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

[FurtherSuntime]

God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is No.

Right

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The “abundance of reliable information” won’t be found in “studies” any more than proof of God will be found in laboratories.
If you don’t want to believe in God, you will always have a reason. As I said before, it’s a case of self fulfilling denial.
God exists with or without your belief though, you’re not going to DIS-believe Him out of His own existence. You CAN deny Him out of your own person but that’s hardly the condition you will want to spend eternity in.

Exactly:thumbsup:

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Why do humans have a moral conscience, if God doesn’t exist?

Perfect answer:thumbsup:

 

[FurtherSuntime]

… fellow catholics and other believers : can i warn you not to play these hate games with atheists , as it will do no good , hate opens the door for satan to enter , love opens the door for god to enter , these atheists are unwittingly perhaps trying to get you to invite satan into the argument so they can really have the best chance of winning and destroying your faith , don’t play the game their evil ways , and perhaps the atheists can tell us all the many great and wonderful blessings we’ll get from atheism , but they can’t just focus on how they’ll free us from our delusion and superstitious deity , if atheism is so wonderful why are these atheists the most horrible nasty people i’ve seen in a long time ??? , can they explain please ??? , and then catholics and other believers can talk about the endless blessings and benefits of believing in god and the church , let us have a genuine comparison with full honesty and see which faith is truly the best : atheism or catholicism or your faith as the case may be dearest friends …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

Great Thinking…always enjoy your posts:thumbsup:

 

[FurtherSuntime]

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?

Absolutely !!!..will add, Is all the science which was incorrect thorough the ages for not?
do we throw science out because of mistakes…of course not…all we have undergoes an un-folding process…

 

[kubark]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

“A madman thinks he is a chicken, all evidence to the contrary. A materialist thinks that all human thought can be reduced to chemical reactions in the brain, his own thinking to the contrary, or that all human action can be reduced to deterministic physical laws, his own free actions to the contrary. At the root of materialism is the laudable desire for rational certainty, but as Chesterton notes, it is carried out in pride rather than humility. Rationalism ends in skepticism because of a certain kind of pride, one that tries to ground certainty in the human mind itself, rather than in the mind’s mysterious conformity to reality. In its quest for certainty, rationalism reduced reality to a mere concatenation of purely material causes that, because of their brute simplicity, the human mind could easily understand. Of course, that meant the mind itself was a merely material thing. Chesterton was right. Enlightenment rationalism has ended in deep skepticism. Living at the same time as Chesterton, the philosopher Nietzsche, who proclaimed the death of God, also declared that reason is only a mask for power, and all power is the result of the irrational strivings of the will. Other very modern moral relativists were telling us that there are no objectively discernible truths. Marxists were preaching that all thought is merely a reflection of the material modes of production. In our time, Deconconstructionists in literary theory tell us that texts have no real meaning. Neurologists go further, and inform us that our thoughts are mere chemical reactions in our brain. We have fallen into what Chesterton called the great peril - ‘that the human intellect is free to destroy itself.’ That is the madness of his time and ours, ‘For madness may be defined as using mental activity so as to reach mental helplessness.’” - Benjamin Wiker

 

[tonyrey]

“A madman thinks he is a chicken, all evidence to the contrary. A materialist thinks that all human thought can be reduced to chemical reactions in the brain, his own thinking to the contrary, or that all human action can be reduced to deterministic physical laws, his own free actions to the contrary. At the root of materialism is the laudable desire for rational certainty, but as Chesterton notes, it is carried out in pride rather than humility. Rationalism ends in skepticism because of a certain kind of pride, one that tries to ground certainty in the human mind itself, rather than in the mind’s mysterious conformity to reality. In its quest for certainty, rationalism reduced reality to a mere concatenation of purely material causes that, because of their brute simplicity, the human mind could easily understand. Of course, that meant the mind itself was a merely material thing. Chesterton was right. Enlightenment rationalism has ended in deep skepticism. Living at the same time as Chesterton, the philosopher Nietzsche, who proclaimed the death of God, also declared that reason is only a mask for power, and all power is the result of the irrational strivings of the will. Other very modern moral relativists were telling us that there are no objectively discernible truths. Marxists were preaching that all thought is merely a reflection of the material modes of production. In our time, Deconconstructionists in literary theory tell us that texts have no real meaning. Neurologists go further, and inform us that our thoughts are mere chemical reactions in our brain. We have fallen into what Chesterton called the great peril - ‘that the human intellect is free to destroy itself.’ That is the madness of his time and ours, ‘For madness may be defined as using mental activity so as to reach mental helplessness.’” - Benjamin Wiker

A superb survey of self-destructive scepticism!

