Will the audience of this debate consist of Catholics only?

Brush up on the catechism here:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

Focus on his inability to relate the church's doctrine to modern mankind. (Sorry. Presupposition.)

In that case you may want to use this as an opportunity to practice your arguments rather than try to immediately convince anyone of the falsity of religion.

I would probably go with the following points:

1. Religion looks like a scam; we must examine it critically to find out if it is.

Christianity bears a close resemblance to the "Nigerian Letter" scam. The mark is asked to donate money to the worthy cause of informing people they can live forever. No hard evidence and no scientifically credible mechanism is offered for this immortality. Conveniently, the mark can not interview any satisfied customers because the immortality is only received posthumously.

This could be a scam. We must examine Christianity critically to find out whether it is legitimate or not.

2. Supernaturalism is never a good idea.

Religious claims must conform to the same standards of evidence as scientific or non-religious claims. "You must have faith" cuts no ice in physics, and for a rational person it cuts no ice in claims about gods.

3. Either the gods created us in their image or we created them in our image. Which makes more sense?

The Christian story is that we inventented all gods but one, which happens to be real and is our creator. The common-sense theory is that we invented all gods. Which is correct?

Religion depicts god as an intelligent being with interests, preferences and concerns. These are animal properties. There are good Darwinian reasons why we should have these properties, but one is hard pressed to come up with reasons why an omnipotent being like a god would need them. Indeed, even if she did need them there is no mechanism by which she could have evolved them, as she is presumably not a product of natural selection.

It makes perfect sense that humans came about by evolution and invented the gods, giving them humanlike properties. It makes no sense whatsoever that a god miraculously pops into existence equipped with the mental properties of an African ape and then proceeds to evolve biological beings with those same properties.

These three points should blow Catholicism out of the water.

I have no idea why evolution is an answer to Catholicism in particular. Of all Christian denominations' perspective on evolutionary theory, I'd have to say that Catholicism has the least objection to it.

In early response to your three points:

"1. Religion looks like a scam; we must examine it critically to find out if it is.

Christianity bears a close resemblance to the "Nigerian Letter" scam. The mark is asked to donate money to the worthy cause of informing people they can live forever. No hard evidence and no scientifically credible mechanism is offered for this immortality. Conveniently, the mark can not interview any satisfied customers because the immortality is only received posthumously."

One is asked, in a manner of speaking (anticipating your later argument), to donate everything one has to God; this is true and it goes far beyond merely time or money. In response, first, I think it is silly when you make an accusation of a lack of scientific evidence against a position that is by nature "philosophical" in its subject matter. There is no "scientific" method to demonstrate the nature or existence of pi or mathematical figures (being postulates of the intellect). Second, it depends what you call "hard" or "scientific" evidence, as I would call philosophical demonstrations "scientific", as I would mathematical science. Third, I am unsure whether you refer to the immortality of the soul or the Resurrection of the body as to that which you attack. The first position is both something revealed and provable according to natural reason whereas the second rests on the grounds of revelation. It would be good to clarify this before I proceed further. 

"2. Supernaturalism is never a good idea.

Religious claims must conform to the same standards of evidence as scientific or non-religious claims. "You must have faith" cuts no ice in physics, and for a rational person it cuts no ice in claims about gods."

 Again, what standard do we use to establish our 'scientific" claims? I would argue philosophy could be used to establish many of the claims you attack (which, however, do not fall exclusively under the realm of faith), but does this count as "scientific" enough for you? Second, I think your position is vauge as "supernaturalism" can mean quite a deal. My own position is that there is nothing wrong with belief in articles of faith and that it is intrinsically rational. If we accepted my definition of belief and the supernatural (which is "based in" and of the same "genus" as the natural), there would be no accusation of any problem with "supernaturalism." Irrationality is equally attacked by myself as it probably would be by yourself.  

"3. Either the gods created us in their image or we created them in our image. Which makes more sense?

The Christian story is that we inventented all gods but one, which happens to be real and is our creator. The common-sense theory is that we invented all gods. Which is correct?"

You ought to study theology more before you attack Catholicism with these words. We depict God the Father in art with a beard, but no Catholic seriously holds that God literally possesses a beard. The same is true for any place where we would use such analogies - to use a timely example, the Church uses the antiphon for these days of Advent "O Clavis David" calling Our Lord the "Key of David" and nobody seriously entertains that Jesus Christ was a brass key.

This is why both Judaism and Catholicism hold that God is inexpressible in human language outside of negations or analogies (naturally speaking). God, as concieved of by Catholics (I cannot speak for Protestants, who I almost discount as Christians nowadays), is most certainly not in the image of man, nor was He in the "image" of man when He was discovered by the philosophers.

 I would have to say that the Trinity bears fairly little resemblance to the way human beings are. However, I would also believe that, supposing God created all things, it would not be a stretch to say that He place in creation reflections of His own qualities. Again, I think we should clarify before we move on here as well.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

#1 Rule: If you get stumped AND YOU WILL, especially if you are new to debate BEING STUMPED DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MAGIC EXISTING.

