STEM is incomplete

[Sarpedon]

So why should we care? If this being cannot be detected, cannot be fathomed then his existence is irrelevant.

We believe He can be detected through philosophy and personal experience.

One is that this being actually “revealed” his existence to some people a long time ago. That is what I do not believe. There can be no meaningful communication between such vastly different entites. Sure, this being could issue “commands” to “regulate” our behavior.

Do you mean He cannot issue commands? If there can be no meaningful communication there can be no commands.

Why do you believe there can be no meaningful communcation between two vastly different beings? I can communcate with young children, even though they are drasticaly less mentally and physically developed.

But why would this being resort to such crude methods? Much better to create us with certain design parameters, so we can “behave” as intended. That does not take away our freedom completely, it just limits it to confine it to the desired range of activities. That is what an intelligent creator does. Moreover, our freedom is already limited here and now. We can imagine all sorts of actions, but we are physically unable to cary them out. So why not put in a few more safeguards?

God isn’t so concerned with the actions themselves. What He is concerned with is the state of our souls that proceed from our will to do actions.

The idea that we “matter” to this creator is also preposterous. We cannot give him anything, since we cannot access his plane of existence. Therefore we can only be a source of “amusement”, or maybe a scientific experiment. Maybe we cannot fathom the intents at all.

We can give Him love. We may not be able to reach His plane on our own, but God can reach ours to “collect” it. Of course, He gives us love in return.

Our relationship with God is not a matter of mercantile exchange of goods (heaven for devotion). Rather, it a a selfless relationshp in which we offer ourselves to our beloved, and vice versa.

But to create “lower beings” and then tell them that they are lower, that they are confined to their level of existence is horribly cruel. It does not alleviate this fact that “some” are promised to get to a higher level of existence. And the rest of us, who do not measure up will be tortured eternally? That is such a horrible concept that I reject it. Whatever this being is, cannot be cruel. Petty cruelty is not compatible with the level of intelligence this being must have.

God cannot force us to love Him. It is not a matter of “love Me or be tortured for eternity”, it is “Love Me or don’t”.

I do not reject the concept of God, because I find the concept of a completely unknowable creator impossible to verify empirically. I accept that it is possible, but totally irrelevant.

???

Why is it totally irrelevant?

 

[tobias]

Mathematics is an example. Language is another. Music also.

True, I had a conversation with someone, who asserted that there are “abstract objects”, (he brought up the example of the number “2”, or the letter “z”, or “Hamlet” or the “Ninth Symphony” etc…) but he could never substantiate that these concepts exist independently of the mind. He asserted that we do not “invent” something, merely “discover” it.

The number 2 exiists when a ‘whole’ and another ‘whole’ exist, Which takes perception to reason. The letter z exists in the sound it makes, sound precedes print, and apart from the sound used in speech, z is merely a scribble. Hamlet is a compilation of known perceptions of the writer. The Ninth symphony is the ordering of sounds of musical instruments known by the composer. Multiplicity of Wholes, verbal capacity, perceptions and sounds are all observable realities the mind manipulates.

Sure, the concept of “2” is based upon real world observation, but that is pretty much it. The square root of minus one is not based upon anything in reality. It is just an arbitrary extrpolation. Likewise the concepts of vectors and matrices, and the arbitrary way the concepts of “addition”, “subtraction”, “multiplication”, etc. are defined for these entities. Division cannot even be defined for these imaginary entites.

Are these not all manipulation of number? The are based on observable facts.

What would it mean that Shakespeare “discovered” Hamlet? Or Beethoven “discovered” the Ninth Sympony? Sheer nonsense.

That is sheer nonsense, I agree.

How would the letter “z” exist independently from our tongue, teeth and lips? The sound “th” does not even exist in all languages.

It doesn’t, it’s dependant on our vocal possibilities.

It is true that the existence of abstraction cannot really be confined spatially (unlike physical objects) but they certainly can be confined in the temporal sense. Before Beethoven “came up” with the Ninth, there was no Ninth. If the Sun would go nova and wipe out the Earth, the Ninth would cease to exist in any meaningful fashion.

Abstraction is dependant on the ability to manipulate what is known, so are you arguing my point for me, or have I been unclear?

 

[Sarpedon]

Now, if we stay in our “ivory tower” and do not consider the real world, than all we did was having a nice conversation. As soon as we apply the result to the physical world, we must engage in empiricism to verify our results.

