It’s obvious that this argument is flawed, because science can’t create problems, only philosophy can.
Why do we have to die?
Death entered the world because of sin
great! (I can’t think like this anymore )this was in, of all places, an auto club of CA publication. This was obviously not the journal of everlasting wisdom.
It is the law of sin.
Genesis 2:17; Isaiah 59:2; Romans 6:23; Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12; John 14:6.
Can science prove historical events?
Can science prove anything at all or is it really a system of probability? Only philosophy or mathematics can prove something. Science can only speak in probabilities. Science can be useful but it can not answer the most basic questions like what is the meaning of life.
Humans use methods to solve problems.
Science doesn’t solve anything.
It’s the human will, using various approaches, that solve problems.
Yes. Science can solve any problem related to reality.
Following this line of reasoning you simply end up at solipsism.
You really need to take philosophy out of there. Even metaphysics falls short when it comes to proving anything.
But that does put it one step ahead of philosophy.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem. Science deals with what’s objectively true, and philosophy deals with what’s subjectively true. Which means that there’s a need for both. The problem only arises when you try to use one to do the other one’s job.
How does levitation happen?
Science only deals with the material world.
It is one method to find truth in the material world. That’s it.
There are other approaches to finding truth in the material world, for example, logic, mathematics.
And there are approaches to finding truth about the immaterial world: metaphysics, theology, divine revelation, even prayer.
Sure they can. They can help us find truth of immaterial things.
You believe your aircraft is safe when you get aboard. But you don’t base that action on any science, but isntead on the testimony of others. That’s the definition of faith.
You act on faith! Not science.
There’s an offshoot of “Modernism” that’s called scientism. Your comment is dismissive of my knowledge, which you know nothing about.
You’re guilty of an error called scientism.
This topic should be renamed the Modern Modernist.
Most Catholics have no idea what Modernism really is, and what the Church has written about it since the 1870s…and they’re guilty of many of its errors.
Ah, so they can purport to give proof of the unprovable. And therein lies theistic logic.
That’s an extremely poor analogy. I get on a plane for the same reason you do…science and experience says that it’s safe. I’m not about to trust anything of value to the mere testimony of fools and idiots.
Is it unprovable that God loves us?
What evidence do we have…loads.
You know nothing about the particular air worthiness of the aircraft you get on. Nothing. You likely know nothing or proportionately little even of the theoretical and applied science behind air flight, not to mention nothing of the actual tests performed recently on the aircraft you get on.
But you act on it. No science, all faith, or foolhardiness, or idiocy.
You do just what a faithful Catholic does, taking the testimony of others to act in a particular way.
You need to spend some time learning about philosophy. Yes, there is subjectism in philosophy, but there is also objective truth. Your understanding of philosophy sounds very pop culture. Philosophy is about seeking the truth. You could not even do science without a philosophy of science. We all do philosophy even if we don’t realize it. One thing philosophy is useful for is defeating bad arguments. In philosophy if the premises are all true and the conclusion follows from them then the conclusion is also true. For instance
All men are mortals
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
There is no subjectism in such a conclusion since the premises are true and the conclusion follows from them.
Now there are some arguments where the premises may not be certain and therefore the conclusion is less certain. However, if the premises are reasonably certain then so is the conclusion. And one is rational for holding such a conclusion as long as the premises can not be shown to be false or the conclusion doesn’t follow.
Actually that’s completely fallacious. One doesn’t need to have any particular technical expertise to understand that planes can fly. Just as I don’t need to know the aerodynamics of birds, to understand that they can fly. This is just another example of theistic logic, or more precisely, the lack thereof.
Neither is there philosophy.
I think fisherman nicely summarized your grasp of philosophy, logic. And I have summarized your grasp of science. I have a ph.d. in engineering. I understand science, and its limits.
I have also since graduate school take up philosophy, metaphysics, bioethics, theology.
Have a good day.
I’m not impressed, but you probably knew that. Which leads me to wonder why you mentioned it…ego perhaps?
Or perhaps it’s simply that you expect credentials to take the place of logic. Now that would require an act of faith.
Ok if not philosophy then what is it?
When I get in a plane or drive across a bridge I don’t have faith that I will be safe. I would even hesitate to say that I believed I would be safe. What I have is a reasonable expectation. Lots of planes fly millions of miles every day and millions of cars cross thousands of bridges every day. And the number of accidents are so small that we accept that it would be unreasonable not to fly or not to drive across a bridge because we didn’t have full knowledge of how planes and bridges are built and operate.
And you can prove that a plane can fly safely and that a bridge won’t collapse but you can’t prove that God loves you. That’s why you need faith. Which isn’t a bad thing. Just don’t confuse it with everyday reasonable expectations. It belittles faith.