You do know, btw, that history itself is all hearsay? We know what we know based on consensus. We hope that people who wrote things down and passed things along weren’t wrong and weren’t lying. We have no real, actual way of knowing what really happened at a given time in a given place. You should scrutinize everything thing with same mind you scrutinize religion and God with. You’ll find that much of what you think is really very shaky. In truth, you can know very little.
[/quote]
Oh really? Let’s put this to the test.
You know that when you drop a ball it will hit the ground.
When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, a series of events will take place that will result in offspring
If you cut your head off, you will die.
[/quote]
Science not history, you must be confused.
There no such thing as happy chemicals. The fact the the nervous system functions on electo-chemical reactions seems irrelvent to history, but ok
[quote]
5. Fire will burn you.
6. Chemicals create reactions in your body
7. If you eat certain radioactive materials, you’ll die
etc. etc. etc.
Stop pretending like you don’t know anything for sure. You’ve survived this long because you know thousands of things for sure as do those around you. What you may not be clear about is what “knowing something for sure” means. [/quote]
This is a red herring, and irrelevant to the argument. This is the stuff of science, and I do believe it to be true, but you still cannot prove any of it deductively.
You getting stuck on epistemology. Knowing things through sensory observation and knowing them through reason are way different MO’s.
Sure fire should burn you, but I have seen these ninjas resist fire. I have seen people walk on burning coals. They did not get burned.
I have had radio active chemicals put into my body and I did not die.
If you are traveling at the maximum sustained speed of gravity and let go of a ball, it will not fall.
When it comes to physical existence, nothing is certain.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]
What church do you go to?[/quote]
A Catholic one ;P[/quote]
Yeah, me too. Did they burn a goat on Thursday?[/quote]
Thursday?
So your idea of a good time for the Virgin Mary is a goat?
Sacrifice Skyrim, Assassins Creed 3 and a laptop you cheap fucks.
If you really believe this I feel bad for you. Catholicism has created holidays, created interpretations of the Bible, created beliefs surrounding the bible, created a list of acceptable books to read, and created a list of what books of the bible are even acceptable to be in the bible.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]
What church do you go to?[/quote]
A Catholic one ;P[/quote]
Yeah, me too. Did they burn a goat on Thursday?[/quote]
Thursday?
So your idea of a good time for the Virgin Mary is a goat?
Sacrifice Skyrim, Assassins Creed 3 and a laptop you cheap fucks.
I mean, seriously. [/quote]
Once you burn a goat, you never go back, baby.[/quote]
You do know, btw, that history itself is all hearsay? We know what we know based on consensus. We hope that people who wrote things down and passed things along weren’t wrong and weren’t lying. We have no real, actual way of knowing what really happened at a given time in a given place. You should scrutinize everything thing with same mind you scrutinize religion and God with. You’ll find that much of what you think is really very shaky. In truth, you can know very little.
[/quote]
Oh really? Let’s put this to the test.
You know that when you drop a ball it will hit the ground.
When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, a series of events will take place that will result in offspring
If you cut your head off, you will die.
[/quote]
Science not history, you must be confused.
There no such thing as happy chemicals. The fact the the nervous system functions on electo-chemical reactions seems irrelvent to history, but ok
[quote]
5. Fire will burn you.
6. Chemicals create reactions in your body
7. If you eat certain radioactive materials, you’ll die
etc. etc. etc.
Stop pretending like you don’t know anything for sure. You’ve survived this long because you know thousands of things for sure as do those around you. What you may not be clear about is what “knowing something for sure” means. [/quote]
This is a red herring, and irrelevant to the argument. This is the stuff of science, and I do believe it to be true, but you still cannot prove any of it deductively.
You getting stuck on epistemology. Knowing things through sensory observation and knowing them through reason are way different MO’s.
Sure fire should burn you, but I have seen these ninjas resist fire. I have seen people walk on burning coals. They did not get burned.
I have had radio active chemicals put into my body and I did not die.
If you are traveling at the maximum sustained speed of gravity and let go of a ball, it will not fall.
When it comes to physical existence, nothing is certain.[/quote]
When I say “know” I am not talking about history or logically deduced information. In both of those cases, you’re right, we cannot know. When I say “know” all I mean is what you can prove to yourself.
