Right and Wrong

Quote: Mosca

I'm not sure I'd call that faith. What you're referring to, I'd call trust. I don't have faith that the sun will rise, I trust it will rise. I don't put much thought or emotion into it.

Exactly! You've experienced the rising sun and trust it, I've experienced the risen Son and trust Him!

Quote: FrGamble

Exactly! You've experienced the rising sun and trust it,

I can prove with science up the ying yang
that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can't
prove one single thing about your religion.

I'm starting to wonder if you even understand
the point of religion, padre. You seem confused.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed
to each other.

Quote: Evenbob

I can prove with science up the ying yang
that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can't
prove one single thing about your religion.

I'm starting to wonder if you even understand
the point of religion, padre. You seem confused.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed
to each other.

Wow Bob, I can't prove it but I think this could be one of your worst posts ever! The point of science and religion in my understanding are both to pursue truth. Science is limited to what we can observe and/or measure. It plays an essential role in understanding our world and how it works. The so called higher sciences, like philosophy and theology are not limited to the material world but rather take the information science gives us and start to ask deeper questions. Notice the two work hand in hand. You can't have a religion saying the world is flat because science shows us it is round. You can't have science saying there is no God because it cannot observe that and because most philosophy and theology and human experience say there is. You seem to feel that nothing is real you can't observe in a test tube, that's just silly. Science and religion to be healthy need to be complimentary. Maybe it would help to think of this way; science builds the launching pad for religion and then religion can take us to places science cannot.

Quote: FrGamble

The point of science and religion in my understanding are both to pursue truth... You can't have a religion saying the world is flat because science shows us it is round. .

Certainly you can! The Church taught the world was
flat for a thousand years, and when a scientist came
along and proved it was round, they threatened him
with death and exiled him. What does religion have
to do with truth. Is Islam true? Is Scientology true?
Is Momonism true?

Religion is the antithesis of science. Religion deals in
speculation and unprovable ideas. Science deals
in proven fact. That you are trying to say they're
the same is poppycock, just another attempt to
give your religion undeserved credibility.

Evenbob, could you help me to understand where you are coming from by defining what you mean by "proven fact"?

Quote: FrGamble

Evenbob, could you help me to understand where you are coming from by defining what you mean by "proven fact"?

You can't prove Jesus was anything but a man,
like you and me. You can't prove he rose from
the dead. You can't prove god exists. You can't
prove Jesus did any of those parlor tricks, er,
miracles. The whole point of any religion is you
can't prove any of it, you have to go on faith.

Science never relies on faith. We know why an
airplane can fly, we can prove it has to fly, it
has no choice. No pilot goes up in one on faith,
he's taught the science before he ever gets
a license. All you need to join a religion is faith.
There's no science involved, nor can there be.

By your analogy, to that end, I suppose in 1,900 years we will never know if Hitler was a tyrant either, or that Einstein contributed to science, or Galilio, or anyone else's acts, because there is only historical acts to show what he did. Like the Bible. We won't know which generals fought in the War of 1812 either, because it was written in a book. There will be no scientific proof of who did what in the War of 1812, because all that will be left are historical accounts, written by people.

You can't use science to show what Jesus did. It was written in the bible by historical figures. Whether you choose to believe eyewitness accounts is up to you. They reported. You decided.

Quote: boymimbo

By your analogy, to that end, I suppose in 1,900 years we will never know if Hitler was a tyrant either, or that Einstein contributed to science,

By your analogy, then, we should believe
every crackpot tale ever conceived as long
as more than one person said he saw it.
Big Foot, alien abductions, Loch Ness,
Santa and the Easter Bunny. Jesus rising
from the dead.

No, proven history is just that, proven. Do
you really think Noah built an ark and had
two of every animal on earth on it? Or that
Moses parted the Red Sea? Or god gave
Moses 10 tablets? Jesus lived and was a
reformed rabbi and was crucified, that much
we know. The rest of it is conjecture and
wishful thinking until proven otherwise.

Quote: Evenbob

You can't prove Jesus was anything but a man,
like you and me. You can't prove he rose from
the dead. You can't prove god exists. You can't
prove Jesus did any of those parlor tricks, er,
miracles. The whole point of any religion is you
can't prove any of it, you have to go on faith.

Science never relies on faith. We know why an
airplane can fly, we can prove it has to fly, it
has no choice. No pilot goes up in one on faith,
he's taught the science before he ever gets
a license. All you need to join a religion is faith.
There's no science involved, nor can there be.

First of all I need to call you out on your response to boymimbo. At no point did he mention that the historical memory or testimony of only one person would have to be believed, you injected that to create a straw man argument. He mentioned for an example the generals and history of the war of 1812 and you compare that to the easter bunny and the loch ness monster?!? Please try to address his critique of your idea that we need something more than the historical record or the written testimony of people to believe that something in the past is true.

In regards for what I asked for, a definition of what you mean by "proven fact", you did not give a definition but a good example. You pointed out that how an airplane flies is proven fact. I like your statement, "we can prove it has to fly, it has no choice." Therefore an acceptable definition for "proven fact" could be: something that is demonstrably shown so that it leaves one no other choice than to believe it. What do you think, are you okay with that as a working definition?

I have a question for you Father. There were many more first hand accounts that were written at the same time as those that made it into the bible. At one time they were held in the same regard as the ones we know today. The accounts did not follow the direction that those at the time wanted to take the church and were destroyed. This is like a scientist today ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit with his hypotheses.

How are we to believe that the stories in the bible today are true when contradictory evidence of the day was purposely destroyed.