Mirdaths Logic.

[Mirdath]

(I’m getting to these as I can – it’s like playing whack-a-mole here! )

This strikes me as question-begging. In fact, the verification principle that you’re appealing to has been rejected by the vast majority of contemporary epistemologists. The reason why is because the verification principle cannot itself be empirically verified, so it falls under its own standard.

I don’t see a conflict here, since I hold that propositions do not have meaningful existence.

But the fact that some don’t know of these things doesn’t suggest that they are meaningless. Even non-existent things, like unicorns, are meaningful. There is nothing incoherent in the idea of one.

I think we’re talking across each other – I was speaking of a world in which the very idea of a cat or a mat was unknown. We have a concept of unicorns because somebody imagined it (or because somebody else strapped a horn to a horse); we would not know what a unicorn was if not for that.

Dranu:

That would be: ‘that X than which none greater X could be possible existing in this material reality’ (given we accept the premise of limited universe) not ‘that X than which none greater X could be conceived.’ Of course the previous would not work in the argument, because the concept wouldn’t necessarily have to exist in reality when plugged in.

Granting: ‘the greatest X may not be the greatest conceivable X’ is all the argument needs. At least for that premise.

Note the caveat ‘known’. Also, ‘the greatest X may not be the greatest conceivable X’ would seem to work at cross purposes to Anselm – for then God can be either not necessarily extant or not necessarily greatest (or both).

I’d be inclined to ask why not? Not to ask you to prove a negative, just along the same lines as I have been asking.

Remember I’m starting from a base of skepticism – I don’t have a reason to accept the anthropic principle.

1.) What are we petty in relation to?
2.) (For you) Would one human life be worth blowing up a planet if the planet was void of life?

1. The universe.
2. Yes.

So, if reason is primary, what is the reasoning for choosing the thoughts that seem to correspond with the senses and excluding the other thoughts as reality?

Because those other thoughts have no relation to my perceptions.

Re: understanding as perception – I don’t see it. Understanding is something we do with our perceptions, whether those be immediate or second-hand from a storyteller.

For me that is the best response yet, but with what standard do you measure utility? Is it enlightened self-interest? If so, how, since it seems you could have that as a brain in a jar?

Utility? Doing things. Having some kind of effect on reality. That’s ‘utility’ as I meant it, not any kind of moral or ethical behavior. Evil can be just as useful as good.

elwoodpd:

All joking aside, while God is not a man as such, can not God (being omnipotent) become a man if he chooses?

One cannot limit omnipotence, of course, although I must say it sounds like an utterly pointless venture for God to incarnate himself in any form. Additionally, given the idea of omnipresence, isn’t it a little like asking if I could become my big toe?

 

[elwoodpd]

That’s the problem with the Old Testament: good is held to be greater, but God doesn’t do good only.

In order for God, in reality, to do perfect good always, the Old Testament does not have to be accurate. In fact, the Old Testament does not even have to exist. It is not needed.

Agreed?

(I’m not saying I don’t think it’s important to believe in the inspirational character of the Old Testament. But you have to believe in God to be believe that the Old Testament is inspired by Him. So I’m saying to take one step at a time.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by elwoodpd
“‘All joking aside, while God is not a man as such, can not God (being omnipotent) become a man if he chooses?’”

Mirdath:
“One cannot limit omnipotence, of course, although I must say it sounds like an utterly pointless venture for God to incarnate himself in any form.”

Therefore you agree with my point?

 

[elwoodpd]

Quote:
(elwoodpd)
“2. You have not given any argument that we are capable of judging what is petty or not.”

Mirdath:
“Pettiness is a human concept, so I would say we are. You might even agree based on a reading of Genesis 2:19-20, in which Adam judges and names all created beings.”

---

Firstly, as I mentioned before, the Bible is not necessary here to the argument.

Secondly,
“Pettiness is a human concept”, so therefore we are petty.
This does not sound like a very strong (or clear) argument to me. Could you expand upon that a little?

1. Just because we can be petty, doesn’t mean we are petty.
   Agreed?
2. “Omnipotence is a human concept, therefore we are all omnipotent.” This statement is obviously false. Am I misunderstanding or misusing what you mean when you say “human concept?”

---

Quote:
1.) What are we petty in relation to?
2.) (For you) Would one human life be worth blowing up a planet if the planet was void of life?

