Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and abortion

Does exactly what it says on the tin. Some of the nonsense contained herein may be very loosely related to The Sisters of Mercy, but I wouldn't bet your PayPal account on it. In keeping with the internet's general theme nothing written here should be taken as Gospel: over three quarters of it is utter gibberish, and most of the forum's denizens haven't spoken to another human being face-to-face for decades. Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. Above all else, remember this: You don't have to stay forever. I will understand.
User avatar
canon docre
Overbomber
Posts: 2529
Joined: 05 Mar 2005, 21:10
Location: Mother Prussia

DarkAngel wrote: I will say I do not extend that invitation to everyone simply because they can't manage themselves.
who can't manage themselves?

@thestripper: although I'm a atheist through and through, I found your rant a bit naive. It doesnt matter, if you think "believing in god is pointless" because people still believe. Pointless or not. In fact, their belief is that strong, that they would even kill/commit suicide/do whatever bad things for their belief.

the point isnt "you cannot know if god is real or not". If you believe, you believe that god is real. Believing is the contrary of knowing, but as strong.

I dont believe in God/a supreme being/ a mysterious energy either, but I reckon that other people feel different.
Put their heads on f*cking pikes in front of the venue for all I care.
nick the stripper
Slight Overbomber
Posts: 1732
Joined: 16 Dec 2004, 01:02
Location: Somewhere between Athens and Jerusalem.
Contact:

Motz wrote:
nick the stripper wrote:*cannot leave it lie*

Believing in god is pointless.
The law of conservation of energy requires the existence of a divine creator.

Discuss.
That sort of contradicts the whole idea of conservation of energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed. If a creater created things it would violate that law, so contrary to being nessessary, it contradicts that law.
User avatar
weebleswobble
Underneath the Rock
Posts: 5875
Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
Contact:

Anyone fancy a pint?
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
aims
Overbomber
Posts: 3211
Joined: 27 Mar 2005, 13:16
Location: in between

nick the stripper wrote:That sort of contradicts the whole idea of conservation of energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed. If a creater created things it would violate that law, so contrary to being nessessary, it contradicts that law.
The point is that given we're bound by said law and a linear concept of time, something outside of our physical system must be responsible :von:
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:

The "law of conservation of energy" (second law of thermodynamics) only applies, as far as we know, within our universe. We do not know that it applies to the creation of universes.

Anyway, we know, at least, that the universe exists. To explain the universe's existence by appeal to a divine creator only pushes the problem back a stage: who created the creator?

Current theories about the "big bang" seem to suggest that time itself only came into being with the universe, trying to ask "what happened before the universe existed?" makes as much sense as asking "what lies a mile north of the North Pole?"

The universe has existed for all time, because time itself is a property of our universe.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
_emma_
Overbomber
Posts: 2014
Joined: 24 Oct 2003, 10:19

nick the stripper wrote:You cannot know if this God is real or not
He is real. I recently saw him in Krakow 3 weeks ago, and I've heard that some people saw him in Hungary last Friday.
User avatar
scotty
Overbomber
Posts: 4880
Joined: 10 Jun 2005, 23:03
Location: Behind the Door.........

_emma_ wrote:
nick the stripper wrote:You cannot know if this God is real or not
He is real. I recently saw him in Krakow 3 weeks ago, and I've heard that some people saw him in Hungary last Friday.
Aye, and me and Derek R saw him in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago :wink: .
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:

markfiend wrote:"law of conservation of energy" (second law of thermodynamics)
:oops: I meant first law.

The second law is that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease.

Ah well, it's a long time since I did Physics 'O'-level.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
aims
Overbomber
Posts: 3211
Joined: 27 Mar 2005, 13:16
Location: in between

markfiend wrote:The "law of conservation of energy" (second law of thermodynamics) only applies, as far as we know, within our universe. We do not know that it applies to the creation of universes.
My point exactly. Sorry if I was too vague, the general idea was that this universe cannot have been created under its own laws, so something outside must have done it.
User avatar
9while9
Slight Overbomber
Posts: 1384
Joined: 19 Feb 2006, 19:29
Location: Parts Unknown or Isle of Tonga (whichever you prefer).

I agree with this concept. "The idea that this universe cannot have been created under its own laws, so something outside must have done it."

I find it much more of a leap of faith to believe that life and the universe were just a big bang, or happy accident.

