Does science prove gods existence?

[PRmerger]

This is called quote-mining, it’s what someone does when they prize being right over being honest .
You left out the rest of the quote.

It doesn’t matter. You still were asked to prove something you believe in, yet, curiously, punted it.

Why do you reserve for yourself the right to believe things without proof yet object to others doing so?

Again, can you offer some peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals that back up what you’ve been asserting?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes actually I do and you’ve shown no such thing.

I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here that you mistook “scientism” for “science”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here that you mistook “scientism” for “science”.

Your honour, I would ask the Court to admit People’s Exhibit ‘A’ into evidence.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12510020&postcount=391

 

[Peter_Plato]

@WinterWolf

I appreciate the fact that you are courageously trying to defend deeply held and cherished beliefs. That is to your credit. You didn’t back down in the face of opposition to your POV.

You need to catch your breath and ponder what has been pointed out on this thread regarding the reach of science and its limitations. Think through the implications and what you can and cannot consistently hold to be true.

I suspect you have not fully articulated your perspective even in your own mind, but you are concerned that conceding certain points will mean compromising other and more cherished beliefs.

Individuals on this thread are interested in the truth of things and have taken on your points because inconsistencies have been detected. The truth, after all, is what is important.

Take some time and think about those points that have been challenged. In a quiet moment you might catch a glimpse of why.

Peace,
PP

 

[Hee_Zen]

Yes, the statement “Naturalism is true” is self-contradictory because the very act of its assertion is self-contradictory under naturalism – the assertion cannot logically be made under naturalism, it is not merely false.

This pretty much sums up your incorrect position. But since I already criticized it, and you still maintain it, there is no reason to reply to it again. Of course I read your whole article, but since your premise was incorrect, there was no need to reply to the corollary of the incorrect premise.

So, just for the fun of it, I will reflect on the result of your “argument”.

You say that under the naturalistic view the thoughts would be determined by the laws of nature, since they are merely the electro-chemical activity of the brain. As such thoughts pertaining to actions or events which would contradict the laws of nature (do you know ALL of them, by the way?) would be impossible. (After all physical impossibilities cannot exist.) Nevertheless I am able to contemplate faster than light travel, or moving into the past, or temperatures below zero Kelvin, and many other physical impossibilities. From this you “conclude” that naturalism is false (even self-contradicting!!!) and from that conclusion it follows that there is some “supernatural” which allows me to think such thoughts. Of course that “supernatural” would be “God” or some other nonsense like “soul”.
I have never seen a more ridiculous “proof” for God. Though I admit it, that it does not rely on “faith” or “revelation”. Congratulations for the joke of the year!

 

[Hee_Zen]

This pretty much sums up your incorrect position. But since I already criticized it, and you still maintain it, there is no reason to reply to it again. Of course I read your whole article, but since your premise was incorrect, there was no need to reply to the corollary of the incorrect premise.

So, just for the fun of it, I will reflect on the result of your “argument”.

You say that under the naturalistic view the thoughts would be determined by the laws of nature, since they are merely the electro-chemical activity of the brain. As such thoughts pertaining to actions or events which would contradict the laws of nature (do you know ALL of them, by the way?) would be impossible. (After all physical impossibilities cannot exist.) Nevertheless I am able to contemplate faster than light travel, or moving into the past, or temperatures below zero Kelvin, and many other physical impossibilities. From this you “conclude” that naturalism is false (even self-contradicting!!!) and from that conclusion it follows that there is some “supernatural” which allows me to think such thoughts. Of course that “supernatural” would be “God” or some other nonsense like “soul”.
I have never seen a more ridiculous “proof” for God. Though I admit it, that it does not rely on “faith” or “revelation”. Congratulations for the joke of the year!

 

[Winterwolf00]

So you are agnostic about everything that doesn’t involve the scientific method?

Not really agnostic so much as realizing that there are things that don’t have concrete and simple answers.

 

[Winterwolf00]

It doesn’t matter. You still were asked to prove something you believe in, yet, curiously, punted it.

Why do you reserve for yourself the right to believe things without proof yet object to others doing so?

Again, can you offer some peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals that back up what you’ve been asserting?

No you told me to prove something I never claimed to be true.
Can you please stop lying?

 

[Winterwolf00]

So if there is “no right answer” to questions of morality, how can anyone be obligated by moral principles?

How do you reconcile “no reason for x” with “must do x?"

I don’t understand the question.

 

[inocente]

Very Catholic, this.

Careful, you’ll get mistaken for a fan of sola fide.

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.

So when did you first get that warm and fuzzy notion?

Just a few short days back, when I said Jesus always speaks of faith and never of proofs, one of the “we Catholics” team made fun of faith, saying it is “loyal as puppy dogs” and “dumb as stumps”. The other member of the team (that would be you) replied with “Heh. Love it.”

#shortmemory

*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.)*

Leaving aside your strange and unusual invention of JWO, do you include the Qu’ran in your Word of God™ in its entirety, or are you claiming that Catholics have an exclusive contract with God?

#Ihatepoetry.

That’s why I keep quoting it on this thread, to combat sola logica verbal.

#wearenotmachines

 

[Winterwolf00]

…a scientific method that he doesn’t even understand.

