Human omni-science!

[inocente]

The very fact that you used the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy reveals your preference for scientific rather than metascientific explanation and your rejection of Design in favour of evolution as if God is a remote deity who created the universe and then left it to its own devices without ever intervening, taking any steps to prevent disasters or responding to their prayers instead of being a loving Father who works miracles and does His utmost to mitigate suffering in ways we cannot understand. Your reference to “one million Catholic scientists” also reveals your prejudice in favour of science rather than theology and philosophy which you have frequently implied are useless and out of date…

Wot? I’ve not said anything about evolution, disasters, prayers, suffering or miracles!!!

None of them is relevant. The first definition I gave in post #5 was from Merriam-Webster, a general dictionary. It gives the same definition as the astronomy dictionary, which was compiled by lexicographers, not by scientists.

I mentioned one million Catholic scientists to show that the few CAF posters prejudiced against science are substantially outnumbered by real-world Catholics who are not.

Theology and philosophy use the same definition. Everything God created is the universe, by definition. Scripture and the CCC only speak of one God, one Creation, one cosmos, one universe.

There’s a regular Catholic poster who wants me to believe Genesis is a science textbook. Another regular Catholic poster told me Catholic morality is utilitarian, another that the Church endorses torture. I bet none of them ever attended an RCIA. Now you appear to be trying to tell me the Church teaches that God made more than one Creation. Bet RCIA doesn’t teach that either.

 

[tonyrey]

Wot? I’ve not said anything about evolution, disasters, prayers, suffering or miracles!!!

None of them is relevant. The first definition I gave in post #5 was from Merriam-Webster, a general dictionary. It gives the same definition as the astronomy dictionary, which was compiled by lexicographers, not by scientists.

I mentioned one million Catholic scientists to show that the few CAF posters prejudiced against science are substantially outnumbered by real-world Catholics who are not.

Theology and philosophy use the same definition. Everything God created is the universe, by definition. Scripture and the CCC only speak of one God, one Creation, one cosmos, one universe.

There’s a regular Catholic poster who wants me to believe Genesis is a science textbook. Another regular Catholic poster told me Catholic morality is utilitarian, another that the Church endorses torture. I bet none of them ever attended an RCIA. Now you appear to be trying to tell me the Church teaches that God made more than one Creation. Bet RCIA doesn’t teach that either.

The fact remains that on other threads you have rejected Design in favour of evolution as if God is a remote deity who created the universe and then left it to its own devices without ever intervening, taking any steps to prevent disasters or responding to their prayers instead of being a loving Father who works miracles and does His utmost to mitigate suffering in ways we cannot understand. Your repeated reference to “one million Catholic scientists” also reveals **your prejudice in favour of science rather than theology and philosophy **which you have frequently implied are useless and out of date…

The assertion that I appear to be trying to tell you “the Church teaches that God made more than one Creation” is absurd. Unlike you I don’t impose limits on what our Father does - like restricting Creation to this universe and rejecting divine intervention in human affairs.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

While theologians were debating God’s purpose in creating illness, scientists were curing it.

ICXC NIKA

While scientists were devising a way to annihilate all life on Earth, theologians were (and still are) trying to cure them of their illness.

 

[tonyrey]

While scientists were devising a way to annihilate all life on Earth, theologians were (and still are) trying to cure them of their illness.

Neat! The worst feature of science is its amorality which tempts some to abuse its role…

 

[GEddie]

While scientists were devising a way to annihilate all life on Earth, theologians were (and still are) trying to cure them of their illness.

It is not science that threatens to end life on Earth, it is the disease of national sovereignty, which cannot exist without warfare.

If atomic weapons had never been introduced or were impossible, military leaders would have devised something equally hidoeous. Anything to give glory to the leadership!

Theology cannot cure anybody of anything because, due to free will, not everybody will share the same faith.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Charlemagne_III]

theology cannot cure anybody of anything because, due to free will, not everybody will share the same faith.

Icxc nika

are you saying the moral sickness of the world can be cured without theology because not everybody agrees on the same theology?

If the moral sickness of the world cannot be cured by theology, do you think it can be cured by science?

 

[GEddie]

are you saying the moral sickness of the world can be cured without theology because not everybody agrees on the same theology?

If the moral sickness of the world cannot be cured by theology, do you think it can be cured by science?

It cannot be cured, full stop, because we are and will remain sinners, full stop.

However, science can mitigate the results of it in the physical sphere.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

…Theology cannot cure anybody of anything because, due to free will, not everybody will share the same faith.

Are you quite sure that is true? :ehh:

 

[GEddie]

Are you quite sure that is true? :ehh:

How could everybody share the same faith if “free will”[sup]1[/sup] remains?

1]. In the proportion of which it is non-mirage, of course.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

How could everybody share the same faith if “free will”[sup]1[/sup] remains?

1]. In the proportion of which it is non-mirage, of course.

What is your definition of theology? Do you mean knowledge of God, or something else?

 

[GEddie]

What is your definition of theology? Do you mean knowledge of God, or something else?

The sum of formal teaching about God.

Clearly this will be a dividing force among those of different religions.

ICXC NIKA

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The sum of formal teaching about God.

Clearly this will be a dividing force among those of different religions.

ICXC NIKA

Yes I believe you are right. However, God is God in all religions, He is just seen in different ways.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The sum of formal teaching about God.

Clearly this will be a dividing force among those of different religions.

ICXC NIKA

NO!

The devil, not theology, is the dividing force among religions.

Divide and conquer.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It cannot be cured, full stop, because we are and will remain sinners, full stop.

However, science can mitigate the results of it in the physical sphere.

