Until you take the time to discover what Aristotelian (and Scholastic) philosophy means by “substance” and “accident,” you are going to continue to rail on, making yourself look foolish.
Clearly, Intelligent Design is an unscientific claim regarding evolution that is not supported by any evidence. That is why a number of Catholic scholars are so opposed to it being bandied about as though it were science.
Actually, that appears to be an updated version. While it is hardly a profound work, it provides a good introduction to persons who have never encountered philosophic thought, before.
God, you’re an idiot.
“There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” — Daniel Dennett
And transubstatiation is an unscientific claim regarding the waifer. Both theories have the same evidential support.
Is there any reason to believe one is true and not the other? If so, what is the reason?
That is a nice argument.
You start the thread with the statement “Catholic = liar and/or delusional freak” and you want to complain about the quality of opposing arguments? Sorry, doesn’t work that way. If you wanted a quality debate, you shouldn’t have phrased the question in trollspeak. I suggest you apologize profusely, spank yourself with a rubber chicken, and try again somewhere else.
Did I owe you an argument? Learn how to compose a readable English sentence without missing and misspelled words. Learn how to make a point without massive obfuscation. Hell, learn what science is. Do those things, and I’ll bother arguing with you.
In a scientific and literal sense? Nope.
Satisfied?
So why should someone actually believe in it?
Sorry. I am really drunk. But at least tommorrow I will be sober. You will still be a fucking moron.
What is your scientific evidence that I’m a fucking moron? And if you have none, why do you believe it?
Then go sleep it off and quit embarassing yourself. That second GD thread a few minutes ago didn’t help matters.
Actually, you are mistaken. Intelligent Design is an unscientific claim made in the realm of scientific discourse that can be demonstrated to be non- (or anti-) scientific.
Transubstantiation is a metaphysical claim that is posited outside the realm of science, entirely.
Transubstantiation may be dismissed as not scientific, but it differs from Intelligent Design in that it is not a dishonest claim to be science.
Metaphysics is not in opposition to science. It is, correctly or incorrectly, an attempt to view the world from a different perspective that is wholy separated from the scientific. If one chooses to see the world only in material terms, metaphysics is incomprehensible–and it may, indeed, be wrong–but placing it in competition with science simply demonstrates the poverty of one’s understanding.
Actually, isn’t it at least technically possible that you are both:
[ul][li]Drunk[/ul][/li]and
[ul][li]A fucking moron[/ul][/li]
? - in which case, sobering up would not necessarily set you ahead of the crowd.
No, science has shown itself to be useful. It has been held to the light and passed the test. The entire field of metaphysics has never shown itself to any sort of representation of reality. Scientific principles are testable? Can metaphysical principles be tested?
Would you fly in a plane build on metaphysical prinicples? How about scientific principles?
I suppose.
Good one.
Because of its symbolic significance? Because it adds meaning to a religious ritual? Because it doesn’t have to be proven by science to be valid?
Mind you, I’m no Catholic. We Protestant schismatics have a different conception of the Eucharist.
It more than just a symbolic statement. It is a statement about reality. Catholics claim the waifer is literally the body of God.
It is remotely possible that you are right, overall. However, I notice that you have wandered far from the thesis of your OP which sounded a lot like
Now even if metaphysics was a completely useless passtime, you have provided no evidence that people who engage in metaphysical speculation actually oppose science or even that they “argue against” science. So, basically, it appears that you simply have an irrational hatred of people who live their lives differently than you, even when they continue to support the god of your worship, Science, if they also happen to engage in other speculations about the world that are outside the purview of science.
That would seem to be a rather irrational approach to the world. Have you spoken to a good therapist regarding your innate irrationality?
And there’s someone holding a gun to your head and threatening to shoot if you don’t also accept that the wafer is the body of God? What is the precise nature of the problem here?