware of its function ***has any empirical support. Perhaps we all just forgot. On the other hand, I see no reason to think ***C) No change is possible without awareness in consciousness *** is even plausibly true, so your “proof” isn’t convincing.
E
edwest2
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Regarding C)
I will give you that no AWARENESS of change is possible without consciousness, but that is trivially true.
How would you possibly know for certain that change you are not aware of CANNOT be happening all around you without you being aware of it?
Whose consciousness do you have in mind, by the way?
Does every consciousness have to be aware of change or just some?
Why those and not others?
Why not none?
B
Bahman
Guest
There is nothing incoherent there. You were conscious being as a fetus but you couldn’t make any memory.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
How would you know that?
B
Bahman
Guest
I meant that no change is possible without awareness in consciousness and not vice versa and that is not quite trivial.
I didn’t say so.
We, animals, gods…
Yes, all of them.
All.
Because of (C).
B
Bahman
Guest
Do we have the ability to forget things? People get Alzheimer or forget things because of head injury but they are still conscious being.
You also were one cell, how you could make any memory?
- Status