It’s history, not science

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#31

Post by Revolutionary » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:02 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Revolutionary, may I ask WHY are you here on this forum?
To expand minds
That isn't really an answer to my question.
Allow me to rephrase it:
Why are you here on THIS forum?
To expand minds....
Did you want to dictate how I should answer your question?

One might easily conclude that I have assessed that THIS forum could use some expanding. It is a simple mechanic of logic that it will either prove it to be so or the other way around.... Either way, it should provide the perfect arena in order to expand minds regardless of which direction it takes.

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#32

Post by Revolutionary » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:08 pm

Byblos wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:Immaterial is a convenient word that we made up simply to give extraneous meaning to nothingness/void....
How does one understand the emotion of love without there being anything in order to experience it? It's an impossibility!
Try it, there is nothing but you in a formless immaterial state.... There is no light and no darkness, no material and no artistry beyond imagining how it might have form.
How does one understand beauty without any sort of tangible experience in order to reflect?
How does one understand creativity without any medium?

It boggles the mind that people have the desire to make a being so powerful that "he" created everything, that they place him in an eternal formless void before doing so.... How exciting huh?

Oh I'm sorry, the immaterial... That makes it so much better no?
I know we started off on the wrong foot but I am really attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you rev. If I'm wasting my time please let me know and I will gracefully bow out.

But the immaterial is all around us rev. Tell me, how do you explain triangularity in material terms? You cannot even begin to explain anything without referring to the immaterial (the mind) as it relates to the body (or the brain). How can matter (including the brain) have any concept of about-ness? You may think this is a trivial matter but it isn't. Go ask Descartes, he made a mess of the whole thing.
Take a brain and place it into a space where there is no sound, no sight and no touch.... How does it contemplate anything?

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#33

Post by Revolutionary » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:10 pm

Welcome to the immaterial

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#34

Post by Byblos » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:32 pm

Revolutionary wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:Immaterial is a convenient word that we made up simply to give extraneous meaning to nothingness/void....
How does one understand the emotion of love without there being anything in order to experience it? It's an impossibility!
Try it, there is nothing but you in a formless immaterial state.... There is no light and no darkness, no material and no artistry beyond imagining how it might have form.
How does one understand beauty without any sort of tangible experience in order to reflect?
How does one understand creativity without any medium?

It boggles the mind that people have the desire to make a being so powerful that "he" created everything, that they place him in an eternal formless void before doing so.... How exciting huh?

Oh I'm sorry, the immaterial... That makes it so much better no?
I know we started off on the wrong foot but I am really attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you rev. If I'm wasting my time please let me know and I will gracefully bow out.

But the immaterial is all around us rev. Tell me, how do you explain triangularity in material terms? You cannot even begin to explain anything without referring to the immaterial (the mind) as it relates to the body (or the brain). How can matter (including the brain) have any concept of about-ness? You may think this is a trivial matter but it isn't. Go ask Descartes, he made a mess of the whole thing.
Take a brain and place it into a space where there is no sound, no sight and no touch.... How does it contemplate anything?
If you humor me and accept, for the sake of the argument only, that there is such a thing as an immaterial soul, then the soul is said to be animating the body. I.e. it gives it its form. The body cannot be said to be alive without the soul. But the soul can certainly exist without the body. It is called hylomorphism and is as old as Aristotle, nothing new. Going back to your example above, if the brain is removed from body then necessarily the body is separated from its form and cannot contemplate anything. But that condition says nothing of the form or its ability to discern. If you're not familiar with classical philosophy, the Aristotelian/Thomistic variety in particular, I would suggest that you start there. You want mind-expanding, I promise you an inflationary expansion. :)
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#35

Post by Revolutionary » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:51 pm

