Warning: The following is a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo.

The Paradox of Identity isn't a paradox. It's a series of competing terminologies used to define an abstract idea.

Identity is based on reference points. In an extreme sense, something can only be identified as being different from something else if there is a reference point from which the one thing differs from the other. This is implicit in the very concept of identity. To say that identity has no formal definition is merely to invite a paradox into your own personal reality.

Example: in a spatial reference frame (room of some sort) there exists a green 5kg rubber cube located at (2,2,0)meters. If the "green 5kg rubber cube located at (2,2,0)meters" is moved to (2,1,0), the subject of this example is still a "green 5kg rubber cube". If the "green 5kg rubber cube" subject is deformed into a sphere, the subject is still green, 5kg in mass, and composed of rubber. This process of systematically changing only one property of the subject could be repeated until the subject shared no properties with its initial self. The subject is now a blue 50kg steel sphere located at (2,1,0)meters. The question posed by philosophers is this: does the current subject have the same identity as the initial subject?

My answer to this: it depends on the reference frame. It seems obvious that, since the subject of the discussion has not changed to another object, the current subject must share identities with the initial subject. And, it is also obvious that I can't reference the current subject without first having some frame of reference. But this is getting confusing, so let's assign names. The "green 5kg rubber cube located at (2,2,0)meters" is called Smith. The "blue 50kg steel sphere located at (2,1,0)meters" is called Jones. The question now becomes: is Smith identical to Jones? Do these subjects share an identity? Now, I'd have to say no, they don't. They are in every way discernible from one another. So, because they share no transitive quality, they are in no way identical. They are different. They are not the same. Actually, there is one transitive quality: Smith becomes Jones. We know this is true because the subject of the sentence has always been the previous subject with 1 change in property. But, if the subject wasn't the subject I would be talking about nothing... So, I can't talk about a thing with out talking about it and thereby providing a reference frame... This is becoming too abstract to consider. We need something concrete to discuss.

All of this rambling is mere nonsense if there is no practical application, so I shall provide one: You. What is your identity? Look at a picture of yourself from 5 minutes ago/5 days ago/5 years ago. Are you the same person? Define the following word: I.

This universe in which we live is entirely relational. "That the universe is relational" is a continuous property of the universe. Because it doesn't change, I can define the universe. 

Living in this universe consists of comparisons of states from reference frames. These comparisons tend to fluctuate as time goes on and nature "works its course". Our bodies are constantly changing. Therefore, they can act only as an instantaneous identifier. Our thoughts are also constantly changing. What can be done to identify one person from another?

I have a proposition. We should give names to each other. We could also identify persons from one another by cause and effect. When two people are responsible (physically speaking) for the creation of a third, we will call the responsible male "Father" and the female "Mother". The created third will be called the "Child" or "Offspring" of the father and mother. These qualities will never change and can therefore be used as an unchanging, constant identifier. That a child's mother and father continue to be his/her mother and father is constant. The relation persists. It does not change or fluctuate. 

The father and mother should issue the child his/her name. It would be fitting. Obviously, the child will be too young when it is born to even grasp the idea of a name. So, it wouldn't be prudent to name it "goobleeburwaaaa" or whatever we thought it was saying. Now, this child will be forever identified as [Name], [son/daughter] of [father] and [mother]. We should record all of this on a document and include with it a frame of reference for the child. By having this frame of reference the child will be able to live relationally and sensibly (or so we hope). It can be arbitrary, but it needs to be a thing that happens only once and never again or else things will get confusing for the child... How about the date? Yes, that should work. We will issue this child a "Date of Birth" from which he/she can calculate the number of days he/she has lived among human beings. Then, he/she can make relational comparisons and have an identity. The world can make sense to the child.

This lengthy situational description only serves to show that, indeed, the universe is relational. It's implicitly understood that when a person "A" says for another "B" to "define" a word "shroobiness", A wants B to put shroobiness into terms that are somehow constant but are also capable of being referenced. So, when A says, "Shroobiness is that feeling you get after sitting in a chair (or other sort of furniture) that is already warm from someone else's having just previously sat in it." B can now perfectly comprehend shroobiness. A now knows that he feels shrooby. A knows what it means to feel shrooby. Shroobiness depends on relative temperatures, furniture of a sort (relative shapes of solid materials), time (ralative to when the other person left the chair), and relative posture. The word has been defined. It has been described using relational concepts.

