The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[Tomdstone]

Reflecting our body-spirit oneness, it’s structure can be understood in terms of two different and mutually exclusive dimensions - the physical and the mental…
Science as it is transmitted among us in textbooks, movies and other media, at this point in time appears to be fixated on the material.

Sir Roger Penrose has been studying the relationship between consciousness and the material world. Some will say that consciousness is a part of the material world. For example, cats and dogs and other animals do not have an immortal soul (according to many theologians), but they are part of the material world and they do have some sort of consciousness.
youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

 

[inocente]

When Mary Magdalene encountered the Risen Christ she called him “Rabboni” which – roughly translated – means “master teacher.”

Why would she refer to Christ as a “teacher” unless integral to his message or revelation – his teaching – was implied some kind of LEARNING on her part? In other words, teaching – especially the teaching of a master teacher – must involve some significant learning on the part of the student.

Maybe we’re not agreed then. What Jesus teaches isn’t like other teaching. No one else can teach it. Otherwise you could read the Salvation for Dummies book and earn extra credits by taking a Salvation 101 class. But the Spirit isn’t a theory and Grace can’t be earned by learning. Reset, rebirth. No?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, you’re conflating philosophy with theology. If you exclude that, then Jesus does say you must chose between him and the worldly, for example in Mark 10:29.

Paul also gives that choice between Christ and the worldly: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe”.

“Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”. Paul is not saying deny theology or don’t listen to preachers, for like him they’re trying to explain God’s wisdom. But on the other hand philosophers can only ever give you worldly wisdom, and Jesus says don’t put anything between you and him, for example Luke 14:26.

What Paul is referring to is not the world, as such, nor natural wisdom, as such. He is referring to the fallen state of man, the fallen world. The wisdom of “this age” means a wisdom founded upon the temporal rather than the eternal. The manufactured wisdom of human beings constructing their own version of the truth. He is not referring to human wisdom seeking to know eternal truths inspired by the Truth to do so.

I think we probably agree here if we excluded the conflation. There needs to be a letting go to make a leap of faith. Written by someone as she escaped to be born anew, perhaps the philosophy is “The moment I let go of it was the moment I got more than I could handle. The moment I jumped off of it was the moment I touched down”. Alanis Morissette - Thank U

So we are to trade philosophers of this age for songwriters of this age?

The philosopher in me want to know what precisely Alanis is letting go of in the moment, what it is that she jumped off of and what it is that she landed on.

It is all fine and dandy to keep it all profoundly mystical – it adds a dignified air of “unknowing” to it – but it seems to me that if Alanis could explain precisely what it is that she was talking about, that would add just a bit to her street cred, no?

Alanis’ “wisdom” would also be less troubling for me if I didn’t know that she was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family, but now practices Buddhism – or that she has been married several times, most recently to a rapper. How precisely is your apparent claim of her being in touch with “Christ’s wisdom” supported by those facts about Alanis?

Again, I would ask, precisely what did she let go of and where did she land? Don’t you think those would be important to know in a clear way?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Maybe we’re not agreed then. What Jesus teaches isn’t like other teaching. No one else can teach it. Otherwise you could read the Salvation for Dummies book and earn extra credits by taking a Salvation 101 class. But the Spirit isn’t a theory and Grace can’t be earned by learning. Reset, rebirth. No?

It isn’t a question of who teaches it because I think God uses secondary causation. The more important question is how are we to learn it and what, precisely, does it mean to have learned it and live it out.

If we keep things intentionally vague and mysterious we can suppose all kinds of things.

Philosophy is the art of making distinctions and there are crucial distinctions to be made, not just left intentionally vague where Christ’s wisdom – the Good News – is to be sewn, take root and grow.

 

[Aloysium]

Sir Roger Penrose has been studying the relationship between consciousness and the material world. Some will say that consciousness is a part of the material world. For example, cats and dogs and other animals do not have an immortal soul (according to many theologians), but they are part of the material world and they do have some sort of consciousness.
youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

I would say that the material world is one of the structures that shapes consciousness. Animals do have souls, as do plants and one-selled creatures. We are different types of beings existing in relation to everything else. Persons do so so in an eternal sense, centred as we are on the “now” from which we may observe time as having a past and present, as opposed to being solely within the flow of time, which is the case with animals.

In relativity, what happens is that we imagine the rest of the universe as happening relative to a point that forms the perspective, as if it were stationary. In other words, the rational mind observes the rest from its unchanging position in time and space. Whatever the whole is doing, when we attempt to understand the relationship between things, how they interact it all appears relative. I’m not sure that’s clear, but basically, whatever and whenever we try to understand we cannot shed the observer.

