Catholic Civil War Brewing?

Prove it.

 

You live in an anthill in a man’s yard and you can see the large being entering and exiting his home but don’t quite understand what he is but you know he’s real. And you’re convinced you’re his creation and that he loves you because other ants told you so.

 

This again is where philosophy and science meet. I think therefore I am. Descartes.

 

"What is real? How do you define real?"
--Morpheus

 

Science doesn't prove things to be true (not in a fundamental understanding of the universe way), because at any given moment a new discovery can make what we thought was true untrue. If something is proven to be true, how can it later be shown to be untrue? If something is shown to be untrue, was it ever true to begin with? If we were to take something in science as "proven," then would that mean we would have to reject any information/evidence that contradicts it? Once we accept something as non-falsifiable, are we demonstrating faith?

It's worth noting that NDT is neither an avowed atheist nor does he mock people with faith (he speaks like an agnostic). He's a brilliant man and a wonderful listen as he can dumb things down to a variety different levels.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

You are doing the same thing by telling him that he's wrong. At minimum, an objective mind would have to think, "I may not buy into the idea, but I have no evidence to claim that he's wrong."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

A nonsensical pop culture quote written by woke Hollywood transsexual twins?

I’m surprised this isn’t on your banned films list.

 

Occam's razor is a wonderful tool which can be misapplied. What is a more likely true using Occam's razor: (1) God created us and has an interest in us, or (2) God created us and couldn't care less about us vs. the lava that flows from volcanoes...(just as an example)?

More importantly than your answer, what is your basis for determining which requires more assumptions?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Yep. "Science's" response to deviations from the 'laws' of physics--deny they happen, bc of course...they can't.

Rather then following the evidence and seeking to reconcile our ltd. understanding of *reality* (or often even acknowledging our understanding is ltd)... just dismiss the evidence as flawed, contrived, fraudulent...

e.g.--

Five Miracles in History

 

It's hardly nonsensical, anybody that has an interest in philosophy has contemplated such questions, and the concept certainly predates The Matrix.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I saw the movie when it came out. Don't remember much about it, but challenging questions can come from most any souce.

eg--"what is truth?"
--Pontius Pilot (not exactly a saint within Christendom)

 

The idea there are multiple realities or parallel universes are sci-fi fantasy. Unfortunately it seems some are adopting these concepts as something more than fiction because they can’t handle their own (reality).

 

"Multiple realities or parallel universes" is, perhaps, an extremely small subset of ideas within the realm of "contemplating what is real."

Are there colors that we can't see?

If no, how do you know this?
If not no, how would/could you come to trust the identification of a new color by somebody who claims to have the ability to see such a new color?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Lol! Using an isolated quote from a movie = subscribing wholesale to its source huh?

So by your reckoning...when you replied to my post, you basically quoted it--does that mean you subscribe to all my thinking, wholesale?

 

Colors is a poor choice, because our visual range is defined by our biology, and we can confirm the existence of color ranges outside our biological perception with scientific tools, and we also know of animals that process sights/sounds differently . The existence of colors outside human visual perception is hardly a philosophical question in my view.

Now the question about a bear farting on the woods, I consider one of the great philosophical questions of our time (just kidding, the sound waves are there whether anyone is there to process them or not).

 

You are talking about light waves, I am talking about color. But let's change the parts. How can a blind person know that a person with vision can see and what it means to see? The fact that it's not real for the blind person doesn't make it not real for the person that has sight. Can something like color ever be understood by the blind person? Would they have any reason to reject the idea as nonsensical? Or would it be more reasonable to at least consider it a possibility that is tough to grasp? Somewhat rhetorical questions, but there is definitely value (for some at least) in contemplating what is real and what is not real.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Of course I can’t claim definitely that he’s wrong. It’s impossible to prove a negative.

Like Bertrand Russell’s teapot.

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Suffice to say Im convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that Yahweh does not exist and is a completely human construct but I cannot be certain.

 

God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal deity, but we die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder, the source of which is beyond all reason.

Dag Hammarskjold

 

“Proof” is a quaint concept. It’s everything and the kitchen sink.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ularization-america-renewal-modernity/672948/

"the Church in the U.S. can grow again if it learns how to unite justice and righteousness. I have heard African American pastors use this terminology to describe the historic ministry of the Black Church. By righteousness they meant that the Church has maintained its traditional beliefs in the authority of the Bible, morality, and sexuality. It calls individuals to be born again through faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. By justice, they meant that the Church has an activist stance against all forms of oppression.

White Protestant churches in America tend to pick one or the other. Liberal mainline Protestantism stresses justice but has largely jettisoned ancient affirmations of the Christian creeds, such as the preexistence and divinity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection, and the authority of the Bible. Evangelicalism stresses righteousness and traditional values, but many congregations are indifferent or even hostile toward work against injustice. However, if the Church at large could combine these two ideas the way the Black Church has, it can begin to rebuild both credibility and relevance, rebutting the charge that it is merely another political power broker. A church that unites justice and righteousness does not fit with the left on abortion and sexual ethics or with the right on race and justice. Instead it is a community that addresses the timeless longings of all people for meaning, hope, love, and salvation."

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews ask for signs, and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, which is a scandal to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. 24 But to those who are called—both Jews and Greeks—Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom.

I thought this was an apt article by Tim Keller (rest in peace) re: the future of American Christianity.