Mirdath:
“1. The universe.”
“2. Yes.”​

1. How can your big toe be petty in relation to your body?
   It is a part of your body. In the same way we are a part of the universe.
2. If we are petty, how can we be capable of seeing this?

Note that the Christian answer on this is that if such a thing were possible it would be because God showed us this, not because we were capable of seeing it by ourselves.

 

[elwoodpd]

Quote:
elwoodpd
“1. Which is superior, good or evil?”

Mirdath:
“I place them on equal footing, and not a very high one at that (I do not hold with . Obviously I’d much rather do and be done the former, but that does not make it greater, only more preferable.”

That’s sort of funny, actually.

To say that “good is not better than evil”, is like saying that “better is not better than worse.”

By definition, good is better, and superior, to evil. That’s what the words mean, unless you have made up your own definition.

Maybe you disagree as to what is good and what is evil, but nevertheless, some things are still good and other things are evil.

Agree?

 

[Mirdath]

Therefore you agree with my point [omnipotence allows for incarnation]?

Yes.

“Pettiness is a human concept”, so therefore we are petty.
This does not sound like a very strong (or clear) argument to me. Could you expand upon that a little?

Not what I was getting at: pettiness is a human concept, so therefore we can judge things to be petty. Including ourselves, if need be.

Just because we can be petty, doesn’t mean we are petty.
Agreed?

Yes.

How can your big toe be petty in relation to your body?
It is a part of your body. In the same way we are a part of the universe.

A single toe isn’t much compared to a whole human. Not the best analogy for incarnation I could have used, though – allow me to restate: God becoming human is akin to me becoming my spittle.

To say that “good is not better than evil”, is like saying that “better is not better than worse.”

By definition, good is better, and superior, to evil. That’s what the words mean, unless you have made up your own definition.

Maybe you disagree as to what is good and what is evil, but nevertheless, some things are still good and other things are evil.

Good things are preferable to evil things; but ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are still just adjectives. I am not of the mind that they exist in and of themselves, so as they simply describe other things I cannot say that one is innately superior to the other.

 

[elwoodpd]

Good things are preferable to evil things; but ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are still just adjectives. I am not of the mind that they exist in and of themselves, so as they simply describe other things I cannot say that one is innately superior to the other.

The same applies to “better and worse” then, as well as “true and false”?

“Good things are preferable to evil things”

Preferable, not superior?

How is that not a contradiction of terms, a contradiction of your very “description” of them as “good”?

 

[elwoodpd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dranu View Post
“So what do you choose when you do not choose good? What makes you, or why do you choose the good over not (when you choose good)?”

Mirdath:
Evil, obviously; and I choose it at times because however much I may love, I am not perfect.​

How can you choose something that does not objectively exist?

 

[Dranu]

Note the caveat ‘known’. Also, ‘the greatest X may not be the greatest conceivable X’ would seem to work at cross purposes to Anselm – for then God can be either not necessarily extant or not necessarily greatest (or both).

And the argument is not working from some supposition of the material world (are you of a mind that God must be complex?), it is working on reason taking primacy. The reason God works in this argument, is because He is the only thing than which none greater can be conceived. If there were others then they too would be proven to exist. Furthermore, if God were bound to the universe, it would seem that you are not talking about ‘that than which none greater can be conceived.’ All this shows is to reinforce that ‘that X than which none greater X can be conceived’ cannot be meaningful for anything but God.

Remember I’m starting from a base of skepticism – I don’t have a reason to accept the anthropic principle.

1. The universe.
2. Yes.

First are you starting from a base skepticism? It does not seem so to me, but if so what allows you to get an ‘anchor on reality,’ so to speak? The second is, if yes to #2, where do we draw the line in destruction of non-living things?

Because those other thoughts have no relation to my perceptions.

Re: understanding as perception – I don’t see it. Understanding is something we do with our perceptions, whether those be immediate or second-hand from a storyteller.

Are you sure you want to take this line? I asked: “*So, if reason is primary, what is the reasoning for choosing the thoughts that seem to correspond with the senses and excluding the other thoughts as reality? *” and your reason is that you believe your sensory perceptions because they are your sensory perceptions, and the other thoughts because they are not?

