Who created God?

[KindredSoul]

(If there are no breaks in the causal chain, then it would mean the brain’s workings are uninfluenced by the soul, so what would be its point?)

The point is that I have no reason, whatsoever, to think that material can be aware. Is fire aware? No. Is my computer aware? No. Am I murdering an entity when I put out the flame? No. The materialist may say: “But humans are aware, so that proves material is aware, because humans are material.” This would beg the question, again: The argument suggests that we know that material explains awareness because we know human awareness is material, and we know human awareness is material because material explains awareness. It is circular. The materialist may say: “But when you kill the human or when his brain isn’t working, you do not see any signs of awareness.” If we realize that memories too are material signals in the brain, this argument suggests that we know that human awareness is material because we cannot see human awareness when the material is destroyed/nonfunctioning, and that the reason we cannot see human awareness when the material is destroyed/nonfunctioning is because human awareness is material. Yet again, it is circular. There simply is no compelling reason to believe that awareness is explained by the strictly material. Unless I jump to that conclusion, then humans, if soulless, would be a very complex type of material, true, but to believe that this material is aware just because it is complex and acts like it is aware is like believing a magician is producing real magic because he looks like he is.

Thus without some nonmaterial identity, it is reasonable to conclude that one would only appear to be aware to an observer. All the chemical reactions would be there. All the behaviors would be there. But there would be nothing experiencing it from the inside, anymore than my computer is aware of its computing, than a fire is aware of its burning. Such a “person” would simply be mechanical. Empty. A non-entity. An impersonal but highly complex chemical reaction giving off the impression, by its appearances, of being something more than it actually was. All of those outside appearances would give the impression of something that is aware, just as indeed even AI available today can give off that impression to a limited degree. A scientific observer, therefore, could observe no difference in the growth of a human with a soul and a “human” without one, because by definition of what the soul adds to the process only the individual human himself could know by simply being aware. Since there is no reason to believe that material can be aware, it is not reasonable to think that the “soulless” human would in fact experience anything at all…it is only a material facade. It experiences nothing any more than fire experiences anything.

By the way, this is only radical skepticism if I first agree with you that I can only rationally believe in what I can observe. If I believed that, then indeed I could not permit myself to believe that others had selves like me, and I would be what you label as a “radical skeptic.” Indeed it would be my only rational option, then, because I can never observe that someone else knows “I am”. I have to take their word for it. However, the problem with labelling me a radical skeptic is that I am not skeptical at all about humans not being “empty machines”. By using inductive reasoning, I do believe in the unobservable when I assume that, if I am aware, so too must other humans be (and quite probably other organic life forms too). I am not uncertain of it in the least, let alone radically skeptical. But my certainty does in fact come from reasoning not based in relying only on what I can observe. It comes from knowing what I do about myself and inductively reasoning that it is true about others precisely despite the fact that I can never observe it in others.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

I don’t think it’s reasonable to posit such an entity. Something that is unobservable is consistent with lack of evidence for it, but in my opinion it is far more reasonable to simply say it’s not there.

I don’t posit such an entity. I am such an entity, totally unobservable at my purest essence by any outside observer, leaving those outside of me with no means to know I exist other than indications and marks I leave, such as my behavior, words, brain waves and neural reactions, etc. These indications, however, could just as easily (and just as logically, if observation is the only basis for making a rational claim) indicate a mindless, mechanical machine just following all the right biological programming without logically needing in any way to be aware in order to do so. If an outside observer concludes that I am aware, it is only from inductive reasoning (which I hold to be rational), not from observing my awareness. I am not observed.

Thus I am the unobservable. I do not thus need to posit the unobservable as though it were a theory. I am such. Since I exist and am aware, I know that I exist even if no one else could possibly observe the true essence of me. The only thing I posit is not the existence of such an entity (since I exist, I know that at least one such entity exists: myself) but that every human being is such an entity acting through the matrix of their material bodies, not being those material bodies in themselves. But if I were reluctant to believe that other human bodies contained such an entity just because that entity was unobservable, despite being such an unobservable entity myself (and knowing I am human), then I would be radically skeptical, precisely because I refused to believe in the unobservable entities even though inductive reasoning should lead me to believe I am not the only human to be one. So I guess I “posit” such an entity other than myself because I am not radically skeptical, and will not demand, as the basis of believing in the soul, to see in others what I know no one can see in me but which I know is real because it is I.

That said, I am almost 100% sure that in your last post and mine, we have said nothing to each other we haven’t said in previous posts, simply in different form. It seems, in fact, that our past several responses have been similarly redundant, though maybe to a lesser degree. That’s the telltale sign: We’re beating a dead horse, now. We’re continuing a debate that is of no more use. So, it is time to be decisive, as we have to be in any debate like this one if it is not to last forever: Unless I find that the next post shows signs of lifting us out of this cycle, I think this is indeed it and all for this discussion, just as I suspected as stated in my last response. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your conversation.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

The point is that I have no reason, whatsoever, to think that material can be aware. Is fire aware? No. Is my computer aware? No. Am I murdering an entity when I put out the flame? No. The materialist may say: “But humans are aware, so that proves material is aware, because humans are material.” This would beg the question, again: The argument suggests that we know that material explains awareness because we know human awareness is material, and we know human awareness is material because material explains awareness. It is circular.

