J
joe370
Guest
LOL…
- Status
U
User124
Guest
I never said I can disprove theism or a creator, I can only disprove religions and their gods including yours. Just the same way you’re skeptic and able to disprove other religions using sciences, logic and history.
There is a problem I have when talking to religious people, I very much like the way they are skeptics towards other religions and deny them, but when it comes to their own religion, they lose their rationality!
What kind of evidence? in particular, scientific and historical evidences to prove Christianity, abrahamic stories and claims.
When I said I don’t know what evidences I want, the talk was about miracles not religion or theism. Remember?
If you canot disprove a creator, then you cannot disprove God.
U
User124
Guest
You apparently didn’t get it, I mentioned that I can disprove religion and the particular gods ( Allah, Zeus, Krishna, Yahweh…), but I personally cannot physically disprove theism (a designer), the burden proof is up to those who claim the existence of a creator and a something.
Check this for more understanding: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot
A question: Can you disprove that there is a flying invisible giant and all powerful turtle organizing the cosmos?
No, you can’t, that doesn’t the turtle real, it’s up to turtlians to prove his reality.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Well…it is possible.
Any suggestions of what role might play the incredibly large black holes at the center of each galaxy? Or the vast bursts of gamma radiation issuing from some of them capable of annihilating life on a million planets?
Further, is it then possible that the mind-numbing coldness of space is not felt by spiritual beings?
U
User124
Guest
It’s possible too that the whole universe was created for the tapeworm.
Just like what Edward Abbey said:
“From the point of view of a tapeworm, man
was created by God to serve the appetite of the
tapeworm.”
Just like what Edward Abbey said:
“From the point of view of a tapeworm, man
was created by God to serve the appetite of the
tapeworm.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, that’s like asking an embryo what his suggestions are for the role the pineal gland in his mother might play.
He’ll find out when he gets to his destination, right?
^ is a positive statement that you can, in fact, disprove my God.
The burden is upon those that make the positive claim.
You have claimed to be able to disprove him.
Please do so.
I am curious to see how this is done.
The problem though is that you have accepted God and the whole of creation for a purpose.
We have specific books telling us that man was created for dominion over the rest of creation.
They make no mention of such privelage for the tapeworm.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Perhaps…but I was interested in your thoughts. I do not blame you for not delving further.Well, that’s like asking an embryo what his suggestions are for the role the pineal gland in his mother might play.
He’ll find out when he gets to his destination, right?
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Naturally such information would be reserved for the tapeworms themselves, would it not?
Then one is left with the question concerning why creation was made for ourselves and tapeworms.
M
meme1961
Guest
Good point, but remember, proof can’t exist without faith.
There is no such thing as pure reason when you are talking about human beings. All reasoned statements are founded in articles of faith (axioms) and the conclusion that the facts constitute “proof” of something (outside of a constructed, independent philosophical system) are also statements of faith.
Don’t misunderstand: faith in this context is what you believe is true, without being able to justify it. That doesn’t mean you can’t change what you believe, only that you believe it.
For a Catholic, those articles of faith that can’t be changed usually lie in the realm of the purely supernatural (and came to us either by divine revelation, or are the logical consequences of divine revelation).
P
PRmerger
Guest
I have no interest in the topic of black holes.
This is what I would do if I had the unfortunate luck of being seated next to an individual at a dinner who said, “So what role, [sip of wine], do you, PR, believe black holes play in the possibility of the annihilation of gamma radiation?”
However if someone were to be seated next to me and say, “I was raised Catholic and now I’m an atheist.” I’d be all
whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/21635002005/when-a-guy-plays-hard-to-get-with-me
but in a good way.
R
ReapReason
Guest
That is not true.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Exactly, what a facile statement. Besides, those who turn apostate and deny God either never had faith to begin with, or are angry at God over some perceived injustice.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
As soon as you resort to mocking belief in God by comparing it to belief in cartoon mice and turtles, you lose all credibility with me, and I doubt that I am alone in that regard.
You have an utter lack of understanding of how Catholic theologians perceive the nature of God and His attributes. This is all elegantly explained in the Summa Theologica. Of course, that work requires a great deal of intellectual effort.
And wiki? Really? Unacceptable source reference, even for most high school teachers.
M
meme1961
Guest
Yes, it is.
But please, give a reasoned argument, if you have one, and not just a statement of faith.
What you believe (note the word?) is scientific truth is open to continual modification. Why? Because our reasoning is incomplete. We solve this problem by starting with statements of faith . . . axioms (which can’t be proved, and must simply be believed to be true absent proof or evidence), and concluding with a statement of faith (that the available evidence “proves” a conclusion).
In a constructed, exclusive, independent philosophy, one can create any set of axioms one wishes, though if you wish to construct a logical, reasonable system, these axioms must not contradict each other. They can contradict the axioms of other, separate, independent systems (which is why the maths have no relationship to reality) of course, but only if the system is dependent and open, do those axioms need to be universally coherent (true). But we must start with axioms even in that case, because our knowledge and ability to reason is finite.
We simplify things by deliberately constructing philosophical systems that are exclusive. Natural Philosophy (Science) is one such system. We add the constraint of “Natural” precisely to indicate we’ve made the choice to restrict this system to the search and understanding of the truth as it relates to the natural world, and ONLY the natural world.
IOW: science can say nothing about morality, the existence of God, or any other supernatural question precisely because it is a dependent, exclusive, constructed philosophy. What it excludes, is everything that is not natural.
A good scientist knows what the limits of science are, and knows that science excludes the supernatural. Not because it doesn’t exist, but because that is the choice, and those are the rules of those who work primarily on and in that philosophical system.
The Catholic church, on the other hand, established the university system precisely because Catholicism is a religion of both faith and reason. As such, it is uniquely, and maybe solely competent to understand the whole of the Truth, as it does not restrict or exclude its consideration to one part or the other. Catholicism is not a religion of blind faith, and an integral part of its Tradition is to seek for, understand, then live in accordance to the whole truth, not just the truth of the natural.
Jesus said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
M
meme1961
Guest
I’ve tried to explain this until I’m blue in the face, but while we teach scientific fact in schools, we no longer teach what science IS.
I personally blame the loss of the “liberal education” pattern, but that is just a working hypothesis.
M
meme1961
Guest
I disagree. The proof of God is undeniable, but it is not a scientific (“Natural Philosophy”) proof, because God is supernatural, and thus lies outside of the realm of the “natural philosophy”.
That said, any human being can believe anything they want to. That’s free will.
- Status