Questions for a Catholic

Post by Squishalot

Utility is a good, so yes that is part of this. Same with morality, however this has nothing to do with morality in the sense you are portraying it. I'm talking about all goods.
I didn't say who was better, did I? I just said one was. They both moved towards different ends of the spectrum so only one could have been moving towards the end correctly.
Rocks don't move towards different apparent ends.

They weren't moving towards different ends of the spectrum, necessarily. In terms of moral good, perhaps. The good of winning, perhaps not.

You don't know if one rock is more good than the other rock. You're denying the existence of a rock's soul by assuming that it doesn't exist. Circular arguments. There's nothing to suggest that a rock or a river soul cannot have an end of infinite good in the same way that a human soul does. If the human body has an end that is nothing more than to serve its soul in the soul's goal of infinite good, why can a rock's end not be to serve its soul in the rock-soul's goal of infinite good? If you can gain in good by enjoying a nice meal, sitting back and relaxing, why can't a rock gain in good by sitting there in the sun?

You're the one bringing in moral good. When I say good I mean all good. The good of a nice meal, the good of winning a chess game, the good of being married, the good of loving your neighbor, the good of worshiping God. Every good is a species of Universal Good.
So no I'm not defining good as moral good: I'm defining moral good as good, I'm defining artistic good as good, I'm defining appetitive good as good, etc.

Good, just checking :P

I'm still suggesting that something 'infinite' can't be an 'end', by definition because it's unattainable.
How is it in the nature of infinite to be unattainable?
It's in the nature of the infinite to be unattainable by the finite, yes. (That was my whole argument that if the end is infinite good, the will cannot be something finite.) But the what's to prevent the infinite from attaining the infinite?

The fact that you're running up yet another circular argument. Why is will infinite? Because its the driver towards a soul's end of infinite good. How can you have an end of infinite good? Because will is infinite.

You made mention about discussion not being meaningful if you assume that there is no will or soul. I'm going to draw a line here and say that there's no meaningful discussion if your arguments are circular. In any event, we've railroaded your Catholic thread enough.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

If you can gain in good by enjoying a nice meal, sitting back and relaxing
You only gain things by motion. No gain = no change = no motion. So sitting back and relaxing or even sleeping doesn't gain you anything. Really the only change is biological, so you could say there is a biological good but that's it.
A rock gains nothing by sitting there. It has no senses (biological fact) to receive any good. It has no brain to think about any particular good. There is not even any chemical change.

I really don't know how else to put it. That there is no motion in a rock is an empirical fact. If you can't accept that, then there is no point arguing any further. Point to me a rock that is lacking in the perfection of 'rockness' to some degree.

The fact that you're running up yet another circular argument. Why is will infinite? Because its the driver towards a soul's end of infinite good. How can you have an end of infinite good? Because will is infinite.

It's not circular.

The end of man is infinite good
The power in man which attains the infinite good is the will.
But a finite thing cannot attain an infinite thing.
Therefore the will is infinite.

I've started and ended with two different things.

You made mention about discussion not being meaningful if you assume that there is no will or soul.
Actually it was intellect (which is a part of the soul, yes). If you cannot know universals, nothing you say has any meaning.

I'm going to draw a line here and say that there's no meaningful discussion if your arguments are circular.
Which is true. However, as shown above, my argument is not circular.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

In any event, we've railroaded your Catholic thread enough.

Hey, if it keeps it alive I'm happy.

Post by Squishalot

You only gain things by motion. No gain = no change = no motion.

I'm going to take a leaf out of your book and point out that lack of locomotion =/= no motion.

So sitting back and relaxing or even sleeping doesn't gain you anything. Really the only change is biological, so you could say there is a biological good but that's it.

If it doesn't gain you anything, then why do we do it? Sleeping restores energy, provides satisfaction, there is a good in it. Putting yourself in a position where you absorb nutrients (eat) generates some good for you. Standing under shower nozzle and enjoying the feel of the hot water washing away grime, there's a good in it.

Sitting as a rock, and feeling the wind blow across your surface, there can be a good in it, in much the same way, if you were the type to see good in such a thing. And it's not out of the realms of possibility to suggest that a rock's soul would.

A rock gains nothing by sitting there. It has no senses (biological fact) to receive any good. It has no brain to think about any particular good. There is not even any chemical change.

Senses or a brain or even chemical change aren't necessary for a soul to exist. That's precisely what you're trying to demonstrate - that we're not simply biological objects! If humans can be more than a reduction of its biological parts, why are you so objectionable to the concept that other things can be too?

I really don't know how else to put it. That there is no motion in a rock is an empirical fact. If you can't accept that, then there is no point arguing any further. Point to me a rock that is lacking in the perfection of 'rockness' to some degree.

