I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
Is there any proof that Roman Catholicism is true?
- Status
A
Alexius
Guest
Uh oh! 
Having doubts?
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
G
Gamera
Guest
Yes.
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
such as?
G
Gamera
Guest
The miracles of Jesus are a good starting point, primarily the miracle of His resurrection from the dead.
I
iamscifimike
Guest
As far as truth among Christianity I might recommend looking at the writings of the early church fathers. You find a good source of that at DrItaly.com.
Frankly there’s too much proof to start listing it.
I would say this, I’m sure you’ve heard it before. For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don’t no proof is enough.
Frankly there’s too much proof to start listing it.
I would say this, I’m sure you’ve heard it before. For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don’t no proof is enough.
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
that seems a bit question begging
Naturally if the resurection occured, then that would be quite strong argument for Roman Catholicism, however my question is is there any proof that Roman Catholicism is true.
Citing one of Roman Catholicism claims isin’t a proof
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
How would the Church fathers prove anything?
Yes, I understand that to some respect, but I really would like some basis for beleif.
G
Gamera
Guest
Perhaps it might help if you specified what you would consider “proof.” By definition, everything that the Catholic faith would say in answer to your quesiton would constitute “one of Roman Catholicism’s claims.” Can you be more specific about what you’re looking for?
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
I am asking for proof, that any of the Catholic Church’s dogmas are true. Proof that the resurection actually happened would be nice, proof that God exists would be wonderful etc.
Objective evidence mainly
E
e61iuser
Guest
How would you define “objective evidence”? What kind of evidence is objective enough for you to accept?
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
A sound Ontological argument?
I mean I don’t know how to phrase this much more. Objective evidence would be evidence that any reasoniable persone would find conclusive?
C
cascherman
Guest
ya, gotta give us a starting point. Encyclopedia’s have been written on this subject. Check out any or all of the tracts in the Catholic Answers Library.
catholic.com/library.asp
catholic.com/library.asp
R
RyanL
Guest
Hmm.
Have you looked into the proofs for the existence of God, and specifically Aquinas’ “5 Ways” and the Kalam argument? These are “logical” proofs, but (as with all logic) fall short of any ‘empiricle’ standard (a standard which, as a side note, lacks any empiricle basis for holding itself as a standard – i.e., it’s self-refuting).
If you accept the existence of God as logically shown/“proven”, you’re partly there.
Second: can you prove that George Washington existed? To a reasonable degree of certainty, yes. To an absolute certainty, no. It could all be a massive hoax, perpetrated by aliens with memory-altering technology. It could, but it’s not likely. A reasonable person would say that, given the evidence, it is more likely than not that Washington existed. Reasonable? Yes. Absolute? No. Is Washington’s existence “proven”? Are your parents actually your parents? These are questions reasonable men can answer with reasonable, if not absolute, certainty.
Same thing with Jesus and His words. A reasonable person would conclude that He did exists and that the words attributable to Him were, in fact, His words. Again, it could be that Xenu (et al) has invaded our brains and there was never any such man – but that seems, in light of the evidence, to be an unreasonable proposition. Giant conspiracy theories spanning centuries and millions of people while leaving no trace of themselves are only so plausable, and especially so when fallible beings are involved.
Do you accept that Jesus was a historical man who said historical things of which we have a reasonable historical record (at least as reliable as, say, those of Plato, Alexander the Great or Napoleon)? If so, you might google “C.S. Lewis trilema” and see what conclusions are drawn from having Jesus’ historical words.
If you’re looking for reasonable, we can do reasonable. If you’re looking for absolute, unassailable “proof” – good luck finding that anywhere…even in Descarte.
God Bless,
RyanL
A
ateista
Guest
This is fine line of reasoning, however, Washington does not exist today. If you speak of events that happened in the past, we must rely on hearsay evidence, unless of course there is some kind of physical evidence for it. For example the Tunguz meteor fell a long time ago, but the signs of that cataclismic event are still there.
Moreover, if there would be a historical text that would assert that Washington could fly just by flapping his arms, it would be rational and reasonable to doubt it.
But more to the point: God is supposed to exist today. To demand that one should rely solely on hearsay evidence for something that actually exists is not good reasoning. Of course that presupposes that the word “existence” has any meaning, when applied to God.
