P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Oh dear. Take your time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
ffg
Guest
Hi Picky,
Sorry it’s been so long.
For post 57, I thought it was interesting that when you asked about the multiple God’s and how to determine which one, if ‘god exists’ - that happened to be Fr. John’s topic that day.
I’m not going to speak to what I don’t know. I did read a lot of greek mythology in school years. I don’t know if the same God’s therein are the God’s that are today respected by some folks. But I didn’t see what I was reading as more than myth - ology.
I would extend this thinking to any God of xxxxxx (rain, wind, lightning, fire, love, take your pick).
‘Gods’ in general to me is a confusing idea. I mean, if there are multiple Gods, is there a ‘CEO’ God as well, or is it just chaos at the top?
Now I’m sure there is ubber information out there, but digging into other or multiple Gods would only make sense if I had doubts about the one I know.
Being that the one I know has taken my nature makes him relatable, yet it’s quite humbling as sometimes ( most times) it seems me the servant, is the one being served. The type of leader who leads by example is few and far between. This might be one of the reasons God is easy to reject…‘too good to be true’.
Sorry it’s been so long.
For post 57, I thought it was interesting that when you asked about the multiple God’s and how to determine which one, if ‘god exists’ - that happened to be Fr. John’s topic that day.
I’m not going to speak to what I don’t know. I did read a lot of greek mythology in school years. I don’t know if the same God’s therein are the God’s that are today respected by some folks. But I didn’t see what I was reading as more than myth - ology.
I would extend this thinking to any God of xxxxxx (rain, wind, lightning, fire, love, take your pick).
‘Gods’ in general to me is a confusing idea. I mean, if there are multiple Gods, is there a ‘CEO’ God as well, or is it just chaos at the top?
Now I’m sure there is ubber information out there, but digging into other or multiple Gods would only make sense if I had doubts about the one I know.
Being that the one I know has taken my nature makes him relatable, yet it’s quite humbling as sometimes ( most times) it seems me the servant, is the one being served. The type of leader who leads by example is few and far between. This might be one of the reasons God is easy to reject…‘too good to be true’.
Code:
So this isn't extremely long, I'll address Post 58 by itself later.
For post 59 and summing up the chewing the fat continuation. It has been a good chew, but I can't say I wouldn't be a little disappointed if at least to this point we didn't recognize all of the context we've looked at to help clear away some of the weeds in the myth theory. I think we could identify a few posts that add context.
Kind of like the Hitler analysis earlier. You laid out a bio that to the unlearned might seem quite honest and true, but we both know details that give a fullness of truth.
The myth theory is comfortable to those that do not know the details that show the myth theory standing on a sandy foundation. One of those details simply being that if it only was a good story, the authors did a poor job presenting themselves. Too many times do they write of their own foolishness and dumb actions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With regard to moving forward, I too have thought about where we could go. A couple of items I heard recently which I thought were interesting, and perhaps you might feel likewise.
1) How the word 'believe' is meant and used today vs yester-year and surrounding analysis.
2) The purpose of the New Testament. An analysis of why it was written that I never heard before, but makes sense to me.
I'll be taking care of my dad for a couple days again here this week. Also my best time to online chat is being driven from me, so I might have to be much shorter, if we shall continue.
Take care,
Mike
F
ffg
Guest
Hi picky, thanks for the numbering. I think I’ll start with your last 2 parts, with two simple answers.I hope all is well with you, Mike.
I’m going to chop Fr Schmitz’s argument right down. If I misrepresent him horribly, let me know (of course I won’t do justice to him in this short space). Well, it seems to run like this (with, of course, my comments) …
1 The material world is causal. Agreed
2 There must have been a First Cause. Not agreed.
3 Because the material world is causal, if one had stood at the Big Bang with a powerful enough computer, and if the universe were purely material, one would have been able to predict the whole future of the universe. Not agreed.
Firstly it is probably the case that one could not fashion such a computer. That’s not just a picky point, it’s important because it means that whether the material universe is completely predictable or not, it is not completely predictable by us.
Secondly quantum mechanics teaches that we cannot predict anything with certainty, only with some degree of probability.
4 We have free will. Well, we have the sensation of free will.
5 Free will and a completely predictable universe are incompatible, therefore the universe cannot be purely material: there must be something else that renders the material universe contingent on exercises of free will; that something is God. Not agreed.
Firstly a compatibilist might ask what a free will decision could possibly look like if it were not based on causes: my genetic inheritance, plus all the experiences I have had, including my education, my family, my religion if I have one, such ability as my brain has developed to think logically, my emotional development, the people I have loved, the things I have lost, what I have found good, my mood today – these will be among the things that channel my decision.
