NationStates

Tarsonis wrote:

Andsed wrote:Then we don't have free will.

You do. You can chose not to follow it, as many do, but you still know the natural law by instinct.

Tell that to those who are born without the ability to feel empathy. Also, why is it that it is social animals who tend to show empathy? Why does it seem more like an evolved trait that came about naturally? Also, that does not mean we are being told to act by a god. Well, unless you consider the instinct to have lots of sex when you are a teenager to also be god saying to have lots of sex.

Geneviev wrote:

Byzconia wrote:Like?

Like this.

A) Medical anomalies happen all the time. Lack of explanation =/= goddidit.

B) Even if we assume God did do it, why her? Why heal some random middle class women and not do something like, you know, give food to starving children? Or clean dirty water supplies? Yes, MS is a terrible disease, but what makes her more worthy than millions of others equally suffering (or suffering worse)? And no, "God works in mysterious ways" is not an answer.

Andsed wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You do. You can chose not to follow it, as many do, but you still know the natural law by instinct.

Okay? That does not mean we are being told to act by god. It still means we are deciding to act god has nothing to do with it.

The Natural Law is dictated by God. The Natural law is manifest from the Eternal Law, the correct order God wired into creation. Your instinctual recognition of the Natual law is inscribed in you by God. So in effect God is telling you how to act. But He’s not compelling you to act in accordance with natural law, you can still choose not to. But what you instinctively recognize as moral, is still inscribed by God.

Geneviev wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Yes, humans giving people food out of their good, but free, will

That has nothing to do with answering prayers. If I went to Africa and gave a kid a Chicken Leg, that does not mean a god granted their prayer for food. It just means I went to Africa and gave them a Chicken Leg.

That is God answering their prayer through you. God sends people to do his will.

And if those people committed all acts against God that aren't universally detested by humans, people would still be going to help them. God has nothing to do with it.

Neutraligon wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You do. You can chose not to follow it, as many do, but you still know the natural law by instinct.

Tell that to those who are born without the ability to feel empathy.

Those without empathy are still aware of the natural law, they just generally don’t care. That doesn’t mean they don’t and can’t live moral lives.

Also, why is it that it is social animals who tend to show empathy?

cause it is right and Just?

Why does it seem more like an evolved trait that came about naturally?

well we evolved from them, so...

Also, that does not mean we are being told to act by a god. Well, unless you consider the instinct to have lots of sex when you are a teenager to also be god saying to have lots of sex.

Why wouldn’t it be? Sex isn’t intrinsically bad. In fact it’s very good, it brings about new life. The Sacrament of Marriage part of the Moral Law, which is derived from the Natural Law .

Tarsonis wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Tell that to those who are born without the ability to feel empathy.

Those without empathy are still aware of the natural law, they just generally don’t care. That doesn’t mean they don’t and can’t live moral lives.

Well first I don't think the natural law exists so there is that. Second, I disagree that they are aware of the natural law at all, let alone by instinct an instinct they do not poses.

Also, why is it that it is social animals who tend to show empathy?

cause it is right and Just?

Why does it seem more like an evolved trait that came about naturally?

well we evolved from them, so...

So basically no god needed. It is a purely natural thing

Also, that does not mean we are being told to act by a god. Well, unless you consider the instinct to have lots of sex when you are a teenager to also be god saying to have lots of sex.

Why wouldn’t it be? Sex isn’t intrinsically bad. In fact it’s very good, it brings about new life. The Sacrament of Marriage part of the Moral Law, which is derived from the Natural Law .

Since the instinct is to have sex regardless of marriage ..yeah

Neutraligon wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Those without empathy are still aware of the natural law, they just generally don’t care. That doesn’t mean they don’t and can’t live moral lives.

Well first I don't think the natural law exists so there is that.

Okay?

Second, I disagree that they are aware of the natural law at all, let alone by instinct an instinct they do not poses.

the Natural law isn’t only rooted in empathy, it’s rooted in our intellect and in our soul. When I say it’s instinct I don’t mean merely our animalistic tendencies, (perhaps it’s the wrong word to use) I mean it’s something innate to our existence. That we know not by pure rationale, but by an inclination ingrained in our species.

cause it is right and Just? well we evolved from them, so...

