The Greylorn Fallacy

[greylorn]

Physics is based on metaphysical principles such as the intelligibility of the universe.

It gets even more interesting than that. Physics assumes that its laws are invariant throughout space and time, yet cannot possibly prove it. Metaphysics!

It assumes that lightspeed is a constant throughout spacetime, although physics cannot explain why light should have a particular fixed speed. (I do, of course.)

Even sillier, physics treats gravitational mass as identical to inertial mass, nevermind that it cannot explain why these different properties should have the same value.

The line between physics and metaphysics is ragged and often broken.

 

[tonyrey]

Physics is based on metaphysical principles such as the intelligibility of the universe.

Then you agree that science is based on metascientific principles that cannot be observed scientifically!

 

[greylorn]

In Christ and Science (p. 23), Stanley Jaki gives four reasons for modern science’s unique birth in Christian Western Europe:

1. 
   *]“Once more the Christian belief in the Creator allowed a break-through in thinking about nature. Only a truly transcendental Creator could be thought of as being powerful enough to create a **nature with autonomous laws *without his power over nature being thereby diminished. Once the basic among those laws were formulated science could develop on its own terms."
   ]"The Christian idea of creation made still another crucially important contribution to the future of science. It consisted in putting all material beings on the same level *as being mere creatures. Unlike in the pagan Greek cosmos, there could be no divine bodies in the Christian cosmos. All bodies, heavenly and terrestrial, were now on the same footing, on the same level. this made it eventually possible to assume that the motion of the moon and the fall of a body on earth could be governed by the same law of gravitation. The assumption would have been a sacrilege in the eyes of anyone in the Greek pantheistic tradition, or in any similar tradition in any of the ancient cultures."
   ]"Finally, man figured in the Christian dogma of creation as a being specially created in the image of God. This image consisted both in man’s rationality as somehow sharing in God’s own rationality and in man’s condition as an ethical being with eternal responsibility for his actions. Man’s reflection on his own rationality had therefore to give him confidence that his created mind could fathom the rationality **of the created realm.”
   *]“At the same time, the very createdness could caution man to guard against the ever-present temptation to dictate to nature what it ought to be. The eventual rise of the experimental method owes much to that Christian matrix.”
   
   columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

1. 
   Chances are that if you are remotely normal, and ever find yourself en route to an appointment to which you are certain to arrive late, because you screwed up and dawdled instead of moving on when you should, I can predict what your brain did during much of the way.
   
   It invented excuses for being late. Why? Because the human brain is an I’m right machine, and cannot abide being wrong.
   
   That’s exactly what this silly ex post facto argument is all about. The Church spent decades grinding innovative thought beneath its doctrinal millstones, ignoring the principles in Matthew 25:14, Now it wants to rewrite the history books and claim that it was essential to the development of scientific thought.
   
   I’d be impressed if the Church and its minions had the integrity to stand up and confess the mistakes, then rectify them by actively and imaginatively combating the dominant atheistic forces within science. That would take guts.
   
   It could be accomplished easily. I will initiate a thread on exactly what tactics might be employed, if anyone is interested. Actually I won’t— the tactic and its potential outcomes would make a decent story. But what the heck— you readers have minds. How about you coming up with a new, never before tried, strategy for combating atheism?

 

[greylorn]

I realise I’m coming late to the party, MoM, but I’ve lately been thinking a bit about this notion of a distinction between physical and nonphysical reality, so I wanted to raise a couple of things that may or may not have been considered before.

Firstly, how does one draw a distinction, except in pure imagination, between physical and nonphysical things that actually exist? How would one even determine the existence of any nonphysical entity?

The latter, particularly, since it would appear that you are bound here by your given definition of physical things - that which can be accounted for spatially, dimensionally and temporally. What other limits do we have by which we might know an entity to be a real entity?

Some might say that human thought and speculation and imagination and so forth are nonphysical because they have not such limits; yet the same people acknowledge that it is impossible for one person to know the content of another’s mind - it would therefore seem that a mind, as an entity, is spatially and temporally limited, unable to travel from one location to another except through explicitly physical means - speech, for example, or writing.

It’s one thing to consider having knowledge of all things, but quite another to consider that all things *of which it is possible for us to have knowledge *are of one kind.

You posed your questions to someone incapable of answering them competently.

