Posted on 03/09/2002 4:05:28 PM PST by Pokey78
You're contradicting yourself within the space of a single sentence. If Aristotle and Aquinas thought they could prove the existence of God using reason, and along comes Kant who says, no, you can't prove the existence of God using reason, what would you call that? A refutation? A contradiction? It is definitely not a confirmation or support for Aquinas in any way, which is what you originally implied about Kant.
However, he did disprove Hume's materialistic view of the world very decisively and that is why you do not wish to expose Hume's statements to examination.
Anyone is free to examine the writings of Hume to see if what I say is in accord with what he wrote. I am fairly confident that I have faithfully represented Hume and Kant here, but if anyone wishes to see for themselves what Hume had to say, here is an online version of Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". And this is an online version of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason". I think that most people will discover that this idea that Kant "disproved" Hume is very much your opinion, rather than a matter of logical certainty.
And lastly...
It is evolutionists that are trying to prove God does not exist through science, and have been doing so for some 150 years.
Evolution and faith are not incompatible. A religion that deals with the spiritual and the transcendant, rather than making factual pronouncements about the material world, has nothing to fear from science and reason. I really think you'd be best off by going back and re-reading Kant.
This is your answer to my 231, which might have been written in response to your 234 except the timing is wrong.
I'm not aware of any evidence for evolution which I have not run by you at some time or other. You're either very deluded, very dishonest, or both. It almost has to be both, really. For the purposes of assessing your credibility, I don't have to care which it is. Nevertheless, you're fun to analyze. You need to explain yourself.
I agree with you to an extent, Evolution could have happened in some form, although I see no solid evidences, taken in a whole, point to it's occurance. Evolution may have happened, A creator may have created, but since we both do not have absoulute concrete evidence of either, neither CREATIONIST OR EVOLUTIONIST should close their eyes, only have their Faith.
I am sure you are aware that there are plenty of people who believe in God, and God used Evolution to create or rather to engineer the species.
I personally happen to throw nothing out at this point because the evidences are so sparse, and the agreement between reputable scientists is nothing less than a tangled web of contradictory mish mash. (eg:intermediate species in the fossile record.)
but what I notice in general is that no evidence or argument ever budges a creationist. Which is funny, because the case is beyond open-and-shut that some kind of evolutionary process happens.
Some kind? I have never seen an open-and-shut case for any kind of evolution (one species converts completely or even intermediatly to another.) I have seen Mutation. Maybe we need to define terms or I need to understand what you mean determines Evolution.
Why is it a delusion if someone is confident in their conviction? It's a totally different aspect if we could absolutely see Evolution in process, but we don't and never have...so for you to claim some are delusional because they don't buy a theory is absurd. Futhermore, does it not make Evolutionist "DELUSIONAL" to beleive whole-heartedly in what even they will claim is a THEORY. Totally disregarding a written text that has shown nothing short of miraculous signs in itself leads credance to absurdity. (Any Takers?)
Have you ever heard of a Strong's Concordance, mister "biblical scholar"?
Are you one of those college-educated "biblical scholars" that say the bible is a total myth?
Necessary but not sufficient. You have to not only be confident, but proof against even an overwhelming preponderance of evidence when it contradicts your delusion.
It's a totally different aspect if we could absolutely see Evolution in process, but we don't and never have...
Some observed instances of speciation.
A few more instances.
. . . so for you to claim some are delusional because they don't buy a theory is absurd. Futhermore, does it not make Evolutionist "DELUSIONAL" to beleive whole-heartedly in what even they will claim is a THEORY.
Evolution is a fact and a theory.
Totally disregarding a written text that has shown nothing short of miraculous signs in itself leads credance to absurdity. (Any Takers?)
I'm only disregarding it as a science book. The earth isn't young, etc. etc. Unless you're still a Young-Earth Creationist, that game ended there so I don't really see where evolution is such a big deal.
All I'm really saying is that religion doesn't belong in science class. (And no, evolution/science isn't a religion.)
I'm glad you're aware of this idea. Taken to its fullest extenstion, it means you could just let science classes teach science.
Yes the ceationism debate is secondary to the great issues of conservatism vs big gov collectivism etc.; however, the creationists tend to get all consevatives painted with the same brush, lending credence to charge of ignorance and closedmindedness. In other word, they give conservatism a bad name. And the greater attention they garner, the more damage they do.
I suppose you're right. Which means that the issue is rightly discussed here on this site. Sigh.
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.