When I responded about the issue with treating it as a matter of evidence, you insisted a claim to which evidence was supposedly relevant. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I said that they don't expect to see it. I have said that, under the assumption that the doctrine is true, I wouldn't expect to see it either. Yet they insist that it happens. They must, as that is a central tenet of their religion. What other evidence could there be? That's exactly what I'm asking, and I have not been satisfied by the answers that I've been given. I've assessed what has been presented as evidence, and I've rejected it as insufficient.

Catholics cannot expect it to happen empirically. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But that's more or less what I just said! They can't expect it to happen empirically without internal contradiction. They expect it to happen nevertheless, and the intelligent ones avoid contradiction by committing to the stance that it happens unempirically. But that too has consequences.

There is no separation between the empirical and how an empirical state appears to us. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not an assertion which goes against anything I've said. All you're doing is preaching to the choir, but you don't understand that that's what you're doing.

The underlying question here is: what does it even mean for it to happen? Since it is not empirical, what is even at stake in transubstantiation? What would it mean for it to be true? What would an expectation it was true entail? What does it even mean to say its true or false?

These seem to be the questions you aren't asking and answering. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I most definitely have been doing both. The ontological and epistemological status of magic and miracles are at stake. Standards of evidence are at stake. As I said earlier, granting this kind of thing would open the floodgates to all kinds of wild imaginings. It would be almost "anything goes". Ghosts? Why not? Witches? Why not? Celestial tea pots? Why not?

Even as you accept Agustino's account that its unfalsifiable (which I missed, being in one of many quote trees), you keep talking in terms of some contingent event which would be true or false by some sort of evidence-- such that we would have to have "faith" it was or was not so, due to evidence not arbiting either way. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Firstly, it was not a case of me accepting Agustino's account that it's unfalsifiable. I'm the one who said that it's unfalsifiable in the first place!

Secondly, you have to be careful to read what I say in the right context. Let's call my two criticisms "Criticism A" and "Criticism B'.

Criticism A
As an external criticism, taking into account my own presuppositions, I would reject it outright, as I do not believe that the bread and wine would become the body and blood of Christ without leaving empirical evidence.

Criticism B
As an internal criticism, with the assumption being that transubstantiation literally happens, and does not leave any empirical evidence, what reason is there to believe in transubstantiation? Agustino has provided reasons, but I do not think that they're good enough. If I were in his shoes, I would give up and simply take it as a matter of faith.

I clarified this earlier when Agustino kept making the same mistake. He dismissed my clarification because it wasn't a question, and because I said "the Bible" rather than "the doctrine".

Precisely because you don't see people rise from the dead from time to time, it shows that the Resurrection of Christ was a unique event in history. Indeed, it is the very axis of history. All of history separates in before and after Christ. — Agustino

Have you considered that the reason why it is so unique is because it's made up? Like if I told you that 3000 years ago, a giant fire breathing sea lion sprung up from a volcano, said hello, then disappeared into thin air. That's even more unique! How much testimony would it take for you to count that as a historical event? No? What if it was a central part of your religion? You'd claim it as historical, then, wouldn't you? You'd say that you've had a mystical experience which confirms it. Instead of a follower of Christ, you'd be a follower of the Great Fire Breathing Sea Lion.

You have created the idea of 3) when you are having difficulties articulating your beliefs probably because you yourself have not yet understood it well enough. — TimeLine

Well, I have acknowledged that I have not put my ideas together well enough. That's sort of what the forum is all about, isn't it. Throwing your ideas out to be beaten into shape in the heat of battle. But that's not what I was talking about in 3. The ideas I am putting forward are unfamiliar to a lot of people, even when expressed clearly.

As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real. — TimeLine

You didn't demean my beliefs, although that other guy did. My problem is your use of the term "pathological" and similar ones, implying that people who see things differently than you do, or at least their ideas, are crazy. It is a sign that I have not expressed myself well enough that you think my views are in any way supernatural. In my religion, when Moses came down off the mountain and read the commandments, the first one was F = ma. And, although I recognize my role in making this difficult, I still think you, the other guy, and people who think like you lack the imagination to see that the way you see the world is just that, the way you see the world, not the way the world is.

I still think that you, the other guy, and people who think like you lack the imagination to see that the way you see the world is just that, the way you see the world, not the way the world is. — T Clark

Careful saying things like that. Everyone knows the mods here are always right and that we mere peasants can't articulate our opinions!

