[quote]Severiano wrote:
Pope Paul III held slaves, he sanctioned and authorized enslavement of Muslims in the Papal state. It is well documented.
[/quote]
Okay…you pick one thing and ignore the rest of the stuff…cool.
You just said the Church thought Mexicans had souls…now they don’t, which is it? You said that’s why they didn’t enslave Mexicans…which do you claim as actual history. And I just proved that the Church thought blacks had souls since they willingly baptized them. But, you haven’t proved the first claim that they thought they didn’t.
Further, you have utterly failed to make distinctions between the Church’s (Magisterium) teaching and individuals. [/quote]
I never said that the Church thought Mexicans had no souls, I said it was interesting that the Church still enslaved Mexicans considering they believed them to have souls/ they believed Mexican’s had souls but enslaved them anyhow. Mexicans were baptized in mass in Mexico by Catholic Priests that were part of the Mission system.
You can only base this on hindsight, on our current perception of morality.
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter, it’s still a fact. It doesn’t matter how you come to know a fact.
Sure it can. Concepts are discovered. In science, math, philosophy, etc. we celebrate discoveries not creations. Don’t believe me? Go ahead, try to “create” a concept. Not an amalgamation of stuff previously known, I am talking something totally new. I am not going to hold my breath, my kids will miss me.
I referred to causation and regression. And yes, a first cause would be the first cause of everything, not something and not others. Simply put, everything has the same initial cause if you go back far enough.
If all there is, is us, then how are we able to correctly assertain that which exists outside ourselves?
I don’t get how you don’t get that. I think a little Des Cartes would do you good.
Or lets take something you have brought up, and have indicated you believe which is the very basal core of physical matter. What is it? We have a singularity that moves. Given that technically nobody knows what a singularity actually is, but at it’s core, matter isn’t even material itself. It’s moving energy in a comprehensible frequency and that’s it. So at our core, our physical existence, isn’t even physical. And beyond the moving singularity, you have rules that make it what it is. How can you assert that we are the answer when we don’t even necessarily have the physical existence our senses tell us we have? Hell, you can even prove you exist and you want to posit you, or we’re all that is?
Which is what I have been saying the whole time. We cannot create anything, we can only reassemble information. That reassembling may tell us something previously unknown, but not things that did not exist. You cannot discover anything that doesn’t exist.
[quote]
[quote]Observation of an event is technically establishing correlation in hopes of establishing causation. A theory is a metaphysical form. As well as said ‘law of gravity’. The law exists metaphysically, but the physical cannot violate the law, even though the law has no physical way to enforce itself. Physical matter merely ‘obeys’ with out being compelled.
Nevertheless all these things, laws, correlation, causation, theory, concept, etc. are all metaphysical realities. [/quote]
And a product of the human mind.[/quote]
Really, so the law of gravity is man made? So the super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy is obeying a man-made law? That’s what your going with?
So that information/self just dissappears?[/quote]
When somebody die, matter is still there, but it’s not a body anymore.
When someone die, informations are still there, but it’s not a self anymore. [/quote]
The body is a “self” container. It’s a gestalt theory where the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. Naturally, I have a slightly different understanding of a ‘self’, in that the self does exist beyond the scope of it’s physical container. But anything could contain a self, but the self is limited, not assisted, by it’s physical container.
Because nothing really exists outside of ourselves.
I’m saying that, if there is an answer to our questions, it can’t be found outside of ourselves. Trying to explain the unexplainable by pointing to something even more mysterious isn’t an explanation at all.
Which isn’t what I meant. We create something that previously didn’t exist based on how reality functions. Concepts are ideas about reality we imagined. You propose that these ideas are discovered instead of created [by us]. I disagree.
We only discover what is already there. Our ideas about how reality works, how we explain how certain laws of nature work is something else. Gravity exists, the theory of how gravity works is imagined. A big difference.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Because nothing really exists outside of ourselves. >>>[/quote]And you call ME arrogant? [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< I’m saying that, if there is an answer to our questions, it can’t be found outside of ourselves. Trying to explain the unexplainable by pointing to something even more mysterious isn’t an explanation at all. >>>[/quote]Proof?
