Tactics & Common Ground

When a person asks me a question, I've found it helpful to try to frame my response in the context of his own discipline or profession.

For example, when an attorney tells me he won't believe in the soul because it can't be measured physically, I ask him how can he prove in court that a non-physical thing like a motive exists if a motive can't be measured physically. Even laws themselves are not physical. They can't be weighed; they have no chemical composition; they aren't located in space. The attorney must face the fact that his own methodology defeats his objection.

This tactic makes it easier to persuade him, because he sees the issue in light of things he already knows to be true, or procedures he's already familiar with. This is an important step of establishing common ground.

Comments

[scbrownlhrm]

God does this. Paul did this.

I'm terrible at this. Terrible.

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone...... To the Jews I became like a Jew.....To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law)...... To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law).....To the weak I became weak.... I have become all things to all people......"

Love seems to manifest among, in, the modes and states of those it seeks.

[Mike]

Apologies for intruding on your how to do apologetics thread. But if there is an attorney that's silly enough to debate along those lines then I'd be surprised!

I'd ask 1. What you mean by 'the soul' and 2. What properties does 'the soul' have and 3. What evidence you have for believing in 'the soul'?

Is 'the soul' actually physical? I don't know anyone that claims that motives or laws are physical.

[scbrownlhrm]

"I don't know anyone who believes laws are physical."

1) What evidence does one have for the laws of physics?

2A) Is matter the slave of laws, or, are laws the slaves of matter?

2B) If the latter, then no laws exist. If the former, then something precedes matter.

[scbrownlhrm]

Making Common Ground,

Love becomes all things for all those He seeks. He pours Himself out, and that for His Beloved, and "locality, limitation, sleep, sweat, footsore weariness, frustration, pain, doubt, and death, are, from before all worlds, known by God from within. The pure light walks the earth; the darkness, received into the heart of Deity, is there swallowed up. Where, except in uncreated light, can the darkness be drowned?”

Underived Love is poured into the Derived, and common ground is manifest, in the most concrete fashion.

[kpolo]

Mike:
1. Soul is the spiritual manifestation of the physical/spiritual duality of human existence.

2. Soul has the property of being part of a human being but non-physical (just like the mind). The soul will survive physical death.

3. As evidence for the I present the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and three days later resurrected, then his teachings are true. His teachings include the soul (don't fear him who destroys the body but fear him who destroys body and soul).

4. In anticipation of your subsequent question about the crucifixion and resurrection, there are plenty of documented historical evidence, the New Testament Gospels and their transmission history being the best of those pointing to these being actual historic events.

[Mike]

Kpolo

It seems it was as I suspected. No-one is claiming its physical, so why would someone say "[I] won't believe in the soul because it can't be measured physically"

Seems very peculiar to me.

[scbrownlhrm]

Mike it seems that it is simply a matter of materialism and its necessary determinism via reduction to energy quanta (wave/particle). Such does not allow for realities based in the immaterial as such (non wave-particle based realities).

That is the only Y in the road.......

M-Theory is toying with going there as this universe lacks the necessary substrate of self-explanation. But, it seems, for now, such philosophy is doing nothing more than invoking the pre-existence of X in some other place to account for X in this place. Which is not helpful.

[scbrownlhrm]

Mike perhaps it is helpful to remember what the materialist means by "worth" or "ought" or laws and such, which is rather different than what the Christian means.

The Materialist reduces all such non-physical "things" to this:

"You can't, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with anyone if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of the person and of the character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by blind forces constraining reverberations of photons, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from a deterministic dance to blind, indifferent genes. You can't go on getting very serious pleasure from music, or displeasure from Injustice, if you know and remember that their air of significance are both pure illusion, that you like the one, or dislike the other, only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like the one or dislike the other.” [CS Lewis, paraphrase]

This is the Height, Breadth, and Width of Materialism.

The God who Is-Love accounts for far, far more.

[Mike]

scbrownlhrm

What on earth are you on about?

[scbrownlhrm]

Mike,

When you speak of non physical laws, of what do you speak? You reduce such to.......what? When M-Theory speaks of Laws, of what does it speak?

[scbrownlhrm]

Mike,

It does seem odd, I agree. The Soul and other such non-physical "things" being too hard to embrace for some. But, I think where you may be right that the Lawyer is willing to embrace Law but not Soul (odd indeed, I agree) is that the Lawyer really does not mean Non-Physical, for he would reduce this to wave-particle and no further (if he is a materialist).

I think this explains the behavior which you rightly describe with "Seems very peculiar to me". The Lawyer, however, really does not believe in "non-physical" laws, for what he really means is aimless fluxes of wave-particle, ultimately.

