I don't have much time this morning, so this'll have to be quick. I agree that for Spinoza every extension has a corresponding idea. This, it seems to me must precisely be both the connection and the distinction between the eternal and the temporal. So, for every temporal extension there is an encompassing eternal idea in God. So, it seems that the eternal is the ideal parallel of the material. This seems to mean that the eternal is mind and the temporal is body; and the dependency logically seems to go one way; that's why I say mind (the eternal) is logically primary. There are probably holes in what I have said here; and I can see that much more thought needs to be given to it; but there it is. — Janus

This idea, which expresses the essence of the body under the form of eternity, is, as we have said, a certain mode of thinking, which belongs to the essence of the mind, and is necessarily eternal. Yet it is not possible that we should remember that we existed before our body, for our body can bear no trace of such existence, neither can eternity be defined in terms of time, or have any relation to time. But, notwithstanding, we feel and know that we are eternal. For the mind feels those things that it conceives by understanding, no less than those things that it remembers. For the eyes of the mind, whereby it sees and observes things, are none other than proofs. Thus, although we do not remember that we existed before the body, yet we feel that our mind, in so far as it involves the essence of the body, under the form of eternity, is eternal, and that thus its existence cannot be defined in terms of time, or explained through duration. Thus our mind can only be said to endure, and its existence can only be defined by a fixed time, in so far as it involves the actual existence of the body. Thus far only has it the power of determining the existence of things by time, and conceiving them under the category of duration.

What you call the computer's "being aware of context" would seem to be merely an algorithm though, not a true awareness, and much less a self-conscious awareness. — Janus

You just figured out I'm right. — charleton

So, when do you suppose this very long discussion which I have only noticed getting longer but haven't followed, will move on to the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth (not the same thing), the proper method of baptism, the closure of divine testimony, and other matters? — Bitter Crank

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation...

Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"

those folk are big on transubstantiation, unlike, say, the Jews and the Muslims. — jorndoe

Yes the difference between computers and humans (as well as animals) is the ability to grasp context. An interesting point I noticed in the 'Lions and Grammar' thread is that the grammatical structures of symbolic language allow context to be separated from the world and imported into language itself. However this is still dependent on the original animal ability to grasp context in the 'umwelt' sense; that is common to both humans and animals. — Janus

I was talking about Hinduism (which includes some polytheist varieties), Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses), Islam (Sunnis, Shias), Mormonism, Scientology, you name it. All those there that people get assimilated by and start taking seriously. — jorndoe

Seems the Muslims have taken over, where the Christians left off? — jorndoe

But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ... — jorndoe

But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ... — jorndoe

You start talking about something you call "Yahweh", you don't show Yahweh, Yahweh doesn't show, all that's left is your talk. Others talk about something they call "Vishnu", they don't show Vishnu, Vishnu doesn't show, all that's left is their talk. Yet others talk about ... Exactly as if Yahweh, Vishnu, etc, are fictions. I wonder why... Don't you? — jorndoe

I also observe that there are little-to-no means of differentiating existence of all these entities (and their characteristics, plans, demands). It's all equally dubious. Exactly like grandiose stories told by fallible (obsessed) humans. — jorndoe

Differentiating fake and real fantasies, on the other hand, ... :D — jorndoe

I would really like to know how earthlings would respond psychologically to an alien visitation. — Bitter Crank

we are, in fact, not alone. We are not as unique as we thought. — Bitter Crank

What territory do earth-bound religious cover? — Bitter Crank

Does the God of Israel (or whatever gods one follows) have jurisdiction over a planet 10 light years away? — Bitter Crank

By New Years' Eve or Christmas, it will have tanked, that's my prediction. Until then, it may reach 20-30K. Or it may tank sooner. The reason I'm saying that is that most people want to cash out for the holidays ;) - they don't want to be playing stocks on Christmas Eve. — Agustino

The kinds of knowledge (In the Biblical sense of familiarity captured in the Biblical expression for sexual intercourse: "a man knows his wife") I was referring to just are "affective insights or intutions". — Janus