That's a different sort of faith. In religious contexts, faith is an absolute trust in a foundational belief that permits an entire worldview to develop. — Hanover

And yet, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

It seems to me that the kind of faith required in a religious context with regards to salvation (and deification) is similar to the kind of faith one has when one chooses to get married, or chooses to start a business, etc. Without this kind of faith, whatever action (or desired result) seems to be impossible a priori.

Your understanding of transubstantion is simply incorrect. Your analogy offers no change at all in the girl, but a change of opinion in guy. If all you're saying is that you feel differently about the wafer but the wafer is the same old wafer, you're not talking about transubstantiation. — Hanover

What I'm saying is that the subjective change in the wafer (and in the girl) is more real than the unchanged appearance (which is their physical composition, how they look empirically, etc.). It seems to me that our difference is over the fact that you take a "real and literal" change to necessitate a change in physical composition and appearance, as this is what "real and literal" means to you. That's fine, I just disagree that that's what "real and literal" means. I take the significance of the act to be the "real and literal" thing, which does change in the case of transubstantiation - while the physical appearance, look, feel, etc. are just appearances and not "real and literal".

But I'm fine if we agree to disagree on this matter. We've managed to have a decent conversation in this thread without any insults and the like (as it was common between us), so that's a good thing I think (Y) .

I admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism. But I could only take what you say with no more than a pinch of salt. I'd have to look into it further myself. For a start, this is what Wikipedia opens with on Buddhism: — Sapientia

Well, Buddhism, after Christianity, is the religion I've studied the most, by far. The fact that you're giving me a citation from wikipedia means nothing. You have to understand the context and the precepts of Buddhism. Yes, there are versions of Buddhism where the Buddha is worshipped (more as a representation of perfection, than as the actual person), but salvation is still not achieved through worship, but through liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Worshiping the Buddha may, however, improve one's karma.

Also, I don't see what your quote is even telling me... that Buddhism is based on the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha, one of the many Buddhas?

But here goes: under the baseless assumption that what the doctrine says about transubstantiation is literally true, and under the assumption that the doctrine states or implies that there would be no observable difference, then, upon examination of the contents, after the ceremony, and after ingestion, I would expect to see digested - or partially digested - bread and wine. — Sapientia

Wrong. I was looking for the difference that makes this bread and wine different from normal bread and wine, as the doctrine claims. Without this difference, the doctrine would be internally inconsistent, claiming that bread and wine is different in this case, when it really isn't. But you've already told me you don't have any internal criticism, so I hope you don't start running back with the goal posts now. We established that this difference must not physical. So what kind of difference must it be then?

That's not what I mean by magical, and I think that you know that, which would make this reply from you nothing more than sophistry. — Sapientia

Yes I am aware of that. I just explained why you don't find this magical - you're used to it.

What you describe above is not supernatural, extraordinary, or miraculous. — Sapientia

Supernatural doesn't entail being against the laws of physics. Someone coming back from the dead is not against the laws of physics either. Time moving backwards is not against the laws of physics either (just extremely unlikely). So the laws of physics don't actually preclude any of these miracles to begin with.

You have an erroneous notion of what a miracle is. Walking on water is not against the laws of nature. It may just be that all of a sudden, all the particles of the water find that their velocity is directed to the surface, and so I am maintained floating above it. Now that probability is very very very very super tiny. But it's still there.

Coming to the example with the girl, why isn't it supernatural? You know of a certain law of nature that dictates that the girl will suddenly start meaning something different to you? Not really. So the only reason why it's not supernatural, is because it's become a habit as old Hume says - you're used to it.

It is analogous, and I think that you're being disingenuous, because I think that you're well aware that a lot more than one or two people claim to have experienced a ghost. If you're not aware, then look it up. According to one source, one in five American adults say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost. — Sapientia

Nope. Independent accounts of a phenomenon are not sufficient by themselves to establish it happens. In the case of Christ we have collective examples, with many people having seen the risen Christ all at once, and then being willing to die, all of them, for this belief. Are those peeps who claim to have seen a ghost willing to die for that?

You've cited testimony. In response, I've explained why anecdotal evidence is weak and insufficient. You've appealed to the masses. In response, I've identified that as an informal fallacy. Do you have anything else that I haven't already addressed? — Sapientia

Yes, you can add mystical experience and metaphysics to that list. Anecdotal evidence BY ITSELF may be weak and insufficient. As may an appeal to the masses. But combined, all those form a solid case.

