The phenomenon and the explanation

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If miracles are utterly unexplainable then how can they be explained via God?

Inexplicable == GodDidIt?

Not an explanation per se, but a new label pregnant with wonder and mystery to believers - and more palatable than 'GodOfTheGaps'.

 

[tas8831]

So you guys keep saying, and I keep saying then all unproven scientific presupposition is special pleading.

I see you just ignore what the presuppositions of science are compared what yours are.

You are disingenuous at every turn.

You see a line of logic that goes unanswered, propose a hypothesis, and see if it works.

When do you plan to employ logic?

 

[Eloy Craft]

So what does it mean to be a 'perfect'

Without defect.

You've also moved from talking of souls to talking of persons

A person is any rational being. That ability distinguishes a human soul from the soul of other animals. Why a human is a person but a cat is not.
The source of sensitive powers are organs, the body. Not much difference between Us and the other animals there.
Often they are interchangeable. I was going back and forth to help the reader connect those dots.

are you using the word to mean person rather than referring to a supernatural 'extra'?

A soul is very natural. Souls are produced by earthly processes.
If something is alive it has a soul. It's easy to tell if it isn't there.
I favor St Thomas Aquinas' view of the soul. Aka principal

If miracles are utterly unexplainable then how can they be explained via God?

Human experience. A process of elimination. There are characteristics that typify authentic miracles.

 

[pitabread]

Human experience. A process of elimination. There are characteristics that typify authentic miracles.

That doesn't really address my question though.

You defined miracles as being "utterly unexplainable" (your words), but then immediately turned around and claimed they could be explained [by God].

That seems a contradiction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Without defect.

Yes, but what counts as a defect?

A person is any rational being. That ability distinguishes a human soul from the soul of other animals.

Humans are far from the only creatures that can reason. We are just better at it than most other creatures.

A soul is very natural. Souls are produced by earthly processes.
If something is alive it has a soul. It's easy to tell if it isn't there.
I favor St Thomas Aquinas' view of the soul. Aka principal

IIRC Aquinas' view of the soul was not as simple as you make it sound - even the 'vegetative soul', though dependent on the body, isn't part of the body but attached to it. He had a well-organised model of biological life, but it is just wrong. The difference between life and death is a matter of biology, cellular metabolism, biochemistry. The 'sensitive soul' and 'rational soul' are interesting concepts as metaphors, but not useful as practical real-world descriptions.

 

[Eloy Craft]

That doesn't really address my question though.

You defined miracles as being "utterly unexplainable" (your words), but then immediately turned around and claimed they could be explained [by God].

That seems a contradiction.

Sorry about that. That's the process of elimination. Eliminating explanations. Not that God would explain it but is an explanation.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Yes, but what counts as a defect?

Humans are far from the only creatures that can reason. We are just better at it than most other creatures.

IIRC Aquinas' view of the soul was not as simple as you make it sound - even the 'vegetative soul', though dependent on the body, isn't part of the body but attached to it. He had a well-organised model of biological life, but it is just wrong. The difference between life and death is a matter of biology, cellular metabolism, biochemistry. The 'sensitive soul' and 'rational soul' are interesting concepts as metaphors, but not useful as practical real-world descriptions.

I think the model is accurate. I Don't agree with his view of the embryonic human soul and delayed hominization.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Humans are far from the only creatures that can reason. We are just better at it than most other creatures.

The evidence that we are alone among the animals is overwhelming. The distinction is intellect. A bear cant act like anything but a bear. Humans do next level things that are absent in any other animal
If I careid on a conversation like this one with someone curtained off then when the curtain was opened I find I was talking with a gorilla I will have detected a rational soul.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A soul is very natural. Souls are produced by earthly processes.
If something is alive it has a soul. It's easy to tell if it isn't there.
I favor St Thomas Aquinas' view of the soul. Aka principal

If so, it can be detected. Please report any objective detections of "soul".

 

[Eloy Craft]

If so, it can be detected. Please report any objective detections of "soul".

Lots of ways to detect things. If you see something die the something isn't 'here' anymore even though everything we saw still is.
You seek truth. You have ideas. Ideas that didn't exist then do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The evidence that we are alone among the animals is overwhelming. The distinction is intellect. A bear cant act like anything but a bear. Humans do next level things that are absent in any other animal

A human can't act like anything but a human... What are your examples of 'next level things' that are absent in all other animals?

If I careid on a conversation like this one with someone curtained off then when the curtain was opened I find I was talking with a gorilla I will have detected a rational soul.

English language conversation is not the sole indicator of rationality. Rational means based on reason and understanding; there are plenty of animals that show understanding and the ability to reason. Humans are particularly good at it, but not alone.