It seems like the issue is in how we view matter. Yes, it is wondrous and mysterious to consider that the activities of neurons can give rise a conscious entity. We have not solved the mystery.

However, at the same time we have a lot of evidence linking our consciousness with our brains. You have not denied that.

You go further and say that you believe it is impossible for the brain to give rise to consciousness, and so you say that you are the soul.

However, look at where this leads you. You are the immaterial soul, and yet you control your body by affecting your brain. How does this happen? How does an immaterial soul interject itself into the causal chain of the material world and affect what the brain does?

What does it say about the nature of the soul? Does the soul follow any rules for how it behaves? Is the soul made out of anything? Can the soul change its nature such as when it is in the afterlife versus when it affects the brain?

If you really think about the make up of the soul, especially in light that it must interact with the material brain, you’ll notice that the word “material” is just a word that applies to “something” that follows certain laws of nature. Would the soul also follow some laws? Do you see the point? You’d be right back at the issue of how a consciousness could arise from “some stuff” that has “some nature”. Saying that the soul accounts for your mind doesn’t solve the mystery for how minds exist, it just moves the problem of trying to understand it into another reality.

 

[KindredSoul]

I’ve noticed some new direction here, so I’ll take part for a bit more after all.

However, look at where this leads you. You are the immaterial soul, and yet you control your body by affecting your brain. How does this happen?

I do not know how I affect my brain, but unlike with material giving rise to consciousness (which I do not know is true by any means) I know that I definitely do affect the brain. I can live with mystery, indeed, because the only mystery lies in the how of something that I definitely know is true even if I do not know how. That’s the difference: I do not definitely know that material gives rise to consciousness, and it appears that determining the how and why of it is part of giving me reason to believe it is so. Even if I don’t know how I affect my brain, on the other hand, I know I do because it happens all the time and I experience that firsthand.

How does an immaterial soul interject itself into the causal chain of the material world … ?

I would say by God’s doing. No, I won’t go into the larger debate of why do I believe in God. Suffice to say, without God, the answer would be the same as above: I don’t know how, but I know it happens somehow. See above for how material giving rise to consciousness is different.

Is the soul made out of anything? Can the soul change its nature such as when it is in the afterlife versus when it affects the brain?

I assume that the answer to the last question is no. I believe in God and His revelation, so I believe the nature (or abilities) of the soul will change (or awaken) in the afterlife, but if I were only going by what I can deduce and reason from my experience and logic (in a scenario where those had not played a role in my believing in God and I did not thus believe in His revelation as I in fact do), I would have to think the soul did not change, and was only blind senseless awareness when disembodied.

As for the soul being made out of anything, it is not, as being made of something is a concept dealing with the material. The soul simply is. Consciousness simply exists, as far as I can be aware. I cannot compare “me” to anything anymore than I could compare the smallest most indivisible physical bit of material existence to anything nor say what it was made of. I just am, insofar as I have ever experienced and had reason to believe, so I find it reasonable to say that awareness, the soul, just is.

You’d be right back at the issue of how a consciousness could arise from “some stuff” that has “some nature”. Saying that the soul accounts for your mind doesn’t solve the mystery for how minds exist, it just moves the problem of trying to understand it into another reality.

As above, the consciousness doesn’t arise from “some stuff”, it either just is or it is created by God, after which it just is. Which “origin” is true is not our concern. Once it exists, whether created by God or pre-existent, it just is, and is evident to itself. As for the mystery, see the first paragraph. It’s a mystery how the consciousness works, but I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt with absolutely no need to be convinced, that it does work…because I am consciousness. Again, I have to emphasize that I do not have that same degree of knowledge about the claim that material has potential to give rise to consciousness, and I do not know that it does give rise to it. I know that I exist, even if I do not know how, so despite not knowing how, it is still logical to believe I exist–because I’m living proof to myself, so to speak. But by no means do I know that material gave rise to me, so when I can think of no conceivable means how it would do so, it is logically acceptable to withhold my belief that it could do so.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

I do not know how I affect my brain, …

For me this is one of the main problems with the concept of a soul. It doesn’t seem logically possible to me for two completely different things to interact.

The matter we know, the matter brain is made of, is described by certain laws of nature. As a material object, the mechanisms of the brain will only react to material causes (i.e. if you wanted to send neurotransmitters into the synapse, there’d have to be a natural cause for it).

If the soul, or God, or some spirit from the other reality wanted to influence this universe, they would have to affect the building blocks of nature in such a way that nature responds to. Forces, fields, etc. Unless the soul, or God, or whatever, can assume this nature (such as send force mediating particles) I don’t see how this is possible. Of course this would also blur the line between the two realities, to the extent where I’d have to say they’re one reality.