Secondly, we have too little knowledge of what “free will” is to understand it. We know it is connected in some way with consciousness, but then we don’t understand consciousness either. We can’t make far-ranging conclusions on the basis of such ignorance.
Thirdly we have shown in any case that the material universe is not completely predictable (point 3).
Fourthly if free will and a completely predictable universe are incompatible, then free will must be incompatible with an all-seeing all-knowing God.
…
My own view is that we are dealing with a problem here that doesn’t matter.
The universe may or may not be predictable, but we know that it is not completely predictable by us – chaos theory would tell us that, and our personal experience confirms it. We cannot, in other words, distinguish between the universe we have and a universe which is not completely predictable. If we cannot distinguish between them, they are the same for all human purposes.
Free will may or may not exist, but we know that even if our decisions are causally based the causes are so intricate and complicated that we could not predict completely how they would determine our decisions. We cannot, in other words, distinguish between a universe in which free will is unfettered and one where free will is causal. If we cannot distinguish between them, the difference cannot be relevant for any human purposes.
I may be talking nonsense, but my little brain is content with that outcome.
A completely predictable universe and the one we are in, are quite distinguishable. If they were indistinguishable, we wouldn’t know we were in the one that was not predictable.
But we do know, because bad things happen to good people. Unless we want to tell the rape victim, ‘it might not have been a bad thing, just what you had coming due to physics, we don’t know’.
I think the reason free will seems to be complicating for many people is that folks don’t know and extend the definition past the intended purpose. Simply it’s our ability to choose the good. We over complicate when we extend it to our basic choices in life because we use the same word for multiple purposes, like choosing an apple or choosing to serve another person. Two very different things, unfortunately use the same word.
Ok onto the numerals.
You could probably guess this response, but answers 1 and 2 seem impossible. It’s like saying stuff happens because of something, except for stuff happening at x time, during that time we excuse the laws of physics. I like exceptions like the next guy, but sometimes their convenience needs to be questioned.
A pondering question - Why do we accept an exception here with physics, no first cause, but with Jesus, who was actually seen by humans, it is more difficult to accept the exceptions humans witnessed?
For 3, interesting take on we being the ‘beings’ that must have the capacity to predict, if the universe is predictable. I think the point is more theory based, that logically, if there was just matter, predictability is logical.
Of course, being imperfect humans, we always leave room for exceptions in what we learn or test, thus we use probabilities. But the point wasn’t using our ( humans) best tested guess, just simply that matter’s movement is predictable.
- The sensation of free will, would that not be similar to Fr. Schmitz analysis that if our brains are just matter moving, our thoughts are happening to us? I agree with this thought, if there was only matter, our thoughts would be a sensation or illusion.
Ponder question - how do we know when we are in sensation mode and when our thoughts are actually ours based on our life experience?
If you are interested, the last couple Fr. Riccardo talks were great.
F
ffg
Guest
Hi Picky, I hope things are well.5 Free will and a completely predictable universe are incompatible, therefore the universe cannot be purely material: there must be something else that renders the material universe contingent on exercises of free will; that something is God. Not agreed.
Firstly a compatibilist might ask what a free will decision could possibly look like if it were not based on causes: my genetic inheritance, plus all the experiences I have had, including my education, my family, my religion if I have one, such ability as my brain has developed to think logically, my emotional development, the people I have loved, the things I have lost, what I have found good, my mood today – these will be among the things that channel my decision.
Secondly, we have too little knowledge of what “free will” is to understand it. We know it is connected in some way with consciousness, but then we don’t understand consciousness either. We can’t make far-ranging conclusions on the basis of such ignorance.
Thirdly we have shown in any case that the material universe is not completely predictable (point 3).
Fourthly if free will and a completely predictable universe are incompatible, then free will must be incompatible with an all-seeing all-knowing God.
…
I’ve been able to think a little on number 5. For the sake of time, I’ll change my earlier thoughts and say that without having listened to the talk, your summary is close enough to continue an evaluation.
Now ironically, the Fr. john Riccardo version of what we’ve been discussing most recently, including his version of the classic tri-L-emma, was on the radio yesterday morning. It should be the latest posting on that site, but I’ll get the exact name and let you know, if interested. It was really good and would be an easier listen than Fr. Schmitz.
To respond in somewhat order- your first reasoning why your thoughts are yours, I would agree with, we use our history and life experience ( and mood/emotions) to make a decision, thus another reason why I don’t think our decisions are happening to us based simply on matter moving. There seems to be a part of each of us that is not matter, for us to be able to think and decide for ourselves ( cause our brain matter to move).
For 2, there are a lot of things I use daily that I don’t understand. Before I drive to work, I don’t ensure I know how the engine and brake system works before I start the car. Similarly with free will and consciousness. I know I’m here now and I think writing here is good or I wouldn’t do it.
