What isn't natural?

If you agree that your comment below, from the other thread; as well as my answer, fit into this discussion (as I believe) then I would love to merge them here...I also appriciate being able to run some ideas by you. I trust in your objectivity far more so than the notably 'Dawkinsian members' of this forum. It is only your wink that makes me suspiscious... Certainly the concepts of truth (as opposed to lies) give some clarity to the question of 'natural' and 'unnatural'.Are lies unnatural? I would have to say so (in the ultimate sense of reality); and that's not touching the moral connotations that I think are actually necessary to make it at all meaningful in the religious sense.Hoot Mon: I am not so sure that he did...After familliarizing myself somewhat with Gdel's two incompleteness theorems (I had not heard of him until you mentioned it) It occurs to me that his theorems fall under the same scrutiny as any other theorem based upon axioms. In other words, 'how can his own theorems that supposedly prove incompleteness be complete'?Is that a valid question/point in your opinion?I haven't mastered the jargon; ie. the continuum hypothesis, candinality, and the other related terms, but I think I already perceive the concepts. It may help if I continue to educate myself as to the words denoting these conepts. Thank you for pushing me in that direction.But in some sense, Gdel's theorems violate the law of non-contradiction, so I do not see how in the slightest manner he could have done away with it.Actually, If I understand what he was saying (which I may not) I think I agree with Gdel... to a degree. He is not all wrong (few of us are).I don't really know what you mean't when you said 'that the law of non-contradiction was a test for "absolute truth"'. I think that all truth must be consistent. But we cannot say that just because a theorem or syllogism is consistent that it is therefore objectively and absolutely true. I have never meant to imply otherwise.What we can say, is that a contradictory statement is false, unless it is qualified in some way that transcends the appearent context.The real problem to me, is that we can know some of what is absolute truth, but we cannot ever know the absolute truth in it's entirety, which leaves us in a position of faith no matter where we stand.If I understand him, I agree with Gdel that nothing can be proven in the ultimate sense (including his theorems). I know in a very amatuerish sense (from trusted authorities) that rationlism has indeed failed. So I assume he was instrumental and am intrigued by your mention of him.Here is where I may make a complet dolt of myself, but it is nonetheless my understanding (or interpretation) of physics:Personally I believe the difficulty of rational certainty, is in the infinite nature of mathematical reasoning (law of non-contradiction). Even though the universe physically consists of a finite amount of energy as per the 1st law of thermodynamics, I believe that energy itself is nothing but mere logic (ie. the mind and wisdom of God) quickening part of Himself into physicality. It's in and of itself, a rather neutral construct. But within that construct, it is possible for a sentient creature to act in a manner that is unnatural or contrary to the meaning and purpose of the construct. That meaning and purpose lies outside the parameters of the construct itself but is inseperable from why the construct exists. It is therefore not a total seperation.So the terms 'unnatural' and 'immoral' are semi-synonymous in my opinion.That is why we find it difficult to comprehend morality in terms of intellect. Morality is ultimately not an intellectual excercize. The unnatural... far from being so in purely material terms because of the constructs relative neutrality, is unnatural in a higher sense of violating the meanings and purposes for which the physical construct exists.Furthermore, I think of the different properties of certain atoms, and their immaterial nature (sub atomically) as being formed by the immense speed of thier properties. A kind of force field (elecromagnetic from what I understand) is made, repelling certain other kinds of matter, and attracting other elements.So, I think we are correct in attempting to understand the physical world with mathematics (ie. the law of non-contradiction) but we can never fully equate the picture since it's basis is found in an infinite mind. So we ultimately have to rely desperately upon the rock of logic by faith as valid, but only part of the total equation.Does that make any sense to you?This understanding that mathematics (logic/ law of non-contradiction) has it's limits is intruguing. Appearently King David knew this before Gdel:Psalm 119:96 To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Hoot Mon: I think I explained why... at least hypothetically? Right? No?Let me get this straight... He proved?... MATHEMATICALLY... That MATHEMATICS doesn't decide here?If math is not absolute, then why did the ataomic bomb work?I think Godel was a brilliant philosopher on the order of David Hume. They are the pea-palmers that jar sees everywhere but where they are.But... maybe Dameeva and all of the other New Age Pantheists are right... we create our own reality?But if that's the case, I don't understand why Jim Beam let me down. I'm confused... It's just too much for me man!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Archer: Not very much...What does that have to do with anything?Archer: Oh I have... you're right! And I agree with them. Do I not make my understanding clear by asking relevant questions?Why don't you answer one of the one's I asked Hoot Mon, like 'If math is not absolute, then why did the Atomic Bomb work'?In my first response to him, I showed that I agreee with Godel to a point...There is a back door in our thinking (logic) be it mathematics or any other applied philosophical analysis. We can never fully wrap up the situation. God has reserved the right to omnipotence for Himself.And for that I am eternally grateful. You can claw and spit at me, but you can never catch me while I am in His arms for He sustains me... If all of this metaphysics is unnatural nonsense, then you should be able to show that easily enough. But you will only be making a metaphysical statement like Hume.Thank you for your questions...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Hoot Mon: It shows nothing of God's absoluteness. It just shows our non-absoluteness.The richness and harmony of the ecosystem is fallen Hoot Mon. We do not live any longer in the 'true natrual order' of things. We decided a long time ago to question it's beauty, and listen to another voice that said God is holding out on us, and that we ourselves can become God.Perhaps mosquitos didn't bite men and women in the garden. But we don't live there any more.The fact is, whether Mosquitos bit humans or not I don't know -everything has changed and natural selection proves that. But the order is devolving, not evolving.If you're asking why God does not preserve his people then you are asking the right question. Many of the Psalms and Lamentations are devoted to that question. The answer is ultimately the Ressurection.If we had to live side by side with 'completely real and perfect people' like the Risen Lord, we would die. Just think how annoyed we are already when around people who are healthier than we. Their innocence and childishness is revolting because we are corrupt.

Hoot Mon: That's fascinating (regardless of the results)...Why would the camp leaders do that? Or was it the kids Idea?Either way, consider:Matthew 5:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Iceage: This is funnier IMHO: http://EvC Forum: What isn't natural? -->EvC Forum: What isn't natural?

Hoot Mon: You tell me Hoot Mon... He also said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me'.He spoke no doubletalk about being all inclusive. We cannot have it both ways. 1+1 cannot = both 2 and 3 and 5 and 8 etc. To attempt such is to eat the fruit of ”the tree of knowledge of good and evil’. Jesus said, ”Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division’ (Luke 12:51). The truth always divides and separates truth from fiction. The honest from the dishonest...John 9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.Psalm 78:13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall.Matthew 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!I believe that is why C.S. Lewis wrote the following: Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

deleteEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

Hoot Mon: I doubt I answered your question to your satisfaction, so I wanted another stab at sharing my... spin.Why do they call Him the prince of peace?Well, because He boldly proclained the truth of how peace with God can be achieved. And His was a one-way street. That's why they crucified Him. But the irony is that that is exactly how He brought peace. He said Himself that He had come to die for our sins, and had come for judgement (not to judge, but for judgement).He forced Himself into our lives and we have to judge Him. He didn't leave us the option of being undecided. Before we die, we must judge Him one way or the other.

I take it that my answer was not satisfactory... perhaps I should move on...