On Identity

A while ago, I was thinking about identity and how it applies to my belief systems. In a nutshell, I was trying to define to myself the identity of God. Then, I got to wondering: if identities are derived from constants, how can anyone define something that is infinite? God has been around since before there was past tense. He's seen every change everywhere. So, if my way of thinking about identity is right, the only thing that could define God is God himself. Then I remembered reading about a dialogue between Moses and God that takes place in Exodus 3. 

So, Moses is a little freaked because this bush that's on fire is telling him that God has heard the anguish of the slave nation of Israel, and it's time for the Israelites to go to some sort of utopia occupied by a bunch of crazy barbarian types. 

Then, God says, "Go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt." Moses flips. He basically says, "Are you serious, God? I'm pretty lame at parties and things and I don't have any cool talents." (that's a paraphrase, guys) God replies, "Don't sweat it. I''ll be with you. And, I'm freaking awesome." (also a paraphrase) So, Moses knows he has to do what this bush-burning God says. He still has questions, though. Says Moses, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" 

Then God says something really monumental. I had never really paid attention or understood the significance before. He says, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." which means "I am that I am" or, if you prefer, "I shall be that I shall be."

Do you see how perfect that answer is? He defines His existence using only His existence. Saying just three words, God is implying a whole bunch of things.

1. God is eternal. To most Christians, this seems like a no-brainer, but I bet there are many who require proof. Here's your proof, doubters. If God wasn't eternal, he would have defined His existence in reference to something else.
2. God's viewpoint is the only one that matters here. He wasn't given a name by others because He's existed since there were no others.
   
3. God never changes. See Malachi 3:6 for confirmation.
   

It seems then, that this eternal God is the ultimate point of reference. All things can be defined by subsequently higher powers, but the ultimate definition is based on the relationship with God. The New Testament makes it very clear that the only thing that really matters, when everything is said and done, is a person's relationship with God. That's pretty obvious. But, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." seems to imply that there was a form of Christianity before Jesus.

It makes sense. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had very close relationships with The Almighty. "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."(Matt. 8:11) So did Elija. "Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind." (2Kings 2:11) So, it seems like God was the same before and after Jesus came. To get to heaven before Jesus, a person had to do a bunch of draining rituals and, most importantly have a good relationship with God. After Jesus, it gets easier, but the relationship is still the important thing.

I've chosen to define myself by my loving relationship with Ehyeh. If my beliefs are right, this is the best possible choice. If they're wrong, it doesn't matter anyway. If you're reading this and you haven't chosen yet, I encourage you to do so very soon.

What is it like to be a bat? I know it's a strange question, but I assure you it's relevant. So, what is it like? Can you imagine it? I doubt it. I can't even imagine it. I've tried and failed each time.

When I try to imagine what it would be like to be a bat, I think about being in the body of a bat. Rather, I imagine I'm blind and I have excellent hearing and can fly and like mosquitoes more than pizza. But, I'm limited in that I can only imagine what it would be like for Curtis the human to be a bat. I've never been Curtis the bat. And, I have no frame of reference from which to draw any sort of inference about what it's like to be a bat.

The problem is consciousness. It is obvious that organisms have physical properties and observable behaviors. Properties and behaviors can be described with a universal sort of clarity we refer to as objectivity. But, consciousness is not such an objective property. In fact, I believe consciousness to be an entirely subjective character of experience. I can describe in depth what a bat does. I can describe in depth what physical properties a bat has. But, I am at a total loss of words to describe what it is like to be a bat to that bat.

Consciousnesses are entirely subjective and unique reference frames through which the world is experienced. I think that consciousness and the mind are linked. Maybe consciousness is the mind...

