My proof for God. Critiques please

[wheels10]

Is this your belief or a teaching of the RCC, that God generates every heart beat (and some arrhythmias too, it follows)? Is the use of a man-made pacemaker then a sacrilege (act against the will of God)?

I cannot say that this is the teaching of the RCC, but if I recall correctly, I did read it in a book written by a Catholic Bishop. If one believes that God is the source of all Life, then one can come to the conclusion that God is present and required for every heart beat.

No, I do not believe that a man-made pacemaker is against the will of God. A man-made pacemaker is an attempt by man to extend the Life of another human being. An attempt to extend the Life of another human being without violating the Life of another human being in any way, shape or form, is a good thing. That being said, even with a man-made pacemaker, God is present and required. He can stop the pacemaker if that is His will.

 

[wheels10]

The God of the gaps making another appearance?

Like I said, I’m not a cardiologist, but I know enough about bological science in general to know that there is a natural explanation for the human heart beat.

What about rodents, birds, fish? Does God take personal responsibility for every ventricular contraction in them too?

What about all the people who die from myocardial infarction? Where was God then?

No, it’s not the God of the gaps making another appearance, but rather the God of facts!
Yes, rodents, birds, fish, all Life requires God. Without God there is no Life.

News flash: Our time in this world is limited. There will be a moment in time when God will call us home. God is the owner of our bodies. He has given us our bodies on loan. We are asked to take care of our bodies as best as we can, but there will be a time when our bodies will wear out for one reason or another. Everything that we have, our possessions, our families, our friends, God is the owner of all of these things. He can call them back at any time. The only thing that is Truly our own is our free will. God won’t touch our free will. And if you want to be Truly happy you will want to do God’s will, because God’s will is the source of all True Happiness.

 

[rvilbig]

Is this a rhetorical question? Do you know or not know the answer?

Neurons fire spontaneously (article) due to the QM properties of sodium channels (article). In the heart, the bodily form (i.e. sensitive soul in Thomistic terms) of the human body actualizes these potential firings in a regular fashion.

In cortical neurons, spontaneous action potentials also fire (article), again due to QM properties. It is speculated that by coordinating inhibitory and excitatory action potentials, the rational soul (i.e. form) brings these potencies to act according to his/her will. As Roger Penrose has written:

“With the possibility that quantum effects might indeed trigger much larger activities within the brain, some people have expressed the hope that, in such circumstances, quantum indeterminacy might be what provides an opening for the mind to influence the physical brain. Here, a dualistic viewpoint [of mind and matter] would be likely to be adopted, either explicitly or implicitly. Perhaps the ‘free will’ of an ‘external mind’ might be able to influence the quantum choices that actually result from such non-deterministic processes. On this view, it is presumably through the action of quantum theory’s [wave-function collapse] that the dualist’s “mind-stuff” would have its influence on the behaviour of the brain” (Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, page 349)

In fact, neuroscientists have come face to face with birds making choices (i.e. the sensitive soul postulated by Thomism), but have denied it simply out of prejudice, rather attributing these choices to ‘randomness’ because ‘birds don’t make choices.’

Hope this is helpful,

Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Moonstruck888]

No, it’s not the God of the gaps making another appearance, but rather the God of facts!
Yes, rodents, birds, fish, all Life requires God. Without God there is no Life.

News flash: Our time in this world is limited. There will be a moment in time when God will call us home. God is the owner of our bodies. He has given us our bodies on loan. We are asked to take care of our bodies as best as we can, but there will be a time when our bodies will wear out for one reason or another. Everything that we have, our possessions, our families, our friends, God is the owner of all of these things. He can call them back at any time. The only thing that is Truly our own is our free will. God won’t touch our free will. And if you want to be Truly happy you will want to do God’s will, because God’s will is the source of all True Happiness.

Strong words, but I really don’t see much behind them. Our bodies are natural. They operate on natural principles. There is no evidence of anything supernatural occurring in the human body.

 

[davidv]

Strong words, but I really don’t see much behind them. Our bodies are natural. They operate on natural principles. There is no evidence of anything supernatural occurring in the human body.

Natural includes the spiritual.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Natural includes the spiritual.

Yes. Why not?

 

[wheels10]

Strong words, but I really don’t see much behind them. Our bodies are natural. They operate on natural principles. There is no evidence of anything supernatural occurring in the human body.

Are you sure you meant to say that you “don’t see much behind them”? Or did you actually mean to say that you “don’t see anything behind them”?

 

[rvilbig]

Strong words, but I really don’t see much behind them. Our bodies are natural. They operate on natural principles. There is no evidence of anything supernatural occurring in the human body.

The natural world is composed of matter and form. *Matter *is described by the probabilistic equations of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. *Form *is the “universal” by which a particular object is classified. For example, the human body is composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, whose equations are expressed in potencies or probabilities. Hypothetically, every part of the human body could be replaced with an artificial component made of different atoms, and the body would still retain its form: a human being. This suggests that forms exist as a distinct reality from matter since the matter may be replaced and the form remains. And this is what Catholics believe the human soul is: the form of the human body, as Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote:

“[A] body is competent to be a living thing or even a principle of life, as “such” a body. Now that it is actually such a body, it owes to some principle which is called its act. Therefore the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body; thus heat, which is the principle of calefaction, is not a body, but an act of a body…” (Summa I, q. 75, a.1)

Forms are spiritual in the sense that they are not matter, yet they are nonetheless a part of our everyday experience of the natural world. Make sense?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Soulewolf]

Unofrtunately, no. The computer I’ve been using isn’t connected to a set of speakers right now.

Here you go moonstruck.

friesian.com/goedel.htm

lots of info on the idea that time doesnt exist and how the universe looks outside of time.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Here you go moonstruck.

friesian.com/goedel.htm

lots of info on the idea that time doesnt exist and how the universe looks outside of time.