[Louis Kuhelj]

It is a rare thing indeed if someone gives much careful thought about what they routinely accept as part of reality. To consider relevancy of physical or non-physical nature of things around them is simply not on most people's radar. This is why when they are confronted with someone who insists they think about it carefully, it is such a surprise to them that their logic lacks consistency in application when they examine the particulars. It may also be the reason why they often can't make much sense of it. They lack the practice in reflection on topics such as this that tend to be of a more abstract nature and end up going the easier route of Bill Maherish simplicity of understanding themselves and the world around them, which ends up being almost no understanding at all.

[JF]

@ Mike, post Aug. 23 1:25PM
"1) What evidence does one have for the laws of physics?
2A) Is matter the slave of laws, or, are laws the slaves of matter?
2B) If the latter, then no laws exist. If the former, then something precedes matter."
1) Are you honestly asking this question? You are either being disingenuous or you need an intro to science. Did we send Armstrong & Aldrin to the Moon with prayer and wishful thinking? No. It was knowledge of the laws of physics, derived from decades of trial and error, observation, rigorous testing, repeated testing, etc. Everything from the Mars Rover to your remote control are products of our understanding of the laws of physics. Our ability to calculate with accuracy and constancy various phenomena, as well as our ability to predict and discern patterns by extrapolation in things we formerly thought were chaotic or mysterious is proof the laws of physics exist.

2a) You are introducing here a false dichotomy. The laws of 'physics' and matter are the same thing. One is not the slave, as you say, of the other. One did not precede the other. The moment the universe, the so-called physical world, came into being, the laws of physics began to emerge and unfold until they reached their current relative balance (they weren't always the same but they stabilized as the universe expanded and larger masses started to form). For example, gravity cannot occur without mass, nor can time occur without space.
2b) If you wish, conclude that something precedes matter but that still leaves you with a conundrum. How does that explain anything? What preceded that which precedes matter?

[scbrownlhrm]

JF,

The moment the universe, the so-called physical world, came into being.....

Where did this universe come from, I think that is the question. If Energy is eternal, I await your Proof.

[scbrownlhrm]

JF,

On that which preceds materialism, your Mathematics will never get you there. It *cannnot* get you *there*. There are other modes of Know-ing which you will need to employ, and which you employ every day.

There is this, which starts with Mathematics but ends, as it must, elsewhere:

Given that:

1) the probability (P) of energy being eternal is exactly 0
2) the probability (P) that [any] universe is eternal is exactly 0
3) the probability (P) of Some-Thing coming from No-Thing is exactly 0

The probability of Materialism is exactly 0.

The odd thing here is that pure mathematics is one form of knowledge, and, in fact, settles various questions with respect to what that particular form of knowledge helps us to [Know], such as the probability of Materialism. We live in a physical dimension, or, in a dimension of which wave-particle is a part. Our mathematics helps us to see that the energy (wave-particle) component of this dimension we exist inside of cannot self-account, yet exists.

There are other modes of Know-ing.

Where pure Mathematics fails, both Logic and Love, though not knowing infinitely, succeed in glimpsing the end of ad infinitum. In this it becomes apparent that no extra-ordinary evidence is required, as the most ordinary modes of Knowing make necessary ends immediately accessible. Faith is not Not-Knowing. Faith is rather a kind of acquiescence into what one knows after all.

Pure Mathematics will not allow us to see the God Who Is-Love; it can only tell us that our Materialism is illogical. My mathematics cannot permit me access to my wife unless I reduce both her and myself to the illusion which determinism necessitates, and with that move Thinking too must be enslaved, and fatally so. If we insist on embracing the illogical at the expense of those ends which our Logic and our Love speak of then we cannot know Love Himself, in Whom we find those most ordinary ends of which Logic and Love testify of. The one-dimensional mode of knowing called mathematics is swallowed up whole inside the Multi-Dimensional expansiveness of Uncreated Personhood.

[scbrownlhrm]

M-Theory is interesting, and I look forward to the years ahead as we perhaps flesh out a bit more there as it seems the Uncreated is in fact Multiple Distinct Perfects, or, Multiple Distinct Eternals. Within the Uncreated Triune we find such Fabric and it seems such will be the underlying pattern laced throughout all things real. The odd thing about Marriage is that mathematics can never grant any spouse access to any other spouse.

[JF]

@ Scbrown:
Please do not assume I am a materialist or a determinist. My statements were merely meant to demonstrate flaws in Mike's reasoning. Much of modern technology is a result of our understanding of the laws of physics, so the burden of proof is on him. His extreme skepticism is absurd; perhaps he should apply some of it to his biases and beliefs.

@ Scbrown:
Please do not assume I am a materialist or a determinist. My statements were merely meant to demonstrate flaws in Mike's reasoning. Much of modern technology is a result of our understanding of the laws of physics, so the burden of proof is on him. His extreme skepticism is absurd; perhaps he should apply some of it to his biases and beliefs.

