The Holy Trinity

Quote: FrGamble

No it doesn't. But if Y is not-X and both X and Y claim their faith is true than only one can be correct or valid.

Not quite, at least unless X and Y are completely opposite. At most one can be correct. They both can be wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

Here are a few questions to truly determine if we are as far apart as you think we are:
c method the only way to determine if something is objectively true and real?

That is way to fuzzy a statement. One example of something that you can not prove with the scientific method is whether or not person A loves person B.

We are going to quickly go into the territory of invisible pink unicorns, though. The inability to DISprove something doesn't make that something any more real.

Quote: FrGamble

Can someone validly decide to believe in something based on an accumulation of evidence or do they have to have scientific certainty in order to validly decide to believe in something?

I think in this case, getting to the point, that the evidence supporting religion and the supernatural is completely bogus.

There is no reason to believe that the supernatural things in the bible are anything but a fairy tale, and there is no way with the modern 'evidence' of things like miracles have any tangible or concrete link back to their purported cause(s).

We are circling around to things we have already talked about many times, though, so I probably going to take at least a few days off before responding more in these threads.

Quote: Dalex64

Not quite, at least unless X and Y are completely opposite. At most one can be correct. They both can be wrong.

That is true.

Quote:

That is way to fuzzy a statement. One example of something that you can not prove with the scientific method is whether or not person A loves person B.

Nor can you prove the truth of the scientific method itself using science. However, you can validate it using philosophy from which it was born.

Quote:

We are going to quickly go into the territory of invisible pink unicorns, though. The inability to DISprove something doesn't make that something any more real.

Neither of us want to go down those roads so let me say I agree with you. The inability to disprove something scientifically not only does not make it any more real it demands greater skepticism and carefulness.

Quote: aceofspades

That is a false premise -- why didn't we wait to determine Berkowitz's guilt or innocence until we found the talking dog???

Good one Ace, spoken like somebody
who plays a lawyer on TV. Gods and
talking dogs are equally scarce these
days..

I’ve made the decision that neither side in the thread will ever convince the other side - people who still believe will always believe - they were indoctrinated at a young age and chose to continue to believe in God but also dismissed Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - of which there is also the same amount of proof

Quote: Dalex64

I think in this case, getting to the point, that the evidence supporting religion and the supernatural is completely bogus..

It's beyond bogus, it's a joke. And becomes
more so every day we advance in science.
Houdini 100 years ago was a pioneer in
debunking the supernatural. It made him
angry how con men in both religion and
private business tricked people with false
claims. Exorcism being a major one.

A Catholic scholar, the Rev. Richard McBrien, who formerly chaired Notre Dame’s theology department, states that he is “exceedingly skeptical” of all alleged possession cases. He told the Philadelphia Daily News “Whenever I see reports of exorcisms, I never believe them.” He has concluded that “. . . in olden times, long before there was a discipline known as psychiatry and long before medical advances . . . what caused possession was really forms of mental or physical illness. Elsewhere McBrien has said that the practice of exorcism-and by inference a belief in demon possession-"holds the faith up to ridicule.”

Quote: aceofspades

That is a false premise -- why didn't we wait to determine Berkowitz's guilt or innocence until we found the talking dog???

The problem you have with both your posts is that no one expects and common sense does not dictate that an invisible undetectable dinosaur or a talking dog exist. Simple logic already determines that contingent beings and things that do not have the reason or cause of their existence in themselves depend on something for their being, hence their contingency. This obviously cannot lead to an actual infinite regress where it is turtles all the way down. For anything to exist and for there to be a present, a past, and a future there needs to be a foundation where some non-contingent being or force who has the reason for its being and all of existence in itself. We can know more about this being from logic and reason; it is all-powerful, spiritual (because all material things are contingent), and eternal. We can guess that this being based on creation is intelligent and loving (from the beauty of creation and its ability to create life on Earth and us, thinking and rational beings).

You might find it easier to think of something a little less abstract. We know that if something is moving or moves a force has acted upon it. And that force was caused by something else to cause it to move, and so forth and so forth until we arrive necessarily at an unmoved mover that began all motion, this we commonly refer to as God.

So I think you can see that we don't have to wait for a talking dog because nothing points clearly that it exists. Everything points to the existence of "God" who has revealed Himself, I believe in Jesus Christ whose roar still echos, who became man to save us, and who left his footprint for all of us to see.

Quote: aceofspades

I’ve made the decision that neither side in the thread will ever convince the other side - people who still believe will always believe - they were indoctrinated at a young age and chose to continue to believe in God but also dismissed Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - of which there is also the same amount of proof

I agree that neither side in this thread will ever convince the other. My only hope is that the atheist side will realize how ludicrous it is to make comparisons between God and Santa Claus. It is embarrassing to you to fall into the same old arguments as Evenbob. It is also insulting to your intelligence and mine to say such things.

Quote: Evenbob

It's beyond bogus, it's a joke. And becomes
more so every day we advance in science.

I have to laugh when you say this. Every advancement in science further points to the existence of God. Can you name one recent advancement in science that has in any way pointed to atheism or against God?

Quote:

Exorcism being a major one.

I don't know anyone who wants to believe exorcism is real, it is scary stuff. However, there are many cases that psychology cannot explain. Remember before any exorcism is done the person has to pass a psychological exam. This rules out mental or physical illness as the cause of speaking in different unknown languages, knowing things impossible for the person to know, body contortions in unnatural ways, superhuman strength, demonic markings on the body, and the violent reaction to things holy.

Quote: FrGamble

Everything points to the existence of "God".

LOLOLOL!! Yeah, that's why men like Einstein
and Asimov said they'll believe in god just
as soon as real evidence presents itself.

Your comical use of axioms as facts never
ceases to amuse. When in doubt, just talk
out your anal canal like you really mean
business and you can fool a lot of people.
Not Einstein or Asimov, of course, but people
who don't really matter in the scheme of
things.

Quote: FrGamble

how ludicrous it is to make comparisons between God and Santa Claus. .

How so. They have far more in common
than not. They're both religious icons.
They both keep lists on the good and
bad people. They both reward the good
people and punish the bad. (lump of coal
in stocking). They're both male. They're
both fairy tales meant to give comfort
to children. How is that in any way
'ludicrous'. Oh yeah, they both have
white beards.