I believe in a higher power but I don't believe that any one group has got the patent on what that power is.

Then again what do I know. I usually communicate in a series of clicks and grunts. Not unlike James Blast.
"An artist is a creature driven by demons. He doesn't know why they choose him and he's usually too busy to wonder why." - William Faulkner

-Me, I'm inspired by my DarkAngel.
aims
Overbomber
Posts: 3211
Joined: 27 Mar 2005, 13:16
Location: in between

9while9 wrote:I believe in a higher power but I don't believe that any one group has got the patent on what that power is.
:notworthy:

Now if only those particular groups trying to lay claim on it would accept that it's a personal issue :von:
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:

Motz wrote:...this universe cannot have been created under its own laws, so something outside must have done it.
but there is no "outside" -- at least as far as anyone can tell.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
Jaimie1980
Gonzoid Amphetamine Filth
Posts: 489
Joined: 27 May 2005, 12:51
Location: Belfast

9while9 wrote:I agree with this concept. "The idea that this universe cannot have been created under its own laws, so something outside must have done it."

I find it much more of a leap of faith to believe that life and the universe were just a big bang, or happy accident.

I believe in a higher power but I don't believe that any one group has got the patent on what that power is.

Then again what do I know. I usually communicate in a series of clicks and grunts. Not unlike James Blast.
Yes there's no way I can accept that this is all because of chance. Which is why I believe in a Creator.
User avatar
sultan2075
Overbomber
Posts: 2378
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 19:17
Location: Washington, D. C.
Contact:

markfiend wrote:
Motz wrote:...this universe cannot have been created under its own laws, so something outside must have done it.
but there is no "outside" -- at least as far as anyone can tell.
Absence of evidence is not, necessarily, evidence of an absence. Furthermore, the determination of whether or not there is an "outside" would necessitate a different epistemological position than that open to us as moderns/postmoderns--and some would argue, as human beings. By rejecting metaphysics, we have limited the scope of our inquries. It might also be worth pointing out, to the general audience, that modern science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God; it has nothing to say about it one way or another--modern hard science is concerned with the accurate description of observable (sometimes via an apparatus) and describable phenomena. It concerns itself with mechanism, and mechanistic accounts of reality. Science has proved itself valid over and over again, in these terms, but that does not mean that it is broad enough in scope to answer all possible questions.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:

sultan2075 wrote:Absence of evidence is not, necessarily, evidence of an absence.
Oh of course. But then again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ;) Which of the two claims "the universe just is" and "the universe was brought into being by an outside force" is more extraordinary is a matter for much debate. We know that the universe exists (unless you want to go down the solipsism route) but we don't know that any "outside" exists. I would suggest that by Ockham's razor, we can excise the "outside". Your milage may vary.
sultan2075 wrote:Furthermore, the determination of whether or not there is an "outside" would necessitate a different epistemological position than that open to us as moderns/postmoderns--and some would argue, as human beings. By rejecting metaphysics, we have limited the scope of our inquries.
I'm not sure what metaphysics has to do with it; if there is an "outside" that interacts in any detectable way with the "inside" then it is in principle open to examination and investigation with the scientific method.
sultan2075 wrote:It might also be worth pointing out, to the general audience, that modern science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God; it has nothing to say about it one way or another
While this is true as far as it goes, modern science can rule out certain conceptions of gods; there are no Greek Immortals living on the summit of Mount Olympus for example, at least not in this world.
sultan2075 wrote:--modern hard science is concerned with the accurate description of observable (sometimes via an apparatus) and describable phenomena. It concerns itself with mechanism, and mechanistic accounts of reality. Science has proved itself valid over and over again, in these terms, but that does not mean that it is broad enough in scope to answer all possible questions.
Indeed. But it's difficult for me to understand why people are willing to reject the answers that science can and does provide on its own terms (with the acknowleged caveat that all scientific answers are tentative and subject to modification if new evidence is found) on the basis of their own prejudices.

Some people seem to have an anti-science bias without realising that the scientific method is really only a more rigidly codified version of the system everyone unconsciously uses to understand the world around them.

A summary of the scientific method for the general audience: Observation leads to hypothesis, the hypothesis is then either rejected or accepted on the basis of further observation, a hypothesis that has not been rejected after many rounds of testing graduates to become a theory.

