How does one come to believe something?

[Arsenios]

Here's what you said...

"You CANNOT wrap your mind around your self..."

So by your own admission, you've got difficulty wrapping your mind around the concept of "self".

OK - You are speaking about ideas, and I am speaking ontologically... My point philosophically is in the realm of the fundamental nature of reality, metaphysics, and yours in in the realm of concepts... And the confusion is easy, but the former is the basis of the latter, regardless of communication issues via concepts...

There is all the difference in the world between self and concept of self - One's concept of self can NEVER wrap itself around the self that creates and believes and communicates the concept of self... eg The ontology of self is greater than the mind in its possession... Which is greater than the concepts in that mind's possession, which are greater than the words which communicate most of those concepts...

I think I'm also starting to understand your troubles with memory as well...

Dementia of old age takes time - So be patient and you may be given an opportunity to understand even better!

Your mind is the function of your brain, your body is basically an organic machine made to keep your brain (another organic machine) alive. The mind is what the brain creates....a series of processes that involves the processing of thoughts, feelings, concepts, ideas, and emotions. So when we talk about your mind...we're talking about you.

Now THAT reverts back to ontology - Good!

You have "proven" however what you deny, because you have proven that the mind is a function of matter, the brain... Materialism - Matter over mind - No matter, no mind...

The "self" on the other hand, is an ever-changing concept that we hold regarding our minds. We can't ever perceive our minds exactly as they are...biases. insecurities, emotions, desires....all these things keep us from accurately creating a concept of self. Not only is it impossible to do with our own concepts of self...but others as well.

And in this, you have flipped the ontology of self - For indeed the self is a combination of body and soul - over to being understood epistemologically as a fluctuating CONCEPT OF self... So I will return the flavor here back to you: IF this is how you understand your self and your mind - eg "...biases. insecurities, emotions, desires.... - THEN it is not I who am having a problem with the self that you are expressing in your understanding - Because these are YOUR words, not mine, and form a confession on your part...

This all proves my point about you struggling with the concept of self.

I think you may have failed to notice your other three fingers - firmly and happily attached to this finger-pointing-at-me hand - that are unflinchingly pointed straight back at ya!

fwiw, I will say that the fallen self of mankind is much as you describe, and is the thing that Christians take up the challenge to overcome, deny, and cure... Another topic!

Arsenios

 

[ScottA]

PS, DISCLAIMER: Sorry for being so harsh - but God threw this party we call life and it is late in the evening, and some have spent the whole time mocking the Host. You know who you are. The good news is, He is merciful enough to allow it...but that does not excuse it.

You could say that. I think the main problem is that communication is a two way system, while people like you see it as a one way street.

Communication being a two way system also mean that you would have to come around to my perspective... understanding what a statement or a question means in the mind of the speaker, and thus responsing respectively. Coherently, if you will.

But here's the problem with your one way approach: it doesn't assume a mutal understanding, but a one sided acceptance, without even the option of questioning.

In this case here, you gave an "answer". You didn't even consider how that answer would fit the question... you just presented your "perspective". And you cannot allow for not accepting your "answer"... everyone who does that just doesn't "understand".

That's false though. I understand your perspective here quite well, and I am willing to use it for the sake of the argument. But that doesn't change the fact that your "answer" doesn't do anything to indeed answer the question. It missed the point completely.

And as you are not willing or able to "come around to my perspective"... you keep failing at communication.

Once a question is asked, or in the case of one person knowing something that the other does not, the matter is no longer two-way. At that point, one must give and the other receive - not necessarily believe - but not categorically reject everything offered.

The perspective of one who rides a train, does not count - they simply need to decide where or if they want to go. It's not a discussion. If you don't understand...the train leaves without you.

If you don't understand - say so. But coming back with defiant remarks, is just as much the problem - and the train leaves anyway.

Re-stating your question, is the only real solution. The train is on its own schedule. You will need to be the one making adjustments.

Considering that you deliberately chose to adress a post using an english term under a different meaning than the poster did... I'd say that you simply do not understand the whole point of communication. You are not talking with others - you are indeed "not trying". You are talking at people.

"Look at something this way instead of that way"... this is a good way to start a communication. A means to exchange views, to find common ground and understanding.

But it is a start. You use it as the ends. "Look at something my way instead of your way. Accept that my way is correct, and yours is false."