See above. It's not an empirical fact (again, you can't prove this), it's a subjective viewpoint from the perspective of flawed Man. The reason I can't point to a rock that is lacking in the perfection of 'rockness' is because it's your view that a rock's end is 'rockness', not mine.

The end of man is infinite good

This is the circular bit. I'm asking you to demonstrate why 'infinite good' should be attainable, and you've said that something infinite (i.e. will) should be able to. But will is only infinite on the basis that otherwise it cannot attain infinite good. That's why it's circular.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

If it doesn't gain you anything, then why do we do it? Sleeping restores energy, provides satisfaction, there is a good in it.
restoring energy is a biological change which I mentioned. Satisfaction what we do when we look at a good already attained. It's not a good in and of itself.

Standing under shower nozzle and enjoying the feel of the hot water washing away grime, there's a good in it.
Again, there is a change. The water is effecting your body/sense of touch. It's a sensual good. Rocks don't have senses.

Sitting as a rock, and feeling the wind blow across your surface, there can be a good in it, in much the same way, if you were the type to see good in such a thing. And it's not out of the realms of possibility to suggest that a rock's soul would.
You mention feeling wind as a good. Fine. That's another sensual pleasure. Rocks don't have senses. You'll have to go beyond sensual goods if you're going to make an argument.

Senses or a brain or even chemical change aren't necessary for a soul to exist. That's precisely what you're trying to demonstrate - that we're not simply biological objects! If humans can be more than a reduction of its biological parts, why are you so objectionable to the concept that other things can be too?
No I'm not. I'm saying that any given sensual pleasure is not enough, is the reason. There is always something lacking in a given finite pleasure.

See above. It's not an empirical fact (again, you can't prove this), it's a subjective viewpoint from the perspective of flawed Man. The reason I can't point to a rock that is lacking in the perfection of 'rockness' is because it's your view that a rock's end is 'rockness', not mine.
What does a rock act towards? I have never seen a rock act towards anything other than 'rockness.' No one has. Empirical fact.

The end of man is infinite good

This is the circular bit. I'm asking you to demonstrate why 'infinite good' should be attainable, and you've said that something infinite (i.e. will) should be able to. But will is only infinite on the basis that otherwise it cannot attain infinite good. That's why it's circular.
Well actually you said it can't be attained, which is what my answer was directed towards. Now you're asking why it's infinite.
I'll explain it, but I've already done so several times. Humans act towards the good. But no finite good satisfies that act because it is always somehow lacking in goodness, insofar as it is finite. Try to point to any finite good as man's end and I'll show you what is lacking.
So if we are acting towards good in general, and not some finite good, only the infinite good can fill our nature.

Post by Squishalot

I'm referring to senses because I can't describe its 'good' in other terms.

Anyway.

It has no senses (biological fact) to receive any good.
No I'm not. I'm saying that any given sensual pleasure is not enough, is the reason. There is always something lacking in a given finite pleasure.

Two contradictory statements. You're saying that you must have senses to receive any good. But you're saying that sensual pleasure isn't enough?

Why do souls have to use objects with senses? If all your senses are blocked (brain damage, sensory deprivation, etc), do you no longer have a soul?

Having said that, what is it to be a rock? I'm fairly certain (though I can't prove it) that you don't know. So how can you claim that a rock cannot feel? How do you know that it can't tell when a force is being exerted against it, that it doesn't feel pain when dropped, that it feels torn when it's chipped? Just because you can't perceive a locomotion reaction to stimuli (comparison - a person under anaesthesia) doesn't dictate that it must have no ability to feel.

I have never seen a rock act towards anything other than 'rockness.' No one has. Empirical fact.

Again, no such thing as empirical facts, only empirical evidence. I could argue that I have never seen a human act towards anything other than satisfying biological desires. I'd be reducing a human down to nothing more than what you're reducing a rock to. You can measure 'good', because it forms a very key part of your life. How can you begin to measure 'rockness' if you have never experienced it?

Humans act towards the good. But no finite good satisfies that act because it is always somehow lacking in goodness, insofar as it is finite. Try to point to any finite good as man's end and I'll show you what is lacking.
So if we are acting towards good in general, and not some finite good, only the infinite good can fill our nature.

But that argument presumes that infinite good can be achieved. You have said that an end that cannot be achieved, cannot be the true 'end'.

Man's end is infinite good.
In order for infinite good to be an end, it must be achievable.
It can only be achievable if you assume that will is infinite.
Will is infinite because man's end is infinite good (because finite will cannot get infinite good).
In order for infinite good to be an end....

Your argument is dependent on itself being true. Hence, circular.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

It has no senses (biological fact) to receive any good.
No I'm not. I'm saying that any given sensual pleasure is not enough, is the reason. There is always something lacking in a given finite pleasure.