An example from every day life: Observation: I see a particular pattern of light and dark and colours. Hypothesis: I am seeing my friend Robert's face. Further observation: I am now hearing a particular pattern of sounds. Corollary hypothesis: I am hearing Robert's voice. etc. etc. After a while I can develop the theory that Robert is sitting across the room and talking to me.

Our brains naturally use this theory-building process without us even being aware of it; the scientific approach is merely more rigorous in testing; experiments are usually designed to limit the number of variable factors which could affect the scenario about which we are hypothesising.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
User avatar
sultan2075
Overbomber
Posts: 2378
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 19:17
Location: Washington, D. C.
Contact:

markfiend wrote:
sultan2075 wrote:Absence of evidence is not, necessarily, evidence of an absence.
Oh of course. But then again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ;) Which of the two claims "the universe just is" and "the universe was brought into being by an outside force" is more extraordinary is a matter for much debate. We know that the universe exists (unless you want to go down the solipsism route) but we don't know that any "outside" exists. I would suggest that by Ockham's razor, we can excise the "outside". Your milage may vary.
Right, but again claims require evidence, extraordinary or otherwise. Lack of evidence for a thing, however, does not necessarily imply lack of existence, it simply implies lack of acquaintance with a thing. In some cases, so-called common sense offers a good guide--I've no evidence that a giant ant lives beneath Number 10 Downing Street secretly running the British government; I can safely conclude that this is not the case, and remove my tinfoil hat--British ant-minions are likely not attempting to read my thoughts. However, cosmology is not something susceptible to common sense. It is far broader or higher a subject than that which is appropriate for our pragmatic everyday reasonings (Aristotle makes a distinction between theoretical reason and practical reason that might be useful on this point).

markfiend wrote:
sultan2075 wrote:Furthermore, the determination of whether or not there is an "outside" would necessitate a different epistemological position than that open to us as moderns/postmoderns--and some would argue, as human beings. By rejecting metaphysics, we have limited the scope of our inquries.
I'm not sure what metaphysics has to do with it; if there is an "outside" that interacts in any detectable way with the "inside" then it is in principle open to examination and investigation with the scientific method.
Well, as to my first point, I would simply suggest that determining if there is an 'outside' in any meaningful way presupposes the ability to transcend subjective empirical experience (for the ancients and medievals, this is what reason could, in its highest function, do). The moderns place severe limits on that (cf. Descartes, Locke, and Hume, although they're taking their cue from the Machiavellian refounding of philosophy as practical science). This is classical metaphysics--an account of the principles of the whole. This is why what we might call the proto-physicists of the middle-ages still thought of their project as philosophic rather than scientific. The distinctions we make between the two today didn't exist--the physical or scientific account of nature was part of the larger project of giving an account of the whole. This larger account was necessarily metaphysical in character--i.e., concerned with that which is true always and everywhere, independent of experience. Thus, while 'science,' for example, asks 'how does A cause B?' metaphysics asks 'what is causality? What does it mean to be?'* The hard sciences today are concerned with mechanism or the 'how' of things; metaphysics philosophically addresses the 'why' of things. A metaphysical statement, then, is a statement about the nature of the whole--'cause precedes effect' is a statement about the nature of reality, thus it is a metaphysical statement. A causes B may be true, but it is of much more specific a character. Metaphysics cannot be escaped--even the scientific project has underlying metaphysical propositions: 'cause precedes effect,' for example, 'the cosmos is ordered in such a fashion that it is rationally knowable,' for another.



*not in a angst-ridden Hamlet sense, but in the sense of 'what do all existing things have in common?'--a question to which 'existence' isn't necessarily an adequate answer.

markfiend wrote:
sultan2075 wrote:It might also be worth pointing out, to the general audience, that modern science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God; it has nothing to say about it one way or another
While this is true as far as it goes, modern science can rule out certain conceptions of gods; there are no Greek Immortals living on the summit of Mount Olympus for example, at least not in this world.
Perhaps they're just very tiny, and adept at hiding? From a philosophic perspective, the conception of the Greek gods has always been a problem--Socrates was killed for impiety after all.
markfiend wrote:
sultan2075 wrote:--modern hard science is concerned with the accurate description of observable (sometimes via an apparatus) and describable phenomena. It concerns itself with mechanism, and mechanistic accounts of reality. Science has proved itself valid over and over again, in these terms, but that does not mean that it is broad enough in scope to answer all possible questions.
Indeed. But it's difficult for me to understand why people are willing to reject the answers that science can and does provide on its own terms (with the acknowleged caveat that all scientific answers are tentative and subject to modification if new evidence is found) on the basis of their own prejudices.