As for understanding as perception, it clearly is. You do not come to think that something is there without drawing a conclusion based on understanding. Maybe the syllogism you hold to do so, makes an assumption that the 5 senses do not deceive, however a conclusion is only drawn through reason, and the result is understanding. Thus, the perception of truth, existence, reality, etc. is the perception derived from reason: understanding. The data that the 5 senses give you (sensory perception) must be looked at by the mind’s eye in order to make sense (on a conscious level) of any of it. —So yes ‘reasoning about’ is something you do with your (sense) perceptions you receive, but understanding is the greatest perception, as it allows you to perceive what your senses perceive, otherwise the perceptions would be there with you not having any understanding of their true meaning (including their existence).

Utility? Doing things. Having some kind of effect on reality. That’s ‘utility’ as I meant it, not any kind of moral or ethical behavior. Evil can be just as useful as good.

as Elwoodpd pointed out, the term evil implies worse, lacking etc, so that part would be illogical unless you are defining evil in some different way (maybe you mean what some people ‘think’ is evil?).

Just to refresh our memories I asked much earlier:
“Furthermore, if you have no idea with them alone that they (5 senses) reflect reality, then why make the leap of faith that they say anything about it? So having an effect on reality is utility? So why is effecting reality important to enlightened self-interest?
After that, since we agreed reason takes primacy (right?), why is ‘enlightened self-interest’ the most reasonable choice? Or is reason thrown out in favor of a strong appetite/feeling? (note: of course appetites motivate, but we can reject strong and painful ones and accept weaker ones with reason in primacy.)

 

[Mirdath]

The same applies to “better and worse” then, as well as “true and false”?

“Good things are preferable to evil things”

Preferable, not superior?

How is that not a contradiction of terms, a contradiction of your very “description” of them as “good”?

As neither good nor evil exist in themselves but serve only to describe actions, I do not see one being greater than the other. Nor is ‘better’ greater than ‘worse’, since again, those are descriptions; and the same for ‘true’ and ‘false’.

How can you choose something that does not objectively exist?

I don’t ‘choose good’ in the ‘I choose you, Pikachu!’ sense. English has many wonderful ways to be concise and brief: if you want the full phrase, it would be ‘I choose [to perform] good [actions]’.

Dranu:

And the argument is not working from some supposition of the material world (are you of a mind that God must be complex?), it is working on reason taking primacy. The reason God works in this argument, is because He is the only thing than which none greater can be conceived. If there were others then they too would be proven to exist. Furthermore, if God were bound to the universe, it would seem that you are not talking about ‘that than which none greater can be conceived.’ All this shows is to reinforce that ‘that X than which none greater X can be conceived’ cannot be meaningful for anything but God.

If God were bound to the universe? Every ‘that’ in Anselm’s argument up to the point of deity is so; why make the sudden jump? That just won’t wash. Nor, still, does the idea that the set of X is restricted only to beings.

Now, if you’re arguing for pantheism (which does not exactly suppose that God is greater than the universe), that’s a fair starting point, but I don’t think you are.

First are you starting from a base skepticism? It does not seem so to me, but if so what allows you to get an ‘anchor on reality,’ so to speak? The second is, if yes to #2, where do we draw the line in destruction of non-living things?

1. As Descartes, I accept that I exist; the rest is a matter of convenience.
2. Do we really want to get into a discussion of property rights here?

Are you sure you want to take this line? I asked: "So, if reason is primary, what is the reasoning for choosing the thoughts that seem to correspond with the senses and excluding the other thoughts as reality? " and your reason is that you believe your sensory perceptions because they are your sensory perceptions, and the other thoughts because they are not?

Yep. The creatures I can imagine are obviously not sense-perceptions; they are thoughts drawn, as it were, from the ether. I invented them; so I have no reason to believe in them. They should be the ones believing in me, not the other way around. After all, aren’t all artists little gods of sorts?

As for understanding as perception, it clearly is. You do not come to think that something is there without drawing a conclusion based on understanding.

Exactly: understanding is what you do with your perceptions. Perceptions say ‘fast’ ‘big’ ‘shiny’ ‘loud’ ‘coming towards me’ ‘MACK’; understanding says oh something I’d probably get in trouble for writing even with asterisks! Understanding had no hand in the sensing of those characteristics of the out-of-control semi; its function is (or in this case, probably ‘was’) to mediate and comprehend those sensations and perceptions.