Yes actually I do, that might be inconvenient for you to admit but I do in fact.

 

[PRmerger]

No you told me to prove something I never claimed to be true.
Can you please stop lying?

So you don’t believe Science has all the answers?

Then you are halfway home, Winterwolf!

 

[PRmerger]

So when did you first get that warm and fuzzy notion?

Just a few short days back, when I said Jesus always speaks of faith and never of proofs, one of the “we Catholics” team made fun of faith, saying it is “loyal as puppy dogs” and “dumb as stumps”

No. Not making fun of faith. Never making fun of faith.

Only rejecting Faith Alone. Rejecting those who reject Reason.

Once you understand that, you understand Catholicism. At least, its essence.

 

[PRmerger]

Leaving aside your strange and unusual invention of JWO, do you include the Qu’ran in your Word of God™ in its entirety, or are you claiming that Catholics have an exclusive contract with God?

Yes, we reject the Koran as the Word of God, although where the Koran proclaims things consonant with Truth, we say (To wit: there is only One God, the existence of angels, that we should feed the poor, etc etc)

And Catholics do not have an exclusive contract with God, but we do have the fullness of truth…

And, anything you know about Christ comes from Catholicism, so you always are submitting to my Church whenever you proclaim something about Christ.

So in that sense you are part of our contract with God.

That’s why I keep quoting it on this thread, to combat sola logica verbal

That puts you on Team Catholic, inocente.



We reject all the Solas, except for Solus Christus, through His Church Alone.

 

[Winterwolf00]

So you don’t believe Science has all the answers?

Then you are halfway home, Winterwolf!

For the umpteenth time now I’VE. NEVER. CLAIMED. THAT. IT. DID.

And quite frankly the dishonesty that you’ve been demonstrating since I’ve started talking to you if anything gives me LESS incentive to believe a word you say.
Be glad that there are better spokesmen for your beliefs then you.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So, just for the fun of it, I will reflect on the result of your “argument”.

You say that under the naturalistic view the thoughts would be determined by the laws of nature, since they are merely the electro-chemical activity of the brain. As such thoughts pertaining to actions or events which would contradict the laws of nature (do you know ALL of them, by the way?) would be impossible. (After all physical impossibilities cannot exist.) Nevertheless I am able to contemplate faster than light travel, or moving into the past, or temperatures below zero Kelvin, and many other physical impossibilities. From this you “conclude” that naturalism is false (even self-contradicting!!!) and from that conclusion it follows that there is some “supernatural” which allows me to think such thoughts. Of course that “supernatural” would be “God” or some other nonsense like “soul”.
I have never seen a more ridiculous “proof” for God. Though I admit it, that it does not rely on “faith” or “revelation”. Congratulations for the joke of the year!

I did not simply say that “thoughts would be determined by the laws of nature”. Under the naturalistic view thoughts would be determined by the laws of nature acting in our brain as we formulate the thoughts, our evolutionary history, our environment and our mental development. This a more specified version of my statement “Yet under naturalism every thought, just like everything else, is physically determined”.

Actually, it is not just me saying that under the naturalistic view thoughts are physically determined, since they are merely the electro-chemical activity of the brain. It is many naturalists who say that. Jerrry Coyne whose articles I linked to is just one of them.

And no, your conclusion,

"As such thoughts pertaining to actions or events which would contradict the laws of nature (do you know ALL of them, by the way?) would be impossible, "

does not follow.

 

[Winterwolf00]

No. Not making fun of faith. Never making fun of faith.

Only rejecting Faith Alone. Rejecting those who reject Reason.

Once you understand that, you understand Catholicism. At least, its essence.

That seems to be you from what you’ve been saying.

 

[PRmerger]

For the umpteenth time now I’VE. NEVER. CLAIMED. THAT. IT. DID.

And I am saying that is excellent. That makes you halfway home!

You acknowledge: Science doesn’t have all the answers.

You are very Catholic when you profess that.

 

[Winterwolf00]

And I am saying that is excellent. That makes you halfway home!

You acknowledge: Science doesn’t have all the answers.

You are very Catholic when you profess that.

No there’s nothing Catholic about it, unless you are claiming that all theists and ‘spiritualists’ are ‘Catholic’ now.
Man you are really watering down your faith.
And faith has no answers whatsoever.

 

[PRmerger]

No there’s nothing Catholic about it, unless you are claiming that all theists and ‘spiritualists’ are ‘Catholic’ now.
Man you are really watering down your faith.

All truth is Catholic truth, Winterwolf.

So whenever you profess things that are true, you are being consonant with Catholicism.

So when you say: science doesn’t have all the answers–which, it appears you are now professing–you are being very…

Catholic!

And faith has no answers whatsoever.

Really.

So you are telling me that you don’t use faith whenever you fly in an aircraft? You examine the evidence before each and every flight? You ask the airline for their flight crew’s records? You check to see if the pilot actually graduated with a passing grade from her flight school?

I am 100% certain that you don’t do that. Wouldn’t do that.

Thus, you rely on faith to give you the answer: it is safe to fly on this flight.

(Please don’t disappoint me by punting with the lamest of lame excuses: “I’ve never flown in an aircraft before.” This is not about flying. It’s simply an example of how you use faith in your life. Not evidence. Not science.)