 

[You]

You are still not addressing what I actually said I see

How can you prove that 19th century Irish people didn’t secretly approve of adultery?

Only by taking their actions at face value.

And if you apply that same standard to the Aztecs, it appears that they did indeed approve of human sacrifice as a group (because they practiced it for so long and on such a large scale).

Why would they secretly approve of adultery, did their guilty consciences force them to keep it secret. You are again forgetting my original question. The society you must find must approve and love something bad as if it were something good.

Keeping adultery secret actually hurts your case as it betrays a guilty conscience, an acknowledgement of ‘bad’ not being ‘good’, or in other words proving the natural law.

Try again.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry
**
Its debatable whether or not religion actually makes anyone better.**

No, it’s not debatable. Though some religious people might not rise to the challenge.
And at the very least, it might keep them from deplorable evil.

And that fact that it often makes people worse appears undeniable.
Two good examples are the Aztecs and the modern day Taliban.

There are good religions and there are evil religions. You’ve perhaps noticed that evil tends to devour itself. The Aztecs are pretty much devoured. The Taliban are not exactly flourishing.

For four centuries European “intellectuals” have been jubilantly ringing the death knell for Christianity. But it is growing by leaps and bounds in Africa and China. When the present madness for secularism subsides, I believe there will be the most amazing rebirth of Christianity world wide.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The “abundance of reliable information” won’t be found in “studies” any more than proof of God will be found in laboratories.
If you don’t want to believe in God, you will always have a reason. As I said before, it’s a case of self fulfilling denial.

The above statement and the one you posted before it look like the equivalent of saying that “confirmation bias is the key to revelation.”

Note that I’ve not argued for or against the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. If I grant that there are many gods, one god, or no god my previous statement is not impacted. The topic raise to which I responded started as a discussion on the reliability of the results from science and religion. I specifically responded to a statement on “Answered prayers [being] verifiable results.” Though only considering “answered” prayers is an implicit form of confirmation bias since one is ignoring prayers that are not “answered.” It reminds me of some comment I’ve heard many times that says “More than half the people that survived a plane crash payed attention to the location of the emergency exists when they boarded the plane.” Such a statement could influence people to draw hasty conclusions by assuming that those that didn’t survive had not paid attention to the location of these exits.

Ideally when investigating into a matter the removal of any sources of bias are reduced if not eliminated. A step in achieving this is defining an objective criteria for examining results. When the Mayo clinic did their study the objective criteria included things such as death, cardiac arrest, re-hospitalization for cardiac disease, and so on. Ones personal religious beliefs don’t tend to have very significant impact determining whether or not some one is still alive (there are a few cases where it has had impact, but not many).

God exists with or without your belief though, you’re not going to DIS-believe Him out of His own existence. You CAN deny Him out of your own person but that’s hardly the condition you will want to spend eternity in.

There’s been no attempt on my part to manipulate anyone or anything out of existence through dis-belief. So I will just accept this as information that you felt compelled to share.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You are again forgetting my original question. The society you must find must approve and love something bad as if it were something good.

He replied to that in message 201.

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…

Forum thread generation algorithm:
void debate()
{
printf(“Why don’t you prove %s
\r”, szSomeDemand);
printf(“Oh yeah! Then %s
\r”, szCounterDemand);
debate();
}

At least this function will stack overflow at some point.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Great Thinking…always enjoy your posts:thumbsup:

… thx dear friend , love your posts too , keep it up

 

[AntalKalnoky]

The Catholic Church was in many ways built on the system, structures, and authority of the Roman Empire. Should we therefore give the Roman Empire credit for everything Catholicism has done?

No, because the Catholic Church Reversed everything of the Roman Empire: (a) From selfishness to Selflessness: always Giving instead of Taking, (b) From Military Power to Prayer Power (c) from Roman great culture, failing in selfishness, to New Catholic Culture: Liturgy, Arts., Etc., Etc.

 

[Spock]

Maybe your dragon can play with Harvey

They do it all the time. Harvey taught Fluffy (the name of my dragon) how to use his flames to cook the meat when they go on a picnic. An Fluffy takes Harvey of his back and they fly around. How lucky that they are both invisible, otherwise the pilots of the airplanes would be scared to death…

 

[Spock]

Thank you for such a thoughtful response to my post. I will state more later but I wanted to start with this because I need more clarification. Can you give me the citation for “God’s existence can be know through reason only, and no faith is required”?

In all my lifelong exposure to Catholicism I have NEVER been told faith is not required.

I would love to response to this but I need to know where the idea came from first.

Thanks!