This is what I am talking about- you hold the physical world as the only standard. What about abstraction?

Now, this is one of the basic postulates. We must assume that our senses are reliable, because there is nothing else. No, it cannot be proven deductively that the senses work.

Yes, it is an argument from “desire”. We want to be able to know knowledge, so we accept it.

My point is not that this assumption is totally ridiculous. We both make it. My point is that for an atheist, they must admit they believe some things because they want them to be true, and nothing else.

And if you go too far in doubting your senses, then you will die. That is the final point. It would make no sense to say that “maybe” you just imagined death, and you are “really” fine and well. The stink of the decomposing corpse is the final proof.

Not necessarily. Our knowledge of the corpse and the physical sensation of dying comes through our senses, which take us back to square one. How do we know our perception of death is accurate, without resorting to any sense (can you tell me specifically)?

It depends. Lack of belief is frequently considered “sinful” with the well-known consequences. This is the only “argument”.

I find it very frustrating when you make these kind of statements. I linked the entire Summa to you, and you dismissed it as magic without addressing anything. You kept asserting that we don’t define our terms in a meaningful sense (specifically existence), and when I provided a precise definition, you didn’t respond. What more do you want theists to do?

 

[Sarpedon]

Why not give credence to others?

Why should we? Any notion of “respect” for others is merely societal, and given the current nature of society, I am not sure it is supported anymore (at least for the teenage culture I am part of).

See what your theory results in? If there are no transcendant ideals, than you cannot talk of the “world that ought”, only the “world that is”.

Now, I am the one who says: “Have faith that the majority of the people are basically decent folks”. And they can hold the rest at bay.

Why should I have faith in people? Society cannot read my mind, so they cannot hurt me if I do not. In that case, what to I have to lose by being cynical?

When morality is cast in terms of consensual group approval bad things happen.

 

[ateista]

We believe He can be detected through philosophy and personal experience.

I don’t think he can be detected through philosophy. I never saw a good argument so far. And personal experience is just that: “personal”. It does not count.

Do you mean He cannot issue commands? If there can be no meaningful communication there can be no commands.

Commands are not a two-way communication.

Why do you believe there can be no meaningful communcation between two vastly different beings? I can communcate with young children, even though they are drasticaly less mentally and physically developed.

Sure, to a certain degree, but they are at least belong to the same species. And you could not communicate with a newborn human. And you surely could not communicate with an amoeba, and the difference between us and God is much more pronounced than that.

God isn’t so concerned with the actions themselves. What He is concerned with is the state of our souls that proceed from our will to do actions.

I have to ask you: “on what grounds do you think that you can speak for God?”.

We can give Him love. We may not be able to reach His plane on our own, but God can reach ours to “collect” it. Of course, He gives us love in return.

The “love” a bacterium could give us is not meaningful.

God cannot force us to love Him. It is not a matter of “love Me or be tortured for eternity”, it is “Love Me or don’t”.

Nope. Your “don’t” implies “eternal torture, pain and suffering”. No need to “sugarcoat” it.

Why is it totally irrelevant?

Because a being with such powers and intelligence does nor care about our existence or “devotion”. Would you care what that bacterium “feels” toward you?

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t think he can be detected through philosophy. I never saw a good argument so far. And personal experience is just that: “personal”. It does not count.

That’s your personal opinion, in regards to philosophy. I think personal experience is valid for the individual experiencing it.

Have you read the Summa?

Commands are not a two-way communication.

OK, why couldn’t God allow us to respond?

Sure, to a certain degree, but they are at least belong to the same species. And you could not communicate with a newborn human. And you surely could not communicate with an amoeba, and the difference between us and God is much more pronounced than that.

First off, we aren’t omnipotent, so obviously we do not have as broad commnication abilities as God.

Second, remember that God has created us in His (spiritual) likeness. He has given us free will, which mirrors His own free will. Therefore, the differences may not be as great as you think.

I have to ask you: “on what grounds do you think that you can speak for God?”.

He has publicly revealed truth through His church. Not to me personally, but to all humanity.

The “love” a bacterium could give us is not meaningful.

That’s because bacteria don’t have free will, and thus cannot love. If we discovered some tiny alien species who did have free will, that love would be meaningful. Do you disagree? Would you write them off because of their size?