So basically no god needed. It is a purely natural thing

God made nature. You’re operating under a God/nature dichotomy, where there is none.

Why wouldn’t it be? Sex isn’t intrinsically bad. In fact it’s very good, it brings about new life. The Sacrament of Marriage part of the Moral Law, which is derived from the Natural Law .

Since the instinct is to have sex regardless of marriage ..yeah

Yes, and we then we order that instinct into the moral paradigm of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Tarsonis wrote:

Neutraligon wrote: Well first I don't think the natural law exists so there is that.

Okay?

Second, I disagree that they are aware of the natural law at all, let alone by instinct an instinct they do not poses.

the Natural law isn’t only rooted in empathy, it’s rooted in our intellect and in our soul. When I say it’s instinct I don’t mean merely our animalistic tendencies, (perhaps it’s the wrong word to use) I mean it’s something innate to our existence. That we know not by pure rationale, but by an inclination ingrained in our species.

1. Seeing as there is fundamental disagreement about the existence of 'natural law', making claims about where its source is seems rather moot.

2. Inclinations ingrained in our species is another word for instinct. Ya might as well have said 'instructions stored in our DNA'.

3. Prove souls exist.

So basically no god needed. It is a purely natural thing

God made nature. You’re operating under a God/nature dichotomy, where there is none.

Fundamental disagreement exists about whether God exists. Claiming the presence of a dichotomy in this circumstance strikes as moot.

Since the instinct is to have sex regardless of marriage ..yeah

Yes, and we then we order that instinct into the moral paradigm of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Which has not always existed even in human history, and cannot be claimed to be a fundamental part of human nature.

Byzconia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Like this.

A) Medical anomalies happen all the time. Lack of explanation =/= goddidit.

Doesn’t mean God didn’t do it either, and given the circumstances it’s not wholly an unreasonable conclusion.

B) Even if we assume God did do it, why her? Why heal some random middle class women and not do something like, you know, give food to starving children? Or clean dirty water supplies? Yes, MS is a terrible disease, but what makes her more worthy than millions of others equally suffering (or suffering worse)? And no, "God works in mysterious ways" is not an answer.

What makes her unworthy? I mean just because you say “God works in mysterious ways” is not an answer, doesn’t make it not an answer, it’s just an answer you won’t accept. God is a being that sees all the threads that make up the tapestry of existence simultaneously, while we only see our little portion. Nobody can say for sure why God does this, or doesn’t do that. Wh not be thankful for what was given instead of decrying what isn’t.

Also, with people like Akon bringing water to all these disparate locations, how do you know God isn’t doing that?

Godular wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Okay?


the Natural law isn’t only rooted in empathy, it’s rooted in our intellect and in our soul. When I say it’s instinct I don’t mean merely our animalistic tendencies, (perhaps it’s the wrong word to use) I mean it’s something innate to our existence. That we know not by pure rationale, but by an inclination ingrained in our species.

1. Seeing as there is fundamental disagreement about the existence of 'natural law', making claims about where its source is seems rather moot.

It doesn’t matter. I’m explaining the Catholic Doctrine. I’m not trying to convince just illuminate our perspective.

2. Inclinations ingrained in our species is another word for instinct. Ya might as well have said 'instructions stored in our DNA'.

Sure, but it’s not just ingrained in our DNA like a phobia, its part of a natural harmony between our instinct and our intellect and our souls.

3. Prove souls exist.

Prove they don’t.

God made nature. You’re operating under a God/nature dichotomy, where there is none.

Fundamental disagreement exists about whether God exists. Claiming the presence of a dichotomy in this circumstance strikes as moot.

I don’t care if fundamental disagreement exists. The Catholic perspective is that God created nature. So the argument of “by nature thus not by God” doesn’t even compute to us.

Yes, and we then we order that instinct into the moral paradigm of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Which has not always existed even in human history, and cannot be claimed to be a fundamental part of human nature.

