There is no natural law... so kindly DROP it

[Xntrik]

Superstition is just the belief in supernatural causality.

No, sorry, Touchstone; that is a faulty definition.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Angry
**
Accusing me of thinking I am infallible just makes you look foolish. **

You would not be foolishly infallible if you said you have an invisible friend. You do. His name is not Harvey. It’s Jesus.

You are foolishly infallible if you are certain there is no God.

You have offered as much evidence for God as I have for Harvey.

If you refuse to believe in invisible giant rabbit companions why should I believe in invisible gods?

Saying that I have claimed infallibility is one of the most intellectually dishonest things anyone has said to me on this forum. And that is saying quite a bit.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t know if you have missed all of the argument on the thread. As for my own part here it is;
Spock held up a little ‘feral child’ to disprove all of the natural law.
I said a ‘feral child’ seems to imply a traumatized and isolated child.
And I said that a single traumatized, isolated child is not living in the natural state for humans.
And a better example would be a society, as humans are designed for a society, they are social creatures who work, and live better as a society.
So I suggested Spock find an isolated society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good.
Spock either did not see the idea or he ignored it.
You, angry atheist, picked it up there but failed to find an isolated society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good.
My part in this is the instigator of the idea, I thought of an idea you could use to prove your point.
It makes no sense to me when you tell me to use my idea to prove you wrong because I do not believe there is any society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good.
From my point of view I know of no such society and I am curious about Spock’s claim, because if it were true there should be many such societies.
Don’t be asking me to prove what I already know and believe, it is yourself and Spock who started and continue this thread to challenge the reality of natural law. So start providing evidence of the society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good, if you think your claim is true.

That’s an unreasonable demand.

We have no way of knowing what everyone in any large society thinks. Especially those in the distant past. Your purposely saying that the only way to disprove you is to provide evidence that no one can provide.

Using that standard I could claim something outrageous like:
‘Most Irish in the 19th century secretly approved of adultery.’

And when people inevitably disputed my claim, say ‘oh yeah, well then prove most Irish people during that period *personally *disliked adultery.’

Then when they failed to collect the evidence (because there’s no way that anyone could at this point) declare victory.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Your mind with its thoughts, choices and decisions also has no smell, is intangible, and cannot be detected by heat or motion sensors… I dare you to deny its existence!

touché

Still the argument was about invisible people, not invisible things going on inside people. The evidence of my thoughts is their impact on the environment expressed through my body.

There is no such evidence for Jesus or Harvey.
Of course if you want to get really metaphysical we could discuss the nature of thoughts and whether their own awareness is proof of their existence.

 

[You]

That’s an unreasonable demand.

We have no way of knowing what everyone in any large society thinks. Especially those in the distant past. Your purposely saying that the only way to disprove you is to provide evidence that no one can provide.

Using that standard I could claim something outrageous like:
‘Most Irish in the 19th century secretly approved of adultery.’

And when people inevitably disputed my claim, say ‘oh yeah, well then prove most Irish people during that period *personally *disliked adultery.’

Then when they failed to collect the evidence (because there’s no way that anyone could at this point) declare victory.

Well, you didn’t have to choose the ancient Aztecs as an example. My idea was to find any isolated civilization, it could be modern or ancient.

[for things like moral questions in Ireland of the past, there are such things as online census records. Those record the persons religion. And Catholics and undoubtably protestants do not approve of adultery. We are not God and all we can do is take people at face value. If they record they approve or disapprove of something that will be sufficient, the Irish are an honourable and courageous people.]

Census of Ireland 1901/1911
census.nationalarchives.ie/

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Those things wouldn’t prove God either. People who don’t want to believe in God can say that genetic programming was somehow a result of social evolution and they could also say that whatever was hiding in deep space was not God. So in the end you’d still be an angry atheist making a religion of being agnostic.

But you’ve at least seem to have figured out that science can’t be trusted in it’s correctness so if you DO care about the truth, you’re trip back to God should be a little bit shorter.

Science might not be absolutely trustworthy (but what is:shrug, however its more trustworthy than religion because it has verifiable results (unlike religion generally speaking). Moreover, science creates technology, which is far more impressive than the *spotty *record of achievements for religion.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes AngryAtheist, that is exactly the point. The fact that you take the first unproven principle on faith alone means just that - THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS ON FAITH ALONE -for precisely the fact that everything else that you believe rests on that first unproven belief - knock that down and the entire house of cards comes tumbling down. The Christian says that day of reckoning is approaching via the
2nd coming fo Christ and even more immediately than that upon our own natural death. Don’t believe in God if you don’t want to - but the man of faith says you do so at your own peril - which is your choice - but don’t deny the rest of us to make our own choice regarding what WE believe to be the fate of our own eternal souls -

I don’t care what* you *personally believe.

But Catholics (along with Mormons, Muslims, etc.) want to dominant and define the culture, and claim divine mandate to do so. Because I live in this culture, I ignore such claims at my own peril.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

• religion doesn’t claim to be able to prove itself - SCIENCE DOES! - so we justified in holding science to the standard it sets for itself!

Religion doesn’t claim proof for its beliefs?
It doesn’t claim there is proof of its beliefs?

What religions?
What nonsense is this?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry

If you refuse to believe in invisible giant rabbit companions why should I believe in invisible gods?

Because I don’t need to believe in those rabbits. I need to believe in God.

