Mirdaths Logic.

[Mirdath]

Yes,the atoms that compose matter are orderly and stuctured within themselves,but beyond that they do not create order. Grains of dust,composed as they are of orderly,structured atoms,are themselves only passive matter blown by the wind. They don’t create order or life. All atoms are equal in their passivity and deadness.

Et voila, order in nature.

The only difference between the atoms that compose a human body and those of a grain of dust is the fact that the atoms of a human body belong to an entity that has spirit
whereas the atoms of a grain of dust do not. And when a human body dies for absence of spirit,the natural inclination of the body is to decompose back into dust.

I know it sounds great to say ‘gave up the ghost’ and all, but it isn’t loss of some intangible quality that causes death, it’s stuff like cessation of brain activity, heart failure, explosive decompression, decapitation, and all manner of other imaginative means.

Order and life are not intrinsic to Nature,as chaos and deadness are – that is the difference.

How can it be demonstrated that they are not just as integral to nature as are their shadows?

That can hardly be called an example of order.
It’s just a sequence.

Sequences are order.

Yes,a unit of life,a living organism – not life itself. Cells are not life itself – they die and cease to be units of life. Biologists may know how,but they don’t know what makes cells work or stop working.

This is totally not my bailiwick, but as far as I’m aware, yes, they do. Apoptosis, necrosis, autophagic cell death – those are the big ones. I’m not too well-up on my biology but I got that at least.

 

[anthony022071]

Et voila, order in nature.

Order which is not intrinsic to Nature. Otherwise there would be nothing to prevent all of the physical world from being as structured as the atoms which compose it,because all of the physical world is composed of atoms.

I know it sounds great to say ‘gave up the ghost’ and all, but it isn’t loss of some intangible quality that causes death, it’s stuff like cessation of brain activity, heart failure, explosive decompression, decapitation, and all manner of other imaginative means.

A human body can still have life after it long after cessation of brain activity. When someone has a fatal heart attack,he doesn’t die at the very moment that his heart stops beating,or even when he stops breathing,but only when there is no spirit,and therefore no hope,left in the body. If there is any spirit in a person’s body after his brain or heart fails,then there remains the possibility that he will regain consciousness and vitality. Even if he doesn’t regain consciousness and vitality,the cells of his body will continue to function,and therefore to live,until there is no spirit left in his body,no hope for his recovery.

How can it be demonstrated that they are not just as integral to nature as are their shadows?

They might be considered integral,but they aren’t intrinsic.
Not all of Nature is orderly or living,and but all of Nature is composed of atoms and all of it inclines naturally toward chaos and deadness. If order and life were intrinsic to Nature,then everything would be orderly and everything would be alive.

Sequences are order.

Order is where things have been put into order,arranged.
Arrangement is a result of conscious decision,or animal instinct,not chance.

This is totally not my bailiwick, but as far as I’m aware, yes, they do. Apoptosis, necrosis, autophagic cell death – those are the big ones. I’m not too well-up on my biology but I got that at least.

These are just attempts to explain the process and mechanisms of cell death. They do not explain what makes cells work,or process,to begin with,and scientists are not certain if they are the cause of cell death or survival mechanisms. But there is the scientific belief that cells work according to an “orderly genetic program”,“programmed cell death”,“death by design”. So who or what designed the program of cells?

 

[Mirdath]

Order which is not intrinsic to Nature. Otherwise there would be nothing to prevent all of the physical world from being as structured as the atoms which compose it,because all of the physical world is composed of atoms.

I am under the impression that, being that everything is made of atoms, that is in fact the case. Just because we may think it looks messy doesn’t mean it is.

A human body can still have life after it long after cessation of brain activity. When someone has a fatal heart attack,he doesn’t die at the very moment that his heart stops beating,or even when he stops breathing,but only when there is no spirit,and therefore no hope,left in the body. If there is any spirit in a person’s body after his brain or heart fails,then there remains the possibility that he will regain consciousness and vitality. Even if he doesn’t regain consciousness and vitality,the cells of his body will continue to function,and therefore to live, until there is no spirit left in his body,no hope for his recovery.

First, prove the existence of the soul.

They might be considered integral,but they aren’t intrinsic.
Not all of Nature is orderly or living,and but all of Nature is composed of atoms and all of it inclines naturally toward chaos and deadness. If order and life were intrinsic to Nature,then everything would be orderly and everything would be alive.

Cannot a thing be intrinsically comprised of opposing forces? The atom is comprised of positive and negative (and, yes, neutral gets third billing) charges. Both are intrinsic to the atom. Why should order and chaos, or life and inanimacy, be a different case?