#2. Keep them on track. They will use distracting arguments such as psudo philosophy and psudo science. The bible does not have an ancient hebrew or greek equivialent of "Entropy" or Second Law. If they use the Second Law BS, point out to them that then that would mean Superman can fly as well.

#3. In the end they still have to defend outragous claims such as dirt "Poof" turning into bone, gosts getting girls pregnant and flesh surviving rigor mortis.

#4. "How do you know he(incert deity here) doesnt exist? Common argument. "How do you know Vishnu doesnt exist? How do you know my purple snarfwidget doesnt exist."

#5. Always keep in mind that in the end they are defending Superman vs Kriptonite claims.

#6. ATTACK THE MAGIC, they cant defend it.

"God can do whatever he wants" is an intelectuall cop out. Once the believer has baught this CLAIM(and that is all it is) It allows them to throw up a wall and make excuses and stories as to why they dont have evidence. "Metaphor" and "missinterpretation" are common tactics used to avoid the fact that they CANNOT explain the mechinisms of how that fantastic claim could have happened.

#7 Don't be intimidated or afraid. Early in debating you will get stumped. That does not default to their deity, or any deity for that matter existing. It merely means you need to think about it.

#7. Man/god characters are based on superhero worship and have existed long before the Hebrews or Christianity. Those modern monotheists adapted characters and glorified the ones they wanted, demonized the pagan gods and incorperated those motifs with different details.

#8. BEWARE OF PASCAL'S WAGER! "If you are wrong, and bet on the wrong horse, you've lost your reward. Better safe than sorry."

Fallacy: To insure that you have the right god you would have to believe in all the current and past claims to insure that you got the right one.

HOWEVER, if the believer got it wrong and there is no god then they have waisted their entire life on a myth.

GOOD LUCK: I hope this helps. 

A jovial poke at the Protestants

Yes; that is what the mark may be told. But the reality is that he is donating money and/or time to the church. It is a sufficient reason to examine critically the claims of this religion.

This is what the apologists of all religions and pseudosciences do: they tell you why their belief system is not subject to the same standard of evidence that ordinary people require of all other beliefs.

Irrelevant. If you are a normal, rational person you will require evidence if I make claims about what happens to you after you die. If you have evidence for the claims of Catholicism about what happens to us when we die, feel free to present it.

Of course you would, because the clergy need you to believe something that is not true. I find "philosophical" demonstrations of religious claims a dreadfully boring exercise in the game of spot-the-fallacy.

This is meaningless mumbo jumbo. If I tell an astrologer that I think his discipline is nonsense, he may ask me if I am attacking the influence of Venus in the house of Jupiter or Jupiter in the house of Venus (I am making the terminology up). This does not change the fact that there is no evidence for either one.

Provable according to natural reason? What nonsense. But go on, tell me if you must. I will then point out the flaws in the reasoning.

A claim is scientific if it generates falsifiable predictions.

No it does not. Either you have a hypothesis that generates falsifiable predictions or you have no science.

Please bear in mind that my post was addressed to a rational atheist. There was no need to explain my definitions at length because the recipient was in all probability already aware of them. I define supernaturalism as the fallacy of failing to apply to a particular set of claims the same standard of evidence that one applies to the rest.

That is downright scary.

So is the Catholic god not a person? Not intelligent? Not moral? What is the use of such a god-concept, save to bring to money to the church?

StMichael, please use the quote function. It will make your posts more legible.

No, my argument is an empirical one. If you want to test it, go and see if the apologists of other religions and pseudosciences will try to convince you that you should accept their claims without requiring the kind of evidence we require for everything else.

Only the metaphysical ones. But metaphysics cannot have an impact on how we should live our lives and make our decisions. In order for there to be a reason why one should give money to a church, empirical claims must be made, explicitly or implicitly.

What is a 'soul' and what evidence do you have of its existence?

It is frightening that you would think that believing in articles of faith is rational. Are Moslem suicide terrorists being rational when they believe they will go to paradise after blowing themselves up? Or do only Catholic articles of faith count?

Really? Then you have not addressed my original argument; namely, that being a person is an animal quality which we would expect to find only in beings produced by natural selection. Therefore it makes more sense to think that we made the gods up rather than to think they created us.

You never answered my argument. Different standards apply to different truths. For example, why are you applying the standard of empirical knowledge to something? I need no empirical knowledge of that claim itself. Nor do I need empirical knowledge to know that something can be or not be at the same time. Different standards.

That is a very silly statement. Your own statement is, by nature, metaphyiscal, when you say metaphysics ought to have no impact upon our lives. It is also completely arbitrary. Talk about blind faith.

I refer you to my discussion of this question with todangst on "Atheist v. Theist" in "Catholic Seminarian...."

The morality of the Catholic Church is based in natural law, which is largely discoverable to reason. As a result, for example, we condemn suicide as contrary to natural law. Muslims, on the other hand, have tended to have a rather negative view toward any introspection into articles of faith, and into an investigation of the relationship between faith and reason. Part of the reason for this is because they are voluntarists, but this is a much too long discussion for right now. I merely point out that the Catholic Church claims that articles of faith are inherently rational and in keeping with what one knows about morality, and Muslim claims are different in origin. I would also point out that Islam has different schools of thought on this particularly voluntarist viewpoint.

