C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I stand by my statement then… time to grow up!
The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
He never says he believes any of that, and the stickies state “It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs”, yet you keep doing so!
He mentions emergence, which means he’s not a reductionist, and as I said from reading the thread, he even told you he’s not talking about “isomorphism of atomic particles”, and yet you keep ignoring him.
I’m not going to speculate about what a poster believed six and a half years ago, how would I know. But isomorphism is how an emergentist might state his belief that the mind is the form of the brain, in a similar way to CCC 365 saying the soul is the form of the body. An emergentist might rewrite it as:
The unity of mind and brain is so profound that one has to consider the mind to be the “form” of the brain, i.e. it is because of its mind that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; mind and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Has nothing to do with “repressing all feelings and purging all emotions.” What it demonstrably is about is getting to the root of all emotions – why they exist at all – then aligning them to reality – i.e., the truth of what is. There is no value in letting emotions – i.e., how we ‘feel’ about things – attempt to dictate the nature of reality.
Actually, they have no “burden of proof” to me, but they and I have a “burden of proof” in terms of the expectations that God has of them and me. Bearing fruit that will last is a Scriptural exhortation. Recall that it was the herald of the Messiah, John the Baptist, who called ALL to repentance. He didn’t exhort them to feel good about themselves no matter what.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Not sure that searching for ‘spirituality’ leads very far. It is a broad direction which includes in it anything not specifically referred to as ‘materiality.’ Even Satan is ‘spiritual’ in that sense because he is determinably not material.
On the other hand, the Church proclaims the resurrection of the body and that the Church itself is the ‘body’ of Christ, so ‘spirituality’ isn’t, by itself, the determiner of where people ought to go.
T
tonyrey
Guest
His view is that truth, not the mind, is an isomorphism of atomic particles:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5041646&postcount=21
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5024004&postcount=11
forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=97287
If you regard his view as more reasonable than mine you need to explain **precisely **where he is right and I am wrong in the following dialogue:
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:
- no longer has a raison d’etre or objective purpose in life.
- is depersonalised as the result of being reduced to impersonal processes.
- 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.
- lacks identity, unity, continuity and responsibility by ceasing to be an enduring entity and becoming what Hume described as “a bundle of perceptions”.
The “accounting” amounts to an elimination of personhood.
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 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.
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?
BTW You didn’t answer my question:
Do you really think he believes in an** independent **mind?
T
tonyrey
Guest
He has made it abundantly clear that he is not an “emergentist”:
If you disagree cite just one statement he has made which confirms your opinion.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Part One:
Theism would not have survived if it were as unfalsifiable as you imply. Why did you become an atheist? By chance?
:
Persons are not self-evidently explicable as collections of particles. We exist as entities at a higher level and have powers which particles lack, notably rationality, consciousness and autonomy.
I’ve discovered another of my posts to which Touchstone failed to reply despite of your excuses on his behalf:
If theism is unfalsifiable atheists have been wasting their time for centuries! Haven’t you given reasons why you became an atheist? If theism is immune your reasons were invalid!
You have yet to define what is “natural”…
Theism would not have survived if it were as unfalsifiable as you imply. Why did you become an atheist? By chance?
Theism has endured precisely because it is the most cogent explanation of the order and beauty of the universe, the existence of persons, rationality, consciousness, free will, purpose, love, inspiration, mysticism, miracles, the power of prayer, the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, the immense value of life and the nobility of the human spirit. Many of the masterpieces of art, architecture, music, poetry and drama have been inspired by religious belief. The great religions of the world established centres of learning which led to the development of science, the humanities and philosophy in particular. It has been faith in the intelligibility of the universe and the power of reason based on theistic belief that has transformed human communities into the cultural and technological society we know today.
You mean thought emerged solely and inexplicably on account of its survival value…
Yes! For the same reason that carbon, oxygen and other elements support life… The periodic table reflects the fundamental order and regularity of the universe - which are evidence of Design.
:
If God does not exist there is no **reason **why the universe or anything in the universe exists. Everything is ultimately irrational, meaningless, valueless and purposeless, i.e. absurd.
You reject teleology in favour of physical causality. Since you believe past events determine the present the beginning of the process must be more significant than the end. For you the existence of human beings throws no light on the nature of reality because we are simply products of that primal event. The outcome is insignificant…
Persons are not self-evidently explicable as collections of particles. We exist as entities at a higher level and have powers which particles lack, notably rationality, consciousness and autonomy.
