JY on July 25, 2005 , said the following about my previous post...
"As Retropolitan said, your idea of 'power' seems fuzzy. If a 'spiritual being' is say, the ghost of a departed mouse, which can't be seen or heard but can nevertheless steal material cheese and spring material mousetraps, is this spiritual being more, or at least as 'powerful', as us? I'd say no, but then, I don't think there's a real 'thing' we can call power, except the specific concept in physics."
Quick Review: In my previous posts I have attempted to lay out the essential premises and constructs by which a logical, internally consistent world view would be established. The starting point, I believe, for any such endeavor is the question of whether or not the world of the senses (including things which can be measured by the senses) is all there is or not. The answer to that question is either yes or no. It is an initial premise, from which logical reasoning commences. Hence, strictly speaking, it is absurd to call either answer (yes or no) absurd. The point (as a Christian apologist) is to show that Christianity is a logical, internally consistent world view and that as such the shrill cries of it being otherwise are in error. I do not claim that Christianity is the only logical consistent world view. In fact, I think there is one other, existentialism, which is the product of choosing the "no" answer to the fundamental premise.
In the progress of the argument I have explored how a "yes" answer to the intial presupposition leads to some logical conclusions one might make about the nature of a world beyond the senses. I have stated that it would only make a difference, as far as the initial premise is concerned, if beings in the spiritual world had some kind of "power" to affect things in the material world. If they couldn't then as far as we human beings are concerned, we might as well live as if the spiritual dimension does not exist. However if they are able to affect things in this world, then it would be important for us to consider the implications of that for how it would affect our own lives.
Remember, this is a logical construct. You may agree or disagree with the premises but the question is fundamentally this: "Is it logical to believe this way?" If it is a logical world view which encompasses both the world of sense and a presupposed "spiritual world" then the question would come down to what warrant would one have for believing it rather than a logical construct based on the opposite presupposition.
It was at this point that JV and Retropolitan called me to account
for the use of the word "power". The next logical step in the
progression of logic would be to consider the logic of whether or not
there is a pyramidal organization in the spiritual world with regard to
power. In other words, if one accepts that the only way an inhabited
spiritual world might affect us is that it has some power to influence
us or things around us, then what would be the implications if that
power was distributed or concentrated. But, since the term "power"
itself is unclear, I need to come up with some acceptable definition or
description before I can move on.
I will offer the following as a working definition of "Power": The ability to do or act, the capability of doing or accomplishing something. (Webster's Unabridged).
Power is thus a capacity of achieving some effect. Is it possible for F in F=ma (go ahead and finish the general relativistic formulation if you wish) to originate in the spiritual world? As I said in the previous posting, if the answer is "no", if spiritual beings have no ability whatsover to influence the course of events in the material world, then the ultimate conclusion would then be "OK, who cares?" And it would be logical for a person to live as if the spiritual world does not exist. If however one explores the possibility that such an ability does exist, then it would lead to the conclusion that one would be wise to account for that possibility in their own world view. So, I am neither offering warrant for this idea nor discounting it at this point. I simply state that it is logical to believe this whether or not that warrant exists or not.
How might this "F" originating in the spiritual world be manifested? The answer logically would be some combination of "freely or constrained, directly or contingently." If such a power is exercised so that some "F" is generated - then it may be an immediate action (manifested in what we call a "miracle") or contingently (manifested by the spiritual influence on a material being such that the immediate material "F" is the result). A "freely" exercised power would be one in which a spiritual being was under no compulsion to exercise it or not. A "constrained" power would be one in which the being was required to exercise it.
Thus it would be possible, if such a "spiritual world" (see previous postings for limitations on this term, I don't like it , I just cannot come up with a better title) exists and possesses these "powers" for there to be immediate consequences in the material world that
(1) cannot be explained using the known expressions of physics. This is what must be presumed for any explanation of the Big-Bang theory at a time infinitely proximate to T=0. At this point I am not saying this is what happened or that this is the only time it has happened or anything else. I am only giving an illustration of what a direct application might look like.
(2) may happen through rational or sub-rational beings acting on impulses that originate outside themselves, which may or may not be resistable. In this latter case, the mechanism for communication of this impulse is the "contingent power" of the spiritual world by definition.
The "freely or constrained" qualifiers would apply to the idea of the origination of either of the above types of spiritual power. The Christian world view understands God's creative act to be a free expression of His own will. It also recognizes the existence of intermediate beings who act in a constrained manner intermediate manner such that other things happen "through" them. In such a circumstance, they could not do otherwise.
The point is not that the logic is taken from the Christian world view but that the world view is logical based on exploration of the original premise. I do not know of any other logical possibilities for spiritual power to be exercised. If I have overlooked something, let me know.
Again. It is not accurate to say that Christianity is illogical or irrational for believing this. You may not agree with the premise and you may have your own world view built upon that. But it is not irrational nor insane nor even unsophisticated to view things this way. Whether there is warrant for believing this way has not yet been addressed.
Comments