S
Sideline
Guest
The good news I enjoy reading your posts!
- Status
D
Donald45
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
There, there, Don. Perhaps, one day, you’ll see behind the science-is-all paradigm and realize that the God that we are in a loving, two-way relationship with is not a theological question. The study of God, and God Himself, is about a real, existing being.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
D
Donald45
Guest
Please indicate in which post(s) I have ever proposed a “science-is-all paradigm.”
Please scientifically demonstrate the reality of God. Empirical proof only, please.
I agree with your theological statement. Please indicate in what post(s) I have ever denied the theological truth that God is “a real existing being.”
Blessings,
Don
+T+
E
edwest2
Guest
Don,
This is the problem with some Catholics. Science-Theology schizophrenia is a terrible thing. It rejects the physical reality of Jesus Christ because science cannot prove Him but it accepts a vague, conceptual Jesus. How can that be? Either God literally died for us as Jesus Christ or He did not.
As far as evolution, it doesn’t matter to me if science can prove it, but the Church teaches that God guided it. Once again, it does not matter that science does not show this, it is enough that God has revealed this to His Church.
God bless,
Ed
This is the problem with some Catholics. Science-Theology schizophrenia is a terrible thing. It rejects the physical reality of Jesus Christ because science cannot prove Him but it accepts a vague, conceptual Jesus. How can that be? Either God literally died for us as Jesus Christ or He did not.
As far as evolution, it doesn’t matter to me if science can prove it, but the Church teaches that God guided it. Once again, it does not matter that science does not show this, it is enough that God has revealed this to His Church.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It seems to me to be a self-defeating strategy to argue by imputing opinions to one’s opponent, that the opponent has not expressed.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Sad. Would you demand empirical scientific proof from Jesus if you could travel back to the time when He was on earth?
What I do not get is that actual miracles have occurred and that the Catholic Church has recognized, but it appears that some here sound little different than the “I don’t believe in some invisible man in the sky” crowd.
Has anyone here seen the image of our Lady of Guadelupe on the tilma that should have disintegrated over a hundred years ago? I think God understands man’s desire for a sign or a relic. I think it’s just fine to ask honest questions, but like in the Old Testament, God does something miraculous on earth and people forget about it or turn it into a legend or story, as in fictional story.
God bless,
Ed
What I do not get is that actual miracles have occurred and that the Catholic Church has recognized, but it appears that some here sound little different than the “I don’t believe in some invisible man in the sky” crowd.
Has anyone here seen the image of our Lady of Guadelupe on the tilma that should have disintegrated over a hundred years ago? I think God understands man’s desire for a sign or a relic. I think it’s just fine to ask honest questions, but like in the Old Testament, God does something miraculous on earth and people forget about it or turn it into a legend or story, as in fictional story.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
As Pope Benedict says, God can even use contingency to His purposes.
What looks random to us is not at all unpredictable to God.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Ed, miraculous events are … miraculous
By definition science can say nothing about them
That does not equate with denial
It is not mental schizophrenia any more than going to the baker for your bread and the butcher for your meat.
Science cannot show it. No more than a subway map can show the TV schedule.
It is a tool, no more no less and since we as Catholics now that faith and reason cannot contradict there are no mental acrobatics needed. The world is as God willed it and it is good.
S
Sideline
Guest
This is the reply to all the conversations I’ve been having:
Sorry for the joint reply, but there didn’t seem to be any point in responding 3 times to the same argument. Here is my reply.
How is your God anything other than a meaningless fantasy? According to you, everything (except for one person treating someone else badly) is an act of a loving God. The reason I don’t see that is just my lack of understanding.
So, why should I believe, or anyone believe, in a God that has absolutely no effect. I mean people have the means to negate any evil. Looking at the world with an accepting calm relieves suffering. What on Earth does your God do? One answer was that he make a moral code. I just find that argument strange. It comes down to, “I could do anything I want if there were no God!” You can do anything you want now. The only thing that would get in your way is annoying your neighbours. No God required.
Sorry for the joint reply, but there didn’t seem to be any point in responding 3 times to the same argument. Here is my reply.
How is your God anything other than a meaningless fantasy? According to you, everything (except for one person treating someone else badly) is an act of a loving God. The reason I don’t see that is just my lack of understanding.
So, why should I believe, or anyone believe, in a God that has absolutely no effect. I mean people have the means to negate any evil. Looking at the world with an accepting calm relieves suffering. What on Earth does your God do? One answer was that he make a moral code. I just find that argument strange. It comes down to, “I could do anything I want if there were no God!” You can do anything you want now. The only thing that would get in your way is annoying your neighbours. No God required.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
This is theological nonsense.
God himself cannot be placed into a “test tube”-- and, in this sense, science can directly discern nothing about God.
However, science can indeed infer that the something is “miraculous”-- which is exactly why the Vatican does have people who use scientific principles to discern whether the reports of miracles are valid or not.
In other words, while science indeed cannot be used to directly test God himself, science can indeed be used to infer the evidence of God’s influence within his creation.
So before you give Ed a hard time on these matters I would advise you to discern correctly on this matter and stop confusing the two positions please.
