First of all I suppose I should define the title of the blog. "Sola" only "Scriptura" scripture is "untenable" unbelievable. This is the foundational doctrine of Protestantism so I would expect that there is about a 50% chance that if anyone reads this they will disagree with my statement.
First off the Catholic church permits the teaching that Scripture is "materially sufficient" but forbids the teaching that Scripture is "formally sufficient". By permitting a teaching that does not mean that the Church actively teaches it. Over the past few weeks I have come to believe that the Scripture is not even materially sufficient.
The reason I believe this is that the New Testament Scriptures were not written on the direct command of Christ (with the exception of the Apocalypse) and instead were written through the derivative authority of the Church.
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
(Mat 28:18-20 DRB)
And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.
(Mar 16:15-16 DRB)
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Self Awareness
Yesterday I was wandering through the lab spaces at work (doing a partial safety compliance audit) and I began conversing with someone at work about this idea that most things are not that hard to comprehend in a natural sense but the existence of sentience is quite surprising and unnecessary.
The thought is that it is quite possible to explain in a cogent way that all life evolved from something (although how we end up with sexes just doesn't make sense to me) common, but how is it we are sitting around wondering about things to begin with?
The latest concept in cosmology is that the reason that the universe appears to be designed for life is that all possible universes exist and we would not be here to wonder about it if one of them were not capable of producing life (however unlikely it might be). This concept is based on the fact that there are many different quantum states that simultaneously exist and that when all of those states are taken into account one ends up with multiple universes.
It also occurred to me that it isn't a stretch to say that if it is possible for super intelligent beings to exist then they exist somewhere. It is doubtful that we are the most intelligent beings in the multiverse and it is without doubt that there are many more intelligent species out there. If self awareness is possible for us in particular as an emergent property out of matter (that is the materialist view) then isn't it possible that the multiverse itself has an emergent property of self awareness?
Although this is not God in the classical sense (God is pre-existent) it should be close enough to give atheists some real pause. Beings far surpassing us in abilities, intelligence, and power almost certainly exist if the multiverse concept is true (probably true even if it isn't). Since it would require infinite knowledge to conclusively say that there is no kind of deity, it is fundamentally untenable as a proposition simultaneously with the concept of an infinite multiverse.
Anyway, just musings....again probably non-sense but it entertains me.
The thought is that it is quite possible to explain in a cogent way that all life evolved from something (although how we end up with sexes just doesn't make sense to me) common, but how is it we are sitting around wondering about things to begin with?
The latest concept in cosmology is that the reason that the universe appears to be designed for life is that all possible universes exist and we would not be here to wonder about it if one of them were not capable of producing life (however unlikely it might be). This concept is based on the fact that there are many different quantum states that simultaneously exist and that when all of those states are taken into account one ends up with multiple universes.
It also occurred to me that it isn't a stretch to say that if it is possible for super intelligent beings to exist then they exist somewhere. It is doubtful that we are the most intelligent beings in the multiverse and it is without doubt that there are many more intelligent species out there. If self awareness is possible for us in particular as an emergent property out of matter (that is the materialist view) then isn't it possible that the multiverse itself has an emergent property of self awareness?
Although this is not God in the classical sense (God is pre-existent) it should be close enough to give atheists some real pause. Beings far surpassing us in abilities, intelligence, and power almost certainly exist if the multiverse concept is true (probably true even if it isn't). Since it would require infinite knowledge to conclusively say that there is no kind of deity, it is fundamentally untenable as a proposition simultaneously with the concept of an infinite multiverse.
Anyway, just musings....again probably non-sense but it entertains me.
Monday, January 17, 2011
An unknown Theorem???
I know this seems like a strange place to post this but I can't really find anything on it anywhere, that is conclusive. I would like to propose a theorem which is...
For any given n-space arbitrary ordered polynomial, all of the coefficients for a particular order averaged together and reconstructed into the same functional polynomial, will yield the same values as the individual polynomials results when those are averaged together (via an arithmetic mean).
I don't have a proof for it, but it seems correct for every example I can come up with. I don't have the mathematical skill to prove it rigorously.
For any given n-space arbitrary ordered polynomial, all of the coefficients for a particular order averaged together and reconstructed into the same functional polynomial, will yield the same values as the individual polynomials results when those are averaged together (via an arithmetic mean).
I don't have a proof for it, but it seems correct for every example I can come up with. I don't have the mathematical skill to prove it rigorously.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Hoplessness of Atheism
During the course of my life I have gone from being Pentacostal, Agnostic, Atheist (just barely but did), then finally settled on the Catholic Church. Contrary to what many Atheists would like to believe it was science that moved me towards the Catholic faith. For me evolution did not come close to demonstrating that there was no need to believe in God. The real proof for the existence of God as far as I am concerned is the existence of self awareness.
Self awareness is a curious thing. Fundamentally it cannot really be proven in another being it can only be proven for oneself and whether or not we are self aware is self evident.
Evolution can explain a great many things, but why should any species be self aware? Self awareness is not necessary. The most successful species from an evolutionary stand point do not seem to have an self awareness (for example bacteria).
Self awareness is a curious thing. Fundamentally it cannot really be proven in another being it can only be proven for oneself and whether or not we are self aware is self evident.
Evolution can explain a great many things, but why should any species be self aware? Self awareness is not necessary. The most successful species from an evolutionary stand point do not seem to have an self awareness (for example bacteria).
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Esperanto instead of Latin
I saw just recently an online justification for using Esperanto instead of Latin in the Church. To my mind it would make a considerable amount of sense as learning Latin takes MANY years and Esperanto is learnable in a few months. It is not reasonable to tie people up for many many years learning a language when they just cannot get proficient at it.
A reasonable compromise would simply be to use Esperanto for all activities that require dynamic interchange but retain Latin for use in the liturgy. It is FAR easier to learn enough Latin to understand it than it is to learn enough Latin to actively use it. Learning Esperanto would actually give most people sufficient vocabulary to understand most Latin prayers.
I think the Church MUST deal with the language problem if it is to survive. It has for all intents and purposes abandoned the use of Latin as a Lingua Franca and NOTHING has really replaced it. Esperanto makes a great replacement for this. I would still argue for liturgy being in Latin.
A reasonable compromise would simply be to use Esperanto for all activities that require dynamic interchange but retain Latin for use in the liturgy. It is FAR easier to learn enough Latin to understand it than it is to learn enough Latin to actively use it. Learning Esperanto would actually give most people sufficient vocabulary to understand most Latin prayers.
I think the Church MUST deal with the language problem if it is to survive. It has for all intents and purposes abandoned the use of Latin as a Lingua Franca and NOTHING has really replaced it. Esperanto makes a great replacement for this. I would still argue for liturgy being in Latin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)