But I don't think those operate independently of faith. (i.e. meditation, prayer, ascetism, etc will not work absent affective insight and intuition and the faith they give rise to). — Janus

No, please explain to me in your own words what you think the difference is and quote any particular passages you think are of relevance. — Sapientia

Of course, because Mark Zuckerberg is getting a bit strapped for cash, I hear he's having trouble gold-plating his fifth yaught, so let's all haul over there and bump his advertising revenue a bit. — Inter Alia

The point is we're an easily led species who generally tend to converge on similar notions, doesn't make them any more right. — Inter Alia

you should really speak to the hundreds of theologians who been trying to find out what God is for the last 2000 years — Inter Alia

These poor men walking around the old folks home, with a boner they wished they had in high school and no one to share it with. Nurses have to LOVE that! (N) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I didn't realise you knew God personally, you should really speak to the hundreds of theologians who been trying to find out what God is for the last 2000 years, I can't believe you've kept it to yourself for all this time you mischievous devil. — Inter Alia

Spoiler: he's still making the same errors that he has been making from the beginning. — Sapientia

As the instigator of this discussion, I think that I have greater authority than others when it comes to what we're supposed to be talking about here. And, contrary to the rather misleading impression that you create, and as the preceding discussion demonstrates, not only is my definition of transubstantiation in sync with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholicism — Sapientia

I put the matter to rest twenty pages back and ten days ago by copy-pasting from two different dictionaries and giving an example. I don't recall getting any disagreement. — Sapientia

I have no particular reason or obligation to take the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc, seriously. — jorndoe

Where oracles are concerned it is certain that they had begun to lose their credit well before the coming of Jesus Christ, since we can see Cicero striving to find the cause of their decline. [C] These are his words: ‘Cur isto modo jam oracula Delphis non eduntur non modo nostra ætate sed jamdiu, ut modo nihil possit esse contempsius?’ [Why are oracles no longer uttered thus at Delphi, so that not only in our own time but long before nothing could be held in greater contempt?]

But there were other prognostications, derived from the dissection of sacrificial animals – [C] Plato held that the internal organs of those animals were partly created for that purpose – [A] or from chickens scratching about, from the flight of birds – [C] ‘aves quasdam rerum augurandarum causa natas esse putamus’ [We think that some birds are born in order to provide auguries] – [A] from lightning and from swirling currents in rivers – [C] ‘multa cernunt aruspices, multa augures provident, nnlta oraculis declarantur, multa vaticinationibus, multa somniis, multa portentis’ [the soothsayers divine many things; the augurs foresee many; many are revealed by oracles, many by predictions, many by dreams and many by portents]; [A] and there were other similar ones on which the Ancient World grounded most of their undertakings, both public and private: it was our religion [Christianity] which abolished them all.

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (p. 41). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

If some deity of theism existed and wanted me to know it did, or had critically important messages for me, then it would have no problems what so ever letting me in on that. — jorndoe

Isn't that what qualifies something as a deity in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, non-deceptive, trustworthy, etc)? And, ex hypothesi, such a deity would be the only authority on its messages. It's not like I'm strangely "resistant" or anything, and such a deity would know that already. — jorndoe

In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. — Blaise Pascal

Meanwhile, I'm certainly not going to take all the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans for it. Why would anyone? (Could anyone, even, given all the incompatibilities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, ...?) Requiring other humans to indoctrinate me isn't something I'd expect of a worthwhile deity. No, that's just gullible, biased, non-thinking tomfoolery. (Perhaps akin to delusion, as mentioned by Harry Hindu.) — jorndoe

Where does that leave things? Those claims can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. What's the simplest coherent explanation? — jorndoe

First, it suggests that the theist has some superior method of understanding God, as if the skeptic lacks the capacity at the same understanding — Hanover

that the skeptic hasn't spent just as long as the theist in considering these issues — Hanover

