Why choose the Catholic faith?

[dshix]

Can you explain why you think science is limited to natural knowledge?

Because, for an example, it is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why I have a conscience.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine how many angels there are.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why I like the color blue better than the color red.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine what the spark of a human soul is.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why the universal concept of morality has emerged so universally uniform.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why people that are possessed by demons have health problems.

I could honestly spend all day sitting here. Science cannot evaluate and replicate anything to do with philosophy, religion, or the spiritual world.

 

[Eleve]

Yes, science can investigate those questions. My point is that there are other, different questions - such as the ones I listed above - that science apparently cannot answer, that science is apparently just not the right kind of tool for answering.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I showed you the difference in studying music and studying sound.That has been the only example and I have proven you wrong. I have also stated that science can touch of certain topics, but one can’t study everything scientifically. I have given you an example, you have yet to give me one that is true. Also take a look at higher education and the fact that majors differentiate between Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Sciences.
Where is YOUR proof? You started this debate, yet have not proven anything. You aren’t very good at debating. I guess you haven’t broken that down into a science.

How have you proved me wrong? Do you suggest that one cannot do a scientific study of music or sound - are you serious? Can you explain how one cannot study something scientifically,

The names of degrees is your proof that something cannot be studied scientifically?! Well I am truly flummoxed!

In ‘Bachelor of Science’ degrees they are referring to a branch of science known as the Natural Sciences not science in the wider scope of the word.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Chill chill chill!!!

Did you miss the big smiley at the end? I was kidding.

and yes to your question.

I missed it, oops, so many people on here have such narrow views and will go to any length rather than just say ‘I don’t know’ or 'I have changed my mind. I forgot how rigid some religions can be in their views. I apologise if I jumped in impetuously.

 

[PRmerger]

In ‘Bachelor of Science’ degrees they are referring to a branch of science known as the Natural Sciences not science in the wider scope of the word.

Ah, so if you are using “science” as “that which we use in the investigation of the human experience”, then we are agreed that science is what we apply to gain an understanding of reality.

Here, we could make science include philosophy, anthropology, theology, archeology, logic, history, linguistics…etc.

Is that what you mean?

 

[PRmerger]

I missed it, oops, so many people on here have such narrow views and will go to any length rather than just say ‘I don’t know’ or 'I have changed my mind. I forgot how rigid some religions can be in their views. I apologise if I jumped in impetuously.

Heh!

You do not see the rigidity in your own views, then? "Science is the ONLY means we have for discerning the Truth!"

Better to have the more open view, borrowing from Blaise Pascal: 2 errors–to exclude science, and to exclude all but science.

Which view (green or red) seems more rigid?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Because, for an example, it is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why I have a conscience.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine how many angels there are.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why I like the color blue better than the color red.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine what the spark of a human soul is.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why the universal concept of morality has emerged so universally uniform.
It is impossible to use the scientific method to determine why people that are possessed by demons have health problems.

I could honestly spend all day sitting here. Science cannot evaluate and replicate anything to do with philosophy, religion, or the spiritual world.

You fascinate me dshix, why can’t the scientific method be used for these?

If we can establish that there are angels - why can’t we count or estimate like we do with other populations.
I am sure that as we learn more about the brain we could help you with your colour choices.
Interesting subject the idea of a soul - certainly worth studying.
Morality can be studied too, worth studying, as you say is it uniform - possibly because humans are pretty uniform. Why do we seem to have an innate morality - I am sure a neuropsychologist would find that fascinating as would an evolutionary biologist. Why has morality evolved?
I am sure the medical profession would be fascinated by the concept of demons and health problems, probably psychiatrists.
It is exciting all the areas that science could explore including philosophy, religion, the concept of a spiritual world

Would replicating a religion not cause you problems. Do Catholics not hold the position that there can be only one religion.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Ah, so if you are using “science” as “that which we use in the investigation of the human experience”, then we are agreed that science is what we apply to gain an understanding of reality.

Here, we could make science include philosophy, anthropology, theology, archeology, logic, history, linguistics…etc.

Is that what you mean?

PRmerger - there is no point in answering your questions as you will just disagree for the sake of it. It leads me no where.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger - there is no point in answering your questions as you will just disagree for the sake of it. It leads me no where.

I think you have been backed into a corner, april.

No matter.

As I said earlier, the seed of truth is planted in you.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

How have you proved me wrong? Do you suggest that one cannot do a scientific study of music or sound - are you serious? Can you explain how one cannot study something scientifically,

The names of degrees is your proof that something cannot be studied scientifically?! Well I am truly flummoxed!

In ‘Bachelor of Science’ degrees they are referring to a branch of science known as the Natural Sciences not science in the wider scope of the word.