Byblos wrote: If you humor me and accept, for the sake of the argument only, that there is such a thing as an immaterial soul, then the soul is said to be animating the body. I.e. it gives it its form. The body cannot be said to be alive without the soul. But the soul can certainly exist without the body. It is called hylomorphism and is as old as Aristotle, nothing new. Going back to your example above, if the brain is removed from body then necessarily the body is separated from its form and cannot contemplate anything. But that condition says nothing of the form or its ability to discern. If you're not familiar with classical philosophy, the Aristotelian/Thomistic variety in particular, I would suggest that you start there. You want mind-expanding, I promise you an inflationary expansion. :)
I can't entertain anything when you avoid the question entirely....
This has nothing to do with removing a brain from a body, it has to do with placing a purported essence of intellect in a space devoid of any physical attributes and asking how it contemplates anything.

Contemplation either requires form or provides form, each reflecting or a reflection of the tangible....

Now we are back to square one.... yet again these circles with you Byblos....
Without either required or provided forms of the tangible, we are left with eternal and infinite nothingness....... And?

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#36

Post by Revolutionary » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:53 pm

ETERNAL NOTHINGNESS..... sounds brilliant no?

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#37

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:03 pm

Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Revolutionary, may I ask WHY are you here on this forum?
To expand minds
That isn't really an answer to my question.
Allow me to rephrase it:
Why are you here on THIS forum?
To expand minds....
Did you want to dictate how I should answer your question?

One might easily conclude that I have assessed that THIS forum could use some expanding. It is a simple mechanic of logic that it will either prove it to be so or the other way around.... Either way, it should provide the perfect arena in order to expand minds regardless of which direction it takes.
I see.
If I find you being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative, I will warn you and then if you repeat, I will ban you.
Just a fair warning since you make it clear that your sole purpose is NOT to discuss Christianity as is the purpose of this board but to expand minds ( one assumes to YOUR definition of expand of course).
I remind you that people are allowed to post here as long as they follow the guidelines.
I would just note that the fact that you BELIEVE our minds are in need of being expanded by YOU, already gives me some concern as to the degree of self-delusion that you may have.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#38

Post by Byblos » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:16 pm

Revolutionary wrote:
Byblos wrote: If you humor me and accept, for the sake of the argument only, that there is such a thing as an immaterial soul, then the soul is said to be animating the body. I.e. it gives it its form. The body cannot be said to be alive without the soul. But the soul can certainly exist without the body. It is called hylomorphism and is as old as Aristotle, nothing new. Going back to your example above, if the brain is removed from body then necessarily the body is separated from its form and cannot contemplate anything. But that condition says nothing of the form or its ability to discern. If you're not familiar with classical philosophy, the Aristotelian/Thomistic variety in particular, I would suggest that you start there. You want mind-expanding, I promise you an inflationary expansion. :)
I can't entertain anything when you avoid the question entirely....
This has nothing to do with removing a brain from a body, it has to do with placing a purported essence of intellect in a space devoid of any physical attributes and asking how it contemplates anything.
But the essence of the intellect is immaterial so it is not constrained by a non-physical environment.
Revolutionary wrote:Contemplation either requires form or provides form, each reflecting or a reflection of the tangible....
At first I thought you got it but then you go back to the material, the tangible. Why all this constraint?
Revolutionary wrote:Now we are back to square one.... yet again these circles with you Byblos....
Without either required or provided forms of the tangible, we are left with eternal and infinite nothingness....... And?
I don't even know what means rev, really. And I repeat that's only stemming from your inability to even contemplate the immaterial as a possibility. But the immaterial is all around you, you deny it at the expense of denying reality.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#39

Post by Revolutionary » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:22 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Revolutionary, may I ask WHY are you here on this forum?
To expand minds
That isn't really an answer to my question.
Allow me to rephrase it:
Why are you here on THIS forum?
To expand minds....
Did you want to dictate how I should answer your question?