It's also very wrong to think that there is some monolithic thought process among theists, ignoring that the definition of God that one theist might have from another may vary widely even in the same church and same pew on any given Sunday. — Hanover

And, of course there are very different views from one church to the other, one denomination to another, and certainly one religion than another. — Hanover

Your assertions that you know exactly what God is — Hanover

as I see one's relationship with God as personal, subjective, unprovable, and unverifiable by definition. To present God as this object fully subject to a complete knowable definition candidly feels to me like you have no idea what god is, but are instead just trying to define another object. — Hanover

By literal change, I mean not symbolic. The bread is the same in substance than it was before and after the prayer. — Hanover

By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.

If you really can't see how the fact that within seconds I can list 17 major crimes by some of the biggest companies in the world, indicates that business is not about honesty and integrity but about making as much money as possible by whatever underhand, deceptive and cutthroat means available, then there is little point in continuing. — Inter Alia

You're basically saying that unless I can list more than a trillion crimes there's no case to answer. We should just presume the best. That's as ridiculously self-immunised an argument as your stance on religion. — Inter Alia

You said "honesty is important in business success" and "but by all means, these are not the majority, nor are they the most successful businesses." — Inter Alia

It is because price is dictated by supply and demand that there is an ethical problem with the actions companies take to artificially inflate demand and restrict supply (especially in essential commodities). Companies exploit the momentary gap between the consumer's estimate of value and their realisation of it, they exploit the monopolies law to artificially restrict supply, they trade in commodities without using them which artificially inflates demand. All these things have ethical consequences, but they're missed if you presume there's some 'real' value that's just a mathematical certainty. — you

So I listed the top 17 crimes in 2015 all perpetrated by some extremely successful businesses. These are just the top crimes in one country in one year. At the very least they disprove your argument that dishonest and unethical businesses are not the successful ones, but I also think they go some way to indicating what general practice is in big business. — Inter Alia

And now, enhanced with Viagra X-) — Wayfarer

Evidence — Inter Alia

But I would argue that both mystical experiences and works of revelation may yield knowledge in the "Biblical' sense of familiarity. — Janus

And I would say this kind of knowledge is affective; we are affected by it, and this affection is the motivator of faith. I mean who would have faith in something they felt nothing for? — Janus

And there was another man who rightly advised the Emperor Theodosius that debates never settled schisms in the Church but rather awakened heresies and put life into them; therefore he should flee all contentiousness and all dialectical disputations, committing himself to the bare prescriptions and formulas of the Faith established of old.

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (p. 360). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

(Philosophy, says St Chrysostom, has long been banished from the School of Divinity as a useless servant judged unworthy of glimpsing, even from the doorway when simply passing by, the sanctuary of the holy treasures of sacred doctrine);

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (p. 361). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

A bishop has testified in writing that there is, at the other end of the world, an island which the Ancients called Dioscorides, fertile and favoured with all sorts of fruits and trees and a healthy air; the inhabitants are Christian, having Churches and altars which are adorned with no other images but crosses; they scrupulously observe feast-days and fasts, pay their tithes meticulously and are so chaste that no man ever lies with more than one woman for the whole of his life; meanwhile, so happy with their lot that, in the middle of the ocean, they know nothing about ships, and so simple that they do not understand a single word of the religion which they so meticulously observe – something only unbelievable to those who do not know that pagans, devout worshippers of idols, know nothing about their gods apart from their statues and their names.

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (pp. 360-361). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[A] The real field and subject of deception are things unknown: firstly because their very strangeness lends them credence; second, because they cannot be exposed to our usual order of argument, so stripping us of the means of fighting them. [C]

Plato says that this explains why it is easier to satisfy people when talking of the nature of the gods than of the nature of men: the ignorance of the hearers provides such hidden matters with a firm broad course for them to canter along in freedom.

And so it turns out that nothing is so firmly believed as whatever we know least about, and that no persons are more sure of themselves than those who tell us tall stories, such as alchemists and those who make prognostications: judicial astrologers, chiromancers, doctors and ‘id genus omne’ [all that tribe].