Most certainly. Here is the catechism: Section I, Chaper 3 (scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm#III):

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation.

Of course, the details do need “revelation” or “faith”, but the actual existence needs only reason - or so the catechism says. Too bad that it is left unfinished. I would have loved to see the official line of reasoning. But, since the quoted text already contains a huge logical error, I don’t think that the expansion of it would be of any use.

Be as it may, I most certainly agree with you that God’s existence must be accepted on faith. And since faith is deemed superior to reason, that is quite all right. It is even logical (though not reasonable )

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

They do it all the time. Harvey taught Fluffy (the name of my dragon) how to use his flames to cook the meat when they go on a picnic. An Fluffy takes Harvey of his back and they fly around. How lucky that they are both invisible, otherwise the pilots of the airplanes would be scared to death…

… you want a revelation from god , you’ve had heaps , but are blind so you can’t see the light dear friend , or when you see the light you try to bend it so it conforms to your will , and if it won’t bend you break the light , you destroy the light , and remain in darkness dear spock , the light is right here but you reject it and choose to stay in the darkness , open up your eyes spock – see , accept and embrace the light unconditionally and then you will have it , otherwise you will remain in darkness dear friend , it is your choice : light or darkness ??? …

 

[Spock]

You have a very good point, given was a bad word for me to use. My desire was never to shut down a discussion. I think it is very important for people to feel they can ask questions provided they are looking for a real answer and not just to stir the pot. Catholicism is a very complex religion you can’t understand it without asking questions.

My suggestion that we should follow the Catholic position if we are going to start with A) God exists or B) God doesn’t exist was because CAF isn’t a free-for-all. There are certain rules to this forum. You must be respectful of the Church’s teachings, you can’t misrepresent the Church’s teachings and you cannot be an occasion of sin. There have been several threads shut down on CAF because the discussion has gotten so heated the posters were becoming uncharitable with each other. I was just thinking it is more likely the conversation will remain civil and within those rules if we start with the Catholic position. That’s not saying you can’t discuss it.

I agree with all that. Though there is at least one point where I am not certain: “what does it mean that one must be respectful of the church’s teaching?”. It cannot mean unconditional acceptance? So if I point out a logical error in some teaching, that is not “disrespect”.

You didn’t disappoint me at all.

I meant the word tongue-in-cheek, not literally. That is why I used the quotes around it.

In fact, this gives you more credibility in my eyes because it lets me know you aren’t just looking to get us Catholics all riled up.

I think that advice was very well-meaning, if a bit misguided. Instant conversions are not as common as some seem to think. That’s pretty much what the poster was hoping for…there is no other way you were going to get a “revelation.”

I’m a much bigger fan of talking about faith as a process, I wasn’t expecting you to get a revelation. I think it is very discouraging for a lot of people to hear “It’ll all be clear to you!” because as AlanfromWichita stated- most of us have moments of doubt we must work through.

But anyways…as you said your quarrel isn’t with faith so it is a moot point.

It is good to clarify things up front, for sure. I think that most of the conversations bog down because of the lack of common starting ground. Seems that we are unable to agree on the meaning of the simplest words. And that is too bad.

 

[Spock]

… you want a revelation from god , you’ve had heaps , but are blind so you can’t see the light dear friend , or when you see the light you try to bend it so it conforms to your will , and if it won’t bend you break the light , you destroy the light , and remain in darkness dear spock , the light is right here but you reject it and choose to stay in the darkness , open up your eyes spock – see , accept and embrace the light unconditionally and then you will have it , otherwise you will remain in darkness dear friend , it is your choice : light or darkness ??? …

Well, let’s be charitable. I think it is disrespectful to say that I deliberatly “destroy” the light that I “reject the light” and that I “choose darkness”. Or that I “received heaps of revelation” but I chose to close my eyes.

 

[Spock]

God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is No.

Is this what you have in mind? God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy. ‘No,’ Says God But let’s get serious. I could see that God refuses to grant a request to win the jackpot on the lottery. But to refuse a request for a revelation so he could “save” another soul?

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Well, let’s be charitable. I think it is disrespectful to say that I deliberatly “destroy” the light that I “reject the light” and that I “choose darkness”. Or that I “received heaps of revelation” but I chose to close my eyes.

… it’s part of the spiritual works of mercy dear spock , i am being charitable by pointing this out , just keep searching for the light and you will find it , it shines on you continually but you have very powerful sunglasses on maybe , take them off and see the light clearly dear friend , it is and has always been there and on you , you are the problem that blocks the light , true dear friend , and i say it as charity to help you dearest friend , i think you really want it now and i’m just trying tio help , think on it …