Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 2 of 3   [ 58 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:48 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
Yoga wrote:
Catholic Cadet wrote:
Ah, the ignorance. None of those are scientific facts. In fact (heh), none of them are scientific at all (and some aren't even facts). They may indeed be facts, but they are not scientific. Science does not prove facts, it explains them. For instance, we all know that what goes up comes back down. That is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains it (and there are different theories that explain the theory).

Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts. For instance: that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was buried is a set of facts. So too is it a fact that His tomb was empty. The Resurrection is a theory that explains the facts. It also happens to be the best one of them.


Natural science does not prove things. It demonstrates experimental confirmation of hypotheses and develops scientific theories.

The resurrection is a hypothesis that explains a reported observation of an empty tomb. Another hypothesis says people stole the body. Both explain the reported observation, but neither hypothesis can be tested.

In natural science, a hypothesis which cannot be tested by experiment remains a hypothesis and does not advance to being a scientific theory.

If one concludes that the resurrection is the best hypothesis, that conslusion is arrived at by a method different from that used by natural science.


Of course it isn't used by natural science. It's historical analysis. Might as well ask to test hypotheses over who Jack the Ripper actually was.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:52 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
Quote:
So.....the only thing left is that you are just playing word games...


No, I am explaining to you the meaning of words. You cannot just throwabout words willy nilly and expect anyone to take you seriously. You have to use them within their actual meaning, not how you'd like them to mean.

Quote:
you most definitely believe in facts(truth)....but you just don't believe in any scientific facts(truths).........uhm yea......find the straight jacket, have someone help you put it back on and take your meds......


Too many hits on the football field for you rmind to comprehend what I'm saying? Look, here's an example for you:
The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:57 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Ottawa
Religion: Catholic
Swag, Do you like arguing every point?

All that we are doing is telling you our beliefs......there is no need to call them (or us) obtuse or any of the other interesting words in your vocabulary.

_________________
T. Watson
B.Th- Saint Paul University
S.T.B- Saint Paul University

Finally Home!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:11 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
Catholic Cadet wrote:
Yoga wrote:
Catholic Cadet wrote:
Ah, the ignorance. None of those are scientific facts. In fact (heh), none of them are scientific at all (and some aren't even facts). They may indeed be facts, but they are not scientific. Science does not prove facts, it explains them. For instance, we all know that what goes up comes back down. That is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains it (and there are different theories that explain the theory).

Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts. For instance: that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was buried is a set of facts. So too is it a fact that His tomb was empty. The Resurrection is a theory that explains the facts. It also happens to be the best one of them.


Natural science does not prove things. It demonstrates experimental confirmation of hypotheses and develops scientific theories.

The resurrection is a hypothesis that explains a reported observation of an empty tomb. Another hypothesis says people stole the body. Both explain the reported observation, but neither hypothesis can be tested.

In natural science, a hypothesis which cannot be tested by experiment remains a hypothesis and does not advance to being a scientific theory.

If one concludes that the resurrection is the best hypothesis, that conslusion is arrived at by a method different from that used by natural science.


Of course it isn't used by natural science. It's historical analysis. Might as well ask to test hypotheses over who Jack the Ripper actually was.


I agree it is historical analysis. I was responding to your statement, "Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts."

I think you were referring to a list of things Swang posted including, "the list of scientific facts that were verified and proofed to develop the atomic bomb." The science of the atomic bomb was developed by a very different method than that used for religion and historical analysis.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:16 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
You just don't have any idea what you are talking about. You're not explaining anything? You're basically having an argument with yourself. You are splitting hairs and, manipulating ideas to fit a discussion, which at this point isn't even with me anymore...it's like you are arguing with an imaginary person or something.

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.


I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..

Catholic Cadet wrote:
Quote:
So.....the only thing left is that you are just playing word games...


No, I am explaining to you the meaning of words. You cannot just throwabout words willy nilly and expect anyone to take you seriously. You have to use them within their actual meaning, not how you'd like them to mean.

Quote:
you most definitely believe in facts(truth)....but you just don't believe in any scientific facts(truths).........uhm yea......find the straight jacket, have someone help you put it back on and take your meds......


Too many hits on the football field for you rmind to comprehend what I'm saying? Look, here's an example for you:
The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:25 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
Quote:
You just don't have any idea what you are talking about. You're not explaining anything? You're basically having an argument with yourself. You are splitting hairs and, manipulating ideas to fit a discussion, which at this point isn't even with me anymore...it's like you are arguing with an imaginary person or something.

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..


I'm not splitting hairs at all. While I know you consider it an unpleasant fact, words really do have meanings, and it is essential that you use them according to their meaning. I'm still waiting for you to explain how I'm going against the dictionary definition btw.

Quote:

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..