If this seems false, define something that depends on nothing else's point of reference.  Then put it in the comments.

The Paradox of Identity:

• Some things persist.
• If thing "X" and thing "Y" are identical, then every property X has is one that Y has also. (This is the "Indiscernibility of Identicals")
• If something persists, then it has an age at one time and another age at another time.
  

The paradox applies to self identity. I.E. looking at a picture of your past self and saying "That's me". According to these premises, "that" is not "me"...well, you in this case. Present You is older than Past You. So, you aren't identical with your past self. If you're not identical, you share no identity... Are you the same person? Are you still yourself? You have persisted. You have had different ages at different times. Then, is your identity the same? It appears as though the first premise must be false. But, it also appears as though you still exist...paradox.

As was stated earlier though, The Paradox of Identity isn't a paradox. It's a series of competing terminologies used to define an idea. According to the second premise, X and Y are identical only if there is no difference between them. Identity is thereby turned into a binary sort of quality. Either they are identical or they aren't. But, if "they" are identical, "they" must occupy the same space so they have the same spatial property. So, "they" are really just "it". There can be no 2 identical things. Identical twins don't exist. If you previously knew any identical twins, say a prayer for them...they no longer exist. That's the essence of Premise 2.

Premise three says that "If something persists, then it has one age at one time and another at another time". Wait a minute, if that's true and if "Some things persist", then persistence must allow for a change in age (time property). But, the thing that persists is then not identical to its previous self. It loses its identity in time. Now, it's back to denying the truth of the first premise.

The problem in the premises is the lack of an outer reference frame. If a definition is truly a relational quality, and our minds really only understand concepts or ideas as they relate to other concepts or ideas, then the "Paradox" quality of the argument disappears when we give the "persisting things" names. We could give them any constant identifier to bring end to the paradox. Let me explain further.

John persists in that he continues to be John and to carry the qualities of himself. When those qualities change, he is still John. His identity remains intact through change because he has a reference frame in which nothing changes. In his name-reference frame, he has a name: John. That never changes, so he always has an identity. However, his identity does change. One could visualize an identity as an infinitely long check list of relational qualities that one either does or doesn't have. If identity can be viewed that way, a person can have a changing identity. But, his current identity is never identical to his past identity.

• John persists.
• If "20 year-old John" and "40 year-old John" are identical, then every property "20 year-old John" has is one that "40 year-old John" has also. (This is the "Indiscernibility of Identicals")
• If John persists, then he has an age at one time and another age at another time.
  

Now, these premises are all true. Simply put, "20 year-old John" is not identical to "40 year-old John". So there is no paradox at all.

The Philosophy of Miracles and How It Relates to Jesus Christ

I had a new (to me) idea today while struggling with mentally digesting the PHL 301 lecture about freedom. I believe that Jesus used His entire brain. My thought requires some background information:

1. It is currently believed that humans do not use all of their brain. They use some X% where X < 100.
   
2. It is currently believed that the amount of brain a human can access directly relates to intelligence and any abilities requiring mental function.
   
3. Hume (and many of his readers) believed (/believe) that a cause is any 1st event which leads to an effect or 2nd event, the occurrence of which depends entirely on the 1st. Also, the energy of every natural cause dictates only one possible natural effect.  I paraphrase Hume's belief in this way: If a thing happens that doesn't follow our natural universal laws, then our natural universal laws are too general. They must be redefined in a more precise way such that the thing that happened follows from those laws.
4. 4. Miracles are events that do not follow current natural laws.
   

In the past, taking a "potion" or concoction of certain ingredients was thought to magically, miraculously lead to something else. In the case of that something else being a remedy to a known sickness, we now know that the potion ingestion did not cause a miracle. We understand the interactions of elements definded by their atomic structures (somewhat). And, through this understanding, we can now manufacture medicinal potions (solid, liquid, or gaseous) that naturally lead to cure.

