I ain't making points against Catholics, although you keep defending them. I'm only defending science.
As far as losing an argument goes I was not aware that I had lost one. I didn't jump into this thread defending the Italian Inquisition. The entire point I was making in the thread is that Science and Religion are two seperate areas of study. That's why I was/am so baffled by the public tendency to defer to scienctists on questions like the existence of God. "Stephan Hawking Declares There is No God" is the title of this thread. Incredibly, I am making the same point/asking the same question you just made in the above post. And I quote Red55, "Why in the world is science supposed to "disprove" a religious doctrine?" From one of my earlier posts, "This is precisely why Hawking's position is so foolish. It's not a scientific question" Anway, I concede the point that the Italian Inquistion was incorrect in convicting Galileo of heresy. That was an incredibly poor showing by them. I am glad to have that clarified in my own mind. I will be happy to file that one under the ranks of the "galactically stupid". It just goes to show how little chance human being have of being correct when they step outside their areas of expertise. Someone should mention that to Hawking.
I've been through the thread all the way and it had nothing to do with the catholic church. I have noted several times that the word "dogma" is used for many things other than Catholic doctrine, but you went off on a tangent. Once more and for the record, when I use the word dogma, I'm talking about a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Nothing about Catholicism, OK? It was about religious belief in a deity. Glad that is over. Science and religion may be two separate fields of study, but the creation of the universe, which is what Hawkings is an expert at, is one of many areas of overlap and conflict between them. Evolution is another. How many times must I remind you that: 1. Hawking is an expert on the creation of the universe. Really. Much evidence exists. 2. Every person has a right to an opinion on the existence of God. No evidence exists, it is all opinion.
You're last statement is incorrect. Evidence for the existence of God does exist, you just reject it.. Near Death Experiences are certainly evidence for the existence of God, as are demonic possessions. Why is that meaningless for you? Just because you can't test it in a lab? Why do you reject everything not verifiable through science?
Dude, this is the basis of the disagreement! You cannot demonstrate the existence of God through the dreams of comatose people. Nor can you demonstrate the existence of a demon. Nobody is questioning your right to believe in myths, go for it. But you cannot mistake this for evidence. So far you have offered nothing to reject. What is a demon and where can I find one? I have had a near-death experience and I did not see God.
Coming to a conclusion about the existence of God is not a science experiment. It's more like a trial. Eyewitness testimony is allowed in courtrooms everyday. You cannot reasonably reject everything in life that doesn't conform to a scientific experiment. Anyway, I think we actually agree on this. I am moving on to the other thread, I am about done with this one.
Eyewitness testimony is often proved to false in court as well, or even perjury I can't reject matters of the soul or of personal subjective thought. I can reject matters of physical reality based on imagination. If you tell me that you walk with God every day, I accept this as a metaphor suggesting that you think of God frequently as you go through the day. If you tell me that God walked with you through Wal-Mart and paid for your 50-pound bag of dog food with his VISA card, then I must challenge the veracity of this. There is much you have said that I cannot agree with, but we both understand that it is useless to beat the dead horse.
Can't believe I missed that one. A demon is a fallen/corrupted angel. You can find one if you can convince the exorcist in a diocese near you to let you tag along. The priests never go in there alone as the possessed person is often very strong and aggressive. That would be quite an eye-opener....;-)
