(June 2, 2017 at 8:48 am)Khemikal Wrote:(June 2, 2017 at 5:58 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Not being able to explain it, does not a contradiction make.What on earth are you talking about..not being able to explain it? The church explains it specifically. The eucharist elements..literally - not metaphorically or symbolically...literally...turn into the blood and body of christ after a cantrip is uttered over it.
Perhaps you should be more specific.
Science says: "lolno, still a cracker."
"lolno"... lol. Is that an official academic position.
But on transubstanciation I don't hold to that, and don't think the little bit of scripture on it necessitates a literal change. So I wouldn't defend that. But I don't think you can make the case that there is a logical contradiction between science and religious belief. And if there is, then I look at the foundation for both, to see where I may be mistaken.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
