Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[sophion]

Faith and reason enhance and inform one another. Increased faith does not equal extremism.
If you want to understand more on the relation between faith and reason go here:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Especially chapter 4, “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON”

reality speaks otherwise. the most accomplished scientists are little faith. while the most faithful are the most backwards.

 

[clem456]

reality speaks otherwise. the most accomplished scientists are little faith. while the most faithful are the most backwards.

Far from reality, this your OPINION. So unless your reality is only as big as YOU, it is not reality.
Anyone can make groundless assertions…

 

[sophion]

Far from reality, this your OPINION. So unless your reality is only as big as YOU, it is not reality.
Anyone can make groundless assertions…

saudi arabia, the taliban and the Amish - they are real. people who live by faith more than any other.

its your turn to back up your opinion. give me examples of faithful people that are also the most accomplished in the fields of reason. begin.

 

[clem456]

saudi arabia, the taliban and the Amish - they are real. people who live by faith more than any other.

What in the world are you talking about?

Are you saying the Taliban are people of faith? Hardly anyone would agree with you. You are confused. Religious extremism and idolatry are not the same thing as faith.
Are you saying the Amish are not reasonable? A people who live simply are not necessarily ignorant or unreasonable. Do you personally know any Amish?
Geez, Taliban and Amish in the same sentence. :whacky:

If this is what you are saying, you need to educate yourself on what the word “faith” means.
Did you read the link I just posted earlier?
Here it is again.

vatican.va/holy_father/jo…-ratio_en.html

Especially chapter 4, “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON”

 

[The_Bucket]

saudi arabia, the taliban and the Amish - they are real. people who live by faith more than any other.

its your turn to back up your opinion. give me examples of faithful people that are also the most accomplished in the fields of reason. begin.

They don’t live by faith. In the case of the Taliban and the Saudis, they live by domination and terrorizing the populace.

Clearly you know little about the history of the Church, otherwise you would know that Western universities got their start in the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas is considered one of the most preeminent philosophers of all time. His Summa Theologica is a monument to the attempts to explain God’s existence through reason. Clearly he starts from a certain presupposition, but it’s well-constructed.

If you want someone more modern and maybe in the world of science, how about Georges Lemaître. Who was he? Oh no one really. Except the guy who first proposed the Big Bang Theory and the author of the widely misattributed Hubble’s Law.

Oh yeah, and he was a priest.

 

[sophion]

What in the world are you talking about?

Are you saying the Taliban are people of faith? Hardly anyone would agree with you. You are confused. Religious extremism and idolatry are not the same thing as faith.

religious law rule their lives. that takes faith. a lot of it.

also sacrificing your life for god takes a lot of faith as well.

Are you saying the Amish are not reasonable? A people who live simply are not necessarily ignorant or unreasonable. Do you personally know any Amish?

trying to live backwards. how is that ‘reasonable’?

Did you read the link I just posted earlier?
Here it is again.

vatican.va/holy_father/jo…-ratio_en.html

Especially chapter 4, “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON”

i tried to. but its a mile long.

just tell me what you know in plain words.

speaking of reality its time for you to back up your opinion. give me some examples of the most faithful and name their accomplishments on the fields of reason.

 

[The_Bucket]

religious law rule their lives. that takes faith. a lot of it.

also sacrificing your life for god takes a lot of faith as well.

Religious law doesn’t rule their lives. The specter of being killed if they do anything that remotely approaches the ruling class’ interpretation of Islam (or in the case of the Amish, being permanently shunned) is what rules their lives. That’s like saying everyone in Western Europe during the Middle Ages was super-devout because the Church had temporal control of much of the Continent. That’s just historically false.

trying to live backwards. how is that ‘reasonable’?

In the case of the Amish who freely embrace their manner of living, you say backwards, they’d say simple and focused on God.

speaking of reality its time for you to back up your opinion. give me some examples of the most faithful and name their accomplishments on the fields of reason.

I took up clem’s case just a couple of posts ago. If you really want to know about the history of higher education in the West, I suggest starting with a Medieval History class. Or heck, just go on Wikipedia and look up “University.” The second item under “history” goes into great detail about how the Roman Catholic Church invented universities in Europe.

Medieval universities started cropping up in the 6th century AD to replace Roman centers of learning that fell into disuse. The University of Bologna was formed in 1088 and is still around today. That’s a pretty solid history right there.

 

[clem456]

religious law rule their lives. that takes faith. a lot of it.

No. obeying religious laws is not the same thing as faith. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist.
Educate yourself.

trying to live backwards. how is that ‘reasonable’?

The Amish don’t try to live backwards. Educate yourself.

i tried to. but its a mile long.

Perhaps we’ve come to the nut of the problem right here. Can’t help ya with this one.

just tell me what you know in plain words.

Better than that, I’ve given you words from someone way more reasonable than I.

speaking of reality its time for you to back up your opinion. give me some examples of the most faithful and name their accomplishments on the fields of reason.

Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc etc etc

The link I just gave you is of John Paul 2nd who is one of the most respected philosophers who has ever lived. You want to argue about things you do not understand without doing any homework.
Pointless…
God Bless you and good bye.

 

[sophion]

No. obeying religious laws is not the same thing as faith. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist.
Educate yourself.

you are confusing religious laws with faith. actually the answer lies in between. if you are forced to obey it then there is no faith in it. If you obey it willingly and enthusiastically, thats faith! correct?

 

[PRmerger]

you are confusing religious laws with faith. actually the answer lies in between. if you are forced to obey it then there is no faith in it.

True. No thinking person ought to be forced to obey any religions laws.