Nope. Your “don’t” implies “eternal torture, pain and suffering”. No need to “sugarcoat” it.

But only because the person condemned himself despite God’s urgent pleas to cease and desist.

Because a being with such powers and intelligence does nor care about our existence or “devotion”. Would you care what that bacterium “feels” toward you?

If I endowed it will the freedom to choose and the capacity to love, then sure. Size has little to do with it, its the heart that counts.

 

[ateista]

That’s your personal opinion, in regards to philosophy.

And that opinion is based upon the lack of sound arguments on the believers’ side. It would change in a heartbeat, if a good, convincing argument would be preseted.

I think personal experience is valid for the individual experiencing it.

Sure, but that is not valid for anyone else.

He has publicly revealed truth through His church. Not to me personally, but to all humanity.

And that is substantiated by whom? The church? Or the Bible? Or what? God certainly does not come down, and tell us publicly: “This is my word”.

That’s because bacteria don’t have free will, and thus cannot love. If we discovered some tiny alien species who did have free will, that love would be meaningful. Do you disagree? Would you write them off because of their size?

It is not the physical size I was talking about. It is the difference in comprehension.

But only because the person condemned himself despite God’s urgent pleas to cease and desist.

God never pleads - personally - with anyone. So we are back to the same question: on what grounds should I accept anyone’s claim that God speaks through their mouth?

 

[Sarpedon]

And that opinion is based upon the lack of sound arguments on the believers’ side. It would change in a heartbeat, if a good, convincing argument would be preseted.

Have you read any part of the Summa? I am not asking whether you agree with it, only if you have read parts.

And that is substantiated by whom? The church? Or the Bible? Or what? God certainly does not come down, and tell us publicly: “This is my word”.

Well He did, once. But of course you expect it to happen during your lifetime and within your experience.

I think its pretty obvious that God must have some concrete way of revealing His will to us. Leaving such matters totally up to human discovery would be an unfair and unworkable system, in my opinion. The human pysch just seems too fickle to rely totally on. Look at protestantism- the belief that God will personally guide each person to truth has resulted in around 30,000 sects. I do not think a wise God would devise such a system.

I think it would make more sense for God to create a single authority to teach and promulgate His will and truth. In that case, only a few religions have this central authority. Catholicism and Mormonism are the only ones that come to mind.

It is not the physical size I was talking about. It is the difference in comprehension.

OK, and that is why I said I would care about the love of a bacteria if I gave it the capacity to love (and comprehension).

God never pleads - personally - with anyone. So we are back to the same question: on what grounds should I accept anyone’s claim that God speaks through their mouth?

1. The historical record. Do the taught doctrines contradict over time?
2. Philosophy- does the claim make sense? Is it likely that a wise God would do it?

 

[ateista]

Have you read any part of the Summa? I am not asking whether you agree with it, only if you have read parts.

No, I have not. I much rather talk to people. One cannot “argue” with a book.

Well He did, once.

No, he never did. The Bible was written much later than the alleged events took place. And when it was finalized, God did not appear and did not say: “This is my word, inerrant and complete”.

But of course you expect it to happen during your lifetime and within your experience.

And, pray tell, what is wrong with that? After all to hear straight from the “horse’s mouth” is the best way to convey a message.

I think its pretty obvious that God must have some concrete way of revealing His will to us.

No, it is not obvious, but it would be very logical. That is why I am wondering, why doesn’t he do it?

Leaving such matters totally up to human discovery would be an unfair and unworkable system, in my opinion. The human pysch just seems too fickle to rely totally on. Look at protestantism- the belief that God will personally guide each person to truth has resulted in around 30,000 sects. I do not think a wise God would devise such a system.

Right on.

I think it would make more sense for God to create a single authority to teach and promulgate His will and truth. In that case, only a few religions have this central authority. Catholicism and Mormonism are the only ones that come to mind.

Sure, but first, why “delegate” it to someone else? Surely God has the “time” to do it personally. And second, if he would “outsource” it or “subcontract” it, then at least he should give absolute, unmistakable sign that he did so. Something that is blindingly obvious to everyone, believer and skeptic alike.

OK, and that is why I said I would care about the love of a bacteria if I gave it the capacity to love (and comprehension).

