Resurrection is a false concept

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Santa Baby is too sexy, Dominic is cute & silly… but Grandma is cruel!
 
Bahman said:
Soul however occupies room when it is joined to a body.
Click to expand...
Well, no it doesn’t. This is a strawman.

The body “occupies” the “room.”

A table has four legs. The table as the material object occupies the room. Neither the number four nor the form of the table occupy space. The mental object we know as “table,” is the form or abstraction applied to the object to make it apprehensible to the mind.

It might even be argued that “space” or “room” are mental objects which themselves do not take up space but merely help the mind apprehend reality.

Does the idea or “form” of space take up space? Where? In the mind?

So all of space, the whole universe takes up room in your mind when you think of it? Mighty big mind you have there, Bahman! It can encompass the whole universe when you think about it. What is it? Forty some light years across? How do you ever retrieve the idea of far flung galaxies when you have to cross vast amounts of space to get to them on the other side of your mind?

Is the idea or “form” of your mind in your mind? Is it locatable in space? Does it occupy room? Is it up there near the water they’ve found on Mars? Inquiring minds want to know!

Where is the mind, itself, located when you use it to think of the whole universe and where does it take up space?

Can you locate your mind somewhere in space at that moment or have you entirely lost track of it?

Still in your brain, perhaps? But wouldn’t the whole universe also be in your brain when you think of it?

Maybe behind the pineal gland would still be the first place to check, I suppose. Good luck in your search! :hammering:
 
What surprises me is that no one seems to have a problem with a magical wardrobe, that transports children to a fantasy land with talking beavers & lions, but we start talking about the fantasy of Santa Claus and people lose their minds. 🤷
truetofaith said:
I’m surprised to see all the people so offended if you say there is no Santa Claus, as he has been depicted.( flying in a sled with enough toys for every kid in the world.)
Click to expand...
 
rinnie said:
By the way God said I knew you BEFORE you were even born. So that means our soul indeed was in existence long before we were born to this world.

The soul is created in the human body at the moment of conception. Now that soul that you claim God cannot find, was put into the human body at the time God choose to do so.

So that kind of puts you into a bad position, that God cannot locate a soul, when he knew that soul long before he united it into a human body.
Click to expand...
I must admit my wrong, this is false, and I made a mistake:crying::crying: We are created body and soul at the moment of our conception.
 
rinnie said:
You claim God cannot create something that is logically impossible. Where was that ever said? Just because you cannot understand something it is impossible right?

If that is your stance, you have a big problem. Or you should be running the world if you have all the answers.
Click to expand...
Something which is logically impossible is impossible by definition.
rinnie said:
Here is an example. We have One God who is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is a fact. It is the true word of God.

But how can One God be made into the 3 persons, but yet be one God? To you it is logically impossible, but in reality it is the true word of God.

So it shows us all one thing, God said it, he means it, and it is the true word that he has spoken. But we have a problem, he understands it, but did not give us as humans a clear understanding of it.

This creates another huge problem for you, but not us. We know that God will reveal this to us when he chooses, and then we will have the true understanding.

Jesus said I am the lamb of God who takes the way the sins of the world. Not one Apostle understood this at the time he said it. They did not understand it until he laid down his life like a lamb, and died for the
sins of all.

Again, my point, there is no way anyone could understand why he said that. Until he opened their minds to this understanding. Which makes a clear case for God, and not so good case for you.
Click to expand...
This is no related to this thread but why Jesus didn’t mentioned that I would die on the cross for your sins? Isn’t this a claim that church offered?
rinnie said:
So you would claim God cannot be the Son, God cannot be the Father, God cannot be the Holy Spirit, correct? Because you cannot understand how this can be. But as I stated, because you cannot understand God and his ways, you reject them. But fortunately because one person rejects truth, in no part takes away truth.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how this could be related to this thread.
 
rinnie said:
Let me give you a GREAT example, How can a Priest by the power of the Holy Spirit take regular bread, and regular wine, and turn it into the true Body and Blood of Christ?

I have no answer to you that is logical. But I believe and know it is indeed the true blood and body of Christ.