Thus, the perception of truth, existence, reality, etc. is the perception derived from reason: understanding.

Ah, so you hold that truth, existence, and reality are perceived? I say they are understood based on lesser perceptions – judged if you will. There is no ‘sense’ for truth or existence.

So having an effect on reality is utility? So why is effecting reality important to enlightened self-interest?

It isn’t particularly, any more than it’s important to anything else. I have absolutely no idea what you’re getting at here.

After that, since we agreed reason takes primacy (right?), why is ‘enlightened self-interest’ the most reasonable choice? Or is reason thrown out in favor of a strong appetite/feeling? (note: of course appetites motivate, but we can reject strong and painful ones and accept weaker ones with reason in primacy.)

As they say, ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’. If everyone gets ahead, so too do I.

 

[anthony022071]

To say ‘partly’ is doing it a disservice. That is my principal objection to the use of reason to justify faith. Due to other issues, if you manage to convince me that belief in a God is reasonable, you’ll still have a long ways to go before you make a Christian of me.

If a person’s faith isn’t reasonable,then it isn’t justified. Faith shouldn’t be relegated to the merely subjective – a matter of feeling – it should also be grounded on reason. And reason is not limited to methods and techniques of logic.

Is the belief that the world and its life forms could come into existence through mind and spirit reasonable? If it is,then why not believe in God?

Are love of neighbor and those in need,works of mercy,forgiveness of others,humility,the reality of sin and evil,and the need for repentence reasonable beliefs and intrinsically good? If they are,then why not believe in the person who taught those things,and taught them most perfectly?

 

[Mirdath]

If a person’s faith isn’t reasonable,then it isn’t justified. Faith shouldn’t be relegated to the merely subjective – a matter of feeling – it should also be grounded on reason. And reason is not limited to methods and techniques of logic.

I said early on that direct personal revelation would be an excellent reason to believe – that’s not a ‘feeling’, but it isn’t logic either. Is this what you’re talking about, or is it something else?

Is the belief that the world and its life forms could come into existence through mind and spirit reasonable? If it is,then why not believe in God?

What exactly do you mean by ‘come into existence through mind and spirit’?

Are love of neighbor and those in need,works of mercy,forgiveness of others,humility,the reality of sin and evil,and the need for repentence reasonable beliefs and intrinsically good? If they are,then why not believe in the person who taught those things,and taught them most perfectly?

Reasonable? I think so, although it is quite possible to make an ironclad case for other points of view on that (Objectivism being one example). I do not think anything is intrinsically good or evil, especially such insubstantial things as beliefs.

Now then, Jesus certainly did teach such things, and he did so well and eloquently, if we are to believe his biographers at all – and I have no reason to doubt that he was a very charismatic, wise, and good man. However, being charismatic, wise, and good doesn’t make anyone divine.

I hold Jesus in enormously high esteem; but if I ‘believed in’ every person I admire so, I’d be worshiping quite a lot of people.

 

[Hastrman]

Reasonable? I think so, although it is quite possible to make an ironclad case for other points of view on that (Objectivism being one example). I do not think anything is intrinsically good or evil, especially such insubstantial things as beliefs.

You think an ironclad case can be made for Objectivism?

Oooooooookay…So you’re gonna take the word of a woman who thought Existence was paramount…and then thought she was an atheist, despite knowing Aristotle? Okay, sure.

Sorry, I live in Arizona; we have too many Libertarians here, and I’ve come to loathe Ayn Rand with a white-hot hatred.

You do know that Existence and God are the same thing, right?

That’s the sense that God is unknowable. You can never directly experience your own existence–not even if you’re an existentialist. The whole point of mysticism is trying to get as close as you can; and once you achieve it, you cease to be doing it as soon as you know you’re doing it.

See, existence is radically simple; even to talk about it is to over-complexify it, because to talk about it is to predicate statements of it: but anything you can predicate of it it also contains. Your experience of it will always be one off, because you’re complex and it (or rather He) isn’t. The Beatific Vision is supernatural because God allows you miraculously to experience a glimpse of what Being is.

It’s really easy, by the way, to judge the goodness or badness of an idea. If it’s true, it’s good. If not, it’s bad. True means “corresponding to reality”. Reality means “that which exists independently of the mind of the observer”.

