Author Topic: Clarification, please.  (Read 2523 times)

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3338
  • Thanked: 1511 times
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2018, 06:15:09 PM »
Every attempted proof for a paranormal has been shown to be a fake. Not necessarily by an everyday observer, but by a trained stage magician. Now that does not "prove" the nonexistence of the paranormal. After all nonexistence cannot be proven except in an axiomatic system (we can prove that there cannot exist two integers, the ratio of which precisely equals the square root of two), but it is a reasonable stance that the assumption of the paranormal is useless.

Let's say that there is someone who asserts that taking a pebble and dropping it, it will float upwards. Every attempt will show that the pebble will fall down, when it s dropped. Now that does not "disprove" the original assumption - in the correct, strict sense of the word - but it will show that the assumption is very likely to be false.

I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here.  I'm only speaking of the existence of a soul.  If you want to consider that a paranormal claim, that's fine, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed to have produced one and said, "and here you see it with your own eyes, gentlemen—the soul."  It doesn't bother me if you think the soul doesn't exist.  I am not trying to proselytize you into believing in the existence of the soul.  I am just saying that if you wanted proof, it would not come from someone outside of yourself.  It would be an inward experience.  You could either try to have it or not.  And it would be fine, too, if you wanted to say, "all claims of mystical experience are just oddities of our neurochemistry."  That's certainly a possibility.
Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit.
 

Offline Scowler

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Thanked: 37 times
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2018, 09:46:34 PM »
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here. 

Indeed. They are merely similar, but not identical. Of course we "ventured" pretty far away from the intended subject of this thread. I only wanted to see if "anti-Catholic" pronouncements and "non-Catholic" ones are considered to be the same. In my "neck of the woods", something "anti-" is hostile, or antagonistic, while "non-" only expresses a differing opinion. That is all. :)
 

Offline Lydia Purpuraria

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2661
  • Thanked: 746 times
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2018, 08:00:29 AM »
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here. 

Indeed. They are merely similar, but not identical. Of course we "ventured" pretty far away from the intended subject of this thread.

Oh -- I took PdR as responding to your request that someone else initiate conversation on "immaterial" realities.  And I found it to be an interesting conversation, but perhaps you intended for that to be taken up in a new thread. (?)

Quote
I only wanted to see if "anti-Catholic" pronouncements and "non-Catholic" ones are considered to be the same. In my "neck of the woods", something "anti-" is hostile, or antagonistic, while "non-" only expresses a differing opinion. That is all. :)

I think I'd agree with you that "anti-Catholic" pertains more towards being intentionally hostile or antagonistic to Catholic doctrines, practices, and so on (with no intention of understanding, only "nay-saying," etc).  Whereas "non-Catholic" would be more in the realm of neutrality, or of non-hostile questioning, or simply differing opinions (whether on secular or religious matters).  But I guess it's sort of an issue of varying semantics and temperaments? because there will be those who feel instantly threatened by anything that contradicts or questions Catholicism or the Catholic worldview, and therefore they will view as "hostile" or "anti-Catholic" any such inquirers / inquiries.  (And with that I think we're just back to your original question!  LOL  :-\)
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 12:23:54 PM by Lydia Purpuraria »
 
The following users thanked this post: Carleendiane

Offline Scowler

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Thanked: 37 times
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2018, 12:52:00 PM »
Oh -- I took PdR as responding to your request that someone else initiate conversation on "immaterial" realities.  And I found it to be an interesting conversation, but perhaps you intended for that to be taken up in a new thread. (?)

Yes, indeed. I don't want to mix up different subjects in one thread. In another thread I would be glad to have such a discussion.

I think I'd agree with you that "anti-Catholic" pertains more towards being intentionally hostile or antagonistic to Catholic doctrines, beliefs, and so on (with no intention of understanding, only "nay-saying," etc).  Whereas "non-Catholic" would be more in the realm of neutrality, or of non-hostile questioning, or simply differing opinions (whether on secular or religious matters).  But I guess it's sort of an issue of varying semantics and temperaments? because there will be those who feel instantly threatened by anything that contradicts or questions Catholicism or the Catholic worldview, and therefore they will view as "hostile" or "anti-Catholic" any such inquirers / inquiries.  (And with that I think we're just back to your original question!  LOL  :-\)

How right you are! Sometimes I am getting intimidated, and start to censor myself, lest I would say something "politically incorrect". :) And in the other thread I seem to have committed just such a "faux pas" by making a silly, but innocent pun. I guess I cannot be careful enough.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lydia Purpuraria

Offline Carleendiane

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 11470
  • Thanked: 7797 times
  • all aboard the "struggle bus"
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2018, 02:11:56 PM »
Oh -- I took PdR as responding to your request that someone else initiate conversation on "immaterial" realities.  And I found it to be an interesting conversation, but perhaps you intended for that to be taken up in a new thread. (?)

