Who decided the truth of this?
Is this absolutely true? What if others decide otherwise?
Posted on 11/30/2001 7:55:36 AM PST by Aquinasfan
Because you are unfamiliar with the proofs for the existence of God does not mean that the proofs are fallacious or non-existent. It simply means that you're ignorant.
For a guy who thinks, "'I don't know' is the greatest answer in the world," you sure have a lot of answers. Like "'God is the answer' is a cheap dodge."
I see clearly now that you are the model of reason that we all should follow.
Who decided the truth of this?
Is this absolutely true? What if others decide otherwise?
rather which are posited as Truth. The propositon is still either true or not true in actuality. It cannot be both. It can not be true for some people and not true for other people.
A proposition can be true (metaphysically) without being (yet)proven to be true. Suppose there is revealed Truth from God Himself. Suppose it cannot be otherwise proved or disproved. Then a person can logically accept that revealed truth as being true on the basis of revelation supported by reason. If you accept the source of the revelation, and/or the paths of your own human reason, no reason not to . . .(since it is not provably not true) . . . What if you choose not to accept the source of the revelation? If the proposition is true, it is still true, for you and everyone else . . . Its acceptance does not make it true. Its nonacceptance does not make it not true.
There is no need for derision over the fact that human knowledge and understanding of the Universe have developed over time. Expanding scientific knowledge of the material Universe will not ultimately answer the question of whether or not the immaterial exits, since science deals with questions of the material world. That is the realm of Metaphysics, which is likewise approachable by reason.
Bwah? Special or general?
Thought experiments involving the space twins, e.g. if caught in a massive gravitational field, time compared to the other twin on earth would be such that a whole life-time for the earth twin appears to the distant twin as the same "moment" in time, as all the light from all those events reach the trapped twin at the "same" time. If this analogy helps a person conceptualize "eternity", what is wrong with that? BTW, there is so much out there on space twin thought experiments. Much as I enjoy these discussions, lexcorp, I really cannot get into debating relativity and evolution and etc. with you. I just don't have the "time" . . .
Using the gift of rational thought does not lead an outsider to become a Catholic, or any other religion
It has for some and conversion biographies are out there. I'll leave it at that for now . . .
I like that one . . .
That's not "truth" that's subjective perception. Truth is not dependent on perception. Truth is chocolate tastes like chocolate. You may perceive it as tasty and I may perceive it as nasty but our perceptions have no baring on the truth. When you substitute subjective opinion for truth you ability to look at anything objectively is severely limited.
Whether you believe in God or the devil is irrelevant because clearly the leaders of Nazi Germany believed in both. Furthermore, its clear that this belief influenced their actions.
I'm not trying to demean the quality of your polemics, but they are a distraction to the tread's topic, and frankly are the garden variety insinuations that crop up on all threads dealing w/ a metaphysical subject. Aquinas was a "silly" philosopher? Puhleeeeze.
If you have something to add germane to the subject I would be interested in reading it; if your intent is to try and convince us Christians that we're all a bunch of morons just step off. You're convincing no one and just chewing up bandwidth.
Heh! That has to be one of the most absurd assertions to pop up on these types of (entertaining) threads to date. Geez, talk about an argument with numerous ungrounded assumptions...
You have got to be kidding me. The "proofs" of Aquinas are badly flawed and would only pass muster with someone who hasn't been schooled in the basics of reason and logic. Using those particular arguments as "proof" is hardly the badge of someone who has critically studied the matter. I'm not trying to be adversarial here, but Aquinas should have stuck with the stuff he was better at. It is kind of like Isaac Newton, who spent his whole life trying to be a great theologian (being deeply religious). His works on theology are absolute crap; his side hobby of mathematics and physics (much of which he tried to frame in a theological sense) was a much better use of his time even if he didn't recognize it as such.
My dictionary defines truth as "an established or verified fact". The problem is you are confusing truth with subjective opinion. Chocolate tastes like chocolate. How it tastes to the individual has no bearing on what it actually tastes like; subjective opinion is not truth OR fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.