|
Post by rational on Feb 18, 2016 17:30:02 GMT -5
Miracles aren't a problem for people who believe creation is the biggest miracle before us today. Miracles aren't a problem for people who do not care to consider the facts and are willing to answer questions by throwing in a god of the gaps.If this idea was supported by facts I would be the first to agree. But the idea that evolution is perfecting anything is just not supported by the facts. There is a reason why the vast majority of species have become extinct - they failed. Whatever turn they took was the wrong turn.The biblical idea of a miracle is really nothing more than ignoring the facts and saying, without any verifiable support, that it was some sign from on high.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 19, 2016 0:27:05 GMT -5
Thank you rational, I've corrected that error (3 vs 300). Lee Are you really this easily pleased as to just rely on the ancients reports of signs for evidence? (you wrote) "The biblical idea of a miracle corresponds to a sign, not to wacky science, as physical-polemicists insist today">I am intrigued how this laid-back attitude impacts on your daily life; the ethereal must feature and butterflies, rainbows and wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings surely convey secret private information to you alone. In a way I sort of think you could be lucky if it was possible to skew the reality to the extent that a blissful levitation was a viable alternative to having one's feet firmly planted on the path we call life.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 19, 2016 2:19:31 GMT -5
"Lee Are you really this easily pleased as to just rely on the ancients reports of signs for evidence? (you wrote) "The biblical idea of a miracle corresponds to a sign, not to wacky science, as physical-polemicists insist today"
At least two great religions arose from sign-miracles. Thanks to people like you, physicalism has replaced imagination in the modern psyche. Few people could receive sign-miracles today. They'd just freak out.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 19, 2016 2:26:00 GMT -5
"If this idea was supported by facts I would be the first to agree. But the idea that evolution is perfecting anything is just not supported by the facts. There is a reason why the vast majority of species have become extinct - they failed. Whatever turn they took was the wrong turn."
Your terminal, transient interpretation of homo sapiens accords with every other anti-Christ, including those who present as Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 19, 2016 2:49:22 GMT -5
Physicalists are neo-sadducees
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 19, 2016 10:18:42 GMT -5
At least two great religions arose from sign-miracles. A number of religions arose from 'sign-miracles'. But each claims they are the only true religion. So out of the many, many 'sign-miracles' there is only a very limited number (1?!?) that got it right. It doesn't seem like 'sign-miracles' are that reliable. Yes, reality can be a frightening place. But imagining that everything is alright and that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving entity protecting those who believe and follow the rules takes a lot of imagination and must include the willing suspension of disbelief. That probably solves the cognitive dissonance problem. And coupled with cognitive estrangement it makes reading about 'science' on creationist web sites seem very enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 19, 2016 10:37:09 GMT -5
In evolution, its generally assumed that remedial responses are responsible for conveying the success of a species. But if humanity will be successful, even as they already have been, they will assert wisdom.
Being universal, wisdom makes a transcendent appeal. Wisdom determines physical and spiritual life, its quality, as well as its quantity. Say twenty percent of the people today wish they'd never been born. Was our species successful? Physically yes, but spiritually not so much. Does this do matter to a physicalist? No. Denial and suppression are survival tactics, not insults to the truth. Truth is no concern to a physicalist in this sense. It is another appeal to transcendence.
Say humans are developing independently on other planets by wisdom. Is their wisdom a coincidence, or evidence of a cosmic-transcendence? Who or what made the worlds anyway that we should react, survive, or even thrive?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 23, 2016 23:45:45 GMT -5
Lee I have not sourced any information via your input, or from general research, which validates your dichotomising the physical and spiritual?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 24, 2016 11:54:25 GMT -5
Sexuality readily portrays this dichotomy. Where there is an immediate will in terms of sexual desire or interest, a superlative or transcendent will is required to temper the first. Problems arise when a transcendent will isn't present or obeyed.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 24, 2016 12:04:49 GMT -5
I believe CS Lewis noted this dichotomy is evident by the fact that imagination underscores rationality. One of the videos I posted makes this point. As an example, the logic of geometry is first beheld in the pre-cognitive imagination. Without imagination, nothing would make sense. But can you pinpoint the source of imagination? Of course not, its spiritual. ... Some people don't "get" math, for whatever reason their imaginations aren't as sensitive to math as others. Does it mean math doesn't exist? Of course not.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 25, 2016 4:04:14 GMT -5
The person who credits the intangible aspects of their life to an external supernatural being has a dim and diminished view of their own capabilities and physiological functions. By attributing the source of imagination as being a spiritual one, you are undermining your own autonomous sensory functions. It is reasonable to question whether there is a causal relationship between the status of an individual's neurological function and their claim that they are under the influence of the transcendent. Lee Is there a reason you rely on the insights of C. S. Lewis? Lewis died in 1929, so though he is a relatively recent character to reference compared to the more common practice of translating the words of ancient biblical figures to answer a myriad of questions; these are being solved through the use of recently developed and reliable investigative techniques. Why not research the latest findings in the field of neuropsychology?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 25, 2016 4:56:14 GMT -5
I believe CS Lewis noted this dichotomy is evident by the fact that imagination underscores rationality. One of the videos I posted makes this point. As an example, the logic of geometry is first beheld in the pre-cognitive imagination. Without imagination, nothing would make sense. But can you pinpoint the source of imagination? Of course not, its spiritual. ... Some people don't "get" math, for whatever reason their imaginations aren't as sensitive to math as others. Does it mean math doesn't exist? Of course not. Lee, Let's define some words first: Imagination |definition: the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
spiritual
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs> 2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual> 3: concerned with religious values 4: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir> 5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic I certainly CAN imagine and "form mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to my senses!" Your statement is Hogwash when you day that I cannot pinpoint the source of imagination because that source is spiritual!