Even if a bacterium would have the capability to love another one, and have comprehension of another bacterium’s ideas and concepts, it would never grasp our existence, and thus cannot offer its love to us. The difference makes that meaningless. And the difference between God and us is much greater that that.

1. The historical record. Do the taught doctrines contradict over time?

I say they do. But you will likely disagree. However, if they did not, it would just be an internally consistent system of thought, which in no way indicates that it is God’s word.

1. Philosophy- does the claim make sense? Is it likely that a wise God would do it?

Theistic philosophy has glaring errors.

Just today I browsed another thread on the Apologetics forum. The problem whether God “is” in hell was discussed. Some asserted that God’s omnipresence indicates that God is indeed in hell. Others pointed out that hell is a total and absolute separation from God. These are two contradictory points of view.

Either God is not omnipresent or hell is not a separation from God. Moreover, there is another assertion, that God cannot tolerate sin in his presence (that is why he chased humans out of the Garden), so God cannot be in hell.

What should I do with such contradictions? And there are many.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, I have not. I much rather talk to people. One cannot “argue” with a book.

If your knowledge of Christianity is based off of what random internet people say, then of course you will find inconsistency and illogical arguments in Christianity.

No, he never did. The Bible was written much later than the alleged events took place. And when it was finalized, God did not appear and did not say: “This is my word, inerrant and complete”.

Most of the Gospels were completed during the 1st century. We believe God finalized the canon through His church, which speaks for Him. Of course you will not accept this.

And, pray tell, what is wrong with that? After all to hear straight from the “horse’s mouth” is the best way to convey a message.

There’s a lot of people in the world, and a lot more over the span of history. Why should you expect to be granted such a privelege?

Sure, but first, why “delegate” it to someone else? Surely God has the “time” to do it personally. And second, if he would “outsource” it or “subcontract” it, then at least he should give absolute, unmistakable sign that he did so. Something that is blindingly obvious to everyone, believer and skeptic alike.

Maybe God wants us to learn to trust in others outside of ourselves. Maybe He wants us to learn to rely on something outside of our own psych and personal experience.

Even if a bacterium would have the capability to love another one, and have comprehension of another bacterium’s ideas and concepts, it would never grasp our existence, and thus cannot offer its love to us. The difference makes that meaningless. And the difference between God and us is much greater that that.

I give the bacteria the capacity to grasp my existence and offer its love to me. Is that love meaningful?

I say they do. But you will likely disagree. However, if they did not, it would just be an internally consistent system of thought, which in no way indicates that it is God’s word.

Correct. Cosistency does not demonstrate truth, but inconsistency likely demonstrates falsity (if consistency is claimed).

Theistic philosophy has glaring errors.

Just today I browsed another thread on the Apologetics forum. The problem whether God “is” in hell was discussed. Some asserted that God’s omnipresence indicates that God is indeed in hell. Others pointed out that hell is a total and absolute separation from God. These are two contradictory points of view.

Either God is not omnipresent or hell is not a separation from God. Moreover, there is another assertion, that God cannot tolerate sin in his presence (that is why he chased humans out of the Garden), so God cannot be in hell.

What should I do with such contradictions? And there are many.

Have you looked at the Summa or any church documents?

No one pretends that every catholic who visits an internet forum will provide logically correct answers.

You say that theism has no good arguments and has glaring errors, yet you have not read one of the most foundational texts of theistic thought. Unless you do so, and base your perception of theism (or at least Christianity) on more than the thoughts of anonymous people, you are in no position to judge the truth of theism.

(I don’t mean to offend or commit ad hominem arguments, but it just seems to me like you may not have an accurate idea of what Christianity teaches.)

Here’s a link to the entire summa, in English:

newadvent.org/summa/

 

[ateista]

If your knowledge of Christianity is based off of what random internet people say, then of course you will find inconsistency and illogical arguments in Christianity.

I would accept this, if it were not for the fact that the different and contradictory arguments on both sides are “supported” by quoting some “authority” or another. If you, Catholics cannot agree who is the “proper” authority, then I cannot take either side seriously.

Most of the Gospels were completed during the 1st century. We believe God finalized the canon through His church, which speaks for Him. Of course you will not accept this.

Yes, it is correct that most of the Canonic gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus’ death. There was quite a lot of dispute of which writs were authentic and which are apocriphal.

I know that you believe that God guided the Church in the deliberation process, but there is no external source (outside the Church itself) which would substantiate this. When the deliberations took place, God did not appear and put his stamp of approval on the finalized version.

