Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Flesh And The Spirit


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

How about this, End?

 

A re-definition of your three entities into three categories.  Why?  Because the word 'entity' carries with it too much baggage.  An entity implies consciousness, self-awareness and personality.  But the first 'entity' is the living material of animal and human bodies.  If you call that category an entity, you run the risk of ascribing consciousness, self-awareness and personality to arms, legs, hooves, mandibles, gills, blood cells and teeth.

 

Also, the word 'spirit' has too much baggage associated with it as well.  Spirit implies the supernatural, the miraculous and the work of a deity.  Taking these things as first principles requires a leap of faith.  Better not to do that and keep things simple.

 

The last category is what we need to focus on, imho.

 

Keep thinking that the flesh and the spirit and Spirit are distinct entities. Just wanted to put this out there for discussion. It appears per casual observation that the flesh is powerless without direction.
So what I observe is three entities:

The flesh or our bodies.  Living, but non-sentient material.

 

A spirit that produces an outcome of natural.  The instinctive, unconscious minds of animals and humans.

 

And a spirit that produces "godly", for the other in the transaction/relationship.....godly being all the standard positive descriptions/outcomes yada yada.   The conscious human mind.

 

Appears we may choose via discipline which spirit we union with our body.

Thoughts, and thanks for participation.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

IMO, it does come to faith at some point. The fact that we can't predict says a lot. We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

 

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

 

Thanks S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

IMO, it does come to faith at some point. The fact that we can't predict says a lot. We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

 

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

 

Thanks S.

 

You are using the term faith in a very broad, religious context. Faith is a religious word. Trust is a more accurate word to describe what you are talking about in this context. Even when introducing multiple inputs and having multiple possible outcomes, its still possible to trust the system, even if the results are not what you expect. We understand enough about the system to have been able to develop a trust in the process. There is no faith needed for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

IMO, it does come to faith at some point. The fact that we can't predict says a lot. We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

 

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

 

Thanks S.

 

 

 

Your definition of faith must be different than mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

faith

/fāTH/

noun

 

noun: faith

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

trust

/trəst/

noun

 

noun: trust

1. firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

 

 

Those were the first things that popped up under faith and trust per Google.

 

Anyhow, "belief in the reliability" and "confidence" really seem like terms associated with predictability.

 

As I was saying before, in my mind, I'm looking for the actual mechanism(s) involved. When you get out past a certain number of variables then having confidence in the reliability of the outcome probably leans towards words like "soul". See number 2 below.

 

soul

/sōl/

noun

noun: soul; plural noun: souls

1. the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

•a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.

"in the depths of her soul, she knew he would betray her"

 

 

synonyms: spirit, psyche, (inner) self, inner being, life force, vital force; More

individuality, makeup, subconscious, anima;

 

pneuma;

 

atman

 

 

"seeing the soul through the eyes"

 

 

 

 

•emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance.

"their interpretation lacked soul"

 

 

synonyms: inspiration, feeling, emotion, passion, animation, intensity, fervor, ardor, enthusiasm, warmth, energy, vitality, spirit

"their music lacked soul"

2. the essence or embodiment of a specified quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't bother reading anything but the original post. Why do you waste your time wondering about crap? Christian philosophy is dead and it is rubbish. Take your head out of the ground and see the world and be free of nonsense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't bother reading anything but the original post. Why do you waste your time wondering about crap? Christian philosophy is dead and it is rubbish. Take your head out of the ground and see the world and be free of nonsense.

i kept thinking about replying to this thread and you just took the words out of my mouth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

IMO, it does come to faith at some point.  

 

No. There's no absolute necessity for this to come down to faith.  You claim that it does - because you WANT it to.  I contend that your opinion is actually a reflection of what you WANT, not what actually is.

 

The fact that we can't predict says a lot.    

 

No.  This is simply wrong, End.  We can and have predicted a great deal.  I really wish you'd embrace this as fact and history, rather than repeatedly denying that humans can accurately predict things, even with imperfect knowledge.

 

We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

 

No.  This is also wrong.  It's impossible for us to know all the aspects of anything we make predictions about.  There will always be unknowns.  But even with incomplete knowledge, we have made many excellently confirmed predictions.

 

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

 

Then you are flagrantly denying the historical record of science's confirmed predictions.   

 

Thanks S.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From worms to all animals were created by God but not made in His image.

 

Humans were made in His image. We are different.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

From worms to all animals were created by God but not made in His image.

 

Humans were made in His image. We are different.  

This begs a couple of questions.

 

Were all the animals made at essentially the same time, that is, prior to the making of Adam and Eve? Second, what does "His image" specifically mean in this context?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From worms to all animals were created by God but not made in His image.

 

Humans were made in His image. We are different.  

 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, Mr. "I Only Do Bald Assertions Because That's All I Know How To Do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

Is what I was reading old?

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 
 
Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 


IMO, it does come to faith at some point. The fact that we can't predict says a lot. We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

Thanks S.

 

 

 

Your definition of faith must be different than mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

faith
/fāTH/
noun

noun: faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

trust
/trəst/
noun

noun: trust
1. firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.


