Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Do you understand the fundamental problem with invoking God? Science works by finding testable explanations, but if the explanation your invoking is compatible with any possible observation, your explanation cease to have any utility at all. Thus the aphorism “Invoking God explains everything, and thus explains nothing.
Click to expand...
Except of course when they are inconvenienced for atheist beliefs, which is increasingly often.
Click to expand...
Is this a variant on the tired litany “Any day now evolution will fall” that’s been repeated for over a century?

So how would you introduce God into a scientific model?
 
I’m not talking about God; I’m talking about how some atheists deny science on the basis of the scientific method itself to fit a political agenda.

I have no idea if Evolution will “fall”—whatever that means. I just don’t discuss it at length because I find most people are very lacking in knowledge or they just blindly accept or deny it.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Well,Jewish tradition states that Adam’s skull was buried in Golgotha (place of the skull)which is the same spot Jesus’s cross was stuck in the ground.
Click to expand...
Tradition is not evidence. You have less evidence than science does. Science has some fossils, you have none.

Better to move on to a different line of argument.

rossum
 
They have a primitive form of intellect. However, they are largely instinctual. They do not have an intellect that can grasp universals only the particular. They can not contemplate God for instance. Humans have the ability to go against their instincts if their reason deems it.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
40.png
SuperLuigi:
40.png
niceatheist:
Do you understand the fundamental problem with invoking God? Science works by finding testable explanations, but if the explanation your invoking is compatible with any possible observation, your explanation cease to have any utility at all. Thus the aphorism “Invoking God explains everything, and thus explains nothing.
Click to expand...
Except of course when they are inconvenienced for atheist beliefs, which is increasingly often.
Click to expand...
Is this a variant on the tired litany “Any day now evolution will fall” that’s been repeated for over a century?

So how would you introduce God into a scientific model?
Click to expand...
Explicitly, I don’t think you particularly need to.

Is that an issue? Serious question.
 
fisherman_carl said:
They have a primitive form of intellect. However, they are largely instinctual. They do not have an intellect that can grasp universals only the particular. They can not contemplate God for instance. Humans have the ability to go against their instincts if their reason deems it.
Click to expand...
Now for the big Question… does God bring peoples deceased pets to Heaven…I think so based on all the NDEs I have read…what say you?
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
fisherman_carl:
They have a primitive form of intellect. However, they are largely instinctual. They do not have an intellect that can grasp universals only the particular. They can not contemplate God for instance. Humans have the ability to go against their instincts if their reason deems it.
Click to expand...
Now for the big Question… does God bring peoples deceased pets to Heaven…I think so based on all the NDEs I have read…what say you?
Click to expand...
We’ve been here…

OF COURSE HE DOES. 😉

Why would you even ask?
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Well,Jewish tradition states that Adam’s skull was buried in Golgotha (place of the skull)which is the same spot Jesus’s cross was stuck in the ground.
Click to expand...
Tradition is not evidence. You have less evidence than science does. Science has some fossils, you have none.

Better to move on to a different line of argument.

rossum
Click to expand...
Just saying… 🙂
 
SuperLuigi said:
I’m not talking about God; I’m talking about how some atheists deny science on the basis of the scientific method itself to fit a political agenda.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Some atheists certainly do seem to think science somehow disproves God. I’m not one of those atheists, mind you. I do not believe my atheism is scientific, in fact I know it’s not. I believe my lack of belief in gods is rational, but that’s quite a different thing entirely. Science, as I said before, is agnostic by its nature. It’s not the place to even ask questions about the existence of God.

That being said, it can certainly answer certain questions related to the actions of gods. For instance, science can’t disprove that every instance of thunder didn’t come from Thor’s hammer, but seeing as we have observed that lightning is the cause of thunder, the most parsimonious explanation is that it is lightning, a purely natural phenomenon, which causes thunder. But that’s not contesting the existence of Thor, merely suggesting that there is a pretty reasonable natural explanation, and applying Occam’s Razor and removing the unnecessary entities, not including Thor in the explanation.
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
fisherman_carl:
They have a primitive form of intellect. However, they are largely instinctual. They do not have an intellect that can grasp universals only the particular. They can not contemplate God for instance. Humans have the ability to go against their instincts if their reason deems it.
Click to expand...
Now for the big Question… does God bring peoples deceased pets to Heaven…I think so based on all the NDEs I have read…what say you?
Click to expand...
We’ve been here…

OF COURSE HE DOES. 😉

Why would you even ask?
Click to expand...
Your right 🤔
 
niceatheist said:
Occam’s Razor
Click to expand...
niceatheist said:
40.png
SuperLuigi:
I’m not talking about God; I’m talking about how some atheists deny science on the basis of the scientific method itself to fit a political agenda.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Some atheists certainly do seem to think science somehow disproves God. I’m not one of those atheists, mind you. I do not believe my atheism is scientific, in fact I know it’s not. I believe my lack of belief in gods is rational, but that’s quite a different thing entirely. Science, as I said before, is agnostic by its nature. It’s not the place to even ask questions about the existence of God.

That being said, it can certainly answer certain questions related to the actions of gods. For instance, science can’t disprove that every instance of thunder didn’t come from Thor’s hammer, but seeing as we have observed that lightning is the cause of thunder, the most parsimonious explanation is that it is lightning, a purely natural phenomenon, which causes thunder. But that’s not contesting the existence of Thor, merely suggesting that there is a pretty reasonable natural explanation, and applying Occam’s Razor and removing the unnecessary entities, not including Thor in the explanation.
Click to expand...
Isn’t God the ultimate Occam’s Razor… or is that too simple for atheists ?
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Now for the big Question… does God bring peoples deceased pets to Heaven…I think so based on all the NDEs I have read…what say you?
Click to expand...
Which pets? Your latest pet or every pet you have ever owned in your lifetime? All of them there saying feed me and pamper me. Lol.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Isn’t God the ultimate Occam’s Razor… or is that too simple for atheists ?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t seem simple to me. I know the Universe exists. If I’m supposed to accept that the Universe needed some sort of Prime Mover to get the ball rolling, as it were, then why can’t I just ascribe to the Universe those attributes ascribed to the Prime Mover? At the very least I’ve removed an entity that I have no evidence for.

Now that’s not to say I’m right. Since the origin of the universe is a question that can’t really be answered, and notions of “beginnings” may not even make any sense, my reasoning could be utterly faulty. But at least I’m operating within the context of an entity that I can observe; the Universe, and not attempting to insert entities I cannot observe, and worse, can’t account for.
 
niceatheist said:
If I’m supposed to accept that the Universe needed some sort of Prime Mover to get the ball rolling, as it were, then why can’t I just ascribe to the Universe those attributes ascribed to the Prime Mover?
Click to expand...
Then you accept the need for a prime mover that is fully actualized? It is hard to conceptualize such a description as anything other than God. Since the universe itself must have an explanation for how it came to be. It is not simple. It is composed of parts. Nor, is its current arrangement necessary. We could imagine the universe differently. The first cause is simple, without parts. But the universe needs an explanation for how its parts came together. No such explanation is required for a simple first cause since it has no parts. The universe changes or could be different. Then it could not be the changeless changer (fully actualized actualizer or unmoved mover).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top