You are loading the terms with your own meaning, then. I deny that God is an animal, if that is your definition of personhood. The Catholic definition which was made dogma at the First Council of Nicea indicates personhood to be an individual rational substance. Analogy exists in Scripture and theological discourse as a way of describing divine attributes; it likewise exists in art to depict things otherwise undepictable (does Lady Liberty literally have a torch?).

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

Philosophical standards.

Not for everything.

Why would that not make the statement false? It would seem that if metaphysical considerations have no impact on our lives, you own metaphysical consideration is unimportant and irrelevant.

Frankly, that would take quite a long discussion. Simply, one owes the laborers their due, which means that I have an obligation to support priests and religious out of justice for their work.

I am aware of angels and God, both of which satisfy that requirement. A computer is not rational, and the human mind is not merely the product of natural selection.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

The nature of how we know, as opposed to how we sense, indicates that our knowing is not tied to our organs in such a way that its existence is depenent upon them. The proof for this is that, as opposed to sense where our organs sense one category of sensible according to the bodies which they are disposed to recieve, whereas the mind knows all bodies potentially and has no such intrinsic limitation of matter. In this way, it becomes clear that the mind's power of knowing is not tied inextricably to matter and hence subsistent. The mind continues to exist, then, after the death of the body.

As for the Resurrection of the body, that is purely an article of faith. There is no such philosophical proof. I accept God's authority in His Revelation when He tells me such is going to happen (as in Christ's words in the Gospel, the Creeds of the Church, and the Church's declarations on this matter).

And this is precisely a non-empirical claim that is true.

I see no reason why that statement ought to be true, because it contradicts itself. How is the statement 'unfalsifiable claims have no impact on how we should live our lives' not contradictory? I also think that the standard of falsifiability seems to beg the question.

They were not intended to necessarily refute the entirety of the argument. You asked whether I was 'aware' of any being that had rationality that was neither animal nor computer. I gave you one.

I would however disagree with the basic premise again. Rationality is not an bodily quality, but a spiritual quality. Rational things only exist without matter. The rules of logical discourse do not exist in matter. Thought itself cannot exist in matter, even though thinking in humans occurs using matter (as I use a notepad in order to compute mathematical problems). Thinking itself is immaterial, as are ideas and any other category of abstraction, universal, and concept.

If we merely stopped that natural selection was a necessary but not sufficent condition for the initial formation of the human mind, I would be tempted to agree (I think not enough has been said about the early origins of man, so that I am not necessarily ready to attach myself to a specific theory). However, this theory is not incompatible with the Catholic understanding of soul, which was created by God and infused into a body (which developed naturally according to God's providence though evolution, possibly). I think it would be too much to claim that evolution produced thought directly, which is too much for evolutionary science to claim. My point is really to agree and point out that while it might be a necessary condition.

But, beyond this, rationality is by nature immaterial and, as the human soul is subsistent, it would seem that seperated spiritual substances can exist. Spirits, as minds seperated from matter and never determined by material bodies, are pure seperated spiritual substances - an angel is an example. God is a spirit in the highest degree, but in a different way from angels and man. However, so that it does not seem I am begging the question, I ought to point out that the existence of God is something able to be demonstrated according to natural inquiry as a necessary cause for the universe (and, following from this, immaterial and intelligent).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

Basically, looking at the latter statement, the human mind uses matter as an essential part of thinking (this is why brain damage, drunkeness, retardation, affect thought), while at the same time being not dependent upon matter for its existence. This was the proof I gave the first time. As the mind can know all things, unlike a material organ, and hence is unlimited by matter and not dependent upon a material organ for its existence.

No, I am accepting it on Revelation. First, it ought to be said that natural reason cannot prove the truth of faith, but it is also true that it cannot disprove that either. There is no reason why one cannot believe it. Second, mythology is of a different species than Revelation. Revelation involves God revealing Himself to man in order to impart truths necessary to salvation. Myths are human-created stories that give some explanation for the world. I don't know exactly what you mean to imply, but I would point out that Revelation is quite a bit different.

Here, I'm not sure what you mean to imply, as I do intend to say that the mind (in a manner of speaking) did literally pop into existence. Evolution might be a necessary condition for its emergence, but God would quite literally have directly created it in man as soon as the requisite body developed naturally according to evolution. And I doubt that is how 'our ancestors' 'invented' gods; also a different process from Revelation and philosophy. This likewise begs the question why human beings have an innate movement towards gods and religion.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

The mind knows all things without material limit - the mind can conceptualize infinity without actually experiencing an infinity of matter, the mind could potentially know everything from a kangaroo to a quark without deteriment, the mind is not limited as a sense organ is limited to only know one type of body (smells, bells, ect.). Because a mind knows all types of bodies, rather than being limited to a particular type, it shows the mind is not dependent upon an organ for its existence. Further, nobody would argue that sense, because it requires a sensible object to function, would be dependent upon a sensible object for its power of sense. Similarly, the mind, while knowing through/in matter (images in the brain), does not depend upon matter for its existence/power of thought.

