Does science prove gods existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tadtomczyk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, I had a look at the summary on academia.edu and JPII seems to be making the same point as me, although no doubt a lot more eloquent, that faith is essential
Very Catholic, this. šŸ‘

It seems as if you are arguing for faith, as if we were proposing it’s unnecessary.
I guess all of this dialogue could have been avoided we Catholics had made it clear (although I think we had) that faith* is *essential.
Maybe you got that from me saying it’s by Guru Nanak.
#braincell 😃
Annnnd that’s where the irony is. A Jesus’-Words-Only Advocate is suddenly departing from his paradigm and quoting some other guy.

Either you are a JWO advocate (then stop quoting from that poetry* person), or you can be like the Catholics and take the Word of God in its entirety, (and see that Faith AND Reason are better than Faith Alone or Reason Alone–because that’s what the Word of God supports.)
#Ihatepoetry.
 
The fact that you are using logic and reason now to request this.

QED.
Yes and the fact that you take issue with this shows that you know your position is unreasonable.

So you can’t prove it, thank you.
That’s all I needed to know.

So again there is no other tried and true method of discerning reality then science and you have proven my point.
 
No leap of faith for you then. No sirree, leaping is prohibited at all times. Health and safety.

You say the ā€œproblem IS precisely that most of us don’t ā€œknowā€ Christ in any obvious way, at all.ā€.

That’s sad, and you’ll not fix it with proofs. 99.999999% of all Christians met Christ without any proof. Quite a few never even learned to read, let alone do symbolic logic.
Sorry, inocente, but a claim to ā€œknowā€ Jesus, even when it’s made by the 99.999999%, is insufficient, as far as I am concerned. I have met many who make that claim but leave with the impression that who they claim they have come to know and who they truly know are not the same. More like they have had a psychological epiphany and confuse that with Jesus himself. I don’t think ā€œknowingā€ Jesus is always such an emotion-laden experience and to depend upon it as the key feature of one’s religious life is an error. Sometimes, he comes in firms we would rather not concede are Jesus -
…he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not
It is an irony that you dismiss ghosts and demons at the click of a camera because you think they cannot be experienced, but subscribe wholeheartedly to a non-detectable ā€œexperienceā€ of Jesus as your gold-standard for religious life. Why the double standard? Why not apply the click test to the ā€œexperienceā€ of Jesus?

To wit:
*The same argument is used for Jesus experiences - they also disappear in the presence of a camera.

So Jesus experiences are a thing of the past now that we all carry cellphones.

If Jesus ever does pester you, use this incantation: ā€œGo from here Jesus, or I shall record you in glorious HD and upload you unto the YouTube and ye shalt be viral in seconds. If ye prefer, I canst stream you live into a chat room forthwith.ā€

And < poof > you’re safe.

(Jesus likes KJV faux olde english, and for complicated reasons, Pirates and ghosts do, as well.)*

You see, inocente, your position involves special pleading - you poo poo ghosts and demons because they make you feel unsafe, but are okay with Jesus experiences because they make you feel safe.

My journey towards Jesus did not end at tangible experiences, because the only tangible one I’ll accept is called the beatific vision. I want to truly ā€œknowā€ him, love him and serve him, not merely have emotion laden experiences with reference to him. In the meantime, I view those experiences as oblique glimpses - not the ā€œwhole enchiladaā€ - glimpses which were meant to be taken in stride and not represent the end of the journey. In other words, been there and moved on. Now I travel in faith and with Wisdom by my side, not moored to experiences.
 
Yes and the fact that you take issue with this shows that you know your position is unreasonable.

So you can’t prove it, thank you.
Just did. You just used logic and reason when you said, ā€œSo youā€¦ā€ It’s a conclusion you made based on…

wait for it…

wait for it…

philosophy.

Thanks for making my point. 😃
 
Just did. You just used logic and reason when you said, ā€œSo youā€¦ā€ It’s a conclusion you made based on…

wait for it…

wait for it…

philosophy.

Thanks for making my point. 😃
That’s not philosophy no.
You don’t know what logic, reason, OR philosophy are apparently.

You sadly prove the old saying true.

ā€œDebating creationists is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.ā€
 
So again there is no other tried and true method of discerning reality then science and you have proven my point.
Unless you can provide some studies with empirical data, (reproducible, peer reviewed and published in an accredited journal) that ā€œthere is no other tried and true method of discerning reality than scienceā€)…you have just made a statement of…

FAITH.

You live by faith, Winterwolf.

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Except when you dismiss others for living by faith.

One ought not reserve for himself what he objects to in others.
 
That’s not philosophy no.
You don’t know what logic, reason, OR philosophy are apparently.
LOL!

Do you know what department the logic classes are taught at?

courses.umass.edu/logic/
ā€œDebating creationists is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.ā€
Amen!

I rarely debate with creationists. It’s otiose. They deny logic and reason, as well as science and history.
 