Order is where things have been put into order,arranged.
Arrangement is a result of conscious decision,or animal instinct,not chance.

I must beg to disagree. Order is uniformity or measured progression, no matter its source or cause. Do you hold that the number line is Chaos, then? One, two, three, four, five – is that anything but orderly?

But there is the scientific belief that cells work according to an “orderly genetic program”,“programmed cell death”,“death by design”. So who or what designed the program of cells?

Who designed the program of my coin-toss coming up heads both times? I don’t feel any need to attribute either case to any supernatural being unless and until that supernatural being makes itself evident to me and admits responsibility.

 

[Hastrman]

No, you’d be wrong because you’re acting contrary to what I consider right. You may not think you’re wrong, but I do – and that’s quite enough for me. Even your ‘natural moral law’ has boundaries; you cannot force another to follow it, only act according to it yourself (which may well include trying to persuade others to do the same, but you will never be able to make anyone do that).

But what you consider right is irrelevant–I am talking about what is right. If there is no right but thinking right, then it is nonsense to talk about anything being wrong. It just boils down, again, to power.

In such a case, the foundation of my ethics has not turned on me – other people have. As a Christian, I would hope you are aware that they are wont to do such things, considering your religion’s past.

115 million dead under Communism in 72 years, suggests a secularist ought not talk about other people’s religion’s pasts.

I do hope you’re aware that that’s basically saying you’re looking at either a lemon or an ovoid citrus fruit. I am at the very least a monist, I suppose, because it seems sensible; materialism vs. idealism is a question I am not sure we are equipped to answer.

Not that kind of monism, acosmic monism–nothing exists but Being itself. Monism in the sense of materialism isn’t monism at all; it’s a misnomer. And materialism is forced by logic to become acosmic monism. Are you acquainted with the Vajrayana answer to the Theravada analogy of the cart?

Besides which, materialism is nothing more than Lucretian Atomism–which was conclusively refuted 2400 years ago.

“Idealism” is the belief that thinking creates the universe, which is nonsense. The philosophy underpinning Christianity is Mitigated Realism–making normal allowances for illusion and simple error, what seems to be real should be treated as real–informed by Aristotle, Aquinas, and the phenomenologists.

It is, interestingly, possible to be an atheist without philosophical self-contradiction–but only if you’re a Platonist or Mathematical Realist (they accept the reality of Ideas). Maybe. There is still the question of Existence.

That’s not a right, that’s merely sufferance. You’ll put up with it as long as you get something in return. Not at all what you were talking about when you said ‘rights’ previously.

Obviously not, and I thought it was obvious I was using the phrase “right to exist” analagously.

 

[anthony022071]

I am under the impression that, being that everything is made of atoms, that is in fact the case. Just because we may think it looks messy doesn’t mean it is.

At some point,we have to make a determination that there exists order and chaos,and that they are recognizable as such. Even chaos theorists make that determination – hence the name of their theory. We can’t “get behind” language.

Cannot a thing be intrinsically comprised of opposing forces? The atom is comprised of positive and negative (and, yes, neutral gets third billing) charges. Both are intrinsic to the atom.
Why should order and chaos, or life and inanimacy, be a different case?

Atoms,or energetic particles,are physical things and belong to the natural world,whereas order and chaos,life and inanimacy are non-physical principles which affect and direct physical things but are themselves unseen. So while there is dualism in Nature with energy or energetic matter,there isn’t dualism intrinsic to Nature between order and chaos,or between life and inanimacy,because those things are not even observable in Nature except as they affect and direct the physical.

 

[Mirdath]

But what you consider right is irrelevant–I am talking about what is right. If there is no right but thinking right, then it is nonsense to talk about anything being wrong. It just boils down, again, to power.

Except that I believe my concept of right behavior just as immutable (or, perhaps, more so) than you believe yours. I believe everybody should act according to my standards of right and wrong; I simply acknowledge the folly of trying to bring that about by fiat.

115 million dead under Communism in 72 years, suggests a secularist ought not talk about other people’s religion’s pasts.

I’m not a Communist (slightly pink, maybe, but just medium rare), and those deaths are better laid at the doorstep of totalitarianism than of any theological position; but either way, I was not speaking of the Crusades or the Inquisition. When I said a Christian should know how people tend to turn against each other, I was hoping you’d recall the catacombs, the persecution under Diocletian, the lions in the Coliseum, and the various inventive ways people became martyrs simply because somebody else didn’t like their decision to become Christian.