The first test to see whether a revelation is true is whether it is in substantial correspondence with what is known naturally (aka, is the belief logical). True faith is always a rational thing. Second, while I would argue that witchcraft has been and is a real thing, I find your argument wholly unpersuasive. First, because God reveals things, not me. Second, there is no moral obligation to murder witches and no commonly sensible person would see that as an obligation. Third, faith is good information, not a good intention.

I think that to be overly simplistic and largely wrong. I see no reason why this would amount to a belief in God; if we consider mythology (of which I know a bit), your theory is not supported in the way myths came about. Second, it still does not refute any philosophical argument for the existence of a cause of the universe. Third, I do not believe in what you claim the fundamental theorm that enables one to take God seriously, yet I believe in God.

I almost laughed when I read this the first time. Is that how you seriously view humanity? Sadly, if this is the case, I would see no reason why you ought to be able to rationalize any debate with me if the human mind is merely a material machine that merely processes sensory data and acts on it necessarily. If that was the case, all logical debate, discourse, and rational thought would be utterly impossible, and likewise this debate would be impossible.

I find it much more probable that religion/belief in God is a rational solution to problems posed by the existence of creation around us. I think it more probable to propose that the reason religion exists in human beings and has spontaneously arose throughout history is because human beings, using their minds, have seen creation and moved from its existence and complexity to conclude that a rational principle for its origin must exist.

If we truly want to argue that religion is a virus of some sort in the "hardware of life," I find this utterly unable to be applied at all. First, because I could equally just argue that atheism is a virus in your brain, maliciously twisting your brain to think that God does not exist. Second, if viruses could just infect my brain in this manner, it would be totally arbitrary what a virus' content was, whether it be atheism, Hinduism, Catholicism, deism, agnosticism, ect. Third, it would seem that any idea would amount to being a 'virus,' as any idea that took root in my brain could be classified as a virus, but this is absurd. Fourth, no proof is offered as to how one could identify a virus versus a non-virus. Fifth, having a 'virus' indicates that one likewise has a state of 'health' in opposition to it. This indicates that an absolute and immaterial standard exists apart from matter by which you are judging what is true and what is not. If you are a true materialist, this would be contradictory with what you are both saying here and elsewhere.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Here are some things I enjoy discussing whenever I'm in a debate with someone. Also, some tips.

 1. Ask him if he feels eternal punishment is just for those who don't even know what Christianity is? If yes, why? This will either show his inability to answer a fundamental question, or show that he's a mean grumpy old man.

 2. If he ever uses a claim that is not backed up, say "Prove it." If he replies with some canned answer such as "You must have faith my son" then you can start widdling away at his wall.

 3. Some people say the devils biggest trick was to make people think that he doesn't exist. People also say that it's easier to tell a big lie than a small one. Combine the two and you'll have them thinking. Of course you have no evidence of it, just as they have no evidence of angels talking to Mary. Ask them how they don't know that the Devil didn't tap into the writers minds. Judas' had Satan in his mind after he lied to Jesus, or some thing similar. What's to say that the inspired word of the lord isn't actually the inspiried LIE of the devil? This usually gets them thinking on a scripture or verse to counter it.

 4. Don't let them use scientific theories to try and sway you. There are many Christian scientists who go out directly to prove, for example, a New or Old Earth. Remind him of the flaw of the one sidedness of these "scientists" and tell him about how a scientist should be unbiased.

 5. Remind him that man is imperfect and any direct idea in the spoken word of god could have easily of been lost in translation. Only do this if he doesn't try to prove anything.

What the mind can conceptualize is not a proper subset of conceptualizable things; that much seems obvious. But I fail to see how this implies anything about what the mind is dependent on. To give an analogy, a text on a computer screen can be about any form of energy, but the existence of the text depends on a particular kind of energy (electricity).

Now I see what you mean, but then the analogy is incorrect. A correct analogy would be that similarly to a sense organ which retains its potential to sense even when a sensible is not present, a mind retains its potential to know even when information of a knowable is not presented to it. But all of this implies nothing about the matter which a mind requires or does not require in order to exist.

In summary, mental activity can be about immaterial things (like tuesdays), but this tells us nothing about whether mental activity requires matter in which to take place.

Of a meme? Sure. The idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It existed in not a single brain up to 2004. In 2005 it was conceived in the mind of Bobby Henderson and quickly spread to millions of brains across the globe.

No evidence that religion is contagious? You must be joking.

I just told you that atheism is (slightly) contagious. I am not arguing that it is not viral. What I would argue, if need be, is that atheism happens to be true and (at least under some circumstances) beneficial.

Our thoughts would not be independent of the ideas inhabiting our brains? I daresay they are not! Do you think the same thoughts now as you thought when you were a five-year-old? And with the same frequency? Probably not.

The worse for 'true' thought. There is no guarantee that thoughts really are what you would like to think they are.

I suppose that depends on what you mean when you say 'thought'. Usage like "it is an unsettling thought" does not really commit one to the pretence of knowing what actually goes on in the brain. I would therefore say that 'thought', as understood by many if not most people, is not an illusion.

Why futile? Rational discourse is an efficient way to curb the influx of harmful and/or false ideas.

