Since you usually present the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and the revealed truth as understood by the Church and described in the catechism, I don’t see that happening often. Some people don’t agree with your sources.. . . Oh I can be wrong - but not often I hope. So where did I go wrong this time? . . .
To be clear…Since you usually present the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and the revealed truth as understood by the Church and described in the catechism, I don’t see that happening often. Some people don’t agree with your sources.
That is their problem. You can lead a horse to water, you can’t make him drink.Since you usually present the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and the revealed truth as understood by the Church and described in the catechism, I don’t see that happening often. Some people don’t agree with your sources.
Quite different from claiming an all-powerful, yet unseen force in the universe as fact. Discussions over the particulars of well-known and documented phenomena are all part of scientific exploration.Oh, I don’t know.
“The sky is blue,” would seem a clear statement of fact but, also, very much open for discussion, since the sky isn’t really “blue.”
Most facts are taken to “signify” something about the real world, much of which depends upon the current state of certainty - which always carries with it at least some discussion as to veracity.
Gravity may be a “fact” in the sense you mean, but the theories about what gravity is and why it works the way it does are far from being closed to discussion.
Ex nihilo nihil fit would seem to be as clear and uncontroversial as any fact you can bring up.Quite different from claiming an all-powerful, yet unseen force in the universe as fact. Discussions over the particulars of well-known and documented phenomena are all part of scientific exploration.