Not that kind of monism, acosmic monism–nothing exists but Being itself. Monism in the sense of materialism isn’t monism at all; it’s a misnomer. And materialism is forced by logic to become acosmic monism. Are you acquainted with the Vajrayana answer to the Theravada analogy of the cart?

I am not particularly well-studied in Buddhism, unfortunately. Please elaborate.

“Idealism” is the belief that thinking creates the universe, which is nonsense. The philosophy underpinning Christianity is Mitigated Realism–making normal allowances for illusion and simple error, what seems to be real should be treated as real–informed by Aristotle, Aquinas, and the phenomenologists.

Christianity relies on a dualist philosophy, does it not? I don’t see how we can avoid an apples-and-oranges situation here.

anthony022071:

Atoms,or energetic particles,are physical things and belong to the natural world,whereas order and chaos,life and inanimacy are non-physical principles which affect and direct physical things but are themselves unseen. So while there is dualism in Nature with energy or energetic matter,there isn’t dualism intrinsic to Nature between order and chaos,or between life and inanimacy,because those things are not even observable in Nature except as they affect and direct the physical.

I simply don’t see how there shouldn’t be: we have light and shadow, positive and negative – what makes order and life special?

 

[Hastrman]

Except that I believe my concept of right behavior just as immutable (or, perhaps, more so) than you believe yours. I believe everybody should act according to my standards of right and wrong; I simply acknowledge the folly of trying to bring that about by fiat.

But why should they? Because your standard of right and wrong is true? But on what basis?

I’m not a Communist (slightly pink, maybe, but just medium rare), and those deaths are better laid at the doorstep of totalitarianism than of any theological position; but either way, I was not speaking of the Crusades or the Inquisition. When I said a Christian should know how people tend to turn against each other, I was hoping you’d recall the catacombs, the persecution under Diocletian, the lions in the Coliseum, and the various inventive ways people became martyrs simply because somebody else didn’t like their decision to become Christian.

Sorry, it seemed like you were. I’m actually very impressed that you haven’t repeated that old canard, and I’d like to thank you for that.

I am not particularly well-studied in Buddhism, unfortunately. Please elaborate.

I actually should have said Mahayana–Vajrayana uses the same argument, since the two sects really only differ about one sutra. But there is a model in Theravada Buddhism, that they use to explain “anatman” or no soul: they deny what Aristotelians call formal parts.

The model goes, “While the wheels of the cart are real, and the boards are real, and the harness are real, ‘cart’ is just a construct in our minds.”

But the Mahayana Buddhists said, basically, “What, so parts have essences/forms/atman (that is, their identities are real) but wholes don’t? That’s nonsense. Nothing has an essence. The only thing that exists is Being.” Thus, Materialism (which is what the Theravada cart basically is, since it denies all but material causes) must lead, logically, to Acosmic Monism. That progression was followed by Buddhists, Hindus, some Platonists, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer, among others–arguably also some of the Existentialists.

Christianity relies on a dualist philosophy, does it not? I don’t see how we can avoid an apples-and-oranges situation here.

Dualist only in the Sanskrit sense of dvaita–we think that we and our Being (which is God) are two separate things. But we’re not dualist in either Western sense–not Cartesian or Platonist Dualism (well, some of us are, but I think they’re bad philosophers) that radically separate body and spirit, nor are we Manichaean/Gnostic dualists (actually some Puritans were), holding evil and good to be co-equal principles. Our best philosophy is Aristotelian, which holds that “spirit” is just the essence or formal part (that is, that-which-makes-it-what-it-is) of matter, or of some other quality. God, in our philosophy, is the essence of existence itself.

 

[brother_dan_mac]

(‘God is Love’ instantly raises the problem of evil). Loving is something I do, not the workings of an external force upon me.
I only meant that the part of God that is love is the main way inwhich He made us in His image, and that part in us is Him. The fact that you “do” or “don’t” does not mean that it is not from God, but only that He put that ability there, and your free will can afect it .

I

 

[Mirdath]

But why should they? Because your standard of right and wrong is true? But on what basis?

On the basis that I think it reasonable. What firmer ground can one really ask for? If you get right down to it, you wish others to act in ways you consider moral because you think your ethics are reasonable.

Sorry, it seemed like you were. I’m actually very impressed that you haven’t repeated that old canard, and I’d like to thank you for that.

You’re welcome

I actually should have said Mahayana–Vajrayana uses the same argument, since the two sects really only differ about one sutra. But there is a model in Theravada Buddhism, that they use to explain “anatman” or no soul: they deny what Aristotelians call formal parts.