Defining physical is easy. Anything which interacts with something that is physical, is itself physical.

Lots of pinheads confuse the terms physical with material and express their confusion in their words, often using “non-physical” when they mean “immaterial.” Matter is simply a single form of what is physical.

Examples: Matter emits infrared radiation which cannot be seen and is yet physical. Hot matter (a light bulb filament) emits light which can be seen but is clearly non-material. Electric charge passing through coils of wire creates fields which cannot be seen with eyes of any sort, yet can affect distant matter.

Physicists do not get confused over this, not a bit, but it is a source of mental trouble for the occasional thoughtful religionist. Such a person might want to believe in a soul which interacts with the human brain-body system, yet declare that the soul is non-physical. That is impossible, given that the brain-body system is physical.

Similarly, religionists seek to maintain the ancient definition of a spirit-God as a non-physical being, while simultaneously declaring that this same God created the physical universe.

This is more than mere semantics. It represents semantic confusion, the inability to recognize clear conceptual distinctions and apply them correctly, thus generating the kind of mental wax-on/wax-off garble written off as “religious mystery.”

The distinction between non-physical and physical things is simple to make.

• Non-physical things cannot be detected by physical things.
• Non-physical things cannot affect physical things (this would require the physical thing to “detect” them).
• Non-physical things have no relationship whatsoever to physical things.
• The existence of non-physical things cannot be verified or even indirectly detected, and have no possible relationship to the physical universe.
• Everyone is free to invent whatever they want about the “non-physical,” except a hypothetical interaction with any form of the physical.

Incidentally, telepathy is a well-demonstrated phenomenon. I’ve used it deliberately and have experienced it inadvertently. All humans are telepathic, as are certain classes of critters. (Cesar, the Dog Whisperer, does not whisper— he telepaths. Watch him working.) Dean Radin’s books will be helpful.

The definition of “physical” has implications for religions and requires an adjustment of traditional dogma, which was developed before physics became a serious science. God and soul are physical— Immaterial— but physical.

 

[greylorn]

tonyrey:
Then you agree that science is based on metascientific principles that cannot be observed scientifically!

Does anyone in Green Bay, Wisconsin, know what a football is? What— did you mistake me for a science dogmatist?

 

[greylorn]

You claim that you are challenging dogma, but your thoughts about method, in so far as epistemology is concerned, are merely regurgitations of the same old tired dogmatic “scientism” that empowers atheist propaganda. Perhaps you know some math and theory, but your refusal to express scientific concepts within their proper context is proof that you know very little about the scientific method as a mode of investigation.

I would hope that by now you would know better than to make such a dumb statement about my methods, but I recognize that while you show signs of intelligence, you write from an unwholesome mixture of doctrine and ignorance about your subject— in this case, me.

Don’t know about you, but I’ve done real science. Published a few minor papers, and worked in support of high tech physics, astronomy, neurology, and biochemistry. I worked, and after hours, drank, shared dinners, had adventures, partied and shared bad jokes, dreadful puns, and egregious lies with real scientists. I work the way science really works, having learned about it from real scientists doing real science and getting all p.o’d when theory and experiment come up against one another.

Real science works differently from the b.s. described in books. You’d have to have actually gotten your hands dirty and your mind engaged to know that. You’ll never have such experiences, obviously. Perhaps you could learn from someone who has.

As for your website, why don’t you give me a link?

How many reasons do you want?

 

[tonyrey]

Chances are that if you are remotely normal, and ever find yourself en route to an appointment to which you are certain to arrive late, because you screwed up and dawdled instead of moving on when you should, I can predict what your brain did during much of the way.

It invented excuses for being late. Why? Because the human brain is an I’m right machine, and cannot abide being wrong.

Et tu greylorn!

That’s exactly what this silly ex post facto argument is all about. The Church spent decades grinding innovative thought beneath its doctrinal millstones, ignoring the principles in Matthew 25:14, Now it wants to rewrite the history books and claim that it was essential to the development of scientific thought.

You haven’t refuted Jaki’s points…

I’d be impressed if the Church and its minions had the integrity to stand up and confess the mistakes, then rectify them by actively and imaginatively combating the dominant atheistic forces within science. That would take guts.

In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church’s history, including the trial of Galileo among others.