You might be convinced that this is true, that you "know". This is fine for you... but as long as you cannot understand why people do not accept that, you will fail at communication. And by "understand why" I do not mean "because I know that they are all ridiculous or not trying"... but understand the reason that they present. Look at it my way instead of your way.

I am fully capable of giving an explanation and taking the time to do so, but that does not change the fact that this is not as much of a discussion as you may like it to be. If we are going to get to the point...it is not a discussion. So, if your only interest is to brainstorm opinions - get a room, and plan to stay - the next train leaves tomorrow.

I know what you are talking about. You are (mostly) just not talking about what we are talking about. That is the problem.

I will not apologize for moving from opinion to fact. Are you coming, or not?

Re-state your question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

OK - You are speaking about ideas, and I am speaking ontologically... My point philosophically is in the realm of the fundamental nature of reality, metaphysics, and yours in in the realm of concepts... And the confusion is easy, but the former is the basis of the latter, regardless of communication issues via concepts...

There is all the difference in the world between self and concept of self - One's concept of self can NEVER wrap itself around the self that creates and believes and communicates the concept of self... eg The ontology of self is greater than the mind in its possession... Which is greater than the concepts in that mind's possession, which are greater than the words which communicate most of those concepts...

I disagree....you are your mind. With the obvious exception of your body (which is an apparatus which supports your mind) there is no other part of you.


It's clear that you believe otherwise, so I'll make this simple. What part of you exists other than your mind?

Dementia of old age takes time - So be patient and you may be given an opportunity to understand even better!



Now THAT reverts back to ontology - Good!

You have "proven" however what you deny, because you have proven that the mind is a function of matter, the brain... Materialism - Matter over mind - No matter, no mind...

I don't recall ever denying anything of the sort. If you think I did...quote me.

And in this, you have flipped the ontology of self - For indeed the self is a combination of body and soul

Your understanding of your body is part of the concept of self...as for souls, there's no reason to believe they exist.

- over to being understood epistemologically as a fluctuating CONCEPT OF self... So I will return the flavor here back to you: IF this is how you understand your self and your mind - eg "...biases. insecurities, emotions, desires.... - THEN it is not I who am having a problem with the self that you are expressing in your understanding - Because these are YOUR words, not mine, and form a confession on your part...

Just because I'm aware of the limitations of creating an accurate concept of self doesn't mean I have a problem with understanding the concept of self. For example, when you think of yourself...you probably have an opinion about how intelligent you are. Is that opinion (which is part of your concept of self) actually how intelligent you are? Probably not.

I think you may have failed to notice your other three fingers - firmly and happily attached to this finger-pointing-at-me hand - that are unflinchingly pointed straight back at ya!

fwiw, I will say that the fallen self of mankind is much as you describe, and is the thing that Christians take up the challenge to overcome, deny, and cure... Another topic!

Arsenios

You haven't offered any explanation of self which contradicts mine...I can only imagine that at this point you agree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And you are doing the same: believing there is nothing to it, because for you there is nothing to it. You simply are pessimistic, while they are hopeful. But neither of those approaches knows the truth - only those such as myself, who have not merely "believed" what they heard, read, or hoped for, but actually have first hand confirmation of what is true and therefore "know."

You keep saying that you "know" something but you never get around to explaining this thing you "know". What am I or anyone else to conclude except that you know nothing?

If you can't share this thing you "know" then for all practical purposes....you know nothing.

But you, nor they, can speak to that end. So, if you are going to accuse them - leave me out of it - but do include yourself among those who only have their own opinion and reckless conjecture. You are their counterpart, no different, but simply opposing. They, on the other hand, have considered the truth as possible, while you dismiss it, simply because you do not know it. Bravo.

I get it Scott...you want to be considered special. Well here's your chance...let's hear this knowledge that you now possess which makes you so different from everyone else.

You can express this knowledge in whatever is the best way for you....English, French,Japanese...Morse code...you can draw a picture...whatever works for you.

My guess is that you'll come up with some lame excuse for why you can't explain this knowledge.

 

[ScottA]

You keep saying that you "know" something but you never get around to explaining this thing you "know". What am I or anyone else to conclude except that you know nothing?

If you can't share this thing you "know" then for all practical purposes....you know nothing.