That's the problem. — Sapientia

>:O

Again, that's the problem. — Sapientia

No, he wasn't. The ethics is what matters. Living by example is what matters. The metaphysics can, and should, be scrapped. That aspect of it should be treated as an interesting historical work, and nothing more. — Sapientia

You don't seem to be understanding Christianity. The ethics are absolutely NOT the centre of it. Christianity claims precisely that man cannot save himself, so the ethics, by themselves, are useless. Commit them to the flames. What matters is Christ - it is only through faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit that one may uphold the Law. Now seeking to maintain the Law, but taking out the central role of Christ is against the teachings of Christ.

Have you considered that the reason why it is so unique is because it's made up? Like if I told you that 3000 years ago, a giant fire breathing sea lion sprung up from a volcano, said hello, then disappeared into thin air. That's even more unique! How much testimony would it take for you to count that as a historical event? No? What if it was a central part of your religion? You'd claim it as historical, then, wouldn't you? You'd say that you've had a mystical experience which confirms it. Instead of a follower of Christ, you'd be a follower of the Great Fire Breathing Sea Lion. — Sapientia

Yeah, if you told me the story about the giant fire-breathing sea lion, I'd want to see some evidence for it, including testimony, and I'd also be interested in the significance of the event. If he just came to say hello, it's probably not very significant, even if it was a giant fire-breathing sea lion. I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection, the unique significance of the event, etc. etc. and your little monster story.

Also, since this subject seems to stick, here are the relevant portions from the official Catechism of the Vatican ;

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, 210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.213

Let's not pretend the four Gospels are a historical record. They are narratives written by highly educated Greek Christians about uneducated (except Jesus) and illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jews, 35-70 years after the fact. They are full of discrepancies and contradictions, including the accounts of the resurrection. There are zero contemporary secular sources that affirm or even mention the event. — ProbablyTrue

Yes, let's not. And let's not try to pretend that a good historian would keep shtum about this, sweep it under the rug, or underplay the serious lack of credibility here.

I'm not Christian or religious in any conventional way. I have no vested interest in any specific issues being discussed here. What I am interested in is the metaphysical issue. My position has been stated and restated numerous times. I'd rather not do it again.

Patently means without doubt. Absurd means ridiculous. You think the idea of transubstantiation is ridiculous without any doubt. I disagree. — T Clark

Don't be so literal. It was a slight exaggeration, but I think it absurd nevertheless - about as much so as any other example I've given. It's not impossible, just extremely implausible.

With a few words changed, this is exactly the argument I've been making about your and Sapientia's beliefs. — T Clark

Except in Agustino's case, it actually applies.

As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real. — TimeLine

For the record, I have no qualms about demeaning his beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone else here. If his beliefs are ridiculous, then ridicule is fine by me. Ridicule away!

Devil's advocate mode.

I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, — Agustino

Hearsay.

the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ,

Hearsay that there were prophecies about him to begin with.

and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

the unique significance of the event.

Attributed to it avant la lettre.

You sure have an odd set of rules. It allows you to equate two distinct things, "X means Y". Isn't that no different from saying "bread means body"? I see no reason to believe your rules are any better than the rules of transubstantiation. — Metaphysician Undercover

:-}

It's not an odd set of rules. It's how language works. X would be the definiendum and Y would be the definiens. Meaning is use. If bread means body, then bread means body, although that isn't usually what it means. To abide by that rule of your own accord would be peculiar. To accordingly interpret that someone asking for a slice of bread means to ask for a slice of body would be quite bizarre, and would probably evoke the reaction that people think you're a weirdo.

The problem with the rules of transubstantiation that we've been discussing is that they require a literal interpretation. Scrap that rule and you scrap the problem. But good luck with scrapping that rule. From what I gather, the Eastern Orthodox Church is quite conservative, and I can't see that rule changing anytime soon. The Reformation has been and gone, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has proven itself quite resistant to reform. It maintains that it practices the original Christian faith, passed down by sacred tradition.

Anecdotes aren't evidence. — Benkei

They are, they're just relatively weak evidence, especially if the anecdote purports something miraculous, supernatural, or otherwise implausible.

The problem with the rules of transubstantiation that we've been discussing is that they require a literal interpretation. Scrap that rule and you scrap the problem. But good luck with scrapping that rule. — Sapientia

As you said in your last post, meaning depends on rules, so if we scrap the rules, we scrap meaning, and this is a problem.

If the Church wants to say, that this item is called the body of Christ, and this is the rule, then where's the problem? And because they call this item by that name, that is the name that the item has, and then that is the Church's rule. There is no problem here. The Church says this item is called "body of Christ", and so this item is the item called "body of Christ".