Better than being inside out! But seriously, you explain yourself away by putting what you perceive before yourself. We are in the world but not known by the world. Epistemology comes from not from without but within… You and I spend much of our time in the realm of thought rather than action.
Of course not, but those are the criteria by which we determine which explanations are superior to others. Omniscience is not required to obtain insight and understanding. You favour materialism because you believe it is more satisfactory. Why? You must have some criteria by which you reach a conclusion you believe **corresponds **to reality.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Part Two
What has happened to the mental? To intangible relations like correspondence? For you they have become tangible isomorphisms. It doesn’t matter how many physical levels there are they are all permutations of matter. Is there anything in your scheme of things that cannot be explained in principle by science? That is the acid test of your reductionism. We already know that persons and all personal activity are depersonalised in your weltanschauung…
I’m not surprised he failed to reply to this post because he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Any form of materialism is self-destructive because its **sole **origin and foundation is impersonal, mindless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless physical energy…
Your view:
Originally Posted by Touchstone forums.catholic-questions.org/images/bu…i/viewpost.gif
I agree, but at least we are in a better position to judge which explanations are worthless. We agree, for example, that solipsism and nihilism can be ignored. We even agree that correspondence implies a relation of similarity!
What has happened to the mental? To intangible relations like correspondence? For you they have become tangible isomorphisms. It doesn’t matter how many physical levels there are they are all permutations of matter. Is there anything in your scheme of things that cannot be explained in principle by science? That is the acid test of your reductionism. We already know that persons and all personal activity are depersonalised in your weltanschauung…
I’m not surprised he failed to reply to this post because he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Any form of materialism is self-destructive because its **sole **origin and foundation is impersonal, mindless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless physical energy…
Your view:
Your view is the complete antithesis of Touchstone’s materialism.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no. You are assuming that mere emoting is sufficient to be the “foolishness of God,” when it may, in fact, be mere human foolishness.
You aren’t claiming that mere human foolishness is above human wisdom, are you?
So the question is: How do you know that “yon leftist emoting adolescent” does indeed have the “foolishness of God” rather than just plain, old-fashioned, fallen humanity, foolishness?
Oh, I get it…
… because they are emoting and that – especially the leftist brand of foolishness – in itself, is better than human wisdom. :nope:
I
inocente
Guest
That’s your value judgment, not to be hoisted on others.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus chooses a Samaritan as his hero knowing the crowd look down on them. A priest and a Levite, pillars of the community, do nothing for the victim, as the logic of the cleanliness laws requires of them. But a leftist emoting adolescent, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
The leftist adolescent then reacts rationally, bandaging the wounds and so on, but his motivation is not human wisdom, as it was for the priest and the Levite. It is emotion. He is a neighbor to the man because he has mercy.
Was that Ignatius of Loyola I just heard sobbing?
You edited out part of my post in your quote. Perhaps you missed the highlighted text.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I didn’t leave anything out.
You said, “Suppose…”
I said, “You assume…”
Same thing. Supposing is assuming.
Nothing is demonstrated.
I
inocente
Guest
Whoa, now you’re quoting from an even older thread, and even then he still never says anything about atoms. “When you take a look at the physiology and wiring of an animal, you can see the necessity of “truth” (truth == correspondence to reality) as a matter of biology”. In other words, the form (“physiology and wiring”). You’re misunderstanding by thinking he’s talking about particles.
Now come on, Tony, you’re the one claiming he said it and he never did. It’s not for me to judge between the two of you. All I was after was whether he ever said what you claimed he said, and he didn’t, so done and dusted, you misunderstood him, let’s move on.
Unless he says whether he does, I’ve no way of knowing, but see below.
Just do a CAF search on his name with the word “emergent” and you’ll see he repeatedly talks of emergent properties and emergent characteristics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
Do another search on his name and “Hofstadter” and you’ll see he repeatedly refers to the emergentist who coined the phrase “the soul is more than the sum of its parts”.
(And in one such post, his Christian background).
I’m uneasy talking any more about someone who isn’t here to defend himself.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Nope. Just making sure your value judgement isn’t being foisted on others without being sufficiently scrutinized.
You are in favour of value judgements – wherever they are sourced – being subjected to proper critique, are you not?
As I recall, you are the one promoting “adolescent emoting” as equivalent to “God’s foolishness” as equivalent to “God’s wisdom” as equivalent to the beatific vision.