Does it? The idea of a square root, though copied from another brain, allows us to recognise a square root when we encounter one. Similarly, does not the concept of truth, even though it may be copied from another brain, allow us to recognise a truth when we encounter one?

Why would they cease to apply? Our preferences most definitely exist, regardless of how we got them.

(See above.)

Atheism, I think, is one of those nice, beneficial bugs in the system, sort of like acidophilus.

I am not convinced that the concept of irrationality is of much use here. I see no need to contest this claim for now.

Exactly.

That does not follow.

To be more explicit, your argument goes like this: "If our brains were meme machines, what we call logical thought and reason would not really be what I think they are. Therefore our brains are not meme machines."

The argument is of course fallacious. What you believe about logical thought and reason is irrelevant. To present evidence against the meme machine hypothesis you must show that the hypothesis contradicts not your opinions but our observations.

The concept of a square root is undeniably copied from other people. Does that make square roots an illusion?

Does a virus scanner not have a standard for identifying harmful code? Perhaps instead of a standard you wish to call it a set of criteria; the choice of words is of secondary importance. If a machine can have it, so can we.

You may be tempted to object that harmfulness is meaningless to the virus scanner; it is merely designed to identify that which we call harmful. But our brains are designed too, by natural selection.

Surely the idea of good can exist; the one that is copied from brain to brain. How we come to regard one thing as good and another as bad I cannot say for sure. More empirical research is required.

At the risk of sounding positively obtuse, I must say that I completely fail to see how the ability of the mind to know all material things proves anything about its subsistence.

Is anyone else reading this thread? If you see StMichael's point, please explain it to me.

No there is not. I am talking about infectious ideas, nothing more. Resemblance to computer viruses or biological viruses is in the eye of the beholder.

Naturally I believe that ideas ultimately have a physical existence in the brain (not as objects but as patterns of neuronal connections) but for the purposes of this discussion we can remain agnostic about that.

We do not need to know how, precisely, minds internalize the ideas they encounter. It is enough for the purposes of this discussion to know that they do.

And my point is that ideas need be neither true nor beneficial to be successful.

I must again stress that while in all probability ideas exist as physical (neural) patterns in physical brains (where else?), the meme machine hypothesis does not depend on it.

Even a computer programme can sort hypotheses into the categories of false and not-yet-known-to-be-false by testing their predictions. And a chess playing programme can tell good ('beneficial' ) moves from bad ('harmful' ) ones. So why could a meme machine not do these things?

How does a freely willed thought differ empirically from a not freely willed thought? If they do not differ at all, I must submit that the distinction is not meaningful.

Of course.

The concept of 'beneficial' is nothing but a tool, a part of the meme machine. I assign no deeper meaning to it.

There would be (and are) ideas that are subjectively judged as good or bad by the meme machines. Naturally their judgements would depend on the memes inhabiting them.

Learned, copied, mimicked, imitated... the choice of words is immaterial.

'True' is a label for hypotheses which have been tested and not yet found to be false. A mere computer can attach such a label. Why would the brain not be able to do the same?

Do you mean that if the criteria for determining the veracity of a claim vary freely from one individual to the other, it is meaningless to have conversations about truth? I agree with the inference but not with the premise. We should for good Darwinian reasons expect to see roughly the same epistemology employed by (nearly) all brains: the epistemology that works. If there is sufficient interagent compatibility in individual epistemologies, discourse becomes possible.

Of course I can have a standard. If you mean that my standard must be subjective, then I perfectly agree.

I disagree, but in the interest of keeping focused, I must adress the issue later.

What do you mean by a universal category of thought?

Yes. How does this contradict the meme machine hypothesis?

In some sense at least. It would be a waste of time to debate the existence of the number four, and it would be a waste of time to debate the existence of truth.

Learned. Imitated. Whatever.

Then perhaps there is a problem with your concept of square root. Mine is perfectly compatible with the meme machine hypothesis.

Once again I point out that even a machine can test hypotheses and label them true or false.

Hey Matt-Evolved,

Has the debate/meeting happened yet?

I'd love to hear your notes on it. 

We can deduce that the mind is not limited by matter. In this, it is subsistent. Nothing more needs to be proved.

Yes it has. That is precisely the proof. The mind is not identical with a material organ, or else it would not be able to know all material bodies. It would instead know a particular body under a particular material aspect. However, this is not the case. Hence, the mind is not identical with a material organ.

I beg to differ. And it has nothing to do with the Scotsman fallacy. Computers merely operate on the basis of information given them. They can perform calculations independent of man, but they cannot operate without man as cause of the information in the first place. Also, they cannot think, not because 'only humans can think,' but because a computer cannot form abstractions of material things, nor can a computer see irony, nor can a computer speak (any more than a parakeet can speak). I think you are operating out of science fiction books rather than facts.

When you assert that all minds are material, it requires a material mode of transmission. "Learning" is an abstraction, not a material mode of transmission. I would easily agree with you that encountering ideas spoken or written by other people would lead to myself thinking them (as this is, in fact, the entire point of speaking and writing, as well as of art). However, this is not the same as holding that immaterial things do not exist, and all is merely matter (which I would disagree with).

