Does science prove gods existence?

[Peter_Plato]

Seeing as how I’ve often heard the statement several times that ‘before the universe’ is a contradiction because time itself did not even exist at that point.
So basically at some points the topic of the Big Bang becomes something of a Mind-Screw.

Evolution and biology is SO much easier to talk about then Quantum Physics.

Well, until you get to the “Mind-Screw” of abiogenesis or begin looking into molecular biology, the quantum physics of biology.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree with Lemaître, as quoted.

There’s a whole bunch of metaphysical wittering on the little word “began”. I think I’d reject your statement as written **as it implies **the universe took on the attribute of existence, as if existence is a coat it began to wear. That would get us both in terrible trouble with the metaphysical thought police.

There you go using reason (aka philosophy + logic) again. Stick to the fundamentals of your faith alone paradigm, please.

Haven’t you been convinced by your own arguments (ironically) that faith alone is required to convince anyone that faith alone is all that anyone needs?

I find it quite funny that someone could use metaphysical wittering as their chosen method to dismiss metaphysical wittering. C’est la vie, apparently.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Another one who implies faith is irrational.

All those millions of Christians in dire need of a rational proof. You should start a ministry to send missionaries to the world’s Christians so they no longer have to rely on trust in Christ but can cite a nice solid metaphysical proof. For that’s the work of the Lord, let’s have done with amazing grace, may the light of symbolic logic shine on the kingdom!

I am genuinely puzzled by your either/or - only one or the other - constraint on spreading the Gospel. Take, for example, Stephen’s witness in Acts 6:8.

And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre’nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili’cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen.
But **they could not withstand the wisdom **and the Spirit with which he spoke. (Acts 6:8-10)

Notice that he used “great wonders and signs,” but also that he “disputed” with them (like tango, it takes two to dispute) and “wisdom” was, in the end, what “they could not withstand.” So, the lesson to be taken here, is that wisdom is mightier than signs and wonders, no?

In fact, the entire first 53 verses of Acts 7 are Stephen laying out a point by point argument from Scripture and history to make his case by appealing to their sense of reason (aka wisdom.)

Now, granted they stoned him after that, and you might be able to make a compelling argument that dropping a mountain on their heads would better serve to cure their “stiff necks” (Acts 7:51), but that does not support your larger claim that we are restricted from using reason to spread the Gospel (which Stephen did,) but are, rather, constrained to dropping mountains on their heads. Stephen, after all, was a saint and martyr not because he moved mountains, even though he ended up being buried under one.

Well, come to think of it, perhaps moving mountains would have come in handy at that moment, but still that does not make your case that reasoning is not to be used and displaced by faith alone, even where that involves excavating mountains miraculously.

Surely, it isn’t your claim that because Stephen didn’t make the mountain of stones “move from here to there,” he didn’t have any faith to speak of, not even the size of a mustard seed, are you?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Well, until you get to the “Mind-Screw” of abiogenesis or begin looking into molecular biology, the quantum physics of biology.

In fairness there is no standard model of the origin of life as of yet.
Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter.

That’s the what, we don’t quite know the how yet.

Like evolution is the what, and natural selection is the how.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Clearly, there is SOME physical evidence or exorcists would never be assigned to any manifestation whatsoever.

CLEARLY??? Is this another one of those well-kept secrets. like the proof of God’s existence, which needs only reason but no faith and revelation? However, as long as there is physical evidence, the existence of demons falls under the methods of scientific investigation. And this is the point where you fail.

If you are asking me to produce that evidence, sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree. Go engage with a few exorcists. I can’t do brain surgery either, but that is no reason to deny brain surgery works or has merit.

Ah, so you have no idea what you are talking about? Just blowing hot air, and hoping that no one will notice? Exorcists are not walking around in my neck of the woods. Maybe there are some instruction manuals like “Exorcism for Dummies”? Or maybe “101 Incantations for calling up demons”. So - as usual - you have nothing but a few words. No evidence, no clue. Why don’t you just admit it, and stop posting about things you know nothing about?

My point was that available physical evidence may not be sufficient to satisfy your expectation for that evidence - which I take to mean your expectation that the physical evidence itself must be of sufficient quality to be indisputable based upon the physical nature of the evidence alone.

That is right. If you knew anything about physical evidence, then you should realize that it is conclusive on its own merit.

You view the quest for truth as a unilateral endeavor where the entire onus is on you to know what is and the intended object of your knowledge plays no role in your acquisition of that knowledge. This assumes knowledge IS and CAN ONLY BE objective because that which is to be known, in your view, is merely and essentially “object” with no power, no intention and no capacity to make itself known. This comes from your presumption that essentially “lifeless” matter is the ultimate ground of reality because you presume God does not exist.

I don’t know how many times do I have to point out that I am willing to consider your evidence for God. There just isn’t any. I asked for that nebulous “philosophical evidence”, but no one answered. The first step would be to present the epistemological method to separate the “true” statements about the supernatural from the false ones. Metaphysics without an accompanying epistemology is worthless.

Why should your presumption trump the presumptions of others merely because you set that as the arbitrary starting point?

There is nothing “arbitrary” about it. The only thing we ALL agree about that the physical universe exists. That must be the starting point. Your major blunder was stipulating that there some “physical evidence” for demons.

 

[PRmerger]

Did you intend your implication that faith is unreasonable?

Not at all.