It could be accomplished easily. I will initiate a thread on exactly what tactics might be employed, if anyone is interested. Actually I won’t— the tactic and its potential outcomes would make a decent story. But what the heck— you readers have minds. How about you coming up with a new, never before tried, strategy for combating atheism?

We are working on it…

 

[greylorn]

Et tu greylorn!

Of course. How else would I have known what your brain was doing if not for observations of my own?

You haven’t refuted Jaki’s points…

And I won’t. He’s preaching to the choir, and I can’t sing.

None of my brilliant arguments have ever impressed you, one of the more open-minded Catholics here, so what would be the point of arguing against ideas with which less open individuals are already happy?

In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church’s history, including the trial of Galileo among others.

And so what? The individuals whose lives the Church ruined are long since dead. The scattered, ripped apart limbs of Inquisition victims have long since rotted, and their families have done their suffering. Apologizing to corpses is a waste of time.

Here, today, there is a Catholic in Iran about to be executed for his beliefs. The Pope is nowhere near that man’s backside. One must wonder where Christ would be standing, and if he would be speaking out, or leading a movement for religious rights in the heartland of Islam. I see no courage coming from within the Vatican.

As for our topic du jour, I’ll be impressed if, and only if, the Church adopts Galileo’s principles and begins to incorporate science into its doctrines.

We are working on it…

No. I’m working on it. You’re not doing squat, except getting in the way.

 

[Abba]

I worked, and after hours, drank, shared dinners, had adventures, partied and shared bad jokes, dreadful puns, and egregious lies with real scientists. I work the way science really works, having learned about it from real scientists doing real science and getting all p.o’d when theory and experiment come up against one another.

Real science works differently from the b.s. described in books. You’d have to have actually gotten your hands dirty and your mind engaged to know that. You’ll never have such experiences, obviously. Perhaps you could learn from someone who has.

Oh, come on, greylorn, stop your cockiness. I personally know some of the best scientists in the world, have stayed at the top research institutes, CEA, CENG, CNRS, MaxPlanck, etc… had two children by one that was just nominated top European scientist (he shares the title with two others) an it just doesn’t rub off. I wined, dined, dance and laughed and have gone mountain climbing, group walks in the country side (the Europeans love this) with the top scientists of the world. I prepared banquets at my home for them etc… and here I am trying to see how I can cut in this conversation. So your claim does not hold any waters against MindOverMatter.

Enough ruffling of feathers.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...TEEFOQZGiwEYK8JDPpSAPB6Yifixx7e_LySi6dYkU7MnQ

 

[greylorn]

Oh, come on, greylorn, stop your cockiness. I personally know some of the best scientists in the world, have stayed at the top research institutes, CEA, CENG, CNRS, MaxPlanck, etc… had two children by one that was just nominated top European scientist (he shares the title with two others) an it just doesn’t rub off. I wined, dined, dance and laughed and have gone mountain climbing, group walks in the country side (the Europeans love this) with the top scientists of the world. I prepared banquets at my home for them etc… and here I am trying to see how I can cut in this conversation. So your claim does not hold any waters against MindOverMatter.

Enough ruffling of feathers.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...TEEFOQZGiwEYK8JDPpSAPB6Yifixx7e_LySi6dYkU7MnQ

Abba,
Typical of a woman to admonish, “enough ruffling of feathers,” just before putting on a fine visual display of guess what? When women get full of themselves they get genuinely bloated, and as your photo of an obviously male bird trying to get lucky suggests, women often become dreadfully confused in all matters involving logic and critical thinking.

Since you’ve chosen to pull the “female” card, you should know that I’m a card-carrying MCP (Male Chauvinist Pig) who honors women by listening, opening doors, buying them dinners and their first large-bore firearm and taking them out in the woods to learn how to use it, on me if that’s what they get a mind to do, and arguing with them as if they were men. The last is the highest honor.

You’ve done your job, raising offspring and hosting parties and keeping your scientist-guys happy. All well and good. And BTW, thank you for taking good care of a scientist. Way to go! But you don’t question his beliefs, and may not even understand them (I don’t know your background, but none of your prior posts impressed me as being particularly insightful or challenging. Perhaps you are simply hiding out. I had a wife who did that, and it was because she didn’t understand the physics in which she held her degree. Wonderful cook and fine mother, though, and still a friend.)

My relationship with scientists has been entirely different from yours, and it is from that different perspective which I speak. I’m not a scientist, but was a pretty decent programmer/engineer in support of several highly successful projects. In a sense my job was the same as yours— I made the scientists for whom I worked look very good, as they were.