3 - agree considering the human capacity to understand, again, the thought was theory based that it is logical in physics terms to predict matter’s movement, thus if only matter and a big enough brain ( computer), the possibility is there.
and 4 - Of course, if there is a God sitting outside of time, it would be logical that he could see all matter movement. I don’t know if I would call that ‘prediction’ since it would be a known to God.
Because God knows, doesn’t eliminate choice. Or in free will’s sake, the ability to choose the good.
Consider -
Though we can see and know what is and what will be when someone walks in front of a train, and they know we know, that doesn’t mean they don’t have a choice to make that act…
Similar to the Hitler analysis of missing details, we don’t want to exclude the key ingredient that gives a more full picture, the key to who God would have to be for us to have the ability of free will.
All-seeing, All-knowing, All-loving.
So now insert the person walking to the train tracks as a close loved one- we see, we know, we are sad they are not making a good choice because we love them.
We have hope of the possibility that their next step is toward us rather than the train tracks.
This is God with us. He can see where we are going with our lives, and is always hopeful we choose to step toward Him.
Now consider what happens if that person does step toward us. Do we wait for another step for confirmation?
Or do we run to our loved one in joy?
A small step from us to him is all it takes for a rush from God to us.
For times sake I had to skip some analysis of earlier posts, I’ll try and catch up with those. Unless we move in a different direction.
Take care,
Mike
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I shall return!
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well, well, it’s been a long time, in fact I haven’t even been able to read your last posts properly. I shall do so.
Just to recap on Fr Schmitz (largely to remind myself of where I was), he had, as I recall, two threads of argument.
One was the First Cause claim – well that’s been chewed over for centuries, so we’re not going to make much headway there. I don’t go into it far: it is wholly based on the assumption that things had “A Beginning”, and that assumption is, I think not warranted by the state of our knowledge.
The other was the causal universe plus free will argument, with I suppose three elements:
a) the universe is causal, so we know cause A will produce effect B which in turn will produce effect C.
b) yet we have free will which by definition means we can decide in certain circumstances what effect will be produced by cause A.
c) those two premises produce a paradox which can only be reconciled by the existence of God.
All three elements I find unconvincing. Element a) is clearly wrong since quantum mechanics show us that cause A does not necessarily produce effect B.
Element b) is quite unreliable since we are largely ignorant of how the brain makes decisions.
Element c) is incorrect because firstly no paradox exists and secondly if one did exist it could be reconciled simply by establishing that although the universe was largely causal, the development of intelligence and consciousness has enabled us partly to escape it.
Now to read your stuff.
Hope all is well with you.
Picky
Just to recap on Fr Schmitz (largely to remind myself of where I was), he had, as I recall, two threads of argument.
One was the First Cause claim – well that’s been chewed over for centuries, so we’re not going to make much headway there. I don’t go into it far: it is wholly based on the assumption that things had “A Beginning”, and that assumption is, I think not warranted by the state of our knowledge.
The other was the causal universe plus free will argument, with I suppose three elements:
a) the universe is causal, so we know cause A will produce effect B which in turn will produce effect C.
b) yet we have free will which by definition means we can decide in certain circumstances what effect will be produced by cause A.
c) those two premises produce a paradox which can only be reconciled by the existence of God.
All three elements I find unconvincing. Element a) is clearly wrong since quantum mechanics show us that cause A does not necessarily produce effect B.
Element b) is quite unreliable since we are largely ignorant of how the brain makes decisions.
Element c) is incorrect because firstly no paradox exists and secondly if one did exist it could be reconciled simply by establishing that although the universe was largely causal, the development of intelligence and consciousness has enabled us partly to escape it.
Now to read your stuff.
Hope all is well with you.
Picky
F
ffg
Guest
Welcome back Picky!
I thought I had let too much time pass myself, and you had moved on.
I answered much or all of you summary in my previous posts. I think we’ve worked our way down to this question on the ‘first cause issue’ …
Why do we easily accept an exception to what we have learned about matter here with ‘no first cause’, but reject other exceptions to matter’s cause-effect properties that it would seem humans actually witnessed?
I think, if you are willing, it would be worth hearing Fr. Riccardo’s similar talk while thinking about this stuff…
avemariaradio.net/audio_archive/christ-is-the-answer-july-9-2014-4/
There is one dated the 8th, but it gets cut off, this is a direct page for the 9th where they posted the full version.
I only listened to it once, I’ll listen again today, as it hopefully helps us move this great talk forward.
Have a great day and week!
Take care,
Mike
I thought I had let too much time pass myself, and you had moved on.
I answered much or all of you summary in my previous posts. I think we’ve worked our way down to this question on the ‘first cause issue’ …
Why do we easily accept an exception to what we have learned about matter here with ‘no first cause’, but reject other exceptions to matter’s cause-effect properties that it would seem humans actually witnessed?
