The so-called "interaction problem" of spiritual/physical

[Gorgias]

That is getting ridiculous. How can you “substantiate” that the bread turns into flesh, when it does not.

Whoops! I forgot to categorize this particular cop-out: the “it’s simply not true”.

And yeah… I can offer a philosophical explanation. Not that it would convince you, of course. And so… not “blind faith.” Although, it seems, to you any expression of faith is “blind faith”.

My stance is that I do NOT BELIEVE that God exists.

Which is equivalent to “I believe that God does not exist.” As much as you try, you cannot escape that these are equivalent. (You just don’t want to admit it, since it would put us both in the class of “believers”. )

I have never met anyone as irrational and as self-conceited as you are.

Again, “pot, meet kettle”.

Good bye.

Yup. Couldn’t convince us, so you’re gone. (I’m guessing you don’t want to admit that places you in the class of “believers who attempt to proselytize.” But that’s ok: as the saying goes, “if it quacks like a duck…”)

 

[Viki63]

Faith is a gift. No amount of evidence will convince an unbeliever who has made up his mind in advance that the supernatural is non-existent.
Perhaps God is waiting for Abrosz to reconsider his attitude?
Our best bet is to pray for him.

 

[Abrosz]

Faith is a gift.

I USED to have it, but when I realized that it is in conflict with the objective, observable reality, my eyes opened (just like a 2 weak of puppy). And when you talk about “faith”, you should add the word “blind” in front of it.

If you have sufficient evidence, then you have Knowledge. Faith is to believe something for what there is insufficient evidence. Blind faith is to believe something fro what there is NO evidence at all, of if the evidence refutes the belief.

No amount of evidence will convince an unbeliever who has made up his mind in advance that the supernatural is non-existent.

That is such an insult, and so very incorrect. (I don’t think you meant it as an insult) Get me evidence, and I will change my mind. To be blunt, a well placed smack on the head cannot ignored, no matter what. (Of course I am not talking about a literal baseball bat.)

Perhaps God is waiting for Abrosz to reconsider his attitude?

I wait for God to help me out.

Our best bet is to pray for him.

Excellent. Do that and see if God would change his mind and help me. I will be very happy, if he does.

 

[Viki63]

Thanks for answering my post.
Well, there is a place between evidence and NO evidence. I don’t have evidence that would convince you or a scientific board of inquiry, but it is sufficient to convince me. I heard God (or my angel, or someone) speak to me. I’m convinced that I’m not crazy or hallucinating, so it’s good enough for me.
I see no evidence that the supernatural conflicts with observable reality. Apparently you do.

No amount of evidence will convince an unbeliever

This is from C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles, which you might take a look at if you haven’t already. It’s not meant as an insult, but basically that if you discount the possibility of miracles, or the supernatural, you have decided your case in advance and no evidence will be sufficient.
There have been so many events over time that I don’t see how you can avoid belief. You can deconstruct them one at a time, but the sheer volume is overwhelming. The death by torture of the original disciples who clearly believed in the Resurrection, Eucharistic miracles, the uncorrupt bodies of saints, the apparitions of Mary, the images of Our Lady of Las Lajas and Guadalupe, the healings at Lourdes, the shroud of Turin.
Really? They are all fakes or hallucinations? As Lewis says, it takes as much faith to belief in God’s non-existence as it does in the opposite.

 

[Abrosz]

Thanks for answering my post.
Well, there is a place between evidence and NO evidence. I don’t have evidence that would convince you or a scientific board of inquiry, but it is sufficient to convince me. I heard God (or my angel, or someone) speak to me. I’m convinced that I’m not crazy or hallucinating, so it’s good enough for me.

That is fine. I am glad for you. Nothing like that has ever happened to me.

I see no evidence that the supernatural conflicts with observable reality. Apparently you do.

Yes, I do. And I don’t think it would be advisable to go into details here. Maybe in a different thread. But suffice it to say that the “problem of evil” is an insurmountable problem for me. NOT the only one, just one of many.

This is from C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles, which you might take a look at if you haven’t already. It’s not meant as an insult, but basically that if you discount the possibility of miracles, or the supernatural, you have decided your case in advance and no evidence will be sufficient.

I am aware that it is not meant to be an insult. But it is “mistaken” - to say the least. As Orwell said in 1984, there is a “Room one-oh-one” for everyone. Something so strong that it will penetrate every layer of skepticism. I am not talking about torture, of course.

Let’s say that the road to Damascus is more than just a legend. For everyone there is a “virtual” baseball bat, which can deliver a “virtual” smack on the head to change the mind of even the most stubborn skeptic. To deny this would also deny God’s omnipotence.

 

[Gorgias]

That is such an insult, and so very incorrect. (I don’t think you meant it as an insult) Get me evidence, and I will change my mind.

That’s the problem: you reject, out of hand, every evidence that’s given to you. That’s why the label “free thinker” or “open-minded” is kinda so laughable when ya’ll anoint yourselves with it. At least we’re honest enough to say “we’ve examined the evidence, and for us, it’s sufficient to lead me to a solid decision.”

Let’s say that the road to Damascus is more than just a legend.