--Question originally posed by Thomas Nagel in Philosophical Review--

Along the same subject, think about Mary the brilliant neuroscientist. Mary has spent the entirety of her past life in a black and white library. In this library, everything is black and white. Everything Mary has learned about neuroscience has, up to this point, been supplied by a black and white TV and the myriad of books in the library. Mary has recently become absolutely fascinated with tomatoes. She knows that a ripe tomato is round, shiny and red. She knows everything there is to know about the physical characteristics of tomatoes and how to make them grow. Though she has never seen red, has never even seen a color that is not black or white or gray, Mary knows the exact frequency that light must vibrate with in order to produce red. 

Today, 5 minutes ago actually, someone unlocked the door to the outside, took Mary by the hand, and brought her to a garden. It was there that, for the first time, Mary saw a ripe tomato.

Did Mary learn anything new?

--Question originally posed by Frank Jackson in The Journal of Philosophy LXXXIII--

If there is something about the experience of seeing red (namely, what it's like) that Mary learns, then the experience is not completely explained by the physical facts alone. I believe that the "what it's like" is the essence of the mind. I know of no better way to convey my impressions about the mind than to point to experience.

Maybe you're wondering, "This is all great, but why should Christians care?" Scripture can answer that.

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." -Matt. 22:36-37

It seems pretty hard to love God with your mind if you don't have an understanding of what the mind is. Though I believe the Bible is the most complete resource for insight about truth, I'd never heard a satisfactory explanation of the nature of the mind until I expanded my search for truth into other philosophical texts. This may be alarming to those Christians who feel like the Bible is the only credible source of truth. But, it's not. If God is the God of truth. Then, all truth everywhere is ours. 

Paul was well aware of this. When he was ministering to the Athenians he said, "For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "-Acts 17:28 For Paul to have known what the poets of the day said, he must have read them. That's kind of like a Christian today gleaning truth from something by Eminem. I know the idea's a little weird, but that's the kind of God I serve. All truth is His. Justin Martyr, a Christian philosopher said, "What anybody has said about the truth belongs to us, the Christians." The fact is, if there is any truth anywhere in the universe that does not fit into the philosophy and lifestyle outlined in the Bible, then Jesus was not the Christ.

I believe that Jesus was and is the Christ. I believe that all truth everywhere is mine. And, I believe that Frank Jackson was onto something. It makes sense that the nature of the mind is the experience, the "what it's like". It fits with the Scriptures.

Based on my Biblical research, I think the "heart" that the authors refer to could also be called "beliefs and desires". I think that the "soul" could be called "ability to choose" or "morality". If what I think is right, then Matt. 22:36-37 could be read something like this:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your beliefs and desires by being as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Love the Lord by choosing to refrain from what is wrong and to strive for what is righteous. Love the Lord by keeping a high standard of morality. And, love the Lord by actually doing what is good. Then, you'll be able to tell others what it's like"

11/4/08

Well, it's happened. The Democratic Party has finally achieved a tri-fecta: Presidency, Senate, House of Representatives. It's been a very long campaign, and Americans have spoken. Their king has come (He's not my king.).

My sincere hope is that the change will truly be for the good. Based on my own observations and on my conversations both with like and unlike-minded individuals, I don't foresee a greater good coming. I see legalized abortion, kindergarden sexual education classes, and further advancement of the homosexual agenda to be recognized as a minority class and thereby gain civil rights. I see incremental tax raises and a general movement towards moral uncertainty and ambiguity. I see change coming.

Our new president seems to me to believe in the power of knowledge and the right of a person to choose what he/she wants regardless of the moral implications of that knowledge. Unfortunately, Obama's pro-choice stance is based in the incredibly limited reality of "right until proven wrong". But, how can an upstanding American citizen disagree with his views? Are they unpatriotic? On the contrary, they resonate with "innocent until proven guilty". What ideal could be more patriotic? They are absolutely patriotic. But, I won't say they're right. 

There is an incredible amount of evidence supporting the idea that life begins with fertilization. I hold this view myself. However, I do not believe that awareness begins with fertilization. Does a zygote know it exists? I don't think so. But, as cells multiply and take on the shape of a human, it becomes increasingly harder to tell just when cognizance comes into effect. Tragically, there's a medical double standard in regards to threatening one's life-potential. 