As for the soul being made out of anything, it is not, as being made of something is a concept dealing with the material. The soul simply is.

But would you agree that the soul is something and not nothing? In not saying it’s made out of anything, would you say then that a single soul is a fundamental “particle” that has no sub components? Would this fundamental, indivisible soul have any kind of properties?

As above, the consciousness doesn’t arise from “some stuff”, it either just is or it is created by God, after which it just is.

But would you agree that it would have to work somehow? That there would be some mechanism (say a mechanism created by God)?

 

[KindredSoul]

For me this is one of the main problems with the concept of a soul. It doesn’t seem logically possible to me for two completely different things to interact.

I do not think this is a logical impossibility, and I am not sure by what process one would come to the conclusion that it is: We have no way of experimenting to test the scenario, so while (from the third person perspective) we may never be able to prove that something non-material could affect the material, this also means the opposite could never be proven, that something non-material and something material cannot interact. In order to establish that the two interacting was logically impossible from a third-person point of view, one would have to observe the nonmaterial from the outside (itself impossible to our imperical senses), observe it attempting to interact with the material, and observe nothing happening. Yet we cannot see the nonmaterial from the third person to know whether or not it is trying to interact, nor indeed to see whether or not certain physical conditions as we know them might not even behave as they do if some nonmaterial force were not imperceptibly–as logically such a force would be–causing those conditions all along.

The only nonmaterial being I perceive directly is me, by being me, and that’s how I know that I do not need to know how the nonmaterial can interact with the material in order to believe that it does do so. Somehow it does interact, and I observe that anytime that I, who I have no reason to believe can be explained by material means, interact with my material mind. I need not know how in order to believe what I witness firsthand regularly. It would seem that with the human soul (not other sorts of spirits, theologically speaking, but that is irrelevant) our ability to affect the brain comes at the expense of also being weak, to a degree, to the brain’s drives and impulses, which would be blind and unaware of themselves but which beckon the soul, the awareness, to use them in such a way as to fulfill what they would fulfill naturally. Why or how this relationship exists, I do not know, so asking would be counterproductive. I experience it, and therefore it simply is known to me, whether I understand or not.

If the soul, or God, or some spirit from the other reality wanted to influence this universe, they would have to affect the building blocks of nature in such a way that nature responds to. Forces, fields, etc. Unless the soul, or God, or whatever, can assume this nature (such as send force mediating particles) I don’t see how this is possible. Of course this would also blur the line between the two realities, to the extent where I’d have to say they’re one reality.

In a sense, yes. Reality consists of all that exists, “real”-ity, so in that sense the nonmaterial and the material belong to the same reality, for both are real, and the spiritual realm and the material realm are both “parts” of reality. This does not pose a problem unless one thinks that two things that belong to the same reality by logical necessity must behave by identical rules no matter how fundamentally different they are. I do not see that this conclusion is one that is logically compulsory.

But would you agree that the soul is something and not nothing? In not saying it’s made out of anything, would you say then that a single soul is a fundamental “particle” that has no sub components? Would this fundamental, indivisible soul have any kind of properties?

Yes, it is something, just not something material. What does that mean? I cannot put it into words, for words in themselves are material. Remember, currently our thoughts, words, and such are material. It is not surprising, nor disconcerting to my experience of self as something nonmaterial at all, that I cannot put into material terms (thoughts, words, etc.) a description for something nonmaterial or what something nonmaterial is. It’s just a logical consequence of its being nonmaterial and our current means of communication being material.

But would you agree that it would have to work somehow? That there would be some mechanism (say a mechanism created by God)?

Not necessarily by a mechanism–that implies the existence of parts, of being “made of” divisible things which are shifting inside like cogs, or electrons, etc. I know that material things work via mechanism. The only reason I know this, however, is because every material thing I observe doing anything is ultimately found to have a mechanism behind it. I do not know that nonmaterial things have such underlying necessities, nor have I any reason to think they logically must unless I apply rules to them that I have only witnessed regarding material things. Unless there is a God (I believe there is) in Whose afterlife I will have some sort of spiritual sense to comprehend these things which my material senses and thoughts logically ought not be able to grasp, it is only to be expected that I should not be able to explain how it works in a way so unlike the material.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

we may never be able to prove that something non-material could affect the material,

I think we could do this. We could take any closed classical system (say a bunch of billiard balls insulated from their surroundings), and observe their behavior. If something non-material were affecting this system, we should be able to find it via for instance an unaccounted for source of force to move a billiard ball. If in a closed classical system a billiard ball suddenly flew up and started tracing shapes in the air we’d know something that is not a part of the system was causing it.

this also means the opposite could never be proven, that something non-material and something material cannot interact.

We may not know how something non material behaves, but we do know how matter behaves (or at least in principle we could know this). Hypothetically, suppose you wanted to strip an electron from an atom. One way to do it would be to hit it with a photon, giving it enough energy to escape. If the soul wanted to do this, it would have to send a photon or something similar. How would the soul make a photon? Would the soul temporarily become a photon?

