Author Topic: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation  (Read 3837 times)

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 94 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2014, 11:15:11 PM »
No I am saying their objectivity is zero so there for they arent actually acting as scientists...but religonists ...priests and gnostic promoters of a fairy tale called evolution...and Im much more rational then even Einstein himself because I worship Truth incarnated and he didnt.

You're the one who is hardly being objective. You're rejecting the evidence simply because it contradicts your personal religious beliefs. And in what way are scientists not being objective? Because they aren't Catholic? I hate to tell you Voxx, but being a Catholic isn't a necessary requirement to be a good scientist.
it is if you understand Jesus Christ IS THE TRUTH...not a truth of many...or promoter of truth or discoverer and champion of truth. Christ is Truth period...so any claim to be a scientist hinges on a few things one of which is  acceptance of all truth...denying Jesus Christ is God and Truth makes your mind derelict and untrustworthy.

I never claimed objectivity...I dont need to have it..I have the gift of faith. I am demanding simple honesty...evolution is a religion not a truth
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2474
  • Thanked: 501 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2014, 11:26:42 PM »
No I am saying their objectivity is zero so there for they arent actually acting as scientists...but religonists ...priests and gnostic promoters of a fairy tale called evolution...and Im much more rational then even Einstein himself because I worship Truth incarnated and he didnt.

You're the one who is hardly being objective. You're rejecting the evidence simply because it contradicts your personal religious beliefs. And in what way are scientists not being objective? Because they aren't Catholic? I hate to tell you Voxx, but being a Catholic isn't a necessary requirement to be a good scientist.
it is if you understand Jesus Christ IS THE TRUTH...not a truth of many...or promoter of truth or discoverer and champion of truth. Christ is Truth period...so any claim to be a scientist hinges on a few things one of which is  acceptance of all truth...denying Jesus Christ is God and Truth makes your mind derelict and untrustworthy.

I never claimed objectivity...I dont need to have it..I have the gift of faith. I am demanding simple honesty...evolution is a religion not a truth

Your claim that Christ is truth cannot be substantiated. You're feeling of "faith" has no basis in a rational discussion. It is not something you can excuse your ignorance with. And your subjective feeling that your faith is true does not provide objective evidence that it is. Again Voxx, you are being quite irrational. Though I should not be surprised, I've come to expect such lack of basic reasoning skills from people similar in disposition to you.
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 94 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2014, 09:21:00 AM »
Basically gp you just aposticized from the faith with your first sentence...the eork of the evil one yhru thr dogma of evolution has done you in. May God have mercy and teturn you to the true faith.
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2474
  • Thanked: 501 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2014, 04:27:26 PM »
Voxx, I too believe Christ is Truth is God. But I have no evidence for such belief. I have no means of proving it to anyone. The point I was making is that you can't hide behind your faith in Christ when trying to disparage the work of scientists simply because they aren't Christian. Being a good scientists does not require you to be a Christian, or even a religious believer. Such a view is narrow-minded and ignorant.
 

Offline Basilios

  • Copiosa Apud Eum Redemptio
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1954
  • Thanked: 157 times
  • Not holy enough for the NO
  • Religion: Eclessia Dei Trad
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2014, 04:38:05 PM »
Voxx, I too believe Christ is Truth is God. But I have no evidence for such belief. I have no means of proving it to anyone. The point I was making is that you can't hide behind your faith in Christ when trying to disparage the work of scientists simply because they aren't Christian. Being a good scientists does not require you to be a Christian, or even a religious believer. Such a view is narrow-minded and ignorant.

You do have the means to prove that Jesus Christ is Truth and is God.

Being a good scientist isn't what is in discussion, what is in discussion is being an honest scientist. A man who thinks there is no God is not honest (Vatican I dogmatically defines that through natural light of reason it is plain that God exists). How can a man who denies this natural light of reason be wholly reasonable in something else; especially subjects which touch directly upon religious matters (cosmology and evolution). When a materialist/empiricist has forsaken reason (which he has when adopting such a stupid philosophy) it's not a big leap to say he is not only dishonest but also not going to be a very good scientist. If I were telling people that something as basic as breathing is unecessary and then started giving lectures on engineering space shuttles for the next Moon mission you'd be forgiven for saying "I am not going to go listen to that nutcase". Well, atheism is nuts. And so is scientism/empiricism/naturalism. Believing in God is about as basic as things come.

Not only that, but the very institutions these people work in are morally and intellectually corrupt. Peer review is about as useful as asking your aunty to taste your cake for an honest review of your baking success. These people are invested in their theories and their philosophy. It's a money making scheme. It's also a personal thing; nothing should topple the beliefs these men have about the nature of the afterlife and the soul. Nothing can topple it. It's a rolling machine. There are many, many PhD's out there who have tried to even suggest something which may suggest that a more Christian view is correct.