You are taking yourself out of the equation. I know, and have explained, but you do not receive it - which is YOU choosing to be out of the loop. But there are a lot of things that we all don't know, and not being able to share in them, has nothing to do with what is true.

I get it Scott...you want to be considered special. Well here's your chance...let's hear this knowledge that you now possess which makes you so different from everyone else.

You can express this knowledge in whatever is the best way for you....English, French,Japanese...Morse code...you can draw a picture...whatever works for you.

My guess is that you'll come up with some lame excuse for why you can't explain this knowledge.

I have been telling you for a long, long time now...and it is you who have not stepped up.

What I "know" regarding this topic, is that God must draw you to himself, and you must respond in a way that is acceptable to him. Gauging by your words all of this time...He drew you to himself, you showed up here, but only to mock. At best, you have put your toe in the water and offered to have Him prove himself to you while you continue to mock him in your dealings with his children. That ain't going to cut it.

This is you getting exactly what you have put out - like you said, "nothing."

 

[Freodin]

Authority, that is what it comes down to for some people.

So we have to "be the one(s) making adjustments." We have to to "re-state our questions"... in a way acceptable to the authority. We "must respond in a way that is acceptable".
We must quietly sit back, accept that truth of what we are told, repeat what we are given.

Questioning is defiance. Doubt is rejection. Discussion is mocking. And not only do we dare to question, doubt, discuss with a human being... no, by doing that we defy, reject, mock GOD HIMSELF!

The other side though is doing fine. There is nothing to change, nothing to apologize for. Every question is answered, every explanation perfect... and where it isn't, there is a perfect reason for that.
Every voice that is raised against this source of knowledge is simply wrong.


You really should stop digging, Scott. What you are presenting with each of your posts isn't a position of knowledge or wisdom. It isn't a position of mercy.
It is a position of weakness, desparation and condescension.

 

[Arsenios]

That might even be correct. So what?

The more interesting question is on the opposite of your statement... why would the mind not being a brain function change anything about "knowledge [being] impossible"... and how does the mind not being a brain function explain all the existing situations where "knowledge" obviously fails?

Either side of the argument wins...

If matter does not determine mind, then errors of mind regarding matter are accountable to issues of mind...

If matter does determine mind, then errors of mind regarding matter are accountable to issues of, say, molecular structure etc...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I know that's not a perfect analogy, since the processes of the mind are much more complex than the process of running...but hopefully it's something you can grasp.

I agree -

It is a terrible analogy...

Not because of complexity...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I disagree....you are your mind.

And does this mind that you think you are is your thinking? eg Is it the activity of the brain analagous to the activity of the legs in running? Where the movement of the legs, as you argue, is more than the materiality of the legs...?

With the obvious exception of your body (which is an apparatus which supports your mind) there is no other part of you.

So are you NOW arguing that you ARE your body??? You did write: "You are your mind [except for] your body..."

I agree with your view whole-heartedly...

What part of you exists other than your mind?

All the rest of your self, including your body...

I don't recall ever denying anything of the sort. If you think I did...quote me.

I failed to find saying you denied something - You did affirm that the mind is a function of matter:

Your mind is the function of your brain, your body is basically an organic machine made to keep your brain (another organic machine) alive. The mind is what the brain creates....a series of processes that involves the processing of thoughts, feelings, concepts, ideas, and emotions. So when we talk about your mind...we're talking about you.

As for souls, there's no reason to believe they exist.

The soul is the life force of the body - When it departs, the body decomposes...

Alternatively, when the body is destroyed, the soul departs...

It is this very life force, the soul, that works through our chromosomal structures to create the body in the womb...

Just because I'm aware of the limitations of creating an accurate concept of self doesn't mean I have a problem with understanding the concept of self.

I was referring to how dismal your concept of YOUR self is... Not its accuracy... I agreed with the accuracy, remember?

For example, when you think of yourself...you probably have an opinion about how intelligent you are.

You just HAD TO remind me!

Is that opinion (which is part of your concept of self) actually how intelligent you are?

I HOPE I am not THAT unintelligent!

Probably not.

You are too kind -

My egotism would treasure your opinion...

But reality argues against you...

I am not all that bright...

You haven't offered any explanation of self which contradicts mine...

We were looking at YOUR explanation of self...

