T
tonyrey
Guest
They don’t explain why there is 1 rather than 0! It’s certainly not self-evident.The fact that there is a universe doesn’t imply there must be a universe.
- Status
T
thinkandmull
Guest
They don’t say it’s 1, they say it’s zero. Where the negative from zero is and what is it is the problem. It’s like saying nothing, by itself, push back into further nothing thus creating a 1 that is really nothing because of the further back nothing. This is the stuff Stephen Hawking comes up with. Feeling sorry for him…They don’t explain why there is 1 rather than 0! It’s certainly not self-evident.The fact that there is a universe doesn’t imply there must be a universe.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The essence of a person cannot be the sum total of his/her atoms because atoms are impersonal, impassive and incoherent!
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Well the question comes up on whether God sustains the pain of a baby. If it’s not an entity, then He isn’t sustaining it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That is even more absurd. Why does 0 = 0+ 0-1? To adapt King Lear’s dictum:They don’t say it’s 1, they say it’s zero. Where the negative from zero is and what is it is the problem. It’s like saying nothing, by itself, push back into further nothing thus creating a 1 that is really nothing because of the further back nothing. This is the stuff Stephen Hawking comes up with. Feeling sorry for him…
“!Nothing shall come from nothing and certainly not less than nothing shall come from nothing!”
T
tonyrey
Guest
God sustains everyone and everything but isn’t the **direct **cause of all activity and its consequences. Pain is not an entity *per se *but an attribute.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
That’s what the proponents of property consciousness says
A
Aloysium
Guest
We can only contemplate 0 because there is 1.
All the laws, constants and relationships would have had to be present at the beginning, possibly before the Big Bang, or else it would not have occurred and progressed as it did.
Let’s say there was a singularity containing all the potential for time-space, with a built-in speed limit, all the matter which would come to exist, accompanying the thermodynamic laws that dictate that nothing new would happen other than a reshuffling of what existed as well as directing the flow of time, containing the possibility for gravity, electromagnetism along with the strong and weak forces of the sub-atomic, all in their precise form to make this possible, how does that work?
Perhaps we are individual fragments of a shattered mirror that would be the universe reflecting on itself.
How about, almost infinitely complex physical processes and interactions forming individual nodes of human experience.
Interesting imagery, but what is real is that I am in a dialogue with you.
We are relational beings; our existence is self-other,
We exist as a physical recycling of everything that goes into our mouths and into our stomachs and lungs,
a psychological recycling of our relationships,
constructed by means of a psychosomatic human nature and
grounded on existence, which is itself relational.
We bodily and psychologically incorporate the world into ourselves.
Spiritually, we relate to the world through our senses, intellect, feelings and actions.
Both we ourselves and what is other to us are revealed through that relationship.
Our thoughts, whatever they are, tell us about ourselves and our world.
At the Foundation of everything, every moment
from the beginning to the end,
however many or few times it has happened,
if such concepts have any meaning at all,
is perfect relationality - Love.
The Source of our being, all being, the universe alive in all time, brings it into existence, caring about His creation and seeking to bring us all back to Him.
All the laws, constants and relationships would have had to be present at the beginning, possibly before the Big Bang, or else it would not have occurred and progressed as it did.
Let’s say there was a singularity containing all the potential for time-space, with a built-in speed limit, all the matter which would come to exist, accompanying the thermodynamic laws that dictate that nothing new would happen other than a reshuffling of what existed as well as directing the flow of time, containing the possibility for gravity, electromagnetism along with the strong and weak forces of the sub-atomic, all in their precise form to make this possible, how does that work?
- 1 from 0? I can’t see that happening.
- Alternatively, we might imagine that it always was and always will be, a reincarnated universe, over and over, perhaps each a different edition. Proof for that is impossible to obtain, but we can believe it, if we choose.
- We can also choose to believe what the church teaches as having been revealed through the millennia back to prehistory culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We can choose to believe that we are brought into existence by love, for love.
Perhaps we are individual fragments of a shattered mirror that would be the universe reflecting on itself.
How about, almost infinitely complex physical processes and interactions forming individual nodes of human experience.
Interesting imagery, but what is real is that I am in a dialogue with you.
We are relational beings; our existence is self-other,
We exist as a physical recycling of everything that goes into our mouths and into our stomachs and lungs,
a psychological recycling of our relationships,
constructed by means of a psychosomatic human nature and
grounded on existence, which is itself relational.
We bodily and psychologically incorporate the world into ourselves.
Spiritually, we relate to the world through our senses, intellect, feelings and actions.
Both we ourselves and what is other to us are revealed through that relationship.
Our thoughts, whatever they are, tell us about ourselves and our world.
At the Foundation of everything, every moment
from the beginning to the end,
however many or few times it has happened,
if such concepts have any meaning at all,
is perfect relationality - Love.
The Source of our being, all being, the universe alive in all time, brings it into existence, caring about His creation and seeking to bring us all back to Him.
Z
zyzz
Guest
The idea of “reductionism”, to reduce everything to the smallest common denominator (quarks) is a misconception, which is only touted by a very small subset of believers. No self-respecting scientist - be they atheist or Christian - would expect to reduce the “wetness” of water to the individual properties of hydrogen and oxygen.
The laws of physics cannot “explain” the laws of chemistry, and no one expect them to do it. That does not point to some “supernatural” chemistry-god. The laws of chemistry cannot “explain” the laws of biology, and no one expects them to do so. That does not mean that a “biology-god” (souls, anyone??) needs to be stipulated.
As we step up on the ladder of complexity, new laws of the new level are found, which cannot be reduced to the lower levels. And no one expects that to happen, except a few “reductionists”, and they are shunned by the rational community.
Of course this has been explained to you innumerable times, but you still dig in your heels and keep on repeating the same old mantra.