A scientist can and should tell me about a good number of things. But you like so many confuse the material progress of man for scientific achievement and excellence. Having fancy iPad's and Hadron colliders doesn't really mean much at all.
Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips. Incline not my heart to evil words.
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 94 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2014, 08:06:31 PM »
Thank you Basillios that is just my point...a scientist who denys the creator of all scientific principles is a madman...and there is zero question that the MAJORITY of all modern science and its relevant and empowered institutions are atheistic and non christian. If GP wants me to read...he can supply me with a list of Faithful Christian Scientists only.....and by Faithful I mean Traditional Catholic
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline Geremia

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3250
  • Thanked: 714 times
    • St. Isidore e-book library
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2014, 11:09:29 PM »
New measurements will only allow more accurate measurements. It won't change the age from the order of 10^11 to 10^3. It doesn't work like that.
And how do you know that? Besides, the "age of the universe" is very dependent upon theory.

Offline Geremia

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3250
  • Thanked: 714 times
    • St. Isidore e-book library
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2014, 11:28:21 PM »
Your claim that Christ is truth cannot be substantiated. You're feeling of "faith" has no basis in a rational discussion. It is not something you can excuse your ignorance with. And your subjective feeling that your faith is true does not provide objective evidence that it is. Again Voxx, you are being quite irrational.
This is positivism. There are truths that cannot be demonstrated. Aristotle realized this
Quote
    3

    Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand—they say—the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

    Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.

    Now demonstration must be based on premisses prior to and better known than the conclusion; and the same things cannot simultaneously be both prior and posterior to one another: so circular demonstration is clearly not possible in the unqualified sense of ‘demonstration’, but only possible if ‘demonstration’ be extended to include that other method of argument which rests on a distinction between truths prior to us and truths without qualification prior, i.e. the method by which induction produces knowledge. But if we accept this extension of its meaning, our definition of unqualified knowledge will prove faulty; for there seem to be two kinds of it. Perhaps, however, the second form of demonstration, that which proceeds from truths better known to us, is not demonstration in the unqualified sense of the term.

    The advocates of circular demonstration are not only faced with the difficulty we have just stated: in addition their theory reduces to the mere statement that if a thing exists, then it does exist—an easy way of proving anything. That this is so can be clearly shown by taking three terms, for to constitute the circle it makes no difference whether many terms or few or even only two are taken. Thus by direct proof, if A is, B must be; if B is, C must be; therefore if A is, C must be. Since then—by the circular proof—if A is, B must be, and if B is, A must be, A may be substituted for C above. Then ‘if B is, A must be’=’if B is, C must be’, which above gave the conclusion ‘if A is, C must be’: but C and A have been identified. Consequently the upholders of circular demonstration are in the position of saying that if A is, A must be—a simple way of proving anything. Moreover, even such circular demonstration is impossible except in the case of attributes that imply one another, viz. ‘peculiar’ properties.

    Now, it has been shown that the positing of one thing—be it one term or one premiss—never involves a necessary consequent: two premisses constitute the first and smallest foundation for drawing a conclusion at all and therefore a fortiori for the demonstrative syllogism of science. If, then, A is implied in B and C, and B and C are reciprocally implied in one another and in A, it is possible, as has been shown in my writings on the syllogism, to prove all the assumptions on which the original conclusion rested, by circular demonstration in the first figure. But it has also been shown that in the other figures either no conclusion is possible, or at least none which proves both the original premisses. Propositions the terms of which are not convertible cannot be circularly demonstrated at all, and since convertible terms occur rarely in actual demonstrations, it is clearly frivolous and impossible to say that demonstration is reciprocal and that therefore everything can be demonstrated.
    4

    Since the object of pure scientific knowledge cannot be other than it is, the truth obtained by demonstrative knowledge will be necessary. And since demonstrative knowledge is only present when we have a demonstration, it follows that demonstration is an inference from necessary premisses.

    —Aristotle's Posterior Analytics bk. 1 ch. 3-4 (72b5-24)

Basically gp you just aposticized from the faith with your first sentence.
Yes, it's textbook Modernism. Modernists, regarding faith and science, say
Quote from: Pascendi §§16 & 17
that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence each has a separate field assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never be in contradiction. And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by faith and in the way already described have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and translated to become material for the divine. Hence should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirmative - yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them. For it will be denied by the philosopher as philosopher, speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in His historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the speaker, speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith.

[…]

…it is evident [according to Modernists] that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.
(source)