I think, if you are willing, it would be worth hearing Fr. Riccardo’s similar talk while thinking about this stuff…
avemariaradio.net/audio_archive/christ-is-the-answer-july-9-2014-4/
There is one dated the 8th, but it gets cut off, this is a direct page for the 9th where they posted the full version.
I only listened to it once, I’ll listen again today, as it hopefully helps us move this great talk forward.
Have a great day and week!
Take care,
Mike
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I’ve started reading back through the posts of yours I’ve missed, and I notice that you say there what you say here: that in denying First Cause I’m proposing a breach in the laws of physics. I don’t think so. What I’m objecting to is “First”. That implies the universe had a beginning: an unproven assumption.Welcome back Picky!
I thought I had let too much time pass myself, and you had moved on.
I answered much or all of you summary in my previous posts. I think we’ve worked our way down to this question on the ‘first cause issue’ …
Why do we easily accept an exception to what we have learned about matter here with ‘no first cause’, but reject other exceptions to matter’s cause-effect properties that it would seem humans actually witnessed?
I think, if you are willing, it would be worth hearing Fr. Riccardo’s similar talk while thinking about this stuff…
avemariaradio.net/audio_archive/christ-is-the-answer-july-9-2014-4/
There is one dated the 8th, but it gets cut off, this is a direct page for the 9th where they posted the full version.
I only listened to it once, I’ll listen again today, as it hopefully helps us move this great talk forward.
Have a great day and week!
Take care,
Mike
F
ffg
Guest
Thanks for the reply Picky!
I just think it takes more faith than I have to think all effects did not have a cause.
I do think this is a stretch against what we know with how matter moves.
It also seems too convenient for that belief to be only for the first cause.
It would seem to make sense that if I held that effects (or an effect) did not need a cause at some point, I would more easily grasp other areas where physics or other scientific measurement methods bend when known to be witnessed by humans.
Of course, perhaps I’m just not thinking though. Great stuff!
Take care,
Mike
I just think it takes more faith than I have to think all effects did not have a cause.
I do think this is a stretch against what we know with how matter moves.
It also seems too convenient for that belief to be only for the first cause.
It would seem to make sense that if I held that effects (or an effect) did not need a cause at some point, I would more easily grasp other areas where physics or other scientific measurement methods bend when known to be witnessed by humans.
Of course, perhaps I’m just not thinking though. Great stuff!
Take care,
Mike
F
ffg
Guest
Since it seems my ability to post from here has returned, I can catch up on this one.By the way, as to C S Lewis’s three Ls, that was how this thread, or rather its predecessor, started! Some of us questioned whether Lewis’s choice-of-three covered all the possibilities. It doesn’t, of course, and as an example I suggested Jesus was a preacher and healer whom the authorities executed, and in the wake of which tragedy his followers began to see visions, around which myths formed. You said something like “Ah, the daft old hallucinations theory” … and here we still are, growing older but not wiser, still chewing the fat.
The last link I put up this AM of Fr. John’s will help us with our thinking around this point as well. Or at least broaden it, which is a good thing.
When we are talking about Jesus and the tri-L-emma, introducing the stories as myth, doesn’t define or change the person of Jesus.
The tri-L-emma is there to help us analyze who Jesus could possibly be on this world. A preacher and healer surely, but he claimed to be God, never backed down from this claim and enforced the claim when questioned.
Thus, if this claim is false, He was quite the opposite of good. We can example to our hearts content bad people doing good things and good people doing bad things.
So a preacher and healer, who claims to be God, and is not God, might certainly do some good things to attract, but is surely a very bad person.
As we analyze, we could add that the person of Jesus is a myth, a logical addition to the three L’s as a fourth option. Though in short order we will easily wash away this theory in historical analysis.
I confirmed with you very early on with this point for a reason. A truth hunting discussion between a Christian and Non-Christian is pointless if both don’t at least acknowledge Jesus was a human on this planet.
Thus, the three L’s seem to be good basis for thinking around what could be logical conclusions about the person of Jesus.
Be well,
Mike
F
ffg
Guest
I’d like to add to our meal on this one a little.I’ve started reading back through the posts of yours I’ve missed, and I notice that you say there what you say here: that in denying First Cause I’m proposing a breach in the laws of physics. I don’t think so. What I’m objecting to is “First”. That implies the universe had a beginning: an unproven assumption.
A few thoughts - Every effect has a cause, and that cause is a ‘first’ for each effect.
My field of study is not quantum mechanics, so I have a question about it. You mentioned that due to it, matter’s movement is not necessarily predictable.