Yes, indeed. I don't want to mix up different subjects in one thread. In another thread I would be glad to have such a discussion.

I think I'd agree with you that "anti-Catholic" pertains more towards being intentionally hostile or antagonistic to Catholic doctrines, beliefs, and so on (with no intention of understanding, only "nay-saying," etc).  Whereas "non-Catholic" would be more in the realm of neutrality, or of non-hostile questioning, or simply differing opinions (whether on secular or religious matters).  But I guess it's sort of an issue of varying semantics and temperaments? because there will be those who feel instantly threatened by anything that contradicts or questions Catholicism or the Catholic worldview, and therefore they will view as "hostile" or "anti-Catholic" any such inquirers / inquiries.  (And with that I think we're just back to your original question!  LOL  :-\)

How right you are! Sometimes I am getting intimidated, and start to censor myself, lest I would say something "politically incorrect". :) And in the other thread I seem to have committed just such a "faux pas" by making a silly, but innocent pun. I guess I cannot be careful enough.

Oh Scowler, we are not so very delicate. You just hit a nerve. There are not so many "nerves" that you must alway have a guard up lest you step on a toe or two. But, that being said, you will surely be alerted if you manage to offend someone.  :) I had no idea about forum decorum. Had to suffer a few corrections before I learned where NOT to go!
To board the struggle bus: no whining, board with a smile, a fake one will be found out and put off at next stop, no maps, no directions, going only one way, one destination. Follow all rules and you will arrive. Drop off at pearly gate. Bring nothing.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lydia Purpuraria

Offline Scowler

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Thanked: 37 times
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2018, 09:53:44 AM »
Oh Scowler, we are not so very delicate. You just hit a nerve. There are not so many "nerves" that you must alway have a guard up lest you step on a toe or two. But, that being said, you will surely be alerted if you manage to offend someone.  :) I had no idea about forum decorum. Had to suffer a few corrections before I learned where NOT to go!

Well, maybe not, but why risk it? If a simple pun can create such a vehement response, what could happen if I asked a serious question? Because there are quite a few, which I would like to ask. Now to come clean, those questions are not about catholic faith itself (I am quite familiar with it), rather, how can you reconcile the different facets of the faith. Because from here - the outside - there are serious internal contradictions. And contradictions cannot be "resolved" by declaring them "mysteries". :) 

This is not the proper forum to ask, so I will NOT present this problem as a starting point to initiate a conversation. So there is no reason to present an answer. The problem is this: "God is sovereign, immutable and all-knowing (basic Catholicism). Therefore any supplicative or intercessory prayer (different from the meditative prayer), which asks something from God is futile." Reason: no matter, how hard you ask, if it is not God's will, it will never be fulfilled. If it is God's will, you just wasted your (and God's ;) ) time by asking it - because it WILL happen. And, since God already knew what you will ask... it is a double exercise in futility.

Again, this is not a question which would require an answer. Just a simple observation, nothing more. See you later. :)
 

Offline PerEvangelicaDicta

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1659
  • Thanked: 1527 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2018, 03:06:47 PM »
Quote
...This is not the proper forum to ask, so I will NOT present this problem as a starting point to initiate a conversation. So there is no reason to present an answer. The problem is this: "God is sovereign, immutable and all-knowing (basic Catholicism). Therefore any supplicative or intercessory prayer (different from the meditative prayer), which asks something from God is futile." Reason: no matter, how hard you ask, if it is not God's will, it will never be fulfilled. If it is God's will, you just wasted your (and God's ;) ) time by asking it - because it WILL happen. And, since God already knew what you will ask... it is a double exercise in futility.

Again, this is not a question which would require an answer. Just a simple observation, nothing more. See you later. :)

Not an answer, but a thinking out loud comment:   in an odd way, I came to this conclusion; that is, in studying Divine Providence, my prayers changed from a specific request to solely 'Thy Will be done" for ultimately, It is.
As you allude, since God is timeless, there is the understanding that He knows/has always known, our implorations - but we don't know that they are futile. He is Mercy as well as Justice.