So, the effect (the curing of a particular sickness) is understood to be caused by the administering of the specialized potion. We observe this remedy to happen regularly in the world, so we call this remedy the effect. Likewise, we believe that the administering of the medicinal potion is the cause. If, for a reason outside of our knowledge, the medicine didn't lead to remedy, we would say that the remedy based on the administering of this particular potion is not a law of nature. We would then, most likely, investigate the situation further in hopes of knowing all relevant aspects of the situation. If we knew all relevant aspects, we could eventually deduce what it was that stopped the potion from working or what it was the potion did if it didn't ever cause the remedy in the first place. Then, we'd revise our law based on our findings.

This is the scientific method. It operates under the premise that all events are caused. How does this all relate to Jesus?

The fact is clear that the physical body of Jesus is no longer testable for my hypothesis. So, until I ask Jesus in person or someone comes up with a provable explanation, it will remain hypothetical. Nevertheless, I believe the evidence (Biblical truth) suggests that Jesus used 100% of His brain.

I believe Jesus walked on water. I believe Jesus used 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes to feed 5000 men and many other women and children. I believe Jesus healed the sick, the maimed, the handicapped, the ill. Based on my current understanding of the interactions of atoms and natural laws, I'll try to explain what would be required to happen in any of the given situations.

For Jesus to walk on water, He would have had to have some amount of control over the positioning of the water molecules. I think that he excited the H2O in such a way that some area under each of his feet became less dense (more buoyant) and more solid. It would be like Him stepping on very carefully formed pieces of ice (or some mixture of ice and slush and liquid water) that would support His weight. I don't know which of many possible shapes of ice/slush/liquid he used, but I'm pretty sure no current technology allows their replication. So, that doesn't really matter. What does matter is Jesus' ability to initially fathom what shape would be condusive to walking on without sinking, then his ability to excite the atoms themselves, then his ability to control exactly how each atom was excited.

It is currently believed that atoms are excited into "energy states" and that the excitement can be achived using electricity. Example: solid water (ice) can be turned into liquid water by exciting the atoms with heat. The heat is generated with electricity.

It is also currently believed that muscle movements are caused by the excitement of the atoms in our muscles. That excitement is caused by the reception of electrical impulses which usually come from the brain. How exactly do we cause the brain to excite or "flex" a certain muscle? We just do it. We learn how in some currently indefinable way, then we remember what it felt like, then we just do it. By drawing on our memory, we are able to control the movements. Athletes are those who are more apt to physical control. Usually, the control has developed from practice. It is currently believed that practice of a certain movement tends to cement the memory of that movement in our mind by creating a neural pathway and thereby allowing access to more of the brain.

Based on these beliefs, it is my current belief that access to 100% of the brain would lead to perfect muscle control. What occurred to me is the possibility of the universe acting like a muscle to a person with total neural mastery. Is it possible that access to 100% of the brain would lead to a perception to that effect? No one can say for sure because no one with 100% access currently exists in a scientifically testable state.

However, I believe that Jesus had total neural mastery, and for Jesus to perform any of the many miracles He performed, He merely had to "flex" the universe in His immediate vicinity.

He flexes the water, and it supports Him much like our flexing our legs causes us to be supported.
He flexes the atoms near the loaves and fish. Then, when he breaks the loaves, the atoms nearby rearrange themselves into the elemental structure of bread. The same happens when he breaks the fish. He could do this without creating matter. ( Maybe he created matter to do it, but since matter creation hasn't happened enough in an observable environment to be the effect of a cause, I have no idea how it would work.)
He flexes the atoms in the bodies of the sick and causes them to reallign into healthy arrangements or change form into healthy types.

If Jesus thought of the universe as entirely in His control, if Jesus knew that He could merely flex the world to cause "miracles" to happen, then He'd have no problem telling His disciples that they are capable of and will do greater works than He. It makes sense. Jesus stayed on earth for a short time; His disciples have been around ever since and for much longer. He'd have no problem telling a mountain to move knowing that it could be flexed into movement. He'd have no problem telling a fig tree to produce no more fruit knowing that its cellular structure could be flexed into a position to accomidate that wish.

So, why didn't Jesus heal everyone everywhere if all He had to do was flex? I think that's where faith comes into play.

