(March 23, 2013 at 7:51 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:The fact that science cannot prove something does not mean that its existence cannot be proven some other way.

Nobody has proven it in any other way, either.

That is your belief. You have probably read less than 300 pages of natural theology in your life. You have probably never been to a monastery. You probably have never done a serious fast in your life.

Do you know who Duns Scotus is? Probably not. A bunch of people the other day were surprised when they learned that "OCCAMS RAZOR" actually comes from a guy by the name of William of Occam, who was a Christian and scholastic theologian.

0% of the atheists on this message board have studied William of Occams original writings, but 97% of them have said something like "OCCAM'S RAZOR PROVES THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST YOU IDIOT"

It is true that God's existence cannot be proven by those that do not take theology seriously, just as it is true that the truths of mathematics cannot be proven by those who skip math classes to smoke weed.

Alaisdair MacIntyre found the Thomistic philosophy so compelling that he left his position as a Marxist academic and became a Catholic. That is your opinion that the arguments for the existence of God don't work. Alaisdair MacIntyre is one of the most widely respected philosophers alive today. Many people find the arguments for God's existence persuasive.

Of course MacIntyre, unlike most of the people who post here, did not read a 100 page summary of Thomas Aquinas, he actually read Aquinas and as well, studied the entire scholastic tradition. People on this message board are content to simply read and dissect one syllogism at a time and point out that it doesn't conclusively prove that God exists, not realizing that that isn't really the way that it works. If you want to study natural theology, then study it. If you want to pretend like you have refuted the arguments, but have no serious acquaintance with them, you have about as solid evidence that they are false as you do doing reasoning about anything else using passages that are high school level, under 300 word samples.

(March 23, 2013 at 8:11 am)Esquilax Wrote: Seems to me to be just a load of baseless assertions and special pleading to me.

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...stuck in the middle with you."

Those two hot n' nasty situations served up for AF all day, every day, Esqui.

(March 23, 2013 at 8:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: It is true that God's existence cannot be proven by those that do not take theology seriously, just as it is true that the truths of mathematics cannot be proven by those who skip math classes to smoke weed.

False, and something that has already been covered. Math actually exists, so it can be proven to someone after he finishes smoking his weed.

How come when people use that shitty argument of "the church used to do science!" it's never pondered whether or not those men of science in the church actually continued to believe the bullshit or whether or not they kept up a false front so they had access to books and paper and food?

(March 23, 2013 at 8:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You have probably read less than 300 pages of natural theology in your life.

I think you mean supernatural.

(March 23, 2013 at 8:14 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: False, and something that has already been covered. Math actually exists, so it can be proven to someone after he finishes smoking his weed.

An ex-fuckbuddy of mine was a real whiz at math WHILE smoking weed.

(March 23, 2013 at 8:16 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: An ex-fuckbuddy of mine was a real whiz at math WHILE smoking weed.

Unfortunately, natural theology refuted.

We weren't talking natural theology. He's a whiz at shit that exists. And an atheist, and therefore doesn't believe in a god. He prefers to put his logic and reason towards economics and his job. Man, I kinda miss that guy. He was funny as hell.

---

Pulled handcuffs out on me once. I was saying the Lord's name in vain a lot. A lot of biological functions were going on. I don't know if you could call that "science and religion" though.

Like I said, that is all that you need to refute natural theology.

What, math? That's nice to know: Math can refute theology. I was mostly talking to Infidel in a conversational way until you butted in with something I don't care about.