ahh yes...Another useful cut & paste from Wild. Let's see what the Catholic Church and its Pope has to offer on such matters affecting humanity..... 1. The Inhumane, absurd, preposterous doctrines on birth control. 2. The cruel and barbaric church edict by an absolute pronouncement against all forms of abortion for whatever reason 3. The horrendous sexual abuse of children covered up and ignored by the perverse structure of a deceitful hierarchy. 4. The repression of rational thought by the catholic Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of forbidden books) 5. The perpetuation of some of the worst atrocities witnessed by mankind 6. The rather lengthy list of Popes which history shows to be amongst the most nasty, malicious, objectionable humans on earth.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions. Putting aside the "unknowable" (or the un-understandable might be a better description) why assume that a religious faith must have any answers (other than for the reasons I make below), let alone better ones. I am sure there will be many scientists who condider certain questions to be outside "human logic", but they wouldn't then jump to the ridiculous conclusion that because of this there must be a God creator. That would certainly not be "human logic". Really Aphie come on........ Unless you continuously test and question the things you believe to be non provable, then you will never be aware of them being proved. Were someone to tell you that which you knew to be impossible or improvable, had now been made possible and proven, you would have to either dismiss your previous 'not proven' understanding, or at least test it against the new knowledge made known to you ! You see Aphie, you do assume......"which god created" Your statement assumes the existence of God to be true and you therefore draw a conclusion. Science will always require much better than that from you. Strange point .....Your previous statement doesn't relate to science properly so how does this one? "Science is driven because we can't prove that God exists." I don't think so. Science and god beliefs are separate. Science (knowledge) is far superior to religion as a rational ethic. How can the end of science be the continuance of science demanding to know????? What are you saying? That in the event of the unknown, ignore science and "believe" in a God? Because science, according to your statement above, will always demand to know and as there are some things it doesn't know, therefore there must be a God? This is very obscure. This is strange.....another rather massive assumption however if I try to interpret your assertion correctly... it is because it can't be proved that God exists, it must therefore be the case that the God we can't prove exists.... created metaphysics ???? Now that to me is just some crazy logic. If you were to âknow everythingâ wouldnât you be the God which you choose to believe exists anyway ? Not such an impossible a thing afterall perhaps. Godels incompleteness theorem suggests we can never be anything else than what we are now. Did you not think as a theoretical possibility that Cloning may evolve humanity into acquiring an âintelligenceâ for an understanding that doesnât yet exist to us. One which you say this God of yours must already have ? I think it unlikely that Godel took too seriously a. Cloning b. Conquering death into his equations Religious faith is a weak belief, as you have to dispel or ignore all the tests and disciplines which science or even sound basic human judgment requires. Such tests are applied by science to all things including those that are held initially only as 'faiths' , but are not accepted until they become verifiable facts. In the world of true science, these verified and verifiable facts are still held on condition that they can be continuously revisited if new evidence or knowledge affects them. Religion/ belief in a God comes no where near. It is simply a comforter for those who care not to examine and analyze the known, the unknown, or the so far unknowable and who prefer to ignore, or simply can't understand, the in-courteous indifference with which the universe contends with humanity. All Churches assume the mantel of morality so they may attempt to wield an authoritative control over people. Cloning has a moral emphasis which should be addressed but it is a morality for humanity to decide. Religions have no track record to offer on what is right for mankind .
Historically speaking, the majority of the greatest thinkers and advancers of the quality of life of mankind have been men and women of faith. I won't go down the road of trying to prove the value of faith. Those who practice it sincerly, know the benefits. Logicians setup their own rules and demand a logical conclusion to support the practice of faith, and they will always win the argument according to their rules......as the proof of faith in the direct experience of faith, not in a mental logical process. Really, there is no proof of logical conclusions without the implementation of logic. It is circular in nature. Yet logicians are convinced that their method is the best. For those who want to get off the endless circle of relative logical thought, faith provides a way out.
"Those who practice it sincerly, know the benefits. Practice what sincerely ?? the NICE bits ? the bits which belong to humanity in the first place Yet logicians are convinced that their method is the best You use the noun logistician in a way that all logisticians are scientists which they are not and that they all think the same, which they won't. What states that all logisticians assume their method is best? Your Logic ?? In any case I mention Science not logisticians nor even scientists as individuals- big difference. "There is no proof in logical conclusion without the implementation of logic is circular." Can you explain the logic in that? ....and why faith therefore becomes more logical ??? "For those who want to get off the endless circle of relative logical thought, faith provides a way out" Yes I agree blind faith provides a way out. It's called a sop. There is a big difference in religious faith and faith in your beliefs. Having faith in your own understandings is essential in my opinion. but to attach by inference that all faith must have religious connotations is wrong to me.
The proof of pudding is in the eating. The proof of the value of faith is in the practice, not in circular logical argumentation for or against it. Eat whatever you like, nourish yourself in whatever way you want. God gives you the freedom of choice to believe in him or not.
You use the word Proof a lot ,yet Proof is factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something. Beliefs and faiths are not proof or truth, little is in life religion one of the least of all You can only believe that. Why didn't you say "I believe that God gives you the freedom of choice to believe in him or not." More religious logic?
Why does he have to preface the statement with "I believe"? Isn't this automatically implied? It seems that Optional is taking a stance that is tolerant of other people's beliefs. I'm not sure what stu is trying to say here.
goldenarm, No it is not. It is a closed statement. An assertion. Too much is read into stuff people say or put forward by implication. It assumes assumptions which generally may not be assumed .Better understanding between people does not come that way I think