Understand that you are in error if you think you cannot believe in God. Or rather, you are in error if you think it’s a matter of belief. You’re forced by logic to predicate reality to God, unless you deny that real existence can be predicated of anything (that is, nothing exists); if anything exists, existence is real. And existence is God.

Now the truth of Divine Revelation is entirely another matter. That, you do get a choice on: are the Jews and Christians telling the truth, or only the Jews, or neither? Maybe the Muslims? Maybe the Buddhists, Neo-Platonists, and most Hindus (and some rather muddleheaded Ashkenazi Jews) are right, and really nothing exists *except * Existence. Those questions are difficult to address by pure reason.

 

[anthony022071]

I said early on that direct personal revelation would be an excellent reason to believe – that’s not a ‘feeling’, but it isn’t logic either. Is this what you’re talking about, or is it something else?

I wasn’t referring to that. Direct personal revelation may be a reason to believe,but the revelation itself would have to be from the right source and point in the the right direction. Even malicious spirits,or demons,can induce a “revelation”.

What exactly do you mean by ‘come into existence through mind and spirit’?

Meaning that the order and laws of nature are from a mind,because only a mind can create order and law,and that the life of species is from an unknown quantity known as “spirit”.

 

[Mirdath]

I wasn’t referring to that. Direct personal revelation may be a reason to believe,but the revelation itself would have to be from the right source and point in the the right direction. Even malicious spirits,or demons,can induce a “revelation”.

What sort of rational foundation do you mean, then?

Meaning that the order and laws of nature are from a mind,because only a mind can create order and law,and that the life of species is from an unknown quantity known as “spirit”.

Only a mind can create order? Order is created mindlessly every minute in bottles of Italian dressing as the vinegar and oil separate and the herbs and whatnot settle to the bottom. So I would have to disagree that order can only come about by way of a mind.

As to life, while I obviously wasn’t around to witness its origin, I see no need to overcomplicate matters by bringing in the added baggage of spirits and souls unless those are demonstrated first to exist, and second to be a necessary prerequisite to life.

 

[Dranu]

Mirdath:

If God were bound to the universe? Every ‘that’ in Anselm’s argument up to the point of deity is so; why make the sudden jump? That just won’t wash. Nor, still, does the idea that the set of X is restricted only to beings.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here? I am arguing that God is not bound by the material universe (not within it but above it, as its creator not part), He exists in reality, but reality does not just consist of the material universe, and that too is proven by St. Anselm’s argument. When I said:
“Furthermore, if God were bound to the universe, it would seem that you are not talking about ‘that than which none greater can be conceived.’ All this shows is to reinforce that ‘that X than which none greater X can be conceived’ cannot be meaningful for anything but God”
I meant to show that it (God being bound to the material universe) could not be ‘That than which none greater can be conceived.’ Forgive my slowness in understanding your point here .

And you are correct in assuming I am not arguing Pantheism.

1. As Descartes, I accept that I exist; the rest is a matter of convenience.

1. Do we really want to get into a discussion of property rights here?

I remember you saying you are not a solipsist so I assume you accept the rest based on something else? I’m just trying to get at the core of the ‘enlightened self-interest’. The accepting the rest is probably based on a reason I’m guessing, but not reason in of itself, rather reason as a tool to achieve something that you want by setting the model up (accepting reality). But what is that thing you want by accepting the rest?

As for #2, yup .

Yep. The creatures I can imagine are obviously not sense-perceptions; they are thoughts drawn, as it were, from the ether. I invented them; so I have no reason to believe in them. They should be the ones believing in me, not the other way around. After all, aren’t all artists little gods of sorts?

They are little gods of sorts, but they aren’t making something from nothing.
So do you say you create the concepts of triangle? God? Truth? Existence? Even for the things like unicorn (which you might have created), you can perceive by the mind (understand) the idea. So you say because you consciously made them you reject them (that’s reasonable enough). What about what they represent when seen with understanding? What about those concepts in which you couldn’t have made up? Since we perceive the ideas, why reject those?

Exactly: understanding is what you do with your perceptions. Perceptions say ‘fast’ ‘big’ ‘shiny’ ‘loud’ ‘coming towards me’ ‘MACK’; understanding says oh something I’d probably get in trouble for writing even with asterisks! Understanding had no hand in the sensing of those characteristics of the out-of-control semi; its function is (or in this case, probably ‘was’) to mediate and comprehend those sensations and perceptions.