I assume this is like blowing up say a golf ball, I can blow up 3 of them in the same way and the parts will not all explode in the same directions for each ball, is this the idea?
With regard to the unproven idea of a start to the universe, are you saying there is proof for the eternal history of the universe, or are we dealing with 2 unproven’s?
Something to consider as well, truth doesn’t need proof to exist, but proof needs truth to be concrete.
Have a great one!
Mike
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well quantum mechanics certainly isn’t my field either, and I’m abysmally ignorant of it: just too complicated for me to start on understanding it. But, developing from the discovery that particles of matter are waves as well as particles, the physics now shows as I understand it that particles are not as simple in their mechanics as we were taught in Newtonian theory. I don’t know about you, but I was taught about one billiard ball striking another and the equation that would predict the direction the second ball went in, and how far it travelled. Apparently it is now established that it is not possible to know what the end point of the trajectory of a particle will be (travelling as it does as a wave), only to know that it will be within a certain range with certain probabilities of distribution. Indeed I’m not sure that I’m not right to say it may be considered to be in a number of different trajectories until its position is observed (i.e. measured) when it is (becomes?) firmly in the measured spot. Now this is unlikely to cause you and me much concern at the pool table, but of course it has considerable implications for notions of causality and determinism in science and in philosophy.
It doesn’t seem to me wise to rely on uncertain fields like causation and indeed astrophysics when developing apologetics. Yes, you’re right, I’m sorry I was not clear: I’m saying that whether matter had a beginning or whether it has always been present is unproven, so relying on “a beginning” to produce a First Cause proof doesn’t hold water for me.
Certainly, by the way, I agree that truth doesn’t need proof to be true. But if the truth is extraordinary, it may well need proof to be believed.
By the way, Mike, I’m astonished that C.S.Lewis’s trilemma keeps being pulled out of the hat. I know he is well thought-of in these parts – and I’m all in favour of Anglicans, anyway (at least of the CofE variety) – but if you will excuse the language his trilemma is poppycock. He says that there are three, and only three, possible reactions to Jesus’s reported claims of divinity. That is simply not true. I suggested one that has occurred: the accretion of myth and legend on a real person (yep, that’s where you and I came in). There are others. That he claimed to be the Messiah in the Jewish sense of an anointed but not divine person. That he was perfectly sane but believed he had an intimate relationship to God. That he didn’t claim divinity and the allegations that he did depend on interpolations as the early church developed its narrative. That we are imposing developed Christian doctrine onto ambiguous statements made in a completely different culture. I am not saying any of these is true. I am saying they are among a wealth of possible reactions to the person of Jesus variously portrayed in the Gospels. To say the only possible reactions are Lunatic, Liar or Lord is piffle. I don’t know whether Lewis was just using a rhetorical device or whether he was really presenting the trilemma as a logical argument. If the former it doesn’t enhance his reputation; if the latter – well, I wouldn’t call him a Lunatic or a Liar, but he certainly wasn’t a Logician.
Phew! That’s got that off my chest. Without giving offence, I hope. Right, now I’m off to see what Fr Riccardo has to say.
Be peaceful.
Picky
It doesn’t seem to me wise to rely on uncertain fields like causation and indeed astrophysics when developing apologetics. Yes, you’re right, I’m sorry I was not clear: I’m saying that whether matter had a beginning or whether it has always been present is unproven, so relying on “a beginning” to produce a First Cause proof doesn’t hold water for me.
Certainly, by the way, I agree that truth doesn’t need proof to be true. But if the truth is extraordinary, it may well need proof to be believed.
By the way, Mike, I’m astonished that C.S.Lewis’s trilemma keeps being pulled out of the hat. I know he is well thought-of in these parts – and I’m all in favour of Anglicans, anyway (at least of the CofE variety) – but if you will excuse the language his trilemma is poppycock. He says that there are three, and only three, possible reactions to Jesus’s reported claims of divinity. That is simply not true. I suggested one that has occurred: the accretion of myth and legend on a real person (yep, that’s where you and I came in). There are others. That he claimed to be the Messiah in the Jewish sense of an anointed but not divine person. That he was perfectly sane but believed he had an intimate relationship to God. That he didn’t claim divinity and the allegations that he did depend on interpolations as the early church developed its narrative. That we are imposing developed Christian doctrine onto ambiguous statements made in a completely different culture. I am not saying any of these is true. I am saying they are among a wealth of possible reactions to the person of Jesus variously portrayed in the Gospels. To say the only possible reactions are Lunatic, Liar or Lord is piffle. I don’t know whether Lewis was just using a rhetorical device or whether he was really presenting the trilemma as a logical argument. If the former it doesn’t enhance his reputation; if the latter – well, I wouldn’t call him a Lunatic or a Liar, but he certainly wasn’t a Logician.