By definition science can (and often does) say something about miracles.
S
Sideline
Guest
Sorry to all of those that read my, now deleted, post and wondered what on Earth it had to do with Evolution. I posted in the wrong place.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Absolutely correct! **LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS : **
*As well as reassuring us that the Servant of God lives in Heaven in communion with God, miracles constitute the divine confirmation of the judgment expressed by the ecclesiastical authority on his/her virtuous life. I hope that the Plenary Meeting will be able to examine this subject in greater depth in the light of the Tradition of the Church, of present-day theology and of the most reliable scientific discoveries.
**It should not be forgotten that in the examination of events claimed to be miraculous the competence of scholars and theologians converges, although the last word is given to theology, the only discipline that can give a miracle an interpretation of faith. **
This is why the process of Saints’ Causes moves from the scientific evaluation of the Medical Council or technical experts to a theological examination by the Consultors and later by the Cardinals and Bishops. Moreover, it should be clearly borne in mind that the uninterrupted practice of the Church establishes the need for a physical miracle, since a moral miracle does not suffice. *
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060424_cause-santi_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...s/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060424_cause-santi_en.html
S
steveandersen
Guest
Really?
kinda what I said
Yes I know that is done NOW but I was responding to Edwest’s comment about science & the physical reality of Jesus.
No one took photos or tissue samples back then
Science can say nothing about Christ one way or another
So I didn’t understand Ed’s statement that sciences accepts a “vague” Jesus.
To the extent that miracles are the exception to the rule of course.
That can get dangerously close to the “God of the gaps” dilemma but that is another matter.
I am often confused… but I don’t think so this time
I was trying to understand Ed’s position that it was schizophrenic to separate theological and scientific matters.
Only by concluding that there is no known natural explanation for an observation. It cannot say something positive about the cause.
But that is OK.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
But if this is true, then, by definition, science does say something about miracles precisely so that the Church can further evalutate them and** interpret their significance within a theological light.**
In other words, as far as I understand, if science can prove that there is no natural explantion for the event, only then does the Church move forward and consider the possible theological significance of the event.
Consequently, “false miracles” do happen which are not directly attributed to God– which is why the Church then moves “past” the scientific inquiry and “into” the interpretation of their *miraculous significance *within any possible theological significance, if any.
I understand that you do not like the ID movement wildleafblower, and I will respect that even if I don’t agree with it. But at least try to make an effort to keep your arguments against ID from causing further damage to the Church herself in the process.
Some of the arguments I’m hearing here against the ID movement are simply inane in their efforts to quash the ID movement. I will note that many arguments against the ID movement (using pure science) are very good and very well thought out, essentially proving the basis of the ID movement to be in strong error in some cases.
I agree that the Church bears the final word on the matter– and you will find no arguments from he here on this matter.
However, any argument like the one that suggests that science bears no significance whatsoever in determining when a “miracle” occurs is superfluous to the point of being as essentially purposeless as many claim the appendix is-- and perhaps moreso.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
So are those involved in the process of Saints’ Causes (who move from the scientific evaluation of the Medical Council [or technical experts] toward a theological examination by the Consultors [and later by the Cardinals and Bishops] simply engaged in a “God of the gaps” dilemma?
No. This is not is another matter at all. It’s a matter which strikes at the very heart of the very same processes we’ve been engaged in for around 2000 years within Church history.
And he’s right to call an alarm for this matter as he has.
Ed and I come from very different ideas regarding the theistic evolution. I accept it. He apparently does not as far I can determine from his posts. In fact, and I could be wrong, I think Ed may be a young earth creatonist (please correct me if I am wrong Ed).
However, regardless of whether he accepts theistic evolution or not, his deep concerns which call into question the idea that science supposedly says nothing about the mirculous is based on sound theological principles.
So…um…how exactly do we determine this-- how exactly do we conclude that there is no known natural explanation for an observation without falling into the “God of the Gaps” danger?
So what exactly can science say about the miraculous then?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I’m not sure I agree. I think science can investigate something that is claimed miraculous and determine whether there is a natural explanation for it. But failing to find evidence of a natural cause does not mean science regards that as proof of being a miracle.The church of course rightly would. But science I believe would still leave it in the “unexplained” category.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Would you not concede that some saints in the far past might not have done some of the "miracles’ claimed? Given the woeful ignorance of most matters science? What happens when we try to ascribe science as giving a sticker of acceptance on a event which it cannot explain means is that should some time in the future our science can give a natural answer, then we have to remove God from that “gap”. the gaps get filled in all too often. That is why a God of the Gaps theory is harmful in the long run. Science rightly IMO says only, we cannot explain it at this time. Their jurisdiction ends at this juncture.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Then perhaps you could move toward the questions raised in post 136 above.
In the meantime, could you provide me with a comprehenvie list from the Church which specifically defines what is natural and what is supernatural?
I’m sure some have done so (which I would truly be interested in reading). But, in general, I don’t think anything exists within the Church that holds a seal of authoty on it regarding this distinction.
More often, it seems to be investigated on a case by case basis that is in tune with the scientific knowledge of the time in question.
- Status