Design, by definition, requires intelligence.

A machine does not discover standards of truth; it must have them put into them by an intelligent agent. Show me the epistemology of a duck, or any other animal or inanimate object, before you claim that competing epistemologies of machines are the cause of knowledge.

Because external violence is not limited to material violence against a body.

I mean that, if values are subjective, no conversation, no rationality can occur. Our judgements do depend on our ideas, but our ideas are not merely subjective. Objective standards of truth exist apart from myself.

One of the problems here is that you are using 'data' as the subject. Data is not identical with matter; in fact, data must not be matter or you would have to conclude that the only way it could be transferred would be by material transmission in a direct sense (the DVD could never transfer data to the hard drive without direct contact). Also, the hard drive does not learn anything when it receives signals from the computer. Lastly, matter is involved in human learning, but that does not make human learning equivalent with material processes. Humans receive data, not matter, in their learning. The hard drive receives material change which is interpreted by humans to be meaningful. The computer (or the DVD or the hard drive) does not find the matter meaningful.

There I believe you to be reaching too much. The computer was designed and recieved standards from intelligent agents. There is also the difference in what these 'standards' are. For the human being, truth and falsity are categories that are meaningful. For the computer, the standards of truth and falsity are not 'known,' true and false do not exist in a computer - 0 and 1 do (in the sense of the electrical signals), material things to which we humans apply meaning. If you were to hold this to be true, an abacus could likewise have rational thought because it has standards of true and false in it. I would likewise claim that if you were to accept this, any material body would have rational thought (because there could never be a body of which you could say, 'this does not think&#39. 

Information is only of use to a thinking being, and only exists in relation to thought. The machine does not have information - it possesses signals that hold meaning for us. A piece of paper with writing on it would then be thinking because it possessed information.

Again, you are reaching here. A machine does not possess information. A machine possesses signals which are meaningful for rational beings, not for the machine itself.

Then, again, science is impossible. If it were merely the result of subjective assignments of value which we merely agreed upon, there could be no verifiability, there could be no truth, there would be no usefulness at all.

But this is misleading because it is of a different category (preference). However, it remains an objective truth that you enjoy green tea. It also is objective that statements carry meaning, that 'green tea' means something, and that 'oolong tea' means something else. The meaning of the ohrases requires an objective truth, otherwise it would merely be making noises (or in this case making random markings).

We are not debating whether words themselves mean different things. We are debating whether words can carry meaning at all. In a purely material universe, words can carry no meaning. The most a word can have is its material existence as a sound or a mark.

Then mathematics has no real truth. Mathematical theorems could be disproven anytime I wish. It is merely convenient that the engineer said that this bridge carries the necessary amount of weight. It is merely convenient that my computer processes information in the way it does. It is merely inconvenient if 2+2 does not equal 4. Truth could not exist. Mathematics would break down, science would be impossible, and no rational thought would be possible.

 The opposite is manifestly the case.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Computers cannot properly know anything. The use is only equivocal, with reference to human knowledge. A computer does not understand anything; it operates solely as a result of electrons pulsing through its circuits, reacting and interacting according to the pre-drawn pathways imprinted on the circuits. It displays one thing merely as a reaction to another. You could then equally say that a pad of paper knows something because it has written on it the words, "I know what you did last summer!"

Except that we know from our understanding of the fact that human beings can know all bodies that our mind is immaterial. It has nothing to do with comparing it to computers. We know that our mind is thus constituted and can work from there.

Except that a computer's label is not really meaningful to it, but only to us. Otherwise, the words on a notepad are intelligible to the notepad.

You do if you want to maintain a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that ideas are materially transmitted. Your interpretation of what meme machines are implies a material transmission of ideas. If you claim that it does not and the mind is immaterial, I agree wholeheartedly.

That is a very loose definition of epistemology. Epistemology determines how we know. A moose does not know the creek, it senses it. There is a clear difference. If sense was knowledge, then there would be no such thing as a false statement.

Except that you presume that the animal has an information processing system in order to demonstrate a method of its evolution. It begs the question.

Same mistake again. Random chance causes information system to emerge, hence information system occurs.

If everything is purely a result of chance material interaction, mathematics is impossible as the world would be purely chance in nature. Also, mathematics would not be able to exist, as each mathematical theorem would not be able to be true in the world.

I am assuming your viewpoint. If chance material interactions determine everything, mathematical truths are merely a matter of opinion and disprovable according to my standards of mathematical truth.

Science is impossible for the above, namely that every conclusion scientifically said to be a 'law' or an repeatedly observable action would be merely a result of personal opinion. No scientific theory could be made, as eveything was relative.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

It is not question begging. I am merely stating that the way in which you are referring to computers as 'knowing' is only in reference to human beings by way of analogy.

