New proof of the existence of God

[Qoeleth]

Actually dualism proposes a separation and sometimes antagonism of the body and soul.
Christianity observes that humanity is unified body and soul. They are inseparable.

Actually, ‘dualism’ is a term which refers to the existence of a duality, or the conceptualisation of such a duality. There are many dualities- the duality between good and bad, true and false, work and play, etc.

Here’s the definition from the OED:
The division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided: ‘a dualism between man and nature’

I think you are confused, because it is common in theology courses to use term ‘dualism’ is to designate the particular dichotomy to which you refer. But it is well to know the precise meanings of words, and to use them accordingly.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure: While the exact ratio isn’t known, the current estimate is that there are slightly more bacterial cells in your body than cells that actually have your DNA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota
Now you might say “those don’t count as actually part of your body” despite the fact that they are required for the body to function normally.

Yep.

Bacteria are now considered a body part. Okey dokey.

This goes in the “perhaps aliens are the explanation for the empty tomb” proposal you offered a while ago.

It continues to amuse and bemuse me what absurdities must be embraced in order to cling to one’s atheism.

 

[Aloysium]

Sure: While the exact ratio isn’t known, the current estimate is that there are slightly more bacterial cells in your body than cells that actually have your DNA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota
Now you might say “those don’t count as actually part of your body” despite the fact that they are required for the body to function normally. Indeed, to answer that question requires a much more precise definition of what exactly constitutes “the body.”
I will contend that microbiome and the actually human cells are “inseparable” in the sense that neither one can survive without the other, but not inseparable in the sense that it would be impossible to pick out all the non-human bacteria from a body.
Now it seems to me that this must be an approximation of the body/soul composite you’re proposing, given that the soul can exist without the body (or else you must have some news for everyone about what’s currently living in heaven) but that such an arrangement, while technically possible, is not the natural or healthy state of affairs. Just as it would be if we separated the human cells from the bacterial cells.
And so we arrive at an interesting conundrum regarding the transitivity of inseparability. If the soul is inseparable from the human body, and the human body is in the same way inseparable from it’s microbiome, then doesn’t that imply the soul is also inseparable from the microbiome?

I can see where you have a problem. The issue is “Who and what are you?” How is it that you are? What you think is a conundrum gets even more complex when you figure that pretty much 100% of what you are as body is formed from what you were not, if you go back to when your were a single cell. That cell while developing into your body, also turned itself into what you would later shed - the placenta by which you were joined to your mom along with the umbilical cord and amniotic sac. You are reading this, you are thinking and feeling, and at some point you will move. One person is doing this; that’s you. I’m sure you can intellectualize your very existence away; but, there you are. We are actually part of everything, physically because we are brought forth through the same laws and principles that govern the entire material universe, and spiritually, because connectedness (love when perfect) is its nature. You have much to consider. Might I suggest you develop your own understanding rather than criticize others.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I will contend that microbiome and the actually human cells are “inseparable” in the sense that neither one can survive without the other, but not inseparable in the sense that it would be impossible to pick out all the non-human bacteria from a body.

Now it seems to me that this must be an approximation of the body/soul composite you’re proposing, given that the soul can exist without the body (or else you must have some news for everyone about what’s currently living in heaven) but that such an arrangement, while technically possible, is not the natural or healthy state of affairs. Just as it would be if we separated the human cells from the bacterial cells.

And so we arrive at an interesting conundrum regarding the transitivity of inseparability. If the soul is inseparable from the human body, and the human body is in the same way inseparable from it’s microbiome, then doesn’t that imply the soul is also inseparable from the microbiome?

Except that you are assuming that the current natural state of the body is the “healthy state of affairs.” Any Christian who adheres to the idea that human beings live in a fallen state could easily respond that a truly healthy state of affairs is one where all the bacterial cells have been exorcized because a truly healthy human body wouldn’t require them. In other words, it is the existence of those foreign cells that are at least one aspect of what it means to live in a fallen world with death, disease, limitations and failures being caused in part by the unhealthy dependency the body has on those foreign cells that exist in this life.

 

[e_c]

Except that you are assuming that the current natural state of the body is the “healthy state of affairs.” Any Christian who adheres to the idea that human beings live in a fallen state could easily respond that a truly healthy state of affairs is one where all the bacterial cells have been exorcized because a truly healthy human body wouldn’t require them. In other words, it is the existence of those foreign cells that are at least one aspect of what it means to live in a fallen world with death, disease, limitations and failures being caused in part by the unhealthy dependency the body has on those foreign cells that exist in this life.

On the other hand, it is a peaceful and mutually helpful symbiosis. Very prelapsarian sounding.

That doesn’t mean the soul extends to bacteria within the body. They have their own distinct unity and organization.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Sure: While the exact ratio isn’t known, the current estimate is that there are slightly more bacterial cells in your body than cells that actually have your DNA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota
Now you might say “those don’t count as actually part of your body” despite the fact that they are required for the body to function normally. Indeed, to answer that question requires a much more precise definition of what exactly constitutes “the body.”

