Posted on 05/02/2009 3:19:55 AM PDT by spirited irish
It seems to me it's both intuitive, and "parsimonious" in the sense of Occam's Razor. I imagine that you see that too, Dallas Mike!
Thank you ever so much for your kind words!
‘If “A” equals “B”, and “B” equals “C”, then “A” equals “C”.’ Does that appear to be a syllogism of two premises and a conclusion which is valid, to you?
The metaphorical split(between them) is small.. the reality is dynamic..
The simile goes further, the brain is already computer.. but a "computer" is an extension/tool/aid of the brain..
The brain could be/is a tool of the spirit/operator..
For operating in "this dimension"/sphere..
When the computer ceases to operate or burns out..
The programmer may not.. but continues..
If the machine needs an operator to function..
Where does the operator come from?..
Where does the operator go? when divided/separated from the machine?..
Excellent sidebar(subthread) there, I would say..
Could make and fill a whole thread itself..
Truly, it is irrational to think of the psyche as an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen.
And what a penetrating insight to the presupposition of cause/effect, that it is based on experience and not reason.
The usual arguments given are that physical brain injury affects the mind and that responses can be physically provoked.
The latter is puppetry and actually makes the point that the brain is the tool the mind uses.
And the former is no more remarkable than the kind of changes one would expect in the performance of his television or computer if he took a hammer to it.
Well and truly said, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you so very much for your kind words of support!
Fascinating insights, dear brother in Christ! Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts!
Thank you, elfman2, for the thought and care you've put into this discussion. When I was much younger, I would have agreed with your premise that "divine intervention" was not evidence-based. Based upon experience and learning, I realize that I was wrong.
When I was a child, I was more or less taught that placing one's faith in God was an irrational move. Faith was stepping off a plank and hoping that there was something below to catch you. Reason could only take you so far and there was a final, irrational step of faith that you had to take in order to believe in God.
When I began college, I decided that faith had to be something more than blind faith. I never left Christianity, but I searched to find for myself whether it was true. I still believe that is good to continually examine one's faith. Am I placing my faith in God or am I placing my faith in what I think God ought to do?
I researched over a period of several years all of the major religions, philosophies, and even atheism in hopes of finding something of substance to latch onto. I found some good things in many religions and philosophies. For example, I liked the meditational aspects of Buddhism. However, I could not rationally accept the Four Noble Truths and how they speak of the cause of and remedy for suffering (disquietude).
The concept of Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism
As I continued my research, I ultimately came down to two religions that satisfied my yearning for something that accurately described reality: Judasim and Christianity. Both evidence-based beliefs.
I have been blessed most of my life to have been close friends with observant Jews. I love them and admire them. But the decision between Judaism and Christainity boiled down to the question of Jesus. Who was he? Is the information we have about him reliable? Did he really satisfy the prophecies and was he really the son of God?
As a result of much reading, thought, and prayer, I decided that Jesus was a historical figure, that the records we have of his life were accurate, and that he really is the incarnate son of God the father.
If you want to read the account of a hardcore atheist who set out to disprove Christianity and found God, I highly recommend Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.
I have two degrees in the hard sciences -- chemistry and chemical engineering -- and am by nature a highly rational person. When I see something that I don't understand, I always seek out a rational, natural explanation. That's the proper place to begin. It is not incompatible with Christianity either. God created the natural laws and almost always chooses to perform his work according to these laws. There is no need for God to continually tweak his creation to make certain that the earth rotates every 24 hours. When I take a Zyrtec for allergies, it works because it affects my body chemistry, not because it causes some miracle to take place.
As I have grown in my faith, I have come to learn that divine intervention is not only real, but happens often. I have become a soft charimatic Christian and have many stories to tell you about prayer being answered, often immediately. God answers every prayer: He says yes, he says no, or he says later. When he says yes and right now, the results are startling, even frightening.
The Apostle Paul wrote:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1-3)
When I was a less mature Christian, the key words in the passage for me were not seen. Now, the key words are assurance and conviction of things not seen. Even though something is not seen does mean it is not real. I cannot see the air I breathe but I am convicted that it is real because I can see its effects. Similarly, I believe that God is real because I see how we works in my life and the lives of others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.