Of course, this all leads to the issue of predestination, free will, etc and there are some excellent threads on SD that delve deeply into those topics.   You could search/resurrect one?
To understand the Catholic teaching of this (rather heavy) question, requires understanding some other serious Catholic teachings.  Good stuff.
They shall not be confounded in the evil time; and in the days of famine they shall be filled
Psalms 36:19
 

Offline Carleendiane

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 11470
  • Thanked: 7797 times
  • all aboard the "struggle bus"
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2018, 04:30:56 PM »
Yep. Thank you Per, couldn't have said it better myself. Being the corrupt vessel I am. Look anywhere but here. Where I am. God bless you, Scowler!
To board the struggle bus: no whining, board with a smile, a fake one will be found out and put off at next stop, no maps, no directions, going only one way, one destination. Follow all rules and you will arrive. Drop off at pearly gate. Bring nothing.
 

Offline Scowler

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Thanked: 37 times
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2018, 04:02:07 PM »
Not an answer, but a thinking out loud comment:   in an odd way, I came to this conclusion; that is, in studying Divine Providence, my prayers changed from a specific request to solely 'Thy Will be done" for ultimately, It is.

I agree that this is logical. Yet, I have seen many threads where people prayed for lost car keys, or a favorable outcome for their beloved football teams, and when the keys were found, or the team won, they gave thanks to God (whom they treated as a vending machine) and asserted that prayer actually "works" by influencing the Almighty to interfere on their behalf. I recall an event when a co-worker of mine who proudly exclaimed that the house of their in-laws (hurricane Hugo in Charleston, Sept 1989) was spared because he and his whole family stayed up all night and prayed for the miracle. I was itching to ask, why did he not pray also the other homes, which were demolished... but I was a "chicken". 

Of course, this all leads to the issue of predestination, free will, etc and there are some excellent threads on SD that delve deeply into those topics.   You could search/resurrect one?
To understand the Catholic teaching of this (rather heavy) question, requires understanding some other serious Catholic teachings.  Good stuff.

I would not know which thread to resurrect. :) But I agree that the questions you mentioned are very difficult. (Well, not difficult for a "heathen" like me, but that is a different question.)
 

Offline Lydia Purpuraria

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2661
  • Thanked: 746 times
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2018, 01:26:00 PM »
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 09:33:28 AM by Lydia Purpuraria »
 

Offline John Lamb

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
  • Thanked: 1027 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2018, 11:41:18 PM »
My reason is simple, I see no evidence for that. Of course I have no problem with the concept of "immaterial" entities, (attributes, relationships and actions), but all those are inseparable from the material reality. But we could have a conversation about them, if anyone is interested. I just will not initiate it, because I don't want to violate the forum rules.

But those immaterial entities you speak of (attributes, relationships, actions) really are separable from matter (otherwise they would not be "immaterial"). Well actually, seeing as those are accidents (modifications) of material substances they are not separable from matter in themselves (although these accidents / modifications do happen to exist in immaterial substances / spirits too), but they are separable insofar as they exist in the mind. Matter itself is not aware of any of its attributes, relationships, or actions. These are, in a sense, "spiritual" (immaterial) realities. They exist in matter, but in an immaterial way, or at least they are understood in an immaterial way. The very fact that matter itself cannot even begin to grasp any of these immaterial things, points to an immaterial substance (i.e. the mind) which can grasp them.

This relates to Plato's "affinity" argument for the existence / immortality of the soul: if there is something immaterial and immortal like "Truth" or "Goodness", then that which grasps or contains these spiritual things (i.e. the mind) must itself be immaterial and immortal; because, as Aristotle says, "action follows being", i.e. if something acts in a certain way that means that it must exist in a certain way. So if a thing acts or understands in an immaterial way, it must exist in an immaterial way.

