A Catholic Doctrine is Proven False, therefore Church Infallibility is Proven False

[cpayne]

Just ask yourself a simple question. Do you believe in the trinity, i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit? If you do, we all know it cannot be proved by logic. Therefore this entire thread is faulty from the very first post.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I think maybe this is missing the point of the first several posts. No one is saying that we can prove or explain everything logically—especially not everything about God. What folks seem to be saying is that the teachings of the Church do not VIOLATE logic directly. If they did they would be false. (By the way, the original post regarding modus tollens is accurate, as others have pointed out.)

However, here’s my two cents’ worth to the original poster: Even though the modus tollens argument is right, I would begin with a massive presumption in favor of the infallibility of the Church. Let’s suppose we had the modus tollens others have listed:

1. If the Church is infallible, the Church’s teachings are true.
2. Here’s a teaching that is not true.
   Concl.: Therefore, the Church is not infallible.

Even though this is correct, I would examine anything very, very carefully that purports to fulfill # 2. I would begin with the presumption that if a teaching appears untrue to me, the problem very likely is with my understanding of it. In fact, my assumption of the Church’s infallibility is strong enough that I would conclude that the problem HAS TO BE with MY understanding of the teaching.

Otherwise, I’d just place my understanding of the teaching over the understanding of the past two thousand years, go buy a building somewhere, and start my own independent church. (Oh wait—I guess that really does happen all the time. . . . )

 

[ateista]

For those who have no faith, no proof is sufficient. for those with faith, no proof is necessary.

Very cute and very wrong.

If God showed up at my doorstep, I would not need faith, because I would have knowledge. That would be sufficient proof. The stories in the Bible and the testimonials of the believers is not sufficient.

Now I am telling you this: “I am God in disguise. I am here to test the strength of believers’ faith. I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell you at a reasonable price.” Is your faith strong enough to accept the offer? Or do you have doubts?

 

[Nullasalus]

Very cute and very wrong.

If God showed up at my doorstep, I would not need faith, because I would have knowledge. That would be sufficient proof. The stories in the Bible and the testimonials of the believers is not sufficient.

Now I am telling you this: “I am God in disguise. I am here to test the strength of believers’ faith. I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell you at a reasonable price.” Is your faith strong enough to accept the offer? Or do you have doubts?

Do you see the contradiction in play here?

“If God showed up on my doorstep, I would believe!”

“Look at me saying I’m God - obviously not believable!”

So someone showing up claiming they’re God wouldn’t do the trick. You’d need a sign. But what sign is sufficient to prove someone is God? And note that this is a distinct question from ‘what sign would you personally accept?’ Doing amazing things could just be advanced technology, or a trick, always. There’s a faith step no matter what, even if it really IS God.

 

[davidv]

Very cute and very wrong.

If God showed up at my doorstep, I would not need faith, because I would have knowledge. That would be sufficient proof. The stories in the Bible and the testimonials of the believers is not sufficient.

Now I am telling you this: “I am God in disguise. I am here to test the strength of believers’ faith. I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell you at a reasonable price.” Is your faith strong enough to accept the offer? Or do you have doubts?

Based on what occurred in and around Jerusalem about 2000 years ago, I would suggest that the appearance of God on your door step would not be anymore proof to you and any of the words presented in this and others threads on the same subject. Only a few chose to remain followers of God’s Son.

And if you say, “that wasn’t God’s son”, you’ve proven my point.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Very cute and very wrong.

If God showed up at my doorstep, I would not need faith, because I would have knowledge. That would be sufficient proof. The stories in the Bible and the testimonials of the believers is not sufficient.

Now I am telling you this: “I am God in disguise. I am here to test the strength of believers’ faith. I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell you at a reasonable price.” Is your faith strong enough to accept the offer? Or do you have doubts?

That bridge would go well on the coast land in New Mexico that I want to sell you.
Prayers & blessings
deacon Ed B

 

[ateista]

Do you see the contradiction in play here?

“If God showed up on my doorstep, I would believe!”

No, then I would not need to believe… I would know.

“Look at me saying I’m God - obviously not believable!”

For someone who has faith it should be sufficient. Of course it would not be. No matter how strong a faith one claims, people are not that gullible. So why do they believe the testimonials of ancient people? That is really beyond me.

So someone showing up claiming they’re God wouldn’t do the trick. You’d need a sign. But what sign is sufficient to prove someone is God? And note that this is a distinct question from ‘what sign would you personally accept?’