There seem to be all sorts of weird issues when you try to have two fundamentally different entities interact. All interactions that we know of have mediating particles or something analogous.

The way I see it, to suggest that the nonmaterial can affect the material is to suggest that either the non material has or can assume material nature, or the material has a non material nature or can assume a non-material nature. Which eliminates the need for a distinction between the material and the immaterial.

 

[KindredSoul]

I think we could do this. We could take any closed classical system (say a bunch of billiard balls insulated from their surroundings), and observe their behavior. If something non-material were affecting this system, we should be able to find it via for instance an unaccounted for source of force to move a billiard ball. If in a closed classical system a billiard ball suddenly flew up and started tracing shapes in the air we’d know something that is not a part of the system was causing it.

Such an experiment is only conceivable assuming the unaccounted for nonmaterial source had any non-material dependent interest in aiding us in that experiment (which, if it did not, we could not determine), and also assuming that the supposedly unaccounted for source isn’t perhaps constantly doing something anyway that we just take for granted as being a materially explainable phenomenon, a phenomenon that would in fact collapse without the nonmaterial influence, but which appears to us to be materially self-sufficient because its being influenced by the nonmaterial is just the way it has always been. Those two assumptions, however, are not givens.

We may not know how something non material behaves, but we do know how matter behaves (or at least in principle we could know this). Hypothetically, suppose you wanted to strip an electron from an atom. One way to do it would be to hit it with a photon, giving it enough energy to escape. If the soul wanted to do this, it would have to send a photon or something similar. How would the soul make a photon? Would the soul temporarily become a photon?

We only know how matter behaves in relation to other matter. We know that we cannot possibly affect the electron without doing something along the lines of hitting it with a photon or something similar. But we do not know how matter behaves in relation to non-material existence, so we do not know if non-material existence needs to use the same means we would have to use. As for the assumption that this could be easily and identifiably tested, see above for the concerns about that.

The way I see it, to suggest that the nonmaterial can affect the material is to suggest that either the non material has or can assume material nature, or the material has a non material nature or can assume a non-material nature. Which eliminates the need for a distinction between the material and the immaterial.

Again, I have no reason to believe that the nonmaterial cannot affect the material in its own form. They are two fundamentally different things, indeed. That in itself doesn’t automatically mean they must be unable to react unless they become the same things. The nonmaterial may simply have the ability to affect the material, and I see no logical reason why it should not be able to. In fact, due to my own experience with affecting my brain, I’m certain it can, even if I do not grasp how this works. Two things being fundamentally different does not seem to make it self evident that one should not be able to interact with the other without becoming the same as the other. It seems that you imply this should be self evident, and it simply doesn’t appear self evident to me at all.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

Such an experiment is only conceivable assuming the unaccounted for nonmaterial source had any non-material dependent interest in aiding us …

Were our technology sufficiently advanced, we should be able to observe this within the brain provided there is a soul. We wouldn’t observe the soul, but we should observe the influence of the soul on the brain by such unexplained sources of force/field/particles/whatever is needed to make the brain something other than a deterministic system. Even if the soul uses some unobservable mechanism, we should still notice the brain fail to behave as a purely physical system would be expected to. And that’s what I’d expect to observe if there were a soul.

But we do not know how matter behaves in relation to non-material existence, so we do not know if non-material existence needs to use the same means we would have to use. As for the assumption that this could be easily and identifiably tested, see above for the concerns about that.

Well, that’s kind of my point. If matter can behave in some strange ways in relation to spirit, and if spirit can knock electrons out of atoms by some non-physical interaction, then it is equivalent to saying that matter has a non material, or spiritual component.

The materialist view would have the electron (for example) be as the laws of physics describe it, but in saying that the the electron responds to spirit and that spirit can affect the behavior of the electron you’re essentially saying that matter is not quite matter, but something more.

And what is my point here? That the distinction between matter and spirit can’t be as sharp as that for them to interact. There has to be some meeting point. And so for me it makes no sense to think that “spirit” can produce a mind but “matter” can’t, since it doesn’t seem like they can be that different if you insist on their interaction. So this whole issue of how we just can’t understand how matter can produce a mind doesn’t go away, I would still wonder how spirit can make a mind.

 

[CatholicOf94]

All the ancient philosophers attribute infinitude to the first principle, as is said (Phys. iii), and with reason; for they considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle. But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle, as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity; forasmuch as they asserted that matter was the first principle; consequently they attributed to the first principle a material infinity to the effect that some infinite body was the first principle of things.
We must consider therefore that a thing is called infinite because it is not finite. Now matter is in a way made finite by form, and the form by matter. Matter indeed is made finite by form, inasmuch as matter, before it receives its form, is in potentiality to many forms; but on receiving a form, it is terminated by that one. Again, form is made finite by matter, inasmuch as form, considered in itself, is common to many; but when received in matter, the form is determined to this one particular thing. Now matter is perfected by the form by which it is made finite; therefore infinite as attributed to matter, has the nature of something imperfect; for it is as it were formless matter. On the other hand, form is not made perfect by matter, but rather is contracted by matter; and hence the infinite, regarded on the part of the form not determined by matter, has the nature of something perfect. Now being is the most formal of all things, as appears from what is shown above . Since therefore the divine being is not a being received in anything, but He is His own subsistent being as was shown above, it is clear that God Himself is infinite and perfect.