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
Yes, I’m familiar with Aquinas’s five proofs, Kalam, the Ontological(traditional, I understand Plantinga and Godel both worked on ones based in Modal Logic), I’ve read several books by Lee Strobel, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith the be an Atheist”,
I don’t think that you can say that empiricism is self refuting so much as it takes empiricism as it’s axiom. Any system of thought must have an axiomatic basis unless you wish to get into an infinite regress of justification, which I think Aquinas would have a problem with>.>
Right, and that would be nice. I used to hold one Aquinas’s first two arguments, however I’ve come to doubt their validity in the last few years.
Right, I agree with you there.
Well now I don’t know about that. Certainly you wouldn’t claim that there is the same amount of historical evidence for Washington as their is for Christ? Secondly, I’m not sure a reasonable person would have conclude that those are his words exactly.
I don’t see why there would need to be a conspiracy theory. Men make mistakes. The Gospels were written quite a bit after Christ’s death. Now, I believe their is a fair bit of evidence that the actual Apostle John wrote(or rather dictated) the Gospel of John so that’s something I should look into.
Right, I think you mean “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord”?
I might be thinking of something else.
So I suppose I need to look up the Historical accuracy of the Gospels. I suppose intuitively I agree with Einstein.
“To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”
“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
“Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?”
“Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
“You accept the historical Jesus?”
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” 7
No, I understand that I can’t expect absolute proof. I sometimes come off as dismissive, and I may have done that here, however your post has actually been fairly helpful. I don’t think, however, that you can make a parallel between faith in Christ and the belief that my parents are my biological parents, mainly the difference in consequences and importance. It really doesn’t affect me much if Washington was a myth, however if Christ was God, everything changed and depends on this monumental event.
J
jimmy85
Guest
does anyone here have heard about the marian aparition in Fatima, the miracle of the sun in 1917 that was watched by 70 000 people including ahteists n it was in the new york times as well.
hm also the incorrupt saints,
the shroud of turin n its radiation with the shape of a human body, suposedly caused by the resurection.
hm also the church is extremly skeptic when it comes to proclaiming someone saint, every person that was saitn had to made an intercesory miracle that couldnt be explained at all. right now John Paul II is undergoing that proces with some miracles that had happened with his intercetion.
Also the aparitiosn of Lourdes and people healing from every kind of illneses, over there there is an hospital with athesits n theist doctors n there r proves of the countless healings that had happened over there.
The robe of the virgin of Guadalupe, the virgin appeared in mexico n left her image impresed in a shroud n the pigments of that impresion in that shourd are of an unknown substance that dosent exist in this world.
n so on I think im forgeting some other stuffs.
hm also the incorrupt saints,
the shroud of turin n its radiation with the shape of a human body, suposedly caused by the resurection.
hm also the church is extremly skeptic when it comes to proclaiming someone saint, every person that was saitn had to made an intercesory miracle that couldnt be explained at all. right now John Paul II is undergoing that proces with some miracles that had happened with his intercetion.
Also the aparitiosn of Lourdes and people healing from every kind of illneses, over there there is an hospital with athesits n theist doctors n there r proves of the countless healings that had happened over there.
The robe of the virgin of Guadalupe, the virgin appeared in mexico n left her image impresed in a shroud n the pigments of that impresion in that shourd are of an unknown substance that dosent exist in this world.
n so on I think im forgeting some other stuffs.
R
RyanL
Guest
Lee Strobel is ok for what he does (which is a more populist approach for demonstrating the reasonableness of belief), but I wouldn’t recommend him to someone familiar with Aquinas or Anselm. He’s just not critical enough – too many loose ends.
I think it’s interesting that you understand the problem of infinite regression and yet no longer find the first three of Aquinas’ five ways persuasive.
As to “first things” – Empiricism (as I’m familiar with it) holds that a priori reasoning is to be entirely discounted and that in order to be validly deduced all knowledge must be experientially derived. This view, however, is a priori and not experientially derived – therefore it undercuts itself.
Regarding Aquinas – he would seem to hold that there are certain “first things” which are self-evident to all rational persons. Among these would be the principles of non-contradiction and the principle of the excluded middle. Further, he would hold to a realist epistemology. What is that? Here’s an example:
Example - is that thing on the wall a ‘clock’? How do you know it’s not a dragon? CAN you know it’s not a dragon? What is the process of knowing?