There is NO necessity what-so-ever in my ability to "form mental images or concepts" only by my having to believe that there are incorporeal or supernatural beings or phenomena nor do I need to be involved in "sacred matters or ecclesiastical!"
When you start mixing up your very definitions of words it indicates the unreliability of your statements.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 26, 2016 11:00:09 GMT -5
They're only mixed up to you. Imagination is our connection with the transcendent. I'm talking about the goodness of good, the badness of bad, the beauty of beauty, the truthfulness of truth. You can't boil, track down, or capture these essences. You can't kill them or prove them in a laboratory.
While our perception of the beautiful essences may vary from person to person, the real danger is to deny they exist at all. Physicalism is poised to destroy our classical understanding of thought. In physicalism, all things --- *thoughts, and everything that may be perceived by thought* --- are merely extensions of matter.
Philosophical foundations matter. If the goodness of good is only a convention of existence it can be openly dispensed with or denied. If it is conventional, it is no longer authoritative, and lesser authorities can suffice. That, makes us vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 26, 2016 15:15:57 GMT -5
They're only mixed up to you. Imagination is our connection with the transcendent. I'm talking about the goodness of good, the badness of bad, the beauty of beauty, the truthfulness of truth. You can't boil, track down, or capture these essences. You can't kill them or prove them in a laboratory. Not true. An electrical stimulus to the right part of the brain can turn a normal person into a sexual predator. EST Deep brain stimulation, such as that used to treat Parkinson's disease, major depression, chronic pain, etc. can produce hallucinations as well as change people's memories and can even create new 'memories'. ECT can remove memories and when the 'badness of bad' is gone some people function at a better level. If you have ever talked to someone riding the high of an LSD trip you would quickly realize that the imagination is not transcendent but firmly rooted in our brains and is subject to creation, modification, and/or elimination. If you want to really see a change in levels of imagination spend some time with a person who has been 'treated' with a prefrontal lobotomy. Perhaps you have some explanation of how severing brain tieeus could somehow disrupt the imagination you consider transcendent. Indeed they are - and with the reproducible research to back up the claims. There you have it. And not only is this the prevailing theory there are actual photographs of memories being formed by neurons. Memories that can be removed simply by removing the neurons. Memories that can be prevented from forming in the first plave by the administration of a widly used medication. Perhaps what you are seeing is that goodness is not universal.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 26, 2016 18:23:37 GMT -5
They're only mixed up to you. Imagination is our connection with the transcendent. I'm talking about the goodness of good, the badness of bad, the beauty of beauty, the truthfulness of truth. ou can't boil, track down, or capture these essences. You can't kill them or prove them in a laboratory. While our perception of the beautiful essences may vary from person to person, the real danger is to deny they exist at all. Physicalism is poised to destroy our classical understanding of thought. In physicalism, all things --- *thoughts, and everything that may be perceived by thought* --- are merely extensions of matter. Philosophical foundations matter. If the goodness of good is only a convention of existence it can be openly dispensed with or denied. If it is conventional, it is no longer authoritative, and lesser authorities can suffice. That, makes us vulnerable. You gave the two terms; " imagination and spiritual," and insinuated that the ONLY source of my ability to "imagine" had to came from a "spiritual" factor.
In other words, you believe I couldn't 'IMAGINE' anything without there being a "SPIRITUAL" component to factor into my ability to imagine.
I tell you that it is NOT necessary for there to be any "SPIRITUAL" component enter into my ability to "IMAGINE" something!
My ability to IMAGINE something does NOT need any belief in some 'SPIRITUAL' idea!
My ability to IMAGINE something comes from the ability of my "BRAIN" to recall memories and the knowledge gained from those memories, and then extrapolate from that what I might 'IMAGINE' could be or happen.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 28, 2016 7:14:48 GMT -5
Surely your mom and dad's nurturing you as a baby affect your imagination to this day, you're not THAT self-contained. Lewis said once he didn't think all imagination was necessarily imaginative, I'm going to review what he meant by that, but it sounds right.
Questions of "ought-ness" and "being-ness" are value judgments, and their values arise in the imagination rather involuntarily. If you could question the value of love, it would cease to be love. These values are spiritual, they are not categorically contingent upon anything physical.
|
|