I agree. You're taking way too long to understand this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:51 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
[edited by adminiatrator]who cannot and will not allow himself/herself to admit that there is such a thing as scientific truth for fear that this will contradict their religious beliefs...please take note. (Do I sound angry? Absolutley not....Sometimes the only way to get the attention [edited by administrator].because you cannot reason[edited by administrator].
This whole discussion started as a challenge to list some scientific facts....I'm pretty sure I did......so then realizing that you had in no way the capacity to intelligently discuss what I wrote - you proceeded to play word games....It's like you invented a trap that was never set, and then you stepped back and said "aha"...but it's ridiculous....completely. Go ahead and fight it out with yourself on whether or not a fact born out through science can in fact be called a scientic fact.....who cares? It's just word games......and it's boring. I know you can do better.
If you want to get into the argument of whether or not an atom (or pick anything you want) is a FACT...or SCIENTIC FACT..then that's on you...
Catholic Cadet wrote:
Quote:
You just don't have any idea what you are talking about. You're not explaining anything? You're basically having an argument with yourself. You are splitting hairs and, manipulating ideas to fit a discussion, which at this point isn't even with me anymore...it's like you are arguing with an imaginary person or something.

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..


I'm not splitting hairs at all. While I know you consider it an unpleasant fact, words really do have meanings, and it is essential that you use them according to their meaning. I'm still waiting for you to explain how I'm going against the dictionary definition btw.

Quote:

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..


I agree. You're taking way too long to understand this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:57 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
swaglantern wrote:
[edited by administrator]This whole discussion started as a challenge to list some scientific facts....I'm pretty sure I did......so then realizing that you had in no way the capacity to intelligently discuss what I wrote - you proceeded to play word games....It's like you invented a trap that was never set, and then you stepped back and said "aha"...but it's ridiculous....completely. Go ahead and fight it out with yourself on whether or not a fact born out through science can in fact be called a scientic fact.....who cares? It's just word games......and it's boring. I know you can do better.
If you want to get into the argument of whether or not an atom (or pick anything you want) is a FACT...or SCIENTIC FACT..then that's on you...
Catholic Cadet wrote:
Quote:
You just don't have any idea what you are talking about. You're not explaining anything? You're basically having an argument with yourself. You are splitting hairs and, manipulating ideas to fit a discussion, which at this point isn't even with me anymore...it's like you are arguing with an imaginary person or something.

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..


I'm not splitting hairs at all. While I know you consider it an unpleasant fact, words really do have meanings, and it is essential that you use them according to their meaning. I'm still waiting for you to explain how I'm going against the dictionary definition btw.

Quote:

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..


I agree. You're taking way too long to understand this.


I work with an anti-catholic scientist, and he is the first to admit that science does not confirm fact, but merely seeks to explain what we know through observation. Experience is not science. Explanation of experience is. That is what Cadet is saying... But, these explanations are not proven in the sense that would make them immutable.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Last edited by forumjunkie on Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:58 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Ottawa
Religion: Catholic
The amusing part is we're all remaining quite calm and your posts have steadily grown more impossible to read.

Could you please do me the favor of splitting up your thoughts so I can read them?

Many thanks.

_________________
T. Watson
B.Th- Saint Paul University
S.T.B- Saint Paul University

Finally Home!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:00 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
Hey....I'm laughing too believe me!.......sometimes....like cattle - you have to get out the prod(sp)......I'm pretty sure I've stayed my course and my position is sound...so no sweat.....he can get back on and explain to me the difference between theory and fact.. hahahaa

_________________
And now I see the face of God, and I raise this God over the earth, this God whom men have sought since men came into being, this God who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This God, this one word:

"I."

Ayn Rand, Anthem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:02 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
swaglantern wrote:
Hey....I'm laughing too believe me!.......sometimes....like cattle - you have to get out the prod(sp)......I'm pretty sure I've stayed my course and my position is sound...so no sweat.....he can get back on and explain to me the difference between theory and fact.. hahahaa


I work with an anti-christian scientist, and he is the first to admit that science does not confirm fact, but merely seeks to explain what we know through observation. Experience is not science. Explanation of experience is. That is what Cadet is saying... But, these explanations are not proven in the sense that would make them immutable.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:13 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
I'm gonna speed this up a bit... I asked for scientific truth... You said...

"Cell Membrane"
"The air we breathe"

How are those scientific facts? Those are merely objects that can be observed... You could have said "brick" or "My sister Cathy"... Are those scientific facts as well?

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:26 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:01 am
Posts: 1117
Location: United States
Isn't not beliveing in the supernatural atheism?

I odn't relaly consider God supernatural but spiritual really.

there have been facts disproving evolution. I odn't know what they are. Maybe people could tell me resources and give me links to help the fact we do not come form monkeys. I think its possible we had tails and needed hair all over in the ice age, but we were not monkeys

What don't you accept? I'm guessing immaculate conception.

I used to have no belief in God and thought it was ass flase. But, go to a church service if you haven't. You will see people moved by the spirit. When I see people with their eyes closed and hands waved by another force which obviously inst them and very happy and moved it is proof. There is proof Jesus existed too.

_________________
49 lbs lost and 6.5 left to go

"One single act of love will make us know Jesus better...It will bring us closer to him for all eternity." -----St. Therese of Liseux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:35 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MySavingGrace wrote:
Isn't not beliveing in the supernatural atheism?