To which I would add if I dared that crowd of everyday chroniclers and interpreters of God’s purposes who claim to discover the causes of everything that occurs and to read the unknowable purposes of God by scanning the secrets of His will; the continual changes and clash of events drive them from corner to corner and from East to West, but they still go on chasing the tennis-ball and sketching black and white with the same crayon.

In one Indian tribe they have a laudable custom: when they are worsted in a skirmish or battle they publicly beseech the Sun their god for pardon for having done wrong, attributing their success or failure to the divine mind, to which they submit their own judgement and discourse. [A] For a Christian it suffices to believe that all things come from God, to accept them with an acknowledgement of His holy unsearchable wisdom and so to take them in good part, under whatever guise they are sent to him.

What I consider wrong is our usual practice of trying to support and confirm our religion by the success or happy outcome of our undertakings. Our belief has enough other foundations without seeking sanction from events: people who have grown accustomed to such plausible arguments well-suited to their taste are in danger of having their faith shaken when the turn comes for events to prove hostile and unfavourable.

As in the religious wars which we are now fighting, after those who had prevailed at the battle of La Rochelabeille had had a great feast-day over the outcome, exploiting their good fortune as a sure sign of God’s approval for their faction, they then had to justify their misfortunes at Moncontour and Jarnac as being Fatherly scourges and chastisements: 3 they would soon have made the people realize (if they did not have them under their thumb) that that is getting two kinds of meal from the same bag and blowing hot and cold with the same breath. It would be better to explain to the people the real foundations of truth.

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (pp. 242-243). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

It may be plausibly asserted that [C] there is an infant-school ignorance which precedes knowledge and another doctoral ignorance which comes after it, an ignorance made and engendered by knowledge just as it unmade and slaughtered the first kind.

Good Christians are made from simple minds, incurious and unlearned, which out of reverence and obedience have simple faith and remain within prescribed doctrine. It is in minds of middling vigour and middling capacity that are born erroneous opinions, for they follow the apparent truth of their first impressions and do have a case for interpreting as simplicity and animal-stupidity the sight of people like us who stick to the old ways, fixing on us who are not instructed in such matters by study.

Great minds are more settled and see things more clearly: they form another category of good believers; by long and reverent research they penetrate through to a deeper, darker light of Scripture and know the sacred and mysterious secret of our ecclesiastical polity. That is why we can see some of them arrive at the highest level via the second, with wondrous fruit and comfort, reaching as it were the ultimate bounds of Christian understanding and rejoicing in their victory with alleviation of sorrow, acts of thanksgiving, reformed behaviour and great modesty.

I do not intend to place in that rank those other men who, to rid themselves of the suspicion of their past errors and to reassure us about themselves, become extremists, men lacking all discretion and unjust in the way they uphold our cause, besmirching it with innumerable reprehensible acts of violence.

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (pp. 349-350). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

The first charge made against the book is that Christians do themselves wrong by wishing to support their belief with human reasons: belief is grasped only by faith and by private inspiration from God’s grace. A pious zeal may be seen behind this objection; so any assay at satisfying those who put it forward must be made with gentleness and respect. It is really a task for a man versed in Theology rather than for me, who know nothing about it.

Nevertheless, this is my verdict: in a matter so holy, so sublime, so far surpassing Man’s intellect as is that Truth by which it has pleased God in his goodness9 to enlighten us, we can only grasp that Truth and lodge it within us if God favours us with the privilege of further help, beyond the natural order.

I do not believe, then, that purely human means have the capacity to do this; if they had, many choice and excellent souls in ancient times – souls abundantly furnished with natural faculties – would not have failed to reach such knowledge by discursive reasoning. Only faith can embrace, with a lively certainty, the high mysteries of our religion.