As for the 'proof' you demand about energy being eternal, I cannot provide it, nor is there a need to. Like I said, I'm not the one trying to prove anything. Also, given our current understanding of physics and the origins of the universe(s), it is not an unreasonable statement. Materialism may or may not be an accurate way of understanding the universe; though to be fair I've found no evidence that it is mistaken. What are often labelled logical inconsistencies are usually cases of cognitive dissonance; a bad case of "if (a) is true then (b) is fraked up. I don't like the implications of (a) being true so I reject it."

The above probability enunciation is a baseless statement which fails to prove anything. Assuming it isn't baseless, you're making it based on the very little you know about the nature of things.

There are other ways of know-ing, but how do you know you know? You can rely on experimental, verifiable, and replicable evidence which allows you to predict phenomena. Or you can rely on pure logic without confirmation. If that is the case, then one should have the humility to sprinkle sentences with "I think", "perhaps" and "Maybe"; since our minds are not necessarily reliable processing this kind of stuff.

While M-Theory is interesting, it, like all other string theory variants, lacks predictive ability, lack proof, and we are unlikely to develop the technology necessary to test these theories in the foreseeable future. Perhaps worth exploring, but I'd put more stalk in experimental physics

I'll agree with this though: "The odd thing about Marriage is that mathematics can never grant any spouse access to any other spouse." haha

The above probability enunciation is a baseless statement which fails to prove anything. Assuming it isn't baseless, you're making it based on the very little you know about the nature of things.

There are other ways of know-ing, but how do you know you know? You can rely on experimental, verifiable, and replicable evidence which allows you to predict phenomena. Or you can rely on pure logic without confirmation. If that is the case, then one should have the humility to sprinkle sentences with "I think", "perhaps" and "Maybe"; since our minds are not necessarily reliable processing this kind of stuff.

While M-Theory is interesting, it, like all other string theory variants, lacks predictive ability, lack proof, and we are unlikely to develop the technology necessary to test these theories in the foreseeable future. Perhaps worth exploring, but I'd put more stalk in experimental physics

I'll agree with this though: "The odd thing about Marriage is that mathematics can never grant any spouse access to any other spouse." haha

[JF]

sorry computer bug posted twice!

[JF]

Ha! Couldnt resist posting this; i just happened to read this: "Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth, consider that you can see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220 kilometres per second across the galaxy. 90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA and are not “you”. The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999% empty space and none of them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of a star. Human beings have 46 chromosomes: 2 less than the common potato. The existence of the rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in our eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So we don’t just look at a rainbow, we create it. And all the beautiful colours we see represent less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum"

[scbrownlhrm]

JF,

Sorry,

When you posted this:

"@ Mike, post Aug. 23 1:25PM
"1) What evidence does one have for the laws of physics?
2A) Is matter the slave of laws, or, are laws the slaves of matter?
2B) If the latter, then no laws exist. If the former, then something precedes matter."

It was actually me you had quoted (laws/slaves) so I thought you meant me. From that reverse direction it appeared you would be the materialist etc.....

Obviously that is not the case.

I would offer that the matter of Energy being eternal has yet to be solved. Whoever solves it will win a N. Prize. "Most" of what we know (now) leans in favor of it being "non-eternal". There is very little data (none that I know of) that would even suggest it is eternal. It might be, and, if materialism is true, it must be, but if one argues against the statement that "the vast majority of what we now know shows it highly unlikely to be eternal" then that would be very surprising to me.

M-Theory is reaching into other dimensions to find a "source" for this dimension and some of that (not all) has to do with the problem of why there is anything here at all.....as it is not likely that E is eternal. Some-Thing out there must have given rise to this Some-Thing here…… Of course, that some-thing would have to be shown to be eternal as well, and etc, ad infinitum..... I mention this not to support it, as I agree it is un-testable etc, but rather I mention it to reflect on one feature of it which I find interesting, which is a pattern of multiple eternals within such. Now, to one who tastes genuine enjoyment in Love Himself and of His Uncreated Triune, the concept of Multiple Distinct Eternals (Triune) merits at least a LITTLE enjoyment on my end.......

If materialism is false, and God is, and, if God Is-Love, there must come a point up to which our mathematics can bring us and which it cannot bring us beyond, as the Multiple Dimensions of such Uncreated Personhood would swallow up whole the 0.00001% one-dimensional mode of knowing called mathematics. Our mathematics cannot permit us access to such things unless we get rid of Uncreated Personhood and reduce all personhood to the illusion which the determinism of materialism necessitates, and with that move Thinking too must be enslaved, and fatally so, and we would then know not what we know, nor what we know not, as all thought and all knowing whatsoever, is reduced to the psychic phosphorescence of falling dominos:

"You can't, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with anyone if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of the person and of the character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by blind forces constraining aimless reverberations of photons, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from a deterministic dance to blind, indifferent genes. You can't go on getting very serious pleasure from music, or displeasure from Injustice, if you know and remember that their air of significance are both pure illusion, that you like the one, or dislike the other, only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like the one or dislike the other." (C.S. Lewis paraphrase)

But, we hold that the Uncreated is Love.