I odn't relaly consider God supernatural but spiritual really.

there have been facts disproving evolution. I odn't know what they are. Maybe people could tell me resources and give me links to help the fact we do not come form monkeys. I think its possible we had tails and needed hair all over in the ice age, but we were not monkeys

What don't you accept? I'm guessing immaculate conception.

I used to have no belief in God and thought it was ass flase. But, go to a church service if you haven't. You will see people moved by the spirit. When I see people with their eyes closed and hands waved by another force which obviously inst them and very happy and moved it is proof. There is proof Jesus existed too.


There are many theories of evolution. Some are compatible with revelation. Others are not. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) many of the theories that contradict revelation are also the ones with the least scientific support.

There is no disproof of evolution... Just as there is no proof of it either. It is at best a hypothesis at the moment... (it being the idea in general)...

The idea we came from monkeys is false. I don't think that has ever been a part of the theory. There was the idea that we came from apes, but this is largely unsupported. If evolution is true in that sense, then what we were no longer exists.

Lastly, religious fervor is no proof of anything. People can get worked up about anything.

FJ

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:44 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
swaglantern wrote:
pax wrote:
swaglantern wrote:
A fact is defined as reality....something that is true.


Example 1). We see many similarities between organisms. Therefore, we conclude all living things are descended from a common ancestor.

Example 2). We see many similarities between organisms. Therefore, we conclude all living things were fashioned by the same Creator.


Which one is the bogus argument?

Why?


Those aren't my arguments?......what are you talking about?


I know you have trouble with the meanings of words, but surely you know what "example" means???

If you are incapable of answering the question, just say so. People here will respect you more for just admitting the truth than for dodging questions for several pages.

_________________
We are obliged to believe and confess with simplicity that outside the Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. [Pope Boniface VIII]

Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of Social Justice. Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

A logistics problem should be handled with a logistical solution, not a liturgical one.


Holy Mary, Queen of the Martyrs, Pray for us.



Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The gist on an idea
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:04 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
This is my whole point....I'm not dodging anything. I contend that you guys are...EVEN IF I did list an example that you have an issue with you should at least be able to get the gist of this thread....the cadet did not...he simply wanted to confuse and sidestep the issue with wordplay....it's that simple....This is the bottom line.

Do you or do you not acknowledge Scientific truth. fact. reality....whatever you want to call it.????????????
This is the question.

I mean as far as I know anything that can be borne out through scientific means, math whatever....lets say for instance....the temperature at which water boils...Under one atmosphere of pressure..water boils at 100c......I would say that this is indeed a scientific fact........so do you or do you not agree with this?

Once this question is answered we can move on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:14 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:40 am
Posts: 8521
Location: Tennessee
Religion: Catholic
yes, swag, water boils at 100c at 1 atmosphere of pressure. This is a piece of information that scientific study has provided us concerning water. Scientific facts - which are not the same thing as 'truth' or 'reality' - can often be found/observed. Are you ready to move on?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:03 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
Brother....a fact is a truth/reality......but yes we can move on.

Where would you like to start?



Student wrote:
yes, swag, water boils at 100c at 1 atmosphere of pressure. This is a piece of information that scientific study has provided us concerning water. Scientific facts - which are not the same thing as 'truth' or 'reality' - can often be found/observed. Are you ready to move on?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:33 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:40 am
Posts: 8521
Location: Tennessee
Religion: Catholic
How about we start with 'a fact is a truth/reality'?

Science is one field of study through which we can learn about (God's) creation. If I study the relationship between heat and water, I can define certain terms (degrees celsius, atmosphere's of pressure) such that I can confidently state that from what has been observed, pure water will boil at 100 of what I have defined as a degree celsius when the water is under 1 atmosphere of pressure. And I demonstrate through repeated 'tests' that water does indeed behave that way.

This is what a scientific study of water tells me. THis is an element contained in my observance and to which I will attach as my reality which, hopefully, is inline with actual reality.

Where did you wish to go with this thread when you made these comments from page 1 (which have no basis and are, what is the word you used, absurd)?

swaglantern wrote:
I respect the truth when truth has been arrived at.....No religion has revealed any truths that cannot be acquired through intelligent and correct reasoning.

reasoning is but one faculty you have at trying to understand creation. Reasoning can provide you with 'truth' if you make lots of assumptions as to what you basis is and what truth is.

Mysticism...lies..innuendo....that is what we have left..and it is not truth.

When you first asked about the "existence of stuff"
A strong, intelligent person would simply state....it is BEYOND our current knowledge on how or why we are here.....we simply DON"T KNOW.....anything else is a lie..... We must continue to gather evidence...facts...etc.... in hopes that they will lead us to truth...anything is a sham.....offensive..and mental abuse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:37 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
Quote:
This is my whole point....I'm not dodging anything. I contend that you guys are...EVEN IF I did list an example that you have an issue with you should at least be able to get the gist of this thread....the cadet did not...he simply wanted to confuse and sidestep the issue with wordplay....it's that simple....This is the bottom line.


I was trying to get you to use words properly. Obviously that is a lost cause.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 2 of 3   [ 58 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to:  
cron