Quantum physics provides us with some pretty good laughs. One is the observation that electrons appear to behave as particles or waves depending on the equipment that tracks their behaviour. An electron going through a slit whether it is detected before or after it hits the screen will show itself to be a particle. Undetected, it will behave as a wave. To me, it is as if events come whole; the event in that case includes a whole period of time, which in itself is not broken down into past and future, and also includes both the electron and the equipment. So things that we might otherwise think as happening in the future affect the past, and what the equipment is doing affects the properties the electron exhibits. We tend to look for trees, but the truth may lie in forests.

As to the YouTube video. It’s overly complicated. Consciousness exist as a spark between the knower and the known. The brain is the physical organization and processes that underlie the appearance of what we perceive, put into words, feel and do. It does not generate anything mental. Perhaps it is best thought of as the paint that realizes a piece of art. The beauty lies in the way it is brought together by the spirit. I don’t think this will sway any hard-core materialist.

This all has to do with the nature of beings and is related to the analogy mentioned earlier of trees and forests. We exist as do other creatures, including atoms, as wholes, made up of constituent parts which have been brought together in the creation of a new being. An electron is but a wave in the totality that is an atom. When it is isolated from the whole, which may be the universe, as the atom is part of a greater whole, which itself is part of something that is greater, and perhaps one with the totality of, when it appears it could be therefore on the other side of the galaxy, although the probability is infinitely low.

I’m rambling, so I will stop. Here’s hoping my :twocents: were entertaining if not helpful.

 

[Bradski]

And making no attempt to actually demonstrate where “that blog” is in error doesn’t exactly prove “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You might want to contribute to making the dangerous little pool of knowledge a tad less dangerous by pumping in a bit of your knowledge rather than relying upon disparagement or aspersions to frighten people away from the danger as if having no knowledge at all is safer than gaining that bit more knowledge that could get them out of danger of having too little.

At this point you are beginning to sound a lot like inocente pushing the mystical knature of knowledge which has nothing at all to do with genuine human understanding but lies beyond all understanding.

The guy apparently believes that one day a non-human gave birth to someone who, because of some minor genetic difference, was human. As if the taxonomical classifications can be neatly divided between single generations.

That is so mind bendingly, cataclysmically, stupendously wrong it defies any attempt at a reasonable response. Are you sure the blog is not meant to be satirical?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve told you recently that he didn’t. His post is easily found since ‘isomorphism’ is not a word that appears often in your conversations.

Please link where you think he said this, and explain your interpretation. I seem to remember you failed to do so last time, but if you did then by all means just link your previous explanation.

You need to read the complete discussion to judge whether I failed or succeeded, but particularly the last two posts:

It doesn’t though, and you’ve got abundant exposition from me as why that’s clearly not the case, here. The “self” doesn’t become any less meaningful, real, or valuable because it is reified through matter and energy.

Even to refer to the self as "it" is to devalue "it"! (I'm not criticising you because it is common parlance).

The self (person) becomes less meaningful, real, or valuable if it is “reified” because he or she:

1. no longer has a raison d’etre or objective purpose in life.
2. is depersonalised as the result of being reduced to impersonal processes.
3. is devalued by being seen as an accident in the history of the universe.
4. is relegated to the status of a product of events rather than an independent agent.
5. lacks identity, unity, continuity and responsibility by ceasing to be an enduring entity and becoming what Hume described as “a bundle of perceptions”.

That is actually an accounting for the self, and materialism does this, in a way that your theism does not, and cannot.

The “accounting” amounts to an elimination of personhood.

A materialist provides a model that accounts for the self in natural terms, phenomena that are empirically grounded.

I have pointed out several times that we have direct, irrefutable experience of our thoughts, emotions, and decisions - which is grounded within ourselves, not in what we infer from what we perceive. Try as you might, you cannot escape from yourself as a conscious person in a private realm of your own, utterly distinct from that of anyone else. Why should your five senses be a more reliable guide to the nature of reality than your own thoughts and feelings? Your senses are useless if you cannot use your power of reason.

Your superstitions, by contrast, are no account at all, any more than “the gods must be bowling” accounts for thunder.

Your substitions account for absolutely nothing because the irrational, purposeless energy to which you ascribe everything not only remains unexplained but does not explain the most important aspects of life - truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love - which you are forced to reduce to “efficacious concepts”. And those efficacious concepts turn out to be no more than electro-chemical patterns which have mysteriously acquired the power of insight into themselves and other electro-chemical patterns… I use “no more than” advisedly because you not only derive our minds from them but you also **equate **all our thoughts and feelings with them.