As for mine, if you desire to follow Christ, you must first DENY your SELF (repentance), then take up your own cross (an instrument of torture unto death) and overcoming the world (freeing your mind from being determined by matter so as to be turned to the God you do not know) and following Christ (in love for neighbor as one's self, and for God the Creator of all...)

No small matter...

Do YOU have a cure for YOUR utterly dismal understanding of self (with which I agree...)??

YOUR view of SELF is dismal indeed...

I can only imagine that at this point you agree.

Better now? We have a shared dismal view of self...

Arsenios

 

[Ana the Ist]

Dp

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree -

It is a terrible analogy...

Not because of complexity...

Arsenios

Well explain why then....calling it a terrible analogy isn't of much use, especially since several others seem to have understood it perfectly.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE "Ana the Ist, post: 69952704, member: 302807"]Well some certainly think they "press into advancement"...but thinking and doing are not the same.
What I think is most obvious in those who do believe such things is a desire to feel superior, special, or "blessed" if you will. It's a desire that many have in their life that's typically related to the realization that there's nothing much "superior" or special about them at all.
So then when they find a person or book selling easy solutions for fulfilling that desire....they gobble it right up and do whatever they can to defend it. QUOTE

Yes. This is simply true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And does this mind that you think you are is your thinking? eg Is it the activity of the brain analagous to the activity of the legs in running? Where the movement of the legs, as you argue, is more than the materiality of the legs...?

Running isn't "more than" legs...these aren't quantities that we're measuring. Running is something that your legs do. The things that your brain does make up your mind.

So are you NOW arguing that you ARE your body??? You did write: "You are your mind [except for] your body..."

I agree with your view whole-heartedly...

Can you run without your legs? No....just like your mind won't exist without your brain. Does that answer your question?

All the rest of your self, including your body...

Yet if we could use an actual machine to keep your brain alive without your body...you'd still exist...just without a body.

I failed to find saying you denied something - You did affirm that the mind is a function of matter:

Ok

The soul is the life force of the body - When it departs, the body decomposes...

So if we were to deep freeze your dead body and it never decomposes....your soul remains?

Alternatively, when the body is destroyed, the soul departs...

Does it? We now supposedly have the technology to transplant one head onto another's body....who's soul will be in that person?

It is this very life force, the soul, that works through our chromosomal structures to create the body in the womb...

I won't bother asking for evidence of this since I know you don't have any.

I was referring to how dismal your concept of YOUR self is... Not its accuracy... I agreed with the accuracy, remember?

There's another thread about posters who don't believe they are biased and have perfect objectivity. You should read it.

You are too kind -

My egotism would treasure your opinion...

But reality argues against you...

I am not all that bright...

So you say.

We were looking at YOUR explanation of self...

As for mine, if you desire to follow Christ, you must first DENY your SELF (repentance), then take up your own cross (an instrument of torture unto death) and overcoming the world (freeing your mind from being determined by matter so as to be turned to the God you do not know) and following Christ (in love for neighbor as one's self, and for God the Creator of all...)

I see....You weren't interested in the concept of self at all. You just wanted to preach. I'm the wrong audience for that...and this is the wrong thread.

Do YOU have a cure for YOUR utterly dismal understanding of self (with which I agree...)??

YOUR view of SELF is dismal indeed...

There's nothing to cure...nor do I see anything dismal about it. Why don't you share the part you think is dismal?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are taking yourself out of the equation. I know, and have explained, but you do not receive it - which is YOU choosing to be out of the loop. But there are a lot of things that we all don't know, and not being able to share in them, has nothing to do with what is true.
I have been telling you for a long, long time now...and it is you who have not stepped up.

I've asked you plainly to share whatever knowledge that you think you have....that's me "stepping up".

You don't have to believe in germs for me to explain germs to you. You don't have to believe in climate change for me to explain it to you....belief isn't a prerequisite for knowledge.

If you can't share it....You don't have any.

What I "know" regarding this topic, is that God must draw you to himself, and you must respond in a way that is acceptable to him. Gauging by your words all of this time...He drew you to himself, you showed up here, but only to mock. At best, you have put your toe in the water and offered to have Him prove himself to you while you continue to mock him in your dealings with his children. That ain't going to cut it.

This is you getting exactly what you have put out - like you said, "nothing."