The model goes, “While the wheels of the cart are real, and the boards are real, and the harness are real, ‘cart’ is just a construct in our minds.”

But the Mahayana Buddhists said, basically, “What, so parts have essences/forms/atman (that is, their identities are real) but wholes don’t? That’s nonsense. Nothing has an essence. The only thing that exists is Being.” Thus, Materialism (which is what the Theravada cart basically is, since it denies all but material causes) must lead, logically, to Acosmic Monism. That progression was followed by Buddhists, Hindus, some Platonists, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer, among others–arguably also some of the Existentialists.

Interesting. Thanks!
brother dan mac:

I does seem to me though, that you ARE looking for a reason to not believe, thus making your life as it is much more comfortable [or as it would seem].

I’ve got all the reason I need – you guys are the ones trying to convince me of things

It doesn’t really make life that much more comfortable, to be honest. Sure, I can sleep in on Sundays, but that’s about it. Entirely too many Christians have this idea that people want to disbelieve so they can have wild orgiastic sex in public with underage roadkill animals while contracepting or engage in other displays of dire moral turpitude, but nothing could be further from the truth. Joe Heathen isn’t any more screwy than Joe Catholic; and if the latter goes for the Guinness World Record for sinning, his religion isn’t going to stop him. God seems to have grown weary of smiting.

I don’t want to disbelieve; nor do I particularly want to believe: I’m just in one position by default. That some forms of belief would impose certain restrictions on my life is acceptable; I’ve done it before, and frankly I’m still harder on myself than any priest was on me during my Catholic upbringing. I just don’t have reason to consider any religions to be legitimate authorities.

 

[Author_Jerry]

This is based off an article I had previously written. Please bear with me for a moment.

Let us start with this statement: So many assumptions and beliefs concerning God contradict human logic. Since God is illogical, it’s rational to assume God is beyond human logic. Why, then, can’t God be real or knowable?

How can “nothing” exist? That’s already a self-contradiction. How can humans attribute a title to nothing, when there’s nothing to attribute something to? How could nothing exist before something? If something doesn’t exist, then there would be nothing. Yet, nothing is something–which means there is no nothing? Something presupposes that something was there before it.

Therefore, if something came from something, something must have come from that something, and so on. According to this logic, something must have always existed prior to another something, for something can’t come from nothing.

Let us replace “something” with the universe. If the above logic is true, the universe must have come from something preceding it.
This means that a paradox exists between Something That Never Was Created and created matter, for, according to Christianity, God created the universe from nothing.

God can only exist as a paradox, for a beginning always presupposes a something to cause this beginning. Therefore, God always was, always is, and always will be only makes sense as a paradox, it is the Everlasting Paradox that must exist in order for matter–or anything–to exist at all. In other words, since there must be an ultimate source of everything, that ultimate source couldn’t have come from anything: it always was, always is, and always will be there.

---

If this has already been stated, I apologize; you can simply ignore me. =)

 

[Mirdath]

‘Nothing’ is no thing: the absence of objects, not the presence of the aether. ‘Nothing’ does not exist.

I won’t pretend to know how the universe came into being. It’s not my field. But I am loath to add a necessary paradox to the state of things for the sake of an easy answer.

 

[Neithan]

‘Nothing’ is no thing: the absence of objects, not the presence of the aether. ‘Nothing’ does not exist.

Exactly, so there could never have been ‘nothing.’ That statement doesn’t even make any sense. There must always have been a ‘something’ for anything to be, at all. That ‘something’ is God.

 

[Mirdath]

Exactly, so there could never have been ‘nothing.’ That statement doesn’t even make any sense. There must always have been a ‘something’ for anything to be, at all. That ‘something’ is God.

Perhaps. The unmoved mover, the singularity, or whatever started the clock ticking, is not known even to possess reason or be a Being as such.

 

[Neithan]

Perhaps. The unmoved mover, the singularity, or whatever started the clock ticking, is not known even to possess reason or be a Being as such.

huh?

Please elaborate!

 

[Hastrman]

‘Nothing’ is no thing: the absence of objects, not the presence of the aether. ‘Nothing’ does not exist.

I won’t pretend to know how the universe came into being. It’s not my field. But I am loath to add a necessary paradox to the state of things for the sake of an easy answer.

:clapping:

I’m so glad you said this so I didn’t have to.

Help like the “nonexistence exists” argument, theism don’t need.

 

[Mirdath]

huh?