One might easily conclude that I have assessed that THIS forum could use some expanding. It is a simple mechanic of logic that it will either prove it to be so or the other way around.... Either way, it should provide the perfect arena in order to expand minds regardless of which direction it takes.
I see.
If I find you being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative, I will warn you and then if you repeat, I will ban you.
Just a fair warning since you make it clear that your sole purpose is NOT to discuss Christianity as is the purpose of this board but to expand minds ( one assumes to YOUR definition of expand of course).
I remind you that people are allowed to post here as long as they follow the guidelines.
I would just note that the fact that you BELIEVE our minds are in need of being expanded by YOU, already gives me some concern as to the degree of self-delusion that you may have.
There is a point where the mind understands that questions only provide opportunity.... Opportunity to gain or provide knowledge, otherwise known as expanding minds.... It's that inherent brilliance that is contained within the question itself.
The only one giving an example of being argumentative here is you.
This forum as defined is "Evidence for God from Science"
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the first step of the scientific method and understand that I have not deviated from doing exactly that.
"Finding" that a question does not fit within your defined model, and that it is therefore argumentative; is nothing more than a contradiction to everything this forum says it is, and everything that you as a moderator should defend against.... You sir, are not being a very good example of that.

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#40

Post by Revolutionary » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:25 pm

Byblos wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
Byblos wrote: If you humor me and accept, for the sake of the argument only, that there is such a thing as an immaterial soul, then the soul is said to be animating the body. I.e. it gives it its form. The body cannot be said to be alive without the soul. But the soul can certainly exist without the body. It is called hylomorphism and is as old as Aristotle, nothing new. Going back to your example above, if the brain is removed from body then necessarily the body is separated from its form and cannot contemplate anything. But that condition says nothing of the form or its ability to discern. If you're not familiar with classical philosophy, the Aristotelian/Thomistic variety in particular, I would suggest that you start there. You want mind-expanding, I promise you an inflationary expansion. :)
I can't entertain anything when you avoid the question entirely....
This has nothing to do with removing a brain from a body, it has to do with placing a purported essence of intellect in a space devoid of any physical attributes and asking how it contemplates anything.
But the essence of the intellect is immaterial so it is not constrained by a non-physical environment.
Revolutionary wrote:Contemplation either requires form or provides form, each reflecting or a reflection of the tangible....
At first I thought you got it but then you go back to the material, the tangible. Why all this constraint?
Revolutionary wrote:Now we are back to square one.... yet again these circles with you Byblos....
Without either required or provided forms of the tangible, we are left with eternal and infinite nothingness....... And?
I don't even know what means rev, really. And I repeat that's only stemming from your inability to even contemplate the immaterial as a possibility. But the immaterial is all around you, you deny it at the expense of denying reality.
Without something tangible, nobody can contemplate anything let alone the immaterial..... Isn't that the point? My inability?

XCircle

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21646
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 1110 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#41

Post by RickD » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:20 pm

Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Revolutionary, may I ask WHY are you here on this forum?
To expand minds
That isn't really an answer to my question.
Allow me to rephrase it:
Why are you here on THIS forum?
To expand minds....
Did you want to dictate how I should answer your question?

One might easily conclude that I have assessed that THIS forum could use some expanding. It is a simple mechanic of logic that it will either prove it to be so or the other way around.... Either way, it should provide the perfect arena in order to expand minds regardless of which direction it takes.
So, is it safe to assume that you want to expand your own mind too? And you are open to learning as well?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#42

Post by Byblos » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:58 am

Revolutionary wrote:Without something tangible, nobody can contemplate anything let alone the immaterial..... Isn't that the point? My inability?
Well like I said, if you deny that universals and abstract objects exist (both of which are immaterial) without a need for a brain to 'contemplate' them (obviously, since by definition that's what a universal is) then you've essentially denied all of reality. That, sir, is the undeniable conclusion of your position. *Mind completely blown away*.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#43