I will contend that microbiome and the actually human cells are “inseparable” in the sense that neither one can survive without the other, but not inseparable in the sense that it would be impossible to pick out all the non-human bacteria from a body.

Now it seems to me that this must be an approximation of the body/soul composite you’re proposing, given that the soul can exist without the body (or else you must have some news for everyone about what’s currently living in heaven) but that such an arrangement, while technically possible, is not the natural or healthy state of affairs. Just as it would be if we separated the human cells from the bacterial cells.

And so we arrive at an interesting conundrum regarding the transitivity of inseparability. If the soul is inseparable from the human body, and the human body is in the same way inseparable from it’s microbiome, then doesn’t that imply the soul is also inseparable from the microbiome?

The bacteria in the human body are not themselves human since we can recognize it as something else, namely bacteria. The fact that we rely on bacteria for our survival does not make bacteria human anymore than the fact that we rely on eating food for our survival makes the animals and plants that we eat human.

But, at any rate the soul is something more than what nature alone can provide. This difference alone makes the difference between man and animals glaring, like the elephant in the room. You can try to explain it away, but it is nonetheless there. You can try to explain it by saying there must have been lots of time for this difference to evolve, but a slow miracle is still just as profound as a quick one. To see the miracle in this consider an alien life form coming to earth and seeing all the animals and then him seeing man would he see man as just another animal or as an aberration? Would he see man as just another animal who has discovered greener pastures, or as the cow that jumped over the moon? How many cows do you know who have gone to the moon and back? The more you look at man as an animal the more you realize he is not one.

 

[Peter_Plato]

On the other hand, it is a peaceful and mutually helpful symbiosis. Very prelapsarian sounding.

Ah, yes, the firmicutes lying down with the bacteroidetes!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Except that you are assuming that the current natural state of the body is the “healthy state of affairs.” Any Christian who adheres to the idea that human beings live in a fallen state could easily respond that a truly healthy state of affairs is one where all the bacterial cells have been exorcized because a truly healthy human body wouldn’t require them. In other words, it is the existence of those foreign cells that are at least one aspect of what it means to live in a fallen world with death, disease, limitations and failures being caused in part by the unhealthy dependency the body has on those foreign cells that exist in this life.

If you exorcised all the bacteria, you would not be healthy. Your body has written into its DNA the assumption that the bacteria will help out. Therefore, you’re either saying:

A: There are some rules of physics that have to be changed in order for us to be “truly” healthy.

B: A “truly” healthy human body has different DNA than the one you’ve got right now.

 

[PRmerger]

If you exorcised all the bacteria, you would not be healthy.

Irrelevant.

Your body has written into its DNA the assumption that the bacteria will help out. Therefore, you’re either saying:

A: There are some rules of physics that have to be changed in order for us to be “truly” healthy.

B: A “truly” healthy human body has different DNA than the one you’ve got right now.

Bacteria are not part of the human body. They are separate organisms.

Just like a fetus in my womb is not part of my body. It’s a separate organism.

 

[PRmerger]

If you exorcised all the bacteria, you would not be healthy. Your body has written into its DNA the assumption that the bacteria will help out. Therefore, you’re either saying:

A: There are some rules of physics that have to be changed in order for us to be “truly” healthy.

B: A “truly” healthy human body has different DNA than the one you’ve got right now.

I’m not sure, even if we concede that bacteria are just another body part, how this refutes what we’ve been saying about the body/soul being a composite?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The bacteria in the human body are not themselves human since we can recognize it as something else, namely bacteria. The fact that we rely on bacteria for our survival does not make bacteria human anymore than the fact that we rely on eating food for our survival makes the animals and plants that we eat human.

I mean, my CPU fan is clearly part of my computer. My computer wouldn’t work correctly without it. But I can still recognize it as something other than a computer, since it doesn’t crunch any numbers. Indeed, not all computers have fans. I would never argue that a simple fan is a computer, but it can be an inseparable part of a computer.

In the same way, you were never arguing that the soul is the human body, and I was never arguing that bacteria are the human body.

But, at any rate the soul is something more than what nature alone can provide. This difference alone makes the difference between man and animals glaring, like the elephant in the room. You can try to explain it away, but it is nonetheless there. You can try to explain it by saying there must have been lots of time for this difference to evolve, but a slow miracle is still just as profound as a quick one. To see the miracle in this consider an alien life form coming to earth and seeing all the animals and then him seeing man would he see man as just another animal or as an aberration? Would he see man as just another animal who has discovered greener pastures, or as the cow that jumped over the moon? How many cows do you know who have gone to the moon and back? The more you look at man as an animal the more you realize he is not one.

Who knows what aliens would think of us.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m not sure, even if we concede that bacteria are just another body part, how this refutes what we’ve been saying about the body/soul being a composite?

Ah, well its just that the earlier poster was saying that the body and soul are one inseparable thing. So if bacteria are part of the body, then they are also part of the soul, and the soul is part of them.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, well its just that the earlier poster was saying that the body and soul are one inseparable thing. So if bacteria are part of the body, then they are also part of the soul, and the soul is part of them.