There’s a lot of people in the world, and a lot more over the span of history. Why should you expect to be granted such a privelege?

Not just I, personally. Everyone, everywhere, every time. Why is that such an impossible requirement?

Maybe God wants us to learn to trust in others outside of ourselves. Maybe He wants us to learn to rely on something outside of our own psych and personal experience.

Sure. But there are many other instances when we must trust others, and many a time this trust is misplaced. When it comes to such an important issue (literally eternal life or eternal damnation) then I don’t see any good reason to leave it to such a dubious source, as other people’s interpretation of some ancient scripts.

I give the bacteria the capacity to grasp my existence and offer its love to me. Is that love meaningful?

Yes, if you could, then it would be. But you cannot.

Correct. Cosistency does not demonstrate truth, but inconsistency likely demonstrates falsity (if consistency is claimed).

It is gratifying to agree sometimes.

Have you looked at the Summa or any church documents?

No one pretends that every catholic who visits an internet forum will provide logically correct answers.

You say that theism has no good arguments and has glaring errors, yet you have not read one of the most foundational texts of theistic thought. Unless you do so, and base your perception of theism (or at least Christianity) on more than the thoughts of anonymous people, you are in no position to judge the truth of theism.

(I don’t mean to offend or commit ad hominem arguments, but it just seems to me like you may not have an accurate idea of what Christianity teaches.)

Here’s a link to the entire summa, in English:

newadvent.org/summa/

You quote the Summa as the definitive authority on what Christianity teaches. Other believers will quote Aristotele. Yet others will quote Molinari. And all are firmly convinced that only they are right, and the others are wrong. I will reiterate: if you, believers cannot agree on the proper authority, that indicates to me that there is no proper authority, Aquinas, Aristotele or Molinari, or someone else…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

STEM (space, time, energy, matter) is supposed to account for everything that exist that reason can comprehend.

But it does not account for intelligenc.

What say you?

I say that this is a flawed argument.

Intelligence is a function of energy and matter.

 

[tobias]

I say that this is a flawed argument.

Intelligence is a function of energy and matter.

The brain is demonstrably functioning of energy and matter, this is not so with the mind. It’s only flawed if you preconcieve the brain and mind as one and the same.

Have you ever had an addiction? I was a poly substance abuser, using anything I could get my hands on. When I made a choice to quit using crack cocaine, my brain had other ideas. My brain sent signals to my entire body to partake, but my mind fought my brain, in spite of neurons firing signals to use. If mind is not seperate from the brain, this would be an impossibility, my body would have had no choice but to follow the signals from the brain. And you can’t say the brain simply found it more important to quit then to use, the brain of an addict wants nothing more than to partake.

 

[ateista]

The brain is demonstrably functioning of energy and matter, this is not so with the mind. It’s only flawed if you preconcieve the brain and mind as one and the same.

The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind is the functioning of the brain. The computer hardware is not the same as the program runs on it. The program written on paper does not do anything, while the same program creates movements, calculates spreadsheets, etc., when it actually runs on the computer’s hardware.

Have you ever had an addiction? I was a poly substance abuser, using anything I could get my hands on. When I made a choice to quit using crack cocaine, my brain had other ideas. My brain sent signals to my entire body to partake, but my mind fought my brain, in spite of neurons firing signals to use. If mind is not seperate from the brain, this would be an impossibility, my body would have had no choice but to follow the signals from the brain. And you can’t say the brain simply found it more important to quit then to use, the brain of an addict wants nothing more than to partake.

Have you heard the phrase: “he was in two minds?”. Yes, of course, you had both a physical and psychological addiction. And your mind was confused. Part of it was acting on the “autopilot” of addiction, part of it was aware that it is not healthy and fought the urge.

As a matter of fact, I am curious, if you think that the mind is not the functioning of the brain, then what is it? Where does it reside, how does it operate, and how does it interact with the brain?

 

[tobias]

The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind is the functioning of the brain. The computer hardware is not the same as the program runs on it. The program written on paper does not do anything, while the same program creates movements, calculates spreadsheets, etc., when it actually runs on the computer’s hardware.

So you would say the brains regulation of breathing and heart rate is the mind? Where did you get that notion, one does not have to be cognative of breathing to continue to breath the brain regulates without using the mind.