I didn’t say it was. The sacrament of marriage is moral law, revealed teaching from God, not natural law.

Tarsonis wrote:

Godular wrote:
1. Seeing as there is fundamental disagreement about the existence of 'natural law', making claims about where its source is seems rather moot.

It doesn’t matter. I’m explaining the Catholic Doctrine. I’m not trying to convince just illuminate our perspective.

2. Inclinations ingrained in our species is another word for instinct. Ya might as well have said 'instructions stored in our DNA'.

Sure, but it’s not just ingrained in our DNA like a phobia, its part of a natural harmony between our instinct and our intellect and our souls.

Repeating it doesn't make it less ludicrous. You're making a lot of claims without any evidence whatsoever.

3. Prove souls exist.

Prove they don’t.

Don't have to. It's on you to prove the positive.

Fundamental disagreement exists about whether God exists. Claiming the presence of a dichotomy in this circumstance strikes as moot.

I don’t care if fundamental disagreement exists. The Catholic perspective is that God created nature. So the argument of “by nature thus not by God” doesn’t even compute to us.

Your 'Catholic Perspective' operates on a flawed basis.

Which has not always existed even in human history, and cannot be claimed to be a fundamental part of human nature.

I didn’t say it was. The sacrament of marriage is moral law, revealed teaching from God, not natural law.

Seeing as Marriage also existed before the Bible and what you term 'moral law' did, I'd say it doesn't really fall under THAT either.

Salandriagado wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:So where dows theology fit into that catagory (i.e. studying your own faith). Theologians are HUGHLY educated, and thinking about their faith is literary their job description

Theology is just bad philosophy, and consists entirely of assuming that God exists, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary for ever.

No. You specifically said that believers are UNEDUCATED and do NOT think about God. You can't change your viewpoint midway through, unless you admit you're wrong

Godular wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
It doesn’t matter. I’m explaining the Catholic Doctrine. I’m not trying to convince just illuminate our perspective.

Sure, but it’s not just ingrained in our DNA like a phobia, its part of a natural harmony between our instinct and our intellect and our souls.

Repeating it doesn't make it less ludicrous. You're making a lot of claims without any evidence whatsoever.

The context of my statement is in clarifying what the Catholic perspective is. I’m not proving anything. If you want evidence that this is the Catholic teaching by all means crack open the Catechism.

Prove they don’t.

Don't have to. It's on you to prove the positive.

I don’t have to prove anything. Again I’m only clarifying the Catholic position, and the Catholic position is that the soul exists.

I don’t care if fundamental disagreement exists. The Catholic perspective is that God created nature. So the argument of “by nature thus not by God” doesn’t even compute to us.

Your 'Catholic Perspective' operates on a flawed basis.

God created the universe, therefore all things in nature come from God.

Nope pretty sound logic.

I didn’t say it was. The sacrament of marriage is moral law, revealed teaching from God, not natural law.

Seeing as Marriage also existed before the Bible and what you term 'moral law' did, I'd say it doesn't really fall under THAT either.

The Bible isn’t the source of doctrine and moral laws, it’s rather a record of them.

The New California Republic wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:

*Looks for the word "liar" in that quote, or words to that effect*

I'm not seeing it.

*Looks again*

I'm still not seeing it.

I'll ask again: show me where I called you a liar.

Today's word of the day, "implied"

Dogmeat wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:No I said that the mistranslated parts are irrelevant details. For example, Noah's flood might not have actually lasted 40 days, but that's irrelevant to the main story, which is love. I feel like I've discussed this before. If not, I'd be happy to make a post about it

God mind-controlling Pharaoh is not an irrelevant detail.

But He didn't. Hardened pharoe's heart=allowed pharoe to harden his own heart

Tarsonis wrote:

Godular wrote:
Repeating it doesn't make it less ludicrous. You're making a lot of claims without any evidence whatsoever.

The context of my statement is in clarifying what the Catholic perspective is. I’m not proving anything. If you want evidence that this is the Catholic teaching by all means crack open the Catechism.