Hypothetical Horace, age 7, has just fallen into a comatose state and has likely suffered brain damage enough to make him mentally challenged. Horace's life-potential has taken a sharp turn. Though his life may still be enjoyable for him and others, it is certain that his care-taker just inherited a good deal of day-to-day difficulty. There are now two options:

1. Difficult - Raise and love Horace.
2. Easy - Kill Horace while he's unaware.

I grant that the second, easy option might not be so easy if Horace's care-takers have fond memories of life before the impediment. Luckily, this difficulty can be eliminated by reducing Horace's age until memories and relational connection based on experience are no longer part of the equation. For this example, we'll say the necessary age is now 3 seconds old. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that a 3 second old person is unaware he is a person at all. Maybe he physically feels things, but it is reasonable to assume he doesn't comprehend these feelings. So, were he to be killed, the only result would be elimination of Horace's life potential...

Do you see the problem? If it's morally wrong to kill a 7 year old, why should it be any less wrong to kill a 6 year old, a 2 year old, a newborn, an infant being birthed, an infant still in gestation? It is just as wrong, it just doesn't hurt others as much. After killing an unborn baby, there's really no relational reminiscing to do. You don't remember that time you took him to the lake to watch the ducks because, you didn't take him. In fact, you eliminated his potential to ever see those ducks. You didn't even ask what he wanted. Granted, he couldn't communicate even if he had wanted a chance to live and see ducks. But, coma patients can't communnicate. Does that make it okay to stick tongs into their brains and wiggle 'em around untill the steady beeps become one long, flat tone?

No human has the authority to decide if another should live or die. That's why murder is wrong. Hypothetical Dale claims he has the authority to choose whether Horace lives or dies. From where is this authority obtained? If Dale is merely human, then, by Dale's logic, any other human should have the authority to choose whether Dale lives or dies. 

People either have a right to live or they have the right to kill and be killed. If people have a right to live, then killing is wrong because it removes the victim's potential to fulfill that right. The two rights are incompatible. One must be, the other must not. I believe people have a right to live. I believe people have souls and minds and are capable of loving and having opinions. I believe that our God-instilled-morality gives us this right to life.

Our new president seems to me to believe in the power of knowledge and the right of a person to choose what he/she wants regardless of the moral implications of that knowledge. He believes that people have the right to live and the right to kill. His election to president is historically relevent in large part because he is part of a minority. And, minorities care that they are minorities because they fear their collective voice won't be heard. 

Unborn people are of a different minority. They are incapable of communication. It is assured that their collective voice will not be heard because they have no voices in the first place. How is it that one man, who is now in a position to make the African-American minority voice heard, can give authority to kill another unvoiced minority? Firstly, had another done this while he was once part of that infant minority, he never would have been president. Secondly, the authority to kill is not Obama's to give.

Unfortunately, I can not scientifically prove the presence nor absence of the supernatural entity we call the mind in an unborn child. I doubt there will ever be definitive proof. And, as long as there is not proof, the idea that any progressive stage of a zygote is alive will be left to interpretation. A person could still say that eliminating this progressed zygote's life-potential is "right until proven wrong." And, that person would never be called unpatriotic.

Abortion is just one of the many concerning topics surrounding this coming presidential term. I haven't even started with homosexual "marriage" or economic policies. Needless to say, I am deeply concerned about the state of our national future. I disagree with many of the Democratic Party's views, and the party's primary cause for liberty before morality is not encouraging.

Obama will be the president for at least 4 years (probably only 4 years if he seriously tries to enact change). I currently don't agree with his views. But, I will respect him as he has been entrusted with a great amount of authority. My prayer is that my current concerns are shown to be foolish. I would like nothing more than to be able to look back and say, "I shouldn't have been so upset. It's all worked out for the good." Until that day when my fears are abated though, I will be watching scrutinously and praying steadfastly.

May God help America.

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).