AnAtheist:
What one gets beside some philosophical attempts to prove or better to say to make a reasonal basis for the existence of gods, is anecdotal evidence, in Christianity namely gospels, miracles, tradition.
The Bible? Full of errors and contradictions.
The Gospels? They don’t even get Jesus’ birthday right, and that’s the believable part of the whole story.
The Church? Considering what it has done in the past, no comment on what I expect it to be capable of regarding false and faked evidence.
Yes, there is a intrinsic problem with showing non-existing things.
It would help, if theists would show the water instead of showing people (mostly long dead) claiming to have seen the water.
Good shot, but you still miss it. You have never had the water, thus, you think it does not exist. I have experienced God. Or as Thomas Aquinas says, I have experienced events, whose cause I call God.
You see, the issue you have is with the text of the scriptures, assuming that we treat the text as perfect in every way. The text, as my Instructor taught me, is more like the script, while we live the film.
To bring up the idea of contradiction is a rather banal jab, as Catholics make no claim to consistency in anything other than Truth, which is made manifest in type. The Gospels give different accounts of the same story. The actual story is believed to have happened, and the Gospels are said to have been written under divine inspiration, not adherence man’s historical cravings. But where is this passage that mentions his birthday?
Jesus corrected the old testament, the hardening of hearts (see the catechism section on matrimony) and he fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.
To behold that evidence to be true, one must trust the one claiming to have experienced it. In other words, the source must be credible. For my part I can’t think of any credible source.
See, you lack belief, therefore you cannot enter into the discussion of the logic of belief and understand it. What you do believe is what you just said: one must trust.
One trusts any source, and credibility is of the most improbable of all things that could be proven by man. You might trust Tacitus in his description of the Germans. But you will not trust someone who considers God exists.
My suggestion was to look for God,
then tell me he does not exist. So far you have not looked for him, and thus your personal evidence is missing.
I do not base my faith on the fact that someone wrote it once. Scripture delineates what I have understood, and history proves the lineage of what I understand. But the main convincing factor for my conversion to Catholicism was divine intervention, something that does not require credible sources.
God bless,
Aaron
We only want you to be Religious too because we love you
Superstitions to you,to us faith