There is no “generic” sign. People have a different level of skepticism. But I can tell you what I would do, and it is almost trivially easy.

I would ask him if there are infinitely many prime twins, and the full mathematical proof. No one knows this.

I would ask him to write down all my thoughts in the next 10 minutes, and in what language will I think them.

I would ask him the weather forecast and temperature at a specific geographical point for the next week at some specific times for at least 4 decimal points.

I would ask for the winning numbers on Powerball, until the next five jackpots are hit, and the names and addresses of the winners-to-be, and what will the winners do with their winnings - specifically. (Not something like: he will retire…)

I would ask the numbers which will come out at a roulette wheel for the next 1000 instances at a specific roulette table in Las Vegas.

Also the next 1000 tosses at a specific craps table.

And a few more questions like this…

The correct answers to these questions would be conclusive. Since I am resistant to hypnotization, and I would get the results on video at the time I ask them, the accuracy of the answers could be verified by everyone. (Not the one about my thoughts, of course.)

Doing amazing things could just be advanced technology, or a trick, always. There’s a faith step no matter what, even if it really IS God.

Based upon the experiments I described above, the chance that the person claiming to be God is just an impostor, is zero. No faith would be needed.

BTW, this reply pertains to all who reflected on my post.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Your response is shocking. To think that God would do this bidding for you is beyond the pale. it reminds me of his response when asked for proof, and he said that it would be the sign of Jonah, i.e., three days in the tomb. If you do not believe this, well… you will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[mlchance]

Your response is shocking.

Less shocking than banal. It is typical atheist sleight of hand masquerading as reason. “God won’t personally appear to and perform tricks for me; therefore, God doesn’t exist.”



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Less shocking than banal. It is typical atheist sleight of hand masquerading as reason. “God won’t personally appear to and perform tricks for me; therefore, God doesn’t exist.”



– Mark L. Chance.

I see a false intellectual pride in this, thinking that since God did not accept his challenge, there is no God. Keep him in your prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Nullasalus]

No, then I would not need to believe… I would know.

No, you would not ‘know’. I already explained why. You could never know. And I’ll show as much with your examples.

For someone who has faith it should be sufficient. Of course it would not be. No matter how strong a faith one claims, people are not that gullible. So why do they believe the testimonials of ancient people? That is really beyond me.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I would guess because they inherently accept the logic of a creator to begin with, and think the testimonies make sense and are well supported to their standards. And perhaps many of them, like myself, realize that there’s always going to be a gap that requires belief. There is no ‘know’ option on the table here, even if God does exist.

I would ask him if there are infinitely many prime twins, and the full mathematical proof. No one knows this.

Wonderful. And if he replies with an answer and a mathematical proof you couldn’t hope to check the validity of due to size or complexity? And what about the possibility that he plays with your head and makes you think you received an answer?

I would ask him to write down all my thoughts in the next 10 minutes, and in what language will I think them.

An alien power with the appropriate level of scientific knowledge could supply this. Or he could force your thoughts unbeknown to you to match a pattern. Or even convince you that this transpired when it really did not.

I would ask him the weather forecast and temperature at a specific geographical point for the next week at some specific times for at least 4 decimal points.

Because certainly no one is capable of altering what machines report in order to give forced responses, right? And what would you verify it with - more machines?

I would ask for the winning numbers on Powerball, until the next five jackpots are hit, and the names and addresses of the winners-to-be, and what will the winners do with their winnings - specifically. (Not something like: he will retire…)

And no one is capable of rigging powerball games either? Are you assuming that anyone who has more power than you must automatically be God? We’re not talking about classical pagan deities that are limited in power but far more powerful than humans. Someone with incredible power, even incredible authentic predictive skills, is not god. If we were living during Christ’s time, your reply could well be ‘He would fulfill prophecies, heal the sick at will, and resurrect after death.’

I would ask the numbers which will come out at a roulette wheel for the next 1000 instances at a specific roulette table in Las Vegas.

Also the next 1000 tosses at a specific craps table.

And so on, and so on.