I just question whether the first part of all that equivocating is necessarily true.
I’ve done a sufficient amount of adolescent emoting in my life to know it ain’t very often a godly activity.
Call it hoisting my value judgements on others if you wish. I call it applying due diligence, along with a few other virtues – human wisdom being one.
Now merely because “God’s foolishness” is above human wisdom does not entail that any foolishness, including the purely human type is above human wisdom.
The order is NOT (in ascending order of value):
Human wisdom → human foolishness → foolishness of God → Wisdom of God.
I would still hold that human foolishness is below human wisdom in the hierarchy:
Human foolishness (AKA adolescent emoting) → human wisdom → foolishness of God → wisdom of God.
That schema is quite consistent with Paul’s notion on the matter, by the way.
I
inocente
Guest
I said "Suppose your leftist emoting adolescent receives the message of the cross, and (as in Charles Elliot’s commentary) is “in communion with Him, in His revelation of the Father”.
And that you replied “You are assuming that mere emoting is sufficient to be the “foolishness of God,””.
So no, “he is in communion with Him, in His revelation of the Father” isn’t “mere emoting”.
As said, Charles Elliot’s conclusion is that however the world judges him, he is “in the knowledge of the truth, and therefore in blessedness and joy”. “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength”.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now I’m found, Was blind, but now I see.
Everything is demonstrated.
I
inocente
Guest
See post #850.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
“Everything is demonstrated” by a mere supposition?
I am suggesting that what would demonstrate that a “leftist emoting adolescent has [actually] received the message of the cross, and (as in Charles Elliot’s commentary)” is “in communion with Him, in His revelation of the Father,” would be the fruit which comes about as a result of the reception of that message and that subsequent communion with God.
Now if the leftist emoting adolescent goes through three or four marriages, leaves Christianity to embrace Buddhism or some other generic form of “spirituality,” and becomes a transgendered dragon replete with green tattooed scales, you may claim – if I question the validity of that ‘fruit’ – that I am “hoisting” my values on him/her and that God’s foolishness is greater than human wisdom, but I will begin to wonder whether any wisdom whatsoever or God, for that matter, have anything at all to do with the “journey” upon which this “leftist emoting adolescent” has embarked.
You can continue to insist I am “hoisting” my values if you like, but I would question whether there are any meaningful values being appealed to by your appeal to “God’s foolishness.”
If no objective values can be appealed to, either in the assessment of the initial emotional experience nor in determining the value of the final fruit, what precisely is there left by which humans can determine anything with regard to God’s wisdom, or his foolishness?
I wouldn’t suppose there is any distinction to be made between God’s highest wisdom and the most debased human foolishness.
What “values” are you proposing be “hoisted” upon humans, then?
None, whatsoever?
We may as well take up with ISIS and behead Christians then, because that, too, could be “God’s foolishness” and we ought not impose or hoist any values upon others, according to you.
If you find that this implication misses your intent, then you need to suggest some clarity with regard to properly determining a workable set of values rather than merely denouncing anyone who might propose some.
What are God’s ‘values’ in this regard? How do we recognize the distinction between pure unadulterated human folly and “God’s foolishness?”
Would be good to know.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Since once again you have ignored every single one of my statements, questions and quotations there is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you. I leave you with the points he too failed to refute:
T
tonyrey
Guest
A fascinating fact about atheists is their belief that a Godless universe is a more scientific theory than theism. They fail to realise science itself is based on the assumption that the universe is a rational system that can be understood and explained by rational beings. Otherwise science wouldn’t exist! Physical causes alone are a hopelessly inadequate explanation of themselves. So atheists must transcend in some way the physical energy they regard as the fundamental reality. It is precisely the fact of transcendence that makes rationalism, i.e. theism, a more intelligible, comprehensive, coherent, consistent, economical, probable and fertile interpretation of existence than materialism. Sense data alone are totally uninformative and lead nowhere in a mindless universe…
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
If they lead anywhere, they lead to animalism, an increasingly obvious condition of modern life.
But since animalism is a violation of our spiritual destiny, animalism is dangerous and likely catastrophic for the individual and the entire race, along with peril for the animal kingdom as a whole.
T
tonyrey
Guest
According to your argument a random mutation in one individual can never lead to a new species. It takes two to tango but only one to produce a samba! And the couple would then reproduce it effortlessly…
- Status