If you obey it willingly and enthusiastically, thats faith! correct?

It is faith informed by reason, sophion. Not faith alone.

 

[PRmerger]

his findings contradict the beliefs of faith at that time. and for that he was persecuted.

No, sophion. He was not persecuted. He was not put to death.

And his findings did not contradict the faith. He was admonished (not persecuted) for making a claim about theology rather than remaining in his area of expertise, which was science.

He was admonished for insisting that his findings be made theological dogma.

we all have faith, right? its just that the the more -]faith/-] blind faith one has, the less reasonable he gets. like the extremists. the most unreasonable people on earth!

Indeed. No argument there.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I am aware of it and it proves my point. Because that is putting faith before reason.
Starting from this Church teaching, reason is limited from the outset;

This is a nonsensical statement. Your conclusion has no relation whatsoever to your premise.

Faith and reason cannot contradict.

Logic dictates this. That comes from faith. Informed by reason.
It comes from reason. Informed by faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I have contemplated the Trinity, Merger. and I have read plenty of apologia on it. But, I must say, I started with reason and not with the prejudice that this doctrine cannot be contrary to reason.

You stated that you grew up Catholic.

So in your claim that you started with reason, what you mean is you first had to reject your faith, right?

So it would be true to say that you already started with the premise that the Trinity cannot possibly be true.

 

[PRmerger]

I have contemplated the Trinity, Merger. and I have read plenty of apologia on it. But, I must say, I started with reason and not with the prejudice that this doctrine cannot be contrary to reason. And guess what, it turns out contrary to reason.
But, of course, in order to find out that this is the case, one must start with an opene mind, and with Church teaching like “Nothing in our faith is contrary to reason” this is an impossible task.

If there is a God, belorg, it is reasonable to assume that you couldn’t fully understand him, right? That he couldn’t be fully apprehended.

We are agreed on this, yes?

Or are you of the position that The Infinite He Who Created the Universe would be able to be apprehended fully by the finite mind?

Does that even make sense mathematically? Philosophically? The finite can apprehend the infinite? :nope:

So apply that to your paradigm of “The Trinity just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get it. Therefore, God could not be a Trinity” and see what happens.

 

[PRmerger]

I have contemplated the Trinity, Merger. and I have read plenty of apologia on it. But, I must say, I started with reason and not with the prejudice that this doctrine cannot be contrary to reason. And guess what, it turns out contrary to reason.
But, of course, in order to find out that this is the case, one must start with an opene mind, and with Church teaching like “Nothing in our faith is contrary to reason” this is an impossible task.

Your psychic abilities are not really too impressive, because I daresay my explanation is not what you think it is. But I daresay you are going to claim once again that you know me better than I do.

Forgive my skepticism. But wasn’t it you who once proclaimed that Catholicism promoted beating their children?

Thankfully for you, that statement made out of sheer ignorance of Catholic doctrine was deleted. It was to your benefit that this is ill-informed statement is not out there for all to see how poorly you understood the faith you left.

But that is the evidence I use to assess how well you have contemplated the Trinity. The conclusion: not so much.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, I am aware of it and it proves my point. Because that is putting faith before reason.
Starting from this Church teaching, reason is limited from the outset;

Reason is limited from the outset by the axioms or premises one allows or assumes. Scientific materialism likewise limits reason from the outset by denying the possibility or value of any premises that cannot be represented by physical properties.

Truth be told, the Catholic position is less limiting to reason than scientific materialism because it accepts both natural data and the possibility of supernatural revelation provided that the two don’t contradict each other.

Your position is actually the more limiting one from the outset.

 

[PRmerger]

Scientific materialism likewise limits reason from the outset by denying the possibility or value of any premises that cannot be represented by physical properties.

Indeed.

And, peculiarly, this doctrine that scientific materialism espouses, “All of reality must be represented by physical properties reproducible in scientific experiments” cannot be proven by scientific experiments.

 

[belorg]

This is a nonsensical statement. Your conclusion has no relation whatsoever to your premise.

Faith and reason cannot contradict.

Logic dictates this. That comes from faith. Informed by reason.
It comes from reason. Informed by faith.

My position is: let’s investigate whether this is true or not. Am I allowed to do this?
And the only way I can in vestogate things is by using reason and bny not limiting this reason from the outset.

 

[belorg]

You stated that you grew up Catholic.

So in your claim that you started with reason, what you mean is you first had to reject your faith, right?

So it would be true to say that you already started with the premise that the Trinity cannot possibly be true.

No, I started with the premise that the Trinity, like all other claims is something to be investigated. But I did not start from the assumption that the Trinity cannot possibly be wrong. If you mean that by ‘rejecting your faith’ then I am guilty.

 

[belorg]

If there is a God, belorg, it is reasonable to assume that you couldn’t fully understand him, right? That he couldn’t be fully apprehended.

We are agreed on this, yes?

Or are you of the position that The Infinite He Who Created the Universe would be able to be apprehended fully by the finite mind?

Does that even make sense mathematically? Philosophically? The finite can apprehend the infinite? :nope:

So apply that to your paradigm of “The Trinity just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get it. Therefore, God could not be a Trinity” and see what happens.

It is reasonable to assume that if there is a God, it is not likely that we would ever fully understand Him, yes. But it’s not reasonable not to try and understand as much about Him ( or about anything else for that matter) as possible.
What is unreasonable is assuming from the outset that we won’t be able to undersatnd something. If it’s the case that something cannot be understood, we’ll learn that by investigating it.
As for your strawman of my position, I am not going to respond to that…