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:01 am

Revolutionary wrote: There is a point where the mind understands that questions only provide opportunity.... Opportunity to gain or provide knowledge, otherwise known as expanding minds.... It's that inherent brilliance that is contained within the question itself.
The only one giving an example of being argumentative here is you.
This forum as defined is "Evidence for God from Science"
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the first step of the scientific method and understand that I have not deviated from doing exactly that.
"Finding" that a question does not fit within your defined model, and that it is therefore argumentative; is nothing more than a contradiction to everything this forum says it is, and everything that you as a moderator should defend against.... You sir, are not being a very good example of that.
If YOUR mind was sufficiently expanded you would realize that you saying it so, doesn't make it so.
The very height of arrogant is to believe that we have something to offer anyone that will expand their mind without knowing WHO they are and what is in their minds.
Your views are old and tried and to fall victim to them would result in a contraction of the mind, not expansion at all.
You are simply and pointlessly argumentative, probably because you like to read what you yourself write because in your narrow mind, it is so far above these power deluded people.
Your assumption about people here are so grossly inaccurate that they are truly laughable BUT you will never see it because you have already come here with a closed and narrow mind that has already made it own preconceived conclusions.
In short, you are the very thing you have come here to "fight against" and that you don't see that, well...I rest my case.

Carry on for as long as you feel amused ( or till you step on the wrong toes).

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#44

Post by Revolutionary » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:45 pm

RickD wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Revolutionary, may I ask WHY are you here on this forum?
To expand minds
That isn't really an answer to my question.
Allow me to rephrase it:
Why are you here on THIS forum?
To expand minds....
Did you want to dictate how I should answer your question?

One might easily conclude that I have assessed that THIS forum could use some expanding. It is a simple mechanic of logic that it will either prove it to be so or the other way around.... Either way, it should provide the perfect arena in order to expand minds regardless of which direction it takes.
So, is it safe to assume that you want to expand your own mind too? And you are open to learning as well?
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Unfortunately, christians are seldom very christian like.... If I am lacking in something that makes me whole and it is something that you contain, to BE christian would be to offer it without malice, without condemnation, without judgement and without accusation.... This is what your teaching says is the greatest of all expressions and what in essence makes you whole.

I have posed more questions on this thread than anybody else.... I have only been met with extremely poor examples of what a christian is supposed to be.... And somehow I am accused of being argumentative and threatened to be banned.
You should remind your fellow moderator not only what the definition of moderate is, but perhaps what it is to be christian.

Lonewolf
Valued Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:12 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: It’s history, not science

#45

Post by Lonewolf » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:59 pm

Revolutionary wrote: Unfortunately, christians are seldom very christian like.... If I am lacking in something that makes me whole and it is something that you contain, to BE christian would be to offer it without malice, without condemnation, without judgement and without accusation.... This is what your teaching says is the greatest of all expressions and what in essence makes you whole.

I have posed more questions on this thread than anybody else.... I have only been met with extremely poor examples of what a christian is supposed to be.... And somehow I am accused of being argumentative and threatened to be banned.
You should remind your fellow moderator not only what the definition of moderate is, but perhaps what it is to be christian.
I'm alright with you Rev., I feel what you are saying., I too have a lot of questions and viewpoint that I would like some guidance or teaching on, so that I can hopefully either confirm or dispell any doubts that I may have., I too hope to be able to speak freely (as long as I am respectful) and not be condemned for whatever erroneous understanding others may judge that I am in or follow., Christians being un-Christians and intolerant or non-understanding of others, is a huge proble that I see with Christianity, and from my personal experience I can attest to having a lot to do with members drifting away and it keeps others from getting near., If we live in a society where so called freedom of speech is highly valued, then I believe us in the Christian ranks should be above the secular world in terms of freedom., By this I'm not saying to allow false teachers to enter into false teaching in the church, of course not., but a forum in the world wide web is not the same, imo., a forum is a place where one can have an exchange of ideas and have dialoge., again i say, with due respect of course.
Your outward profession of having put on Christ, has as yet to put off Plato from your heart!

Post Reply