Why choose the Catholic faith?

[aprilfloyd]

Aprilfloyd, I would say it’s safe to assume that God cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because one cannot prove the infinite by using the finite. Man has a very finite mind. He is incapable of “proving” the infinite. His inability to “prove” the infinite, however, in no way means that it does not exist. You have to see a little further than your nose to see this one. Man is not “it.” God is. An amoeba is closer in intelligence to man, than we are to God.

To steal a line used by others on this forum - what is your source for this?

Can you elaborate on* ‘one cannot prove the infinite by using the finite’*?

What do you mean by *‘Man has a very finite mind. He is incapable of “proving” the infinite’
*

 

[crazzeto]

What is your source for that - did you not read the definition.?

I study shakespear, am I “sciencing”.

Science, properly, is the study of the natural world and all that involves. Believe it or not, there does exist (much) outside the domain of the natural world. Once you leave that domain, science ceases to be an effective tool. This is why, as much as I disagree with him, I appriciate someone like an Adam from Mythbusters.

“I wish there was a scientific test to prove God doesn’t exist”.

Certainly I disagree with the premise (i.e. God doesn’t exist with certainty), but at least it tells us something about the man. He knows what science properly is, and that you can’t arrive to any conclusion about God using this as a tool.

You should listen to the many voices here, science is something specific. It requires specific requirements to satisfy its method.

 

[PRmerger]

read some of the other posts

You are changing the argument.

Science cannot answer questions about theology. Theology answers theological questions.

Science cannot answer questions about my family. My family can answer those questions.

Science cannot answer questions about poetry. Poetry answers those questions.

But to posit that someone here is proclaiming that “topics can’t be studied” is ree-DAHNK-u-lous!

 

[crazzeto]

You are changing the argument.

Science cannot answer questions about theology. Theology answers theological questions.

Science cannot answer questions about my family. My family can answer those questions.

Science cannot answer questions about poetry. Poetry answers those questions.

But to posit that someone here is proclaiming that “topics can’t be studied” is ree-DAHNK-u-lous!

Yeah… I honestly don’t know whether to be taken aback or not… I mean their definition of the word science is that eye opening… But then again, given the state of modernism and the general populations views about science. I guess I’m not all THAT surprised aprilfloyd has the views about science that they do.

We are training up the young to believe science is the end all be all with no appreciation for what science really is. Should we be surprised then that there is this much confusion out there?

 

[aprilfloyd]

I study shakespear, am I “sciencing”.

Science, properly, is the study of the natural world and all that involves.

Are you really trying to change the definition of ‘science’ now.

I have no idea what you are doing when you ‘study Shakespeare’ maybe you are reading a play for enjoyment, or watching a film version or studying who really wrote the plays or the life of Francis Bacon.

If you want to call it ‘sciencing’ that is your prerogative. Hey, it may catch on. Good Luck.

I appreciate that you are trying to narrow the definition of ‘science’ to preclude it from studying Gods or religions, but it does not quite work like that, sorry

 

[Stillness]

Are you really trying to change the definition of ‘science’ now.

I have no idea what you are doing when you ‘study Shakespeare’ maybe you are reading a play for enjoyment, or watching a film version or studying who really wrote the plays or the life of Francis Bacon.

If you want to call it ‘sciencing’ that is your prerogative. Hey, it may catch on. Good Luck.

I appreciate that you are trying to narrow the definition of ‘science’ to preclude it from studying Gods or religions, but it does not quite work like that, sorry

I must comment that he is using the common definition of science. It is you who are making claims that most definitions would be hard-pressed to fit. To claim that science, as it is commonly understood, can study everything on an equal level would require a vast broadening of the definition of “science”.

 

[aprilfloyd]

You are changing the argument.

Science cannot answer questions about theology. Theology answers theological questions.

Science cannot answer questions about my family. My family can answer those questions.

Science cannot answer questions about poetry. Poetry answers those questions.

But to posit that someone here is proclaiming that “topics can’t be studied” is ree-DAHNK-u-lous!

Have you read the definition. I have not changed the argument at all - I have maintained that science can study anything.

If you read the posts you will see that you and others have posited that fact. Science is just the acquisition of knowledge through study. You have even put together a list of things that can’t be studied - when they can.!!

 

[crazzeto]

Are you really trying to change the definition of ‘science’ now.

I have no idea what you are doing when you ‘study Shakespeare’ maybe you are reading a play for enjoyment, or watching a film version or studying who really wrote the plays or the life of Francis Bacon.

If you want to call it ‘sciencing’ that is your prerogative. Hey, it may catch on. Good Luck.

I appreciate that you are trying to narrow the definition of ‘science’ to preclude it from studying Gods or religions, but it does not quite work like that, sorry

You said science it the study of anything. Anything can be studied by science. I have noticed you haven’t answered my question about shakespear, I also noticed you stopped answering my questions about proof of God via witness.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I must comment that he is using the common definition of science. It is you who are making claims that most definitions would be hard-pressed to fit. To claim that science, as it is commonly understood, can study everything on an equal level would require a vast broadening of the definition of “science”.