Plenty of conjecture on the idea that “in the intuitive sense” time doesn’t exist.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Forms are spiritual in the sense that they are not matter, yet they are nonetheless a part of our everyday experience of the natural world. Make sense?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

I’ve heard this argument before, in the form of an analogy about a ship which has so many repairs done to it that it no longer contains any of the original materials. Is it still the same ship?

An interesting argument to be sure, but I still see no evidence in it of supernatural forces operating.

 

[rvilbig]

I’ve heard this argument before, in the form of an analogy about a ship which has so many repairs done to it that it no longer contains any of the original materials. Is it still the same ship?

An interesting argument to be sure, but I still see no evidence in it of supernatural forces operating.

I actually think that this *hylomorphic *concept suggests that there is a supernatural agent operative in the world. Since nature is filled with numerous distinct forms, and since there are numerous potential forms that may come into being due to the indeterminism of QM and statistical thermodynamics, it follows there must be a form-bestowing agent that determines (collapses the wavefunctions) of the natural world. This ‘form-bestowing agent’ is understood by the Christian to be God. I would really recommend reading Wolfgang Smith’s book Quantum Enigma sometime. It’s short and he’s a serious scientist, so you’d probably find his arguments interesting at the very least.

Hope this is helpful,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Soulewolf]

Plenty of conjecture on the idea that “in the intuitive sense” time doesn’t exist.

“The choices are between a theory in physics, that of Einstein, which implies universes without time, and our ordinary, intuitive apprehension of the world as something that is only present to us at one point in time, the present.”

“But if time doesn’t exist, then the whole history of the universe should be present to us at once, simultaneously, as it is to God in Leibniz (one of Gödel’s favorite philosophers).”

there you go. it IS possible to visualize, and einstein did say it.

 

[Soulewolf]

as a afterthought, the logic in the second quote is incomplete as we are a part of history. Hence we would not necessarily be able to view the entirety of it.

 

[coolduude]

@Bonzerdad:

I suppose I concede the argument.

However, I still hold my view that the past has been created by successive addition

It was a good discussion; I enjoyed it

 

[bonzerdad]

@coolduude

I enjoyed it too. It’s always a pleasure to join in a good civil and civilized discussion. Keep on reading Philosophy,and there is no better place to start than St Thomas. One piece of advice I am sure Tommasso d’Aquino would agree with. Challenge what he says. More often than not you will come to the understanding that he is right and you are wrong. But getting to that point is a great way to learn what makes Thomas a great thinker and better discipline your own ideas and thinking at the same time. And then you get very humble thinking gave it all up one day and simply wrote hymns for the sheer love of God until God called him away from us.

 

[Moonstruck888]

“The choices are between a theory in physics, that of Einstein, which implies universes without time, and our ordinary, intuitive apprehension of the world as something that is only present to us at one point in time, the present.”

“But if time doesn’t exist, then the whole history of the universe should be present to us at once, simultaneously, as it is to God in Leibniz (one of Gödel’s favorite philosophers).”

there you go. it IS possible to visualize, and einstein did say it.

Rubbish. Einstein never visualized time. No one has… No one will.

 

[Moonstruck888]

as a afterthought, the logic in the second quote is incomplete as we are a part of history. Hence we would not necessarily be able to view the entirety of it.

That afterthought rather contradicts your whole argument. One of the main objections of course to visualizing spacetime by stepping outside it is that we are part of spacetime and can’t exist outside it. That’s a pretty big impediment.

When it comes to playing at stopping and visualizing time, we can’t win, we can’t break even and we can’t leave the game.

 

[JohnDamian]

Rubbish. Einstein never visualized time. No one has… No one will.

That is not true.

Time is perfectly simple to visualise; particularily through the motion of agents.

In the same way as we cannot directly visually percieve this or that dimension; we cannot visualise time per se; however - through agencies we can view and visualise time indirectly.

That is unless you percieve time to be an a priori notion conceived as a framework rather than as a substantive entity itself. In which case; the conception would nonetheless allow it’s observation in moving agents; even though it would be an applied notion and not a percieved entity itself.

That afterthought rather contradicts your whole argument. One of the main objections of course to visualizing spacetime by stepping outside it is that we are part of spacetime and can’t exist outside it. That’s a pretty big impediment.

If we cannot posit or come to understand things that we are an integral part of how can we come to understand external forces to ourselves? That is right; through perception and interaction. In the same was we can abstract and remove this or that particular from our conceived existance. Take this as an example; it is perfectly positable that we could conceive a world that had two or one dimension instead of three; likewise we could posit a conception of time operating differently or being absent. Ergo; as we can demonstrably conceive and percieve things external to what we are part of; we can do likewise with agencies that can be reduced and defined - because through those same definitions and conceptions we can abstract.

When it comes to playing at stopping and visualizing time, we can’t win, we can’t break even and we can’t leave the game

Why?

 

[Moonstruck888]

even though it would be an applied notion and not a percieved entity itself.

There’s hope for you yet, my young padawan…

If we cannot posit or come to understand things that we are an integral part of how can we come to understand external forces to ourselves? That is right; through perception and interaction. In the same was we can abstract and remove this or that particular from our conceived existance. Take this as an example; it is perfectly positable that we could conceive a world that had two or one dimension instead of three; likewise we could posit a conception of time operating differently or being absent. Ergo; as we can demonstrably conceive and percieve things external to what we are part of; we can do likewise with agencies that can be reduced and defined - because through those same definitions and conceptions we can abstract.

Positing something and visualizing it are two completely different things.

Why?

Because without the forcefields that manifest our spacetime continuum, there would be nothing to manifest us. We don’t just experience spacetime. We are spacetime.