Have you heard the phrase: “he was in two minds?”. Yes, of course, you had both a physical and psychological addiction. And your mind was confused. Part of it was acting on the “autopilot” of addiction, part of it was aware that it is not healthy and fought the urge.

Being of ‘two minds’ is merely an expression of contradiction in ones thoughts.
I did not decide to quit for health reasons, in fact I did not quit for myself at all. I realized it would be immoral to continue because i was a father. There was no confusion, I wanted to continue, but chose not to. That was being of ‘two minds’- will against desire.

As a matter of fact, I am curious, if you think that the mind is not the functioning of the brain, then what is it? Where does it reside, how does it operate, and how does it interact with the brain?

I thought I had already intimated that point, I believe that the mind is one and the same as the immaterial part of a person- the soul. Why is that hard to accept, we know that the brain can be manipulated to move the body against the mind, so they must be distinct, otherwise the mind would be equally manipulated by the same stimuli. I say the mind resides in, operates in and interacts with the whole person.

 

[Sarpedon]

I would accept this, if it were not for the fact that the different and contradictory arguments on both sides are “supported” by quoting some “authority” or another. If you, Catholics cannot agree who is the “proper” authority, then I cannot take either side seriously.

People disagree in science all the time. Different factions claim to have the correct data to support their position. Does this invalidate the scientific method?

Sure, people get confused and use wrong sources. The fallibility of people does not invalidate a method of arriving at truth.

I know that you believe that God guided the Church in the deliberation process, but there is no external source (outside the Church itself) which would substantiate this. When the deliberations took place, God did not appear and put his stamp of approval on the finalized version.

Correct, although of course we believe God gave His approval through the Church authorized to speak for Him.

Not just I, personally. Everyone, everywhere, every time. Why is that such an impossible requirement?

Sure. But there are many other instances when we must trust others, and many a time this trust is misplaced. When it comes to such an important issue (literally eternal life or eternal damnation) then I don’t see any good reason to leave it to such a dubious source, as other people’s interpretation of some ancient scripts.

Catholics believe that God gives the necessary graces for salvation to each individual. Therefore, an apparition is not necessary.

This probably won’t satisfy you and quite frankly I don’t know the complete answer. Why not look in the CCC?

Yes, if you could, then it would be. But you cannot.

God can. I was using myself as a metaphor.

You quote the Summa as the definitive authority on what Christianity teaches. Other believers will quote Aristotele. Yet others will quote Molinari. And all are firmly convinced that only they are right, and the others are wrong. I will reiterate: if you, believers cannot agree on the proper authority, that indicates to me that there is no proper authority, Aquinas, Aristotele or Molinari, or someone else…

Neither of the sources you mention are infallible. They are the result of scholars, not the teaching authority of the church.

If you want infallible teachings, look at the CCC. This book has about 1,000 pages about Catholic doctrine. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is also a good source. The CCT is more technical, and keep in mind that it uses language from the 16th century (The CCC is from 1999, I believe).

The CCs are intended for the worldwide church and have the Pope’s signature. I don’t see how any sane person could doubt their infallability.

Keep in mind that the CCs are intended as a theological work as well if not more so than a philosophical, so there is much that will not apply to you.

An online version:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I linked the fallible Summa for you because it is much more philosophical, and thus more applicable to you (and I should have made its fallibility clear). Even if the summa is fallible, it is still useful. Just because we aren’t 100% sure on something doesn’t mean there is no merit to studying it.

 

[ateista]

So you would say the brains regulation of breathing and heart rate is the mind? Where did you get that notion, one does not have to be cognative of breathing to continue to breath the brain regulates without using the mind.

It is part of the mind… the subconscious. Don’t think of the mind as a “simple” entity. There are billions of brain cells all interacting. If we interfere with the working of the brain cells, your thoughts will be influenced. That is not necessarily a “sinister” act. Teaching and learning create new connections in the neural network. Everything points to the fact that the mind is what the brain produces.

Being of ‘two minds’ is merely an expression of contradiction in ones thoughts. I did not decide to quit for health reasons, in fact I did not quit for myself at all. I realized it would be immoral to continue because i was a father. There was no confusion, I wanted to continue, but chose not to. That was being of ‘two minds’- will against desire.