Some people seem to have an anti-science bias without realising that the scientific method is really only a more rigidly codified version of the system everyone unconsciously uses to understand the world around them.
My flippant answer? They reject it because it's easier than confronting claims about reality that may not jibe with their understanding. Also, the fact is that many people aren't equipped to deal rationally with these questions--they're very complex. Look at various fundamentalists, for example--there is a tendencey to think that the Bible is a literally true text, and if it comes into conflict with reason or science, you reject reason or science for the sake of adherence to authority. Compare that to the understanding that someone like St. Thomas would have--for Thomas, science/reason and scripture are both true, and as such, they cannot conflict. So, if evolutionary theory is true, and you've done your science well, what does Thomas say about the account of creation in Genesis? He would say, on his own principles, that the so-called conflict between reason and revelation stems directly from a misunderstanding of revelation. In other words, if the science is good, and it still conflicts with scripture, it's because you don't understand scripture. Of course, this answer doesn't really work for the fundamentalist (unless the word has a different meaning in Points East)--it's an article of faith that the Bible is literally true. St. Thomas is a filthy heretic to them. Of course, that's why the Vatican has an observatory, Fordham University, Catholic University of Louvain, various Pontifical Institutes for various sciences, a massive library and Pope John Paul II hung out with people like Gadamer, Habermas, etc, while American fundamentalists have...Bob Jones University.

markfiend wrote: A summary of the scientific method for the general audience: Observation leads to hypothesis, the hypothesis is then either rejected or accepted on the basis of further observation, a hypothesis that has not been rejected after many rounds of testing graduates to become a theory.

An example from every day life: Observation: I see a particular pattern of light and dark and colours. Hypothesis: I am seeing my friend Robert's face. Further observation: I am now hearing a particular pattern of sounds. Corollary hypothesis: I am hearing Robert's voice. etc. etc. After a while I can develop the theory that Robert is sitting across the room and talking to me.

Our brains naturally use this theory-building process without us even being aware of it; the scientific approach is merely more rigorous in testing; experiments are usually designed to limit the number of variable factors which could affect the scenario about which we are hypothesising.
This is curious to me. I must confess, it doesn't seem like an adequate account of consciousness and mental phenomena to me.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
User avatar
weebleswobble
Underneath the Rock
Posts: 5875
Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
Contact:

scotty wrote:
_emma_ wrote:
nick the stripper wrote:You cannot know if this God is real or not
He is real. I recently saw him in Krakow 3 weeks ago, and I've heard that some people saw him in Hungary last Friday.
Aye, and me and Derek R saw him in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago :wink: .
Naw Big Man, just an apostle...


:lol:
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
User avatar
Obviousman
Outside the Simian Flock
Posts: 7090
Joined: 22 Aug 2004, 12:14
Location: Soon over Babaluma
Contact:

markfiend wrote:
Motz wrote:...this universe cannot have been created under its own laws, so something outside must have done it.
but there is no "outside" -- at least as far as anyone can tell.
But the borders of universe have been proven, haven't they :?: (don't know if anyone else said that, couldn't be arsed to read through all those huge posts and just did a quick scan TBH :oops:)

I quite like to think of the world/solar system/universe as atoms, elements. It all works the same way, or doesn't it :?: Perhaps all this is just part of a bigger (huger?) sort of organism. Who knows :D
Styles are a lie.

My Facebook/My Flickr
User avatar
smiscandlon
Overbomber
Posts: 2595
Joined: 05 Feb 2004, 23:52

markfiend wrote:Observation: I see a particular pattern of light and dark and colours. Hypothesis: I am seeing my friend Robert's face. Further observation: I am now hearing a particular pattern of sounds. Corollary hypothesis: I am hearing Robert's voice. etc. etc. After a while I can develop the theory that Robert is sitting across the room and talking to me.
:lol: After a while? Drinking heavily that night were we? ;D
анархия
DarkAngel
Gonzoid Amphetamine Filth
Posts: 268
Joined: 22 Mar 2006, 03:53

Or maybe, just maybe, we are the dust speck on someone else's clover.
ie - Horton Hears a Who. :)
Post Reply