The correct answers to these questions would be conclusive. Since I am resistant to hypnotization, and I would get the results on video at the time I ask them, the accuracy of the answers could be verified by everyone. (Not the one about my thoughts, of course.)

ateista, videos can be faked - even by humans. This comes up a lot nowadays, with everything from political videos to claims of alien sightings. Your claiming what amounts to ‘he couldn’t mess with my mind because that doesn’t work on me’ is a joke. I’m going to repeat, the options here are more than ‘Human being like yourself, or God’. It could be ‘being with sufficiently advanced technology’. Your data could, at best, provide you with a lot of evidence that no human could be responsible. That random chance could not be responsible. (Right here, it would be amusing to bring up fine tuning arguments with regards to our universe.) But you could never rule out ‘being with very advanced science/technology’ or ‘matrix’ or any other number of non-God scenarios.

Based upon the experiments I described above, the chance that the person claiming to be God is just an impostor, is zero. No faith would be needed.

Faith would still be needed, and the fact that you think you can apply percentage values to a question like this is telling. Hey, why not pose the test of ‘he could create cellular life from non-life’? Humans can’t do that right now, and we’re in the dark of how it could have ever happened on earth to begin with. Why doesn’t that count? Ask him to carve ‘I Am God’ on the moon in letters large enough for people to see. We have no capability of that, everyone can witness it - it should do the trick, right?

Again, the question isn’t whether you personally would believe at that point. It’s whether anyone could think of a reason not to believe and explain their case. In every situation you give - rigging games at casinos? really? - there’s an out. There’s a tremendous out, because the gulf between beings who can do as you’re asking and the being of God is tremendous. Especially now that we know about, and even fantasize about, what technology can do. At best, you’ll have some evidence to believe the person is or represents God - you’ll certainly have some evidence that they’re extremely powerful. But you’re still taking a faith step, and you always will have to.

 

[ateista]

Your response is shocking. To think that God would do this bidding for you is beyond the pale.

I fail to see your problem. Nullasalus asked me what would be a convincing sign that I really met with God. So I gave him a list of signs, which would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was really God who came to me and not just an impostor.

You said that for those who don’t have faith, no proof would be sufficient. I gave you the method which would be sufficient. And now you are shocked. Why? Because I was honest? Moreover, Doubting Thomas was given a sign… why can’t I get one?

Less shocking than banal. It is typical atheist sleight of hand masquerading as reason. “God won’t personally appear to and perform tricks for me; therefore, God doesn’t exist.”

Nonsense. I simply answered what would be a convincing sign for me which would be sufficient that no faith would be required. Nowhere did I say that the lack of such evidence would be a “proof” that God did not exist. I simply do not believe based on old books and testimonials. If you, that is your business.

It is “shocking” to me (well, not really) that my simple words are mistaken for what they are not. Either you guys do not actually read what I say, or you purposefully misunderstand it, or… but that would not be charitable to say the third alternative.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ateista]

You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you!

 

[ateista]

I can’t speak for everyone, but I would guess because they inherently accept the logic of a creator to begin with, and think the testimonies make sense and are well supported to their standards. And perhaps many of them, like myself, realize that there’s always going to be a gap that requires belief. There is no ‘know’ option on the table here, even if God does exist.

I don’t accept the logic of a creator, because it is not necessary. I don’t accept the testimonials of “magical” occurrences. Do you accept the description of a flying white horse that allegedly carried Mohammed to Jerusalem? Why not? It is a serious assertion of Islam.

Wonderful. And if he replies with an answer and a mathematical proof you couldn’t hope to check the validity of due to size or complexity?

Being a mathematician I could understand it.

And what about the possibility that he plays with your head and makes you think you received an answer?

I don’t believe in magic.

An alien power with the appropriate level of scientific knowledge could supply this. Or he could force your thoughts unbeknown to you to match a pattern. Or even convince you that this transpired when it really did not.

No human or alien can foresee what I will think in the next 10 minutes. I don’t know it either. If I have freedom to think what I will think or do (which is implied by the concept of “free will”), then it is impossible.

Because certainly no one is capable of altering what machines report in order to give forced responses, right? And what would you verify it with - more machines?

No, with my own eyes.

And no one is capable of rigging powerball games either? Are you assuming that anyone who has more power than you must automatically be God? We’re not talking about classical pagan deities that are limited in power but far more powerful than humans. Someone with incredible power, even incredible authentic predictive skills, is not god.

Predictive skills can only be applied to predicable events.

ateista, videos can be faked - even by humans. This comes up a lot nowadays, with everything from political videos to claims of alien sightings.

Actually, even today there are methods to differentiate from “doctored” videos from authentic ones.