Those were the first things that popped up under faith and trust per Google.

Anyhow, "belief in the reliability" and "confidence" really seem like terms associated with predictability.

As I was saying before, in my mind, I'm looking for the actual mechanism(s) involved. 

...

 

 

 

Well, well, well.  I agree to use that particular definition of the word "faith" for purposes of this thread.  I suspected you were attempting to use the other definition, the one from the Bible, i.e., wishful thinking without evidence.

 

The term "faith" is a bad word to use if you just mean trust or confidence.  The term "faith" has religious baggage associated with it.

 

So, yes, I have a certain amounts of confidence in NOAA regarding its ability to predict hurricanes, in whether my vehicle will start in the morning, and in whether I will become old and die.  And so do you.

 

I snipped your nonsense about "soul" because it is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

IMO, it does come to faith at some point.  

 

No. There's no absolute necessity for this to come down to faith.  You claim that it does - because you WANT it to.  I contend that your opinion is actually a reflection of what you WANT, not what actually is.

 

The fact that we can't predict says a lot.    

 

No.  This is simply wrong, End.  We can and have predicted a great deal.  I really wish you'd embrace this as fact and history, rather than repeatedly denying that humans can accurately predict things, even with imperfect knowledge.

 

We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

 

No.  This is also wrong.  It's impossible for us to know all the aspects of anything we make predictions about.  There will always be unknowns.  But even with incomplete knowledge, we have made many excellently confirmed predictions.

 

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

 

Then you are flagrantly denying the historical record of science's confirmed predictions.   

 

Thanks S.

 

 

Yes BAA, I am arguing for "my side" because it's what I want. I'm trying to be honest but honesty forces me to acknowledge that we can't see very far in front of ourselves. Although I thought I made it clear that we CAN predict a lot. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

 

Again, I think it more accurate and realistic to say as the varied contributions to a system become more numerous along with incomplete knowledge, we have less ability to predict the outcome.....as is the case with humanity.

 

I do think it remarkable how much we ARE able to predict.....so I am on board, but not so much when predicting human behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

IMO, it does come to faith at some point. The fact that we can't predict says a lot. We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

 

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

 

Thanks S.

 

 

 

Your definition of faith must be different than mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

faith

/fāTH/

noun

 

noun: faith

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

trust

/trəst/

noun

 

noun: trust

1. firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

 

 

Those were the first things that popped up under faith and trust per Google.

 

Anyhow, "belief in the reliability" and "confidence" really seem like terms associated with predictability.

 

As I was saying before, in my mind, I'm looking for the actual mechanism(s) involved. 

...

 

 

 

Well, well, well.  I agree to use that particular definition of the word "faith" for purposes of this thread.  I suspected you were attempting to use the other definition, the one from the Bible, i.e., wishful thinking without evidence.

 

The term "faith" is a bad word to use if you just mean trust or confidence.  The term "faith" has religious baggage associated with it.

 

So, yes, I have a certain amounts of confidence in NOAA regarding its ability to predict hurricanes, in whether my vehicle will start in the morning, and in whether I will become old and die.  And so do you.

 

I snipped your nonsense about "soul" because it is nonsense.

 

Yes, I wasn't using faith per the religious def.

Also, not sure the soul thing is nonsense, but more of a word assigned to our lack of understanding....that's what I was trying to get at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't bother reading anything but the original post. Why do you waste your time wondering about crap? Christian philosophy is dead and it is rubbish. Take your head out of the ground and see the world and be free of nonsense.

i kept thinking about replying to this thread and you just took the words out of my mouth.

 

Oh come on S. There are parts of me that think the way SB mentions here, but there is more of me that identifies with Christianity. Please contribute if you would like....I'm just passing time and enjoy the discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I wasn't using faith per the religious def.

Also, not sure the soul thing is nonsense, but more of a word assigned to our lack of understanding....that's what I was trying to get at.

 

 

 

One of the problems I (and I suspect most others) have is your curious choice of words.  Here, you choose the word "soul" to describe "our lack of understanding".  That is not what your quoted definition provides.  Like "faith", it has more than one definition, one secular and the other religious.  No one define it as "our lack of understanding", except you.  Why not just use something like, "We don't know that", or "I do not understand".

 

As to the nonsense of "soul", the definition you C&P'd is accurate, but, again, there is a secular use of this word and a religious use of this word.  The religious version of the word is nonsense.  Demonstrating the existence of a "soul" in a religious context requires evidence.  You have provided none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I wasn't using faith per the religious def.

Also, not sure the soul thing is nonsense, but more of a word assigned to our lack of understanding....that's what I was trying to get at.

 

 

One of the problems I (and I suspect most others) have is your curious choice of words.  Here, you choose the word "soul" to describe "our lack of understanding".  That is not what your quoted definition provides.  Like "faith", it has more than one definition, one secular and the other religious.  No one define it as "our lack of understanding", except you.  Why not just use something like, "We don't know that", or "I do not understand".

 

As to the nonsense of "soul", the definition you C&P'd is accurate, but, again, there is a secular use of this word and a religious use of this word.  The religious version of the word is nonsense.  Demonstrating the existence of a "soul" in a religious context requires evidence.  You have provided none.