Knowledge does not occur by way of an 'ability to perform tasks which require information.' Knowledge and knowing is a change of potential to actuality in the mind, so that there is a likeness between the knower and the known. This is not an ability. Computers may be said to possess likenesses of things known in them, but this is not of the same species as knowledge. A computer does not have the potential to possess forms immaterially, as there is no immaterial substance in which change could take place. As such, it could never understand. The most a computer could attain (hypothetically) is if it acheieved sensation (somehow, which I would doubt). Even in sensation, sensation is obviously a material process without a per se existence as is clear because sensation takes on forms in their materiality, where knowledge takes on forms as immaterial. As such, an organ of sense becomes impaired by too much sensible data, whereas an intellect whose object is very knowable profits from it. This indicates the reliance of the sense organ upon a likeness in matter, whereas the intellect is not dependent upon matter for its existence. Also, no powers of a sensing being exist apart from matter. Knowing is the only thing that can subsist without a material body.

You're missing the point. I have. The mind operates immaterially without dependence upon matter, as per its ability to understand intensely intelligible things easily. It is thus subsistent.

Does knowledge imply performing tasks? That is rather arbitrary. Also, it is contrary to the definition of 'knowledge' which implies a possession of something, not an action (other than the reception of knowledge itself).

That assumes an agent with concepts to make something meaningful. The computer does not process meaning, but merely signals which carry meaning for humans in the same way a piece of paper does not process the meaning of what is written, but merely transmits the meaning by way of a material sign.

Then you must claim that the idea of 'Paris is in France' is immaterial. Otherwise, you must show how the matter of the idea moves into the actions of the person and how the matter of the idea moves between the act of person A and into person B, and how the material transmission of the idea is internalized in person B. I agree with the process generally, but I would maintain that the idea itself is immaterial while it is obviously transmitted by aid of material signs.

The same thing, according to myself:

1) Idea X is understood by A.

2) A speaks a word signifying X.

3) B hears the word.

4) B abstracts X from the word.

5) B understands X.

The difference that epistemology refers to how one gains knowledge, and sensation or nutritive aspects cannot fall into the realm of knowledge (or every thing is knowing). The next step would be to maintain that there must be an epistemology of rocks.

Again, the starting point is too broad. You assume that the animal begins with at least a rudimentary informational system. Further, if chance were the key factor in everything (rather than just animal developments) there would be no order to the universe at all. However, this is manifestly not the case as we can discern such things as natural 'laws' (gravity, ect.).

Exactly. This is precisely my point. Stability exists such that we can find intelligibility in material processes; if chance were purely the case, this would not be possible. It indicates a fundamental order stemming from an ordering agent.

Mathematics then depend on whims, rather than provable and verifiable axioms. The same goes with natural science.

Except that mathematics does. Mathematics incorporates logic in its statements, which assumes that a true and a false answer can exist in a given situation. It assumes the existence of an objective truth and cannot function without it. You ought to go tell a mathematics professor that his theorems are based purely upon his personal whimsy and convenience and see what he says.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

There is no immaterial substance in which the change takes place. In man, there is an immaterial substance which is seperate from his body - his thought. In computers or rocks, there is no action which is not dependent not just upon their bodies, but also which is not dependent upon exterior action upon them. A living body, such as a plant or a frog, clearly moves on its own without exterior aid because it has life, but this life is tied to its matter and it does not exercise any function which is subsistently immaterial. Human beings are self-moved and possess an immaterial soul that is subsistent because it performs subsistent action: knowing. The act of knowing and the objects of knowledge themselves are immaterial and can only be known immaterially. The more material an object gets, the less knowable it is in itself. A computer is neither self-moved nor does it exercise any thought. It does not follow to prove that a computer can think because there is no evidence that it does not. We can see that it has no external signs of thought (such as speech, reasoning, or the ability to see irony) and that it likewise exercises no functions past its material components. On the other hand, we clearly see that human beings exercise an immaterial action: thought. 

I disagree. It needs to clearly be defined whether or not an idea is immaterial or material. Do not back down from your position. You claimed that nothing existed beyond pure matter and you need to either defend it or concede it. The terms 'material' and 'immaterial' are clearly important to this discussion.

Again, then, you assume an information system to show how one can arise naturally. Also, there is no reason why you bring up the irrelevant issue of radiation, ect. I don't see what it has to do with the discussion.

First, I am not giving the stability of the universe as the proof, but the stability of natural laws governing action in the universe. Second, the proof is in that things act according to rational principles; the rock always moves to the end it pursues in every act governed by a higher ordering power. The only way to posit that it moves toward an end is to posit an intelligence. Hence, an intelligent agent must be governing the action.

I don't see what not knowing about possible universes has to do with it. We know what rational action is and we can see intelligent action in unintelligent things. Thus, an intelligent agent is acting.

Lastly, we are proving that the agent is the cause of stability, not existing in an unstable universe.

Axioms have no proof because they are self-evident. They are fundamental precepts of being.

Nothing works if there can be no such thing as "working." Define "works."

They are interested in how the world works, which entails that there must be a standard of "this the universe does" and "this the universe does not do," or "this theory is accurate" and "this theory is not accurate." Otherwise, the theories and science in general are useless/stupid.

Truth indicates in mathematics a correspondence to reality. It however is given a sign in mathematical formulas. If there were no such thing as truth arising from them, they would be utterly useless. For example, one could not build a bridge using mathematical formulas as their conclusions would be entirely arbitrary (if no correspondence exists between the symbolic representation and reality).