 

[Ophiolite]

Lots of ways to detect things. If you see something die the something isn't 'here' anymore even though everything we saw still is.

Included in the things that we saw, or could see, that are not there anymore are:

• Respiration
• Blood circulation
• Firing of neurons
• Coordinated muscular activity

The nature of all of these falls within the realm of the physical and the natural. No sign of any soul.

You seek truth. You have ideas. Ideas that didn't exist then do.

We are far from a full understanding of how the brain works, but the evidence that our thought resides within the physical and chemical character of the brain is substantial, while the evidence for a separate mind is miniscule. Short version: ideas originate in the brain.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lots of ways to detect things. If you see something die the something isn't 'here' anymore even though everything we saw still is.
You seek truth. You have ideas. Ideas that didn't exist then do.

Dead animals stop moving? Is that your "evidence"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

'unproven scientific presupposition' (hypothesising) isn't special pleading.

The point is that your claim that 'first cause' is the only reasonable explanation because all the others are, in your opinion, illogical, is itself illogical because 'first cause' is illogical.

When trying to make logical arguments, consistency and logic are important.

Good thing you were around to show me the Cosmological Argument is illogical after all these years! So what one does isn't hypothesizing, in order to investigate the question of the existence of 'first cause'?

But 'first cause' is not what is illogical —it is the defenses given for it, or the definitions, that may be illogical.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So how do you explain this change? What biology can you put forth that does not rely on any of your inflammatory and unsupported aspersions?

Within species, there is change, but monkey is monkey, fly is fly, moth is moth.

Ha! Actually, I should say, "I don't believe there is no evolution —I just fail to believe in evolution (as it is generally presented today (I say as opposed to saying Darwinian Evolution since that is inflammatory)"

 

[Mark Quayle]

The universe exists and is amenable to being investigated

is special pleading.

But seeing as how you still cannot provide any example of your other inflammatory accusations, I doubt you can deal with this, either.

I can wait.

Ah, yes, the famous, "I can wait"!

You draw the whole universe being amenable to investigation as an example of what I was talking about? I am talking about specific examples, such as hypothesizing that all creatures descended from a common ancestor, since we see "transitory" forms, (and that, in spite of the fact that we have no way to know if they were transitory or not —this smacks of confirmation bias).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, yes, the famous, "I can wait"!

You draw the whole universe being amenable to investigation as an example of what I was talking about? I am talking about specific examples, such as hypothesizing that all creatures descended from a common ancestor, since we see "transitory" forms, (and that, in spite of the fact that we have no way to know if they were transitory or not —this smacks of confirmation bias).

The fossil record is only a small part of the evidence for the theory of evolution. And please tell me how are transitional forms an example of confirmation bias?

Science that relies on consilience is far more reliable than science that relies on only once source. Creationists tend to only look at the fossil record. They ignore the vast majority of evidence because refuting all of that would be hopeless.

Consilience - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Good thing you were around to show me the Cosmological Argument is illogical after all these years! So what one does isn't hypothesizing, in order to investigate the question of the existence of 'first cause'?

But 'first cause' is not what is illogical —it is the defenses given for it, or the definitions, that may be illogical.

The idea of a first cause is illogical because it's fallacious, it's special pleading. I can understand that you find it hard to acknowledge.

 

[Eloy Craft]

human can't act like anything but a human... What are your examples of 'next level things' that are absent in all other animals?

I guess being inhumane is impossible. Here's why it is.
No other animal is a moral agent. That's why no other animal is self determined.
No other animal seeks out and is able to apprehend truth, justice and freedom.
Why? No other animal has free will.
All those things require powers of the soul only humans have. Powers of an intellect.

English language conversation is not the sole indicator of rationality. Rational means based on reason and understanding; there are plenty of animals that show understanding and the ability to reason. Humans are particularly good at it, but not alone.

The sensitive powers in other animals obey the law of survival. Those powers are controllable by us and are in a perfect world completely obedient to our will. Many Eastern religions practice that control. Control only possible if one has something above the sensitive powers. We do. Intellect.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Included in the things that we saw, or could see, that are not there anymore are:

• Respiration
• Blood circulation
• Firing of neurons
• Coordinated muscular activity

The nature of all of these falls within the realm of the physical and the natural. No sign of any soul.

Plenty of signs for the existence of the soul
Apparently Aristotle and Plato were mistaken about them.
Yeah those things stopped and what made them move is gone.

We are far from a full understanding of how the brain works, but the evidence that our thought resides within the physical and chemical character of the brain is substantial, while the evidence for a separate mind is miniscule. Short version: ideas originate in the brain.

When you discover the chemical combination that can feel anger you may have a point.