Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

I have a problem with this: that the catholic conception of god encompasses many of the traits you've listed is not surprising, since you've been describing the most basic deist god imaginable; I can't imagine many gods that wouldn't possess those traits. But the catholic god also has many other traits and claims attached to it, and many of those are directly refuted by the evidence available to us, which is kinda important: if a god matches x, y, and z requirements, but also needs requirement w to be true, and that is literally impossible, then obviously that god can't exist, regardless of all the other bits it matches.

I must confess I am unaware of these particular claims that are refuted by evidence. As such I have three questions regarding them 1)would you be so kind as to provide an example or examples (rather than a general assertion) 2) To my knowledge there are few laws in the realm of physics (mostly hypothesis and theories). Which is to say there is little which we take as fact that is not, as you put it, "directly refuted by the evidence available to us." are you saying most hypothesis or theories do not have a set of data in contradiction? 3) If there is a set of facts that "directly refute" a thing may that set of facts constitute an exception and thereby serve as proof of the rule?

I'm passingly familiar with the Summa Theologica- there's another christian on the boards that just loves it, and so I'll say the same thing to you that I say to him; Aquinas' work, most particularly the Summa Theologica, relies near exclusively on fiat assertions without anything near the level of justification that a claim should require. It may have passed muster as solid thinking during its time, and perhaps it has philosophical significance too, but where it purports to explain objective reality, it's an entirely inappropriate resource, due to its lack of evidence and support for its claims.

So... I am supposed to take a passing familiar as being sufficient to justify critical comment on an extensive works lack of justified claims? So if I express my counterpoint assertion to your own based on my extensive study, beyond a passing familiarity, of his works as well as that of many philosophers, scientist, and logicians would you accept it as justified? Or say say I am unjustified in making such an assertion due to bias in favor despite any possible bias against? (At least that is my passing familiar of your passing familiar).

Why would you do that? Why would you use faith for anything? What's the use of that?

Why use faith for anything? Hmm... I suppose the simple answer is to help you get to the teleological truth of things. Of course it could be said why venture to do anything where the result is not known when where you are and what you know is going to be good enough and have sufficient evidence to be accepted as the place to be.

You're going to have to define your terms more clearly, I fear; to me, the direct, testable and repeatable evidence that science often brings to bear is explicit, direct empirical proof; without knowing how you differentiate the former category from the latter, it's hard for me to respond, but I will say this: the level of evidence that science provides is far more comprehensive and explicit than anything theology has ever produced, so I fail to see any such hypocrisy in accepting the evidence of science, while dismissing the attempts at it that theology brings to the table. I don't feel that evidentiary support is quite as binary as the two-genre dichotomy you're proposing.

A definition desired;to a definition provided. Let us call that which is inductive as implied and that which is deductive as direct. Furthermore let us state what is empirical as physiologically experiential (though empirical is commonly that which is experiential and not necessarily physical) and metaphysical as not physiologically experiential (though experiential still).

Since the hypothesis and theory are ideas and are not physical they may not be empirical. Now if we state, "The scientific method consists of a deductive metaphysical hypothesis supported by inductive empirical evidence abducted to a refined metaphysical theory". We would be stating that the scientific method consists of a direct nonphysical hypothesis supported by implied physiological experiential evidence leading to a nonphysical theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...erizations
"The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle,[87] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_s...empiricism
"Learning about the physical world requires the use of inductive logic..."

Again, the hypothesis and theory are ideas and are not physical/empirical. Now if we were to state, "The scientific method consists of a deductive metaphysical hypothesis supported by deductive empirical evidence abducted to a refined metaphysical theory." We would be stating that the scientific method consist of a direct nonphysical hypothesis supported by direct physiological experiential evidence leading to a nonphysical theory. (I could not find any links in reference to this definition)