But that is not to imply that it is other than a most fair and praiseworthy undertaking to devote to the service of our faith those natural, human tools which God has granted us. It is not to be doubted that it is the most honourable use that we could ever put them to and that there is no task, no design, more worthy of a Christian than to aim, by assiduous reflection, at beautifying, developing and clarifying the truth of his beliefs. We are not content merely to serve God with our spirits and our souls: we owe him more than that, doing him reverence with our bodies; we honour him with our very members, our actions and with things external. In the same way we must accompany our faith with all the reason that lies within us – but always with the reservation that we never reckon that faith depends upon ourselves or that our efforts and our conjectures can ever themselves attain to a knowledge so supernatural, so divine.

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (pp. 491-492). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

I am not convinced that the great mystics believed that their writings presented knowledge in any ordinary discursive sense. — Janus

Not true; all ideologies come with their share of evils. Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Liberal Democratism, or whatever; people do evil things in the names of all of them. — Janus

That's your presumption, I've not seen any examples in the real world. All the expensive shirts I've seen have either been made of better materials, associated with some famous designer, worn by a famous actor. I've never seen two identical shirts, one in mayfair selling for £50 and one in the supermarket for £5, not the same shirt. — Inter Alia

All they're doing is estimating the quality of the product using price — Inter Alia

if a product turns out not to be the quality they were expecting it will very soon lose sales and become a loss for the company, they will reduce it's price to meet the actual demand for such a low quality product. — Inter Alia

It wouldn't be of any interest to the investment firm that the stocks were undervalued unless they expected them to soon return to the value they expect. — Inter Alia

They're not accessing some mathematical calculation for 'real' value, they're just guessing what the market, supply/demand led value will be, sometimes they get that guess wrong, but it soon becomes apparent. — Inter Alia

You might sell a £1000 website to your oil tank firm, despite the fact that it's the same one as the £5 coffee shop site, but if they buy it they will be doing so expecting it to be of sufficient additional quality to justify the investment. When it turns out it's no better than the £5 coffee shop version they will not buy from you again. enough such transactions and you will either have to lower your price or raise the actual quality of your premium version. — Inter Alia

It is because price is dictated by supply and demand that there is an ethical problem with the actions companies take to artificially inflate demand and restrict supply (especially in essential commodities). Companies exploit the momentary gap between the consumer's estimate of value and their realisation of it, they exploit the monopolies law to artificially restrict supply, they trade in commodities without using them which artificially inflates demand. All these things have ethical consequences, but they're missed if you presume there's some 'real' value that's just a mathematical certainty. — Inter Alia

I get that it's a possibility, what I'm not getting is why you think it's definitely what happens. — Inter Alia

I don't agree that poor people don't also want the expensive shirt — Inter Alia

I don't agree the the higher price is what makes the difference — Inter Alia

'something' about the shirt isn't what makes it 'high demand' — Inter Alia

In America the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890 prohibits restraint of trade and abuse of monopoly power. In the UK the Competition Act 1998 does much the same thing but with more restrictive powers, but in both cases, yes it would be illegal to do what you're suggesting the water salesmen do. — Inter Alia

(poor people would like one too, they just can't afford it). — Inter Alia

£1000 shirt has something about it that makes it a different product from the £5 shirt, maybe a label, maybe the prestige of being associated with a famous person, the demand is not created by being rich (poor people would like one too, they just can't afford it). — Inter Alia

even a rich person would not buy the same product for a hugely inflated price for no reason, there still has to be something about that product that makes it in high demand. — Inter Alia

I'm not sure if this is true; but, most business entrepreneurs aim for being a monopoly. Sometimes it's the most efficient means of resource allocation for some specific type of good or service. This is particularly true for the technology sector. Don't quote me on that. — Posty McPostface

It was an example, not meant to be taken literally, but it's why in the real world monopolies and market fixing are illegal. The point is, presuming they are in competition with each other, they would not both work out what the price 'should' be and then "may the best man win", they undercut each other to get the sale until the lowest possible price was reached. — Inter Alia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem — Posty McPostface

Yeah, rational agents aren't all that rational. Too bad, or good, depending on whether your a consumer or producer. — Posty McPostface