If "god" drew me to himself....he didn't try very hard. I've invited him to my house every thanksgiving and he never shows.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If "god" drew me to himself....he didn't try very hard. I've invited him to my house every thanksgiving and he never shows.

Yhwh guards and honors His Word. Not days He didn't appoint nor manmade holidays.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yhwh guards and honors His Word. Not days He didn't appoint nor manmade holidays.

It was a joke slave....

Scott has a bad habit of blaming others for not believing as he does. In his mind, if you were thinking correctly, you'd believe as he does. If you don't...it's your fault.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It was a joke slave....

No worries.
Have you perused this forum ?
Most posts and most threads are even worse and more dangerous.

What I posted is still true.

Yhwh guards and honors His Word. Not days He didn't appoint nor manmade holidays.

 

[Arsenios]

Running isn't "more than" legs...these aren't quantities that we're measuring. Running is something that your legs do. The things that your brain does make up your mind.

Then how can materialistic reductionism be avoided?

You see, you have placed the brain as the actor, and the mind as the result...

Can you run without your legs?

At my age, I can't run WITH my legs!

No....just like your mind won't exist without your brain.

To quote a friend of mine, I will not bother to ask you for proof...

Does that answer your question?

It is the same answer - You believe that a person is both mind and body...
And that the body causes the mind... (emergence)

Yet if we could use an actual machine to keep your brain alive without your body...
you'd still exist...just without a body.

IF...
But no need, as you will discover when you repose...
Your brain will decompose, and yet you will still exist...

So if we were to deep freeze your dead body and it never decomposes....your soul remains?

I would hope not...

Does it? We now supposedly have the technology to transplant one head onto another's body....who's soul will be in that person?

Supposedly... But we DO know whose brain would be...

I won't bother asking for evidence of this since I know you don't have any.

Good...

There's another thread about posters who don't believe they are biased and have perfect objectivity. You should read it.

Why?

So you say.

Have you ever considered good-natured humor?

I see....You weren't interested in the concept of self at all. You just wanted to preach. I'm the wrong audience for that...and this is the wrong thread.

You asked, I replied - I have a whole 'nother set of pre-supp's than you...

There's nothing to cure...nor do I see anything dismal about it. Why don't you share the part you think is dismal?

You said the self is a mix-mash of contradictory this 'n' thats, thoughts, impressions desires and fears, of which we have a bunch of thoughts in out brains, none of which add up all that well... So I asked you if you had a cure for it all to be brought into unity and wholeness and joy... I mean, in this conversation you seem to lack both a decent sense of humor and any joy whatsoever, which is consistent with your view of the self...

I already cited your words about what the self is, and your view that your mind is your self which has thoughts about it which can be and so very often are wrong or in error...

Arsenios

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then how can materialistic reductionism be avoided?

You see, you have placed the brain as the actor, and the mind as the result...

I don't consider myself a materialist or reductionist... So avoiding those things is your problem. I haven't placed anything as anything...I've merely described reality to you.

To quote a friend of mine, I will not bother to ask you for proof...

Oh but we have proof....

I've seen brains destroyed by gunfire multiple times...and the minds they create are destroyed simultaneously. If that isn't sufficient proof...tell me what you'd accept.

It is the same answer - You believe that a person is both mind and body...
And that the body causes the mind... (emergence)

The body creates the mind...sure.

IF...
But no need, as you will discover when you repose...
Your brain will decompose, and yet you will still exist...

That's a rather strong assumption...and one I think appeals to your emotional needs rather than your sense of reason.

Supposedly... But we DO know whose brain would be...

Your idea of a soul is starting to sound a lot like a mind with some mystical mumbo jumbo thrown in.

Why?

It might provide insight.

Have you ever considered good-natured humor?

Most of my humor is about abortions and rape...I wouldn't describe it as "good-natured".

You asked, I replied - I have a whole 'nother set of pre-supp's than you...

Well now you know not to waste your time at least.

You said the self is a mix-mash of contradictory this 'n' thats, thoughts, impressions desires and fears, of which we have a bunch of thoughts in out brains, none of which add up all that well...

That's not really what I said at all.

So I asked you if you had a cure for it all to be brought into unity and wholeness and joy... I mean, in this conversation you seem to lack both a decent sense of humor and any joy whatsoever, which is consistent with your view of the self...

Nonsense...I enjoy correcting your errors.

I already cited your words about what the self is

Did you?

