At the invitation of Professor Robert, I'm starting a new thread.
Dr Bob, you are continually trying to draw clear distinctions between Catholicism and other (especially Christian) religions. I grant that Catholics are (a little) different, but, as they still fundamentally believe in the magic, invisible daddy in the sky, there is really NO difference.
Two points: The Bible (whether or not you take it literally) is the foundation of your (and all Christian) religions. A cursory examination of the Bible reveals a SMALL handful of usable tenets along with pages and chapters FULL of utter nonsense. The fact that any religion would base itself upon such a holey book, makes that religion as creditable as Joseph's golden tablets from God which he, unfortunately, misplaced.
God: I will be heartily disagreed with here, but I find the idea of God to be completely understandable. Here we have, at the dawn of civilization, various groups of totally ignorant people trying to put words, meanings, and causes to all manner of things which they couldn't possible understand. Combine this with a clever but ruthless set who have come to realize that, if they ascribed words, meanings, and causes to the world around them, people would actually BELIEVE them (as they no other source of information). These priests could and did use this power to govern the people - insisting that everyone in the tribe bow before them.
Then came the age of knowledge. We could start to actually understand all these things that the priests had, up till then, kept to themselves. As the power base for all civilized people rested with these priests, they were (and, of course, still are) wildly defensive of their position.
There is, however, NO CONCEIVABLE REASON for any educated person to believe in the supernatural - aside from these historic pressures.,
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Of course there is always an argument about what the bible really means.
interesting so I can't call my dad "father"?
I don’t think belief in God and I.Q. are conflicted. People don’t initially work out through intellectual reasoning or critical thinking that a specific god exists. Most people were never “reasoned” into their belief. Most have their parent’s religion and that is determined on the culture they are from.
The Supernatural is whatever defies a natural explanation. The belief that god exists is just a belief. There is no way of testing the validity of anything supernatural unless we use supernatural methods. Unfortunately no such tools exist. We do however have the Scientific Method. This is the best tool mankind has to test the validity of any hypothesis. There is nothing it can test therefore a religious belief is a belief in the “supernatural”.
I get irked when Jehovah Witness callers attempt to assert some scientific validity to faith based views by juxtaposing religion and science whenever they can. There is nothing scientific about religion. They have become completely separate. They are not compatible. Science continues to investigate and evolve and at ever increasing speeds. All the while the need for god as an explanation is further squeezed out of the picture.
Whatever the theological differences are between Christian sects, the bottom line is that they all profess to believe in the same God.
So for any Catholics (or others) can I ask for answers to these few questions?
Do you believe your God created the Universe and everything in it? Yes/ No.
Does your god hear and answer your prayers? Yes / No.
Do you believe in an afterlife in Heaven or Hell? Yes / No.
Do you believe that the communion wafer is actually God or is it symbolic?
Can you outline the method by which science has reached such an answer?
This doesn't answer the question. Science is a methodology which can offer us accurate descriptions of the natural universe though theory, observation, and experimentation. By what theoretical, observational, or experimental means can scientific method make conclusions on the supernatural?
Placing the burden of proof doesn't establish veracity.
"If the supernatural has any interaction with the real world , it is subject to scientific investigation"
I agree, but that is nevertheless something of an oxymoron. If some "supernatural" phenomenon does interact with the real world and is subject to scientific investigation, it is, ipso facto a natural phenomenon.
This honestly is not a difficult request to comprehend. I already know how supernatural claims are debunked and it is by dealing with natural explanations. Science deals with natural explanations. Natural explanations may, incidentally, rule out supernatural claims, but it is incidental. Science does not directly deal with the supernatural.
You can examine the origin of life and the origin of the universe scientifically, but you cannot apply the method directly to dealing with a supernatural deity. So I am questioning why the existence or nonexistence of God "is ABSOLUTELY a scientific question". I am requesting you demonstrate how science can be applied toward this end.
I can't - because I have encountered no evidence to support the existence of anything supernatural. If I DO find evidence, I could use it to support the physical existence of whatever phenomenon we've encountered. This will, of course, incidentally, show the phenomenon to be natural - thus the oxymoron.
Have you ever asked theists such questions as your four? Have you ever gotten straightforward answers? I (and others) have asked these questions SEVERAL times. I've come to understand why Professor Robert will not answer these questions. It's one thing to leave your opponent demanding answers for simply-phrased and pertinent questions such as these. It's quite another to answer them and leave no doubt that your entire argument is without substance because your core tenets have no logical or physical basis in fact.
The question of whether a god or gods exist , is ABSOLUTELY a scientific question.
The question of whether no god or gods exist , is less so. :-)
One can demonstrate that God exists by providing falsifiable evidence for it. Inability to find evidence to support the existence of God does not, however, prove that God does NOT exist. It may simply mean that, while evidence might exist, you have not found it.
I'm personally of a slightly different bent. Hitchens said that, on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute certainty that God exists and 7 being absolute certainty that he does not exist, he rated himself a 6.9. I am a 7 - fully understanding that being a 7 is impossible. If I pick up a pen from my desk and then release it, it WILL drop to the floor. The possibility that some freak of nature might happen between the time I release the pen and the time it hits the floor, say a magnitude 25 earthquake hits and pushes the floor out from under the pen, is something I am willing to ENTIRELY discount in the real world. (Besides, if such an event occurred I wouldn't be around for the purists to say, "ha ha".)