However, throughout this quasi-scientific career I engaged my bosses and mentors with questions about the origin of the universe and of human consciousness, the same questions I address here and in my book. I became something of a pest. When the big projects were completed and the professors were resting on the laurels I’d helped to lay, they made it clear that it was time for me to move on. I did, and never stopped picking good minds and inviting them to seriously question their beliefs.

Perhaps you’ve had similar experiences, except in your case you might have been inviting them to embrace Catholicism. You wanted to cut in on the conversation? Consider yourself in, and let’s hope you can dance.

I would love to know your assessment of my ideas about God, the origin of the universe, physics, and human consciousness. If you find them wrong, let’s read why— and what alternative moves you’re bringing to the dance.

I would love to engage someone with your background (IOW: You) in an exchange of ideas— feather ruffling and doctrinal whining, not so much. Bring your guy, if he dares to show. Why not research some of my posts and threads before doing so? (Before accepting a dance (ladies do not cut in, and the only guy who tried to cut in on me went home early), don’t you watch how the guys move, see if they can lead, and if so, assess your own ability to follow their moves? I’ll wager that you are rather adept at that kind of thing.)

You’ve chosen to side-up against my ideas, obviously, and probably without the slightest understanding of them. Nothing new there. What’s your explanation for the universe, and especially for your own conscious mind? And hey, if figuring that out gets in the way of planning the next dinner party, don’t worry about it. Been there too.

 

[StrawberryJam]

1. This thread appears to be uncharitable at best.
2. Science is not dependent on Meta anything, or any theistic viewpoint.

Next.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

flop

 

[MindOverMatter2]

1. This thread appears to be uncharitable at best.

Assertion number one.

1. Science is not dependent on Meta anything, or any theistic viewpoint.

Assertion number two, with the addition of a contextual straw-man and possibly a red herring.

Next.

Followed by insulting dismissal.

What have we learned? We have learned that Strawberry Jam doesn’t really understand the concepts being expressed in the OP, and rather than admitting that one has a limited capacity, strawberry jam has instead chosen to dismiss my argument with blank assertions; and this is without truly demonstrating that he or she understood the argument in the first place. This is partly revealed by the fact that strawberry jam hasn’t even bothered to quote the OP in-order to show the relevance of his or her criticism. At best Strawberry Jam is being misleading.

 

[greylorn]

1. This thread appears to be uncharitable at best.

Given that its OP dedicated it to criticizing a single CAF member for his unconventional opinions, I think that the thread in general has been surprisingly restrained.

Personally, I find upfront and honest complaints, and an attack which is clearly presented as such, to be refreshingly honest. Attacking while pretending to be charitable, and attacks signed with a hypocritical “God Bless,” are examples of the kinds of smarmy, back-door evil for which J.C. often singled out the Pharisees.

Thank you for caring, nonetheless. Expect some kickback.

1. Science is not dependent on Meta anything, or any theistic viewpoint.

I hate to argue with a potential friend, but my ideas are absolutely contradictory to such a viewpoint. Science and theology have been too long separated. I see my job, in part, as their integration.

I do not mean anything like apologetics or reconciliation of ideas. IMO the notion that a competent theology can co-exist with atheistic sciences is like Jews figuring on co-existing with the Nazis, or Muslims.

I have integrated theology with physics… The result is a different theology as well as a different physics, for there had been errors in each.

Next.

You mean, “Next gunner,” yes? Thanks for showing up.

 

[tonyrey]

             *

Et tu greylorn!

My remark referred to your statement:

Because the human brain is an I’m right machine, and cannot abide being wrong.

I believe you are human but on the Internet how can we tell?

You haven’t refuted Jaki’s points…

And I won’t. He’s preaching to the choir, and I can’t sing.

Then you’d better learn fast! That’s a sign of perdition… Music is the food of love…

None of my brilliant arguments have ever impressed you, one of the more open-minded Catholics here, so what would be the point of arguing against ideas with which less open individuals are already happy?

How do you know I’ve rejected all of them?

In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church’s history, including the trial of Galileo among others.

And so what? The individuals whose lives the Church ruined are long since dead. The scattered, ripped apart limbs of Inquisition victims have long since rotted, and their families have done their suffering. Apologizing to corpses is a waste of time.