And, let’s recognize that it’s recorded as having happened to exactly one person – and God intended him to be an apostle! So… if you’re waiting to get struck and blinded, then I think you should start playing the Powerball; the odds of winning that are better!

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

That is such an insult, and so very incorrect. (I don’t think you meant it as an insult) Get me evidence, and I will change my mind.

That’s the problem: you reject, out of hand, every evidence that’s given to you.

But when you have been asked what type of evidence you would produce for a repeatable spiritual occurence you simply said ‘take a picture’. Is there nothing else…?

 

[Gorgias]

But when you have been asked what type of evidence you would produce for a repeatable spiritual occurence you simply said ‘take a picture’. Is there nothing else…?

I’m making the claim that, regardless whatever physical ‘evidence’ I provide, it will be pooh-poohed (on any of a number of grounds – “irrelevant”, “not convincing”, etc) – merely because it’s physical evidence and not evidence of the spiritual. In other words, the request for “physical evidence” is itself a straw man: it will always be knocked down, because there’s no desire to accept it (although there’s plenty of desire to be seen as ‘open-minded’ and ‘free-thinking’ and retain the illusion of the self as being willing to change one’s mind ).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But when you have been asked what type of evidence you would produce for a repeatable spiritual occurence you simply said ‘take a picture’. Is there nothing else…?

I’m making the claim that, regardless whatever physical ‘evidence’ I provide, it will be pooh-poohed (on any of a number of grounds – “irrelevant”, “not convincing”, etc) – merely because it’s physical evidence and not evidence of the spiritual.

You need to put those goalposts down. They must be feeling quite heavy by now.

Your only argument against evidence being presented was, in the original post itself, this:

"And yet, the failure to provide empirical evidence doesn’t proceed from the non-existence of the phenomenon. Rather, it proceeds from the impossibility of predicting the occurrence. "

So it wasn’t that evidence would be rejected out of hand, it was the impossibility of attaining it because one couldn’t predict it. But when you are given an example of where it could be reasonably predicted, all the evidence you suggest that could be offered is a photo.

Excuse me while I reject that out of hand. Now if you have further suggestions as to how a predictable spiritual event could be verified other than a Kodak moment, please let us know.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s a fool’s errand to convince a gear-head of the existence of the spiritual realm. The ridiculous demand for direct evidence (etymology, Latin, e-video: “obvious to the eye”) for that which is invisible demonstrates their insincerity.

Offering indirect evidence of the sensible effects for with no material cause exists only elicits the “brute fact” or “emerging property” ejaculation followed by the usual knee-jerk retort “god of the gaps - just give science more time”.

 

[Abrosz]

It’s a fool’s errand to convince a gear-head of the existence of the spiritual realm.

A gear-head? That is new. Here is a very short essay of the question.

The first problem with this “spiritual realm” is its definition. A non-physical existence, which is nevertheless physically active. Now there are many entities which are non-physical: ideas, concepts, theories, theorems (they are not the same), stories, tales, and many others. These all exist as non-physical entities, even though they are put into physically recognizable form for the purposes of discussion and description. (Words, of course).

However, NONE of these are physically active. The concept of “water” is not “wet”, and cannot be used for boiling eggs. Concepts are mental constructs, physically inactive. (Though one can act on them, but that is not the same.)

Offering indirect evidence of the sensible effects for with no material cause exists only elicits the “brute fact” or “emerging property” ejaculation followed by the usual knee-jerk retort “god of the gaps - just give science more time”.

The problem is with the offered “non-material” cause. First of all, how can a non-material entity interact with the physical world? The offered: “Let there be light, and there was light” is simply “magic”. And of course that WOULD be a physical demonstration. The words: uttered “let there be light…” would be a physical act - since our 5 senses can only perceive a physical signal.

So an alleged non-physical causative agent (from now on: NPCA) could easily demonstrate its existence and power to us, if it existed and would be inclined to give the demonstration. Moreover, some of these alleged NPCA-s (gods, angels, demons) allegedly can be influenced by some of our physical activities - namely prayers, supplications, invocations, evocations, OUIJA boards… - and other physical means.

Your suggested “brute facts” never even get into the picture.

But none of these physical activities “work”, in the sense of a “vending-machine” - you drop in a coin and some predetermined result will follow. They don’t - most of the time. However when there seem to be a causative relationship - you pray for a better job, and in a few months you are offered a better job. And in these cases (once in a blue moon) the supplicant proudly proclaims that the “prayer worked”. The zillions of unsatisfactory outcomes of other prayers are simply swept under the rug. (The word is intellectual dishonesty!)

So there comes the usual cop-out: “you cannot demand God to do your bidding”. Why not? You do it all the time, when issuing a supplicative prayer (not to be confused by a meditative prayer). Sometimes the alleged positive outcome is used to canonize a brand new “saint” - JPII comes to mind.

So get off your high horse and put the blame squarely where it is. You have no direct physical evidence for the “spiritual” (even though it would be possible), and none of your offered indirect evidences “work” - in the sense of allowing to make a prediction and expect a reliable result.

 

[Abrosz]

Of course you are always welcome to retreat into “faith”. So just admit that you have no evidence, only faith. That would be acceptable.