The only problem is that for some people, such as yourself it seems, "body of Christ" means something different. So these people desire to disallow this rule, claiming that the thing referred to by the rules of the Church as the body of Christ is not actually the body of Christ, the body of Christ is something different. So the people who are creating a problem are the shit disturbers such as yourself, who are disputing this rule to say that this item is not the body of Christ.

But I see no reason to dispute this rule, if "body of Christ" is what the Church wants to call this item, then let them call it that. Why would you insist that "body of Christ" ought to refer to something other than this? What would give you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" ought to refer to?

As you said in your last post, meaning depends on rules, so if we scrap the rules, we scrap meaning, and this is a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

You never seem to get the point. I didn't suggest that we scrap the rules, I suggested that we scrap that rule. What I said in that part was particular and singular, not general and plural. I don't agree with a literal interpretation, but that is a particular rule that you must abide by if you're a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that rule seems unlikely to change. The rule and I are not compatible. If I was a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, then something or someone would have to change.

If the Church wants to say, that this item is called the body of Christ, and this is the rule, then where's the problem? And because they call this item by that name, that is the name that the item has, and then that is the Church's rule. There is no problem here. The Church says this item is called "body of Christ", and so this item is the item called "body of Christ". — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that it's not simply wordplay, as you make out, like calling a cat "a fish". It's supposed to be taken literally, like thinking that a cat has gills. If it was merely wordplay, then I wouldn't have the same objection.

The only problem is that for some people, such as yourself it seems, "body of Christ" means something different. So these people desire to disallow this rule, claiming that the thing referred to by the rules of the Church as the body of Christ is not actually the body of Christ, the body of Christ is something different. So the people who are creating a problem are the shit disturbers such as yourself, who are disputing this rule to say that this item is not the body of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover

What the heck are you talking about? Your thinking is muddled, as usual. I agree that, in accordance with a literal interpretation, the body of Christ is literally the body of Christ. I'm not disputing that that's what they believe, nor that the body of Christ is the body of Christ, which would obviously be a contradiction in terms, unless you're equivocating, which is a fallacy. What I am disputing is that a literal interpretation is true, and that bread literally transforms into the body of Christ once the Eucharist has taken place. My views do not accord with such an interpretation. If I was a member of a church that required that, and that rule could not be changed, then I would leave that church.

But I see no reason to dispute this rule, if "body of Christ" is what the Church wants to call this item, then let them call it that. Why would you insist that "body of Christ" ought to refer to something other than this? What would give you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" ought to refer to? — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean "let them call it that"? Firstly, it's not simply a matter of calling an item "body of Christ", as though it were just a name. Secondly, I couldn't stop them if I tried. I simply disagree with that interpretation for reasons that I've spoken about at length.

I suggested that we scrap that rule. — Sapientia

As I said what do you think gives you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" refers to? I would think that there are many in the church who know far better than you, what this phase means. So your suggestion that this rule be scrapped is nothing but the actions of a rebellious shit disturber.

The problem is that it's not simply wordplay, as you make out, like calling a cat "a fish". It's supposed to be taken literally, like thinking that a cat has gills. If it was merely wordplay, then I wouldn't have the same objection. — Sapientia

That's what I said, it's not a matter of word play, it's very literal. As I said, it's an example of the power of the Word. I am Metaphysician Undercover by the very fact that this is what I am called. Those items are the body and blood of Christ by the very fact that this is what they are called. This is not word play, it's simple reality.

What I am disputing is that a literal interpretation is true, and that bread literally transforms into the body of Christ once the Eucharist has taken place. — Sapientia

When they take that object, which you call bread, and say that it will be called "body of Christ", then by the very fact that that's what it's called, "body of Christ", then that's what it is body of Christ, just like I'm MU by the very fact that that's what I'm called.

You only wish to cause trouble, saying that your name, "bread" is a better name for it then "body of Christ".