Are you responsible for what your forebears have done?

Here, today, there is a Catholic in Iran about to be executed for his beliefs. The Pope is nowhere near that man’s backside. One must wonder where Christ would be standing, and if he would be speaking out, or leading a movement for religious rights in the heartland of Islam. I see no courage coming from within the Vatican.

Christ was realistic. He believed in action rather than expostulation.

As for our topic du jour, I’ll be impressed if, and only if, the Church adopts Galileo’s principles and begins to incorporate science into its doctrines.

Kant believed in physico-theology but probably not in the same way as you…

We are working on it…

No. I’m working on it. You’re not doing squat, except getting in the way.

On the contrary. I’m giving you ammunition…

 

[Abba]

Dear Greylorn,

I, as well as MindOverMatter2 and as he has already expressed, appreciate your objective very much. You want to prove the existence of God via a respectable use of the scientific method. That is a noble task to take on.

GEddie commented on a thread sometime ago, something to the point that ‘Life is too short to play games.’ So, true. Most of the people that participate on this website do so to grow spiritually and learn about the teachings of Holy Mother Church and also to help others and share what we may know and even to pray for others and ask others to pray for us. We are here to learn and to grow and to receive and to give. I am certainly not participating on this website to show how much I know or to create some persona online. I will be the first to tell you that I am very ignorant, ignorant about those things that I value which, of course, have to do with God. I am not only ignorant but, I can also be stupid at times. Yes, stupid. I have learned that I could be stupid. I never thought of myself as being able to be stupid, but, even that I have learned. You see, when we are being stupid, most of us are not aware of our stupidity. We are so involved and trapped by our own perspective or position in a matter that we are not aware of the stupidity of our position. This happened to me, Greylorn, some years back and it took what I would call a revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ for me to recognize my stupidity. It happened that I was out of the country and all packed up and ready to return to the USA and a jealous neighbor, an engineer mind you, killed my dog which I was planning to take home with me. I was devastated, so much so, that I equalized a dog with a man. A year later, I recognized my mistake and that is when I realized that I could be really stupid and not even be aware of it. So, I am not a pretentious person online or off line. Again, I participate on this website to learn and to share what little I may be able to. That’s all and nothing more.

I think other people are participating on this website for the same reason. They want to help people find God. MindOverMatter2 and tonyrey are not attacking you personally they have the best intentions. They are trying to point out errors correct or not to clear the way for you to find God.

We need to establish the grounds and the foundations. You seem to change, be vague and also not be clear about your position and that is difficult. Furthermore, you need to put the emotions aside and focus with the objective hopefully to settle some points and carry on the journey.

---

I would like to start by settling some points. From what I gather, you believe in the existence of God? Correct? Is this God the creator? Is this God the God of the Bible? You say that you are the enemy of my enemy? Can you state clearly who is the you (Catholic Faithfuls) and who is the enemy (non-believers)?

Greylorn, you understand that science can never claim to know anything with certainty, correct? Science does not deal with absolute truth and so, even if you were to come up with a physical-spiritual proof for the existence of God, that part of the ‘science’ of your theory which you value highly would not absolute. It would be like putting a paper ship on quick sand and waiting and watching until it will be finally taken in or at least expect that it may be taken in. A scientific proof is good because it ‘works’ and we use it until proven differently by another proof. Science has it’s use and it is good and allows us to explore the universe and come to know our Creator but it is not this superior method, it simply provide a type of method and it works and it is useful. But, there are other methods that are better to come to know God. We cannot trap God in a man created method, God has his own ways and his ways are not our ways.

I know what you are trying to do, but, I see a lot of limitations. It is not to offend you but I do want to let you know that I agree with MindOverMatter2 in that you are philosophizing, especifically when you yourself use the word ’ speculation’. When you start to speculate you leave science and start philosophizing. Science start with philosophy and ends with philosophy. There comes an advance point in all science and in mathematics where in order to make progress in the field the scientists and mathematicians must start to philosophize and so, the ‘lovers of wisdom’ let the scientist do their thing and meet them at the other end of the spectrum. So, you are philosophizing but it seems as though you do not want to admit it because you want to be ‘scientific’ because for some reason you really value the methods and the knowledge obtained by using the scientific method.