 

[KindredSoul]

Were our technology sufficiently advanced, we should be able to observe this within the brain provided there is a soul.

I’ve already answered why I think that is untrue. I’m still not seeing how your anwer (read entirely but abbreviated for space) changes that.

Well, that’s kind of my point. If matter can behave in some strange ways in relation to spirit, and if spirit can knock electrons out of atoms by some non-physical interaction, then it is equivalent to saying that matter has a non material, or spiritual component

And if, for the sake of argument, it did? To say that matter has some non-material component is to say the observable, matter, has some non-observable component (spirit is unobservable). It would be like saying that something visible contains an invisible part, so we should be able to see (yes, with vision) the invisible part just because it was part of something visible. That’s obviously not true, so it still doesn’t really further the argument that we should be able to observe anything.

The materialist view would have the electron (for example) be as the laws of physics describe it, but in saying that the the electron responds to spirit and that spirit can affect the behavior of the electron you’re essentially saying that matter is not quite matter, but something more.

Depends…if by “something more” you mean something with some (not necessarily controllable by us) potential to interact with something unobservable, yes, you’re right. However, it is possible that we never see matter without using this potential. For example, think of the most basic, indivisible force for which we know no cause, the force which just is. If that force in itself were nonmaterial, we would mistakenly believe it was material. That force may in fact be caused by the power of God, for instance, meaning that basic force, even if not higher forms of matter, can interact with the nonmaterial and thus is not totally material–and through a complex series of processes, that very basic force underlying the workings of material could be used to affect higher more complex forms of matter (since it underlies them all) without those higher complex forms of matter being able, as themselves, to interact with the nonmaterial observably. But since the force has always always been there, we just assume it’s a force independent of any higher power, and we do not realize that some higher power is causing it to do the workings without which the universe would simply fall apart. Thus in a sense, the effects of the nonmaterial are observable in this case. The very crux of this would be, then, that if not for the existence of the totally non-material this not-quite-material force (the hypothetical link between material and spiritual, if you will) wouldn’t do anything, and material would just be a lot of random, dead, motionless electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. Since we have never seen that happen, we assume (without reason) that this force is simply a part of the material process and needs no outside aid. We do not know this, though. In fact, if that outside aid is integral to a most basic and fundamental force, the only way we could know that force was not in fact independent would be if the nonmaterial aid withdrew itself (of its own accord) and cause the very laws of physics to fail insofar as they depended on that force. I’m certainly not sure how something can be tested which requires the very laws of physics to stop working.

Whether you believe that this “underlying aid” could itself be material or not is for all conceivable intents and purposes only a matter of semantics. If the soul, for instance, is some most basic and indivisible form of unobservable matter which may–by definition of being in the same class as whatever material force that causes the laws of physics–not necessarily have to obey the laws of physics as we are used to them, it’s still without meaningful distinction from the concept of a spiritual soul. If you consider any possible God’s power in the material universe to be material simply because it can interact with he material universe, but which may, for the same reasons as stated just now, not have to obey the laws of physics, that’s still without meaningful distinction from the concept of a God Whose power is spiritual. It would literally, then, be nothing but semantics. There would still be reason to believe in a mysterious “just is” soul transcending the laws of physics as we know them, a mysterious “just is” power keeping everything together but conceivably transcending physics since it’s what makes them work, and you’d just call these material while I’d call them spiritual.

And what is my point here? That the distinction between matter and spirit can’t be as sharp as that for them to interact. There has to be some meeting point. And so for me it makes no sense to think that “spirit” can produce a mind but “matter” can’t, since it doesn’t seem like they can be that different if you insist on their interaction.

I’ve no reason to think that Matter as in “complex divisible and therefore terminible reactions” can produce awareness, either way. If the simplest matter/material force can be awareness, that’s a different story (but see above for how saying that this is material in the first place would be semantics). But this would still mean that our awareness didn’t depend on the brain, but on some far more fundamental and indivisible bit of matter only using the brain–by mysterious means, but again you seem alright with matter being mysterious at this point–to sense things other than blind and senseless self-awareness. Again, insisting that this is material and not spiritual is only semantics, as it would be of a “nature” like spirit is conceived to have, for all intents and purposes.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

Depends…if by “something more” you mean something with some (not necessarily controllable by us) potential to interact with something unobservable, yes, you’re right.

Right. However, what does it mean to interact? What does it mean for something to be a “force”?

Our best (but incomplete) current understanding has forces act through mediating particles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

In particle physics, the quantum field theory called the Standard Model describes the strong, weak and electromagnetic fundamental forces. In such theories, each type of interaction has a characteristic set of force, or field carrier particles associated with quantum excitation of the force field related to that interaction. These kinds of particles are always exchanged between matter.