Hi

Science can study anything. I did not say on the same level. We understand the Genome more than we did. Or the Evolutionary Process. We know less about life on other planets or the origins of the universe. We understand electronics to a higher level than we once did, hence we have the internet. My point is simply that I cannot see how any topic can not be approached scientifically.

Some of the other posters are backtracking as they obviously did not understand the meaning of science - no shame in that. But to keep insisting, that there are topics out with the scope of science, is a totally redundant position to hold.

I did not ‘broaden’ the definition. I think there is an attempt to narrow it on this thread.

 

[aprilfloyd]

You said science it the study of anything. Anything can be studied by science. I have noticed you haven’t answered my question about shakespear, I also noticed you stopped answering my questions about proof of God via witness.

Lots of posts on here, I apologise if I missed something. I though I did answer your question on Shakespeare. Can you elaborate.

 

[Stillness]

Hi

Science can study anything. I did not say on the same level. We understand the Genome more than we did. Or the Evolutionary Process. We know less about life on other planets or the origins of the universe. We understand electronics to a higher level than we once did, hence we have the internet. My point is simply that I cannot see how any topic can not be approached scientifically.

Some of the other posters are backtracking as they obviously did not understand the meaning of science - no shame in that. But to keep insisting, that there are topics out with the scope of science, is a totally redundant position to hold.

I did not ‘broaden’ the definition. I think there is an attempt to narrow it on this thread.

Redundant? How so?

 

[dshix]

Hi

Science can study anything. I did not say on the same level. We understand the Genome more than we did. Or the Evolutionary Process. We know less about life on other planets or the origins of the universe. We understand electronics to a higher level than we once did, hence we have the internet. My point is simply that I cannot see how any topic can not be approached scientifically.

Some of the other posters are backtracking as they obviously did not understand the meaning of science - no shame in that. But to keep insisting, that there are topics out with the scope of science, is a totally redundant position to hold.

I did not ‘broaden’ the definition. I think there is an attempt to narrow it on this thread.

You seem to be enjoying trying to puzzle us by obfuscating the difference between “study” and “evaluate.”

Sure, science can study ANYTHING. Science CANNOT evaluate anything.

Yes, science can peer very, very, very carefully at philosophy. However, it can form no conclusions, because philosophy is an entirely different genre of knowledge!

Science can OBSERVE and EVALUATE all natural things. Science CAN observe but CANNOT evaluate things that are not natural.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Redundant? How so?

Hi Stillness - I thought I was clear - there is nothing out with the scope of scientific study.

 

[Stillness]

Hi Stillness - I thought I was clear - there is nothing out with the scope of scientific study.

That is not an explanation, however, it is just restating what you said.

 

[crazzeto]

Lots of posts on here, I apologise if I missed something. I though I did answer your question on Shakespeare. Can you elaborate.

Its very straight forward. Believe it or not one can study a work of fiction, like genuinely study it take it apart and understand it more fully. I can study LOTR and learn much about it I would never know without an intense study. Universities offer classes on literature, Shakespearean and otherwise.

There is a lot of study going on, are they sciencing?

 

[aprilfloyd]

You seem to be enjoying trying to puzzle us by obfuscating the difference between “study” and “evaluate.”

Sure, science can study ANYTHING. Science CANNOT evaluate anything.

Yes, science can peer very, very, very carefully at philosophy. However, it can form no conclusions, because philosophy is an entirely different genre of knowledge!

Science can OBSERVE and EVALUATE all natural things. Science CAN observe but CANNOT evaluate things that are not natural.

With all due respect - Science is the acquisition of knowledge I am not trying to puzzle you. Why would you think that. Did you read the definition? Are you still unsure of the definition of science or just trying to somehow convince me that some knowledge is not part of overall knowledge

 

[aprilfloyd]

Its very straight forward. Believe it or not one can study a work of fiction, like genuinely study it take it apart and understand it more fully. I can study LOTR and learn much about it I would never know without an intense study. Universities offer classes on literature, Shakespearean and otherwise.

There is a lot of study going on, are they sciencing?

What do you mean by ‘sciencing’ - don’t know that word.

 

[aprilfloyd]

That is not an explanation, however, it is just restating what you said.

I thought you were not clear on what my position was - which is why I restated.

 

[crazzeto]

What do you mean by ‘sciencing’ - don’t know that word.

Somehow, I detect someone is being purposefully obtuse.

 

[dshix]

With all due respect - Science is the acquisition of knowledge I am not trying to puzzle you. Why would you think that. Did you read the definition? Are you still unsure of the definition of science or just trying to somehow convince me that some knowledge is not part of overall knowledge

You didn’t read what I said, did you? Science is for the acquisition of NATURAL knowledge, not all knowledge.

Science is a subset in all the arts for discovering knowledge.