One of the best examples of the mind acting in an "immaterial way" - pointing to the mind's own immateriality and thus its separability from matter - is its use of universal concepts. Take for example the universal concept of "chair" as it exists in your mind. Now when you think about "chair" you might associate it with a particular chair in your imagination (wooden, four-legged), but the universal concept of "chair-ness" that exists in your intellect (not your imagination) transcends any particular individual chair. In fact, your idea of "chair" applies to an infinite number of particular, material objects (chairs). Now the fact that the idea of "chair" has this infinity about it and is applicable not just to one individual object, but to many: proves that it is not material, because material things are particular and individual (not general and universal). Since that which exists in your mind (the universal concept) is immaterial, your mind itself must in some sense be immaterial. One of the key philosophical differences between classical philosophy (Plato/Aristotle) and the modern empiricist philosophy which ended up denying the immateriality of the soul: is that the former recognised the distinction between the intellect (immaterial, dealing with universal concepts) and the imagination (material, dealing with particular "phantasms" or impressions), whereas the empiricists were unable to see the distinction. It is indeed a subtle distinction but one with very profound consequences. Try to separate your universal idea of "chair" from any particular chair in your imagination, and you'll see the difference between the intellect and the imagination, and in a sense the difference between mind and matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

Every attempted proof for a paranormal has been shown to be a fake. Not necessarily by an everyday observer, but by a trained stage magician. Now that does not "prove" the nonexistence of the paranormal. After all nonexistence cannot be proven except in an axiomatic system (we can prove that there cannot exist two integers, the ratio of which precisely equals the square root of two), but it is a reasonable stance that the assumption of the paranormal is useless.

This is funny, because I can imagine the demons proving themselves to exist in one setting, and then, when it suits them, proving themselves to not exist in another setting.
Think about it from a demon's perspective. A professional skeptic gets up on stage with a Ouija board and attempts to contact the "other side". As a demon, why would you respond? Let the dumb audience agree with the professional skeptic that it's all a bunch of malarkey. Then when the dumb audience members see no problem allowing their children to play with a Ouija board for fun, the demon will show up on command.
Plus, demons are proud spirits - they are not performing monkeys. Traditionally they have asked for some kind of sacrifice to work their work; so I can't imagine them being impressed with the professional skeptic expecting them to show up on stage just to prove to a bunch of incredulous fools that they exist. As for departed human spirits: they have standards too, I think.
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 11772
  • Thanked: 6293 times
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #41 on: June 29, 2018, 05:36:38 AM »
Every attempted proof for a paranormal has been shown to be a fake.

Let's say that there is someone who asserts that taking a pebble and dropping it, it will float upwards. Every attempt will show that the pebble will fall down, when it s dropped. Now that does not "disprove" the original assumption - in the correct, strict sense of the word - but it will show that the assumption is very likely to be false.

In that case Trump's capturing of the Presidency is very likely to be a miracle.

Trump is the pebble that floated.

How on earth did Trump get to be President when all the experts said it was impossible?  Surely with all of those smart people and with so much power, influence and money at stake if there was ANY possibility of the laws of politics being broken they would have guarded against it.

There were so many ways Trump could have and should have failed and yet he didn't.

I understand people lie to pollsters.  But the data don't lie.  The rich have access to that data.  Zuckerberg had access to that data and he's best buddies with Hillary and Podesta.  The NSA CERTAINLY have access to that data.

It's not even like Trump obeyed the laws of politics and told people what they wanted to hear.  There was no stage magic, no illusion.  He didn't apologize.  He essentially took on the entire world establishment and won.  A reality show, whoremonger, orange, bragging, wrestling, maniac.

If that isn't a miracle then nothing is a miracle.  I could make a pebble float and you'd question the specific density of the water or hidden magnets or something else.

There are miracles but they are rare.  And they are probably rare, because God wants people to discover them for themselves just like you discover that someone loves you or discover a talent that you did not know you had.  If those discoveries were easy, then you would not value them.

On the other hand each August I shake out tiny little seeds from my plants put them in an envelope pour water on them the next season and a whole new plant grows.  That in a purely naturalistic sense is a sort of miracle.  We understand to some extent how it works but how on earth did that programming get into that tiny little seed and who wrote the program?
 
The following users thanked this post: Padraig

Offline red solo cup

  • John 6:56
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5082
  • Thanked: 1878 times
  • Religion: Fair weather Catholic
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2018, 05:54:54 AM »
One reason is that the Clintons, and let's be honest here, when you get one you get them both, have made themselves so loathed that people were willing to vote for a pompous buffoon.
"Come all you good rats we'll send you to heaven. You'll find the Pearly Gates in the froth and the foam"
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 11772
  • Thanked: 6293 times
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: Clarification, please.
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2018, 07:54:53 AM »
I don't think that's correct.

If it were a less pompous less buffoon candidate would have beaten her. As nuts as it sounds.  I think God picked Trump because Trump in a bizarre sort of way does not care about the rules of the elite.  He thinks he is superior to them. He is the commander of chaos.