Phew! That’s got that off my chest. Without giving offence, I hope. Right, now I’m off to see what Fr Riccardo has to say.
Be peaceful.
Picky
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well, if I were a believer I would find Fr John very believable.
(By the way, did you notice that, although he quoted Lewis’s trilemma, and although he quoted Bishop N T Wright, he did not quote Professor Wright’s distaste with Lewis’s argument?)
(By the way, did you notice that, although he quoted Lewis’s trilemma, and although he quoted Bishop N T Wright, he did not quote Professor Wright’s distaste with Lewis’s argument?)
F
ffg
Guest
Ha! offence (or offense for the USA readers).
Isn’t that something athletic teams must do to accomplish a goal?
I grew up with the old chestnut ‘sticks and stones might break my bones, but words will never hurt me’.
To drive down another side road, I think we need to see a trend study of family size in relation to lawsuits of the ‘offended’ nature.
I would not be surprised to see a correlation of family size declining and frivilous court stuffing lawsuits increasing at about the same pace over the last 40 years.
Having siblings is a priceless refining process for humans, not well appreciated these days.
Perhaps someone will start a survey - “How many siblings? Are you bothered easily?”
Isn’t that something athletic teams must do to accomplish a goal?
I grew up with the old chestnut ‘sticks and stones might break my bones, but words will never hurt me’.
To drive down another side road, I think we need to see a trend study of family size in relation to lawsuits of the ‘offended’ nature.
I would not be surprised to see a correlation of family size declining and frivilous court stuffing lawsuits increasing at about the same pace over the last 40 years.
Having siblings is a priceless refining process for humans, not well appreciated these days.
Perhaps someone will start a survey - “How many siblings? Are you bothered easily?”
Code:
With regard to Fr. John, I did not note what was not on the talk, but I think your alertness is a wonderful quality. Is there a site you would recommend in understanding this disagreement further?
~~~~~~~~~~~
I had heard about the tri-L-emma only in the last few years (I wasn't much of a reader early on and my memory is not good, so it's possible I heard of it as a youngster)
It's argument was not what brought me to like Fr. Schmitz' talk so much, it was actually the further breakdown to 'God, or Bad Man', a bi-L-emma.
I think our analytical ways are a little different. I look at analyzing like an upsidedown triangle with the goal to getting to the bottom, the source of all that is inside, holding it all up.
I think that if we were to take each of the options that you presented (the deca-L-emma), we could logically break them down to 1 of the three Lewis conclusions, or better, 1 of the 2 Schmitz (and later learning Fr. John) options.
As Fr. John mentions, Jesus is the key. He either was who He said (and showed) He was, or He is not.
No matter how many types of a person, anyone wants to introduce, it breaks down to that, simply.
I'll touch up on our science route later but I want to shout what you wrote above as I totally agree and maybe it's the next part of our analysis...
"If the truth is extraordinary, it may well need proof to be believed."
~Picky Picky, CAF member 2014
Absolutely.
have a great weekend,
Mike
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Oh dear, what have I said?
Picky Picky, CAF member 2014.
Thanks, Mike. There is more I can say!
Picky Picky, CAF member 2014.
Thanks, Mike. There is more I can say!
F
ffg
Guest
Alrighty, back to all that science fun (I have a few more minutes).
With regard to the science fun (and the other stuff), I’m not really attacking it like “how can I defend my position about God” as much as “Let’s really think about what we believe and analyze it”.
When you lay out that the universe is causal, but without a cause to start it (I believe a 1 and 2 in a previous post). This is a confusing concept to me…
My belief in ‘first cause’ is not built in this way - that the universe 'has a ‘beginning’ - thus ‘first cause’.
Rather, in reverse. - If effects have causes, there must be a cause to the first effect(s).
Thus there must be a beginning, because effects have causes. That’s how I see it.
I can’t line up an effect without a cause, especially related to matter, as force is needed to move matter (even if an unpredictable path). I would need someone to show me how effects can be without causes. For that one I need that proof, if true.
So of our two unproven’s - the universe has always been, and the universe has a beginning, I can use science and logic to see why the second one works, but need to take on a blind faith for the first at this point in time.
I’m just too weak of a person for a blind faith.
Now, have a great weekend!
Take care,
Mike
With regard to the science fun (and the other stuff), I’m not really attacking it like “how can I defend my position about God” as much as “Let’s really think about what we believe and analyze it”.
When you lay out that the universe is causal, but without a cause to start it (I believe a 1 and 2 in a previous post). This is a confusing concept to me…
My belief in ‘first cause’ is not built in this way - that the universe 'has a ‘beginning’ - thus ‘first cause’.
Rather, in reverse. - If effects have causes, there must be a cause to the first effect(s).