Two contradictory statements. You're saying that you must have senses to receive any good. But you're saying that sensual pleasure isn't enough?
We receive everything though senses. That does not mean that everything received through the senses is necessarily a sensual pleasure. I read with my eyes. There is no sensual pleasure involved, unless it's a really pretty font or something. Yet I am still attaining a good: knowledge.

Why do souls have to use objects with senses?If all your senses are blocked (brain damage, sensory deprivation, etc), do you no longer have a soul?
If you're in a dark room and can't see something, you don't lose the power of sight, you lose the act of sight. Likewise in a body that cannot receive information, it doesn't lose the power of intellect, it looses the act. Intellect and will cannot act on nothing. But since it's not acting according to its nature, we call that unnatural.
Take a rock. There is nothing order in it to receiving sensory information. If it did have senses, it quite literally wouldn't be a rock anymore. So a rock's end is not outside itself, because ends don't surpass nature.

Having said that, what is it to be a rock? I'm fairly certain (though I can't prove it) that you don't know.
It's impossible to put into words because language is build around describing accidents. Take 100 various rocks. They are over different sizes, so to be a rock is not manifested in size. Likewise with color. Likewise with desity. Keep going until you run out of accidents to disquailify. Whatever you have left that is common to all rocks--that is 'Rock.'

So how can you claim that a rock cannot feel? How do you know that it can't tell when a force is being exerted against it, that it doesn't feel pain when dropped, that it feels torn when it's chipped?
I'm not sure if you're joking or not.
Feeling requires certain things: sensory receptors, a nervous system, etc.
I'm not going to argue silly scientific facts like that. Even if a rock had a soul as you claim, it still could not sense.

Just because you can't perceive a locomotion reaction to stimuli (comparison - a person under anaesthesia) doesn't dictate that it must have no ability to feel.
A person under anesthesia doesn't feel, nor do they have the capacity to....the biological reaction that is 'feeling' is impeded. Rock don't have such a pathway--that is an empirical fact.

Again, no such thing as empirical facts, only empirical evidence. I could argue that I have never seen a human act towards anything other than satisfying biological desires. I'd be reducing a human down to nothing more than what you're reducing a rock to. You can measure 'good', because it forms a very key part of your life. How can you begin to measure 'rockness' if you have never experienced it?
No one has That's an empirical fact. That no rock has ever acted towards anything other than rockness is based on evidence, yes; but that's not what I said.
I have experienced rockness. Getting hit by a rock in the head, using a rock as a paperweight, etc. It is by virtue of it being a rock that I can use it for those things. I know what it can and can't do.
I also know what a human can and can't do. I've experienced people acting on me too.
I know rock only does what you tell it to do. A human does more, it moves to an end apart from me.

But that argument presumes that infinite good can be achieved. You have said that an end that cannot be achieved, cannot be the true 'end'. That happens to be true, yes. But that is not what the argument is based on. That man's end in the infinite good follows from the fact that his end is the good, yet not a finite good because any finite good is also a non-good. Again that's empirical. You seem to want to divorce everything empirical from this argument.

Post by Skyfire

Secondly, 1000 people? To make a statistic claiming to be about 300 million people based on what 1000 people said? That's .00033% of the US.

1000 people is what you use for finding statistics about cancer patients or senior citizens, not the whole fracking US.

However, as a little further research shows, saying that 55%+ believe in Genesis isn't far fetched: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm .

That said, too large a sample and you risk bias. It's a bad thing to take a sample of a substantial portion of the population, say anything greater than 1% in this case, if even that as an upper bound.

I'll also echo the clarifications made by Squishie and Mediator.

Post by ASHelmy

Here's something that's been bugging me: If our soul lives on after we die, we could assume that it does not need our body to live (since our bodies do not stay after death). But wouldn't that mean that we should have existed before our birth? If we are our souls, and we do not depend on our bodies to live, then shouldn't we have always been? existing before birth? How come I did nothing before I was born? How come babies (who supposedly have souls) cannot function like a normal human being does?

Post by Hyperspacerebel

If our soul lives on after we die, we could assume that it does not need our body to live (since our bodies do not stay after death).
Our soul does not need our body to exist, no. But embodied souls are what we are most perfectly, so in fact we are less 'whole' when we die. Which is why we will get our bodies back at the end of time.

But wouldn't that mean that we should have existed before our birth?
Again, refer to the fact that being human means being an embodied soul. That's what we are by nature. Death in unnatural.

How come babies (who supposedly have souls) cannot function like a normal human being does?
Because they have not learned how to process sensory data correctly. That takes a couple years.

Post by ASHelmy

But then, how will we get our bodies back? Don't they decompose? Why didn't we have bodies before we were born, if we do after we die? Why should I expect to be after I die, if I was not before I was born?

Post by Hyperspacerebel

But then, how will we get our bodies back?
All imperfections will be stripped from the world (including our bodies). There will be no decay.