ICXC NIKA

O.K. let’s say for the sake there are no saints and moral illness cannot be cured by theology.

Can theology help to mitigate the consequences of moral illness in the physical sphere?

That is, can knowledge of God help us to be saved from catastrophe?

On the other hand, what can science do to improve our moral compass?

Does science improve our moral compass by creating weapons of destruction sufficient to wipe out the human race?

 

[inocente]

The fact remains that on other threads you have rejected Design in favour of evolution as if God is a remote deity who created the universe and then left it to its own devices without ever intervening, taking any steps to prevent disasters or responding to their prayers instead of being a loving Father who works miracles and does His utmost to mitigate suffering in ways we cannot understand.

I answered the OP and your ad hominem response has nothing to do with what I posted. We know for certain that time is the monopoly of this universe because the universe is defined as everything, which God created and rules. It was a reasoned answer

Btw I reported you for baiting.

*Your repeated reference to “one million Catholic scientists” also reveals **your prejudice in favour of science rather than theology and philosophy ***which you have frequently implied are useless and out of date.

I see that Charles has joined the thread. He tries to convince me that Genesis is a science textbook, based on out-of-context quotes by scientists as his authority. I say no, it’s about salvation, and I quote theologians.

I live in a Catholic country. Catholics buy big screen TVs, the latest phones, the products of science. They go to scientifically trained doctors for treatments which are the result of scientific research. I know of none who would join you in putting your health in the care of philosophers or witch doctors, none who think scripture is a science textbook, and none who have even heard of your cult of Design.

Seems if you and Charles meet somewhere in the middle, that’s where you’ll find most real-world Catholics, and btw, me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

II live in a Catholic country. Catholics buy big screen TVs, the latest phones, the products of science. They go to scientifically trained doctors for treatments which are the result of scientific research. I know of none who would join you in putting your health in the care of philosophers or witch doctors, none who think scripture is a science textbook, and none who have even heard of your cult of Design.

Seems if you and Charles meet somewhere in the middle, that’s where you’ll find most real-world Catholics, and btw, me.

Still up to your tired old tricks trying to divide Catholics against each other.

Still the failed old nonsense that gets you nowhere.

Nobody here argues that science is bad. What we are talking about is the use that is made of science, which can be bad. Just as morals can be good or bad, science can be good or bad and can be well or badly used depending on the morals of the user.

Where it comes to morals, science is useless.

As to Genesis, you can either agree that there is something to it or it’s all nonsense as to Creation. Apparently you think it’s all nonsense. There are a lot of Christians and Jews and Muslims who disagree with you. Maybe you need to try to meet some of them somewhere in the middle?

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Three thousand years later.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[inocente]

Still up to your tired old tricks trying to divide Catholics against each other.

Still the failed old nonsense that gets you nowhere.

Nobody here argues that science is bad. What we are talking about is the use that is made of science, which can be bad. Just as morals can be good or bad, science can be good or bad and can be well or badly used depending on the morals of the user.

Where it comes to morals, science is useless.

As to Genesis, you can either agree that there is something to it or it’s all nonsense as to Creation. Apparently you think it’s all nonsense. There are a lot of Christians and Jews and Muslims who disagree with you. Maybe you need to try to meet some of them somewhere in the middle?

We both know I never said scripture is nonsense .

I quoted theologians and apparently you interpret them as speaking nonsense.

I joined the thread to answer the OP, not to be baited into off-topic reruns. You guys sort out between yourselves what you think of knowledge and science versus arguments from ignorance, I’ll look in every now and then.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We both know I never said scripture is nonsense .

Yes, you have so far as the Creation story is concerned.

Or do you now reverse yourself and admit that God designed the whole of Creation with a purposeful (intelligent) plan in mind deliberately revealed in Genesis rather than in Darwin?

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the topic, not each other.

 

[tonyrey]

…I live in a Catholic country. Catholics buy big screen TVs, the latest phones, the products of science. They go to scientifically trained doctors for treatments which are the result of scientific research. I know of none who would join you in putting your health in the care of philosophers or witch doctors, none who think scripture is a science textbook, and none who have even heard of your cult of Design.

Seems if you and Charles meet somewhere in the middle, that’s where you’ll find most real-world Catholics, and btw, me.

The expression “your cult of Design” overlooks the following facts:

Socrates (c. 469-399 B.C.) He argued that the adaptation of human parts to one another, such as the eyelids protecting the eyeballs, could not have been due to chance and was a sign of wise planning in the universe.[2] Plato (c. 427–c. 347 B.C.) posited a “demiurge” of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. For him, the demiurge lacked the supernatural ability to create ex nihilo or out of nothing. The demiurge was able only to organize the “ananke” (αναγκη). The ananke was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato’s cosmogony. Plato’s teleological perspective is also built upon the analysis of a priori order and structure in the world that he had already presented in The Republic.
Aristotle (c. 384–322 B.C.) also developed the idea of a creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the “Prime Mover” in his work Metaphysics. Aristotle’s views have very strong aspects of a teleological argument, specifically that of a prime mover, who (so to speak) looks ahead in setting the cosmos into motion. Indeed, Aristotle argued that all nature reflects inherent purposiveness and direction.
Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 B.C.) also made one of the earliest known teleological arguments. In de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Cicero stated, “The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason that pervades the whole of nature”. He was writing from the cultural background of the Roman religion. In Roman mythology the creator goddess, Gaia was borrowed from Greek mythology. The Romans called her Tellus or Terra.
“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?” (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)

simple.wikipedia.org
wiki/Argument_from_design#History_of_the_argument

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

www3.nd.edu/~msulli36/aquinas/