Yeah. Well bacteria aren’t part of the body.

#DNA

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Yeah. Well bacteria aren’t part of the body.

#DNA

But if you take the stance that your DNA determines which things belong to your body, you necessarily reject B:

A: There are some rules of physics that have to be changed in order for us to be “truly” healthy.

B: A “truly” healthy human body has different DNA than the one you’ve got right now.

Because a body made from different DNA can’t be part of your body. And so if you believe A, you’re going to have to admit that it was short-sighted of God to design us for a universe with different laws, then stick us in this one.

But I digress, I think we have established that looking at the “supernatural” soul and body as one thing merely muddies the waters, and if we want to think clearly about it, we will have to say that the body and soul are merely parts of some larger ensemble.

 

[PRmerger]

But if you take the stance that your DNA determines which things belong to your body, you necessarily reject B:

Yep. I sure do.

Because a body made from different DNA can’t be part of your body. And so if you believe A, you’re going to have to admit that it was short-sighted of God to design us for a universe with different laws, then stick us in this one.

Yep. God designed us differently. But…Adam and Eve.

But I digress, I think we have established that looking at the “supernatural” soul and body as one thing merely muddies the waters,

It does not…and even if it did, so what?

and if we want to think clearly about it, we will have to say that the body and soul are merely parts of some larger ensemble.

How so?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you exorcised all the bacteria, you would not be healthy. Your body has written into its DNA the assumption that the bacteria will help out. Therefore, you’re either saying:

A: There are some rules of physics that have to be changed in order for us to be “truly” healthy.

B: A “truly” healthy human body has different DNA than the one you’ve got right now.

Different DNA or altered DNA? If someone’s DNA was altered, say by some environmental event even in a progenitor’s lifetime, from its “healthy” version, it would have been altered from the DNA which could have resulted in a “truly” healthy version of the human being compared to the version of the human being that came to be.

I suppose you would have to subscribe to a version of genetics that insists that the DNA you have ended up with is the one that defines who and what you are. I just don’t think that is necessarily true.

Genetic disorders are disorders, after all, which implies that there is, at least theoretically, an ordered state for the genetic information. Therefore, merely because someone has a certain DNA does not entail that DNA is what would necessarily define who and what they truly are. The question, to be properly answered, would require a clear definition of what their DNA ought to have been without the alterations and perturbations, whether chemical, biological or because of radiation, etc.

So while it may be true that DNA in its existent state somehow accommodates for the presence of bacteriological agents, that does not mean there isn’t a possible “pristine” state for each person’s DNA which would make them who and what they truly are with no dependencies upon the bacteriological galley of microscopic hitchhikers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I mean, my CPU fan is clearly part of my computer. My computer wouldn’t work correctly without it. But I can still recognize it as something other than a computer, since it doesn’t crunch any numbers. Indeed, not all computers have fans. I would never argue that a simple fan is a computer, but it can be an inseparable part of a computer.

In the same way, you were never arguing that the soul is the human body, and I was never arguing that bacteria are the human body.Who knows what aliens would think of us.

So my grandmother’s false teeth are now part of her body because her digestive system wouldn’t “work correctly without it?” And my mother’s artificial hip joint is now part of her body because she couldn’t walk properly without it? Where do you want to draw the line? What about a wheelchair that permits a paraplegic to regain mobility functions? A new part of his body merely because a necessary or normal function is permitted or regained?

 

[Aloysium]

So my grandmother’s false teeth are now part of her body because her digestive system wouldn’t “work correctly without it?” And my mother’s artificial hip joint is now part of her body because she couldn’t walk properly without it? Where do you want to draw the line? What about a wheelchair that permits a paraplegic to regain mobility functions? A new part of his body merely because a necessary or normal function is permitted or regained?

These are all problems for materialists attempting to draw some sort of explanation for what is most real, our very existence. And, the usual response is denial. Again, every single molecule in our body is from a source external to what it was when it incorporated the matter in order to grow and maintain itself. From my perspective, the soul utilizes the material components including DNA, to express itself in time and space. We can affect and manipulate that matter and do so in medicine and in war. What we have that is truly ours, is the free will to grow spiritually towards He who grants us our existence. The proof for God is in the overwhelming mystery of all this.

 

[tonyrey]

Except that you are assuming that the current natural state of the body is the “healthy state of affairs.” Any Christian who adheres to the idea that human beings live in a fallen state could easily respond that a truly healthy state of affairs is one where all the bacterial cells have been exorcized because a truly healthy human body wouldn’t require them. In other words, it is the existence of those foreign cells that are at least one aspect of what it means to live in a fallen world with death, disease, limitations and failures being caused in part by the unhealthy dependency the body has on those foreign cells that exist in this life.

Indeed:

“The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their bones.”

• *Julius Caesar

We hope you’re keeping well, Peter.
*

 

[Charlemagne_III]

tonyrey:
We hope you’re keeping well*, Peter.
*

Ditto from me!