- A clock presents itself to your senses as a phantasm.
- The clock presents itself through your senses to your active intellect (*which abstracts from the object the object’s *essence), which presents this to your **passive **intellect (which forms the idea “clock”). The idea is that by which you know the essence of the object.
- The second operation of the intellect (after the formation of the idea) is judgment. Judgment is either (1) composition (affirming that something is a particular thing), (2) division (affirming that something is not a particular thing).
- The third operation of the intellect is reasoning (syllogisms)
- If you say that something is “true”, it means that it conforms to reality (which has the underlying premise that you can know reality).
Why do I find this persuasive? When I was teaching my son to speak he learned the word ‘water’ by looking at the water in a glass. When next we drove over a river, he pointed and shouted, “WATER!!” with a silly grin on his face. At that point, I knew for a fact that Aquinas was right. Water has an essence and we are able to abstract that essence, use our intellect, and know that a clock is a clock and water is water – even if two clocks or two bits of water don’t look anything alike.
…cont’d…
R
RyanL
Guest
…cont’d…
Excluding his bones (which may or may not be his), what evidence do you have for Washington’s existence? Eye witness accounts? We have those. Historical artifacts? We call them ‘relics’. Are they reliable? As with those of Washington, some more than others.
Ask yourself sincerely, what evidence would you need to establish the historical existence of a very important man 2000 years ago? Don’t consider the implications before you establish a standard of evidence for historical proof – that’s bad history. First analyze what evidence you would need to believe in the existence of the historical person, and then see where that evidence takes you. That’s a rational approach.
Oh, and at this point Christ’s exact words are not critical – just the major themes. It’s kind of like the historical accounts of Plato in that respect - exact? Not important. Major themes? Critical. Inerrancy comes later.
Oh, and the “Q” crowd. They’re big on late historicity of the Gospels as well. Those folks posit the existence of a mythical document “Q” (latin: quelle or ‘source’) which the Gospel writers drew from but no one thought important enough to mention for the first 1800 years of Christianity or keep for any length of time (despite being notorious documentary pack-rats).
If you buy that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
God Bless,
RyanL
Don’t be so sure… I would ask that you be a bit more skeptical about your skepticism.
Excluding his bones (which may or may not be his), what evidence do you have for Washington’s existence? Eye witness accounts? We have those. Historical artifacts? We call them ‘relics’. Are they reliable? As with those of Washington, some more than others.
Ask yourself sincerely, what evidence would you need to establish the historical existence of a very important man 2000 years ago? Don’t consider the implications before you establish a standard of evidence for historical proof – that’s bad history. First analyze what evidence you would need to believe in the existence of the historical person, and then see where that evidence takes you. That’s a rational approach.
Oh, and at this point Christ’s exact words are not critical – just the major themes. It’s kind of like the historical accounts of Plato in that respect - exact? Not important. Major themes? Critical. Inerrancy comes later.
Again, I would be skeptical of your skepticism. I think there’s quite a bit less evidence than you may think that the Gospels were written long after Christ’s death – mostly it’s conjecture and speculation from folks who start with premises like, " Since prophesy is impossible, anyone who predicts the fall of the temple must have written after the temple fell."
Oh, and the “Q” crowd. They’re big on late historicity of the Gospels as well. Those folks posit the existence of a mythical document “Q” (latin: quelle or ‘source’) which the Gospel writers drew from but no one thought important enough to mention for the first 1800 years of Christianity or keep for any length of time (despite being notorious documentary pack-rats).
If you buy that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Yup. That’s the trilema I’m thinking of.
I don’t think it would be unwise. You might also consider the surrounding documents of the time and how their quotes match the quotes in our Bibles now. This goes merely to show that there haven’t been major changes to the accounts – i.e., you’ll need a much bigger conspiracy theory to claim subsequent documentary alterations.
What I’m saying is that the standard of proof shouldn’t change based on the conclusions reached. While I’d certainly be more skeptical of someone who said there’s a unicorn in times square, the standard of proof would be no different than if they said that there was a dog there. The same type of evidence would be required to demonstrate the proposition in either case.
God Bless,
RyanL
- Status