Don't have to. It's on you to prove the positive.

I don’t have to prove anything. Again I’m only clarifying the Catholic position, and the Catholic position is that the soul exists.[/quote]
This is not a theology thread. It doesn't matter if you're "clarifying" anything or not. If you can't prove your position, then you're just wasting everyone's time.

I don’t care if fundamental disagreement exists. The Catholic perspective is that God created nature. So the argument of “by nature thus not by God” doesn’t even compute to us.

Your 'Catholic Perspective' operates on a flawed basis.

God created the universe, therefore all things in nature come from God.

Nope pretty sound logic.

A) Prove God exists.

B) Prove God created the universe.

I didn’t say it was. The sacrament of marriage is moral law, revealed teaching from God, not natural law.

Seeing as Marriage also existed before the Bible and what you term 'moral law' did, I'd say it doesn't really fall under THAT either.

The Bible isn’t the source of doctrine and moral laws, it’s rather a record of them.

This sentence literally contradicts thousands of years of established theology. If your Bible isn't "the source of moral laws," then why the hell does it even matter?

Tarsonis wrote:

Godular wrote:
Repeating it doesn't make it less ludicrous. You're making a lot of claims without any evidence whatsoever.

The context of my statement is in clarifying what the Catholic perspective is. I’m not proving anything. If you want evidence that this is the Catholic teaching by all means crack open the Catechism.

Don't have to. It's on you to prove the positive.

I don’t have to prove anything. Again I’m only clarifying the Catholic position, and the Catholic position is that the soul exists.

Your 'Catholic Perspective' operates on a flawed basis.

God created the universe, therefore all things in nature come from God.

Nope pretty sound logic.

There is no evidence that god exists, thus pretty shitty logic predicated on an unproven statement. Whether you’re just ‘clarifying’ or not matters little to me. Your entire position relies on little more than an unsupported assumption.

Rather literally, there is no functional difference between your saying ‘God did it’ and ‘The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it’. Heck, ya might even try claiming that’s the point, but that’s just more grasping at straws trying to hide behind a veneer of logic.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:God mind-controlling Pharaoh is not an irrelevant detail.

But He didn't. Hardened pharoe's heart=allowed pharoe to harden his own heart

Just to clarify, the number 40 is a place holder for an indeterminate amount of time, it’s not supposed to be an exact figure.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
The context of my statement is in clarifying what the Catholic perspective is. I’m not proving anything. If you want evidence that this is the Catholic teaching by all means crack open the Catechism.



I don’t have to prove anything. Again I’m only clarifying the Catholic position, and the Catholic position is that the soul exists.



God created the universe, therefore all things in nature come from God.

Nope pretty sound logic.

There is no evidence that god exists, thus pretty shitty logic predicated on an unproven statement. Whether you’re just ‘clarifying’ or not matters little to me. Your entire position relies on little more than an unsupported assumption.

Firstly, let’s clarify. there’s plenty of evidence for a God. When you say there’s no evidence, you mean there’s no empirically testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Scientism being the equivalent of religious faith aside, in this discussion it doesn’t help you. It unfortunately traps you in a paradigmatic quandary because there’s no evidence that God does not exist either. It’s the universally accepted notion that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. A being that transcends the universe cannot be conclusively tested by means limited to said universe.

Rather literally, there is no functional difference between your saying ‘God did it’ and ‘The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it’. Heck, ya might even try claiming that’s the point, but that’s just more grasping at straws trying to hide behind a veneer of logic.

I’m actually not sure what your point is here. Regardless my comments these last bits are only to correctly present the Catholic Position because Neut was giving a line of argument that doesn’t actually contradict anything because in the Catholic paradigm those two things are related and not contradictory. . You and the rest of the dawkenites however can’t seem to grasp that concept and keep trying to debate me on the veracity of the claims, which I’m not going to do. There’s no point. Im as convinced of my position as you are of yours and nothing I will say will sway you and nothing you will say will sway me. I’m content to let y’all go on lacking belief and to go on believing.