Why do you give “spirit” a pass on this? Why don’t you question how it would affect matter?

If the soul, for instance, is some most basic and indivisible form of unobservable matter which may–by definition of being in the same class as whatever material force that causes the laws of physics–not necessarily have to obey the laws of physics as we are used to them, it’s still without meaningful distinction from the concept of a spiritual soul. … It would literally, then, be nothing but semantics. There would still be reason to believe in a mysterious “just is” soul transcending the laws of physics as we know them, a mysterious “just is” power keeping everything together but conceivably transcending physics since it’s what makes them work, and you’d just call these material while I’d call them spiritual.

Okay, but wouldn’t you still wonder how something could generate the laws of physics?

I agree that this is semantics, if there were something more fundamental than this universe that was the source of this universe/laws of physics it would be different from this world, but still have some way of interacting with it. It wouldn’t matter if you called it spiritual or material.

My issue with your thinking is that you seem to be so willing to give a pass to this spiritual reality and not question it how it works, what its nature would be, how it would give rise to the material, how it would give rise to the mind.

I have all these questions about the universe we experience, but you seem to move these questions to the spiritual realm and then forget about them.

Why are you at the same time so strongly skeptical about the ability of matter to generate a mind, but suspend your questioning and skepticism when it comes to the existence of a spiritual realm, how it would work, how it would generate a mind, how it would interact with the material realm and so on?

 

[KindredSoul]

Okay, but wouldn’t you still wonder how something could generate the laws of physics?

I do wonder. And I do not mean to say I do not ponder on it. I suppose that my willingness to accept it despite not knowing how is the equivalent of your willingness to accept that building up matter in the right way generates (rather than merely permits the outside appearance and inner memory of) awareness even though you do not know how. I see no reason I should adopt your conclusion anymore than you see why you should accept mine. We could resort to true agnosticism on this matter and just say “Maybe, maybe not,” to both our claims, and indeed that would be the utterly most logical thing to do. But I choose not to, just as you apparently choose not to. I don’t know about you, but I accept responsibility for my choice and admit it was a free decision if it was the wrong one, although, if you’re correct, there will be no responsibility to be faced, as I will not be around when I am proven wrong to “myself”, which can only happen by my cessation of existence happening when my body ceases to function.

I agree that this is semantics, if there were something more fundamental than this universe that was the source of this universe/laws of physics it would be different from this world, but still have some way of interacting with it. It wouldn’t matter if you called it spiritual or material.

I am glad that we agree on that.

My issue with your thinking is that you seem to be so willing to give a pass to this spiritual reality and not question it
I have all these questions about the universe we experience, but you seem to move these questions to the spiritual realm and then forget about them.

No. I do have such questions. I don’t forget about them. I would gladly seek the answers (if I knew a means; most experiments presented as possible means seem to have some fundamental flaw overlooked by the ones who would propose them) and be open to them, but I simply do not demand them before believing in something I know by virtue of being that something and having no reason to believe that this something is something that can be “built” or “unbuilt” with materials or their decay instead of something that “just is” (even if it itself were called material, semantics-wise, it doesn’t mean it can be built or deconstructed).

Why are you at the same time so strongly skeptical about the ability of matter to generate a mind, but suspend your questioning and skepticism when it comes to the existence of a spiritual realm, …?

I have explained this before.

If you asked me: “How do you know that awareness exists if you do not know how?” My answer would be: “I am awareness, so I know it exists, and in the absence of another satisfactory explanation, I must be open to the possibility that it ‘just is’.” Though I cannot possibly (as of this moment) conceive how it can be true, I exist, so I am justified to be open to that. If you asked me, on the other hand, “How do you know that material can generate awareness if you don’t know how?” I would have no answer…my answer would be “I don’t know.” Unlike with awareness, I don’t “just know” that it’s true, and since I cannot possibly conceive how it could be true, I have no basis for declaring that it is scientifically observed to be true. I can indeed take it on faith (don’t forget that I respect and admire faith, as it plays a role in my particular religious beliefs, so that’s not a denigration in the least–but faith entails a choice, and I do not choose to have faith in that particular matter), but I cannot say that it is scientifically demonstrable that material is sufficient to explain Awareness. The statement “Material is sufficient to explain awareness” holds only equal validity as the statement “Material is insufficient to explain awareness.” Thus the traditional argument: “Why believe in the soul if matter is sufficient to explain awareness”, which originally took the discussion into this direction in the first place, is presumptuous. I do not know that the premise following the “if” of the statement is true, and have been given no reason to think it is any more scientifically valid than its counter claim. And so, I choose the counter claim, since it really is at that point a matter of just making a choice or saying “I don’t know either way.”