Unless you can provide some studies with empirical data, (reproducible, peer reviewed and published in an accredited journal) that ā€œthere is no other tried and true method of discerning reality than scienceā€)…you have just made a statement of…

FAITH.

You live by faith, Winterwolf.

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Except when you dismiss others for living by faith.

One ought not reserve for himself what he objects to in others.
I can see that talking to someone as unreasonable as you is pointless.
Blind assertions and ignoring demands for proof isn’t exactly impressive.

I’ll go look for someone who I can take seriously in a debate.
 
I can see that talking to someone as unreasonable as you is pointless.
Blind assertions and ignoring demands for proof isn’t exactly impressive.

I’ll go look for someone who I can take seriously in a debate.
If you can’t refute the arguments…well, I guess the best thing is to step away.

But I am certain that some seeds have been planted in you by being here.

That is quite satisfying to me.
 
If you can’t refute the arguments…well, I guess the best thing is to step away.

But I am certain that some seeds have been planted in you by being here.

That is quite satisfying to me.
Says the person who is allergic to logic.
And you’ve only shown yourself to be one more person trapped in the world view they were raised in.
 
No leap of faith for you then. No sirree, leaping is prohibited at all times. Health and safety.
Let’s be clear here.

What you mean by a ā€œleap of faithā€ is the initial step in an inward journey. A recognition, by whatever instigation, that the external world is not all there is. In fact that the interior world is a much richer, much more rewarding ā€œplaceā€ where the meanings of things - as opposed to the mere factual representations of objects - is to be found.

The experience of Jesus you speak of is the initial awareness that the interior life exists - but the journey does not end there.

When Winterwolf speaks of being ā€œtrapped,ā€ what he fails to realize is that someone who thinks the external world is all there is, is just as ā€œtrappedā€ - in fact more so - than a religious fundamentalist or cradle believer. He is trapped in the world of physical reality, but as ā€œpersonā€ he is a foreigner in a strange land subject to strange physical laws (which is why many seek to escape feeling thus ā€˜trapped’ by drugs, alcohol, sex, enterprise, good times or whatever.)

The larger point being that experiences of the numinous are indicators of the ā€œinteriorā€ world and ought not be dismissed neither by supercilious comments such as yours nor by dogmatic proclamations by materialists.

There is no denying that science is an effective means to understand the order and function of the physical world, but that is because the physical world is consistent and amenable to that kind of treatment. To assume physical laws and determinable consistency apply to all possible worlds and entities is a huge leap of logic.

Of course, it is an understandable one because it makes one feel secure in one’s entrapment. If you can convince yourself that what you know is all there is to know, that does provide a comfortable security blanket, of sorts.

Unfortunately, that position requires a continual denial of reality - the inexplicable continues to exist and continues to challenge our comfort. The niggling sense that finding meaning is a far deeper and extensive endeavor than fact finding alone or restricted to uncovering the order embodied in the mere appearances of things. And, then, there is also death, which leaves great uncertainty concerning the question of why I am here in the first place.

I suppose one could simply ignore that question completely and put the onus on physical things to explain their functions, purpose or utility, but never apply the question to ourselves. On the other hand, why should things in the physical world all have their determined roles within it, but we humans left entirely out of the whole enterprise? Oh, there is that sense of alienation again.

Why should we be the only beings in our world even considering the question of meaning at all? We alone are looking for answers? Locked in this external world where real answers - to crucial questions that keep resurfacing at the core of our being - do not seem to be forthcoming?
 
Yes if he rejects logic being used in a discussion then it’s probably because his position would fall apart if he actually applied logic to it.
That is completely consistent.
That would be ā€œher logicā€ and ā€œher position.ā€

And you haven’t shown where her logic falls apart, you only make assertions that her logic would fall apart.

Lay down the logical case, if you don’t mind. Show that you are not averse to actually using logic as opposed to merely making assertions about what is or is not logical.

You haven’t exactly shown yourself to be a deft user of logic despite the many claims you make about it.
 
That would be ā€œher logicā€ and ā€œher position.ā€

And you haven’t shown where her logic falls apart, you only make assertions that her logic would fall apart.

Lay down the logical case, if you don’t mind. Show that you are not averse to actually using logic as opposed to merely making assertions about what is or is not logical.

You haven’t exactly shown yourself to be a deft user of logic despite the many claims you make about it.
 
I’ll go look for someone who I can take seriously in a debate.
What ā€œdebateā€ are you talking about?

PR makes a statement, you say she’s wrong and illogical.

She shows how her position is consistent and yours isn’t.

You say she’s wrong and illogical.

She makes another pithy statement.

You say she’s wrong and illogical AND threaten to go look for someone else (ostensibly someone who will merely agree with you and not be so contrary.)

THAT was a debate? :nope:

From my perspective, PR was alone on the dance floor, if you get my meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top