 

I think I am adequately demonstrating that our lack of understanding gives rise to words like soul. Never said it is valid, but our lack of evidence ALSO still gives it credibility.

 

You will please notice that one man next to Jesus on the cross is demanding proof. I think it's curious as you say that the Bible notes our conversation more or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So after reading a little, I'm understanding that we may neither predict emergent properties going from simple to complex nor predict the simple from complex emergent.

 

Seems like a leap of faith in there Lucy....

 

Is what I was reading old?

 

Edit: I'm certain we may to some extent....I'm assuming the level of complexity limits predictability at some point.

 

 

Emergent properties exist.  That is reality.  It is evidence.  Being able to predict what properties may emerge from a system, or not being able to so predict, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

IMO, it does come to faith at some point.  

 

No. There's no absolute necessity for this to come down to faith.  You claim that it does - because you WANT it to.  I contend that your opinion is actually a reflection of what you WANT, not what actually is.

 

The fact that we can't predict says a lot.    

 

No.  This is simply wrong, End.  We can and have predicted a great deal.  I really wish you'd embrace this as fact and history, rather than repeatedly denying that humans can accurately predict things, even with imperfect knowledge.

 

We may change one parameter in three ingredients and see a resultant property that we didn't predict....given we know ALL the ingredients.

 

No.  This is also wrong.  It's impossible for us to know all the aspects of anything we make predictions about.  There will always be unknowns.  But even with incomplete knowledge, we have made many excellently confirmed predictions.

 

All I am saying is you take very complex systems with multiple multiple inputs and it sure seems like a lot more faith than "we are pretty good at it".

 

Then you are flagrantly denying the historical record of science's confirmed predictions.   

 

Thanks S.

 

 

Yes BAA, I am arguing for "my side" because it's what I want.  

 

But which do you want more End?  To argue for your 'side' or to find out if your 'side' actually has the truth?  Surely you'd want to test to see if your 'side' has the truth, rather than take it on faith?

 

I'm trying to be honest but honesty forces me to acknowledge that we can't see very far in front of ourselves. 

 

Not really.  If you were trying 100% to be honest to the facts, then you wouldn't be arguing for your 'side' would you?  Facts and not faith will tell you what's true.

 

No.  It's not honesty that forces you to acknowledge that we can't see very far.  It's your allegiance to your 'side' and an emotional need for comfort and reassurance causes you to downplay and largely deny that we can see very far indeed.

 

Although I thought I made it clear that we CAN predict a lot. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

Again, I think it more accurate and realistic to say as the varied contributions to a system become more numerous along with incomplete knowledge, we have less ability to predict the outcome.....as is the case with humanity.

 

I do think it remarkable how much we ARE able to predict.....so I am on board, but not so much when predicting human behavior.

 

Agree.

But what we don't know and can't predict about human behavior is largely irrelevant when it comes to establishing facts that support or rule out the existence of the Christian God.  The well-tested and well-supported data about the origin of the universe and the origin of human and animal life clearly tells us that the Christian God doesn't exist and that neither the universe, the planet Earth, nor life on it came into existence as the Bible says it did.   Therefore, having ruled God out of the equation from get go, there's no need to look at what we don't know about human behavior and then insert God into that convenient gap.  It's like building a house, End.  Without a proper foundation, nothing can be built up.  In the same way, if God is ruled out by scientific information about the universe's origin, then there's no foundation on which you can build an argument for God, based on gaps of knowledge about human behavior.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is we made god in our image. "If triangles had gods, they'd look like triangles. " (source unknown)

 

I didn't follow the original post either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something for you to consider, End.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3.

 

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Here you, the Christian, are asked to do as the ancients did and accept only by faith that God created everything just as was described in Genesis.

 

So, if you do that, but then change your approach, swapping faith for evidence, what happens?

 

You try to build evidence-based arguments for God on the Biblical, evidence-free foundation of faith.

 

I hope you can see that this can never work.

 

But in case you disagree, would you please explain why you think evidence from the natural universe can rest on the supernatural foundation of faith?

 

Yes, many other Christians have done this.

 

But pointing to their precedent doesn't really explain why you disagree that building evidence on faith cannot work.

 

Please explain your reasoning.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

You will also need to have faith in your vehicle... just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

You will also need to have faith in your vehicle... just sayin'.

 

And faith in your skills and knowledge as a driver... (are you driving the correct way???)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

You will also need to have faith in your vehicle... just sayin'.

 

And faith in your skills and knowledge as a driver... (are you driving the correct way???)

 

There is no correct way; everything is subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Simple question, End.

 

I want to drive from Amarillo to Dallas.

 

Do I need perfect knowledge of every bump and bend in every road on the planet to do that or do I just need enough knowledge to get me from A to D...?

You will also need to have faith in your vehicle... just sayin'.

 

And faith in your skills and knowledge as a driver... (are you driving the correct way???)

 

There is no correct way; everything is subjective.

 

Apparently, Christianity thinks there are more than 41,000 correct ways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.