You may have some curiosity as to how I base my choice between two equally valid assumptions like the above, if not proof or rational argument (when the latter simply could not settle the issue and the former is almost, if not totally, logically impossible). The question is “Are terminible and destructible combinations of matter sufficient to explain awareness?” and making a choice is the only way to believe either outcome at this point and even conceivably (again, all experiments presented previously that would hypothetically resolve the question seem flawed in some critical way). That alone would not explain my own choice, of course, because you obviously make the opposite choice. Why do I not make yours?

This is my answer: I choose hope. Always. When two equally valid possibilities face me, and one is laden with hope while the other presents a bleaker or terrible reality, I will choose hope. Just saying “I don’t know” may be intellectually sound, but it also leaves me open to living with fear that the bleaker or terrible reality was true, and I make the choice to live with no such fear (a fear that, if its object turns out being true, will not aid me ultimately to evade it anyway). I will live with hope and be called a hasty fool (by some, not necessarily by yourself) rather than live with potentially terrifying uncertainty and be lauded for my sense of intellectual caution.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

I do wonder. And I do not mean to say I do not ponder on it. I suppose that my willingness to accept it despite not knowing how is the equivalent of your willingness to accept that building up matter in the right way generates (rather than merely permits the outside appearance and inner memory of) awareness even though you do not know how. I see no reason I should adopt your conclusion anymore than you see why you should accept mine. We could resort to true agnosticism on this matter and just say “Maybe, maybe not,” to both our claims, and indeed that would be the utterly most logical thing to do.

I don’t think our positions are equivalent. Yes, without knowing the precise mechanism I am making the assumption that matter can generate minds. However, my assumption brings in only things everyone can agree exist. My assumption is also supported by huge volume of research done linking precise brain processes to mental processes. (Yes, it’s consistent with your assumption as well, but it’s merely consistent with, not supportive of your position.)

Your view relies on something that hasn’t been observed, and you seem to be arguing is unobservable.

Already in accepting a spiritual reality that interacts with the material you’re giving the material an unobservable/unobserved property. Why not stop at that? If you think that matter as we observe it cannot generate minds in principle, why not make the smallest assumption that matter has an unobserved (maybe unobservable) property that accounts for minds, why not say that we simply don’t fully understand matter yet, and that you don’t know how minds are generated?

Why go even further and talk about our ability to exist independently of matter, exist for an eternity after death etc.? You seem to have agreed earlier that memories, thought processes and so on are tied to the brain. What is consciousness without a thought process in time? You seem to think that people in comas still have awareness in another realm. I think your position requires a great deal more assumptions and faith than mine.

 

[KindredSoul]

I don’t think our positions are equivalent. Yes, without knowing the precise mechanism I am making the assumption that matter can generate minds. However, my assumption brings in only things everyone can agree exist. My assumption is also supported by huge volume of research done linking precise brain processes to mental processes. (Yes, it’s consistent with your assumption as well, but it’s merely consistent with, not supportive of your position.)

I don’t think the research supports your conclusion at all. It supports something totally but merely parallel to, totally but merely consistent with, but not at all synonymous with or supportive of your conclusion. I have mentioned what the research does support previously (something that neither of us would agree with and which we both go well beyond, but it’s what the evidence actually would support), and those are the only things it supports without a leap that is not evidentially or scientifically based.

Your view relies on something that hasn’t been observed, and you seem to be arguing is unobservable.

Your view relies on the same, so far as I am convinced, when you assert that the observed is sufficient (and thus we need not go beyond it) to produce the unobservable: Awareness in any person but yourself. By default the observed producing the unobservable is unobservable in itself, and yet I have said previously why Awareness other than one’s own self is never observable, and I have not become convinced of the contrary.

Already in accepting a spiritual reality that interacts with the material you’re giving the material an unobservable/unobserved property. Why not stop at that? If you think that matter as we observe it cannot generate minds in principle, why not make the smallest assumption that matter has an unobserved (maybe unobservable) property that accounts for minds, why not say that we simply don’t fully understand matter yet, and that you don’t know how minds are generated?

Then indeed, why not stop at that instead of going farther than the facts by saying that Awareness is only generated by a functioning brain (that’s quite a bit more specific, after all, than simply saying the mind is matter)? That Awareness is something that can be “built” or “destroyed” (ditto; far more specific than your stated premise)? That this not-understood phenomenon is something that we can declare, with any certainty or real basis, is something sufficiently explained by the proper combination of brain cells and chemicals and is reasonably assumed to depend on those things for its existence (again, ditto)? Do you see that you also make assumptions/conjecture that go far beyond what is observable? We’ve already been over why seeing someone appear to be conscious when (and only when) certain material conditions are met is not sufficient or even relevant support for those assumptions and conjectures, because you’re never seeing their awareness in itself in the first place when you view these appearances, only indications of it, indications that there is no reason whatsoever to think are prerequisites for it except by some fundamentally flawed presumption-based logic which ignores that, if Awareness itself is not observed (and logically, it is not), neither can we know when or if it begins and ends, or if it is truly only present when it is indicated or can continue as unobserved as we already know, in itself, it already is, and any statement that we can assume more specific than that is complete faith. Making that argument won’t be anymore fruitful now than it has thus far. Yet without that argument, there is no reason to believe you’re not going just as far beyond the facts, beyond what we can actually observe. You do, indeed, go quite a bit further than saying Matter is sufficient to explain Awareness with all the above assumptions; if you didn’t, our biggest disagreement would be semantics (“spirit” vs. “unobservable material phenomenon possibly unbound by the Laws of Physics”) and details, and that’s certainly not the nature of our disagreement.