No one (except you and a few others) tries this reductionism and thinks that it is a meaningful contribution.Free electrons cannot produce free persons unless they have supernatural power.
No one expects it to explain. It is just the lack of comprehension on the part of a few (very, very few) people who expect that “explanation”.
Let’s see how your “supernatural” hypothesis helps us to make the “synthesis”? I can hardly wait!
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
OK, perhaps you are offended by the concept of supernatural. But perhaps what appears to be supernatural to you is in fact part of nature that you do not currently understand.
Please be clear that my original question is in regards what what we consider the essence of a thing or person. I am questioning if the essence (all that is needed to reproduce) a person has aspects that are more than can be explained by the unfolding of the laws of simple constitutive particles.
I feel that the answer is obviously yes. And this answer means that the essence of a person is NOT material. Then what is it? It is a higher level of reality. The relationship of the object to its environment for example. If that is so, then we can for example talk about the substance (essence) of Christ in the Eucharists without looking for particles.
I am NOT invoking a supernatural concept. I am simply saying that the natural essence of something goes beyond the physical. It may appear to someone as supernatural but that is because of an erroneous (limited) understanding of what is natural.
I
inocente
Guest
Que? Did you get that from a Chick Tract or from the Philosophy Coloring Book?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It still has never been explained how entities such as persons have emerged from impersonal particles. Any positive suggestions or is to be negative your New Year resolution?Que? Did you get that from a Chick Tract or from the Philosophy Coloring Book?
BTW I have no idea what a Chick Tract is and as far as I know Philosophy Colouring Books don’t exist
Z
zyzz
Guest
You just keep digging in your heels into the “quicksand” of reductionism. And avoid the question of “how does the supernatural hypothesis help you with the synthesis”?
I
inocente
Guest
My positive suggestion is that you cite any philosophy paper you like which makes the claim that persons are particles or can be reduced to particles, and we’ll proceed from there. Until then, I’ve never heard anyone make that claim and so can’t help you.
V
Vico
Guest
Material things must have a basis and subdividing material does not allow us define the *nature *of the material thing. Rather, philosophically (Aristotle), we must define a thing as a whole before predicating parts and quantity. Aristotle used ten categories of which the first is substance - is the primary mode of being - the remainder are accidents. One of those categories is relation.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I am not a philosopher, but I am interested in this.
From what you say, i understand that he would have categorized relation as an accident of a substance.
Words are complicated and by relation he and I might mean something different.
I mean it in the sense that we are connected to everything else and to the source of our being as a fundamental aspect of the simplicity that is the soul as self-other.
To be rational requires a connection to what is other.
I know the Trinity is not an accident of God.
In a similar manner, being created in His image, are we not relational to our core?
We cannot exist outside our relationship with our Father.
Rocks interact; they cannot form relationships.
We are different.
Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut you may offer.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The term “supernatural” applied to aspects of the cosmos is totally appropriate.
This is especially true, as you note, in this day and age when the view of what is “natural” is very limited.
The problem encountered with its usage seems related to its not infrequently being confused with “superstitious” - very different meanings.
A
Aloysium
Guest
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
Indeed. I have lately become very uncomfortable with the way the term supernatural is being used around here.
It seems the height of arrogance of us to think we know everything about nature and therefore can separate things into ‘what we know’ and everything else. And then attempt to apply this horizon to big ideas like God or philosophical ideas like the essence of natural being itself. As if our limited understanding AFFECTS the nature of things.
The way that we use those words, supernatural, natural IMPLIES that we have a complete understanding. And words are used to form people’s consciousness.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
Can we agree that the essence of something or someone (and I have defined what I mean by essence above) cannot be described by things we consider to be within the known ‘natural’ laws of the material world as we understand them today?
Or are we so arrogant to say that we have uncovered the essence of a person within our horizon of understanding of how the world works currently?
If the answer is Yes, that I am correct. Then there is no real difficulty in understanding that the essence of Christ could exist in the Eucharist. I can think of many other important things too that sync with Catholic understanding while are denied by the modern world.
And my theory does not even require that one believe in anything specific, just that one doesn’t arrogantly assume that one has captured the essence of natural existence within the horizon of our limited and unfolding understanding of the world.
I have to admit that I am arriving at this after taking a multi-part philosophy seminar from a very gifted Catholic priest philosopher who went through all the collective changes in philosophy over time for us in a purely philosophical (non theological) way. Very enlightening. In summary when you look at things over long time, you see the shift of the object of thought being the universe itself, to more and more about the human and mind (the subject) itself. The shift in the object of study being outside of us (objective) to the study being about us, the subject (subjective) is a bias that has crept in.
So it seems that now this bias has crept in to the default philosophy of the masses: the culturally accepted way that we use language.
Or are we so arrogant to say that we have uncovered the essence of a person within our horizon of understanding of how the world works currently?
If the answer is Yes, that I am correct. Then there is no real difficulty in understanding that the essence of Christ could exist in the Eucharist. I can think of many other important things too that sync with Catholic understanding while are denied by the modern world.
And my theory does not even require that one believe in anything specific, just that one doesn’t arrogantly assume that one has captured the essence of natural existence within the horizon of our limited and unfolding understanding of the world.
I have to admit that I am arriving at this after taking a multi-part philosophy seminar from a very gifted Catholic priest philosopher who went through all the collective changes in philosophy over time for us in a purely philosophical (non theological) way. Very enlightening. In summary when you look at things over long time, you see the shift of the object of thought being the universe itself, to more and more about the human and mind (the subject) itself. The shift in the object of study being outside of us (objective) to the study being about us, the subject (subjective) is a bias that has crept in.
So it seems that now this bias has crept in to the default philosophy of the masses: the culturally accepted way that we use language.
- Status