Thus there must be a beginning, because effects have causes. That’s how I see it.
I can’t line up an effect without a cause, especially related to matter, as force is needed to move matter (even if an unpredictable path). I would need someone to show me how effects can be without causes. For that one I need that proof, if true.
So of our two unproven’s - the universe has always been, and the universe has a beginning, I can use science and logic to see why the second one works, but need to take on a blind faith for the first at this point in time.
I’m just too weak of a person for a blind faith.
Now, have a great weekend!
Take care,
Mike
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Yes, it’s strange how we find one model of the universe more comfortable. I think of causes having causes having causes stretching backwards, and effects causing effects causing effects stretching forwards, and that makes an eternal universe seem more comfortable than one with a beginning. The human mind is an odd creature.Alrighty, back to all that science fun (I have a few more minutes).
With regard to the science fun (and the other stuff), I’m not really attacking it like “how can I defend my position about God” as much as “Let’s really think about what we believe and analyze it”.
When you lay out that the universe is causal, but without a cause to start it (I believe a 1 and 2 in a previous post). This is a confusing concept to me…
My belief in ‘first cause’ is not built in this way - that the universe 'has a ‘beginning’ - thus ‘first cause’.
Rather, in reverse. - If effects have causes, there must be a cause to the first effect(s).
Thus there must be a beginning, because effects have causes. That’s how I see it.
I can’t line up an effect without a cause, especially related to matter, as force is needed to move matter (even if an unpredictable path). I would need someone to show me how effects can be without causes. For that one I need that proof, if true.
So of our two unproven’s - the universe has always been, and the universe has a beginning, I can use science and logic to see why the second one works, but need to take on a blind faith for the first at this point in time.
I’m just too weak of a person for a blind faith.
Now, have a great weekend!
Take care,
Mike
No doubt you’ve heard scientists talking about cause and effect quite differently. You and I and Isaac Newton think of the white ball travelling across the table, striking the red ball, and both moving off in different directions; the white ball as agent, the red ball as object. But it can be argued that the inertia of the red ball is as much responsible for the end result as the momentum of the white ball. There is no agent, no object, There is just State 1, with the balls in positions W1 and R1, State 2, with them in positions W2 and R2. How do we call one cause and one effect? Because State 1 is earlier than State 2. Thus, say these scientists, cause and effect is simply a temporal matter. The earlier state is cause.
Unfortunately that gives a problem for both of us. The Big Bang (they claim) was when time started. There can be no “earlier” or “before”. Therefore there cannot be an earlier state which is “cause”. Equally, if there is no “before”, I cannot say the universe existed “before”, and the idea of “eternal” stops making sense.
My mind refuses to accept any of that stuff; but then there was a time people’s minds couldn’t accept that Beethoven’s symphonies were real music. Puzzling, innit?
I have a few things more I’d like to say about Wright and Lewis (they sound like early explorers of America, don’t they) and Riccardo. I shall do so when I can formulate them and get the chance to inscribe them.
Have a good weekend
Picky
F
ffg
Guest
That is so great. What an interesting observation.
I don’t think I mentioned earlier, but I can confirm I did hear of the pool ball analysis, and Fr. Schmitz actually uses it in that talk. I probably skipped that detail in the summary.
It is enlightening to learn that the cause-effect relationship is not a given, this revelation helps with understanding your thought process a lot ( and I will note this as another point to understand with folks early on in future conversations, thank you).
When I think of the Big Bang, I think of a ‘thing’ that needed to be banged, thus the cause was the ‘banging’ (though I don’t think there was a hammer or gavel involved, and would only make guesses for fun as to how God actually created).
The effect then was the expansion of matter.
Of course that’s combining cause with effect, I can see how that doesn’t work for you now.
You aren’t alone in the brain bottleneck to accepting arena. If I accepted better what I profess, I would be at mass daily.
Even Catholics in general, if one was to believe polls. I think it’s somewhere north of 50% of Catholics don’t know that the Eucharist is Jesus. So you have folks who profess one thing in Mass and in the same Mass 20 minutes later don’t know what it is they profess.
Maybe the pollsters call folks on a Sunday morning and catch the ones that skip Mass.
Take care,
Mike
I don’t think I mentioned earlier, but I can confirm I did hear of the pool ball analysis, and Fr. Schmitz actually uses it in that talk. I probably skipped that detail in the summary.
It is enlightening to learn that the cause-effect relationship is not a given, this revelation helps with understanding your thought process a lot ( and I will note this as another point to understand with folks early on in future conversations, thank you).
When I think of the Big Bang, I think of a ‘thing’ that needed to be banged, thus the cause was the ‘banging’ (though I don’t think there was a hammer or gavel involved, and would only make guesses for fun as to how God actually created).