Not much is known about faith. I mean, I know much more about how oranges come into existance than I do about how faith does. Orange seeds are planted, then watered and sunned. Sooner or later, an orange tree sprouts. It continues to grow by drinking the water and eating the sunlight until it can produce oranges. I pretty sure there's no such thing as a physical "faith seed" that would grow into a "faith tree" to produce faith. I haven't experienced much growing of faith other than first hand. And, my faith is limited. Therefore, my knowledge is also limited. However, I believe that "Faith comes through hearing and hearing through the Word of God" (Romans 10:17). I don't know how it comes through hearing. But, I have a theory.

It is currently believed that paralysis of a muscle is caused by the lack of neural connections from the brain to the paralyzed muscular region. Nerves act as a sort of "influence determiner". Without the necessarry alignment of nerves, the muscle doesn't flex. The muscle can't flex. However, with the necessarry alignment, the nerves do flex. The nerves, in this sense, determine whether or not the muscle is flexible.

I think that faith is a collection of spiritual nerves. It doesn't seem like too grand a mental leap to assert either.

Example: If, during a trust-testing game, a person closes her eyes and, unsure of the outcome, drops off a presipice into the possibly outstretched arms of her peers, she is said to have "a lot of nerve" or "guts". Or, she is said to have taken "a leap/step of faith".

I believe that faith brings into the realm of possibility certain "currently unimmaginable acts" or "miracles". Believing this, I must claim the following: Faith is the determining factor in Jesus' ability to influence the universe.

If this were true, it would make sense that Peter could walk on the water only while he maintained his faith in Jesus' ability to support him. While he believed, Jesus' influence extended through Peter and to the water underneath his feet. When he doubted, his faith was limited. Because of which, Jesus' ability to manipulate (flex) the atoms near Peter was diminished. Parts of the structure of water failed, so Peter started slipping under the waves. Jesus would know that Peter doubted. Had Peter not doubted, Jesus' water structure would not have failed.

If this were true, it would make sense for Jesus to say "Your faith has made you whole." (Mark 5:34). For, Jesus wanted to heal, but the existence of free will (and causally faith) makes "supernatural healing" or "miracles" impossible when faith is absent. The only determining factor in healing would then be faith which would create the "spiritual nerve" connection to enable flexing.

If this were true, it would make sense that "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) We wouldn't be doing the flexing of soul. We just allow it to be done. When we have that faith, we create a connection for Christ to use. We give Jesus influence over the soul. And, He is then able to change it, able to flex it, into an acceptable state.

If this were true, it would make sense for Jesus to say "You of little faith" (Matt. 8:26) to the disciples scared of a storm. Jesus had the faith to flex the winds and waves. And, though it would require some effort that would, presumabley, eventually lead to the exhaustion of One Who Is Wholly God and Wholly Man, it would never be too great of an effort as to be impossible. It would merely require faith.

If this were true, it would make sense that Jesus (whose faith was ultimate) could survive for 40 days without eating food. He could just flex His body to survive off the atoms in the immediate vicinity without requiring nutrition through digestion. Although, it would also seem that such a great feat of mind would not be desireable while bread is present. So, He would most likely prefer to eat and would take pleasure in the easyness of it... which He did.

I am led to believe that this idea of faith is true and that Jesus Christ really did have and does have influence over those areas where faith is present. And, my belief and my faith are strengthened by the first-hand witnessing of supernatural healing. I know the man who touched those who were healed. I know that he was a man of great faith. He didn't know how to arrange the atoms so that the body they inhabited would be healthy again. He didn't do the flexing. He acted as a conduit for Jesus' influence. Jesus did the flexing. He was just a vessel of sorts.

Because of these beliefs that I now hold, I am forced to redefine my idea of natural law. I no longer believe that these things can be called miracles. They are absolutely amazing to witness or even just think about. But, I don't call them miracles in the sense that I once did. They are mere instances of an Absolute Capability being exercised through a faith conduit. And, this line of thought seems to be true, in line with all beliefs I currently hold as truths, and in line with the Holy Spirit. So, I will believe it is truth and live as though I do believe it. Hopefully, my faith will develop to a place where I can do "greater acts than these" (the ones Jesus did).