By way of contrast all that we consider most precious is related to personal reality, the highest form of existence of which we have knowledge - and the only form of existence of which we have direct knowledge. Our most inspiring and valuable experiences are related to persons, not material objects. We’re concerned less with the physical dimensions of people than their spiritual and moral attributes.

Your “self”, in contrast to a materialist view, is an utter, impenetrable mystery, entirely magical.

Is matter not an utter, impenetrable mystery, entirely magical? In which respects is it more intelligible than your own mind? Would you use scientific analysis to choose a wife? How would you estimate the value of friendship and love? And what in your opinion are the most important things in life?

(To which there was no reply…)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6259001&postcount=107

 

[Peter_Plato]

The guy apparently believes that one day a non-human gave birth to someone who, because of some minor genetic difference, was human. As if the taxonomical classifications can be neatly divided between single generations.

That is so mind bendingly, cataclysmically, stupendously wrong it defies any attempt at a reasonable response. Are you sure the blog is not meant to be satirical?

I think the blog is intended to be satirical, but satirical for reasons quite opposite from what you think.

Human beings that currently exist are so radically distinct from all other non-human beings that the taxonomical difference between human beings and others is, in fact, neatly separated.

It would appear that the small “genetic difference” made a huge survival difference.

If you suppose a plethora of human-like beings with small and indistinguishable genetic differences leading to Homo Sapiens, where is that variety of human-like creatures today? I mean, if there really were small and indistinguishable differences leading to “human” on the taxonomy scale, surely there would be, survival-wise, not a whole lot of difference among all of these biological links preceding the final human form. Shouldn’t we then see a large range of humanoids on earth since, if you are correct, there would be indistinguishable differences between individuals along that range in terms of survivability?

I would think the reason we don’t see a vast array of humanoids on the earth is precisely because a small genetic change did, in fact, make a huge difference to survival. A switch, of sorts, that turned on the light upstairs, so to speak.
:newidea:

In addition, it is you who are supposing that mere genetics was involved. I believe TOF is Catholic and subscribes to the idea that God breathed into the two only slightly genetically distinguishable humans, the Imago Dei - a human soul.

In other words, when the hardware had evolved to a sufficient degree, God updated the OS and firmware, so to speak, with the Imago Dei. So it wasn’t merely a genetic process, but a Genesis process. You have read Genesis, besides Darwin, yes?

 

[Glassjester]

The guy apparently believes that one day a non-human gave birth to someone who, because of some minor genetic difference, was human. As if the taxonomical classifications can be neatly divided between single generations.

That is so mind bendingly, cataclysmically, stupendously wrong it defies any attempt at a reasonable response. Are you sure the blog is not meant to be satirical?

What, specifically, is stupendously wrong here?

From tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

Whaddaya Mean “First” Man?
There is an argument similar to Zeno’s Paradox of Dichotomy that holds that sapient man arose by slow, gradual increments. That is, arguing from the continuum rather than from the quanta. Now, “a little bit sapient” is like “a little bit pregnant.” It may be only a little, but it is a lot more than not sapient at all. There is, after all, no first number after zero, and however small the sapience, one can always cut it in half and claim that that much less sapience preceded it. But however long and gradual is the screwing-in of the light bulb, the light is either on or off.

Modern genetics finds that genetic change may be specific, sudden, and massive due to various biochemical “machines” within the gene. The ability to abstract universal concepts from particular sensory percepts is an either-or thing, no matter how much better developed it might become over time. You either can do it even a little bit or you can’t do it at all. So, Adam may be considered the first man no matter how many man-like apes there were on his family tree.

 

[Bradski]

What, specifically, is stupendously wrong here?

From tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

There is no argument that man rose to his present position by a slow, gradual process. There is no argument because no-one in the scientific world thinks any differently.

The only people who do, hold religious views that man was created specifically at a determinate point in time.

If you can show me any credible scientific view that supports that position, I will be more than glad tomread it.

If you want to maintain the religious view, then be my guest. But please don’t try to tell me that it has any scientific validity whatsoever.

And Pete, that references your post as well. I’ve no problem with people taking anything in Genesis as being allegorical, metaphorical or plain old fashioned literally true. Just please do not try to fit it into a scientific context where it plainly does not belong and most certainly doesn’t fit.

 

[Glassjester]

There is no argument that man rose to his present position by a slow, gradual process. There is no argument because no-one in the scientific world thinks any differently.