1 and 0 on a chalk board equally symbolize truth and falsity. Does that mean the chalk board thinks or knows truth? I think not. They only have meaning in relation to us.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 I want to get this discussion back on the original topic. I will address the main concern at the end.

An immaterial subsisting thing. There is no contradiction. Immaterial substances exist in many ways, as I had said before. We see immaterial non-subsistent substances when we consider things in the world (physically), which we know by way of their immaterial "form" or "idea." God Himself is an immaterial subsistent substance, as philosophy proves from the nature of God as first cause. Further, the human soul, as we have been proving, is subsistent and immaterial.

Material - existing with matter. Immaterial - existing without matter.

I see no relation to what we said. Your definition is precisely what you state there and would necessitate that a coffee grinder is an information system. Further, I merely said that your "process" by which you assume the natural evolution of an information system was only proved by assuming that a basic information system existed in the first place.

You assumed an information system in the first place to show the evolution of one. I did not see what radiation had to do with it, but I do not dispute that it might.

So can a computer.

A rock falls down. The downward motion tends toward an end - the ground. The rock itself is unintelligent and intelligence moves things toward ends. Hence, an intelligence governs these unintelligent behaviours.

There is no reason that the last statement is true. You assume the conclusion in the premise: "no agent can exist before stability, hence every agent must only exist in a previously stable universe." It begs the question.

I would further maintain that a universe can only exist given a first efficent cause, or a first agency (in the loose sense of the world) to cause it. Stability is a necessary result of this causation.

Further, if there is no efficent cause of stability, why do things follow not merely stable, but rational (in the sense of being ordered toward ends) behaviour?

What is it to bring 'desired results?' Surely you cannot mean that science is based only in the desire of a scientist for some result, regardless of the outcome. This would seem to be the case if they were only looking for 'what works' as defined here.

The same place I see there being no reason how one can posit that science is possible. If ideas are merely viral material things, how could knowledge be anything more than entirely arbitrary?

In the end, let's come back to the beginning and fundamental discussion. There were three propositions that are fundamental to the problem here:

Metaphysics must have an impact on our lives. This is tied to why objects of knowledge and the soul must be immaterial. If the objects of knowledge and the soul were material, there could be no such thing as a "standard of truth" by which to evaluate any claims, as we make a metaphysical claim in stating that "metaphysical claims are irrelevant."  There is further no standard of how an empirical standard could confirm anything because an "empirical standard" requires that universality which is metaphysical.

A soul is the immaterial principle of life in a thing, regardless of whether it is a plant, a dog, or a man. It exists merely because things are alive; we can know that a principle of their animation exists because they are animated. Some of these principles are, by nature, subsistent (existing apart from the matter in which they act) while others are non-subsistent (acting only in matter). We can know the human mind is subsistent because it can know all bodies without limitation of matter. This is to say that the human mind does not merely know a series of particular events when it concieves of a concept like "whiteness," but abstracts the universal term from the particular instance of whiteness in a thing. If the human mind was purely material, it could not know universals at all, but would only grasp (not properly "know&quot particulars. However, this is clearly not the case.

Further, the human mind can know all material things. Whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature, because if it has it within its nature its knowledge is impeded by that thing, as a sick man's tongue cannot taste sweet, but only bitterness. Therefore, if the intellect contained a material principle, the intellect could not know all bodies, but would be impeded by its own matter. But every body has its own determinate nature. Thus, the intellectual principle cannot be a body.

Further, it cannot be an organ for the same reason. If we knew the world under the limitation of that particular and determinate nature, it would be as a rose-tinted glass that made everything else appear rose-colored.

Further, things that operate by means of organs are inhibited from acting by the intensity of the material sensation that they know. An abundance of sensation overwhelms the sense. However, with the intellect it is the opposite. An abundance in the knowability of something rather makes something more easily knowable. This is because the soul is immaterial in its knowing power.

Thus, we can at least know that the soul is immaterial and an immortal/subsisting entity apart from the body.

A computer or animal has no universal knowledge, but only knowledge of particulars limited to its particular mode of knowing. A computer, further, does not have information as known by itself, but as known by us. Further, it is clear that all change in a computer or animal is per se in the matter of the thing. This is to say that there is no operation in these which does not depend upon their material conditions.

Faith is a rational thing in itself, as it is a form of knowledge. Faith is defined as "knowledge proceeding from God, on whose authority it is accepted as true." Faith can never contradict reason because both proceed from one source, and hence would always be rational if we assumed that God reveals something.

Reason can attain knowledge of God's existence apart from Revelation through knowledge of the natural world. It is evident that things exist in the world which are in motion - in a state of change between potency and act. As nothing is not in motion that is not put in motion by another, every thing in motion has a mover. No thing can cause its own motion in the same way and in the same respect. But the chain of movers cannot go into infinity, because then there would be no first mover and no subsequent motion (because what is in motion can only be brought into motion by being moved). Thus, it is necessary to posit a First Mover, which is unmoved by any other thing, and this is called God.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

I intend to reply shortly.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

StMichael  

Hmmm, if I recall correctly, jovial pokes between Protestants and Catholics can turn into bombs going off in crowded areas.