mofca Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 [quote]Your problem is that you come to this with a prejudiced mind - you say claim that nothing we cannot physically experience can be real, and you demand that articles of religious Faith be proven without dealing with anything concerning religious faith! That is simply absurd, like demanding proof for a mathematical fact without any refrence to mathematics or mathematicians. [/quote] I will limit my response to this quote in the interest of staying on topic. Perhaps we can discuss some of these other issues in other threads. All I'm saying is that something which is claimed to be objectively true should also be universally accepted as true, should come with corroborative evidence, and that articles of Faith are not universally accepted as true, do not come with logical evidence outside the realm of faith, and therefore are not objectively true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofca Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 [quote]western philosophy emphasises intellect as well dry.gif... you have a very superior attitude towards a great number of smart minds throughout history; it is the mark of insanity to assume a vast majority of men to be ignorant of the special understanding you alone possess. keep yourself on an equal playing field with religious men; they are not dellusioned by their dogmas any more than you or I are delusioned by our own presumptions. [/quote] My apologies if I sounded disrespectful. I'm getting to the point on this thread where I'm starting to think out loud, so thanks for keeping me in check. I guess I'm starting to stumble over my "self". Besides, I take the implication of my insanity as a compliment. Thanks you guys for a great discussion, but I need to give it a rest for a while or my head will explode. I definitely have a better understanding of where the Church is coming from, especially thanks to Aloysius. Even when we disagree, I think lively, respectful discussions such as this can get people thinking, and thats always a good thing, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofca Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 [quote]western philosophy emphasises intellect as well dry.gif... you have a very superior attitude towards a great number of smart minds throughout history; it is the mark of insanity to assume a vast majority of men to be ignorant of the special understanding you alone possess. keep yourself on an equal playing field with religious men; they are not dellusioned by their dogmas any more than you or I are delusioned by our own presumptions. [/quote] My apologies if I sounded disrespectful. I'm getting to the point on this thread where I'm starting to think out loud, so thanks for keeping me in check. I guess I'm starting to stumble over my "self". Besides, I take the implication of my insanity as a compliment. Thanks you guys for a great discussion, but I need to give it a rest for a while or my head will explode. I definitely have a better understanding of where the Church is coming from, especially thanks to Aloysius. Even when we disagree, I think lively, respectful discussions such as this can get people thinking, and thats always a good thing, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 haha it's cool. I wasn't upset with you or anything, just tryin to nudge you towards understanding that there is a great intellectual tradition within the Church and the stereotypes of it being against free thought are false; the only hindrances to free thought on either side are ignorance and presumption. I encourage you to re-think what you term "objective truth". you continue to describe it as "observable" or "provable" truth, when it is in fact not. the oxymoronic statement that we should not hold our beliefs (articals of faith) as objective truths is a formula that was created as part of a cultural mentality which seeks to limit free thought and free discussion in our culture in favor of a pluralist status quo. you know: don't discuss religion or politics et cetera. the problem is that if you believe in something based on faith, then you believe it to be the objective truth. example: I believe in God, I believe that the existence of God is an objective truth apart from whether or not I believe it and is applicable to everyone. An athiest believes there is no God, he believes this as an objective trutha part from whether or not anyone believes him. These are the foundations for a great discussion. But if we put in the formula you seem to allude to in your definition of objective truth, neither of us should claim our "belief" or "artical of faith" as an objective truth. therefore it becomes "I believe that there is a God for me" and "I believe that there is no God for me"... and there is no discussion to be had. No, if you believe something exists outside yourself then you hold it as an objective truth, even if you have arrived at that conclusion through some mode of faith. Anyway, thank you for a great discussion as well. I thouroughly enjoyed it. It's always great to get people thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I agree mofca, this thread has made me smarter. I said I was done with this thread. I simply cannot keep myself from following it though! I guess I lied... Anyway, here is what is going through my mind. I'll give it another shot. To prove the Real Presence without revelation is like teaching calculus before simple addition - all the while forbidding that prior mathematical concepts be used in the lesson. If you are interested in Catholicism, I highly suggest another path of investigation. Start "simple". Objective truth is reality. We can observe something and come to the wrong conclusion. This fallacious conclusion is not the truth. The truth is not dependent on our own observation or assent. The concept that something cannot be true because it cannot be observed is illogical. The truth exists outside observations, tests, verifications, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Hmm... Science(straight forward proof) or... God(Unproven and unable to be proven) I think we all know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReinnieR Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 hi there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 SirMyztiq, Unfortunatley for your post, science prooves that God or a First Cause or Intelligent Design is the most reasonable and likely explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 ...No it doesn't. "Intelligent Design" is just a disguise for "scientific creatism"...which is an oxymoron. There was no intelligent design. The Universe is too vast and too huge NOT to believe that it has been here for ages. String theory might prove it in my opinion. Just wait until they find it. Which they are very close to doing. BTW, It isn't reasonable at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 [quote name='SirMyztiq' post='1036189' date='Aug 2 2006, 07:20 AM'] ...No it doesn't. "Intelligent Design" is just a disguise for "scientific creatism"...which is an oxymoron. There was no intelligent design. The Universe is too vast and too huge NOT to believe that it has been here for ages. String theory might prove it in my opinion. Just wait until they find it. Which they are very close to doing. BTW, It isn't reasonable at all! [/quote] Start another thread. 'string theory' is a fairy tale for atheist wannabes to whistle in the dark. What about First Cause? How does the age of the universe and the Big Bang Theory exclude the existince of a "god"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Why is there something and not nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Mofca, Please help me understand. Your following two quotes seem to contradict. [quote]QUOTE(mofca @ Jul 31 2006, 10:27 PM) It is firmly established, and has been said over and over on this thread that objective truth is that which is true, whether we believe it or not.[/quote] [quote]QUOTE(mofca @ Aug 1 2006, 08:53 AM) As I have said before, objective truth in reality does not rely on belief in a deity to exist. If the Eucharist is truly objective, I should be able to know it regardless of what I believe.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofca Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 [quote name='jswranch' post='1036464' date='Aug 2 2006, 01:50 PM'] Mofca, Please help me understand. Your following two quotes seem to contradict. [/quote] Please explain the contradiction. I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 [quote](mofca @ Jul 31 2006, 10:27 PM) It is firmly established, and has been said over and over on this thread that objective truth is that which is true, whether we believe it or not.[/quote] [quote](mofca @ Aug 1 2006, 08:53 AM) If the Eucharist is truly objective, I should be able to know it regardless of what I believe.[/quote] In the first sentence, you state objective truths exist whether you know them or not. In the second sentence, you state the Eucharist cannot be an objective truth because you do not know it. From these two sentences you seem to expect that, if the Eucharist is an objective truth, you would know it by now. Yet, you admitt that objective truth is truth whether or not you know it. Why do place your knowledge as a requirement for it to possibly be an objective truth? Shouldn't you profess that sufficient evidence has not been provided to you, vice denying transubstantiation? Shouldn't you be agnostic on the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 [quote name='SirMyztiq' post='1036189' date='Aug 2 2006, 07:20 AM'] ...No it doesn't. "Intelligent Design" is just a disguise for "scientific creatism"...which is an oxymoron. There was no intelligent design. The Universe is too vast and too huge NOT to believe that it has been here for ages. String theory might prove it in my opinion. Just wait until they find it. Which they are very close to doing. BTW, It isn't reasonable at all! [/quote] Oh yes, of course . . . the universe is just way too darned BIG for God to have created it! That should settle the issue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now