I would like to see someone survive having gasoline poured on their bare skin and burning for ten minutes without getting burned. I’d also like to see you eat a tablespoon of pure alpha radioactive particles and live a year.
Secondly, the only way you have any idea what happens near the speed of light is because of PHYSICAL experiments run over the course of decades. You would have never concluded that shit through inductive reasoning.
This is what I’m saying- you are using the word “know” to encompass what you can conclude through logic and history. I’m only using it to include what you can experience with your senses. In the case of history and logic, I completely agree with you that we hardly “know” anything. But I fervently disagree that this means we know hardly anything in general, as that would be ignore everything you take for granted on a daily basis to stay alive.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]
You can stretch and change religious beliefs to encompass new scientific findings (see giant ass list above of examples of this), but religion doesn’t change to be more accurate without science. Do you get what I’m saying? Religion needs science to progress, but science doesn’t need religion in the same way. If you choose to believe in one religion, you have to admit that you’re not using the same logic as you are to believe that when you look under a microscope, you’ll see cells.[/quote]
WOW! I mean you really don’t know anything about religion.
Science has advanced and gone through multiple paradigm shifts through out history. Religion still stands, core tenets 100% unaltered. More then that, science has never, never, ever put forth a reason to alter the core tenets one iota.
Actually science as does improve, to prove that where religion and science intersect, religon has been right.[/quote]
Did it say that a “Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being”?
Did the contingent being then proceed to provide an adequate causal account or explanation for it’s existence?[/quote]
If I understand him correctly the account goes something like “Fuck you, I am contingent bitch”.
I am sorry to say that I am not entirely convinced, but then I might fail to appreciate the subtlety of the argument.[/quote]
It’s not a very subtle argument, in my opinion, considering people have apparently been thinking it since the dawn of time and making up their own non-contingent beings for just as long. I get that’s the point of the argument. The wording, on the other hand, is like a piece of Swiss cheese.
I also wonder where time and distance being relative fit into the argument. Also, the immediate conclusion that the non-contingent part of the equation is an intelligent, concerned being is quite a bit of a leap. Going from there to the idea that this non-contingent, intelligent, concerned being is exactly like the one described by the catholic Church is beyond the word “leap”.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]
What church do you go to?[/quote]
A Catholic one ;P[/quote]
Yeah, me too. Did they burn a goat on Thursday?[/quote]
No goats. But the hymns, the homily, and the whole atmosphere was great. Wonderful night of fellowship.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Catholicism has created holidays, created interpretations of the Bible, created beliefs surrounding the bible, created a list of acceptable books to read, and created a list of what books of the bible are even acceptable to be in the bible.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
I answered this in my repsonse to your other post. The answer lies in cosmology. Whether a flying spaghetti monster exists or not I don’t know, but I know 'it’s not what existence itself depends on.[/quote]
Neither is your specific brand of God. And that’s the flaw in your argument.
[quote]pat wrote:
I answered this in my repsonse to your other post. The answer lies in cosmology. Whether a flying spaghetti monster exists or not I don’t know, but I know 'it’s not what existence itself depends on.[/quote]
Neither is your specific brand of God. And that’s the flaw in your argument.[/quote]
He’s not arguing a ‘brand’ of god(s), at the moment.
[quote]pat wrote:
I answered this in my repsonse to your other post. The answer lies in cosmology. Whether a flying spaghetti monster exists or not I don’t know, but I know 'it’s not what existence itself depends on.[/quote]
Neither is your specific brand of God. And that’s the flaw in your argument.[/quote]
He’s not arguing a ‘brand’ of god(s), at the moment. [/quote]
Arguing for ‘a God’ and arguing for ‘my God’ are two very different things. There is no ‘at the moment’, he uses cosmology to try to argue why ‘my God’ is ‘the God’. Assuming you accept the underlying premise of cosmology (which I personally don’t), it still doesn’t give you an answer regarding which God is the real one.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I believe you were force to go to church and you went through the motions. I sincerely doubt your devotion. >>>[/quote]I don’t. Pretty typical nowadays actually.