Well, I said enough with one post. Oh, and no, I am not a scientist. But, I enjoy discussions with scientist when they come to the end of their studies and begin to philosophize.

May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you,… now there you have it - Truth - Absolute Truth - Jesus Christ, what could millions of people, historically, cross-culturally be talking about Jesus being Truth? How and why is it that excellent scientists have believed that Jesus is Truth? How can brilliant minds who know their science, still believe that Jesus Christ is Truth? Maybe there is something there Greylorn.

Peace,

Abba

 

[greylorn]

Dear Greylorn,

I, as well as MindOverMatter2 and as he has already expressed, appreciate your objective very much. You want to prove the existence of God via a respectable use of the scientific method. That is a noble task to take on.

GEddie commented on a thread sometime ago, something to the point that ‘Life is too short to play games.’ So, true. Most of the people that participate on this website do so to grow spiritually and learn about the teachings of Holy Mother Church and also to help others and share what we may know and even to pray for others and ask others to pray for us. We are here to learn and to grow and to receive and to give. I am certainly not participating on this website to show how much I know or to create some persona online. I will be the first to tell you that I am very ignorant, ignorant about those things that I value which, of course, have to do with God. I am not only ignorant but, I can also be stupid at times. Yes, stupid. I have learned that I could be stupid. I never thought of myself as being able to be stupid, but, even that I have learned. You see, when we are being stupid, most of us are not aware of our stupidity. We are so involved and trapped by our own perspective or position in a matter that we are not aware of the stupidity of our position. This happened to me, Greylorn, some years back and it took what I would call a revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ for me to recognize my stupidity. It happened that I was out of the country and all packed up and ready to return to the USA and a jealous neighbor, an engineer mind you, killed my dog which I was planning to take home with me. I was devastated, so much so, that I equalized a dog with a man. A year later, I recognized my mistake and that is when I realized that I could be really stupid and not even be aware of it. So, I am not a pretentious person online or off line. Again, I participate on this website to learn and to share what little I may be able to. That’s all and nothing more.

I think other people are participating on this website for the same reason. They want to help people find God. MindOverMatter2 and tonyrey are not attacking you personally they have the best intentions. They are trying to point out errors correct or not to clear the way for you to find God.

We need to establish the grounds and the foundations. You seem to change, be vague and also not be clear about your position and that is difficult. Furthermore, you need to put the emotions aside and focus with the objective hopefully to settle some points and carry on the journey.

---

I would like to start by settling some points. From what I gather, you believe in the existence of God? Correct? Is this God the creator? Is this God the God of the Bible? You say that you are the enemy of my enemy? Can you state clearly who is the you (Catholic Faithfuls) and who is the enemy (non-believers)?

Greylorn, you understand that science can never claim to know anything with certainty, correct? Science does not deal with absolute truth and so, even if you were to come up with a physical-spiritual proof for the existence of God, that part of the ‘science’ of your theory which you value highly would not absolute. It would be like putting a paper ship on quick sand and waiting and watching until it will be finally taken in or at least expect that it may be taken in. A scientific proof is good because it ‘works’ and we use it until proven differently by another proof. Science has it’s use and it is good and allows us to explore the universe and come to know our Creator but it is not this superior method, it simply provide a type of method and it works and it is useful. But, there are other methods that are better to come to know God. We cannot trap God in a man created method, God has his own ways and his ways are not our ways.

I know what you are trying to do, but, I see a lot of limitations. It is not to offend you but I do want to let you know that I agree with MindOverMatter2 in that you are philosophizing, especifically when you yourself use the word ’ speculation’. When you start to speculate you leave science and start philosophizing. Science start with philosophy and ends with philosophy. There comes an advance point in all science and in mathematics where in order to make progress in the field the scientists and mathematicians must start to philosophize and so, the ‘lovers of wisdom’ let the scientist do their thing and meet them at the other end of the spectrum. So, you are philosophizing but it seems as though you do not want to admit it because you want to be ‘scientific’ because for some reason you really value the methods and the knowledge obtained by using the scientific method.

Well, I said enough with one post. Oh, and no, I am not a scientist. But, I enjoy discussions with scientist when they come to the end of their studies and begin to philosophize.

May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you,… now there you have it - Truth - Absolute Truth - Jesus Christ, what could millions of people, historically, cross-culturally be talking about Jesus being Truth? How and why is it that excellent scientists have believed that Jesus is Truth? How can brilliant minds who know their science, still believe that Jesus Christ is Truth? Maybe there is something there Greylorn.