No, don’t you even think about twisting my words. If you would read the posts you will see that I stated that there is a DIFFERENCE between studying sound, scientifically, and studying music. I stated that one scientist who would study sound waves would be an audiologist. Another would be an acoustian. Studying sound is different than just studying music. It is rude of you to twist my words.
Bachelor of Science doesn’t just cover Natural Sciences. Natural Sciences would be: Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences. A BS covers more than just that, but it doesn’t cover all studies or degrees. You don’t know what you are talking about, again.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I’m puzzled by the fact that you don’t choose to comprehend that you can’t break everything down scientifically. Get over it. I’m done with this thread. I will be unsubscribing. You don’t show proof, you just twist words. Learn to debate and bring substance with you next time.

 

[dshix]

Note the very timely logging off of our opponent.

 

[aprilfloyd]

No, don’t you even think about twisting my words. If you would read the posts you will see that I stated that there is a DIFFERENCE between studying sound, scientifically, and studying music. I stated that one scientist who would study sound waves would be an audiologist. Another would be an acoustian. Studying sound is different than just studying music. It is rude of you to twist my words.
Bachelor of Science doesn’t just cover Natural Sciences. Natural Sciences would be: Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences. A BS covers more than just that, but it doesn’t cover all studies or degrees. You don’t know what you are talking about, again.

I did not mean to twist your words. I mean Bachelor of Science as in ‘science degrees’ I don’t disagree with you on this point.

I am not sure were you are going with studying music or sound - my overall point was that anything can be studied scientifically. That’s all

 

[aprilfloyd]

I’m puzzled by the fact that you don’t choose to comprehend that you can’t break everything down scientifically. Get over it. I’m done with this thread. I will be unsubscribing. You don’t show proof, you just twist words. Learn to debate and bring substance with you next time.

It’s just that we can. I am not aware that this is a debating chamber.

As others have stated on this thread we can’t prove anything.

 

[dshix]

You fascinate me dshix, why can’t the scientific method be used for these?

If we can establish that there are angels - why can’t we count or estimate like we do with other populations.
I am sure that as we learn more about the brain we could help you with your colour choices.
Interesting subject the idea of a soul - certainly worth studying.
Morality can be studied too, worth studying, as you say is it uniform - possibly because humans are pretty uniform. Why do we seem to have an innate morality - I am sure a neuropsychologist would find that fascinating as would an evolutionary biologist. Why has morality evolved?
I am sure the medical profession would be fascinated by the concept of demons and health problems, probably psychiatrists.
It is exciting all the areas that science could explore including philosophy, religion, the concept of a spiritual world

Would replicating a religion not cause you problems. Do Catholics not hold the position that there can be only one religion.

We would not be able to study angels with science because science is, by definition, physical. You know this, so stop trying to make yourself stupid.

Once again, you are obfuscating “study” with “evaluation.” Yes, science can STUDY morality. It cannot EVALUATE it.

Concerning demons, the medical world is already fascinated, amazed, and baffled, with thousands of cases of possessed persons being relieved by a priest, when no physical ailment was visible.

Science cannot evaluate religion, philosophy, or the spirit world. It is physical, those are spiritual. I’m not sure what you don’t understand.

 

[aprilfloyd]

We would not be able to study angels with science because science is, by definition, physical. You know this, so stop trying to make yourself stupid.

Once again, you are obfuscating “study” with “evaluation.” Yes, science can STUDY morality. It cannot EVALUATE it.

Concerning demons, the medical world is already fascinated, amazed, and baffled, with thousands of cases of possessed persons being relieved by a priest, when no physical ailment was visible.

Science cannot evaluate religion, philosophy, or the spirit world. It is physical, those are spiritual. I’m not sure what you don’t understand.

Why do you have a problem with scientific study of the topics you mention? Is that your belief? Or a religious one. I don’t understand what is stopping anyone from studying these areas. You can hold your view, but it won’t stop human curiosity and scientific study.

 

[Gricken]

Why do you have a problem with scientific study of the topics you mention? Is that your belief? Or a religious one. I don’t understand what is stopping anyone from studying these areas. You can hold your view, but it won’t stop human curiosity and scientific study.

It isn’t a view. And it doesn’t stop scientific discovery, you nee to listen, we are saying that this curiosity not able to be solved by scientific study. But by philosophy. Why do you have a problem with philosophy? Is that your belief? I don’t understand. You can hold your view, but it won’t stop human curiosity and philosophical study.

 

[aprilfloyd]

It isn’t a view. And it doesn’t stop scientific discovery, you nee to listen, we are saying that this curiosity not able to be solved by scientific study. But by philosophy. Why do you have a problem with philosophy? Is that your belief? I don’t understand. You can hold your view, but it won’t stop human curiosity and philosophical study.

But you are not explaining, why you think it cannot be. There is nothing to stop anyone.

 

[Gricken]

But you are not explaining, why you think it cannot be. There is nothing to stop anyone.

Actually we have explained. you just don’t like the answer, we are waiting for your to explain now.
But you are not explaining, why do you think it can be. There is nothing stopping you.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Actually we have explained. you just don’t like the answer, we are waiting for your to explain now.
But you are not explaining, why do you think it can be. There is nothing stopping you.

Exactly, that is my point.