Sure. One program of the brain interfered with another, and the highest level - the consciousness - acted as an abritrator. The brain is really an incredibly complex, parallel processing and stochastic computer, with literally millions of processes running on it at the same time.

I thought I had already intimated that point, I believe that the mind is one and the same as the immaterial part of a person- the soul. Why is that hard to accept, we know that the brain can be manipulated to move the body against the mind, so they must be distinct, otherwise the mind would be equally manipulated by the same stimuli. I say the mind resides in, operates in and interacts with the whole person.

Nonsense. You created a synonym for the soul, which now you call the mind. The mind changes as it receives new infomation. What you cannot explain is how the “soul-mind” works, how it interacts with the physical brain, and how the modifications of the brain influence the “soul-mind”. At best this is an unscientific hypothesis.

 

[ateista]

People disagree in science all the time. Different factions claim to have the correct data to support their position. Does this invalidate the scientific method?

Not in the least. As a matter of fact, this is the scientific method. But, in science, there is always the final arbitrator, the impersonal experiment, which will decide which one of the competing theories is right - if either one of them.

And precisely that is the missing step in the religious claims. There is no “experiment” to decide which party is right, and which one is wrong. I can devise such an experiment, but no one will undertake the test. They will say that “testing” God is not allowed.

Correct, although of course we believe God gave His approval through the Church authorized to speak for Him.

Yes, I know. But that is still not an authorization, which can be verified. The church says that God authorized the church. Not convincing to the “heathens”.

Catholics believe that God gives the necessary graces for salvation to each individual. Therefore, an apparition is not necessary.

Not for you, maybe. But for all the non-Catholics it would be pretty helpful.

Neither of the sources you mention are infallible. They are the result of scholars, not the teaching authority of the church.

If you want infallible teachings, look at the CCC. This book has about 1,000 pages about Catholic doctrine. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is also a good source. The CCT is more technical, and keep in mind that it uses language from the 16th century (The CCC is from 1999, I believe).

The CCs are intended for the worldwide church and have the Pope’s signature. I don’t see how any sane person could doubt their infallability.

As far as your last sentence goes: everyone who is not Catholic. I rather think that I am sane, but I certainly do not accept the “infallibility” of the pope or the magistretium. These are both self-authenticated “authorities”.

 

[tobias]

It is part of the mind… the subconscious. Don’t think of the mind as a “simple” entity. There are billions of brain cells all interacting. If we interfere with the working of the brain cells, your thoughts will be influenced. That is not necessarily a “sinister” act. Teaching and learning create new connections in the neural network. Everything points to the fact that the mind is what the brain produces.

Sure. One program of the brain interfered with another, and the highest level - the consciousness - acted as an abritrator. The brain is really an incredibly complex, parallel processing and stochastic computer, with literally millions of processes running on it at the same time.

Nonsense. You created a synonym for the soul, which now you call the mind. The mind changes as it receives new infomation. What you cannot explain is how the “soul-mind” works, how it interacts with the physical brain, and how the modifications of the brain influence the “soul-mind”. At best this is an unscientific hypothesis.

Perhaps it’s nonsensical to you, but obviously we do not share the same perceptions, otherwise our conclusions would be similar. I’ll take it a step further, I think there is no difference between mind, soul, conciuosness, intellect or will. I see them as different attempts by our finite experience to explain that which moves us, what makes us who we are.
True, the mind can change as it recieves new information, but may also ignore it. Many go unchanged even in the face of repudiation of long held stances.
I did not claim this was a scientific hypothesis, because I’ve seen no evidence for or against it. It is merely a philosophic stance. A view I held before I came to faith.
As I said before, I 've seen no evidence that modifications of the brain affect the mind, rather ability to interact with the world.

 

[ateista]

Perhaps it’s nonsensical to you, but obviously we do not share the same perceptions, otherwise our conclusions would be similar. I’ll take it a step further, I think there is no difference between mind, soul, conciuosness, intellect or will. I see them as different attempts by our finite experience to explain that which moves us, what makes us who we are.

Well, then two questions.

If you equate the soul and the mind, what terminology would you suggest to describe the working the the brain? That is, if you differ from the ancient Greeks who thought that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood? Because I hope you would not hold such an antiquated concept.

The other question is: where do the traits of the personality come from? Some people are loving, caring, others are not. Some frequently exhibit anger, others are usually calm. Is the personality a function of the brain, or is it the function of the “soul”?