**Saying that I have claimed infallibility is one of the most intellectually dishonest things anyone has said to me on this forum. And that is saying quite a bit. **

Then you are not infallible? That’s a relief. It’s a relief to know you are not at all positively certain there is no God. That must be why you are here at Catholic Answers … still searching for Him?

It can’t be done by the head. It only happens in the heart. Don’t look for logical proof. Look for love. Seek and you will find. Seek with your brain alone and you will find that your brain is not the place where God wants to meet you.

 

[tonyrey]

*Your mind with its thoughts, choices and decisions also has no smell, is intangible, and cannot be detected by heat or motion sensors… I dare you to deny its existence! *

                             Still the argument was about invisible people, not invisible things  going on inside people.  The evidence of my thoughts is their impact on  the environment expressed through my body. The reality of invisible thoughts is sufficient evidence that persons cannot be equated with visible bodies.

There is no such evidence for Jesus or Harvey.

You could say that about many historical persons.

Of course if you want to get really metaphysical we could discuss the nature of thoughts and whether their own awareness is proof of their existence.

If your thoughts don’t exist your reasoning is valueless!

 

[soccerdad57]

Religion doesn’t claim proof for its beliefs?
It doesn’t claim there is proof of its beliefs?

What religions?
What nonsense is this?

no- catholics and many others don’t claim to prove the existence of God - thats why there is faith - its your choice to believe or not - if there was proof what merit would faith have?

 

[soccerdad57]

This doesm’t mean that there is no evidence for God but strictly speaking in a scientific method I can see you in my microscope way - no we don’t claim that

 

[soccerdad57]

angry atheist - - one criticism - there are a lot of well thought out responses to you on this thread but your responses barely address the posts in a direct manner. There seems to be a certain lack of sincerity from you and I am thinking you are toying with people here - if so I want to let you know I do not intend to have a debate with someone who is on this site for elitest reasons as opposed to finding truth-

 

[davidv]

An arrogant belief that they cannot be wrong, personal ambition, group-thinking, a need for public validation, etc.

Wrong answer.

 

[StarFireKK]

Science might not be absolutely trustworthy (but what is:shrug, however its more trustworthy than religion because it has verifiable results (unlike religion generally speaking). Moreover, science creates technology, which is far more impressive than the *spotty *record of achievements for religion.

You are comparing apples and oranges and you know it. Science and Religion are different things with different purposes.

Science is a systematic study of our world through empirical evidence. As you stated, good science generally has verifiable and repeatable results. Through the study of the world and repeated experiments we have built several innovations that have improved the quality of our lives. Science doesn’t CREATE technology, HUMANS create technology.

Religion has never claimed to be a study of our world through empirical evidence. It has never claimed that it has verifiable and repeatable results. It has never claim to have proof, in the scientific sense, of the existence of God or our souls. So pointing this out doesn’t undermined religion as much as you seem to think it does. When you point these things out- we are thinking “well, duh, we never said it did!”

Religion concerns itself with the Glory of God and the salvation of souls. Faith is a huge part of any religion. But I’ll let you in on a little secret…most that have faith have so for a reason. Things have happened in our lives to show us the presence of God. No we cannot prove it to you- as I stated religion is not repeatable and verifiable. It is also not one size fits all- what convinces me, may not convince you.

You want the easy way out. You want undeniable proof God exists before you give him the time of day. But that proof would take away your free will…how in your right mind would you refuse God knowing he exists? God wants our love because we give it freely, not because we feel we have no other choice.

P.S. As for the “spotty” record of religion- you are aware that a lot of early science was done by the monks of the Catholic Church, right?

 

[davidv]

I have an invisible friend named Harvey, I dare any of you to disprove his existence.

AngryAtheist8

P.S. Harvey has no smell, he is intangible, and cannot be detected by heat or motion sensors.

Did he die for your sins?

 

[babylonsfalling]

Science might not be absolutely trustworthy (but what is:shrug, however its more trustworthy than religion because it has verifiable results (unlike religion generally speaking). Moreover, science creates technology, which is far more impressive than the *spotty *record of achievements for religion.

Answered prayers are verifiable results but without faith you probably won’t ever have those results…so as long as you’re trying not to believe in God, you’ll lack the verifiable results which you claim don’t exist. I guess you could call it self-fulfilling denial

 

[Fiasco]

I cant wade through 15 pages; so, just in case it hasnt been asked already:
Does any atheist, anti-Christian or whoever have the right to tell us Catholics to** " . . . kindly DROP it"? Some of these posts show a distinct lack of courtesy.
These ARE **Catholic forums . . . aren`t they?

 

[Hadrianus]

St Thomas Aquinas defines natural law as the participation of human reason in the divine eternal law. It has little to do with the laws of nature that govern animals or the orderly movement of the planets. Owing to the consequences of the original sin with which all are born, the precepts of the natural law can be known only imperfectly by the vast majority of humanity. Human conscience is the primary instrument through which natural law is known by given individuals, but it is often very inadequately followed as a consequence of our fallen nature. Hence, we know that murder is wrong, but a glance at the news will demonstrate that murders are committed every day.

 

[tonyrey]

I cant wade through 15 pages; so, just in case it hasnt been asked already:
Does any atheist, anti-Christian or whoever have the right to tell us Catholics to** " . . . kindly DROP it"? Some of these posts show a distinct lack of courtesy.
These ARE **Catholic forums . . . aren`t they?

All is fair in philosophy - unless it descends to invective!