Heraswed wrote:

Aussandries wrote:exactly - "we can only guess". Then we shouldn't be arguing over who's guess is correct with absolutely no way of proving either. People should be entitled to their own opinions or beliefs.

The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

Tarsonis wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
There is no evidence that god exists, thus pretty shitty logic predicated on an unproven statement. Whether you’re just ‘clarifying’ or not matters little to me. Your entire position relies on little more than an unsupported assumption.

Firstly, let’s clarify. there’s plenty of evidence for a God. When you say there’s no evidence, you mean there’s no empirically testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Scientism being the equivalent of religious faith aside, in this discussion it doesn’t help you. It unfortunately traps you in a paradigmatic quandary because there’s no evidence that God does not exist either. It’s the universally accepted notion that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. A being that transcends the universe cannot be conclusively tested by means limited to said universe.

Two things:

Outside the universe = doesn’t exist.

You have no basis to ascribe traits to anything that we cannot observe quite simply BECAUSE they cannot be observed.

And just because I’ve dealt with this argument before: Trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of science and observation hurts your case more than it does mine. Best keep clear.

Rather literally, there is no functional difference between your saying ‘God did it’ and ‘The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it’. Heck, ya might even try claiming that’s the point, but that’s just more grasping at straws trying to hide behind a veneer of logic.

I’m actually not sure what your point is here. Regardless my comments these last bits are only to correctly present the Catholic Position because Neut was giving a line of argument that doesn’t actually contradict anything because in the Catholic paradigm those two things are related and not contradictory. . You and the rest of the dawkenites however can’t seem to grasp that concept and keep trying to debate me on the veracity of the claims, which I’m not going to do. There’s no point. Im as convinced of my position as you are of yours and nothing I will say will sway you and nothing you will say will sway me. I’m content to let y’all go on lacking belief and to go on believing.

Then there is no point to your continued posting in this thread.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Heraswed wrote:
The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

No, science is a method. One based on falsifiability, evidence, observation, and research (i.e. the opposite of religion).

Australian rePublic wrote:

Heraswed wrote:
The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

One thing that these ‘writings from strangers’ do that religion seems to actively avoid is show how to repeat various phenomena on demand. Oh, the ‘strangers’ also actively hope you can prove them wrong.

Byzconia wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

No, science is a method. One based on falsifiability, evidence, observation, and research (i.e. the opposite of religion).

And scientists are very aware that there is no 100 in science. There is always the chance that everything we know is wrong.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Firstly, let’s clarify. there’s plenty of evidence for a God. When you say there’s no evidence, you mean there’s no empirically testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Scientism being the equivalent of religious faith aside, in this discussion it doesn’t help you. It unfortunately traps you in a paradigmatic quandary because there’s no evidence that God does not exist either. It’s the universally accepted notion that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. A being that transcends the universe cannot be conclusively tested by means limited to said universe.

Two things:

Outside the universe = doesn’t exist.

Multiverse theorists would disagree.

You have no basis to ascribe traits to anything that we cannot observe quite simply BECAUSE they cannot be observed.

In ability to observe is not prove of nonexistence.

And just because I’ve dealt with this argument before: Trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of science and observation hurts your case more than it does mine. Best keep clear.

Sciencd is quite effective, but it has its limits. As I pointed out with the multiverse bit you subscribe to strict empiricism, but that’s not a position universally held by atheists let alone theists.

I’m actually not sure what your point is here. Regardless my comments these last bits are only to correctly present the Catholic Position because Neut was giving a line of argument that doesn’t actually contradict anything because in the Catholic paradigm those two things are related and not contradictory. . You and the rest of the dawkenites however can’t seem to grasp that concept and keep trying to debate me on the veracity of the claims, which I’m not going to do. There’s no point. Im as convinced of my position as you are of yours and nothing I will say will sway you and nothing you will say will sway me. I’m content to let y’all go on lacking belief and to go on believing.

Then there is no point to your continued posting in this thread.

The title of the thread is “Why do you/don’t you believe in God”. Not, “Theists prove God exists” not that anti-theists can tell the difference.