T
tonyrey
Guest
And theists! It is understandable because the borderline between the two has never been clearly established. How do we determine the limits of nature?
- Status
J
JDaniel
Guest
Thank you.Exactly.
I was thinking about doing just that, but then I realized that it would be impossible to find the first one.Perhaps someone could count all of the earthquakes that didn’t happen because of the prayers and sacrifices of believers over the ages.
Agreed.
It is true that there is suffering in this world. But, it is also true that God never gives us trials that are greater than we our strength to bear them. Our non-theist friends have not opened their eyes to recognize that. All of us have suffered in some way. But, if our trials and tribulations were more than we could bear, wouldn’t there be an unbearable drone of wailing and gnashing of teeth in our own houses, our own neighborhoods, our own cities, our own countries. Wouldn’t the wailing would be so loud that it would drown out all other sounds! Imagine what God, with that immense power, could do if He didn’t Love us!
We must pass through our own trials and tribulations for our own sanctification. But, it is never more than we can bear.
God bless,
jd
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Should I groan here or believe that your pun is unintended (or perhaps some sort of bizarre Freudian slip)?That is what we are trying to do on this forum but you cannot do everything at once… One thread at a time before the garment is completed!
T
tonyrey
Guest
That nicely sums it up neatly in a nutshell.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
If they are regarding it as scientific **fact **they are confusing more than science and philosophy but are confused about science itself.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You’re supposed to smile unless you are otherwise disposed!That is what we are trying to do on this forum but you cannot do everything at once… One thread at a time before the garment is completed!
R
reggieM
Guest
What kinds of observations in nature give evidence of methodologies? Where can they be found in the universe?
Where did this “system” come from? Where, in nature, does it exist? What kinds of instruments can be used to observe a “system of study” – what shape does it have? How much space does it take up? How much does it weigh? What kinds of scientific experiments can be performed on it?
Through the use of philosophy we create meaning. Through philosophy we created the scientific method. The scientific method is not a necessary part of reality – it is not observable. It is a construct – built with philosophy, for a reason, and to serve a purpose.
The reason and purpose come from philosophy – not from molecules in nature (unless you think like Richard Dawkins).
Yes, you’re quite right. The data of theology comes from revelation – a higher source than what philosophy uses.
Philosophical constructs are governed by axioms (first principles) and logic which flows from them.
G
grannymh
Guest
Good to see you. You have been on my mind. Do I have ESP?
What I am really saying is that Catholic ID advocates, like St.Paul, can start with evidence of design and continue to Jesus Christ. Perhaps one might understand this better if I said that Catholic ID advocates should leave the ID restrictions behind.
Why is it so necessary for Catholic ID avocates to depend on ID science or ID philosophy when there is so much more truth in the Catholic Church?
I hope you did not read this whole thread. Not only was there a bit of sloppy Catholicism, but the push for design this and design that was a tad frightening.
The good news is that there are serious writers working off line on a defense of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, we had to go off line due to the bans.
Blessings,
granny
John 3: 16-17
T
tonyrey
Guest
J
JDaniel
Guest
Reggie:
The only refutation of that is an uncategorical denial. Which is, as we know, nothing more than a non-refutation.
God bless,
jd
B
buffalo
Guest
ID the science looks for evidence of design. Who the designer is is a philosophical question. The problem the opponents have is once they acknowledge design, the options on who the designer is are limited, and the god called “blind unguided chance” (BUC) is not one of them.
B
buffalo
Guest
Perhaps they could classify by rational and irrational. No, they don’t like that classification much because of its implication.
B
buffalo
Guest
Thinking of earthquakes - there is the one that rent the temple veil at the Crucifixion - planned or natural?
T
tonyrey
Guest
One could say they are passing the BUCK! (Blind Unguided Chance** K**etchup)
B
buffalo
Guest
Not sure you are referring to me here…Good to see you. You have been on my mind. Do I have ESP?
What I am really saying is that Catholic ID advocates, like St.Paul, can start with evidence of design and continue to Jesus Christ. Perhaps one might understand this better if I said that Catholic ID advocates should leave the ID restrictions behind.
Why is it so necessary for Catholic ID avocates to depend on ID science or ID philosophy when there is so much more truth in the Catholic Church?
I hope you did not read this whole thread. Not only was there a bit of sloppy Catholicism, but the push for design this and design that was a tad frightening.
The good news is that there are serious writers working off line on a defense of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, we had to go off line due to the bans.
Blessings,
granny
John 3: 16-17
Why spend time on ID the science? Why does any Catholic ask questions or study the observable?
W
wanstronian
Guest
I think you’ll find that biologists have considered this as settled science since before Dawkins was even born. The only ones that didn’t are the ones that, like you, would prefer to believe in the fairy-tale of creationism (or the oft-debunked “intelligent design” as it’s currently called) rather than having the intellectual honesty and/or courage to follow the evidence where it leads. This former demographic is now tiny amongst biologists and other scientists, as rejecting the evidence is tantamount to declaring oneself an idiot - or at least, an incompetent scientist.
You’re crediting Dawkins with far too much by implying that he has led the charge in establishing humans as part of the animal kingdom; I can only think that this is an attempt to persuade yourself that the reality of animal taxonomy is nothing more than a recent atheist subterfuge, rather than the well-established, immensely-evidenced scientific fact that it actually is.
Really, do you honestly believe what you’re saying when you publicly reject the facts? I find it hard to imagine that anybody can be so obtuse as to ignore the overwhelming groundswell of scientific evidence that supports the fact of evolution - including human development. Or do you just not allow yourself to really think about it, because you know the consequences if you did? Maybe you think that it’ll go away if you shout loudly and frequently enough?
G
grannymh
Guest
I was responding to Ricmat of happy memories.
Why do you answer a question with a question?
Never mind. My actual post used the word “depend” (post 1711)
Thanks for you help in the past.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Al:
Do you think that God is touching, so to speak, everything, including secondary causes, at all moments, like the boy with the stick moving the rock? And that we understand that touching to be the laws and constants, at our level, perhaps?
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Soldier:
Question: What does a scientific proposal/construct become when it gets accepted? We can’t say that it is a “proposal” or “construct” anymore. Just inquiring.
God bless,
jd
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Status