This sat in some note document for I don't know how long with the tantalizing label "woke up thinking of this the morning after the medical evaluation." I can't remember, what medical evaluation? I haven't had any real evaluation in the last couple of years. I do remember I was dreaming of these ideas and woke up formulating them into a usable version; not like the usual ideas of dreams that turn to mush with waking. I hear that twilight zone music playing again.
What is the nature of proving things? Proving things is a technology. As a technology It requires a manipulation of objects in the world. We mentally bring before our minds eye objects in the world, such as “being” or “science” or “existence” or the existence of things, the universe for example. We cannot bring before our minds eye a chunk of sanctifying Grace. We cannot manipulate God as an object in creation. Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of reality, not a technology.
We make arguments for God in order to demonstrate to others something of this realization. We are actually seeking to trigger in them the same kind of realization. To do so we manipulate aspects of reality, and the skeptic proposes alternate explanations for the various aspects we try to manipulate. Obviously this course will have no more success than trying to cram God into the parade of objects we seek to present and manipulate.
The God of the Christian tradition is the basis of reality. God is Eternal, the basis of all that is (what we used to call “first cause”) and is always already, and thus, without cause. This means that God is the basis of reality. The basis of what is, the “ground of being” can’t be manipulated as though an object in creation. If we knew the basis upon which the realization of God is triggered in our own minds, we might be able to suggest to the skeptic ways to trigger the realization. But we don’t know. Of course we do not know. All we really know is that once we realize God is real, it works to live as though God is real. What can we tell the skeptic? I’m sure that what I’ve said so far will bring scoffing and trigger an orgiastic bought of “aren’t Christians stupid?” That’s because atheists have cut themselves off from the basic existential sense of reality that enables one to have this realization. At that rate there’s really nothing one can do. Why even write a book then?
The religious a priori is this realization, the argument I make is not an argument to prove the existence of God, but to seek the realization of God.
9 comments:
Proving things is a technology. As a technology It requires a manipulation of objects in the world.
- I think that's not right. Proving things is an exercise in logic. It does not involve manipulating objects, as engineering does. It involves manipulation of information - facts or assertions about what we know or believe.
I think I was pretty that I am speaking of mental manipulation and mental objects. Logic is also manipulation of mental objects.
http://www.humantruth.info/souls.html
https://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you_dont_have_a_soul_the_real_science_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/
Pix
Pixies links
Px's first link
Px's 2nd link
from PX first lik:
"Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature1. Thousands of years of investigation has shown us that our brains comprise and produce our true selves, although because that for most of human history we have had no understanding of how our brains work most Humans have falsely believed inferred that we have souls2 and this idea has infused our folklore, cultures, myths, religions and has instructed our interpretation of dreams3. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self."
This is based upon misconceptions on several counts. First soul is a metaphor it's not a ghost in the machine it's a place holder for life and the processes that make life happen. So were it true that consciousnesses is reducible to brain function then that would be soul. so soul is real but it's not literally a ghost in the machine.
Spirit consciousness. That is not replaceable to brain function. it's not immaterial ghost but it is not physical brain structure's. The reason these guys want to reduce everything to the physical is because of their anti religious ideology not because they have scientific facts,
Px 2nd link
Title:" You don't have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans
Trust science, not myth: Religious hucksters with claims of immortal souls are lying. Let's embrace reality."
ideological bluster that surrounds itself with the trappings of science, such as physicists giving their stupid ideological opinions with no facts,but lluion of facts because it;s science.
Px 2nd link
"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust."
—Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing," 2012
Karauss was totally debunked by Albert/ And by me
The assertion that being made of Saga's star stuff means we have no immaterial consciousness is stupid. That doesn't follow.
Mind is not reducible to Brain
part 1
part 2
the arguments Px puts out here merely serve to prove that he doesn't does not understand the issues, I said that Belkin transcends the physical. our ability to manipulate ideas in order to prove concepts is not equal to the task of realizing the reality of God. To disprove that he uses manipulation of idea which proves nothing.
Post a Comment