Faith is indeed reasonable. However, my Catholic faith proclaims that the knowledge that is attained through faith surpasses reason.

See the magnificent encyclical: Fides et Ratio for more.

But sure, let’s completely ignore that Christ never speaks of proofs, only, ever, of faith.

*And they went and woke him up, saying, ‘Lord, save us! We are perishing!’ And he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid, you -]of little faith/-] of inadequate metaphysical proof?’

“Truly I tell you, if you have -]faith/-] a scientific hypothesis as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”*

It’s a little peculiar to see you posting a Words-of-Jesus-ALONE paradigm here.

From whence does that come?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with Lemaître, as quoted.

There’s a whole bunch of metaphysical wittering on the little word “began”. I think I’d reject your statement as written as it implies the universe took on the attribute of existence, as if existence is a coat it began to wear. That would get us both in terrible trouble with the metaphysical thought police.

I don’t understand, friend.

Either the universe began to exist, or it has always existed. What is your POV?

 

[PRmerger]

Another one who implies faith is irrational.

No, not irrational. Supra-rational.

Rational is not giving your coat to someone who doesn’t have one. It’s cold here!

Faith tells us, using supra-rational knowledge: give you coat to the one who has none. Even if it’s more rational to keep it on yourself.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Not at all.

Faith is indeed reasonable. However, my Catholic faith proclaims that the knowledge that is attained through faith surpasses reason.

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason.
Ethan Allen

 

[Winterwolf00]

No, not irrational. Supra-rational.

Rational is not giving your coat to someone who doesn’t have one. It’s cold here!

Faith tells us, using supra-rational knowledge: give you coat to the one who has none. Even if it’s more rational to keep it on yourself.

Say what now?
And faith is not the same as empathy no.

 

[PRmerger]

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason.
Ethan Allen

Very Catholic, this!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ah, so you have no idea what you are talking about? Just blowing hot air, and hoping that no one will notice? Exorcists are not walking around in my neck of the woods. Maybe there are some instruction manuals like “Exorcism for Dummies”? Or maybe “101 Incantations for calling up demons”. So - as usual - you have nothing but a few words. No evidence, no clue. Why don’t you just admit it, and stop posting about things you know nothing about?

That is right. If you knew anything about physical evidence, then you should realize that it is conclusive on its own merit.

I don’t know how many times do I have to point out that I am willing to consider your evidence for God. There just isn’t any. I asked for that nebulous “philosophical evidence”, but no one answered. The first step would be to present the epistemological method to separate the “true” statements about the supernatural from the false ones. Metaphysics without an accompanying epistemology is worthless.

There is nothing “arbitrary” about it. The only thing we ALL agree about that the physical universe exists. That must be the starting point. Your major blunder was stipulating that there some “physical evidence” for demons.

Well, no, actually, my major blunder was that I assumed I was talking with someone who was open to the possibility of demons - at least open to looking at the evidence - rather than merely drawing preconceived conclusions based upon materialistic assumptions.

catholic.com/sites/default/files/audio/radioshows/ca090803a.mp3

Your position is much like a person who claims they are open to being shown that a moon landing ever occurred or that brain surgery is possible, but because they, themselves have never seen the evidence or the occurrence they claim no such proof exists.

Have you seriously looked into the phenomenon or merely refuse to think it possible BECAUSE of your preconceived notions about it?

Your claim that there is “no physical evidence” for demons is based entirely upon your limited “investigation” into the possibility of their existence. It amounts to an argument from personal incredulity.

Of course, you might claim that scientific experiments have never “proven” demons exist, but doesn’t that assume demons are the kinds of things that would sit still and allow themselves to become the willing subjects of experiments? Certainly if experiments were testing for “dumb as a stump” demons, perhaps experiments could lead us to reasonably conclude that those kinds of demons don’l exist. Perhaps, however, an assumption that demons could be brighter than say, Paris Hilton, and not merely desire celebrity or exposure would lead us to be a bit more circumspect in our conclusions, no?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Very Catholic, this!

You know, when it’s convenient to embrace it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Say what now?
And faith is not the same as empathy no.

Read what she wrote and, at least, try to understand it.

Your comment bears no resemblance or correspondence to her post. Try again.

 

[PRmerger]

Say what now?
And faith is not the same as empathy no.

sigh

If you do only what is rational, you will never be a Christian.

Alas, you will also be a very sad, lonely, and unempathetic person…

but at least you will be rational.

 

[Winterwolf00]

sigh

If you do only what is rational, you will never be a Christian.

Alas, you will also be a very sad, lonely, and unempathetic person…

but at least you will be rational.

You only show that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Reason does not prevent me from either being happy or empathic.

 

[PRmerger]

You only show that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Reason does not prevent me from either being happy or empathic.

Well, that’s because you’ve already proved that you don’t live by Reason Alone.

You have some faith. Things you believe in which you can’t prove.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, that’s because you’ve already proved that you don’t live by Reason Alone.

You have some faith. Things you believe in which you can’t prove.

Such as an eternal universe…among others.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Well, that’s because you’ve already proved that you don’t live by Reason Alone.

You have some faith. Things you believe in which you can’t prove.

You constantly asserting something doesn’t make it true. Sorry.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Such as an eternal universe…among others.

That actually seems to be where the evidence points.
So you can call it ‘faith’ if you want, but you’re just changing the definition when it’s convenient.