Understanding says everything. It does not say those things in which you can’t describe to someone who isn’t using the same 5 sense perceptions (color to blind man etc.), but it gives the meaning of loud, the meaning of shiny, the meaning of coming towards me, the meaning of MACK, and the perception of danger. Yes there is involuntary reactions, but the whole experience was only seen with reason, and this is why we can communicate the meaning of it.

Ah, so you hold that truth, existence, and reality are perceived? I say they are understood based on lesser perceptions – judged if you will. There is no ‘sense’ for truth or existence.

This is probably the crux of our disagreement. Your position sounds a bit like Hume, the problem though is that if they are understood based on the 5 senses, then existence/reality/truth should be able to be seen with those senses, but it is only seen in the mind. I am not denying (or affirming) that you need the 5 senses in order to have something to make judgments on (that is to reason, the result being understanding). I am just arguing that it is the mind alone that sees those things. If they are just made up by the mind, then they must only exist in the mind, which leads to radical skepticism.

 

[Mirdath]

I am not entirely sure what you mean here? I am arguing that God is not bound by the material universe (not within it but above it, as its creator not part), He exists in reality, but reality does not just consist of the material universe, and that too is proven by St. Anselm’s argument. When I said:
“Furthermore, if God were bound to the universe, it would seem that you are not talking about ‘that than which none greater can be conceived.’ All this shows is to reinforce that ‘that X than which none greater X can be conceived’ cannot be meaningful for anything but God”
I meant to show that it (God being bound to the material universe) could not be ‘That than which none greater can be conceived.’ Forgive my slowness in understanding your point here .

Where does the ontological argument prove that reality is something greater than the universe? In all versions I am familiar with, it just takes that for granted: there’s always a ‘universe plus one’ lurking around the corner, and it seizes upon that as God. Why must God be real? Doesn’t that imply that reality is greater than deity?

I remember you saying you are not a solipsist so I assume you accept the rest based on something else? I’m just trying to get at the core of the ‘enlightened self-interest’. The accepting the rest is probably based on a reason I’m guessing, but not reason in of itself, rather reason as a tool to achieve something that you want by setting the model up (accepting reality). But what is that thing you want by accepting the rest?

That ‘something else’, as I’ve said, is no more than mere convenience I can’t know, so why bother my head overmuch about it except now and again as a fun intellectual exercise? I don’t accept reality because I want anything – well, anything more than peace of mind. My acceptance or doubt of the material world has little to do with my ethics.

As for #2, yup .

Destruction of anything which belongs to someone else (who hasn’t given permission to destroy it) is wrong, full stop. If it’s yours, bang away.

They are little gods of sorts, but they aren’t making something from nothing.

Ah yes, the ‘get your own dust!’ joke But while an artist may use existing materials to display his or her works to others, those are not made of raw materials but are ‘created’ ex nihilo in the mind.

So do you say you create the concepts of triangle? God? Truth? Existence? Even for the things like unicorn (which you might have created), you can perceive by the mind (understand) the idea. So you say because you consciously made them you reject them (that’s reasonable enough). What about what they represent when seen with understanding? What about those concepts in which you couldn’t have made up? Since we perceive the ideas, why reject those?

I don’t think I’d use the word create (just as I put it in quotes above – imagine me doing the little finger-quote thing ), since that implies real existence.

My turn to be on the slow side, I guess – I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the second half.

This is probably the crux of our disagreement. Your position sounds a bit like Hume, the problem though is that if they are understood based on the 5 senses, then existence/reality/truth should be able to be seen with those senses, but it is only seen in the mind. I am not denying (or affirming) that you need the 5 senses in order to have something to make judgments on (that is to reason, the result being understanding). I am just arguing that it is the mind alone that sees those things. If they are just made up by the mind, then they must only exist in the mind, which leads to radical skepticism.

Yeah, sounds like we’ve pretty much hit on it – and I’m not sure how much room for argument there really is Your point of radical skepticism is well made, but I don’t consider radical skepticism (or at the very least radical doubt) anything to be ashamed of. Sure, I must needs admit that the world could be entirely illusory; what of it? I don’t act as if it’s an illusion because it seems that at the very least it’d be a lot more interesting and pleasant if I played along.