What do you mean "let them call it that"? Firstly, it's not simply a matter of calling an item "body of Christ", as though it were just a name. Secondly, I couldn't stop them if I tried. I simply disagree with that interpretation for reasons that I've spoken about at length. — Sapientia

You seem to misunderstand the power of the word. When there is an item which we call the table, then it is the table by the very fact that we call it the table. If we called it by some other name like the desk, then it would be that name, the desk. So when the Church calls a certain item "body of Christ", then it is body of Christ, because that's what they call it. Why do you dispute this, saying that according to your interpretation they ought not call it body of Christ? Do you believe that you have a superior interpretation of what "body of Christ" refers to then the leaders of the Church?

in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable — Agustino

A form of altered state of consciousness that is ineffable and involves gaining insight into the deeper nature of reality. — Agustino

Introspection illusions are inconsistent, bad evidence, for a reason.
Purely phenomenological experiences are not of something extra-self; qualia are parts of the world belonging to individual experiencers. Such self-externalization is like someone hallucinating pink flying elephants implying they're really out there, or me expecting you to get real life bruises from me slapping you in a dream.
God helmet experiments, magic mushrooms, not eating/drinking plus bodily stress, etc, are fairly well-documented.
Promoting such personal experiences as specific religious evidence with other people, is like promoting a kind of mind-regulating bias.

As I said what do you think gives you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" refers to? I would think that there are many in the church who know far better than you, what this phase means. So your suggestion that this rule be scrapped is nothing but the actions of a rebellious shit disturber. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've misunderstood. It's not a question of authority. It was a suggestion, not a demand. And, moreover, it wasn't a suggestion that I expected to be taken seriously or acted upon, as I made clear. Futhermore, I'm merely stating my disagreement, and arguing the case, on a philosophy forum. I'm not trying to instigate a rebellion or disturb the peace. Do me a favour and cut the hyperbole.

That's what I said, it's not a matter of word play, it's very literal. As I said, it's an example of the power of the Word. I am Metaphysician Undercover by the very fact that this is what I am called. Those items are the body and blood of Christ by the very fact that this is what they are called. This is not word play, it's simple reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Contradictory nonsense. You deny that it's wordplay, but then you go on to imply that it's just that. Just as a cat would not become a fish upon being called a fish, which is to say that it would not instantly transform from a land dwelling warm-blooded mammal with limbs and no gills to a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate with gills and fins living wholly in water, the elements of the Eucharist would not become the body and blood of Christ on the basis that that's what they're called. I am sure that you're committing a fallacy of some kind. You're treating all nouns as if they are proper nouns. The difference between nouns and proper nouns is taught in schools to children at a young age.

When they take that object, which you call bread, and say that it will be called "body of Christ", then by the very fact that that's what it's called, "body of Christ", then that's what it is body of Christ, just like I'm MU by the very fact that that's what I'm called.

You only wish to cause trouble, saying that your name, "bread" is a better name for it then "body of Christ". — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh my god. That is daft.

You seem to misunderstand the power of the word. When there is an item which we call the table, then it is the table by the very fact that we call it the table. If we called it by some other name like the desk, then it would be that name, the desk. So when the Church calls a certain item "body of Christ", then it is body of Christ, because that's what they call it. Why do you dispute this, saying that according to your interpretation they ought not call it body of Christ? Do you believe that you have a superior interpretation of what "body of Christ" refers to then the leaders of the Church? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is almost too silly to engage. Look, the word doesn't matter as much as the definition. And the definition doesn't matter as much as what something actually is. There is a sense in which the word is arbitrary. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But words aren't meaningless, so it would be a mistake to treat them as if they were. Words imply their corresponding definition. So, if I were to call a cat "a fish", and especially if I were to deny that this is just wordplay, then that would suggest, among other things, that I think that a cat has gills, which is wrong, since a cat does not have gills.

Now, going back to transubstantiation. Although you deny wordplay, that is what you're doing, and that clashes with how a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks about transubstantiation, since they think that it is not just wordplay, but that it literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. They think that it's more than a renaming, they think that it actually changes from one thing to another - and that demonstrably does not happen by simply calling it something different. If that were the case, then I'd easily be a millionaire by now. Yet I'm not, since, despite calling myself a millionaire, I am not one! What do you think would happen if I tried to spend all of that money that I don't have? Surely even you can see the folly in such thinking. I certainly hope, for your own sake, that you're able to see your error.

Purely phenomenological experiences are not of something extra-self; qualia are parts of the world belonging to individual experiencers. Such self-externalization is like someone hallucinating pink flying elephants implying they're really out there, or me expecting you to get real life bruises from me slapping you in a dream. — jorndoe

Let's make sure I understand correctly - in order to show that realism is wrong, I have to use methods developed based on the principles of realism. Is that right?

I am sure that you're committing a fallacy of some kind. — Sapientia

OK so you think that the Church ought not insist that the elements of the Eucharist are actually the body and blood of Christ, because you do not believe that they actually are the body and blood of Christ.