The only people who do, hold religious views that man was created specifically at a determinate point in time.

You seem to have misunderstood the blog post.

 

[Aloysium]

Today’s “astrologers”
hold beyond any doubt
the workings of their “firmament”,
the presumed eternal laws of nature,
gleaned through blinkered vision
into shadows of what is now
and deemed forever-was.
It will all pass as so much hubris,
the building of just another Babel Tower.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There is no argument that man rose to his present position by a slow, gradual process. There is no argument because no-one in the scientific world thinks any differently.

The only people who do, hold religious views that man was created specifically at a determinate point in time.

If you can show me any credible scientific view that supports that position, I will be more than glad tomread it.

If you want to maintain the religious view, then be my guest. But please don’t try to tell me that it has any scientific validity whatsoever.

And Pete, that references your post as well. I’ve no problem with people taking anything in Genesis as being allegorical, metaphorical or plain old fashioned literally true. Just please do not try to fit it into a scientific context where it plainly does not belong and most certainly doesn’t fit.

Sorry Bradski but it’s pretty clear that your Religion is Scientism.

 

[tonyrey]

The guy apparently believes that one day a non-human gave birth to someone who, because of some minor genetic difference, was human. As if the taxonomical classifications can be neatly divided between single generations.

That is so mind bendingly, cataclysmically, stupendously wrong it defies any attempt at a reasonable response. Are you sure the blog is not meant to be satirical?

The fatal flaw in your argument, Brad, is that a person consists entirely and solely of a physical body controlled by the laws of nature. According to that hypothesis we are no more than biological robots incapable of independent thought or action, a view which is literally self-destructive because it rejects the very existence of the self… It no longer makes sense to refer to “you” or “I” because they are just fantasies in the scientific scheme of things. Apart from our bodies nothing else is supposed to exist, the “mind” being no more than a set of neural impulses located inside the skull. The expression “mind bendingly, cataclysmically, stupendously wrong” is incoherent because there is no mind to bend! It is a mystery what “wrong” means in the context of full-blooded materialism - but then most materialists never take their doctrine to its logical conclusion, unlike Sartre and Camus who realised it leads to absurdity. Could it simply mean that there is no “isomorphism” between two sets of atomic particles? That would be a neat and tidy conclusion but does it correspond to the richness of our subjective experience? Do you really believe “you” don’t exist?

 

[inocente]

So we are to trade philosophers of this age for songwriters of this age?

The philosopher in me want to know what precisely Alanis is letting go of in the moment, what it is that she jumped off of and what it is that she landed on.

It is all fine and dandy to keep it all profoundly mystical – it adds a dignified air of “unknowing” to it – but it seems to me that if Alanis could explain precisely what it is that she was talking about, that would add just a bit to her street cred, no?

Alanis’ “wisdom” would also be less troubling for me if I didn’t know that she was raised in a devout Roman Catholic family, but now practices Buddhism – or that she has been married several times, most recently to a rapper. How precisely is your apparent claim of her being in touch with “Christ’s wisdom” supported by those facts about Alanis?

Again, I would ask, precisely what did she let go of and where did she land? Don’t you think those would be important to know in a clear way?

You surprise me.

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” - Luke 18

The infants have not read any wisdom from any philosophers, yet they are fit to enter the kingdom. Logically, then, that kind of wisdom has nothing to do with who can enter. All such wisdom can be put aside when it comes to salvation. Entering must be a different kind of thing, not based in attachment or acquisition. “The moment I let go of it was the moment I got more than I could handle”. Don’t know which Catholic theologians best describe that spiritual journey.

On that singers’ ditty:

I don’t see how Morisette’s thought is invalidated by judging her personality. After all, a lot of philosophers have dubious traits, Aristotle had some weird ideas about women, but that doesn’t invalidate his other thoughts.

She’s not exactly in Paul’s league of course, but she knows how the pray alright - youtube.com/watch?v=QMZReI2QrlQ

Evangelists might be a bit jealous of the comments there: “this is an anthem what it is to be human?” … “this song saved me” … “Damn this song just broke me and made me cry for some reason” … “My soul continues to struggle to believe this. These words are true!! Believing in your value and forgiving all trespasses both by you and by others!” …

 

[Peter_Plato]

And Pete, that references your post as well. I’ve no problem with people taking anything in Genesis as being allegorical, metaphorical or plain old fashioned literally true. Just please do not try to fit it into a scientific context where it plainly does not belong and most certainly doesn’t fit.