Please elaborate!

Granting that the universe came into being at some point or another, and assuming that something made it come into being (and I neither accept nor deny this – it is something I simply do not know), all one need postulate about this Uncaused Cause is that it caused the formation of space-time. It is impossible to ascribe animacy, sentience, reason, knowledge, benevolence, malevolence, or even more than a fairly limited power to this thing; all that can be deduced, accepting the above, is that it is something outside our frame of reference.

Hastrman:

Help like the “nonexistence exists” argument, theism don’t need.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Kierkegaard was right. Jump or don’t jump – but it is a leap of faith, not multiple leaps of logic, that he speaks of.

 

[Neithan]

Granting that the universe came into being at some point or another, and assuming that something made it come into being (and I neither accept nor deny this – it is something I simply do not know), all one need postulate about this Uncaused Cause is that it caused the formation of space-time. It is impossible to ascribe animacy, sentience, reason, knowledge, benevolence, malevolence, or even more than a fairly limited power to this thing; all that can be deduced, accepting the above, is that it is something outside our frame of reference.

Can we agree on this premise:

1. Something always exists

?

And, for something to exist, does it not necessarily possess ‘Being as such’?
For that matter, what do you mean by ‘Being as such’?

 

[Author_Jerry]

Exactly, so there could never have been ‘nothing.’ That statement doesn’t even make any sense. There must always have been a ‘something’ for anything to be, at all. That ‘something’ is God.

Thank you Neithan, for summing my argument up so pithily.

**Quoting Mirdath:**I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Kierkegaard was right. Jump or don’t jump – but it is a leap of faith, not multiple leaps of logic, that he speaks of.

That is, indeed, true. I was merely explaining how one can come to a logical conclusion to support God’s existence–not that faith isn’t required to come to such an assessment. In the same article, consequently, where I explain the Everlasting Paradox, I also wrote about how faith and reason are interdependent. But that’s a discussion for another time.

 

[Hastrman]

That is, indeed, true. I was merely explaining how one can come to a logical conclusion to support God’s existence–not that faith isn’t required to come to such an assessment. In the same article, consequently, where I explain the Everlasting Paradox, I also wrote about how faith and reason are interdependent. But that’s a discussion for another time.

You’ve got to have faith in reason, for one thing–if I think I’m insane, I can’t trust myself.

That’s a really scary experience, by the way–I’m just getting over a bout of hypochondria (serious, crippling anxiety about my health, due to a medical condition where my brain does not produce enough seratonin–my worst anxiety attack ever), and I had to learn to distrust my every sensation, because my gut reaction was to interpret them all as signs of something horrible.

Trust me, don’t go through anything like that, if you can possibly avoid it.

 

[freesoulhope]

No, you’d be wrong because you’re acting contrary to what I consider right. .

And i consider you wrong because your acting contrary to my laws. What gives your claim any objective authority over mine; except maybe you have the power to enforce your “moral philosophy” upon me?
If somebody acusses me of immorality, i know it is a lie for the simple fact that they invented it. Therefore they have no objective authority. By a materialistic standard, Morality is an illusion, not because thats my opinon; but because it follows logically from a naturalistic premiss that there is only “cause and effect”. The human imagination is only a by product of this process–not an authority. Meaning, such “human rights” does not objectively exist if God does not exist.

Objective reality is, by my definition, the world outside my imagination mind. The imagination has no authority over this reality. The human imagination can only have an opinion about it or interpret it according to a belief or a series of fundemental assumptions which appear to coicide with what we see. When we speak of truth, are we not speaking in relation to this reality? Certainly when i speak of God, i speak of him existing objectively.

The arguement here is not whether i can prove my morality to be objectively true; its whether not i have an objective basis for claiming that a thing is true.
If Ultimate perfection and goodness is the root of all objective reality, then it necesarily follows from that premiss that if any willful act, on the part of the creature, is in contradiction to that objective perfection, such an act would be imperfect since it does not reflect the root of its nature. Your opinion would be irrelevant, since you are not objective perfection and therefore cannot fully know what your talking about. How do i know the “perfect good”? I cannot know unless such a thing is revealed to me by perfection in some form or another. One being the “Ten commandments”. In which case, i would have to put my faith in the Moral Law, in the hope that it will guide me to perfection. To gain “Perfection” is the only rational reason for following Moral Law; since perfect beings do not, and cannot fail; and therefore society doesn’t fail.

A materialist reality provides nothing but an illusion of right and wrong and a false sense of guilt. None of it has any objective meaning or truth to it.

Peace.