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Because nothing really exists outside of ourselves. >>>[/quote]And you call ME arrogant? [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< I’m saying that, if there is an answer to our questions, it can’t be found outside of ourselves. Trying to explain the unexplainable by pointing to something even more mysterious isn’t an explanation at all. >>>[/quote]Proof?
[/quote]
How is that arrogant, and what would you like me to prove?
Because nothing really exists outside of ourselves.
I’m saying that, if there is an answer to our questions, it can’t be found outside of ourselves. Trying to explain the unexplainable by pointing to something even more mysterious isn’t an explanation at all.
Which isn’t what I meant. We create something that previously didn’t exist based on how reality functions. Concepts are ideas about reality we imagined. You propose that these ideas are discovered instead of created [by us]. I disagree.
We only discover what is already there. Our ideas about how reality works, how we explain how certain laws of nature work is something else. Gravity exists, the theory of how gravity works is imagined. A big difference.
[/quote]
So if something happens outside your imagining, it doesn’t exist and therefore didn’t happen because it exists outside yourself? That’s what I’m gathering at this point.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< So if something happens outside your imagining, it doesn’t exist and therefore didn’t happen because it exists outside yourself? That’s what I’m gathering at this point.[/quote]If that’s not arrogance then there can’t be any such thing and how does he “prove” this? Ooops, I almost forgot. “Proof” by definition is the demonstration of something as being certain and he can’t have that because that would put him nose to nose with the God who says he’s already nose to nose with Him anyway.
Because nothing really exists outside of ourselves.
[/quote]
Woa, wait a minute. Are you taking a Berkeley-sque stance of nothing exists outside the mind, or nothing exists outside of physical existence?
I can use the math example for the former. To say different is to misunderstand what it is.
Metaphysics isn’t mysterious at all. It’s actually stupid simple. It’s basically a layered hierarchy of metaphysical forms. And the physical at the most fundamental level, leads directly into the metaphysical
If we created them we could control them. We make things what they are not by sheer will. So to say I created math, means that I could make it what I want. To say I discovered math, means I found this reality which has control over other things that I know. When you discover things, you filling a knowledge gap. When you create something, you make a knowledge gap.
Well that just goes against what you previously said. We know gravity exists because we can see it’s effect. Just like we know other laws exist because we can see their effect. Whether we’re right about how they work doesn’t matter. We know their there. We can see their effect, but we cannot see ‘it’. It’s also how we know morality exists, we can see it’s effect.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes Chris, that was an oversimplification, but that IS what it eventually amounts to.[/quote]
It’s not an oversimplification, I believe the correct term is straw man. [/quote]No, it is not.
[/quote]
No, you still have to understand that there needs to be orthopraxi and it has nothing to do with the person’s own ability.
You have to understand invincible ignorance within predestination. [/quote]We’ll have to get into that too as soon as we get a chance. I understand invincible ignorance and I know what orthopraxy is Chris.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes Chris, that was an oversimplification, but that IS what it eventually amounts to.[/quote]
It’s not an oversimplification, I believe the correct term is straw man. [/quote]No, it is not.
[/quote]
No, you still have to understand that there needs to be orthopraxi and it has nothing to do with the person’s own ability.
You have to understand invincible ignorance within predestination. [/quote]We’ll have to get into that too as soon as we get a chance. I understand invincible ignorance and I know what orthopraxy is Chris.
[/quote]
You being a calvinist and believing in predestination (not considering your heretical position of double-predestination) you should be able to somewhat grasp what the Church actually means by invincible ignorance.
Your reality exists because you exist. When you stop existing, your reality stops to exist.
All of [your] reality is processed, perceived and scaled by your brain, and you are nothing without your brain.
Your conclusion leads to an even bigger anomaly, god/uncaused cause. This is why your explanation does not explain anything with certainty.
Your confusion is similar to people who say, “oh well, evolution is not real because it’s just a theory.”
Laws of nature aren’t concepts, but our explanation of them are concepts. Math is a man made application of natural order. An application that works rather well, I grant you that.
If morality is a force of nature it must be objectively true for all of us. You can’t apply caveats to morality just like you can’t choose to not be affected by gravity on this planet.
Yet people apply caveats to morality every day, “this is wrong, but in that case it isn’t.”
Or you are on mine…Either way works for me.