Unfortunately you don’t want that. You bring up the “testimonials”. But that just pushes the problem a few steps back. Instead of offering a direct or indirect evidence yourself, you offer that “someone, somewhen and somewhere” physically experienced the spiritual realm, and we are supposed to accept his word, either his direct testimony, or some transcript of it, produced by unknown transcriber, edited, translated and modified unknown times. (This would be the bible.)

There cannot be anything less convincing that that. But when we, the skeptics reject it, we become “gear-heads”. We have a hardened “heart”, who are unwilling to listen. And when we complain that there is nothing to listen to, that is also our fault!

Sorry, I suggest that you look into the mirror, and stop hurling bricks when you live an a glass house. The skeptics could easily be convinced if presented either direct or properly designed indirect evidence. But “someone, somewhere, somewhen” allegedly experienced “some physical” (because at the end it is always physical!!!) evidence simply does not cut it.

 

[o_mlly]

Short? About 700 words of pedantic nonsense.

Because I am a gear-head, I can use the phrase in an appreciative way. However, I have other modes of knowing that you do not. I can know all that you can know and more.

Explaining the spiritual realm to one such as yourself is akin to explaining the rainbow to one who is color blind.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Explaining the spiritual realm to one such as yourself is akin to explaining the rainbow to one who is color blind.

That doesn’t mean attempts shouldn’t be made. Even if the person cannot ever fully grasp the reality we should still do our best to try to explain it.

It’s certainly frustrating when they don’t understand, even moreso when they seemingly refuse to listen to what will help them understand, but that’s their issue, not ours. Our job is to speak the Truth, we cannot force others to listen.

 

[o_mlly]

Our job is to speak the Truth, we cannot force others to listen.

Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet (Matthew 10:14).

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, but in this case that would require us to leave the forums, or to abandon the topic. You’re certainly within your rights to do so. I did around a hundred posts back XD.

I’m just talking about in general.

 

[Abrosz]

Short? About 700 words of pedantic nonsense.

Calling it nonsense is easier than to attempt to bring up rational arguments against it. And, of course “short” is subjective. If about 700 words (did you count them?) is too much for your attention span or comprehensive skills, that is YOUR problem.

However, I have other modes of knowing that you do not. I can know all that you can know and more.

Excellent. Now how about letting us know HOW to acquire that knowledge? So we can follow your “method”? Just don’t try the usual cop-out that we, poor skeptics are too dumb to understand your superior intellect.

Explaining the spiritual realm to one such as yourself is akin to explaining the rainbow to one who is color blind.

Just another insult in lieu of a discussion. I would love to have a discussion with someone from your side of the fence, but so far it did not happen.

That doesn’t mean attempts shouldn’t be made.

I am begging to hear the arguments. But all I hear is insults. I would love to follow your footsteps and acquire that “knowledge”. Why not share your method?

Of course “open-ended” promises (keep on trying, continue praying, etc…) don’t work. That is the “method” of snake-oil peddlers, whose only argument is “TRUST ME!!!”.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I am begging to hear the arguments. But all I hear is insults. I would love to follow your footsteps and acquire that “knowledge”. Why not share your method?

If you genuinely believe you are seeking real knowledge then you are blind to your own blindness. You reject anything that does not fit your extremely limited criteria, and you ask for proofs which are, by their very nature, impossible. You are like a man who has driven spikes into his eyes and then demands to drive home, expecting not to crash.

I left the debate for a reason, because I believe you have no real interest in learning or even attempting to learn. You have made up your mind, and with a person like that nothing can be said to open their eyes. There is ample evidence, much of which has been presented over the course of this discussion, but if you’re not willing to see there’s nothing we can do, and I won’t continue to waste my time forcing your eyelids open.

The sad thing is that, rather than being cause for self-reflection or reconsideration, all this post is going to do is reinforce your belief that there are no proofs and that we’re just peddling snake oil.

As stated, I left the debate for a reason, and I’m leaving again. I’ve no interest in wasting any more of my time. As O_mlly said, sometimes all one can do is dust the dirt form their sandals and move on. I pray for you, however worthless you may think it to be. I genuinely hope you are able to see one day before it is too late.

 

[o_mlly]

Last chance. If you fumble it around again, you’ll have to talk to the feet.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Abrosz:

The neural signals, which rise to the mental state we call “sadness” are also physical. And, of course the mental state is comprised of electro-chemical signals in the brain.

Not quite. You have to identify a physical cause that fires those neural signals. A mother who, with no physical sensations, begins to cry demonstrates the existence of a spiritual (immaterial) cause, i.e., thought. Do you agree?

 

[Abrosz]

If you genuinely believe you are seeking real knowledge then you are blind to your own blindness.

Just another insult. How many more will come?

You reject anything that does not fit your extremely limited criteria, and you ask for proofs which are, by their very nature, impossible.

No, they are not. I even gave examples how they are possible.

The sad thing is that, rather than being cause for self-reflection or reconsideration, all this post is going to do is reinforce your belief that there are no proofs and that we’re just peddling snake oil.

You don’t PROVIDE any evidence.