Your claiming what amounts to ‘he couldn’t mess with my mind because that doesn’t work on me’ is a joke. I’m going to repeat, the options here are more than ‘Human being like yourself, or God’. It could be ‘being with sufficiently advanced technology’. Your data could, at best, provide you with a lot of evidence that no human could be responsible. That random chance could not be responsible. (Right here, it would be amusing to bring up fine tuning arguments with regards to our universe.) But you could never rule out ‘being with very advanced science/technology’ or ‘matrix’ or any other number of non-God scenarios.

Sorry, you bring up magic again.

Faith would still be needed, and the fact that you think you can apply percentage values to a question like this is telling. Hey, why not pose the test of ‘he could create cellular life from non-life’? Humans can’t do that right now, and we’re in the dark of how it could have ever happened on earth to begin with.

Yes, there are experiments that do exactly that.

Again, the question isn’t whether you personally would believe at that point. It’s whether anyone could think of a reason not to believe and explain their case. In every situation you give - rigging games at casinos? really? - there’s an out. There’s a tremendous out, because the gulf between beings who can do as you’re asking and the being of God is tremendous.

No, there is not. All your counterpoints are “magical”. And I do not believe in magic.

Don’t misunderstand me. I know the old saying by Arthur C. Clark: “a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. But the idea of aliens visiting Earth and performing some magic for me is just as farfetched as God coming down and performing his magic for me.

No matter what those aliens of incredibly advanced technology can do, they cannot predict the future beyond the point of predictability. And as long there is free will, the future will be unpredictable. (Which, of course renders the concept of omniscience null and void.)

 

[Nullasalus]

I don’t accept the logic of a creator, because it is not necessary. I don’t accept the testimonials of “magical” occurrences. Do you accept the description of a flying white horse that allegedly carried Mohammed to Jerusalem? Why not? It is a serious assertion of Islam.

I’m going to put that aside - I have no idea if it is a serious assertion of Islam, if it’s universal, or otherwise. It depends on the testimony, it depends who is backing it up, it depends on the documents, etc.

Being a mathematician I could understand it.

Other possibilities not answered.

I don’t believe in magic.

This doesn’t necessitate ‘magic’. We live in a world where taking pills can make you feel less depressed (Or so they say). This is just a future possibility of technology. There mere possibility is enough to indicate doubt.

No human or alien can foresee what I will think in the next 10 minutes. I don’t know it either. If I have freedom to think what I will think or do (which is implied by the concept of “free will”), then it is impossible.

No, you have reason to believe no human can foresee what you will think in the next 10 minutes - and even that’s necessarily imperfect. The fact that you don’t know it undermines your case - all the more opportunity for you to be manipulated, before or after the fact. And you’re hinging this on your belief in free will? But free will in all directions is under heavy philosophical questioning itself.

No, with my own eyes.

You’re going to estimate the temperature within 4 decimal places ‘with your own eyes’? And you don’t see the opportunity to be fooled here?

Predictive skills can only be applied to predicable events.

And what is or isn’t a predictable event is yet another philosophical question. You’re arguing that any technology sufficient to trick you is somehow magic, and only God is capable of providing the right answers. Both assertions are ludicrous.

Actually, even today there are methods to differentiate from “doctored” videos from authentic ones.

And new methods are constantly being developed, which require new methods to differentiate. Go ahead of the curve enough and you’ll have people fooled for a given amount of time. But the prospect that someone will eventually reveal a fake - not the event itself, but the prospect - is enough to break your claim.

Sorry, you bring up magic again.

You’re calling any sufficiently advanced/capable technology here ‘magic’. Why not just go back to the vitalist route, and argue that there’s no way life can be explained in terms of purely physical functions? I mean, obviously it requires a non-physical source. Magic.

Yes, there are experiments that do exactly that.

If you’re referring to Craig Venter’s work, the fact that that’s so recent just illustrates the point.

No, there is not. All your counterpoints are “magical”. And I do not believe in magic.

It doesn’t become ‘magic’ just because you say it is, anymore than physical functions were incapable of describing life just because the vitalists said it was. Their response to the urea experiment wasn’t ‘Zounds! Proof of magic!’

And your stipulation about ‘I wouldn’t believe it if it were aliens or God’ just backs the point. If someone meets your criteria, it’s apparently ‘magic’ by your definition. But then you’ll just have evidence that magic exists. Where comes the stipulation that only God can do magic at that point?

No matter what those aliens of incredibly advanced technology can do, they cannot predict the future beyond the point of predictability. And as long there is free will, the future will be unpredictable. (Which, of course renders the concept of omniscience null and void.)