Peace,

Abba

Dear Abba,

(I’m almost tempted to begin with, Dear Abby.)

Thank you for your thoughts, which are clearly a well considered outpouring of heart and mind which I must honor independently of any agreement or disagreement with them. I shall be some time replying to this unexpected and unusual letter. It seems to require a gathering of feelings as well as thoughts.

 

[Abba]

I think that if Saint Anthony of Padua would be participating on this thread he would say to you, Greylorn, consider the lilies of the valley…

http://foodforlifeinc.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/scan0036.10892554_std.jpg

“So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not 3arrayed like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Let God be God. I think it is a good idea to be clear of who he is and know him and then set out to ‘prove’ or help others to come to know that he exists. It is quite a task to ‘think’ not to know him and set out to prove his existence within the search itself.

Maybe, we do not need to spin out so many thoughts to find him…

 

[StrawberryJam]

How is the Philosophy forum going now? We can just post big pics and say really nothing and get away with it because it follows forum rules of having a catholic emphasis?

What is the point of this sub forum?

 

[greylorn]

I think that if Saint Anthony of Padua would be participating on this thread he would say to you, Greylorn, consider the lilies of the valley…

Reply 1 of 2

I live in a valley, where there are some lilies. Except for one, an old soul born here some years back and long since gone, The plants are toxic, but pretty!

I’d say to “St. Anthony,” Come here in my valley to live, and stay here through the wretched summers and grinding winters, you fatuous pinhead. You can stand out in the woods and be mosquito bait, and fly bait, and sing praises to God for creating those nasty little monsters, while I cut firewood and do some repairs, Maybe you’ll feed them well enough so that they’ll leave me alone. Or at least they’ll stop you from blabbering on about the beauty of God-created nature. When I need to go deeply into the woods you can go even deeper, where the mountain lion will find you first. You can help stack the wood if you can take a break from your nonsense and do some real work. You can fix the pump when it burns out in the next drought. Otherwise, bend over and I’ll give you some of the lilies to nourish.

You seem to operate under the assumption that I am an atheist, or a confused agnostic. Big error. I may not like God, but I certainly believe in a God— not yours, but one that makes logical sense.

You see, I’ve considered the lilies and the daisies, which are all nice and lovely. I’ve also considered disease, and evil. I’ve listened to rabbits screaming in the night as God’s coyotes killed them. Do you know how coyotes kill Bambi? They turn Bambi upside down and rip her guts out with their claws, beginning lunch before the bunny is dead.

How would a photo of that God-engineered slaughter play in the background of your image of gentle Jesus among the flowers? I’ll guess, poorly. The perfect, gentle Jesus image was designed to appeal to those who expect a happy ending to a simplistic, mindless life.

And the truth is that if one believes in the Bible, Jesus did not care much for the natural universe. He destroyed a perfectly good fig tree which had done no harm. He sent “evil spirits” from the brains of men into a herd of pigs, which then ran off a cliff. Why? What had the pigs done wrong? And did Jesus bother to reimburse the pigs’ owner for their untimely and unwarranted loss?

I figure, if one is going to take a look at God, why not use the mind He supposedly gave us to make that an honest look? And examine your own divided mind in the process-- do you catch your mice with harmless traps and let them loose outdoors to return later, or do you snap their little necks quickly in a wire trap, or feed them poisons so that they die slowly and painfully? Or do you keep cats, and enjoy watching them toy with half-dead mice?

“So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not 3arrayed like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

I don’t worry about clothing because I have a job, and use the income to buy clothing. I get it used, from second hand clothing stores. I don’t worry about appearance, because I am ugly, and dressing me up nice makes me look like Quasimodo in an ill-fitting rental tux. Examining the labels I find that God does not make my cheap shirts and jeans— the Peoples’ Republic of China does.

Did you pay any attention to the “throw into the oven” clause in your delightful quote? Take an honest look at Christian belief and you’ll eventually figure out that “the oven” is where He figures on throwing most of us. Might as well go in naked. I’ve heard that polyester and nylon only increase the pain.

I suppose that you’d want to save me, but that would be a mistake. I’ve never been invited to a faculty dinner party twice and you’d not appreciate my presence at one of yours in “heaven.”