The effect then was the expansion of matter.
Of course that’s combining cause with effect, I can see how that doesn’t work for you now.
You aren’t alone in the brain bottleneck to accepting arena. If I accepted better what I profess, I would be at mass daily.
Even Catholics in general, if one was to believe polls. I think it’s somewhere north of 50% of Catholics don’t know that the Eucharist is Jesus. So you have folks who profess one thing in Mass and in the same Mass 20 minutes later don’t know what it is they profess.
Maybe the pollsters call folks on a Sunday morning and catch the ones that skip Mass.
Take care,
Mike
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I like the idea of the gavel. It could smack down after each creative command in Genesis 1.That is so great. What an interesting observation.
I don’t think I mentioned earlier, but I can confirm I did hear of the pool ball analysis, and Fr. Schmitz actually uses it in that talk. I probably skipped that detail in the summary.
It is enlightening to learn that the cause-effect relationship is not a given, this revelation helps with understanding your thought process a lot ( and I will note this as another point to understand with folks early on in future conversations, thank you).
When I think of the Big Bang, I think of a ‘thing’ that needed to be banged, thus the cause was the ‘banging’ (though I don’t think there was a hammer or gavel involved, and would only make guesses for fun as to how God actually created).
The effect then was the expansion of matter.
Of course that’s combining cause with effect, I can see how that doesn’t work for you now.
You aren’t alone in the brain bottleneck to accepting arena. If I accepted better what I profess, I would be at mass daily.
Even Catholics in general, if one was to believe polls. I think it’s somewhere north of 50% of Catholics don’t know that the Eucharist is Jesus. So you have folks who profess one thing in Mass and in the same Mass 20 minutes later don’t know what it is they profess.
Maybe the pollsters call folks on a Sunday morning and catch the ones that skip Mass.
Take care,
Mike
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Hi Mike.
You asked for a lead on Wright and Lewis. Here’s the man himself:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-02-028-f
It’s clear, I think, that Wright admires Lewis, and is keen not to be ungenerous, but that he finds Lewis’s exegesis in the trilemma argument dangerously naive, born of Lewis’s lack of knowledge of first century Jewish culture.
I would tend to favour this sort of thing, of course:
corthodoxy.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/whats-wrong-with-c-s-lewis-trilemma-liar-lunatic-or-lord/
My knowledge of first century Jewish culture approximates to zero, but I suspect that when Peter said [if he did] “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, he was using two expressions which did not imply divinity in his place and age. When the early Church agonised over the nature of Jesus it conferred divinity on the title “Christ”, and extended the scope of “son of god” so far as to evoke a real, quasi-genetic filial relationship. There is an unconscious circularity behind Fr Riccardo’s argument: Christ is divine, therefore the titles applied to him are divine, and the application to him of divine titles is evidence of his divinity.
You’ll have noticed that I am rubbish at supplying sources. The fact is, as you will have guessed, I am not a student of religion (or physics!), and have only a general interest in the subject. The things I say, therefore, are merely what I have gleaned from sixty-odd years of general reading (and therefore, of course, should be taken with an appropriate quantity of salt). I do have great respect and affection for the Church of England, and I appear on this forum normally simply to rebut ill-informed comments about that church, You’ll just have to put up with my slovenly unscholarly behaviour, I’m afraid.
You asked for a lead on Wright and Lewis. Here’s the man himself:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-02-028-f
It’s clear, I think, that Wright admires Lewis, and is keen not to be ungenerous, but that he finds Lewis’s exegesis in the trilemma argument dangerously naive, born of Lewis’s lack of knowledge of first century Jewish culture.
I would tend to favour this sort of thing, of course:
corthodoxy.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/whats-wrong-with-c-s-lewis-trilemma-liar-lunatic-or-lord/
My knowledge of first century Jewish culture approximates to zero, but I suspect that when Peter said [if he did] “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, he was using two expressions which did not imply divinity in his place and age. When the early Church agonised over the nature of Jesus it conferred divinity on the title “Christ”, and extended the scope of “son of god” so far as to evoke a real, quasi-genetic filial relationship. There is an unconscious circularity behind Fr Riccardo’s argument: Christ is divine, therefore the titles applied to him are divine, and the application to him of divine titles is evidence of his divinity.
You’ll have noticed that I am rubbish at supplying sources. The fact is, as you will have guessed, I am not a student of religion (or physics!), and have only a general interest in the subject. The things I say, therefore, are merely what I have gleaned from sixty-odd years of general reading (and therefore, of course, should be taken with an appropriate quantity of salt). I do have great respect and affection for the Church of England, and I appear on this forum normally simply to rebut ill-informed comments about that church, You’ll just have to put up with my slovenly unscholarly behaviour, I’m afraid.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.