Wonderful. By all means, please provide undeniable proof of free will - because some philosophers (and Dawkins, for the record) utterly deny this. You’d settle an ongoing, age-old philosophical issue just by providing the proof.

Nor does limits to knowledge do away with God - though I disagree with them, there are open theists, etc.

 

[cpayne]

And as long there is free will, the future will be unpredictable. (Which, of course renders the concept of omniscience null and void.)

Hi, ateista. Your list of “things I would ask God” is interesting. However, I would be willing to bet that if you ever did actually have a vision of God, you would do exactly the same as the rest of us: either (1) worship, or (2) try to escape.

Regarding the quoted part, I couldn’t let it slip by. God does not “predict” anything. Predictive biblical prophecy looks like prediction to us because we cannot see the future. But if God has absolute knowledge, God sees events in His present existence, not in the future. If I see a leaf falling, I do not “predict” “A leaf is falling.” I see it and know it, in my present tense.

So one could just think of it this way: Our future is part of God’s “present tense.” He sees it the way I see the leaf. And His seeing is not the same as His causing to happen, which still leaves us with free will.

 

[mlchance]

Nonsense. I simply answered what would be a convincing sign for me which would be sufficient that no faith would be required. Nowhere did I say that the lack of such evidence would be a “proof” that God did not exist.

This isn’t any better: “God won’t show up and perform tricks for me; therefore, I won’t believe in him.” Of course, this sort of thinking is just par for atheism, which is fundamentally irrational.

Given that Christianity has never posited that God is the sort of being who would submit to any of your silly demands, the failure for God to meet those demands is entirely in keeping with expected outcomes.

Your supposed lack of personally convincing evidence is just smoke and mirrors masquerading as a rational position.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ateista]

I’m going to put that aside - I have no idea if it is a serious assertion of Islam, if it’s universal, or otherwise. It depends on the testimony, it depends who is backing it up, it depends on the documents, etc.

But this is essential. Christians do not believe the testimonials of Muslims. Why?

No, you have reason to believe no human can foresee what you will think in the next 10 minutes - and even that’s necessarily imperfect.

Give me some reaon to believe that anyone can foresee my thoughts (except of couse God), and you will have a position to argue.

Wonderful. By all means, please provide undeniable proof of free will - because some philosophers (and Dawkins, for the record) utterly deny this. You’d settle an ongoing, age-old philosophical issue just by providing the proof.

As you are well aware, the concept of free will is just a probable assertion. It cannot be proved or falsified.

But let me tell you this: suppose I ask for God to reveal himself. Then out of the wild blue, behind my closed doors a being manifests himself, and says he is God, and is willing to demonstrate it. To believe that this being is a super-powerful space alien, who was previously hiding under my bed, and waited for me to utter this request, and then magically appeared in front of me, just so he could fool me with his superior alien powers is less credible than God answering my request. (Don’t you believers assert that God will answer my prayer if I ask him long enough???)

Yes, I am playing the percentages here. If you wish to call this “faith”, then you are guilty of equivocation.

 

[ateista]

Hi, ateista. Your list of “things I would ask God” is interesting. However, I would be willing to bet that if you ever did actually have a vision of God, you would do exactly the same as the rest of us: either (1) worship, or (2) try to escape.

No, I don’t think so. I would do exactly what I said: engage in a conversation and ask for proof. If I were given sufficient proof then I would ask more questions. And there are many questions to ask. I would bet that God is a decent fellow, who would appreciate candor and honesty over mindless “worship”.

Regarding the quoted part, I couldn’t let it slip by. God does not “predict” anything.

It would be a prediction for me. And I could verify the accuracy of this prediction.

 

[ateista]

This isn’t any better: “God won’t show up and perform tricks for me; therefore, I won’t believe in him.” Of course, this sort of thinking is just par for atheism, which is fundamentally irrational.

Well, well… and I suppose that believing in walking on water and resurrection of the dead counts as “rational” in your vocabulary.

Given that Christianity has never posited that God is the sort of being who would submit to any of your silly demands, the failure for God to meet those demands is entirely in keeping with expected outcomes.

Of course not. Christians are aware that submitting God to rational scrutiny would result in utter failure, so one is not supposed to submit God to a test of rationailty. How conveeeenient!

Your supposed lack of personally convincing evidence is just smoke and mirrors masquerading as a rational position.

Denigrating my position only testifies against you, not me.