, and your view that your mind is your self which has thoughts about it which can be and so very often are wrong or in error...

Arsenios

I suppose if you wanted to get an accurate conception of someone's self...avoid all preconceptions about them, yourself, and judge them by their words and actions.

Sadly though, you can never fully know anyone's self...including your own.

 

[Arsenios]

I don't consider myself a materialist or reductionist... So avoiding those things is your problem. I haven't placed anything as anything...I've merely described reality to you.

That was a good answer -

The issue here revolves around etiological implications. Description of reality is one thing, and ascribing implications another. When you say mind is a movement of (caused by) matter, and claim that you are merely describing reality, what you are actually doing is ascribing a causal relationship between materiality and mind... Living brain flesh, in this case, being the cause of mind... And if that is your view, then you cannot avoid material reductionism, whether or not you consider yourself to be advocating the view...

Oh but we have proof....

I've seen brains destroyed by gunfire multiple times...and the minds they create are destroyed simultaneously. If that isn't sufficient proof...tell me what you'd accept.

Mind moves in materiality through connective tissues, eg through the brain and its neurological connectives to the rest of the body. You think that the mind IS that movement, if I am understanding you right - Whereas I think that the mind HAS that movement. With gunshot wounds to the brain, part or all of the material acquisition of the mind in the memory of the brain is destroyed, and the material movement of the mind in the body is degraded or eliminated... So we look at a person with such a wound, and they are speaking gibberish, perhaps, and we say: "Her mind is gone..." And such words are correct - Her mind is no longer in evidence in her body... And through recovery, a very different person may emerge... Having, perhaps, very different thoughts...

Such is the power of the life-force of the soul in a brain-damaged body for recovery... The same life-force that causes a scab to form on a wound and the flesh under it to heal... The mind that you know, the thinking of the mind directed toward material events in the percepts and precepts and concepts and their memories in the brain, this mind is pretty much brain-bound, and it dies with the brain at death... It is the condition of man in this fallen world...

As for man, his days are as the grass...
As a flower of the field, so shall he blossom forth...
And when the wind has passed over it...
Then it shall be gone...
And no longer will it know the place thereof...

Hence, you see, the absence of mental connectedness you observe in gunshot victims is just that, a loss of mental connectedness - You can see the same thing often in old age as the body is slowly disintegrating around the person growing old... Welcome to this very fallen world of good and evil...

The body creates the mind...sure.

The mind created by the body dies...
The mind that creates the bodily mind lives on...

That's a rather strong assumption...and one I think appeals to your emotional needs rather than your sense of reason.

It might appeal to YOUR emotional needs...

Your idea of a soul is starting to sound a lot like a mind with some mystical mumbo jumbo thrown in.

Soul is the life-force of the body... And in man, it is created in the image of God... In animals and plants, it is not...

Most of my humor is about abortions and rape...I wouldn't describe it as "good-natured".

I have no sense of humor about either abortion or rape...
Neither torture nor murder nor any evil or lie...

Do you REALLY have humor about abortions and rape???

Well now you know not to waste your time at least.

Perhaps...

That's not really what I said at all.

It was a summation in my understanding - A fair one I should think...

Nonsense...I enjoy correcting your errors.

Your enjoyment is my enjoyment!

Did you?

You forgot??

I suppose if you wanted to get an accurate conception of someone's self...avoid all preconceptions about them, yourself, and judge them by their words and actions.

Do you know anyone who can do that...??

Sadly though, you can never fully know anyone's self...including your own.

The intellect, which is what you understand as mind, can never fully know the mind that uses it...

YOU are greater than your thought processes and the ideas centered around your conception of self that you understand and mis-understand as your self...

True and accurate and comprehensive self-knowledge is a rare thing...

So rare, you see, that we almost agree...

And without it, how can we know others?

The Greek Biblical term for person, btw, is hypostasis...
It means "that which is standing beneath"...
It is ultimately understood as an irreducible Mystery...
Mysteries are entered by the Faith...
They are not reducible to human reasonings...

You, for instance, are entered into the mystery of life...
You will enter into the mystery of death before too many years pass...
You can describe both...
You can understand neither...

Aristotle wrote: "Philosophy begins with wonder..."

Do you have awe filled wonder?

Rape and abortion is not for the faint of heart...

Arsenios