I argue that they, being the leaders of the Church, and having knowledge about Christ, ought to be the ones to determine what is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore what ought to be called the body and blood of Christ.

Your argument is that you're sure I'm committing a fallacy of some sort?

Yes! You are committing a fallacy of some sort. You're treating all nouns as if they are proper nouns. That is ungrammatical. The difference between nouns and proper nouns is taught in schools to children at a young age. You can decide to name a cat "Peter" or "Billy", but calling a cat "a fish" would be odd. If you say "That's Peter", in reference to your cat, then that would be normal, but if you say "That's a fish", in reference to your cat, then people might be inclined to correct you by replying "No, that's a cat, not a fish".

And, as I explained, and as is obvious, a cat does not become a fish in virtue of a name change. That's simply wrong.

Being a leader of a church doesn't mean that you can't be wrong. If you're a leader of a church, and you think that a cat is a fish, meaning that a cat has gills and so on, because that's what you've decided to call it, then not only are you wrong, you're an idiot.

We are talking about Christ here. That is a proper noun. You're just making shit up trying to support your unjustified claims.

We are talking about Christ here. That is a proper noun. You're just making shit up trying to support your unjustified claims. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, we're talking about the body and blood of Christ, as you well know. The words "body" and "blood" are not proper nouns. Don't be so disingenuous just because it's beginning to dawn on you that you're in the wrong. Just admit your mistake instead of grasping at straws.

I think that there's a reason why you haven't properly engaged with my argument, and are instead choosing to reply in this way. It's because you don't have a leg to stand on.

You're a weak opponent for me, because your arguments tend to consist in sophistry, and I have a good eye for catching you out.

Christ is the named subject, and we are trying to identify the body and blood of this one called "Christ". You don't agree with the Church's identification. You haven't made a clear case as to why you think that the Church is wrong. Sounds like you have a personal problem to me.

Let's make sure I understand correctly - in order to show that realism is wrong, I have to use methods developed based on the principles of realism. Is that right? — T Clark

You mean realism as opposed to idealism ("mental monism")? May be a bit peripheral here, unless I misunderstand. Well, I'm definitely not going by solipsism. :D

I was just pointing out a distinction:

Say, when I enjoy a cup of coffee in the morning, the joy (quale) is just mine, part of me when occurring. (And coffee is enjoyable, if not necessary, oh yes.) On the other hand, when I hang out with my buddy, there's more to my buddy than my experiences, not part of me. (My buddy doesn't like coffee, the darn sacrilegiously heretic blasphemer.)

Mentioned introspection illusions, hallucinations, dreams are in category with the joy (self), not the buddy (other). Externalization of Agustino's personal experiences is fraught.

Incidentally, what Agustino calls "scientifically observable" indicates activity localized to Agustino and not much else (cf Libet or whomever they all are). Bio-electrical-chemical?

I argue that they, being the leaders of the Church, and having knowledge about Christ, ought to be the ones to determine what is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore what ought to be called the body and blood of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover

You present an argument that the Church doesn't, namely that the Church is the creator of Christ and the determiner of what is the blood and body of Jesus. The Church has decided nothing, but would allege only to have reported the facts as they are. They don't get to decide, like they're the Supreme Court and it's their rules.

There is also much dispute as to what the euchrist is, with non-Catholic, but very Christian denominations asserting that the wafer and wine are but symbolic representations of the body and blood. Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable?

Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable? — Hanover

Well, apart from the primitive Church, theirs was the 1st interpretation of the question. Not that this means theirs is the best. It was also the most prevalent until Protestantism.

They are, they're just relatively weak evidence, especially if the anecdote purports something miraculous, supernatural, or otherwise implausible. — Sapientia

Fine fine, inadmissible evidence then.

For the record, I have no qualms about demeaning his beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone else here. If his beliefs are ridiculous, then ridicule is fine by me. Ridicule away! — Sapientia

You see, here is the thing. I have more of a feminine type discipline thing about me where I kind of sting people and they go 'eeouch' and afterward put a bit of pawpaw cream on the sore, stick a bandaid over it, maybe get mumsie to kiss it better. But, they recover, you know. Whereas with the masculine approach, one kind of mauls them like a rottweiler, savagely dig their jaws and shred off a large chunk of their thigh, lacerate and mutilate until they end up hospitalised for months and remain scarred for the rest of their life.

I am not sure why no one noticed, but you had a gun man. You had a gun. You pointed that gun at your ugly, stupid cat and yes it is an ugly stupid cat but that doesn't somehow make it alright that you had a gun.

You scary.