Not trying to make Genesis fit into science. What I am saying is that it is pretentious to assume science can explain stuff it cannot possibly access sufficiently to apply its method. The data isn’t properly explained by what science offers precisely because science has attempted to step beyond its reach. A little more humility would be a good thing among the scientists. Admitting we don’t know would be a start.

 

[PRmerger]

Not trying to make Genesis fit into science. What I am saying is that it is pretentious to assume science can explain stuff it cannot possibly access sufficiently to apply its method. The data isn’t properly explained by what science offers precisely because science has attempted to step beyond its reach. A little more humility would be a good thing among the scientists. Admitting we don’t know would be a start.

Yep. Egg-zactly.

It’s like (borrowing from Trent Horn) examining a beach for diamonds with a metal detector and declaring, “We’ve searched this area. We haven’t found a single diamond!”

Okey-dokey. But you’re using the wrong instrument, yeah?

Metal detectors aren’t what you use to find diamonds.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You surprise me.

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” - Luke 18

The infants have not read any wisdom from any philosophers, yet they are fit to enter the kingdom. Logically, then, that kind of wisdom has nothing to do with who can enter. All such wisdom can be put aside when it comes to salvation. Entering must be a different kind of thing, not based in attachment or acquisition. “The moment I let go of it was the moment I got more than I could handle”. Don’t know which Catholic theologians best describe that spiritual journey.

On that singers’ ditty:

I don’t see how Morisette’s thought is invalidated by judging her personality. After all, a lot of philosophers have dubious traits, Aristotle had some weird ideas about women, but that doesn’t invalidate his other thoughts.

She’s not exactly in Paul’s league of course, but she knows how the pray alright - youtube.com/watch?v=QMZReI2QrlQ

Evangelists might be a bit jealous of the comments there: “this is an anthem what it is to be human?” … “this song saved me” … “Damn this song just broke me and made me cry for some reason” … “My soul continues to struggle to believe this. These words are true!! Believing in your value and forgiving all trespasses both by you and by others!” …

Next, you’ll be telling us that Morris Alberts’ song Feelings (Nothing More Than Feelings) is a great spiritual classic because it makes many children and adults get in touch with their deepest feelings.

It isn’t that Morrisette had some “weird ideas,” it is how prominent those have become as determiners of her life which is the troubling part.

Not sure which evangelists you are speaking of, but I would think that if Paul had permitted his early “weird ideas” about Christians to dominate his actions such that he continued to hunt Christians down, I wouldn’t just complain that he had “weird ideas,” I would begin to wonder about the man himself as the fount from which the totality of his ideas proceeds. Clearly, Paul wasn’t the “feelings” type.

As for children, Paul also spoke of young Christians being weaned off milk and onto solid food.

What, precisely, does it mean to be “human” according to those so affected by Morrisette’s song? I suspect a wide range of leftist ideology about human nature will be forthcoming. At least philosophers, even the best of the secular bunch, can focus their thoughts rather than being carried away by their feelings.

Personally, I think you are confusing mature spirituality with adolescent emoting, the kind that spawned lots of teen hits back in the late fifties and early sixties - remember how the Beatles or Beach Boys affected teen girls back then, eventually leading to hippiedom and the Woodstock era? Is that the kind of influence you want evangelists to have on mindless creatures and children?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You surprise me.

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” - Luke 18

Okay, so here you describe the entry requirements – which appear quite the opposite from those to get on rides at DisneyWorld.

On the other hand, Jesus says of John the Baptist that he is the greatest among men but the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

This makes me wonder how long those so overcome by the vapors at Morissette’s music would last living in the desert on locusts and wild honey, wearing a hair shirt and tempted by Satan all day long. Would Morissette’s fans even dare to venture out into the desert to see John the Baptizer, even if he were advertised on Billboard as a reed shaken by the winds of emotional music?

 

[Peter_Plato]

“The moment I let go of it was the moment I got more than I could handle”. Don’t know which Catholic theologians best describe that spiritual journey.

And the question remains: What precisely did she let go of and what did she get that she couldn’t handle?

I would suppose that a Christian thinker like Kierkegaard, along with Catholic theologians – at least, the good ones – could flush that out just a little.

Now, of course, keeping it open ended is what some would prefer because for them it is better not to let go of some things while quite permissible to let go of others.

What if Morissette means letting go of all ethical principles and morality in general to obtain all the immorality that is “more than” she could handle? How do you know that isn’t what she meant?

I don’t mean to be a prude here, but aren’t her words so completely open-ended as to possibly mean whatever anyone wants them to mean? Completely subjective and relativist in meaning and implication?

Is that where you want theologians and evangelists (and philosophers) to go?