Why didn't we have bodies before we were born, if we do after we die?
That makes no sense. We have a body from the very moment we are born. Death is a product of sin, unnatural. Through his conquering of death, Christ will bring about a New Heaven and a New Earth, without their imperfections.

Why should I expect to be after I die, if I was not before I was born?
Because as creatures we were created. But as intelligent beings we don't cease to be.

Post by ASHelmy

Post by Squishalot

Which is why we will get our bodies back at the end of time.

Why the end of time? Not when we enter Heaven? Unless, of course, you mean we enter Heaven at the end of time, like I was suggesting ;)

I haven't ignored your last post. I'm actually going to be horribly busy for the next while (handing in a finance thesis for binding and submision on Monday, and I've got a bunch of auditors in our office for the next two weeks ><), so I'm going to have to stop chatting with you and get back to you later, when I get more free time.

But on just one final note - if a man's end must be achievable, and you assume that he has an immaterial will, then his end can be infinite. If you assume that he does not have an immaterial will, then his end cannot be infinite. If you are uncertain as to whether or not he has an immaterial will, then you must be uncertain as to whether his end is infinite or finite good.

And despite all that... going back to the topic of free will, is freedom of will really the ability of pursuing your will without restraint or interference? (Christian interpretation) Or is it restrained by definition, with only one possible set of paths and actions, because the future is already known? (Agnostic challenge to Christian interpretation)

I'll shut up for now. Thanks for the discussion - it's made work much less dull at times :)

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I am sorry, but that last part didn't make any sense to me, could you please explain it further? What is it about being intelligent that stops us from ceasing to exist?

That's what my whole discussion with Squishalot for the past 4 pages has been about.

Our intellect and will are ordered to infinite/unqualified good. But then our intellect and will must be infinite/unqualified themselves, and therefore not dependent on our finite bodies.

Post by ASHelmy

I am sorry, but that last part didn't make any sense to me, could you please explain it further? What is it about being intelligent that stops us from ceasing to exist?

That's what my whole discussion with Squishalot for the past 4 pages has been about.

Our intellect and will are ordered to infinite/unqualified good. But then our intellect and will must be infinite/unqualified themselves.

You are not making this any easier to understand for me :D. Slow down :D.

Post by Squishalot

I am sorry, but that last part didn't make any sense to me, could you please explain it further? What is it about being intelligent that stops us from ceasing to exist?

That's what my whole discussion with Squishalot for the past 4 pages has been about.

Our intellect and will are ordered to infinite/unqualified good. But then our intellect and will must be infinite/unqualified themselves.

You are not making this any easier to understand for me :D. Slow down :D.

Go back and reread the last couple of pages, then you can take over.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Which is why we will get our bodies back at the end of time.

Why the end of time? Not when we enter Heaven? Unless, of course, you mean we enter Heaven at the end of time, like I was suggesting ;)
Heaven is a state. Our glorified bodies would exist in the 'New Earth' if anywhere.
When the Bible says New Heaven and New Earth, it really means that.

And despite all that... going back to the topic of free will, is freedom of will really the ability of pursuing your will without restraint or interference? (Christian interpretation) Or is it restrained by definition, with only one possible set of paths and actions, because the future is already known? (Agnostic challenge to Christian interpretation)
Well ultimately, the only way of answering that is to be outside the realm of causality and view it from the outside.
You can claim any rational action is predetermined, I can claim any rational action is not dependent on any finite/material/substantial cause, and we'll get no where.
All I can do is say there is no meaning to your life and choices, but there is meaning to mine. That's why I respect Nietzsche...his took his position all the way to its logical conclusion, there is no meaning to anything man does, and stuck with it.

Post by Squishalot

Gah, why must you distract me so =_=

Well ultimately, the only way of answering that is to be outside the realm of causality and view it from the outside.

I'm not arguing it from a causal point of view, I'm arguing from a 'omniscience' point of view. If God knows all, then God must know the future. Especially since he sits outside of the concept of time.

As for the lack of meaning to life, there's no meaning to a Sim's life, but they can still consciously enjoy it.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I'm not arguing it from a causal point of view, I'm arguing from a 'omniscience' point of view. If God knows all, then God must know the future. Especially since he sits outside of the concept of time.
But he is outside time. So he knowledge if it has no affect on the actual events in time. Just like me looking back at the past has no bearing on the decisions made, so God knowing everything (no before it happens, not after it happens, but instantaneously and eternally) has no bearing on the choices made.

As for the lack of meaning to life, there's no meaning to a Sim's life, but they can still consciously enjoy it.
From which it directly follows that anything I can do to gain instant pleasure is good. Hitler lived a better life than me because he accomplished more of his goals. In the end everything is equally meaningless, so it doesn't matter what I do.

Questions for a Catholic

Post Reply