Now you need to give me concrete proof I am wrong.
Click to expand...
This is beyond the scope of this thread. I simply think that you are wrong.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Well, no it doesn’t. This is a strawman.

The body “occupies” the “room.”

A table has four legs. The table as the material object occupies the room. Neither the number four nor the form of the table occupy space. The mental object we know as “table,” is the form or abstraction applied to the object to make it apprehensible to the mind.

It might even be argued that “space” or “room” are mental objects which themselves do not take up space but merely help the mind apprehend reality.

Does the idea or “form” of space take up space? Where? In the mind?

So all of space, the whole universe takes up room in your mind when you think of it? Mighty big mind you have there, Bahman! It can encompass the whole universe when you think about it. What is it? Forty some light years across? How do you ever retrieve the idea of far flung galaxies when you have to cross vast amounts of space to get to them on the other side of your mind?

Is the idea or “form” of your mind in your mind? Is it locatable in space? Does it occupy room? Is it up there near the water they’ve found on Mars? Inquiring minds want to know!

Where is the mind, itself, located when you use it to think of the whole universe and where does it take up space?

Can you locate your mind somewhere in space at that moment or have you entirely lost track of it?

Still in your brain, perhaps? But wouldn’t the whole universe also be in your brain when you think of it?

Maybe behind the pineal gland would still be the first place to check, I suppose. Good luck in your search! :hammering:
Click to expand...
Isn’t soul form of body?
 
Bahman said:
Isn’t soul form of body?
Click to expand...
To keep it simple, let’s call it God’s idea of you that he embodies or instantiates in a physical form.

He can’t “lose track” of the idea merely because it isn’t embodied. His creative power is not matter-dependent; not, least of all, because God, himself, is not matter dependent. He is not constrained in any way by the properties of matter. God creates matter and all its potential AND has complete jurisdiction over it. He isn’t limited by matter in any way.

This is one of many places where your argument simply fails.

Omnipotence means unconstrained in power. How would something wholly created by God impose constraints on God that he could not overcome? Your concept of God is more of a demiurge than the 3Omni God from classical theism.

In Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics (A-T hylomorphism) matter itself is NOTHING (pure potency) until the being (form and matter) are created. Matter, by itself, is nothing apart from each created being that is “formed” or instantiated by the creative act of God.

Basically, your attempt to refute hylomorphism fails because you don’t really understand it. You have false notions of God, of matter and of form which come together in your attempt to falsify a false picture (a strawman) of what Aristotle, Aquinas and others propose.
 
Peter_Plato said:
To keep it simple, let’s call it God’s idea of you that he embodies or instantiates in a physical form.

He can’t “lose track” of the idea merely because it isn’t embodied. His creative power is not matter-dependent; not, least of all, because God, himself, is not matter dependent. He is not constrained in any way by the properties of matter. God creates matter and all its potential AND has complete jurisdiction over it. He isn’t limited by matter in any way.

This is one of many places where your argument simply fails.

Omnipotence means unconstrained in power. How would something wholly created by God impose constraints on God that he could not overcome? Your concept of God is more of a demiurge than the 3Omni God from classical theism.

In Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics (A-T hylomorphism) matter itself is NOTHING (pure potency) until the being (form and matter) are created. Matter, by itself, is nothing apart from each created being that is “formed” or instantiated by the creative act of God.

Basically, your attempt to refute hylomorphism fails because you don’t really understand it. You have false notions of God, of matter and of form which come together in your attempt to falsify a false picture (a strawman) of what Aristotle, Aquinas and others propose.
Click to expand...
Is soul form of human in hylomorphism dualism?
 
Bahman said:
Is soul form of human in hylomorphism dualism?
Click to expand...
Wait a minute!

You aren’t sure what the soul is in hylomorphic dualism but you still want to refute hylomorphic dualism?

Shouldn’t you bother to find out what is actually being claimed before you set about refuting what you think is being claimed?

Isn’t that how rigorous philosophy is supposed to be done?
 
Bahman said:
Soul belongs to immaterial world upon its creation. Could we agree on this?
Click to expand...
For me, no. Again supply evidence.
Once you provide proof of your claims, then we’ll examine why or if they fail.
I believe the answer to your premise lies in your evidence or lack thereof.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Wait a minute!