 

[anthony022071]

What sort of rational foundation do you mean, then?

I didn’t refer to a rational foundation in my last post. Rational foundation for what? Anyway,Christ himself is the rational foundation. He is the Logos,or Wisdom,Reason. He is bothe the teacher and the teaching. He taught love of neighbor (or anyone in need),works of mercy toward the poor and needy,forgiveness of others,repentence,and humility.
Now if a society of people were to make a real effort to live up to those teachings,that would make for a very rational society.
The Catholic Church carries on those teachings,even though the members of the Church often fail in practice for lack of committment to them.

Only a mind can create order? Order is created mindlessly every minute in bottles of Italian dressing as the vinegar and oil separate and the herbs and whatnot settle to the bottom. So I would have to disagree that order can only come about by way of a mind.

What do those examples have to do with order? True order in Nature is a product of mind,and order in Nature is functional,as with the structure of atoms and cells.

As to life, while I obviously wasn’t around to witness its origin, I see no need to overcomplicate matters by bringing in the added baggage of spirits and souls unless those are demonstrated first to exist, and second to be a necessary prerequisite to life.

It doesn’t complicate anything to bring in the factor of spirit.
Matter,by itself,is non-living and continues to be non-living.
Life is not intrinsic to Nature or matter,but extrinsic.
Not all of Nature is alive,and everything which is alive in Nature inclines naturally toward death. The unknown quantity of life in Nature is from,and is,the unknown quantity of spirit. Spirit is not from Nature,but is supernatural.

 

[brother_dan_mac]

All I can really say is ‘lucky you!’ I wish I had a big red phone on a hotline to a God who enjoyed answering prayers the nice way!

You have it too. You just have to listen!

to speak of a creator-deity adds one more where the need for yet another has not been demonstrated. So it is not at all a greater stretch; in fact, it is far less of one.This seems illogical to me

Well… we’ll see.I will pray for you

 

[Mirdath]

I didn’t refer to a rational foundation in my last post. Rational foundation for what?

We were speaking of reasons to believe not founded in either logic or feelings.

What do those examples have to do with order? True order in Nature is a product of mind,and order in Nature is functional,as with the structure of atoms and cells.

Order is understood by minds, but as with the bottles of sediment, oil, and vinegar untouched by human hands (or the crystalline structure of rocks, or any of a zillion more examples), it is not necessarily a product of reason.

It doesn’t complicate anything to bring in the factor of spirit.
Matter,by itself,is non-living and continues to be non-living.
Life is not intrinsic to Nature or matter,but extrinsic.
Not all of Nature is alive,and everything which is alive in Nature inclines naturally toward death. The unknown quantity of life in Nature is from,and is,the unknown quantity of spirit. Spirit is not from Nature,but is supernatural.

Sure it complicates it. It may sound simpler to say ‘life is spirit’ than whatever materialist explanation may be proffered, but adding spirits to the mix adds a whole new dimension of Stuff to account for, without the need for that addition being shown.
brother dan mac:

I will pray for you

Thank you, and you’re in my thoughts as well

 

[brother_dan_mac]

I apreciate the positive thoughts, Mirdath!

Now, I don’t mean to intrude on your intelectual discussion, BUT I think that you are looking for God in the wrong place. Try about 12-18 inches lower, depending on your stature. God is already there. He is the force within each of us that causes us to defy our own nature, which is one of self-serving greed and apathy… He is love itself: love being not a feeling, but rather the desire for the greatest wellfare of the beloved. This is not inherently human nature, for you yourself have said, if I recall corectly, that one cannot have dual natures.

You have overlooked a quote from my original post: "For those who believe, no explanation is neccessary, for those who [cannot] none is sufficient. You can go on debating with the other well-intentioned minds here for another 1,000 posts if you wish, but the fact remains that we cannot prove God’s existance anymore than you can disprove it. It is not a matter of mere human logic, for that will always fall short, no matter how inteligent one is…

I further propose that you try acting as if God did exist for at least one week. Yell at him, complain that he has not revealed himself to you yet, whatever. But above all, look for him in people and in all that you see around you. Look where you have not before, and withhold your obviously imense intelect for a while.

Let me know how this goes.