I think your position requires a great deal more assumptions and faith than mine.

Well, that’s your opinion, with which I disagree upon my own reflection and interpretation of the evidence. You are free to hold the opinion, based on your own perception of the evidence, that my reflection and interpretation are flawed unless they agree with yours, but that does not affect my findings and perception one way or the other, nor is it sufficient to give me good reason to change my view that your position requires no less faith or assumptions than mine.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[flyingfish]

I don’t think the research supports your conclusion at all. It supports something totally but merely parallel to, totally but merely consistent with, but not at all synonymous with or supportive of your conclusion. I have mentioned what the research does support previously (something that neither of us would agree with and which we both go well beyond, but it’s what the evidence actually would support), and those are the only things it supports without a leap that is not evidentially or scientifically based.

Take the hypothesis that the brain generates the mind, what would one expect if this were true? You would expect that brain injuries would alter the mind, and they do, even on a fundamental level when it comes to morality/impulse control. You would expect that chemically altering your brain would alter your mind, as is the case with psychiatric drugs which can change how you think and your emotions, as well as recreational drugs which can make you hallucinate etc. You would expect that a braindead person would lose their ability to function.

This is what you observe. It’s not conclusive evidence, since as you rightly pointed out, the soul may work through the brain, but it is evidence nonetheless. It certainly supports my position.

If consciousness resides in the soul, then there is not necessarily a need for a brain. Strictly speaking everything could happen in the soul and the soul could control the body directly. If the brain did not exist, for example, but we were still conscious I would likely believe in something soul like as well.

if Awareness itself is not observed (and logically, it is not), neither can we know when or if it begins and ends,

We do observe our own awareness. I know my awareness begins when I wake up and ceases when I dreamlessly sleep. That’s what I observe.

 

[KindredSoul]

Take the hypothesis that the brain generates the mind, what would one expect if this were true? You would expect that brain injuries would alter the mind, and they do, even on a fundamental level when it comes to morality/impulse control. You would expect that chemically altering your brain would alter your mind, as is the case with psychiatric drugs which can change how you think and your emotions, as well as recreational drugs which can make you hallucinate etc. You would expect that a braindead person would lose their ability to function.

This is what you observe. It’s not conclusive evidence, since as you rightly pointed out, the soul may work through the brain, but it is evidence nonetheless. It certainly supports my position.

If consciousness resides in the soul, then there is not necessarily a need for a brain. Strictly speaking everything could happen in the soul and the soul could control the body directly. If the brain did not exist, for example, but we were still conscious I would likely believe in something soul like as well.

The above argument presumes that I share your definition of self, namely that the self is thought, personality, etc., all which change with the changing of the brain. We will not get back into the difference between our definitions, because we have been there and it is evidently not doing us any good.

We do observe our own awareness. I know my awareness begins when I wake up and ceases when I dreamlessly sleep. That’s what I observe.

We’ve been over that too. If you know such a thing, then you have better (and, if you’re right, oxymoronic) memories of what was going on when you were dreamlessly asleep than I do. I don’t remember anything under such a scenario, including not existing along with the alternative of existing, and my not remembering means and supports only exactly that: I don’t remember. Nothing more than that. Discussing that further will do us no good either, evidently.

Blesings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[ZDHayden]

I know for the big minds out there (you know who you are! ) this is an easy question to answer. I’ve really been doing some research on this question and I’ve found some really great answers but I still don’t get it

Could someone here explain to me please (in human terms ) why God is uncreated?

Thanks a lot!

coolduude

OOO this looks like a fun one. Okay: Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy. Scientific law states that matter and energy - the stuff of Creation - is never newly created nor un-created, but merely changes form. If you also conclude that time was a creation of God, as time started at both the Big Bang and Creation (depending on your tastes), then there is no way of telling a when for God. It is thus that for God there is no beginning or end, but always a now. The associate pastor at my church once stated that God sees and is in the past, present and future at the same time, which is why one can pray for people who were in the past and for people who are not yet.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Who created God?

God by definition is the uncreated One. The notion that God must have been created only comes to us because we see everything around us created and destroyed. But the Creator is not subject to the same process that He created. It is not as if God once did not existed and was then created by another God (ad infinitum). This is the absurd question (Who made God?) that Bertrand Russell posed to himself when he was a teenager (having gotten the question originally from John Stuart Mill.) Childlike minds use it to rebut the existence of God, never realizing how childish an argument it is.

 

[Thing]

Your question seems to answer itself.

Who created God?
God created God before He existed.
=> God always existed.