You aren’t sure what the soul is in hylomorphic dualism but you still want to refute hylomorphic dualism?

Shouldn’t you bother to find out what is actually being claimed before you set about refuting what you think is being claimed?

Isn’t that how rigorous philosophy is supposed to be done?
Click to expand...
This is what I found in wiki: Aristotle applies his theory of hylomorphism to living things. He defines a soul as that which makes a living thing alive.[16] Life is a property of living things, just as knowledge and health are.[17] Therefore, a soul is a form—that is, a specifying principle or cause—of a living thing.[18] Furthermore, Aristotle says that a soul is related to its body as form to matter.[19] Hence, Aristotle argues, there is no problem in explaining the unity of body and soul, just as there is no problem in explaining the unity of wax and its shape.[20] Just as a wax object consists of wax with a certain shape, so a living organism consists of a body with the property of life, which is its soul. On the basis of his hylomorphic theory, Aristotle rejects the Pythagorean doctrine of reincarnation, ridiculing the notion that just any soul could inhabit just any body.[21]

To be honest you me in doubt so I had to check the topic again.
 
Bahman said:
This is what I found in wiki: Aristotle applies his theory of hylomorphism to living things. He defines a soul as that which makes a living thing alive.[16] Life is a property of living things, just as knowledge and health are.[17] Therefore, a soul is a form—that is, a specifying principle or cause—of a living thing.[18] Furthermore, Aristotle says that a soul is related to its body as form to matter.[19] Hence, Aristotle argues, there is no problem in explaining the unity of body and soul, just as there is no problem in explaining the unity of wax and its shape.[20] Just as a wax object consists of wax with a certain shape, so a living organism consists of a body with the property of life, which is its soul. On the basis of his hylomorphic theory, Aristotle rejects the Pythagorean doctrine of reincarnation, ridiculing the notion that** just any soul could inhabit just any body**.[21]

To be honest you me in doubt so I had to check the topic again.
Click to expand...
There have been philosophers since the time of Plato and Aristotle who have thought about and written myriads of books and articles on the relationship of form and matter.

To presume that you could debunk or refute the idea after a simple reading of a Wiki article leaves me speechless, to be honest.

There are numerous brilliant, intellectually astute and rigorous philosophers in every age since Aristotle who have expounded and expanded the basic idea. Perhaps reading some of them with an open mind, not presuming to know what they don’t might help with gaining insight into the matter.

The reason not "just any soul could inhabit just any body” is because hylomorphic dualism entails that body and soul make up what essentially is one act of being – NOT two distinct substances commingled.
 
robsully said:
For me, no. Again supply evidence.
Once you provide proof of your claims, then we’ll examine why or if they fail.

I believe the answer to your premise lies in your evidence or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
Don’t you believe that soul is immaterial?
 
Bahman said:
Don’t you believe that soul is immaterial?
Click to expand...
The word “immaterial” means simply “not material.”

What THAT means, exactly is what is in question. It doesn’t mean there are ONLY two substances: matter and “some other one.” It doesn’t even mean that matter is a “substance,” necessarily.
 
If we’re going to continue with this, I’d like to bring up the fact that man is not only body and soul but also spirit.

In catholic theology man is trichotomic. The body is the material part of man, of course. The soul is that part of man that encompasses his will, self-awaremess, feelings, etc. The spirit is that part which connects to God.

I remember our teacher saying that even animals have souls. For instance, every dog is different and has his own temperment. However, animals do not have spirit. They cannot ever come to know God.

This is never mentioned, so I thought I would.

So God will not only have to locate our soul, He’s even going to have to locate our spirit! Which brings up an interesting question. Is the soul and spirit together? Seems to me from the description above that they necessarily have to be separate and distinct.

We could also say that our spirit affects our soul. God affects our will to do good or to do evil. Our spirit affects our conscience.

A non-believer does not have God’s spirit. Which is why the bible says that the natural man cannot understand the things of God - because they’re discerned with the spirit. Another reason why they have to be separate.

So it seems to me that we need twice the space here…

I sure hope God is going to be up to the difficult task of locating both the soul AND the spirit of each of us and getting them back into our transformed bodies!

Fran
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top